Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

noting that:

— when the Government came to power 55.1 per cent of those unemployed were long term unemployed, after three years of this Government 61.4 per cent of those unemployed are now long-term unemployed; and

— there has been a 25 per cent reduction in local authority staffing levels since 2011 and local authority services are therefore unable to provide adequate services across a range of areas, as evidenced by the recent delays in addressing damage caused by severe weather;

considers that the new Gateway scheme:

— is a work-for-benefits scheme, also known as workfare or forced labour, on which participation is not voluntary;

— entails 22 months of hard labour for a very small social welfare top-up of €20 that can be all but eroded by tax;

— will not enhance the employability of participants, as there is no quality training involved and there is a recruitment embargo in place on local authorities;

— punishes the unemployed for being unemployed;

— copperfastens the under-staffing of essential local services; and

— undermines existing pay, terms and conditions for staff across the local authority sector; and

calls on the Government to abandon the Gateway scheme and instead explore the introduction of an alternative activation programme based on a training-intensive Community Employment scheme type model for a local authority context or temporary work experience opportunities on the basis of equal pay for equal work done.

Since this Government took office there has been a staff reduction of up to 25% across the local authorities in this State. This means there are 9,000 fewer staff in our local authorities. However, the demand for local authority services has not decreased. Demand for essential local services is probably greater now than ever before. This Government's response to the lack of council staff to deliver those services as a result of the public service recruitment embargo is to encourage local authorities to engage in exploitative social welfare schemes such as JobBridge to replace almost 1,000 properly paid employees. They are now being further encouraged to replace an additional 3,000 staff with participants of the Gateway scheme. Rather than admit that its approach to public sector reform and management of it was ill-advised, or rethinking the public sector recruitment embargo, as it should do, this Government has invented a new and nasty scheme, using victims of the economic crash to, as set out in the Department's documentation "Do the work that the local authority used to undertake but no longer has the resources to carry out." That is the intended purpose of the Gateway scheme.

The Gateway scheme is not designed with the needs of the long-term unemployed in mind, or to enhance the future employment prospects of the unemployed. The raison d'être of this scheme is to provide chronically under-funded local authorities with cheap general dogsbodies. During the 22 months that a jobseeker participates in the Gateway scheme he or she is at the disposal of the local council. What must be done and when, including working on Sundays, is left to the whim of the local council manager. Local authorities can vary the work of the jobseeker as the authorities' needs rather than the jobseeker's learning or work experience needs dictate. All of this work, which will be physically demanding hard labour, will be mainly outdoor work such as litter collection, landscaping, animal control and clearing brown field sites and is to be done for an additional €20 per week, which is equal to €1 per hour worked. That is a disgrace. Even this top-up can be eroded by tax. I sought confirmation of this from the Department and was provided with a table demonstrating that after PRSI, some people will be negatively affected. They will not get the €20 per week being held out as a carrot to those who are in receipt of long-term unemployment payments.

The Minister, Deputy Bruton, and Minister of State, Deputy Costello, will be aware that people who participated in community employment schemes benefited in terms of training and experience. Gateway compares poorly with the community employment scheme, in respect of which the Minister, Deputy Burton, slashed the training and materials grant, which decision she subsequently had to row back on. CE involves accredited training, leading to recognised awards under the National Framework of Qualifications. It now has a budget of €1,000 per annum per participant. Gateway involves no structured training and no formal training beyond the minimal health and safety course which is required by the host council's insurance policy. Gateway's only budget is for helmets and wellington boots. The employability of those who participate in Gateway will not be enhanced. There is no money for training.

I want to address the issue of compulsion. This is a compulsory scheme. A jobseeker whose name is selected by an official in the Department of Social Protection for participation in this scheme must participate in the scheme for 22 months. The Gateway scheme is in many ways a carbon copy of the Tús scheme, which was roundly condemned by the Labour Party when it was first proposed by former Fianna Fáil Minister, Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív. Once in government the Labour Party did a U-turn - one of the many it has done since taking office - and introduced Tús. The main criticism of Tús is that it has no training budget and does not guarantee a jobseeker any recognised qualification which would assist his or her employment prospects. Jobseekers do not freely participate in Gateway. Instead, they are selected by the Department. Those selected have no choice but to participate under threat of loss of their social welfare payment, on which income support they and their families rely. Therein lies the punitive truth of this scheme. It is a scheme of forced labour.

During its century in existence, the Labour Party has prided itself on its links with the trade union movement and the trade unions' promotion of better pay and conditions. The Gateway scheme breaches the C29 Forced Labour Convention which this State ratified in 1931. That is a fact. Article 1.1 of that convention states:

Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period.

Article 2.1 states:

For the purpose of this convention the term forced or compulsory labour shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.

I urge the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and his colleagues, not alone in Fine Gael but in the Labour Party, to read that convention. The Gateway and Tús schemes contravene that convention in the context of the menace of penalty involved. It is forced labour. The Gateway scheme also falls foul of that convention in all its manifestations and will do so unless withdrawn. This case is persuasively made by an insightful report on Gateway that has been put together and submitted as a complaint to the International Labour Organisation by Adam Ó Braonáin, a community development activist involved in the establishment of a jobseekers' forum in Monaghan. I will forward a copy of it to the Minister for Social Protection, who would do well to read it. It is a pity she did not review the law before setting about introducing this scheme.

While participating in Gateway, a jobseeker's allowance from the Department of Social Protection will be replaced by a payment from the employing council.

That will be administered by Pobal, which will basically give the council the money to pass on. A problem arises in this regard because local authorities will be able to use their own disciplinary procedures to suspend the payment of a family's entire income support in the case of a dispute with the Gateway participant. This falls outside the normal procedures that are applied by the Department of Social Protection. Again, that is a scandal and, as a result of the fact that compulsion is involved, it represents a breach of contract with the Department. Is it really fair to subject Gateway participants to the same disciplinary procedures as council employees without affording them the same terms and conditions, rates of pay, working hours and trade union representation? I am of the view that it is not fair and it is a shame that the Labour Party is behind this.

The whole point of any activation scheme should ultimately be to promote entry to the labour force, that is, for the participant to proceed to secure full-time paid work. However, Gateway participants are required to give a minimum of one week's notice if they are fortunate to be offered full-time work. Failure to comply with this stipulation could have negative repercussions should the individual involved be unlucky return to the live register in the future. In today's labour market people need to be able to jump at opportunities when they are offered. If there is an offer of immediate full-time paid employment, then the Gateway participant involved should be allowed to avail of it. Let it not be forgotten that they are not employees but they will be treated as such by the Department and local authorities. They certainly will not be treated as employees when their wages are set. The notice requirement will place Gateway participants at a significant disadvantage in comparison to other jobseekers who will still have the potential to take up job offers at a day's notice. People who are unlucky enough to be placed on the compulsory Gateway scheme will not be able to so from now on.

As always, the Government had options. It did not need to introduce this punitive scheme of forced labour. Instead, it could have considered the alternatives. In that context, a good activation scheme is one that does not exploit or displace work - I have not mentioned displacement too much but my party colleagues will do so during their contributions; that first and foremost offers meaningful training and experience to the participant - from what is stated in the Department's documentation on the matter, Gateway falls well short in this regard; that enhances the future employment prospects of the participant - Gateway again falls short in that regard and may even hinder people's future prospects; and that allows jobseekers to apply to participate. Of course, the latter will not be allowed to apply to participate on Gateway.

I have called on the Minister and the Government to withdraw the Gateway scheme, return to the drawing board and redevelop the community employment model, which is obviously not the bee's knees of employment schemes, in order that we might provide more meaningful opportunities for jobseekers. To date, the opportunity which exists in this regard has not been grasped. The Government could extend existing community employment schemes to involve appropriate structured training opportunities in a local authority context. Some such schemes throughout the country already work well with local authorities, which have an understanding of how they work. In addition, the Government could make short-term work experience opportunities available to the long-term unemployed on the basis of equal pay for equal work done. There is none of this in the Gateway scheme. For many years women in particular were obliged to fight for equality and for equal pay for equal work. In government, the Labour Party is now seeking to erode what has been achieved for those who are unlucky enough to be unemployed long term. I refer here to those who have been on the live register for two years or more.

The Government's amendment to the motion is absolutely pathetic. The Government could not even argue against the points we made in our motion. Rather than do so, it decided to delete our entire motion and draft an amendment that is basically an exercise in self-congratulation. The amendment concludes with the Minister for Social Protection commending herself, which is bizarre. It is an absolute shame that a Labour Minister is introducing this scheme, which does not involve the provision of training, will lead to the displacement of local authority workers and in respect of which a measly and meagre rate of pay will apply, at this point. The Government should hang its head in shame on this issue.

See this speech in context