Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

29. To ask the Minister for Social Protection his plans to reform the JobBridge Scheme given the number of criticisms that have been levelled at it; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11888/16]

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As Members of the House will be aware I have already announced that I plan to replace JobBridge with a more targeted scheme later this year. I believe that economic and labour market conditions have changed for the better since the scheme was introduced in 2011 and that the time may now be right for a more targeted scheme. JobBridge was developed in 2011 in response to the unemployment crisis to serve a dual purpose. First, it was to help jobseekers to secure work experience vital to enhancing their employment prospects and break the vicious circle of "no experience no work, but no work no experience". Second, it was to support employers in taking the first step in recruitment at a time when access to finance was limited and business risk was high. JobBridge also addressed the anomaly in the social welfare code whereby unemployed jobseekers who voluntarily undertook unpaid work experience or internships lost their entitlement to a jobseeker's payment. Under JobBridge, participants retain their jobseeker's payment and, in addition, receive a top-up towards the cost of work of €52.50 per week.

JobBridge has been successful in meeting its objectives over the past five years. It has helped about 19,000 - mainly small - employers to provide valuable work experience to almost 48,000 unemployed jobseekers. An independent evaluation of JobBridge published in 2013 found that overall satisfaction levels with the scheme were high. Two thirds of participants would recommend the scheme to a friend or family member, and levels of abuse of the scheme by employers were relatively low. Most notably, the evaluation found that about 61% of participants progressed into paid employment within a short period of completing their internship. This is a high progression rate and suggests that JobBridge has been instrumental in helping about 30,000 jobseekers to secure employment.

Notwithstanding these achievements, JobBridge has been subject to a high level of criticism, much of which is based on small-scale surveys by various interest groups.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

I intend to respond to these criticisms in the design of a new scheme. It is important, however, that the design of a new scheme is informed by the best evidence possible. It is for this reason that I intend to await the results of a second large-scale evaluation of JobBridge currently under way. The results of this evaluation, which is again being undertaken by Indecon, are expected in September and I will announce my proposals for a new scheme shortly thereafter.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must apologise as I forgot to congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. I would be the first to concede that JobBridge has done a lot of good. Will the Minister agree, however, that interns have been exploited? For example, is he aware of a newspaper study which reached the following conclusions and threw up the following statistics? The largest user of the scheme over its five-year period was the HSE, which used it 399 times. The HSE used the scheme to fill 67 assistant psychologist posts. The ESB recruited a solicitor, two industrial economists, three quantity surveyors, a geological data analyst and a legal executive - all very qualified individuals - via JobBridge.

Interns interviewed during the study complained about bullying, working more than 40 hours per week, being forced to work outside their job description, and inadequate monitoring. Does this not smack of exploitation? Why did the Government renege on its commitment to have regular monitoring of JobBridge? It did one report in 2002, but nothing for the past four years.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am aware of the NUI and IMPACT surveys on JobBridge, but I am not aware of the one to which Deputy O'Dea has specifically referred. It was a scheme for a particular time and I have no doubt that there has been some degree of displacement. That is something that I want to ensure changes in any replacement scheme, but any scheme will cause some degree of deadweight or displacement. That is the nature of any intervention that occurs in the labour market. Unfortunately, in any workplace, even in a fully paid normal contract job or permanent post, one will find people who complain of bullying, exploitation or being required to work beyond their job description. In fact, I would say that a huge number of employees in all fields of work may feel that they are asked to work beyond their job description. I do not think that those things in themselves mean that one can condemn an entire scheme.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Two wrongs do not make a right. The Minister will be aware that 86 companies were struck off the JobBridge scheme because, quite frankly, they were abusing it. Nevertheless, they were restored because it was found that the procedures adopted to strike them off were unfair. In other words, they were restored on a technicality. Does the Minister regard it as reasonable that five years into the operation of a scheme involving tens of thousands of people, we still do not seem to have a robust method of monitoring it and punishing people who offend? Will the Minister change the policy to which his predecessor rigidly adhered of not publishing the names of companies and individuals who have been struck off? A list of tax defaulters is regularly published in the national press.

When I asked the Minister's predecessor why this rule was not applied to companies that were stuck off from using JobBridge, I was told that it was for commercial reasons. I imagine that if some businessman is named as a tax defaulter, it will have some commercial impact on him.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has answered his earlier question. There is a monitoring system and had there not been, those 80 firms would not have been suspended from JobBridge.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They were restored.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is 80 out of 19,000 in total.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, and they are back.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will look into it again out of my own interest. The reason they cannot be published or named and shamed in the way a tax defaulter would be is that where they have been suspended from a scheme, it is done on an administrative basis. It is not that a finding has been made against them in the way a finding may be made against somebody who defrauded the State of taxes. It is not that anyone who gets audited is named and shamed when it comes to tax. They must have a finding against them that would stand up in court. Needless to say, the Department does not want to start naming and shaming companies that would then go to court and sue successfully for having their good name impugned without due process.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister refers to people going to court because their good names are impugned. If somebody is disqualified from being involved in the JobBridge scheme because they have been found to be exploiting young people who want to get into employment and those who are long-term unemployed, surely they deserve to have their names published. The Minister is using a different excuse than his predecessor who used the excuse of commercial sensitivity. I would have thought that if some business person is listed as a tax defaulter, it would have some commercial impact on his business.

First, will the Minister give me an assurance that in the new scheme he will introduce, he will carefully examine the question of naming and shaming? That would serve as a deterrent to would-be abusers. Second, will the Minister give an assurance that under the new scheme, whenever it is introduced, he will have a proper monitoring system to ensure interns get the experience and skills they have signed up for?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy will understand, more so than most in this House, the potential consequences of impugning the reputation of others. That is definitely something I do not want to be a party to or responsible for. What has been determined in the interim-----

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, what does the Minister mean exactly by that statement?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Exactly that.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, but Deputies cannot raise a point of order in the course of Question Time.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister should answer the question he was asked.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will answer the Deputy's question. In a small number of cases, as a result of on-site inspection processes, the Department formed the view that non-compliance by certain organisations warranted a decision to terminate the internship concerned or to suspend them from future participation for a period depending on the nature of the transgression. In the cases concerned, the decisions were taken on an administrative basis by individual inspectors. The host organisation had no recourse to any review of the decision, which is very different from tax cases. However, it has now been determined, and this is relevant to any future scheme, by the Office of the Information Commissioner that, in future, names of host organisations found to be non-compliant should and can be made available.