John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have a lot of questions; I hope Mr. Conlon will take note of them all. In his opening statement, under the heading "background", he stated that the need for additional resources to provide activation support for unemployed people became increasingly acute during the economic downturn. Does he believe it is still necessary to have that additional capacity now? As Deputy O'Dea mentioned, unemployment levels are down to 6% with slightly more than 141,000 people on the live register.

When JobPath was being thought out within the Department, did officials look at other labour activation schemes that were in place, such as the local enterprise schemes, LESs, and so on, with a view to increasing capacity in those areas rather than opting for the privatised model?

Mr. Conlon also mentioned that the Department got advice and guidance in England during the formation of JobPath. The Department would have been made aware of serious concerns, on which Mr. Conlon touched, in respect of cherry-picking some clients and sidelining others. Mr. Conlon mentioned that the Department has put in place systems to stop that and perhaps he will elaborate. The Department also would have been made aware of serious fraud cases in the UK involving one of the companies that got the contract in this State, namely, Seetec. There is a lot of concern and many allegations have been borne out in the UK. Did this feed into the officials' deliberations when awarding the contract to that company?

What interested stakeholders did the officials meet in the process? Mr. Conlon stated that jobseekers receive intensive individual support but I would question that. Can he define "intensive"? Many who have been referred to JobPath, Turas Nua and Seetec would question that there was intensive individual support. There is first-hand evidence, not anecdotal evidence, that many people are left to their own devices sitting in front of computers week in, week out, with no intensive support.

Mr. Conlon mentioned the personal progression plan. As he failed to make a categoric statement, I will ask him a straight question. Is that a contract, yes or no? I know from speaking to many people, including former advisers in JobPath and Turas Nua, that they are told not to let anybody leave the office without signing it. They are told it is essentially the contract and if they do not sign it, they will not get payment. Mr. Conlon will be aware of the case of Fagan v.Seetec. Not only did the judge state that the man did not have to sign the personal progression plan; the penalties that had been applied had to be fully reinstated and backdated. How many other people have refused to sign the plan? Have those payments been reinstated?

The Chairman and Deputy O'Dea mentioned local enterprise schemes and anecdotal evidence. It is not anecdotal evidence that the numbers going over to LESs have diminished. It is a fact. I have responses to parliamentary questions that show categorically that referrals to LESs are down right across the board. That is solid evidence. The creation of JobPath has had a direct impact on LESs. It is not in his statement but Mr. Conlon did say the ratio has been cut retrospectively. That is easy to say now. It is a direct consequence of the creation of JobPath.

The figure is €84 million since the formation of JobPath. The number of jobs people had been given up to June 2016 was 6,111. Doing a rough calculation, in 2015, from its foundation, JobPath cost €1.25 million and in 2016 the figure was €25 million. Roughly cutting that figure in half to bring us up to June, from 2015 to June 2016 it would be realistic to say that it cost around €13.7 million. To get 6,111 people into employment - only 18% of all those who had been referred at that stage - cost €13.7 million. We have moved on now and we are into 2018. Mr. Conlon has given very accurate figures, with costs of €84 million up to this point. How many full-time jobs have been provided to people for that cost? Surely Mr. Conlon will have an exact figure for jobs acquired.

Within that figure, Mr. Conlon talked about 25% of people going into employment, be it full time or returning to part-time work or becoming self employed. Some 4% went back into part-time employment. Many people who are referred to JobPath are deemed to be under-employed, to use the Department's own terminology. They might be caring for children at home and working a day or two a week because it suits them. For the aforementioned 4%, have their social welfare payments been stopped? Are they still receiving a payment? If they are, there is a serious contradiction.

People who are happy enough working a day or two a week are referred to JobPath initially and then the result is that 4% have gone into part-time employment when they were probably in part-time employment beforehand.

Sanctions represent a serious bone of contention for many people. I touched on the High Court judgment in Fagan v.Seetec. Does Mr. Conlon have an exact figure of how many sanctions are in place because Fagan v.Seetec has serious implications for the roll-out of JobPath and the signing of the personal progression plan?