Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the presenters who have made a very strong case for the work that they do. Like many others, I know the work they do is thoughtful, effective and has a meaningful impact. As well discussing this issue and speaking to people who have navigated unemployment and found support form local employment services and jobs clubs, I had the opportunity in the past to work with Wexford local development network in dealing with a group of rural unemployed young people. What was striking about that was that space was made to listen to them as a group and to examine what the joined-up supports might be for those who were young and unemployed in rural Ireland.

That listening capacity should be used to taper the supports offered to the needs of the individual and particular contexts. That is what the local employment services have done and it is important.

The straight statistics show that the progression rate into employment achieved by the LES, at 28%, is far higher than the equivalent figures for the for-profit services. Will Mr. Bowe or any of the other witnesses comment on that? The presentation on job clubs noted that 26% of participants found employment of 30 hours or more per week and 23% found employment of under 30 hours per week. In addition to the progression rate of 28.8% for users of the local employment services, that is, those who have progressed into employment of 30 hours or more per week, do large numbers of users of the Irish Local Development Network move into employment of less than 30 hours per week? We know the importance of building labour market attachment for those who may be lone parents or caring. It is the foundation for a pathway into employment in future. The 15 hours of childcare that is available is helpful. Many who start with a 15 or 20 hour working week benefit on their journey back. Perhaps the ILDN representatives might comment on that cohort. Again, the blunt measure of 30% has not captured it.

I was struck by some of the other information, including that 89% of employers said they had been provided with a suitable candidate. Let us consider the kind of revolving door experience for employers and jobseekers who have navigated the other system. Suitable candidates are being provided and suitable employment and options are being offered. I was struck by the emphasis placed on equal recognition being given to different outcomes. For example, an outcome relating to someone returning to long-term education is important. How does the ILDN check this given that the system does not allow us to capture the detail as it should? How can the ILDN monitor those kinds of impacts?

Other community supports are offered through the local development networks. Have the ILDN representatives seen any ancillary benefits for those who have navigated the systems? What are the knock-on effects on those who may be either younger or older than working age but whose family members are navigating the system? We know there have been distressing impacts on children and older people when they see others navigating the system or penalties within another system.

I want to discuss the issue of procurement. The European directives provide scope in this respect. The witnesses quoted community workers' research. Reference was made to how services of general interest are allowed and that is completely correct. It is interesting. JobPath was the first time competitive tendering was used and European directives were cited as the justification. In fact, social services are explicitly excluded from the competitive tendering obligation. As we go down a privatised route, it is true that it becomes more difficult to roll back from it, which is an important issue. I am bringing forward legislation this week relating to competitive tendering, which is not the most appropriate route.

I am concerned that the Indecon report only used the term "cost-effective", an out-of-date phrase, when the term currently used is "most economically advantageous tender". There is scope within the European directives to make price and quality of equal value in determining these decisions. Will the ILDN comment on the kinds of quality criteria that should be put in place if we go down that route? Again, as I said, competitive tendering is a blunt instrument and an inappropriate route. My legislation this week aims to make "price and quality" the default mode with "lowest cost" becoming an exception rather than the rule. I agree with others that the case has not been made for competitive tendering.

I will finish by pointing to one or two of the key potential advantages in this regard. It was stated clearly that the people who are most distant from employment require a different quality and level of support. I note the unemployment rate had been reduced from double figures to single figures through the work of local employment services and job clubs before any private for-profit actors became involved. In that context, we were debating the just transition in the Seanad earlier this week. Climate change measures may be taken that could require the retraining of large numbers of people to enable them to move into new sectors.

Will the ILDN representatives discuss how a joined-up approach offered by the local employment service and jobs clubs could be of support as people transition from certain industries into new careers and options? There is a certain flexibility when an organisation is not operating for profit because it does not have to answer to shareholders. I support the idea of multi-annual funding as recommended by Indecon, but I know that there is more scope when people do not have to answer to shareholders with returns each year. Will the ILDN representatives comment on this issue? How will the local employment service respond to new needs, including the impact of Brexit or climate change or the closure of a sector? Is there flexibility in that regard? Can a service not constrained by an obligation to provide quarterly returns deliver better?