John Lyons (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for attending and congratulate the Department on establishing a labour market council or group which has already met and will oversee implementation of the revised strategy for 2013. I know the council has a good blend of people from industry who have experience of creating jobs and from the policy side who know all about unemployment.

I recognise there are limited resources within the Department of Social Protection and that it can only deal with the cards it has been dealt up to now. There is a process and an outcome. However, I have a concern that there is more of a focus in the Department - possibly because there are limited resources - on the outcome, in other words, getting somebody into a job, rather than on the process of engagement. If we really want to ensure people will not end up back on the live register, we need to spend time working with them on developing a career path in order that they can fend for themselves. We need to help them to discover their innate talents and improve on them. The current process of engagement does not allow this happen.

The committee was previously known as the Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education and when all of these changes were happening in 2011, we suggested to the various Departments that career guidance should be a crucial element of any future labour activation measure being developed in so far as it was possible to do so within the limited resources available. However, the Department is not in a position to offer that essential element which would allow people to become independent and take charge of their career path. Much of the time, through no one's fault, there is no equality of focus between the process and the outcome. In some cases, we are putting people into jobs that will not suit them. As time passes, we will need to apply to the Exchequer for more resources to help us to focus more on the development of a career path because not enough is being spent in this area. I am not pointing the figure at anyone here. I recognise that the Department is doing what it can with the resources it has available, but both it and the Deputies present need to point out that if we are serious about reducing long-term unemployment and helping those who have recently become unemployed to ensure they will not return to Intreo offices, we must focus on allowing them to take the lead and give them the required skills. Unless we give them appropriate career guidance, we cannot do this.

My next question is related to the allocation of resources to various offices. To make an analogy, in the education area the DEIS programme allocates resources based on need to improve equality of outcomes in education. I suggest that formula might work at local level, as it would recognise that in various parts of the country there was a greater need or greater level of unemployment and that there was a need to focus on the unemployed in these areas. They are much further away from the labour market that they need more assistance. Is it recognised that some offices throughout the country deal not only with large numbers of unemployed persons but also with a number of people who will find it extremely difficult to find work because they are so far removed from employment? More work needs to be done with the people concerned. Does the Department recognise this and are resources allocated according to need? If not, should we not look at doing this? In other words, do Ballymun and Blackrock receive the same resources or is there a recognition that there may be different needs and different levels of need? Are resources pumped in according to need to give people the best chance possible to move a step nearer to finding a job?

In regard to the JobBridge programme, Mr. McKeon has mentioned the anecdotal evidence that people who are in their 40s or older find the programme a much better avenue in regard to labour market activation. It is great to hear this. Is there room for flexibility in the rules and regulations that might prohibit some people from taking up jobs, for example, in a case where somebody might have been employed by the company offering work previously, perhaps 20 years ago? Somebody in his or her 40s or 50s might have the opportunity to avail of an internship, but because he or she worked in a company previously, he or she might be prohibited from availing of it because of the rule about working with a previous employer. I do not want to get into the nuts and bolts of this issue, but is it possible local offices can be flexible or will whoever makes the decision recognise that some individuals may not fit within the rules and that if some discretion or flexibility is allowed, the person concerned will get the opportunity to become involved and work?

My final question is on the JobsPlus initiative. The following is one of the faults and failings of any of the initiatives that came before JobsPlus. By the way, JobsPlus is a really good initiative. What is the capacity of the Department of Social Protection to ensure that as many employers as possible know the ins and outs of the JobsPlus scheme, which is a much more streamlined system from which many employers could benefit? I say this in recognition of the fact that the Department is playing the cards it was dealt, does not have unlimited resources and is doing what it can. That is the basis on which I ask these questions.

This is not a finger-pointing exercise. I am genuinely concerned that the Department has gone through the biggest social reform ever in our history. The Department is doing what it can. No doubt it needs more resources. It is something about which I always argue here, although I do not hold the purse strings. If I could get some response to some of those, I would be fairly happy.