Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

There is a saying in Irish, "Ar mhaithe leis féin a dhéanann an cat crónán". Translated into English, it means that the cat purrs for its own good, although it does not work as well in English as it does in Irish. Will the Minister make the OECD report available to us? I would be interested in seeing the methodology that the OECD used to work out the magic figure of 17%. I have a funny feeling that it was working on JobPath's reports, and what would they tell someone other than it pays very well, given that the contractors' livelihoods depending on giving a good answer? From my experience on the ground, I am sceptical about that figure. One case is not a generality, but a constituent of mine was on jobseeker's allowance and was doing what was technically a part-time course, namely, a Hibernia course to become a teacher. My constituent was called up to JobPath, given that the constituent was on the magic list. This person already knew they were going to qualify that summer, given that they were a native Irish speaker and would not have too much difficulty getting a job as a full-time teacher. I would love to see the report on the salary level that that person earned à laJobPath. It was ridiculous that this constituent was forced in, but the company needs the numbers. It is driven by numbers. At the other extreme are people who, for one reason or another, will never get jobs. They go to JobPath and learn typing skills even though they can hardly read or write.

The cost of JobPath needs to be examined. When it was provided by the State, this service was much less money driven, was much more understanding of people's realities and dealt with individuals as real people.

JobPath is driven by profit because the service is run by a for-profit organisation. It is in it to make money and it is not in it for anything else. Whereas I believe when we are dealing with people who are unemployed, particularly those who are long-term unemployed, a much more nuanced approach needs to be taken so that is not driven by profit but by the personal benefit of the people we are trying to look after. In an extreme case, the person who is going to get the job is a teacher anyway. We would have said that was grand, to keep studying and not interfere with it. People who are unlikely to get commercial jobs would be better put into community employment schemes where there may be a graduated step forward. I do not like this being driven by profit rather than being motivated by the people. Will this issue be reviewed?

Will we be given the OECD report? I am absolutely fascinated to see the methodology. I presume we will be given the report which tells us what the answer is but I want to know the methodology by which the answer was arrived at. The greatest oxymoron we get in the English language all the time is when reports tell us that based on the following suppositions what the conclusions and facts are. However, they are not facts if they are based on supposition no matter how much the supposition is a big part or small part of the report's conclusions. Any scientific approach will tell us that once we start putting in suppositions the conclusions are what we think but they are not hard facts because we have created doubts by putting in suppositions.