Mr. Paul Carroll:

I will respond to a number of questions because they are of a similar nature. The first relates to survey results and what they tell us. It is very clear that there are a variety of views relating to JobBridge, its effectiveness and whether it is a worthwhile experience for people. It is critically important that we listen to the views of participants. We welcome the publication of the National Youth Council of Ireland survey. The Minister of State and I met with Mr. Doorley and his team to discuss it and there is much in it that we will take on board in reviewing the effectiveness of the scheme. It is very important to note that it was based on the responses from 84 self-selecting respondents, seven of whom subsequently took part in one-to-one interviews. This compares with the Indecon report involving 2,364 interns and over 1,500 host organisations. That may go some way towards explaining the difference between the results. That report was wholly independent.

Mr. Power raised the issue of his hope or expectation that the evaluation we will commence very shortly will have those one-to-one interviews to get in-depth comment from people. I can assure him that they will and that, similarly, it will have a number of important elements. It will have an econometric review that will look at and address the issue raised by Mr. Power, which is hugely important, namely, what would have happened in any event. It will certainly look at a control group to give us some indication as to how these people would have fared if the scheme was not there. It will involve the surveying of all participants in the scheme and case studies with people that will get into some of those issues in depth. I hope this provides some assurance in that regard.

In respect of Deputy Ó Snodaigh's comments on First Steps and the report, there is a degree of misunderstanding relating to First Steps and the degree to which compulsion is seen as being an issue. With First Steps, we are talking about young people who are extremely marginalised and disadvantaged and who even during the Celtic tiger era had no prospect of gaining employment. It is a hugely resource-intensive programme. We are asking host organisations to give these young people a chance. The Department is also significantly committing in terms of providing ongoing support to those individuals. What is being asked of the individual is that the level of commitment on the part of a host organisation or the Department is reciprocated. Clearly, there is no point in dragging people kicking and screaming into a scheme. Due to misunderstandings about it and having listened to what has been said in respect of the report, I am reviewing the First Steps scheme to see whether those misconceptions can be better addressed to ensure we get better outcomes for the participants.

It is very important to emphasise and re-emphasise that JobBridge is wholly voluntary. The Department acts as a facilitator. What we are asking employers to do is to advertise a job if they have one. This is what they should be doing. If there is no job but the employer wants to provide a worthwhile work experience opportunity for somebody, it can do so. In doing so, it should set out what it considers to be the intended learning outcomes for the participant. The Deputy asked where these SLOs come in. I presume SLO is an abbreviation for specific learning. It is the host organisation which says, "This is what we are offering and this is what we think you will learn". Jobseekers look at that and decide whether they are attracted to that. If they are not attracted, that is fine. If they think that it is for them and apply and for whatever reason, it does not work out for them, they can give a week's notice and leave.

I am concerned about the language that is used relating to abuse or exploitation. There is no element of compulsion, there is no fallout from it and there are no questions asked other than how it went for the participant and given that it clearly did not work out, the reason why it did not work out so that we can provide support, advice and guidance in respect of what the participant should do next. That is the issue.

Again, there is a misconception. Why did we get almost 18,000 host organisations to provide opportunities for 43,500 people? It is because jobseekers are not homogenous and have very different needs. The Deputy has referred to people who come from disadvantaged, marginalised backgrounds and jobless households. What they want is to get a leg on the ladder for the first time. We are talking about people with low levels of educational attainment who want to enter into low level jobs. Let us not be snobbish about this. There is nothing wrong with wanting to work in a shop, be a caretaker or a cleaner, if that is the person's choice. However, they cannot find a job as a cleaner or a retail sales assistant because they have never worked and do not know anybody who does. They want a chance and Ms Whelan has clearly articulated and acknowledged the value of the JobBridge scheme to the young people of Ballymun.

On the other extreme, we receive job offers, including as a veterinary assistant, and it is assumed that is an abuse of the scheme. Why is it considered to be an abuse of the scheme? Is it because a person has received a third level education and a qualification? He or she does, but he or she lacks practical experience. That is what is being provided for through JobBridge. It is said there is no added value or learning opportunity, but JobBridge does what it says on the tin: it provides people with an opportunity to gain work experience. Therefore, to answer the point made by Mr. Power, the job placement offer should be such that the person would not have been able to do it otherwise. Is that the lesson? Let us say, for example, that the person knows how to do it but has been unable to find a job. What people want is to be able to put on their CV that they have worked with someone.

The learning outcomes will be different. The person who has graduated from college, where he or she may well have learned to do certain things, wants practical experience. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh indicated that the Indecon report had, in some way, been "discredited". That is an inappropriate word to use. Nothing has been said or done to indicate that the Indecon report was discredited. It is wholly independent and valuable. Undoubtedly, given the variety of views and perspectives that can be taken on JobBridge, the Indecon report is by far the most authoritative and independent source of data. It reviews administrative data and significant numbers of participants were engaged with, but it was of its day. Undoubtedly, the economic climate has changed in the past four years and it is because of this that the Department wants to carry out a new review. It will take on board the comments made about the scope of the evaluation.

The Deputy asked why the Department was reluctant to name the organisations that had been suspended from participation in the JobBridge scheme. In that context, it is important to acknowledge that participation by the host organisation is wholly voluntary. We must be careful not to put people off. Organisations can be suspended from participation in JobBridge for a variety of reasons. For example, there is a requirement that a host organisation ensure compliance with a standard agreement. In regard to monitoring visits, Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell asked about who, why and when. The visits are conducted by departmental staff, case officers who interview the intern and host organisation at the place where the work experience is being gained. Visits have been conducted from the outset of the scheme and will continue. To date, approximately 25% of all internships have been reviewed, of whcih 98% have been fully compliant.

It is important to have a proper perspective of the scheme. I may have one view, while others may have a different one on the value of the scheme, but let us talk to those who are using it to hear what they have to say. What they are saying is, "This is good for us." There are certainly issues; we need to look at how we can enhance the experience in order that everybody will benefit from it. They are not necessarily abuses of the scheme. Some organisations have engaged in minor breaches of it. In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate, for example, that they be suspended from participation in the scheme for a period of six months. If we were to name these organisations or if organisations felt they might be named - we have seen the unfair, unwarranted and negative publicity associated with the scheme which is not supported by the facts - it would, undoubtedly, put them off participating. I consider a six-month suspension to be an appropriate response to a minor misdemeanour and that to publish or disclose the names would be punitive and not proportionate to the offence committed.

While the Department is fully aware of its obligations under freedom of information legislation and how the public interest might best be served by disclosing the names, it is also aware of the provision in section 36(1)(b) of the Act that we should not engage in activity that would result in a company suffering a financial loss. We have seen instances where organisations have threatened to picket host organisations simply for advertising on JobBridge. The likely effect of this might be to cause customers of the organisation or shop in question not to enter. We have an obligation to protect organisations, which is why the names are not being published, not that we are doing things behind closed doors. We recognise there is a public interest to be served, but there are serious concerns in that regard.