Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

A number of issues have already been covered so I will focus on one or two in particular. Before talking about JobPath, I have a few questions for Ms Murphy about the directive. I note that one of the aspects of the directive that has been very much welcomed by the European Trade Union Confederation and others is protection for trade union workplace representatives and for collective bargaining. Is that something Ireland will be supporting? Does it enhance or is it similar to what we have? Does it go further in terms of protections for those who are organising around the protection of the rights of workers?

I wish to comment on the idea of the favourable basis. I note that in the legislation proposed at the moment, it would be a criminal offence to be actively false or misleading.

While actively false and misleading is one aspect, negligence is another aspect in the context of failing to provide. We could probably keep the proposed criminal offence, but would there be any reason not to introduce the idea, which seems to be set forth in the directive that when people have not been given clear information and appropriate notification of their conditions of employment - be it by the first day, the fifth day or whatever limit we set in Ireland - an automatic favourable setting of their conditions of employment should be applied. It might be a more practicable measure. In real terms, I do not believe many people will be seeking to have criminal sanctions invoked on employers. The fact of a default favourable set of employment conditions would be a measure that would encourage people to have clarity. It is very positive.

Reference was made to the concerns around the genuinely self-employed. We also have very serious concerns around the bogus self-employed. One of the key concerns of Senator Ged Nash's legislation currently passing through the Seanad relates to the question of who determines what is or is not self-employment. There are situations at the moment where employers, for example, are effectively telling employees that they are self-employed. The determination is not clearly made by the individual on what basis they are being contracted. It is an extraordinary situation where the person who is not the employer nonetheless decides on what basis the worker is contracted. In genuinely tackling bogus self-employment in determining that individuals are given proper and clear guidelines around what is and is not self-employment, does the Department see where elements of that legislation could be incorporated to ensure the new legislation is more in line with the directive?

Turning to one aspect of JobPath, the points around costs have been well made. I absolutely share the concerns on local employment services, and not just about referrals. I am also concerned about contracts that come up for renewal. There are extraordinary local employment services in the State that provide holistic and positive services in areas of real unemployment black spots, for example, areas such as the south east. There is concern about contract renewal because while we talk of the reduction of referrals and moving down, there is a question over the long-term plan. Does the Department now see scope for increasing the work undertaken by local employment services? Given that JobPath was introduced partly during the moratorium on recruitment of direct caseworkers by the Department of Social Protection and now that direct caseworkers can again be employed, will there be a re-evaluation of that role?

I wish to focus on the personal progression plan and whether it is a contract. The Minister has been very clear that she does not consider the plans to be a contract. The Department stated clearly that it does not regard them as a contract. In the contractual relationship between Turas Nua, Seetec and the Department, do personal progression plans feature or are they a consideration in activating payment for Turas Nua or Seetec for individuals? In the JobPath report produced by my colleague and others, it seems that caseworkers felt that in order to secure the potential payment, a person needed to have signed a personal progression plan. Is a personal progression plan considered by the Department as the measure of engagement, or is it not? This would put huge pressure on the individual down the line. It has been suggested that people are asked to agree and to sign it. The judgment is very clear. The Minister also spoke of it being voluntary.

Mr. Duggan made a judgment in the case we discussed earlier. His decision not to proceed with the court case was on the basis that not only does the applicant have his deducted moneys returned, he has also advised that the penalties and deductions were erroneously applied to the individual. Is it the case that penalties and deductions that are applied on the basis that a person has not agreed to sign a personal progression plan, but is willing to co-operate nonetheless, are erroneous and should not be applied? I have specific answers the Minister gave to me during the debate on social welfare last December, which are really interesting. Personal progression plans are commonly used by Intreo, local employment services and others. Personal progression plans with a private company, however, are different regarding the appropriateness and because there needs to be a very clear wall between payment. In this particular court case, the individual was told about potential sanctions being included in the personal progression plan. This seems very inappropriate. Is this still the practice? Is there still a message within personal progression plans with Turas Nua and Seetec that people may face penalties? The messages received by that individual suggested that he may need to avail of any opportunity to employment prospects and take up any offers of support. This is a key question we have seen and it is a question of choice.

In today's presentation the Department told the committee that, unlike in Great Britain, jobseekers in Ireland can be referred to or have access to further education and training opportunities. It would be really useful if the committee could have information on the percentage of those who pass through JobPath and are referred to and are accessing further education or training, the percentage of people who may wish to access the back to education allowance and the routes out of JobPath for those who may wish to move back into education? Although it was referred to in the Department's statement today, I notice there are absolutely no figures in any of the reports in the context of people going back to education, into long-term training or into apprenticeships. The only figures we see for how this process is measured, how satisfaction is being measured, and how the success of JobPath is measured is in employment figures, which are poor.

With regard to what is or is not appropriate around personal progression plans signed with private companies, I specifically asked the Minister in the Seanad about the sections in personal progression plans that require people to share information about their family members or co-habitees. There are also sections in a number of personal progression plans - which I have seen - that require people to share information and agree that Seetec or Turas Nua can contact an employer the individual may have found by themselves separate from Seetec and Turas Nua. This seems to be extremely inappropriate. In the Seanad, the Minister stated and confirmed to me that no one should face any sanction or reduction in their payment based on the fact that he or she does not want to share information about their co-habitants or information about a separate employer. Have those elements been removed or are they still standard in the personal progression plans of these private companies? There is a data protection aspect also in that regard. If people request these elements to be removed from personal progression plans, are they automatically removed?