Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will be brief and only ask about a few things. Mention was made of extra complexity to the back-to-work scheme. When I was in the Department, I always said that big policy is easy but problems arise in the detail. Most schemes have become more complex just because somebody somewhere might have got something to which they were not fully entitled. It would be useful for us if somebody with experience of looking at and applying for contracts was to disassemble the process on the form and tell us what could be taken out and what could be made simpler. I have always reckoned that a scheme must have a certain amount of risk of abuse, or whatever, because if a scheme is made 100% tight, it often locks out 100% of the people. Schemes have been introduced in recent times with very little pick-up.

To give an example of what I am talking about, some of the forms for small grants were far too complicated during my time in the Department. One night, I stayed up late and rewrote some of the forms much more simply. We had a meeting the next day and I sat down with the officials and told them what information on the form was essential and could be filled in by anybody without expert advice. I suggested we get on with it. I would be interested in that possibility.

Departments are meant to proof all the forms and processes against real people and I am sometimes not sure if that happens. I had a very simple test that I used to ask my officials to use. I suggested that somebody in a different section to the person who created the form would be asked if he or she could fill out the form. If somebody who was already working in the public service could not fill out the form, if their attempt to fill it out got a blank as an outside system would, it would obviously be hard to expect the public to fill out the form. There is a lot that can be done here. It is fairly micro work but an awful lot of people are getting caught on the micro stuff. I am interested in this. If somebody wants to come back and tell us all of the conditions on the form that could be changed, it would be very useful to us.

First Class Insulation was hugely successful and there is no question or doubt about that. It happened in my constituency and I know how successful it was. It was a tragedy when First Class Insulation lost the contract. Did the SEAI ever give a valid reason, based on law, EU law, competition law, or some other reason, as to why it changed the process? That is something on which we have to follow up. Mr. Ward should just tell me if he knows of a reason or not.

On the issue of internships in the public service, my view is that to give people a chance to prove themselves, internships have to be reasonably long and stretch to six or seven months. Has any consideration been given to the idea that if an intern subsequently applies for a job in the public service that the internship would be a credit, like an exam credit, for interviews and processes? Does that idea have merit?

If an internship is completed successfully, it could count as bonus points in going for a job at the level equivalent.

In the context of education and training in prisons, Ms Costello's comments are very important. Could we do much more in prisons with regard to academic work and practical training and linking them to jobs on the outside so that people could make a smooth transition when leaving prison? Could we do more than what we do now?