Rose Conway Walsh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for coming to the House to talk about this very important issue.

I speak today in the context of the figures released that 52% of the total number of people unemployed are long-term unemployed and that 82,000 are participating in jobs schemes. I am deeply concerned about the involvement of foreign private contractors delivering similar services to that already provided by the local employment services in an effort to reduce the number on the live register. The basic requirement even to be considered eligible to bid was that a company had a minimum turnover of €20 million per year, which excluded many local Irish companies from the scheme.

I am concerned that the local employment services and other such groups are competing with international companies whose very design is to generate huge profits. With these companies driven by profit and wanting to ensure the full payment can be drawn down, there is a danger that the long-term harder to reach unemployed are overlooked in favour of those who are more ready to slip back into certain employment sectors. These companies are paid by results within timelines, in contrast with the LES. For example, mediators use guidance counsellor principles to assist clients as part of the planning process. In many cases this can be extremely labour intensive in supporting individuals to the next step in their progression. This can be especially intensive with those most distant from the labour market or individuals with issues around alcohol, substance misuse or mild depression. Is it not true that if a client has mental health issues or any kind of disability, he or she is referred back to the Department?

I am also concerned that outlying rural areas will be abandoned in the drive for profit maximisation and in the name of efficiency, effectiveness and value for money. The 2016 LES contracts reduced mediator caseloads to 120 activation clients for the first time as part of the Pathways to Work initiative, ensuring activation clients are met and supported on a monthly basis. I am concerned that this reduction is part of the Department's obligations to ensure JobPath contractors have sufficient client referrals to comply with the contractual agreement with the Department. Will the Minister explain why the Government thought it necessary to privatise these services, displacing existing services and engaging British companies when there was no legal obligation to put such services out to tender?

JobPath in Mayo commenced at a time when the economy was starting to improve. It would appear that the JobPath contract came too late and at the taxpayers' expense. Did the Department consider reviewing the LES contracts at the time to deal with the demand generated by the recession?

There is also the issue of those selected for JobPath. They are being forced to travel miles to access services that are provided in the local LES offices. This does not make sense. For instance, we are spending money on taxis to take people from one end of the county to the other when they are passing by their LES office where they could be supported into employment and receive exactly the same, if not better, supports as they would from JobPath.

People are being told to attend the information days and are required to register with, for instance, Seetec in Mayo and the west. If they do not, their social welfare payment will be cut.Once registered, they are no longer eligible for a community employment scheme for up to a year. Again, that makes no sense whatsoever. Additional travel and child care costs are pushing those participating in JobPath into further poverty. Many of those people feel intimidated and live in fear of losing their benefit. An additional payment needs to be considered by the Department. My experience is that clients are not being provided for adequately through the benefits system.

In light of the planned review by the Department of Social Protection of employment services, including JobPath, Jobs Clubs and local employment services, how much has the programme cost to date, that is, the entire tendering process and use of economic research specialists? How much will the programme cost the taxpayer by the end of the four to five year cycle? Are there any break or penalty clauses if the Government decides to pull out early? How can we expect the local employment services to compete with companies that are for profit and are being widely promoted to third parties by Government and the Department of Social Protection?