Rose Conway Walsh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I have had a great fear regarding the activation process for many years. The witnesses will be aware that it started off in France. It was first mooted many years ago and our Government took it on as being the way forward. Even the European Anti-Poverty Network at the time critically analysed it in terms of what would happen. Since then we have seen €149 million being spent on JobPath.

I have a few questions for the witnesses. Have any of them seen the contract between the Department and the private companies that have - we have to name this - displaced many of the services that were provided by the local employment services in communities? We have never been able to get the full details of the contract in terms of what was promised. What do we need to do to stop the privatisation of activation services? Collectively, we have to do that, one way or the other. It has not worked here and it has not worked in any other country.

I want to move on to the Indecon report. How reliable are the data and the statistical information in the report? I suggest the statistical information in it is inaccurate. To take the example of a county such as Mayo, the report identifies there were 65 pathways to work referrals in 2016 when in fact there were 650. Also, it states there were only 5% attendance rates which would obviously be brutal but in fact the attendance rates in Mayo were 80% to 90%. In the context of the report being done only over one year, would it not be common and good practice for a report to be done over a number of years to get an accurate picture of where things were at?

I am reluctant to give the report credibility and it certainly should not inform the way we go forward in terms of activation and job services. Are the witnesses aware of any plans the Department has drawn up because the report cites there is a surplus of staff in regard to the numbers on the live register as they are? Are discussions taking place with staff or the union around what will be done? Are the witnesses aware if the Department has drawn up a plan for the dismantling of the existing structures in terms of redundancies, lease agreements, contracts with service providers and the disposal of assets? I would like answers to those questions.

I thank the witnesses for their presence here and for the very good work they do. The displacement of the services within the local employment services through the privatisation of them is disgraceful. Within the local employment services, how open can the services be when they are dependent on the Department for funding? I have a problem with that in that perhaps people are being forced to collude with the pathway they are being brought down in terms of the provision of services.