Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for their testimonials and analysis, which were very useful. They reflected many of the issues not just in respect of JobPath but also those raised in the wider report prepared by this committee on unemployment. One of the key issues is the appropriateness of placing in terms of quality and the importance of linking to a work-first approach versus an education, training or route-forward approach. I ask our guests to elaborate on that because we found, even from those who had produced initial reports that talked about work first or the different outcomes, that education had not led to immediate employment options but did lead to better prospects down the line. Where training is seen as not giving the right options, it is sometimes because it is not appropriate training. I ask our guests to elaborate further on the work-first issue. It was interesting to hear that in some cases this has damaged people's employment prospects and their career. As was described in one of the examples, if people are in a small town where there is a limited number of employers and are forced to look for inappropriate jobs, they are marking themselves down the line. The issue of reskilling is also important here.

The threat of sanctions is another issue. We are often told that sanctions are not really being applied at a high level, although the figures show that their application is increasing significantly. The threat of sanctions, however, can damage proper supported engagement. The issue of decision and implementation was also interesting. There seems be a lack of questioning of recommendations for potential sanction that come from Turas Nua or Seetec. That was elaborated upon by Mr. Rudd and Mr. Fagan. I ask them to talk a little bit more about that. What is the pattern or the process? We have been told that Turas Nua and Seetec have no role in sanctioning but it seems that they direct it.

Our guests referred to the damage to overall social cohesion. Mr. Boland, Mr. Griffin and Ms Greene spoke in a positive way and stated that when individuals are getting appropriate supports, it benefits not just them but the entire community. That is the flip side of the vision. I thank those to whom I referred for their presentation because I had not been aware of the extent of the work involved. It showed where we could be in terms of supporting individuals. It also highlights the ancillary benefits of recognising people as humans because in doing that, we are supporting their families too. I would imagine that the stress of being forced into inappropriate work under threat of sanction means that rather than employment being a positive experience in the wider family context, it creates a ripple effect.

I have a technical question for Ms. Greene. She mentioned that she works with all unemployed persons. I am interested in qualified adults, those who are not on the live register and those who may only be available on a part-time basis. Intreo has not really been able to accommodate such people as much as it should. Perhaps JobPath is more appropriate and I ask our guests to speak to that issue. There were several references to care responsibilities. In some cases, that might result in part-time availability but, in others, it might mean that people are not available to do shift work, for example, or that they would need a very predictable schedule. I ask our guests to talk more about the issue of family responsibilities. It may be the case that people are available for 40 hours per week but that they need predictability.

I am very interested in what Mr. Rudd and Mr. Fagan had to say about power of attorney in the context of personal progression plans, a matter I will investigate further. I have previously submitted amendments, unsuccessfully, to social welfare legislation in the context of such plans. I have concerns about them but our guests have raised a different and new concern that I will look into.