Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

“Guidelines on development of Personal Progression Plans

20.The Minister for Employment and Social Protection shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay guidelines before the Houses of the Oireachtas on the principles and parameters which must underpin the development and agreement of “personal progression plans” by any third party contracted by the Department in respect of labour activation. These guidelines are to include:

(a)a requirement that any individual in respect of whom a personal progression plan is being developed is presented with options in terms of education, training and employment;

(b)a requirement that any individual in respect of whom a personal progression plan is being developed be entitled to possession of a hard copy of any proposed personal progression plan prior to signing and be free to seek external advice on that proposed personal progression plan prior to signing;

(c)prohibition on any text requiring an individual to share data in respect of family members or cohabitees;

(d)prohibition of any text requiring an individual to share contact information, or permit contact, in respect of any employer who has offered that individual employment independently of the third party;

(e)recommendations to ensure compliance with General Data Protection Regulation.”.

This amendment seeks to provide for guidelines in respect of personal progression plans and, in particular, how they are used by third parties contracted by the Department for the purposes of labour activation and not by the Department itself. I am thinking of agencies such as Turas Nua and Seetec which have been contracted in respect of the JobPath programme. There may be another way to ensure that the issues are addressed but the guidelines that I am proposing would touch on a number of issues of concern around how JobPath is operating on the ground and the requirements made of people in terms of personal progression plans.

It is positive if people are given the opportunity to look forward and to develop a plan for their future. However, it has been indicated that inappropriate language is contained in the personal progression plans which people are being required to sign in order to indicate that they are co-operating. Like the Minister, I too believe that most people want to and will seize opportunities. However, where people will not sign a particular piece of paper because they have legitimate concerns about the language in it and how it binds them, they are being regarded as not co-operating and, in effect, the activation and employment process does not proceed.

I want to highlight a number of key points. It is important that a person is offered options. This may be practice rather than policy or principle, but we have heard that people often feel they are not given full options in terms of education, training and employment. In many cases, those who have engaged with JobPath have felt like they were strongly pushed towards a particular option and have not felt like they were able to consider it fully. That is one concern.

We have heard of people being given a personal progression plan and asked to sign it before they are allowed to take a copy to seek advice, to discuss it or to compare it with others. It is extremely poor practice that anyone would be asked to sign a contract before being given a copy of it to take away. That is another key concern and I am seeking to address these issues because they are arising in practice. There may be other ways to address them. Perhaps they are not there in principle, but we need to give credence to what we hear from a number of sources.

Paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) are linked. This comes back to the general data protection regulation, which we discussed extensively in terms of the public services card, and people being inappropriately compelled to give information that is not necessary to the task at hand. I have seen in at least one personal progression plan, and have heard that it may be standard, text that requires an individual to share data in respect of family members or co-habitees and to report any change in theirs or their spouse's circumstances. While these issues may be discussed in terms of case work, these companies, if contracted simply to provide an activation and employment support for an individual, are not payment agencies. We have often been reminded that they are not payment agencies, nor are they sanctioning agencies. It would not seem appropriate that people would be required to give information about another individual with whom they may be living, for example, a spouse. That person may have his or her own relationship with Intreo or may not be in the JobPath system. Therefore, there is a real concern about the requirement for that information to be given as a sign of co-operation.

Another concern is around text which requires people to agree to share contact information and permit contact with an employer they may have sourced outside and entirely separate to the third party. If those in JobPath were to find a job on their own, perhaps a dream job or one with a small business, of course it is relevant that they would inform the Department that they are now in employment and no longer need jobseeker's allowance or benefit. However, I cannot see how it is appropriate or necessary for them to inform Seetec or Turas Nua not only of the contact details of their new employer but to permit contact with that new employer. They no longer require the services of these companies.

Deputy Murphy has highlighted in the Dáil situations where Seetec and Turas Nua have contacted a new employer, which the person sourced himself or herself, and asked it to sign paperwork to indicate that the job was sourced through it when it was not. We can only imagine how difficult and, in some cases, embarrassing it is for individuals to have their first week or two in new employment overshadowed by contact from a delegated third party company. It is not the right way for anyone who had the initiative to find a job to begin his or her new employment.

Will the Minister address those concerns? I have proposed one way to address them; the Minister may have other ways.