Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Ba mhaith liom tacú agus cuidiú leis an rún seo. Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I second the motion.

For some, JobPath looks just like another job activation scheme which is aimed at getting jobseekers back to work and which runs alongside other schemes such as the LES, the community employment scheme, Tús, the rural social scheme and Gateway. However, the manner in which it was set up and operates makes it unique. Any scheme which engages over 105,000 people is one that must be closely monitored. As no two jobseekers are the same, a one-size-fits-all scheme such as JobPath is entirely inadequate.

Even if we set aside all of the issues explained by JobPath participants and the devastating impact JobPath is having on the sustainability of other schemes, privatisation remains our fundamental concern. The secrecy, lack of transparency and commercial sensitivity surrounding JobPath raise two questions. How much taxpayers' money is being handed to these private companies? What jobs are being sought for jobseekers? The same issues have been highlighted repeatedly by JobPath participants. I commend the report compiled by my colleagues, Deputies John Brady and Denise Mitchell, in that regard. There are six issues of concern highlighted in the report: the referral of jobseekers to JobPath; the threat of the loss of the jobseeker's payment; the training opportunities for jobseekers with JobPath; the level of training of personal advisers dealing with jobseekers; transport, travel times and the cost of attending meetings; and movement to other schemes. The Department of Social Protection prioritised JobPath as the go-to scheme for jobseekers, above all other readily available schemes.

Those involved in other job activation schemes such as the community employment scheme and the Local Employment Service have described JobPath as the greatest threat to their sustainability, an issue which has been raised with me by community employment scheme supervisors across County Galway. I have raised the issue in the House on a number of occasions. JobPath seems to magically get a list of people coming onto the live register before anyone else can have access to it. By the time other scheme organisers look for participants, they have been snapped up by JobPath. Community employment schemes are struggling to fill places across the State. Every Local Employment Service office in the State, with the exception of one, saw a reduction in the number of referrals from the Department of Social Protection in 2016. Despite these realities, the Minister apparently insisted that neither scheme was suffering as a result of the emergence of JobPath.

I would like to focus on the way the company does its business, based on the personal experience of some of those employed as advisers with JobPath. In the development of the report we were told that virtually no initial training was provided for new personal adviser recruits and that staff turnover was exceptionally high. We were also told that new staff would sit with a personal adviser for two days to learn the ropes and would then be assigned their own jobseekers.

On the referral of jobseekers to Turas Nua, staff were led to believe selection for JobPath was random, but they had reason to believe it was at the discretion of Department of Social Protection case officers. Individuals were sometimes referred to JobPath as punishment because case officers did not like them or found them difficult to deal with. It was stated the invitation to attend JobPath was more of a threat to jobseekers than anything else. We were told that it appeared there was no proper screening of the individuals being referred. We were also told that individuals who had been unemployed for a very short period were referred to JobPath. When the former Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, launched this wonderful scheme, she told us that it would not replace but augment the Department's employment services and focus on the long-term unemployed.

A significant issue is that many applicants travel quite a distance to attend meetings which only last about 15 minutes. A woman in her 60s living in the Carna area in Connemara was told that she had to travel to Carraroe to attend a meeting with JobPath, only to be told that there was no public transport service that could bring her there and back on the same day. She was given leave not to attend the meeting. However, the following week her sister received a similar invitation from JobPath, even though she lived in the same house and was in virtually the same circumstances.

On the JobPath contract to be signed by jobseekers, we were told that significant emphasis was placed on ensuring clients signed JobPath contracts at the first meeting. An employee stated, "We were basically told not to let those people out of the building without signing a contract." In one instance an assessor witnessed a client who had refused to sign being called into a private room with a manager who sat with the person concerned for over an hour until he signed the contract.We are told that very few left without signing a personal progression plan.

With regard to data protection, at least one case was witnessed where staff were directed to delete emails and files on a client. We were told that the client had raised issues with the then Department of Social Protection and had written to the then Minister, Deputy Varadkar, about her personal data in the possession of Turas Nua. When management in the office was informed of this it had all data referencing this individual removed.

As regards the questionnaire to be completed by jobseekers at initial meetings we were told that the 90 questions are very personal and confidential: “Some of these questions are highly personal, and shouldn't be asked. They dealt with things like mental state, financial situation and general health. If a garda asked me I wouldn't answer them." With regard to travelling to appointments we were told: "Travel reimbursement was not always offered to customers, some of whom might have been able to afford their bus or train ticket, but it was supposed to be paid to every customer who attended appointments on submission of their travel ticket for scanning."

We were told that the pressure on JobPath's personal advisers is immense and more focus is placed on administration work than on dealing with clients. They likened it to working in telephone sales. They said pressure was placed on staff to reach a quota of meetings per week with 100 to 120 clients. Some of them believe there was no value in the clients attending the scheme. In some cases we are told that in order to reach the quota of clients per week, advisers would often organise a group of clients to come in and sit at a computer bank applying for jobs. I was also told that on more than one occasion individuals with very poor literacy skills were witnessed being handed leaflets and told to read them. Older people with no computer skills and who previously worked in manual labour or transport jobs were put in front of computers with little to no help. We were told that Turas Nua is constantly recruiting because it cannot retain staff for more than a few months as "anybody with an ounce of dignity, self-respect or a brain won't stay".

Who is involved in Seetec and Turas Nua? Recently, one of the companies operating this job activation programme has been accused in the Dáil of fraud. We are told that Seetec Limited fraudulently claimed that it had got a participant a job. It forced a man to sign documents confirming he was present at sessions he did not attend as otherwise he would not have been paid. Consider the parent companies of the two companies from England that are running these schemes. One of them is accused of engaging in systemic fraud by its former chief auditor. According to a newspaper article, in evidence given to the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts the firm's former head of internal audit, Eddie Hutchinson, claimed that "fraud and irregularity became so extensive and disruptive to the work of the internal audit team ... that by May 2008 ... both [auditors were] suffering from exhaustion and stress due to the immense physical demands being placed on us as we chased such incidents at many locations across England, Scotland and Wales". There is also another company where the CEO had to step down due to questions.

I agree that the Committee of Public Accounts should be allowed to investigate these contracts, how they are working, what money is being spent, how it is being spent and the track record of these companies. What due diligence was carried out when these contracts were given? We seriously oppose this privatisation. I am disappointed that Fianna Fáil in its amendment appears to fully endorse the privatisation of these services. It is a very retrograde step.