Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to get the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. I thank Sinn Féin for bringing forward the motion. In the past year I have received a huge amount of correspondence from people in my constituency, right across County Galway and the west, expressing their concerns, not least the local employment services workers. They have highlighted to me that the new scheme will see the demise of the voluntary, non-profit local employment services. It will also see the introduction of more for-profit ethos into the employment services. I have heard all the speakers today, including the Minister, compliment the local employment services for what they have done in terms of the services they have provided. The question has to be asked if there is an issue with these local employment services. What are they doing that another organisation could do better, if they are doing it so well? Often, we talk about people bringing in rules and regulations and wanting to improve structures and introduce more accountability.

That sometimes gets lost because we introduce all of these systems, paper chasing and paper ticking exercises, and now computer ticking exercises. People cannot go any place without a laptop or an iPad to make sure they have their paperwork up to date. While the whole place could be falling down around them, the computer and the system is right. We must look at this in a common-sense way.

I refer in particular to JobPath. Over my time as an elected representative I have received many representations from people who found that JobPath is actually depriving local community services of the ability to access participants for the schemes. This is because JobPath is based on a numbers game and a particular way of doing things. One incredible aspect is where people who are in their late 50s are being asked to go back on JobPath to train up for jobs they probably will never get. We should be concentrating the employment services on the younger people in their 20s, 30s and 40s to make sure they gain sustainable employment into the future.

The argument is always made that we must train people for employment. There is no better way of training people for employment than by putting them out on a community employment scheme, a rural social scheme or a Tús scheme so they can actually interact with people. They might end up finding a job before the scheme is finished, perhaps through their interview with a local man delivering the blocks or a load of fill from the quarry, and there is work available for them. We need to make sure we get people employed rather than having the paperwork right. I believe the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, understands where I am coming from with all of this.

With this whole tendering process we may lose the local knowledge and we may lose the whole area where the local people know best and they know the local people. Regionality is great, and it is great to read about the regionalisation of services. The problem, however, is we will lose the common touch and the local feel. We will lose the local interest. We will have a service and a system whereby if we want to talk to somebody, we will not be able to ring them. We will have to email them. We will be back to the same old codology we had for a long time.

I put it to the Minister that it is important to listen to what people are saying. The trade unions are saying they are not happy with this. I am aware the Minister has engaged, but further engagement is required. She has said she cannot stop or suspend the tender process. I ask the Minister to consider, whatever happens after this, that it is important the local employment services are available and used because of the asset they are for us in creating jobs. We should not lose sight of that. A huge amount of effort goes into lots of things and into creating something that will probably be no better than what is there already. I have not heard one Member in the debate saying it is time to get rid of local employment services. No one has said that. Why do we try to fix something and change it when it is not actually broken?

See this speech in context