Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I thank the proposer of the motion and the proposer of the amendment.

There are certain things with which we can all agree. For example, the idea that it is important people are given supports to access appropriate routes out of unemployment, be that education, training or employment and that there is a need to give people a range of skills and options in terms of courses. However, we must ask a few questions about JobPath. Is JobPath an appropriate tool? Is it adequate? How is the scheme operating? To be clear, everybody who is here is concerned about ensuring that the State does more to support people and give them options. The problem is that JobPath does not seem to be properly designed and fit for purpose in order to achieve that goal.

Much of what I want to say is in the form of questions for the Minister. Much as I am very happy to have the Minister of State here, I regret that the Minister for Enterprise and Social Protection is not here to answer questions directly. We will follow up on this matter because it will be considered by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection.

I support the Sinn Féin motion because it has very positive points. However, there are some valid and constructive points in the amendment tabled by Fianna Fáil. As I have said before on occasion, I hope that in future we move to a situation whereby amendments to motions are tabled rather than replacements of motions and that we have a little more co-operation across the House to ensure we get changes. I would like to be here today speaking in favour of a combination of the elements mentioned. What is very strong and important in the Sinn Féin motion is that it rightfully asks the questions that need to be asked about the privatisation of a public service. What I think is very strong in Fianna Fáil's amendment, and also in Senator Ardagh's speech that was good and strong, was the emphasis placed on a need for choice, and principle of choice, in terms of what is offered to people. I refer to the respect and dignity that must be shown to people who access services. I also wish to refer to the specific reviews on specific aspects of JobPath that have been called for in the amendment. These are strong points in both the motion and the amendment. I hope that we can work with everyone to bring these forward in meetings of the committee.

I wish to diffuse the situation. Let us remember that this is a non-binding motion and, therefore, we will not see 70,000 suddenly become unemployed. We will see a strong alarm signal being emitted in respect of JobPath and how it operates that the Government would be wise to listen to. As was said earlier, alarm bells were sounded in respect of JobBridge and how it operated. There was also information from the ground as to its problems and anomalies. As a result the scheme ended up being discontinued altogether. It behoves the Government to listen to the concerns that have been expressed and I urge it not to adopt a defensive mode. Again, surveys were used to justify JobBridge. Unfortunately, there were abuses and anomalies and it is important to listen to them.

I have questions that need to be answered by the Government. I remember when the tender for JobPath was first proposed because I attended the Social Inclusion Forum as a representative of an NGO in civil society. At the time we queried the tendering out of these services to private companies. We were told that it was necessary as we moved into a new era of public procurement in Europe. In fact, European public procurement rules, including the new rules that were introduced in 2015, give considerable scope to Governments to protect the public delivery specifically of social protection services. They do that for good reason. They do it so that governments can ensure the accountability of their social protection services. If we discover that JobPath fails, what policies and strategies are in place? Does the Government have the capacity to move away from the privatisation of the service and return it to public delivery?

We need more case workers but JobPath was proposed at a time when there was a public recruitment freeze. We no longer have a freeze on public recruitment so why not have more case workers who are accountable. This aspect is important because, as we have heard, when there is a private company involved and one has someone who works for a private company then in the end he or she is not simply and not directly a public servant. The person seeking assistance is not necessarily the key and only main client for the JobPath individual. The person performing the interview is answerable to a company that has shareholders and profit targets that must be met. The companies are answerable to a contractor. In many cases there is also inattention because of instances where they are answerable or seeking, as a key relationship, the companies that they may regularly send large volumes of people to.

There are questions about where the focus of case workers lies. I am saying this again not to identify any of the individuals, and I am sure there are many committed individuals who work for JobPath. I wish to say that there is a concern when there is a privatised service. We have seen what incentive schemes have done in other countries. We have seen the very serious concerns about fraud in the UK because people try to hit targets and figures rather than simply working to secure not only an outcome but the best outcome for the individual who the person is supporting as a case worker.

There is also a question about the percentage and weighting that exists in the giving of contracts to Seetec and Turas Nua. I refer to the training, the training level and ongoing training of such staff and front-line case workers.