Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for the opportunity to discuss JobPath, which I recognise is one part of a comprehensive set of other measures we are discussing in the Committee on Social Protection. I have two or three questions on JobPath. A concern I have in respect of JobPath, and I would appreciate the opportunity to have it addressed, is that it saw a very rapid scaling up, with 60,000 talked about as the number of cases that would be processed. It is a very large-scale project.The scaling up of some of the other initiatives and schemes rolled out was not at this level.

I am also concerned about a matter which I am sure has been dealt with and discussed at length, that is, the fact that the programme is contracted to private service deliverers, namely, Seetec and Turas Nua. I apologise for my lateness in joining the debate.

I shall refer first to my macro-concern and then to my micro-concern. Given that we are talking this very new step on such a wide scale, how reversible or changeable is it? We know that under the public procurement legislation at European level, states have a right to exclude certain health and social services from competition in public procurement. Has there been an analysis made of whether having JobPath tendered for and delivered by private contractors potentially diminishes our right to reserve public delivery and, through it, public accountability for these services?

Much of the rationale initially concerned capacity. These measures were being implemented when we were coming out of a very significant public service recruitment freeze. If, having engaged in this experiment, the State were to decide to move back to a period of recruiting front-line staff and increasing the capacity of front-line case workers within the public system and delivering services through that route, how would it be managed? What is the analysis? How would it fit within European public procurement contracts? When JobPath was first being introduced, concern was expressed by community groups about this issue. They were told that it had to be contracted out because the European Union required it, but it did not, in fact, require it. That there was a little misinformation on this issue at the very beginning is a concern.

Another core concern about JobPath from the beginning is that there seems to be a very small percentage allocated to increase the capacity of and for the training of staff. The training and skill levels of staff did not seem to be weighted as heavily as they might have been in the allocation of the contract.

Let me move to the core issue, the operation of JobPath. I appreciate that, given the scale of JobPath, we will hear all kinds of story, positive and negative. I will outline a couple of key concerns. Owing to the random selection process, is the initiative delivering the appropriate casework? At a meeting of the social protection committee representatives of the Labour Market Council expressed concern that people might not be routed to the job that was most maximising and progressive in terms of their careers. That was a wider concern. Concern has also been expressed about the focus on a jobs-first approach. At the meeting of the committee we heard that we potentially needed to consider giving a stronger weighting to education and training. My concern relates to the opportunities to avail of education and training for those who are participating. If people decide they want to reroute to the back-to-education allowance, for example, or if they find a community employment scheme, what is the position? I accept that we need better progression from community employment schemes. How can someone exit JobPath and re-enter an area to use a more appropriate skill?

There is also concern about the conversations between JobPath providers, as commercial providers, and other companies and corporations. Some concerning issues have arisen, including over the family income supplement, in conversations between employment services and employers. It is important that the service be in place to serve individuals, not preferred companies, for example, particularly if the companies have poor employment practices. With whom is it appropriate for companies to work? In what way should they be working in this regard?

The question of sanction also arises. The Minister has specified that sanction should take place within Intreo offices, not through JobPath. Nonetheless, there is a very strong perception and concern that if one does not take up a role recommended by a JobPath case worker, one may be vulnerable to sanction. That is a concern that needs to be addressed.

By focusing on the live register, are we again missing an opportunity to deal with the many thousands of people who may, on a voluntary basis, wish to access employment services but who do not want to enter a system with the potential for sanction, with these rigid targets and a more rigid set of potential outcomes? The local employment services which did an exemplary job in many parts and were open to all, including those not on the live register, are potentially where we should be refocusing our energy. I refer to an arrangement without sanction but one which encourages voluntary engagement, including for the many women who have fallen out of the live register system.