Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

A personal progression plan is an organic document that is personal to the individual jobseeker. I cannot state in more strenuous terms that it is not a contract or a legally binding document. It is a progression plan for someone who is out of work to get him or her into work. It is as simple as that. The Senator, as have others, has referred to them but these plans are not unique to Turas Nua or Seetec. These companies happen to be two agents operating for us around the country, but the same personal progression plans are developed for those availing of our Intreo services. If there is a criticism, it cannot be confined to Seetec or Turas Nua. There are as many personal progression plans availed of through our Intreo offices as there are elsewhere.

The plan is developed in consultation between the jobseeker and the adviser, whether that is an Intreo adviser or an agency adviser. It is a supporting and enabling document which is meant to map out the person's journey towards upskilling, getting rid of barriers to employment a person might face and finding pathways to a job. The jobseeker is getting one-on-one treatment weekly from an adviser, which is what the provision of activation support is all about. It is about working closely with people to ensure that we get the best results for the individual given his or her current circumstances.

The laying down of such prescriptive and restrictive guidelines as the Senator suggests in her amendment would be contrary to the engagement between the personal adviser and the jobseeker, which is policy. Further, it might get in the way of what is supposed to be a genuine and mutually developing relationship between the two people over a period of time, which can be up to 12 months if the person is engaging with the adviser.It is important to note that at the time of their making the claim to be a jobseeker, whether it is in an Intreo office, a local DSP office or having been sent onwards to Seetec and Turas Nua, through an agreed record of mutual commitments, we are already aware of all of the information the Senator is concerned people might be being compelled to give. In order to make a jobseeker's claim, we already know who one is living with, how many dependents one has at home and what one's circumstances are. That information has already been shared. The only reason - because there is no requirement at a personal progression plan stage to share that one has three children and one's granny is living in the house with him or her - that those conversations should take place is because a person's circumstances at home may form a barrier to employment or to progressing a pathway to work. It is only from general concern and in conversation with each other that we might inquire how old one's children are, does one have a dependent spouse at home or whether one's elderly relative is living there. It is a general conversation of sharing of data that we already have in what I will call, for argument's sake, HQ.

To be clear and straight with the Senator, if a person does not want to share that information with his or her personal adviser, then the person need not do so. There is no part of the personal progression plan that says a person cannot move to part B if he or she does not share certain information. It does not exist. From an adviser's perspective, this is generally only part of developing the relationship to learn what are the barriers to jobseekers achieving full employment.

A key element of the modern activation service, obviously, from our perspective, is to secure full employment or fuller employment for those who are in part-time work. The personal advisers' sole job is to be the jobseekers' conduit from not having work to getting work. I stressed this to the Senator last night. There are now two reasons. If a person has initiative enough to get jobs outside of that personal progression plan that he or she might have with the adviser, first, we want to know who the employer is, but not with a view to contact with the employer. There is a mistaken view out there that unless we know who the employer is, Turas Nua and Seetec do not get paid for the placement. They get paid anyway. They get paid if we do not know who the employer is. They get paid once somebody who is on JobPath gets a job. If that job happens to be in Outer Mongolia or up in Superquinn in Finglas, they get paid anyway. The reason that there is the continuation of the co-operation is that the advisers provide ongoing in-work support because sometimes - this is borne out by practice - people have developed strong personal relationships. In many cases, when somebody gets a new job, it is after having been out of work for a long time. His or her confidence might not be as high as one would like it to be. He or she is probably vulnerable and nervous. We provide those in-work supports to ensure that the person knows that his or her adviser is there at the end of a phone, but also once a month the adviser will touch base with the person to ask how is it going, whether there is any difficulty and whether has the person settled in and made new friends. It is what one would expect for two people who have developed a relationship over a period up to 12 months.

I emphasise to the House that my Department's public employment services, including Turas Nua, Seetec and our own Intreo offices, operate in full compliance with the data protection legislation. All of our contractors are aware of their current obligations under the GDPR. Obviously, as we change, as we suggested earlier on, when the new regulations come into play on 18 May next year, all of our contractors will have been given strict new guidelines that they will have to adhere to on the basis of the new directive coming into play then. I hope the Senator is reassured. Because of that, it would be unfair of me to put such prescriptive restrictions that definitely should not apply to the policy or the practice that is carried on on our behalf by any of our agents, but also because our Intreo offices do the same thing. It would be too prohibitive to put them in as amendments to the legislation.

I listened carefully to what Senator Higgins said about anecdotal evidence on Second Stage. Much anecdotal evidence that is brought; some of it may be grounded in truth and some of it is not. If the Senator genuinely has somebody who has the experience which she stated on Second Stage, I ask her to bring the information either to me or to somebody in the Department and I promise we will follow up on it. If the policy is different from the practice, I want to know about it and ensure that all of our practices adhere to the policy commitments that we have.