Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

There are many questions and issues on this topic but many of them have been covered by Deputy Brady, which is excellent. I thank all the witnesses for their presentations. They were very strong and there is even more in their written submissions, which I am sure will be incorporated when we come to put together our report. There is a huge body of evidence behind all of the points the witnesses have made.

I will pick up on a few points where there is a little overlap on some issues. It was interesting that the witnesses focused on the role of the jobseeker's transitional payment. As a committee, we had recommended that being extended for lone parents up to the age of 18. One of its aspects is that it waives the requirement on full-time availability. The witnesses might comment on how that might be a useful way of offering a support and an invitation into the system to those, for example, who are currently qualified adults and others without bringing in a sanction mindset, and how it might work because it is a really practical and good proposal.

On the question around procurement rules, my understanding of the rules is that there is huge scope, particularly in areas of social services, in that they are not bound in the same way by some of the European procurement rules and there is huge scope within the social clauses. Within the European procurement rules, there are particular supports and exemptions in areas around disability and disability support within sheltered workplaces. The witnesses might like to comment on that issue. We need to have a more ambitious approach in that regard.

An issue that was raised by Mr. Finn and also potentially by Ms Whelan, was the question of appropriate placing and appropriate case-work. This is also a question for Ms O'Donnell. Are people being offered the full range of options? For example, are they being offered education and training or job-readiness supports or employment in terms of what is right for them as they move forward? That has come across as a concern as we have examined this issue in the committee and sometimes it almost seems to come down to the luck of the draw with respect to when one happens to come into a system as to what one gets offered. The witnesses might tease out that issue of appropriate placing and quality of the case-work.

A specific issue which cuts across the question of both sanctions and appropriate placing is progression plans. Do any of the witnesses have insights on that question? We have heard concerns around progression plans, which I and others have debated with the Minister. The understanding the Department seems to have is that this is a collaborative process done with the case worker and the client or citizen. However, there are concerns about how that is playing out in practice and the fear of sanctions attached if one does not sign off or agree to a particular progression plan. It would be great if the witnesses could tease out that issue.

Some of the points raised in the presentations are ones we will be able to address in our activation report but some other very important issues were flagged in the context of employment, in terms of precarious work and reasonable accommodation, which comes under the other brief of this committee. We can certainly note those issues and find other opportunities to bring them forward. When one considers the arrangements which those with a disability in particular often have make around their participation in employment, we can appreciate the impact precarious work, uncertain hours and uncertain arrangements can have on them. That is another interesting point of overlap.

I was very struck by what Mr. Finn said around the idea of multiple conditional regimes where people have to navigate a number of bureaucracies. I would be interested to hear comments from one of the witnesses from the Disability Federation of Ireland or the other witnesses on that issue. When people try to navigate the medical system and appointment structures, there is a set of different bureaucracies that they must navigate. The witnesses might comment on how that could be better approached and streamlined.

I would share very much the concerns regarding the LES and some of the approach in terms of the pay by results. I worry that it can be very disadvantageous for those who are more distant from the workplace and it can incentivise an element of cherry-picking. We have been told that people can walk in and seek supports, but if we are introducing a competitive dynamic where services are competing with each other for the number of people that they can show in X position at X time, I would be concerned. I have heard of excellent services that I know have done extraordinary work, for example, with hard to reach young people in empowering them to link with the workplace who have been losing out on contracts. It is vital with respect to the issue of job-readiness and investing in the emotional work required and giving those supports, that such work does not become a disadvantage to those seeking to provide supports.

I was struck by one of the witnesses' comments to the effect that those in receipt of disability allowance do not cover the cohort of those with a disability in Ireland. I imagine there is a huge cohort who may have a disability and may not pass a means test because their spouse is working and who do not have access to independent income, and may not have access to labour market access supports. The same question arises with respect to many who are qualified adults, but there are those who may not register as qualified adults because their spouse is not taking a payment. I would like to hear the witnesses' input on those who disappear from the live register and then eventually from the system and also on the jobless households pilot scheme which relates to that.