Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their attendance. My questions are addressed in the main to Mr. Carroll and Mr. Corcoran. I had some serious difficulties with the JobBridge scheme. The plan itself was good and offered potential to people to experience work for which they may have just upskilled or whatever. However, in some cases at least, I believe it was grossly abused. I am referring to the public sector in particular in this regard and I seek the departmental representatives' comments on that. For example, where was the plan in respect of providing JobBridge places for teachers or school caretakers?. Who sanctioned those jobs in the first instance? Either one has a vacancy for a teacher or one does not. Similarly, either one has a vacancy for a special needs assistant in a school, or a porter in a school or a hospital or wherever else, or one does not. While I have not seen a JobBridge placement for a nurse, I am sure that had I looked hard enough I would have found that somebody somewhere was looking for a nurse on JobBridge. Consequently, I had some serious problems in this regard. Mr. Carroll referred to specific learning outcomes, SLOs, that should be related to the job. As no two jobs are exactly the same, was a pro formaSLO prepared for each industry or was there an SLO per job offer - that is, was there a process whereby someone from the Department of Social Protection agreed on the SLOs with the prospective organisation that was bringing in the person? I have spoken to a number of people who participated in the JobBridge scheme and this is the first time I have heard about the SLOs. I cannot recall any people telling me these were the specific learning outcomes that they were obliged to tick off at the end of their period, these were the ones they managed to cover and these were the ones they did not.

This brings me to a question on displacement. If people were being placed into jobs as teachers, porters, nurses or whatever, surely real jobs must have been displaced somewhere along the line. Moreover, if this was happening in the public sector, it certainly must have been exploited terribly in the private sector. Consequently, I do not accept that there was no displacement. As for on-site inspections, when were these inspections carried out and by whom? Was it by someone from the Department of Social Protection? I am directing these questions specifically to Mr. Carroll at present and I note he is busy writing away. I refer to the six-month exception whereby, having finished with one person on the JobBridge scheme, an employer must wait six months before taking on another person. I may be wrong in this regard and someone else may wish to join in, but I believe that if one redefines the terms of the JobBridge placement, one can set up a second one immediately. Therefore, one could have a stream of people going through one's organisation constantly on JobBridge. There is no doubt but that what started out as a good thing for people who were unemployed was absolutely horsed and abused by employers in both the private and public sectors.

I will move on to Mr. Corcoran and the Youth Guarantee. Some great work has been done in the Youthreach programme. I have visited many Youthreach centres in my time, and some excellent work has also been done in Traveller training centres. In respect of the back to education allowance, BTEA, scheme and the vocational training and opportunities scheme, VTOS, I have a problem in that a person who is on a BTEA scheme is at a terrible disadvantage when compared with a person who is on VTOS, and I believe the Department has been paring back the latter scheme over the years. Again, perhaps some of those directly involved will be able to explain this better. I also have serious problems concerning people who, let us say, were plasterers, mechanics or whatever and who decided to embark on the back to education allowance programme. I taught information technology myself for a number of years and we were at the top end of the IT industry, if one likes, in the area of networking and maintenance. The cost of the course could run to €1,000 and that was just for one's textbooks and the supporting material required. Thereafter, the cost of one's examinations, which are required for one to become professionally accredited, could run to another €100 or €200. It was the type of course that attracted mainly men, and I met many men who started off with the best of intentions. However, I remember one man once telling me he did not have enough money to buy a cup of coffee at the coffee break each day. This was because his back to education allowance, although I am open to correction, was a once-off payment of €600, and - I will conclude shortly - by the time he had paid his voluntary contribution of €350 or €400 to the college giving the course, he then was obliged to buy textbooks, to prepare for all the rest and to take buses in and out. Consequently, to a certain degree, the back to education allowance is not meeting the requirement and there is not enough of the VTOS. While I could go on, I will not, but I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh that naming and shaming is good.