Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. The need to examine carefully what we mean when we talk about flexibility and responsiveness has come across very strongly. A hard contract that has been tied in over the long term, with one or two versions of success, is not necessarily the most flexible thing. The point has been well made that it took from 2011 to 2015 for this to start to be put in place. During the height of the unemployment crisis, we saw some very creative responses from local employment services and local development networks.

I should say for the purposes of transparency that I worked briefly in a support role as a consultant with Wexford Local Development on a project relating to youth unemployment in the south east. It was a great experience for me. It was inspiring to see the level of genuine care that was being provided to support and empower young people in an unemployment blackspot. The idea of flexibility came across even in the small cohort I was supporting. The route out for one person turned out to be opening a business, somebody else went back into education by going to college and another person who was an artist had to find a way to be an artist. The kinds of roles that other people were looking for were more straightforward. It was a case of overcoming issues of isolation and balancing issues of care. The diverse needs of those in the small cohort I worked with meant that the right choices which had to be made to allow them to find a route forward were similarly diverse.

A one-size-fits-all recipe cannot be applied. It was to the benefit of those involved that the multiple schemes which have been described were happening under one umbrella. All kinds of other schemes, including Tús and local heritage development schemes, allowed for cross-pollination and facilitated a creative approach to finding the right response. That is very important. It comes back to the key point that Mr. O'Reilly made about design and delivery. Part of what I was doing with these young people involved ensuring they became empowered not just to receive employment policy, but also to help to shape it. During the time of the European youth guarantee, the young people with whom I was working were pushing for a rural youth guarantee pilot that would address some of the specific issues associated with rural unemployment and poverty among young people. We still have not achieved such a pilot. As my colleagues on the committee will be aware, I am continuing to push for it. The agents in question were not just receiving policy - they were in a position to give feedback on what was and was not working and they were empowered to cultivate such a dynamic. That is such a different level of work and case work. It was certainly very inspiring to me.

I was very struck by what the witnesses said about flexibility and responsiveness. The Government needs figures so that it knows who is needed and where unemployment is going up and down. It is crucial that there is flexibility and responsiveness to the varying needs of clients. I was struck by the references that were made to jobless houses, people with disabilities, returning carers and other new cohorts. There needs to be a willingness to find flexible and appropriate responses. I absolutely echo what has been said about the hidden unemployed, particularly qualified adults and those who are receiving the transitional jobseekers' payment. We spoke about lone parents in a separate context. Many activation supports are provided on a voluntary basis to those who receive the transitional jobseekers' payment. This should be done on a voluntary basis for qualified adults as well. The right supports to help such people are not always available. There is a need to ensure there is a wide range of options, including solutions that do not always involve 30 or more hours. In some cases, labour market activation should be built initially through part-time employment or education that is constructive.

It would be useful if the witnesses would expand on where they believe there is designed potential for new schemes and new ways of working. I ask them to comment on some of the issues that have not been addressed, such as the idea of a youth guarantee pilot for young people in rural areas. I would like to refer to the wider joined-up community development role of the Irish Local Development Network. There was serious pressure on local development and community development partnerships during the recession. The increasing focus on employment under the 80:10:10 rule meant that other aspects of community development, such as support for older people, for the very youngest or for youth clubs, were operating in a shrinking space of funding. Is there any sense that funding is coming back into these complementary areas, which are not as disconnected as we might think? People operate in families, etc. It is totally inappropriate that funding is being pulled away from the partnerships in the employment area. As this is happening, is there a corresponding return of funding into other areas? How do they fit together from the network's perspective?