Mr. R?n?n Hession:

I think it is important that I, like the Minister, be unambiguous that the language does not describe a sanctioning regime or negative fallout from a lack of engagement. That is not the intention. We are seeking to get to a point where we can have a conversation about opportunities with those who have the ability to work. Our experience is that people respond to that. It is not a question of going into the room and saying we will have the nice conversation first and that if that does not work we will have to get more serious. That is not the nature of the conversation. It has not been our experience with lone parent cohorts. I am referring to what we will need to do over time. We are not there yet because everything is very much at the initiation of customers themselves. We are very much responsive and we try to make a menu of different options available to people, including training, community employment, the ability programme, employability measures and the workplace experience programme. We can make them aware of all these things.

We have found in our early engagement that when we are more proactive in talking to people about what is available to them and might suit them, and when they become comfortable with that conversation, we get a decent response. Ten percent of those we contact might sound low but having 1,600 people between 18 and 25 who were not previously engaged comprises a really positive start. We are learning as we go. Our experience is that the psychology is possibly the opposite of the psychology the Deputy is suggesting in that sometimes people engage more when it is not the Department that is talking to them. Consider the circumstances if one is dealing with somebody through WALK or Ahead or any such group around the country in respect of employment supports. Even though the Department might be funding it and even though one might be part of a programme sponsored by the Department, the fact that contact is not made by somebody whose communication has a harp on the envelope means people are more likely to engage in some cases. Therefore, the idea of reserving a sanction or escalation is unlikely to be helpful in the conversation.

The intention behind the language of the Green Paper, as part of a wider package of ideas and propositions, is to promote conversation with people with a view to successful outcomes, whatever they might be. A successful outcome might be part-time work, full-time work or a training course. Some people we have contacted through early engagement said they had never heard from the Department in all their time other than in respect of their payments. They said they had never been told about anything and that there had been no interest shown in them by the Department. We are trying to say we will be more visible to people in that category and give them options. An option might not be right for them, or right for them at that time in their lives, but it is a case of continuing to engage with the view to helping them to participate more in society. That is the intention rather than reserving some sanctions. The text should not be read as a precursor to a conversation on sanctions. People have picked up that tone in the document, affecting the tone of their reactions. I am happy to have a chance to speak about this, even though it is a very sensitive issue.