Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a follow-up question on JobPath. Based on answers to parliamentary questions up to July there were 275,000 applicants at a cost of €243 million to the two companies Seetec and Turas Nua.

The number of jobs created at that point was 20,000. It has already been outlined how if we divide the 20,000 jobs created into the overall sums, we get a figure somewhere north of 11,000. In this period in the constituency I represent almost 13,500 people went through JobPath referrals. Of that number a little over 1,000 were in employment, which is approximately one eleventh or 8% or 9%. This seems low. The figures from across the State suggest the figure is a little over 7%.

It is a costly scheme. The Department officials mentioned the fees. I said in my opening remarks that the Department does great work but the outsourcing to two companies and their performance over the past four and a half or five years is of concern. The initial referral fee is €311. There are four payments known as sustainment fees. After 13 weeks the cost is €613, after 26 weeks the figure is €737, after 39 weeks the figure is €892 and after 52 weeks it is €1,165 in total. That means a total of €3,718 payable per person who secures employment that is sustained for at least one year. These are the fees that have been set out for us and I want to ask about them.

The officials mentioned that the contract has been extended. It has been extended for the second time. The term of the contract was up in December 2019 and it was extended for a further year. This is the second extension.

Let us look at it in comparison with the local employment services and what is happening with them. One of my colleagues carried out a survey and spoke to many people who went through that system and to people who work in it. I will read from what they have found from speaking to jobseekers. One said she was currently working part time as an assistant manager in a shop and she absolutely loves it. She is in a secure job and works three or four days per week. She ends up with between €30 and €56 of social welfare and casual slips. She is on a 20-hour contract but works in excess of that which means she is getting less on social welfare. She has a two year old child and is a working mother. That person lost her job. There are two other cases. A substitute teacher was holding down a position in two schools. She said substitute teachers are on call so there are weeks when she works full time. She questions how she is supposed to hold down a job. She was sent to JobPath while doing two jobs. She has to keep two employers happy and has to attend JobPath meetings. During the school term she was on call and took any work she could get. She got calls from JobPath asking her to attend meetings on days when she was called at short notice to work as a substitute teacher in schools. There is no concept of how subbing works. JobPath is a flawed system and has helped to push her out of the teaching profession, something she has worked for. Another teacher said she only qualified last year but has been tormented by the scheme. She had to leave her teaching job as a result of the scheme. She was given no opportunity to interview for teaching jobs. Her teaching qualifications cost €12,000 and she believes that is now wasted. I could go on and on. Another participant said that she felt like a commodity and went on at length about this. We spoke to many people who came through this system.

We also spoke to people who work in the local employment services. They said several things to us. One member of staff who has been a local employment staff member for over ten years said to us that she has seen the major impact JobPath has had on local employment services throughout the country. LES referral figures from the Department of Social Protection have been drastically reduced, almost from existence in some cases, due to the contractual agreement with JobPath. This person is a mediator and counsellor. Her concern is that when clients are referred to her after time in JobPath they are less motivated, more confused and further removed from the workforce. It has the effect of a wasted year. A Turas Nua worker in one of the companies said that virtually no initial training was provided to new recruits. Staff turnover was exceptionally high. Total training consisted of a briefing to a group of 30 staff in a hotel for a couple of days followed by a couple of days in a JobPath branch. They gave us other examples.

I have outlined the fees involved. The initial payment is €311, after 13 weeks it is €630, after 26 weeks it is €737, after 39 weeks it is €892 and after 52 weeks it is €1,165.

A report was done by Indecon on the local employment services. It found that the services deliver 22 community schemes throughout the country. This recent research by Indecon looked at participants and the employer experience. It is important to get a view from employers as well. Over 75% of local employment service clients reported that they were motivated by the staff. Some 74% reported positive help with education and training and other development opportunities. Some 89% of employers reported help received from the services in finding suitable candidates for vacancies while some 83% of employers believed that they were an efficient recruitment service for their companies. Some 82% have an established and effective working relationship with the local employment service.

The reason I am reading from the report is in the frame of when we look at what is being spent. The total figure up to July of this year is €243 million and 275,000 have gone through in that period. We need to consider the cost per individual. It is a really serious concern that a vast amount of public money is being spent. Not alone have these contracts been extended from last December to this December but we have contracted again.

I know what I hear anecdotally. My colleague, Deputy John Brady, opened this up for people to give feedback, including people who worked in the local employment services, those who worked in the two companies which provide the service through JobPath and, importantly, JobPath participants. We also examined the Indecon report. The Department should be praised for the work it does but by any standards there is a major flaw in outsourcing this to these two companies. The Department has probably entered into the contract at this stage. If it has, it is unfortunate. Can anything be done at this point to try to address this?