Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The story for people with disabilities continues to worsen year after year. Access to therapies is simply appalling and respite care and opportunities for work for people with disabilities are very poor. The assessment of need statutory rules are continuously breached, but much worse is happening. I could go through a whole range of services for people with disabilities which are very poor indeed.

The latest survey on income and living conditions, SILC, data reveals the deterioration in the numbers of people with disabilities who are out of work due to illness. The situation has deteriorated between, for example, 2014 and 2015. There was a significant increase in the number of people with disabilities at risk of poverty, from 25% to 34%. The consistent poverty rate increased from 14% to 22%. The Taoiseach knows that living in poverty and social exclusion is difficult, but it is particularly difficult for people with a disability.

I refer to the assessment of needs under the Disability Act. At the end of May this year, there were nearly 4,120 children waiting longer than the three-month statutory rule for assessment.

The Taoiseach knows that delays in getting assessments mean delays in interventions and this compromises the future development potential of any child in terms of their well-being and their future lives. We have now reached the stage where families are launching an action against the State to compel it to assess their children within the statutory guidelines.

We also know that the Government scrapped the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant in 2013. An interdepartmental group was established. The Taoiseach was Minister for Health at the time and probably had some knowledge of this. The Minister for Health was given responsibility for bringing in a new scheme for people with disabilities. We have been waiting for the new scheme for four years and seven months, longer than the duration of the First World War. There is no excuse for this inertia and lack of progress.

In terms of essential therapies, particularly occupational therapy, the assessment waiting lists have surged by nearly 50% in two years. A total of 29,600 individuals are waiting, of which 6,800 have been waiting over a year for an assessment for occupational therapy. The figures up to the end of May show an increase of 9,000-odd over the 2015 figure. The largest cohort consists of those under 17. Nearly half of people on that list are under 17. This is only for assessment. We all know about the long delays in terms of subsequent intervention and the provision of services and that those involved in disability are very disillusioned by the response in terms of the disability strategy and so forth. Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that things are bad, that they are getting worse for children, teenagers and people with disabilities and that there is an urgent need in the forthcoming budget and the Estimates to once and for all tackle this unacceptable blight on our society?

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

I acknowledge absolutely that there are lots of shortcomings and problems and that plenty more needs to be done. This is something that will have to form part of the budget and the Estimates process. I am sure we will find additional funding for disability services next year, as we did last year. On behalf of the Government, I want to say that we are very much committed to improving the lives of people with disabilities, supporting their families and providing more opportunities for people with disabilities.

The Deputy mentioned some of the shortcomings and failings. It is also important to balance that by acknowledging some of the progress that has been made, particularly under the leadership of the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath. Examples include a €90-million increase in the budget for disability services last year, which was very significant; a 34% increase in people with disabilities accessing higher education, which is very welcome and has happened over the past number of years; the first increase in weekly payments for people with disabilities, the blind, the incapacitated, invalids and their carers in eight years as a result of the previous budget; the full restoration of the carer's support grant in the budget prior to that; and real progress on medical cards, which is hugely important. Any child with a severe disability whose parents must provide domiciliary care is now entitled to a medical card by right. This has provided an extra 10,000 medical cards for children with disabilities while 40,000 are no longer subject to reviews. This has been very much welcomed across the country.

Other decisions include the fact that somebody receiving disability allowance who takes up work keeps their free travel for five years while the requirement that the work be rehabilitative has been abolished. There are many other examples I could mention. It is important to acknowledge progress and the fact that more progress needs to be made and that more needs to be done in this space. There will always be more work to be done. That is why we have Governments. Disability will be taken very seriously in the Estimates process, the budget and the service plan for the year ahead.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a very disappointing complacency - almost a smugness - in the Taoiseach's response to issues of this kind. It is now standard practice and a mantra whereby the Taoiseach will just itemise what he sees as positives and so on but will not deal with the hard questions that are asked. If one asked the basic question about access to therapies for children, teenagers and indeed older people in any county in this country, the answer would be that they are appalling.

The Taoiseach did not respond at all to the figures I outlined there and the crisis in access to assessment of need as per the Disability Act and with regard to getting proper services in occupational therapy, speech, physiotherapy and much more. It is not a good story. We can describe many cases. For example, there is one involving parents of a four-year old child who was referred for assessment in 2015. The child was assessed 14 months later. That is criminal with regard to that child's potential development. Another child of seven years of age was referred in 2014 and the parents were told that no funding was available for services. Parents are being told by the services to complain. Another child, aged six, was aged two when diagnosis was applied for and four when diagnosed.

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

The Deputy's time is up.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are other such cases. Parents of a nine-year old child in a similar situation were told that no services were available. Those parents really do not want to hear the Taoiseach, Minister for Health or Minister of State with responsibility for disability reeling off statistics. They are fed up with rhetoric and publication of a strategy which Senator John Dolan has said has no targets.

Finian McGrath (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Back me up in the Estimates.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are fed up.

Finian McGrath (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are on the list.

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

The Deputy's time is up.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not worried about backing up the Minister of State.

Finian McGrath (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I told the parents' lobby-----

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

Thank you, Deputy McGrath.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am interested in the families who are at the end of their tether-----

Finian McGrath (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now is Deputy Martin's chance.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and who really want-----

Finian McGrath (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Support and services.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----to get beyond rhetoric and beyond strategies, and want real services for them on the ground. They would expect the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, to deal with it-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and the Government as well.

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

The Deputy is way over time.

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

I assure the Deputy that I am just as interested in people with disabilities and their families as he is. I do not think any party in this House has a monopoly on compassion and I do not think any party in the House should claim to. I assure the Deputy that everyone on these benches, both Fine Gael and Independents, is doing their best to assist people with disabilities through constituency work and through our work as Ministers. Many of us have people with disabilities in our families so I do not think, in this House, we should engage in some way in trying to make out that some party or group has a monopoly on compassion because it is just not true.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nobody ever claimed that.

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

I do not accept that my response is complacent. I am just offering balance and accuracy and if I can acknowledge that there are failings and shortcomings, surely Deputy Martin should be big enough to acknowledge that there has been progress as well? Everything I itemised is genuine progress and has really happened. To mention the sort of thing that is being done in the budget this year, there is a €1.688 billion budget for social care. Some 8,400 residential places will be provided, 182,000 respite overnight care nights, 1.4 million personal assistance hours for 2,400 people with disabilities and 24,800 day places, 41,000 day respite sessions, decongregation is happening at pace and people are being moved out of institutional settings and into community houses though not as many as we would like or as quickly as we would like-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It takes up to two years to get an assessment of need in Cork.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It takes up to two years.

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

Genuine work is ongoing. I am willing to accept that there are shortcomings and-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not talking about shortcomings, but a crisis.

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

-----failings. More progress will be made and I guarantee the Deputy that more progress will be made in the years ahead but it is disappointing that the opposition is unable to acknowledge any progress that has been made, which is substantial, and I gave examples which are certainly not made up, and I encourage people to check them.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is disappointing that the Government does not understand its failings.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This morning, members of the Irish Farmers Association have gathered at the European Commission's office in Dublin to protest against the Commission's offer of a 70,000 tonne beef quota to Argentina, Brazil and other Mercosur countries, as reported recently. All the main farming organisations across this island have quite rightly opposed this move. Farming organisations agree that there must be a commitment to remove beef and poultry from the agreement or risk destroying one of our biggest and most internationally reputable industries. If the reports of the 70,000 tonne quota are true, then our beef sector and livelihoods of farmers are being sacrificed for a deal with South America. This would create huge difficulties at any time but given the unfolding risk of Brexit, particularly for rural Ireland and its agri-food industry, these difficulties are magnified.

Irish farmers have stood up in the past against Brazilian beef imports. They did so for economic reasons but also to safeguard our high standards in animal welfare and health. How can this quantity of beef be accepted from states which do not observe the most basic standards?

The Taoiseach will be aware - he was at the ploughing championships - that farm income is reaching disastrously low levels, especially for small farmers but instead of coming up with measures to tackle this problem to take farmers out of the risk of poverty, the Commission is pushing ahead with its cheap food policy as well as other free trade agreements, such as the New Zealand free trade agreement and the Canada-EU trade agreement.

In a recent video message, the Taoiseach stated that he was very much in favour of the Mercosur deal because free trade makes everyone better off by creating jobs and revenues, although he has acknowledged that there is a particular concern for our Irish beef sector. This seems to be a completely contradictory statement. The Taoiseach then goes on claim that he wants to make sure that we insist on the highest standards of animal welfare and also health and safety, and also make sure that our beef farmers are competing on a level playing field. Riddle me this. What does that mean? Will the Taoiseach tell us exactly what that means because he does not state that he will block the deal?

The Taoiseach has been a cheerleader, like his Fianna Fáil partners, for free trade deals. For example, the Canada-EU trade agreement, which the Taoiseach defended yesterday, will allow for up to 65,000 tonnes of beef to be imported into the EU tariff free along with 65,000 tonnes of pork. The Mercosur states already supply up to 75% of third country beef imports to the EU market and giving them greater access would be a huge mistake. I am asking the Taoiseach to intervene and be clear, to make it plain to the Commission that it should not proceed with this trade deal.

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

First, I am glad that Deputy Adams is watching my video messages. They seem to be having some traction, at least in terms of getting accurate messages across, not only to the public but also to opponents. I have intervened already. I met President Juncker in Tallinn specifically to talk about Mercosur. I met the IFA about it. Deputy Adams can be sure that many of those at the ploughing championships and the Iverk agriculture show in Kilkenny raised it with me.

I left President Juncker in no doubt or Ireland's position with regard to our beef sector. I reminded him of his state of the Union speech in which he stated that we do not only export products and services, we also export our standards and values. I said that I expected that to be reflected in any free trade deal, that our standards of animal welfare, of animal health and of food safety would be reflected and written into any trade deal. I also expressed my opposition to an offer of the scale that Deputy Adams mentioned. That is the position of the Government.

We need to bear in mind, however, that free trade deals are not only about one sector or one part of one sector. They are about a whole picture. We have to judge what is best for the Irish economy in the round, what is best for Irish jobs in the round and what is best for Irish people's incomes in the round. That is how we approach free trade agreements. We look at them in the round. What I want is a Mercosur agreement, a trade agreement between the EU and Latin America, that would be of benefit to Ireland. I cannot see myself or the Government, or the Dáil - it would require the ratification of the Dáil - approving a free trade agreement that did not do that.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it another rubber stamp job like CETA?

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

Deputy Adams can be assured that any trade agreement between the EU and Mercosur will have to benefit Ireland if it is going to pass the Government and this Parliament.

Once again I detect an ambiguity in Sinn Féin's position towards the European Union. At present, Sinn Féin is campaigning against Brexit, it wants to keep Northern Ireland in the European Union and yet along the way it voted against every European referendum and opposed every free trade agreement. Essentially, the European Union is a free trade block. It is at the core of what the European Union does.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We could shape it, though. The Taoiseach does not have to descend down to them.

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

We have free trade among ourselves. We have a customs union. We have a Single Market. We negotiate trade deals with other parts of the world-----

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We do not discuss them in here.

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

-----and we do so from a position of strength because we are the largest economy in the world with 500 million people and that allows us to negotiate beneficial deals with places, such as Canada, Japan and, at present, Mercosur.

Sinn Féin really needs to decide whether or not it is a eurosceptic party because its position-----

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can engage with Europe without accepting everything.

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

-----is just an impossible contradiction. The party says that it does not want Northern Ireland to leave the European Union and that it is against Brexit and yet it consistently opposes what is fundamentally at the heart of the European Union, which is economic integration, free trade agreements with other parts of the world, a Single Market and customs union.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I assure the Taoiseach that I am an avid watcher of his videos. I think he could relax a wee bit in terms of his delivery but so far, so good. He is doing not so badly.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would commend Twitter to him as well as a means of communication with the masses.

There is no ambiguity in Sinn Féin's attitude to the European Union. We are quite rightly critical of a two tier Europe. I asked the Taoiseach to intervene in very plain words and very direct language and he said - he can correct me if I am wrong - that he is against an offer of this scale. That is not good enough. Everybody here knows that the agrifood industry is one of Ireland's big success stories. We also know that the rural way of life is under continuous threat from urbanisation and bad Government policy. We all agree that Brexit presents a huge difficulty so to even contemplate proceeding at this time, before the conclusion of the Brexit negotiations is foolhardy. The Taoiseach cannot take this deal in isolation. The Taoiseach spoke about ambiguity but his own track record in terms of the Canada, the EU trade agreement and the New Zealand free trade agreement is a matter of grave concern. I am asking the Taoiseach to defend our agrifood industry. I said that there is an urgent need for him to intervene, not to just use soft words or ambiguous statements. He needs to say "No" to the European Commission and "Yes" to Irish farmers, farming families and to our agrifood producers.

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

Deputy Adams will be delighted to know that I am also an avid follower of his tweets.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a coalition on the way.

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

There is one thing-----

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a love-in.

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

-----that I absolutely agree with Deputy Adams about and that is the success of our agrifood industry. Why is our agrifood industry successful? It is not because we produce for own market but because we export. It is trade, and free trade, that makes agrifood successful in Ireland. It is the fact that we trade so much with the United Kingdom, the rest of Europe and increasingly, with China. On balance, trade is good for Irish agriculture. If we did not have free trade, we would only produce for our own market and huge numbers of farms would go out of business and become non-viable. That is why our starting position should be an openness to free trade because free trade and exports are what has made Irish agrifood so successful. That is why we should not come from a starting position of fear and protectionism; we should be open to free trade agreements.

This is an agreement that does not even exist yet. It is something that is under negotiation. The approach that Sinn Féin seems to be advocating, which is so often its approach, is to be against it before it even knows what it is. That is not a grown-up approach to government.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We know what it is.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We know what we have discussed in here.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016 passed Second Stage without any opposition last November. It seeks to enshrine ownership and management of our public water system in the Constitution by way of a referendum. The Taoiseach has outlined a programme of seven referenda over the next year or so but there is no mention of a referendum on water. The former Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, is on record as being in favour of a referendum and the current Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, has indicated to me informally that he would also be in favour of such a referendum. In my view there is widespread support for such a referendum. One of the main factors behind the opposition to water charges was the belief that paying for water would eventually lead to privatisation in the future. The expert group on water charges, despite having no remit on the issue, took the unprecedented step of including in its report a recommendation for a referendum, given that virtually every submission made to it raised this issue.

That recommendation was reiterated in the report of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services. The Bill has been sitting in scrutiny for nearly a year now while the Minister responsible awaits advice from the Attorney General. This is because of some concern over the private group schemes and over wells on private land. My legal adviser, Séamus Ó Tuathail SC, spoke at the committee and stated that there is a clear distinction between the public and private water systems and that the Bill makes it clear that it refers only to the former. If the Attorney General has concerns, however, I am sure that these could be met through the appropriate wording of the Bill.

My real concern is that there is a Government strategy, possibly supported by Fianna Fáil, to let this Bill sit in committee and wither and die. I ask the Taoiseach to give a commitment that this is not the case; to acknowledge that the Attorney General has had considerable time to scrutinise the legislation; to move amendments on Committee Stage proper so that they can be scrutinised; to send the Bill back here for final Stages; and to set a date for the referendum.

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

I understand that the Bill is still under consideration. As to the appropriateness of any wording, I have not spoken to the Attorney General about it for some time so I will have to do so in the coming weeks and see where he is with it. I would point out, however, that any urgency on the referendum on the ownership of public water has gone. When Irish Water was set up as a semi-State company with water charges to cover most of its income, I can understand that there was a concern, even if I do not agree with it, that it might have been privatised in the future. There is now absolutely no possibility of our public water services being privatised because they require a State subvention of €1 billion a year, both capital and current, just to exist. Privatising our public water services is like suggesting that somebody might want to privatise our national schools: it is impossible and absurd. I can understand that there was a worry about this, even though it was not a legitimate one, when we were going the commercial semi-State route. Now that we are not, however, it is hardly relevant anymore. I would like to prioritise referenda over the next few years that actually make a difference and might actually change something. I just do not see the value of having a referendum to say that we cannot privatise our national schools, our cemeteries or the like.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am obviously underwhelmed by the Taoiseach's response. There is popular support for this referendum, as the Taoiseach is well aware. Many Right to Change and Right to Water activists signed and campaigned for this. The reason there was such an intense and strong opposition to the installation of meters in communities was that there was an understanding that every meter installed brought us one step closer to privatisation. Practically every party and group in the Dáil has spoken in favour of this Bill, and during the debate on the Water Services Bill last week nearly every Deputy spoke on this referendum. The Taoiseach has stated that this referendum is not urgent. The question of excess water is on the agenda of Fine Gael's Water Services Bill, however. It is not in the form of a fine as agreed by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil at committee; it is now in the form of a payment. The Bill also gives the Minister the right to reduce the excessive water limit in five years' time. We know that big multinationals are out there waiting to take our water and they are willing to wait a long time for it. It is really crucial, then, that this country enshrines the right to a public water system into our Constitution for future generations. It should be done.

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

I disagree with Deputy Collins's analysis of this. Irish Water is no longer a commercial entity. It requires a subvention from the taxpayer of €1 billion a year just to exist. Who is going to buy that? Nobody is. There are no plans and no realistic possibility of there being any privatisation of public water services in the future. The referenda which we have given an indicative schedule for are those which will actually make a difference to people's lives. It may be a minor difference in some cases, for example, ending the prohibition on blasphemy. In other cases the difference could be very significant, such as allowing people to get divorced more quickly. I do not see how this water referendum would make a blind bit of difference because Irish Water is quite simply not a commercial entity and there is no possibility of it being privatised.

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

I call Deputy Catherine Murphy on behalf of the Social Democrats.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yesterday, while speaking on the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill, I raised serious concerns regarding the so-called activation programme, JobPath. The company which has the contract to run JobPath is Seetec. In the United Kingdom, the same company, Seetec, has been the subject of a fraud investigation following its actions while contracted to the UK Department of Work and Pensions.

The case I raised yesterday referred to a father of two who had some casual employment which was being supplemented by a payment from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. In order to keep that payment, he was obliged to participate in the JobPath scheme, despite the fact that the nature of his casual work made him an unsuitable candidate, which was acknowledged by all sides at the time. As a result of the JobPath obligations, he lost the small amount of casual work he had and he became fully reliant on a social protection payment, which is the opposite of what the Taoiseach is trying to achieve. He claims he was repeatedly asked to sign documents verifying attendance at sessions he had not in fact attended and was threatened with his payment being cut off if he refused to sign. He was refused a training course of his choosing and instead given one he had no interest in but with the promise that there would be a job at the end of it, but there was no job at the end of it. He was prohibited from accepting any other external offers of employment during the training time and threatened with sanctions if he accepted work outside of the JobPath scenario. Eventually he could no longer refuse work and he took a job. It was at that point that Seetec really showed its teeth. He and his new employer became absolutely pestered by Seetec to fill in forms, fraudulently stating that JobPath had actually secured the employment for him, which it had not. When he refused to do so he was cajoled, shouted at, threatened and harassed. The same happened to his employer, so much so that eventually the employer signed the forms.

This man came to see me because he felt he had to highlight what appears to be, to all intents and purposes, systematic fraud occurring under the auspices of a Government Department. In the UK, Seetec was accused of artificially inflating the number of jobs it claimed it was finding people. It appears not much has changed. Was the Department aware of the very serious issues in the UK and the investigation of the UK Public Accounts Committee regarding the issues with Seetec before the JobPath contract was awarded. What due diligence was involved? If I were to read back over all the parliamentary replies from Deputy Joan Burton when she was Minister, I note that one of the point she made was that the potential for inflating figures has been taken into considering when designing JobPath. Does that comment suggest there was an acceptance by the Department that fraudulent practices were unavoidable?

Given the Taoiseach's former role in the Department of Social Protection, as it was then titled, is he aware of similar complaints and concerns that were raised regarding JobPath or, indeed, Turas Nua and, if so, what has been done about it?

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

This, perhaps, would be a question better put to the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection who would be more up to date on these details than I would be but I will try to answer the Deputy as best I can. First, there are two companies that have contracts under JobPath, one is Seetec and the other is Turas Nua. I am not sure what the UK company to which the Deputy referred is. Perhaps it is a company that is part of Seetec or part of the conglomeration, or whatever the term is, that forms Seetec, but it is would not be Seetec itself; it would be a different legal entity, as far as I recall. So far JobPath has been a very successful programme. It was originally introduced by the then Minister of State, the former Deputy Kevin Humphreys, and the then Minister, Deputy Burton, and it now continues. We see that from the fact that unemployment is now at 6.1% and, long-term unemployment, which other countries have struggled to get down, is now down around 3%. That is in large part due to the intensive one-to-one work that the JobPath companies do with people.

I cannot comment on an individual case, even if I had the details, which I do not, as there would of course be issues of confidentiality and privacy. What I can say is that there is a quarterly survey done of clients' satisfaction with Seetec and Turas Nua and the vast majority of individuals who interact with Seetec and Turas Nua, the JobPath companies, report very high satisfaction levels. When dealing with hundreds of thousands of clients, there will always be a number who will have had a bad experience, for one reason or another. We should not base any policy on an individual case, rather they all have to be taken in the round.

There is a complaints mechanism and a person can complain to the company. If he or she is not satisfied with how the complaint is being dealt with, a complaint can be made to the Department. I assume that has happened in this case, but, again, as it is an individual case, I do not know the details of it.

In terms of payment, I think the Deputy may misunderstand the contract. The way it works is that the JobPath companies receive an initial registration fee when someone is referred to them. They are only paid if someone is given a full-time job and holds onto it for more than 13 weeks. It is not that Seetec or Turas Nua have to find a job for the person concerned. They may do, but they do not have to. The key test for payment is whether the person has found a job for himself or herself, perhaps with the help of Seetec or Turas Nua, and holding onto it.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Since I raised the issue, a range of people have come forward with similar scenarios and the same complaint has been made to the Committee of Public Accounts by way of letter, as I discovered this morning. It will be included in the correspondence to be dealt with. I hear from people that no referrals are happening. It appears that it is just about keeping people on the books for Turas Nua. I am not prepared to dismiss complaints made to me by members of the public who, at the end of the day, are the end-users of the service. When they come with convincing stories about their treatment, the Department has an obligation to follow up on them. There appears to be too many of them to ignore the issue, as appears to be the case from even a cursory glance of some of the things on the Internet.

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

I have absolutely no doubt that there are individuals who have had bad experiences of these companies and that many of the complaints are genuine. Complaints are welcome and should be made. There is a system by which people can make them about issues to the companies and the Department after that. It is a couple of months since I was in the Department with responsibility for social protection issues. However, if I recall correctly, out of 200,000 or 300,000 referrals, there were perhaps 100 or 200 complaints, which is in the 0.1% category. However, complaints should, of course, be taken seriously. They should be made and welcomed as they are often a good way to improve services. That applies to public services also, whether those provided by Intreo, health services or the education system, but the fact that there are complaints should not form the basis for bringing down a whole programme or service.