| Home | Committees | Membership | Publications | Legislation | Chronology | Commission | Tour | Search |
COMMITTEE FOR EMPLOYMENT AND LEARNING Report on the Inquiry into Education and Training for Industry (Continued)
Thursday 7 September 2000 Members Present: Witnesses: 371. The Chairperson: Will you set the scene for about five minutes, and then take some questions. 372. Ms McElwee: We sent some earlier documentation which we will cover in this outline. We assume that you have a fair knowledge of New Deal and what is happening on the ground. First, we will focus on the roles that the North West Institute plays and these are threefold. We act as a lead partner for two consortia, one in Derry City Council and the other in Strabane District Council. We were also proactive in the establishment of the informal forum for lead partners and we also act in the North West Institute as a training provider for the New Deal client. We have been involved since the outset of New Deal in 1998 and we have one of the larger consortia, particularly in the Derry area, and probably the largest outside Belfast. 373. When we first applied to be involved in New Deal we realised the type of activities that were involved but I do not think anyone realised the extent of the administrative workload involved in the programme for a lead partner. From the setting up of the consortium in Derry there were 17 partners and 7 subcontractors. In Strabane there are 25 partners and we have to get people who had previously been competitors, to work together on a programme with a common goal. So there is a heavy administrative burden and we have very effective and good working relationships now with our partners and with the local Training and Employment Agency and the Training and Employment Agency headquarters. The role also expanded to training and development of other partners with the onset of the Quality Management Framework. We did considerable training, particularly for smaller providers, who had not been involved in the Jobskills programmes previously and a number of quality workshops have taken place. Ultimately, our role as a lead partner is to ensure that the programme is administered as set out by the terms of the contract. In the early days of New Deal, a forum was established as a network to try to get lead partners across the Province together to address common issues and to see how to take that forward. It also looked at best practice and sharing activities or administrative ideas that might be helpful to us all. Having identified the issues, it was a case of finding a way of taking them forward. 374. Four other departments and ourselves, meet with the T&EA in Adelaide House on a regular basis to address a number of issues. To date, these issues have included funding and we have also looked at the administrative workload. There was a funding review in the past and we are looking at another one currently. There has also been a review of forms, and the number of forms involved in the New Deal process has been reduced significantly. 375. We have also addressed such things as Core Gateway. Last year there was a joint workshop set up where working groups got together to look at different issues. There were representatives there from providers, lead partners, the Social Security Agency and the T&EA. This workshop proved very useful and will be repeated this year. 376. We have also looked at the various roles of people involved in New Deal. Positions such as that of personal adviser were examined and inconsistencies were found in their roles across the Province. 377. Finally, as a provider we are an institute of further and higher education providing a range of information which is pertinent to the New Deal up to Level 3. 378. The previous speaker mentioned that there is some concern about flexibility. It is a programme targeted by ability and employment and therefore it has a vocational focus, but there have been times when another programme of a lesser or a higher nature and perhaps more academic may have suited some of the clients. The timescale involved is another issue to be considered. For example, in full-time education and training there is a 52-week period but there are some programmes that require a longer timespan. 379. These are some issues that the Committee might consider. There is also the issue of differential funding in some of the options. The full-time education option does not include this funding so the client does not receive the £15·38 that is available to those on other options. Therefore it might not seem a good way forward for the unemployed person. 380. With the T&EA, we are beginning to look at performance indicators such as retention and movement into employment. That will be ongoing in the Quality Management Framework. To date, the burden of administration has tended to have the focus of our attention and we would like to get away from that and look at the real quality issues. 381. There is also the issue of what employment opportunities are available. Speculative training is necessary, and due to the nature of the programme it requires work experience that is currently available within the existing economic base. It is difficult to train people in skills if employers are not there to place them with. I do recognise that there is some scope for speculative training in other Agency programmes such as Bridge to Employment and it is another avenue that could be explored. 382. There is also a need for the ongoing development of the programmes and a need to continue working closely with the T&EA. We need to work with those who are operating on the ground and hear what is happening. 383. Mr J Kelly: In his paper, Mr Wright referred to the difficulties in reconciling the number of people who went off the list with the black economy. How do you see that being addressed? 384. Ms McElwee: Statistics show that the number of people on jobseeker's allowance dropped some 40%. This leaves those people who may or may not want to go on to the programme with no other option. To some extent that leaves lead partners and providers with a group of people who are not keen to go on the programme and are therefore more difficult to work with. 385. They have to be persuaded and cajoled, and so on. The whole area of statistics in the programme is difficult, because of the way the systems are set up and the different timescales. We have tried to follow people up, but it is very difficult to get people to come back to you in the sixteen-week period they have to find employment. This is something that we will need to keep working at in terms of getting real statistics that are meaningful. 386. Mr J Kelly: I am looking through your lead partner responsibilities and I notice you have to ensure that criminal records are checked out - that is a thorny one. I know that people who are coming out of prison, having served sentences that related to what has been happening for the last 30 years, find great difficulties in even opening a bank account. Do you make provisions for that? 387. Ms McElwee: The system is basically a form of ongoing checking, and it is really pertinent to people in childcare. 388. Mr Forbes: That is done only in respect of people that are going into placements where they will be dealing with children and other vulnerable groups. It is not done right across the board. Only those who committed those sort of offences would be precluded. 389. Mr Hay: Three issues are emerging very clearly: the flexibility of the programme, the whole issue of the short term of 13 weeks, and the figures. The number of people that are coming through New Deal has certainly fallen. I am looking at your own figures here. What is most worrying in many aspects is that the concept of New Deal might have been a good one, but I think the difficulty lies in how it has been delivered. What are your thoughts on that, and how can that be resolved in the short term? 390. Another question relates to your relationship as a provider, with the T&EA. How do you view that relationship? Do you see it being improved? What are the basic problems there? 391. Ms McElwee: In terms of our relationship with the T&EA, in the Derry and Strabane context certainly, it is very good. In fact representatives from the T&EA come along to our lead partner meetings to give their perspective of issues that are new or ongoing. Our relationships are very good, and the staff on the ground are in and out of T&EA offices fairly frequently; they have worked on that. There has been the odd hiccup, but in the main, they are very good. We also have a good relationship with senior personnel in the T&EA in Adelaide House. We are all trying to get this right, but we know we must work at it. 392. You mentioned the 13 weeks, Mr Hay. Yes, we recognise that, and it is something that has been raised with the Agency. People who have been out of work for 12 months or more are not going to move forward a great deal in 13 weeks. That is something we most certainly think needs to be addressed. 393. Mr Beggs: The management of numbers can be difficult, and this has been raised by a number of other people who gave evidence to us. 394. The figures you provided to 1 September 2000 show a slight reduction for the 18-24 age group. Do you see that reflecting an improved working situation, people finding employment rather than going onto New Deal in that age group, or do you see other reasons for that reduction? Secondly, with the 25-plus age group there is dramatic change between 1999 and 2000, from over 1100 to 161. Does that reflect the voluntary nature of this group? What do you see as the cause behind that huge drop? 395. Finally, several people are saying that the NVQ Level 1 can be inappropriate for some people. What has been the response of the Training and Employment Agency to you when you repeatedly said this to them? What are they saying, because it is wasteful of trainers' time and scarce resources and the encouragement that New Deal is meant to be giving people to get back into employment if they are doing inappropriate courses? 396. Mr Gillespie: We too have recognised that the figures have dropped. In the 18-to-24-year-old programme the initial figures we have given are 536 starts for the financial year. From this April to September 2000 the figures are 241. We actually do anticipate close to the same amount of people actually going through that programme by the time we come to April next year. The other obvious figure is the one for the 25-plus group, where 1170 went through in the year 1999 and only 161 to date. We do not anticipate the same figure. 397. The only reason or explanation we have been able to find is that when New Deal for 25-plus started there was a huge number of people that had at that stage been unemployed for 18 months. We had to get those people through the system and there was a huge amount of referrals. Now that we have exhausted that amount of people we are entering a phase where people have to requalify to re-enter the programme again. This length of requalification is something that has been discussed with the T&EA. Whilst that number is low now, if the same 18 months unemployed criteria for entry stays and the economic base in Derry does not significantly change - in other words no huge inward investment by companies looking for staff - we would expect that figure to go up again. There will be a peak and trough cycle in dealing with participants. In the 18-24 group we do expect, both in Derry and in Strabane, the figures to be similar to last year. We anticipate and hope that it is not the same people all the time. Clearly some will remain and others will come back but we anticipate that at some stage the programme is going to assist at least some of them. 398. On Level 1 qualifications, others have referred to its suitability to the programme and the need for basic skills. Locally, the Agency has responded pretty much along the guidelines and strategy for dealing with it, aiming qualifications towards the NVQ Level 1. Strategically through the Lead Partner Forum, at a senior level, the Agency has engaged with providers, specialist organisations and ourselves. They have asked what is the most appropriate type of qualification, what is the most appropriate form of delivery to people who have qualification needs less than possibly Level One and who possibly cannot meet that. Essentially the response from the Agency has been okay. They have acknowledged this; they want to know what they can do about it or how they can engage people about it. A working group has been set up which some lead partners and some providers have contributed to. It was discussed extensively last year in our workshop in Dungannon, trying to identify and come to a solution on basic skills, needs and requirements for those participants. It is not an easy one. 399. Mr Beggs: There has been no outcome? 400. Mr Gillespie: It is ongoing. The last letter to providers and lead partners we received was to have a response by the end of August, and that group is continuing its work. 401. Mr Hay: There is no doubt that these figures show a serious fall-off through the entire New Deal. If those numbers continued their decline in the present dramatic manner, would that not call into question the whole issue of the scheme and what it is really delivering? It is a serious drop-off. 402. Ms McElwee: On the subject of the drop-off, from our perspective the core of people left to join a programme would obviously be those requiring most attention. The whole delivery would have to be examined, for as Mr Beggs has said, they are likely to be people with difficulties achieving Level 1. As it stands, the programme is not really suitable for them. 403. Mr Gillespie referred to a working group looking at basic skills. There is also a working group looking at those clients who have what might be termed multiple barriers to entering the programme, be they alcohol or drug abuse, or a variety of factors already mentioned, and various specialists are looking at that. We all recognise that there is a group of clients for whom New Deal does not cater. 404. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. You have stirred a great deal of interest, and I know there will be many more questions, but there are other people to talk to this afternoon. topThursday 7 September 2000 Members Present: Witnesses: 405. The Chairperson: Perhaps you might give us a short summary of the work you are doing and your relationship to New Deal, afterwards taking some questions. 406. Ms Lyness: Thank you very much for letting me come. I represent Hugh Casey, who unfortunately has another appointment and cannot be here today. Mount Zion House has been Mr Casey's dream for a long time. Shankill Community Projects, based in a predominantely Catholic area of Lurgan, ran with the ACE scheme during its lifetime. When we saw that ACE was coming to an end, as early as 1985-1986, we realised we had to put in contingency plans. At that stage Mount Zion House, a convent, came up for sale, and we took the brave decision to raise the funds to buy it. 407. Many of our financial projections involved ACE and later New Deal. We are currently running quite a large deficit because of New Deal's not being successful. I am the centre manager and have been there for nine years, witnessing the ups and downs and seeing people start and finish ACE. 408. We have had success stories. We got about 45% of people into employment. We first started to run with New Deal in August 1999. We did not want to run with it. We did not like the programme, but we had no choice. At first we had a lot of participants. The numbers were there, and we got around 25 maximum. We had a lot of angry people because it was not explained to them. When they came to us they had already seen personal advisers and been to the lead partner. They were being asked the same questions over and over again, so by the time they got to us they were very angry. 409. We had the skills to deal with that. We have been dealing with people for a number of years. When people came here under ACE they wanted to be here. Under New Deal they do not. We dealt with it and had a very successful first four months. Then the numbers started petering out. We had been securing what were primarily ACE core jobs. We were trying to keep those going with the New Deal moneys coming in. Consequently we had to take a bit of a risk in keeping a couple of people on and hoping that the numbers were going to go up. 410. To give you a bit of background about what we do, we have a foyer-style accommodation in the Mount Zion House complex. We have 40 bed spaces for 17-to-25-year-olds. We have a public restaurant and conference facility. The conference facility can seat up to 80 people. We have an excellent independent advice service. We have just opened a new childcare centre called Zion's Den, and we cater for 24 pre-school, 24 after-school and 28 nursery children from six weeks to four years of age. We have all our community services. Again, New Deal is a big part of that. Someone coming in for 13 weeks can give us 13 weeks of hands-on, and we can give them 13 weeks of experience. We do not try to do any NVQs or anything like that - in 13 weeks you could not. We give them health and safety training and on-the-job training. That is all we can do within 13 weeks. We have a diner's club, meals-on- wheels, environmental gardening - that is very limited because of numbers - and printing. We also have an IT suite, computer-based training in partnerships with the Upper Bann Institute and Queen's, and we have all our administrative support. 411. As you can see, it is a huge complex. We want to make it work. The figures at the very start, the financial projections, rightly or wrongly included ACE/New Deal, and they have not come to fruition. We offer a large variety of placements. Minister Farren was with us last week to open our restaurant, and we had a meeting with him, the T&EA and our regional manager, Dara Shields. However, there was no movement. I understand that there is no magic wand. 412. It would be ideal if New Deal were revamped. Take the good parts of ACE and New Deal and let us have people for longer than 13 weeks. We have not seen many 18-to-24-year-olds. We have had one or two through our books over the year. They seem to be disappearing, or perhaps they are attracted to a different type of organisation. 413. The problems we have are with the figures not adding up and the suitability of the candidate. At the minute we are getting really the lowest of the low. I have a guy in at the minute, and if it is cloudy he cannot work. Those are the real issues. We are getting people who will never be employed, but organisations like ours can accommodate them and can give them some sort of employment. 414. Another aspect of New Deal is the Quality Performance Management Framework, which the consortium members have been putting in place. It is a wonderful system that any organisation should invest in, but the time frame and the resources are not there to implement it. This is the correct procedure, but it has been forced upon us. We get kickback from lead partners - if you do not include this framework, then you are regarded as letting the whole consortium down and you will not be able to support New Deal. 415. Hugh Casey has written to David Trimble and previously to John Fall. He has written a large number of letters over the years highlighting the ups and downs, and the pitfalls, of New Deal. Last week the 'Lurgan Mail' (24 August 2000) reported that the number of people signing on in this area has risen. The totals are now 1,197 men and 434 women. To reiterate what a number of people have said this afternoon: there are no easy answers, but there needs to be a programme for the long-term unemployed. New Deal is not it. 416. The Chairperson: Thank you for your forthright, well-thought-out comments. 417. Mr Carrick: No doubt the Mount Zion Project anticipated that there would be a role for New Deal to replace the ACE Scheme. That was one of the selling points of New Deal when some of us were fighting to retain the ACE scheme. You are obviously very disappointed. In the ACE scheme you were very involved in environmental projects. The scope from within your organisation to do this has now been practically eliminated. You are not carrying out environmental work, despite the fact that there is a demand for it in the area. How could New Deal be adapted to suit the demand in the area through your organisation? 418. Ms Lyness: Last August, when New Deal began, we had quite high numbers and we were able carry out a lot of environmental work in the area. However, we had a lot of questions. When we received people from the T&EA, through the advisers, we were given one piece of paper and that was it. We did not know if these people were paedophiles, or if they needed any special help. We did not know anything about them. Therefore, we got people to fill in our own application form, where they had to declare any convictions. I did not want to be responsible for putting people who I did not know, and had no history of, into an estate where a lot of elderly people and children lived. We could also have been liable for burglaries. This was a problem with the ACE Scheme as well, but at that time we used PECS and had people vetted before employing them. 419. I now have a beautiful new childcare centre in the grounds of Mount Zion and 25 people will be employed to run it. That is a problem. All of my staff who come into contact with children are put through PECS. Bringing somebody in from New Deal for a 13-week programme is not an option. However, I would like to have more stability so that I could do something for the community, because people are crying out for ordinary work to be done. Mount Zion House was assembled so that each area would be sustainable. The majority of the original staff would all have an ACE background, but we would train them in support skills for people coming in from New Deal. It is going to take us about 18 to 24 months to work towards a viable stage. New Deal is a bonus to us if we can get a few people in and then bring in more people for the 13-week programme. It is a bonus to them and to us, because it does mean more finance for us. But we have to have at least five people on New Deal to pay my supervisor. If I do not have five people on New Deal I am losing money. Currently, I have three but my supervisor is still employed, because tomorrow I do not know whether I am going to get some more referrals. 420. Mr J Kelly: How do you think your current circumstances could be changed? 421. Ms Lyness: I do not know. The criteria for New Deal are written, and they need to be tweaked. Dara Shields, Regional Manager for the T&EA has put the cards on the table and said New Deal was never there to be a replacement for ACE and we understand that. Surely there must be some sort of concessional period to let it kick in and work because we are going to lose the voluntary sector. The lead partner informs us every other month of how many people are leaving the consortium. Up to eight groups have already left the consortium for various reasons. 422. Craigavon was a huge consortium. There are 26 in it. That is too many, whereas somewhere like Lisburn has perhaps two. I suppose the diminishing numbers are to our advantage, but even at that it is shocking that we are losing those groups, especially with the Lurgan/ Portadown flashpoint and so on. We lose people due to the problems in this area. 423. Mrs Nelis: Thank you Ms Lyness. Firstly, I would like to commend you on an excellent community project. You provide a great service and that is a sad reflection on the ability of New Deal to address the community and voluntary sector on those issues which groups like yours are struggling to address. I have previously questioned the £60 million budget. It seems from some of today's submissions that a huge amount of it has been spent on administration, while groups like yourselves are struggling. It seems to be administratively, a very top heavy project to manage, and I wonder how that is impacting on the difficulties first of all in attracting referrals, providing programmes which will make the over-25s employable, and how participants feel if coming to the project without qualifications. We need to look at the administrative element of this project. Ms Lyness said that you have to have five people bringing referrals to keep a supervisor in place. It seems that these are crazy criteria. ACE was bad but this is very much worse. 424. The emphasis should be on training; it should be on creating employability, not on numbers. This programme has a budget of £60 million, and that concerns me greatly. The fact that so many groups are leaving the consortium shows that New Deal is not meeting its objectives. 425. Mr Dallat: I am sure that your expression "the lowest of the low" was a cry for help on behalf of people who have fared very badly in the education system and in society. How would you improve communication so that those who have fared badly could be helped? 426. Ms Lyness: This has been debated at consortium meetings. The managers of the T&EA in Lurgan and Portadown have been advising us on how to solve the problem of communicating with participants. If somebody is being forced into a programme, he will not listen, no matter what is said to him. It is a shame, because a great deal of good work is being done in Lurgan and Portadown, which may go pear-shaped because of this antagonism. It can have a knock-on effect in the organisation. 427. We have not had an easy time - Mount Zion is a former convent. We have to struggle to get finance for capital renovations and a new-build, because it was thought that Protestants or people from the ethnic minorities would not come because Mount Zion was seen as a Catholic building, which is right. We are trying, and we are getting there - we are doing our bit. The New Deal has not helped at all. We have tried to branch out by introducing Protestant "New Dealers", putting them in the south part of the town, near Mourneview. However, it did not work. We tried to work in partnership with the Church of Ireland, but in this particular area things did not work out. It was just so difficult. 428. Forcing people to be here at 9.00am and forbidding them to leave before 5.00 pm, making them clock on and clock off and obliging them to tell their supervisor where they were going were norms that these people are not used to. We were seen as enforcers. 429. Mr Carrick: Was Mount Zion put at a disadvantage because the lead partner was also a provider - a training establishment which could influence the numbers sent to other providers? Had they looked after themselves first? 430. Ms Lyness: Yes. There is a great deal of unrest. It was a shame that the council pulled out at the last minute as it was supposed to be lead partner for the area. Wade Training then became the lead partner, and, as Mr Carrick observed, it is a provider. It has 36 on its books, while we have perhaps three. There is no equality. 431. Mr Byrne: There is a recurring theme of falling numbers in most of the submissions. Are there too many providers of New Deal in the Portadown/ Craigavon area? Is there a reduction in the number of trainees? If so, where are they going? 432. Ms Lyness: The numbers have definitely gone down, and no one knows where they are going. They could have been working on the black market and are staying on it. They could be signing on for benefit in a different capacity. I know, through talking to the T&EA, that when they receive a certain number of referrals they automatically halve the number called for interview because a certain proportion will not attend. Therefore, approximately half of the referrals will go on to the lead partner, who will be happy if half of those referrals actually turn up. So, from a total of 20 referrals you would be left with five to distribute. 433. Mr Hay: That is a disaster. 434. Ms Lyness: Then the bureaucracy starts again. The situation goes back to square one. It is very difficult. 435. Ms McWilliams: I am concerned at the enormous differences between employers. Who evaluates the Quality Performance Management Framework? 436. Ms Lyness: The T&EA. 437. Ms McWilliams: Do they actually come out and see that everyone is working to the same standards? 438. Ms Lyness: Yes. 439. Ms McWilliams: You have told us that you just do not bother with NVQs. 440. Ms Lyness: For those aged 25 and over we do not, because on a 13-week programme a person would not be doing an NVQ. We do for those aged between 18 and 24. But we are not an education provider. We are basically within the environmental voluntary sector. NVQs are not part of the criteria. We have dealt more with people who are 25 and over. 441. Ms McWilliams: We will need to address the Charter for New Deal 25-plus, which is coming out in the literature. The performance indicators are as follows: "the opportunity of subsidised jobs with an employer; high quality work experience; high quality job share training; an opportunity to refresh existing, or gain new, skills; advice and guidance on self-employment", and so forth. If we consider what we have been hearing and put a tick alongside the appropriate performance indicators we would find that there is a big gap between what the indicators are expecting and what different people have been telling us about what is being provided. 442. Ms Lyness: When you are on the ground and have New Deal participants you want to portray yourself as a professional organisation. You want to do your best for them and bring them on. You want to give them opportunities, whether it be through training in computers or through "people" communication skills. We have people who would find it difficult to use a telephone. When they are finished with us they are practically running the reception. That takes time, and a one to one approach. Five New Deal participants are not enough to occupy one supervisor - it just does not add up. 443. Mr Beggs: Is there a critical mass? Are there a certain number of New Deal participants you must have to make the programme viable? 444. Ms Lyness: Yes. 445. Mr Beggs: Can there be a problem if there are too many providers? 446. Ms Lyness: Yes. I suppose that we are at a critical stage where Peace 1 has run out and we are waiting for Peace II. We have had an amount of money and we are waiting to see who is going to get some contingency money. It is not easy for the voluntary sector at the moment. Over the last five years, the skills of the voluntary sector have gone up so much. We are not "Mickey Mouse" organisations any more. We are as professional as those in the public or the private sector. 447. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. It has been extremely interesting and helpful. We wish you all the best. You are welcome to take a seat at the back of the room if you wish to listen to the rest of the session. Thank you for your background notes also. 448. Ms Lyness: I would like to extend a welcome to any of you to come to Mount Zion. topThursday 7 September 2000 Members Present: Witnesses: 449. The Chairperson: Perhaps you would like to respond to some of the points that have arisen this afternoon. If you are agreeable, we would like to ask some questions. 450. Mr Gamble: New Deal is part of the wider welfare-to-work programme of the Government which has minimum wage, working families tax credit and child care strategies involved in it also. The aim is to get people off welfare and into work where possible and give security to those who cannot work. In it, there is an element of compulsion from the Government's point of view, which has caused some problems from the start. However, that is the Government's policy. 451. The New Deal is a national programme and we are operating on a pattern which will allow us some flexibility but not a great deal. It is not, therefore, open to us to make wholesale changes. Secondly, as programmes of this type go, it is quite a young programme. Most of it is less than two years in operation. It is quite innovative in many ways, so I do not think that anybody expected it to spring into action without any problems. We do know that there are problems. The important thing is, that there is a certain dynamism about the programme. It is being looked at very carefully and being evaluated more than any other programme I have ever come across in what is now becoming a rather lengthy career in the Civil Service. 452. There have been changes introduced. You have heard about Core Gateway for example, which attempted to add some speed to the early part of the programme. There are workshops going on with the people who provide services; there was one last year and will be one this year. We have a New Deal Task Force which involves employers, unions, providers and also departmental officials. We are hearing about the programme through various channels. We know there are quite a number of things which ought to be looked at and perhaps done differently, but we have to find a way to do this. 453. Another thing is that the circumstances have changed considerably since New Deal was introduced, largely because of the fall in the number of registered unemployed. As you have heard, that causes some problems for providers because some of them are obviously finding that, as far as numbers go, there is a question of viability. That may well mean that some kind of reorganisation and different delivery approach is needed. 454. Another thing, which has also come up today, is that as we work through New Deal and the people who are more job-ready move out into the job market, the people who will still be on the programme and being dealt with by the providers and the personal advisers will be those who are more difficult to place and who have more types of problems. We have heard about some of these types of problems such as alcoholism and drug abuse. That means that New Deal's performance is probably going to look less good in the future because it will be more difficult for people with those kind of problems to be placed. Probably a lot more intensive work will have to be done with them. 455. A final point is that we know that the quality of what is delivered has to be raised. We know that there are problems. There are a number of ways in which this is being looked at including on a national level by Tessa Jowell in Whitehall. We have been asking people involved in New Deal, providers, our own front-line staff, people in the Task Force, people in the education system and so on for suggestions as to how the whole thing might be made more flexible and what changes should be made. Some suggestions have already gone forward from Dr Farren to Tessa Jowell. Obviously, if this Committee also has suggestions, we would be very happy to include those in the national thinking process. 456. Mr Byrne: In light of the experiences that we have heard in the earlier presentations, I think there is a real question about how the whole New Deal programme is currently working. I do not mean that in any antagonistic way towards the Department. The programme is not working, particularly for those who are long-term unemployed, and the short-term aspect of it is killing its potential. We need to make a serious attempt to have something tailored to the needs of the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. There is going to have to be a real commitment by officials and, indeed, by the Minister, to getting the New Deal in Northern Ireland tailored differently in order to meet our needs. 457. There also seems to be a major problem about the referrals and the personal advisers. I am worried about the less than objective criteria that have been applied and how potential trainees are steered. If the system is quite simply about bureaucratic management and is not meeting the real needs of training young people or the long-term unemployed, then the exercise is not meeting what should be its real objectives. 458. What should the real objectives of New Deal be? We in Northern Ireland will have to pose that in a wider context. Is it purely about getting people off welfare benefits, or is it about being proactive in providing quality training - as is written in so many documents? The evidence does not reflect quality training importance. What are your views about us making an attempt to have a revamped New Deal which does meet the needs of Northern Ireland? 459. Mr Gamble: I will ask Martin to give his views as he has been with the New Deal since it began and indeed before it was actually launched. 460. I hear what you say about the long-term unemployed, but I would not just write off New Deal on that. The long-term unemployed target group, as it is called in the jargon, the people who qualify for New Deal as long-term unemployed, is a group that has reduced very substantially over the last two years; it is about half of what it was. So things are happening; people are getting into jobs. People are moving off the register anyway, and a good proportion of them must be going into jobs. There are things that need to be done with some of the harder cases. The longer-term unemployed who have lost work disciplines and structure to their day are more difficult people to deal with. We recognise that there is going to have to be something more intensive done to try and help those people into work. 461. You talked about training not meeting the objectives of the people going through New Deal. The picture is probably a bit patchy on that. I am sure there are places where the training is supplier driven. In other words, if you are a candidate for New Deal you may find yourself getting what is available rather than what you need. 462. The quality of the training needs to be raised, because there are those sorts of problems. The ongoing review of the New Deal, particularly for the over-25s, to which Dr Farren is contributing, will help to improve the provision and give incentive to people to provide the kind of skills that are needed by the people themselves and by the economy. For example, special premiums could be given for skills that are in short supply. 463. What should be the real objective for New Deal is essentially a political question. From the beginning, the emphasis has been not just to get people off the register but to get people into work and enable them to retain the jobs and to progress in them. That is the objective. Some people do see it as being a numbers game to reduce the unemployment level, but the stated objective is what I have just mentioned, and if we are not delivering that then we will need to think again. 464. Mr Byrne: I am glad that you are saying that essentially the objective should be about providing training, but that then begs the question as to how you can have quality training over such a short period, especially for those who are coming from such a disadvantaged position. 465. Mr Caher: In the New Deal 25-Plus there are three options. There is the employer's subsidy where if someone is job-ready the employer is paid £75 a week for six months to take him or her on. Secondly, if someone requires any further training or wants to do more vocational training, he or she can do up to one year towards NVQ Level 2 or 3. The third option is the IAP 13-week intensive training period. 466. From the start we recognised that 13 weeks was too short, and we have always advocated a longer time. We think now that we are being heard and we are hopeful that from next April it will be extended up to 26 weeks. That will be a big help and we are confident that it will happen. We would like 26 weeks for everyone, and our Minister has written to Tessa Jowell seeking that. So changes will be happening from next April. The 13-week programmes should come to an end at that stage. 467. Mr Beggs: It would be helpful if you could clarify what scope, if any, there is for change in Northern Ireland. My understanding is that it is a UK national policy. We have heard a range of suggestions from a variety of people today about where improvements might be made. Could you clarify if any of them come under your Department's control? I imagine people would be critical, for instance, of the requirement that people in the 25-Plus categories be unemployed for 18 months. It is too long a period, since they might become stale. I assume you see that as a national decision. 468. I am also pleased you mentioned that the 13-week period of activity will be extended. There has certainly been much criticism of it. There is also criticism of the Department for its near insistence on the appropriateness of NVQs, irrespective of clients' level of ability. Does that come under your Department's responsibility? Is that a decision you can take yourselves without referring to central government? Has there been a failure in the T&EA to accept that reality? 469. Mr Gamble: You are right that the 18-month stipulation is national policy. We have talked about 12 months, but the Treasury is insistent on 18 months for those aged over 25. It has to do with certain theories about allowing the labour market to work and letting people find work themselves if they can. Personally, I feel that six months is about the limit for that kind of thing, but there may well have been some feeling in the Treasury at the outset about the cost of allowing people in early or about the administrative difficulties of handling such a large number of people if the qualifying period were reduced for those aged over 25. I feel it is too long, and we have made representations about it, although so far without success. 470. The 13-week period is also a national issue, and as Mr Caher has said, we are trying to have it extended. The New Deal is about getting people into work, so vocational qualifications such as the NVQ are an essential part of it. There are cases, such as those mentioned today, where someone might be able to get a job if they could receive assistance to gain a driving licence. Those are difficult issues about which I am not sure we have reached any kind of general policy, although in one or two cases the rules have been quietly bent to allow people to do things which seemed particularly appropriate for them, but which were perhaps not strictly regular. However, Mr Caher can tell you more about that. 471. Mr Caher: There is some misunderstanding, which we are trying to remedy, about the system with NVQs. We insist, as a minimum, on three units of an NVQ, which is really not too much to ask. One of them has to be health and safety, and we should insist that people know about that aspect at least when they enter another environment. The second should be related to the job they eventually want to do. If they want a career in childcare, for example, it should be linked to that. The third can also be a key skill. This minimum is therefore not too much to ask, and we are paying £750, which is more than enough. We insist on this and would obviously like much more for the money, but we find people will not deliver anything if we do not insist on the minimum, and we will get nothing. 472. They do not all have to do NVQ Level 2. They can do Level 1 or basic skills, and we do not insist on Level 2 for everyone if they are not able. There seems to be some misunderstanding about that. They can do NVQ Level 3 if they have already done NVQ Level 2 in exceptional circumstances, so there is already some flexibility. 473. We want to ensure that when a young person finishes a placement they have a piece of paper to take away with them. We aim for at least three units of an NVQ in six months but if they could do a total NVQ it would be great. It would be difficult to do it in 6 months but it would be possible for some people. We pay £750 for that. So we insist that all young people get the equivalent of one day per week training so that they are not just being used by an employer, but that they leave with a transferable skill if they are not kept on. 474. We are looking at other courses, for example, CLAIT and the European Computer Driving Licence. During the Gateway period we will fund things like that. We fund forklift truck driving licences, but at the minute we do not fund full driving licences. It might be difficult to defend paying for people's driving licences. 475. Mr J Kelly: The long-term unemployed are a problem because people are, by and large, institutionalised and they lose their discipline. I am glad that is going to be addressed. On the leader and the provider situation, what can be done with regard to that kind of separation? There appears to be greater availability in the east than in the west for New Deal training, is that correct? 476. Mr Caher: I am not sure, because everyone who is eligible for New Deal must go on it and we have to provide placements for them. 477. Mr J Kelly: But there seems to be a better chance of getting on the programme if you live in the east rather than the west. 478. Mr Caher: We have to provide a place for everyone who is eligible, no matter where they live. It could be that we pay more for travel in rural areas and it may be more difficult to find an employer in a rural area. 479. Mrs Nelis: The consultants clearly show evidence of an east/west split, and in their submission the North West Institute said that they actually have a drop (1170 to 161) in participants in their New Deal 25-Plus, so there is a problem somewhere. There are greater training opportunities in the east than in the west. That must have an impact on the number who will get into full-time employment, even if they do surmount the various obstacles that New Deal presents. One of the obstacles relates to the option of education or training opportunity. At the moment it is confined to the long-term unemployed or people who have been in receipt of JSA for 18 months. There have been 3,000 job losses in the Foyle constituency and those people will have to wait for 18 months before they can access New Deal. They may want to access it straightaway, especially if they have lost a job and want to be retrained. The fact that you are not addressing those aged over 25 is also a fundamental flaw. 480. Mr Gamble: We are not happy about the 18 month waiting time and we know that there is not a great deal else available for people during that period. So we need something that would act before New Deal to try to put into place some provision to take 25-plus people from the first day of unemployment instead of their just getting JSA and then having nothing for 18 months. They would be asked to come in and discuss things early on so that there could be early intervention to try and get people thinking about what they are going to do next. 481. After a few months, when they have tried that, if they still have not found another job we could try to put other kinds of provision and training into place for them. We are really only starting work on this, but we are trying to fill that gap between day one and 18 months. To us it seems too long. 482. If we do manage to get things funded and successfully in place, the end result could be that not a lot of people would have to wait 18 months before going into New Deal. We would have been able to do something for many of them before that. We are looking at that long gap. In doing so, we are thinking in particular about the people who have been made redundant and who have a skill which is, perhaps, no longer likely to be used, for example, something to do with the textile or stitching industries. You might have priority groups who would get in very early to the training elements of a range of provisions between day one and 18 months. We are on the ground floor with that, but we are working on it. 483. Mr Caher: I agree, and the Agency would like people who want to enter voluntarily to be able to do so. At the moment it is not within our gift. People on New Deal for 25-Plus remain on jobseeker's allowance, and the Department of Social Development will not allow people who have not been unemployed for 18 months to go into full-time education and training and continue to claim this allowance. We have, however, written to the Minister suggesting that certain people, for example, women returners, should be allowed to enter early. 484. Mr Dallat: Having listened to evidence all afternoon from witnesses who spoke with a great deal of compassion and feeling for people as individuals, I do not think it can go without comment that these people have come through an education system that, in some way, has totally failed them. In order to make sure that we do not continue to be a fire brigade for the inefficiencies of the education system, surely this Committee and the Assembly in general must develop some sort of joined-up approach to education and training which encompasses the Department of Education as well as the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, especially when you hear stories of people not having even basic skills in telephone techniques, never mind literacy and numeracy. On a positive side, I know from past experience that your Department is heavily involved in advising people in the secondary sector on careers. These young people are sent out of school with a national assessment, and then they find that there is a total dearth of communication about what they can do. 485. If this Committee is to produce something constructive that will prevent people like yourself coming in ten years' time to give the same type of evidence, what can you suggest? You cannot ignore the secondary sector which is producing these people. 486. Mr Gamble: People can arrive on the job market scene with a lot of problems already, and as you say, it is then a kind of rescue operation. I do not feel particularly qualified to offer suggestions as to how the school system could do it better. That is just the deficiency of my own background and knowledge and career to date. 487. Some of the problems would not exist if people left school with better qualifications and a more realistic view of the world of work. Much work has been done on this area, but without apparent success. There has been much work on business education and partnership, and on introduction to the world of work by the careers service. Schools do a great deal to prepare pupils for the outside world, but it is still not enough. 488. Perhaps I am being too pessimistic: the number of people leaving school with no qualifications has dropped sharply. It is a pity that significant numbers still leave school with basic literacy and numeracy problems. Clearly, this will not make them attractive to employers. 489. Ms McWilliams: You have been asked to deliver a system which has been designed elsewhere. We will be looking at how to link up secondary and further education to make skills and training more relevant. You may have heard Anne McViker speaking on the radio about the Women's TEC. Some of them are New Deal people who have just completed courses in bench joinery, electronic engineering and the splendidly named European Computer Driving Licence. They are now IT experts and these are success stories. 490. We still have to look at the problems, however. I was interested in the Minister's suggestion, and we can take that up elsewhere. The employers' subsidy is not cheap labour, although, unfortunately it can end up as such. It is lowering wages, because there are plenty of willing workers available for employers. It states that there is no mandatory training requirement attached to the subsidy, yet you have just told us that you insist on an NVQ. How do you square these two things? 491. We need to address the differential funding arrangements for clients in the options. Is that a serious issue? We have heard that you have overall responsibility for the Quality Performance Management Framework. How much data have you produced on this? I would like to see what goes in and what comes out at the other end. We have heard you say that 'some' had dropped off the register - obviously, some are getting jobs. How many? 492. There was criticism of the variation in data and how it is collected, and surely, the T&EA has overall responsibility for that. One of the performance indicators we have heard about is the huge caseload that personal advisers have to deal with. 493. Mr Gamble: They have been reduced of late. 494. Ms McWilliams: Nonetheless, over 100 per personal adviser. Neither you nor I could possibility do any tracking with such a caseload. That is a Quality Performance Management Framework indicator. These are very serious matters, which the T&EA might like to comment on. 495. Mr Caher: We insist on the three units in NVQ for the 18-24 age group in New Deal. There is nothing as far as the 25-Plus New Deal is concerned. That is part of the design. We have said that we would like people who voluntarily want to do units in an NVQ and who are over 25 years old to be allowed to do so. We would pay the training grant for them. We have made that suggestion, and it is with Tessa Jowell. There are two New Deals, and each one is different. 496. As far as the differentiation on funding is concerned - and I believe you are referring to the £15.38 top-up that some clients get and others do not - those on full-time education and training do not get a top-up, they simply get their benefit. That is a social security rule. If a person is studying and they are getting a benefit, then the top-up would affect the benefit entitlement, so they are not allowed to receive the top-up. We have suggested that they should get the top-up. 497. Ms McWilliams: So, will we not get these suggestions? 498. Mr Caher: The Minister has written to Tessa Jowell with a large number of suggestions and that is one of them. Caseloads are coming down. We are looking at that and trying to get an average caseload that we think a personal adviser should be able to deal with. We will set that figure and the advisers should be able to deal with that amount. 499. Not every client takes up the proper allocation of time. Part of the caseload involves people who are with employers, or who are out on options. The adviser would simply keep in touch with those people regularly. They would not have to carry out the in-depth interviews with everyone at all times. The caseload does not simply comprise people who are coming on the scheme. Advisers also maintain contact with people while they are on options, and that would not take up as much time. 500. Mr Rogers: On the issue of figures, one of the things we are doing is instituting a large evaluation programme for New Deal. That is in progress. A number of people today have said that New Deal is not a very old programme. It has only been in operation for two and a half years, so it is a bit early yet to be definitive. Some of the things already coming out of the evaluation are very similar to those you have been hearing about today. It seems to be working better for the 18 to 24 age group than the 25 plus group. As regards the numbers of people moving to employment, one of the evaluation's key objectives will be not just to identify how many people move into employment, but also if that employment is sustained, and what the wage levels are. 501. Undoubtedly, some people will be moving into low paid, insecure jobs. However, we want to know how many are moving into better jobs. So far, one indicator we have is from the first survey we did on leavers. Of those who moved into jobs, only 20% moved into unskilled jobs, the rest moved into semi-skilled or skilled jobs. As New Deal starts dealing with more difficult people it will be harder to maintain those figures. However, at least the indicators will give us some idea of how successful the programme is. We hope to complete the two key evaluation exercises by May 2001. The report should be available before next summer if everything goes to plan. 502. The Chairperson: I was going to ask a question about the statistics but I think you have answered it. I would like to ask Mr Gamble two things. First, the Department's Business Plan said that the number of placements in further education was to increase by 2,000. The Committee wondered if that is an addition of 2,000 places to further education or is it in fact New Deal participants being run through the further education system. 503. Mr Gamble: My understanding is that the former is the case. However, I will confirm that for the Committee. 504. The Chairperson: We also wondered if I could formally request that we as a Committee could see the suggestions which the Minister has made to the review committee in London? We would probably be very supportive of those suggestions. 505. Mr Gamble: I think the Minister would not have any problem with that. 506. The Chairperson: I am anxious that they are implemented. 507. Mr Gamble: Could I just add a little piece of information to that? After a long consultation process, the Minister sent suggestions to Tessa Jowell about things which we are concerned about here. top |