Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

78. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection why her Department has reversed the ban on 54 companies from participating in the JobBridge scheme, as recently reported by the media (details supplied), and the details of the companies that have been banned from the scheme. [40152/15]

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Since the introduction of the JobBridge scheme in July 2011, over 18,200 Host Organisations have provided work experience opportunities to over 44,000 unemployed jobseekers. In order to try to ensure that the scheme provides a good basis for successful outcomes, the Department applies a number of conditions. These include the requirement on a Host Organisation to agree to adhere to the basic Terms and Conditions of the scheme before an application can be validated and for both parties to sign a Standard Agreement clearly stating the terms of the internship at the outset.

To ensure that a Host Organisation complies with these conditions and is abiding by the spirit of the scheme, the Department has a very robust monitoring regime. This involves the regular review of mandatory monthly compliance reports, random on-site inspections and the thorough investigation of all complaints received.

The vast majority of Host Organisations are fully compliant with all aspects of the scheme. In a small number of cases, however, the Department took the view that non-compliance by certain organisations warranted a decision to suspend them from access to the scheme for a period of time. These represent less than 0.5% of the total number of organisations that have participated in the scheme.

In that regard, it should be noted that when the scheme was introduced in 2011 it was initially envisaged to last for a two-year period. Accordingly, the practice when the scheme started was to debar offending host organisations for the remainder of the anticipated duration of the scheme - in other words, indefinitely. Subsequently the scheme, has been extended year-on-year and as a consequence, and on foot of a query from the office of the information commissioner, it was necessary to review the cases where an 'indefinite' bar was applied. It was as a result of this review that the decision was taken to lift the bar on 54 organisations. In addition a more sophisticated approach is now taken to restricting access to the scheme for non-compliant organisations. Unlike the previous regime, defined and proportionate periods of suspension are now applied, having regard to the nature and severity of the breach. This approach also reflects the fact that participation on the scheme is voluntary – both for the jobseeker and the host organisation.

The Department is fully aware of and committed to fulfilling its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, but does not consider it appropriate to release of the details of the organisations concerned. Indeed, the Department is concerned that, pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the Act, the identity of the organisations concerned is information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in a material financial loss or prejudice the competitive position of the companies in the conduct of their business. This is a mandatory exemption.

Moreover, given the voluntary nature of participation, both on the part of the Host Organisation and the ease with which a participant can end the internship, the Department is of the view that the suspension of an organisation for an appropriate period is an adequate and proportionate sanction for non-compliance with the provisions of the scheme. Disclosure of their names would amount to an additional sanction which the Department considers to be disproportionate and unjustly punitive, given the nature of the breach. In this regard the Department is also cognisant of threats that have been made against employers and host organisations that offer internships.

The success of the scheme is wholly dependent upon the voluntary participation of Host Organisations offering internships that appeal to unemployed people. Organisations are acutely aware of the potentially serious impact of any kind of reputational damage and there is evidence to suggest that some have not participated in JobBridge because of negative publicity surrounding the scheme. While the Department acknowledges the public interest in identifying any organisation that wilfully breaches the provisions of the scheme, and its value as a deterrent to those who might contemplate doing so, it is also concerned at the potential negative impact that such disclosure might have on the willingness of organisations to participate in the scheme, and, on balance, feels that the public interest is best served by not disclosing their details.

The Deputy is aware that the Information Commissioner affirmed the Department's refusal of access to the names of the companies concerned.