Mr. Conor Mahon:

The relationship with ETBs depends on the geographical location. That is what we can garner from our networks and talking to other supervisors. Some have brilliant relationships with ETBs and are very integrated, successfully creating courses and bringing huge numbers through them. Others have little or no interaction and very little discussion about where the skills and training needs are within the community employment sector. Considering we pull from the same cohort of people, there should be much more interaction. That is something we have requested in the past. When we had the operational forum I alluded to, these were the kinds of discussion points we would have raised. The ETBs are integral to our training ability because we can get the training for our participants free through them. In a QQI scenario, almost every course will have certain core modules or components, like communication, work experience and so on. We need these courses that are being run in the ETBs so we can stream our participants through them. There will also be courses that are very much identified as needed. We do an awful lot of horticulture or ground maintenance courses but the ETBs do not run them. It depends on the trainer capacity in the ETB. They just seem to churn out the same courses year on year without evolving to the needs that are out there. Much more interaction is integral.

I never got to answer Deputy Donnelly's question on paperwork. One of the bigger issues we have is with Welfare Partners, which is the platform the Department has created for this. The last time there was any engagement with sponsors was in 2017 and that was to initiate the Welfare Partners system. It was supposed to alleviate all the work Ms Rohan was doing. The problem is that forms cannot even be printed out from it. If someone puts up all the training modules they have in order to get them approved, they cannot generate a PDF to print it off and get the participant to sign it. They have to go back and write it out manually and then get them to sign it because that is what is requested when being audited under individual learner plans, ILPs. It is duplication of work and it is completely nonsensical. There was little or no engagement with supervisors on the implementation of Welfare Partners. The Department does not really have a handle on how we work with it and interact with it. It could be enhanced for much greater efficiency.

Encouraging youth participation is also a geographical issue. That is the thing about CE schemes; they are all unique to the particular area. It comes back to the types of roles being covered. As Mr. Kearney mentioned, if it is predominantly people over 55 cutting and maintaining pitches, that may not attract a younger cohort. Schemes need to evolve. I have been very fortunate in the scheme I worked on in that we were involved with FoodCloud, the national company that I am sure the committee is aware of. We have warehouse operatives, drivers and an African community radio station. We have guys producing and presenting radio shows. These are roles that would be much more attractive to a younger cohort than traditional roles. There should be an evolution. More sponsors should be taken on so there is a much broader spectrum. It goes back to the question of social inclusion and getting people engaged. They can come in at a very low ebb but all of a sudden they will flourish. A person might have only had the capacity to do a specific relatively low-skilled role but all of a sudden when they get a bit of training they will gain confidence and then they can be put into the more high-capacity roles that involve much more job progression. It is great when there is a broad spectrum of roles in a scheme.