Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 5 February 2015
4. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if she will review the operation of JobBridge in view of the use of this scheme to hire instructors for training schemes for jobseekers; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5030/15]
View answerI wish to ascertain the Government's response to the circumstances outlined in the question.
To respond to Question No. 4, I believe the Deputy is referring to a recent report on job clubs prepared by the internal audit unit of the Department. In preparing the report the Department’s internal auditor raised a query relating to the appropriateness or otherwise of one job club hosting a small number of interns in a role of job club instructor. It is important to note in this regard that the Department funds the operation of 50 job clubs located around the State. These job clubs are operated by 46 separate contractors - mainly local development-partnership companies, LDCs. The job club in question is a community based, not-for-profit, social enterprise. Departmental records show that it is one of two job clubs which have hosted JobBridge interns.
Department management has considered the query raised by the internal auditor and is satisfied that the use of interns did not give rise to any cause for concern in this instance. In this regard, JobBridge has been criticised on occasion on the basis that some of the opportunities offered are so-called "low level" jobs. In this instance, some reports have queried the appropriateness of the internships on the basis that the opportunities offered required "higher level" qualifications. In fact, what this case shows is that JobBridge offers a broad range of internships to respond to the needs and aspirations of the complete spectrum of jobseekers, including those targeting specific sectors but lacking critical real workplace experience in their chosen field. I am satisfied, therefore, that no question arises about JobBridge as a consequence of this case. It was our internal audit that raised issues, as it should have, and brought them to the attention of the Department. In this case, the issue was examined and it was deemed appropriate.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. However, I seek clarification. Those involved in the JobBridge scheme are unemployed persons who are looking for work, even though they might not be recorded statistically as being unemployed. In this case, I understand people who are unemployed and hoping to find a job after a period on the JobBridge scheme were providing coaching for other persons who were unemployed and looking for a job through the job clubs. Is the Minister of State saying the Department has concluded that this is perfectly in order? What about the issues raised by those who carried out the audit? They are worried about a lack of oversight which might result in a situation where this is replicated elsewhere. Clearly, they did not think it was appropriate.
I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to clarify the matter again. The advertisement for this post required a FETAC level 6 qualification, which is quite a high qualification. It was to enable people to gain experience. The job clubs are contracted to provide training, work with curricula vitae, CVs, and so forth for those who require it. The question raised in the audit was whether the job clubs were able to do this, as well as providing mentoring and training under JobBridge. Owing to the level at which the positions were advertised, FETAC level 6, the extra capabilities given within the job clubs allowed that mentoring and experience to take place. It is something we constantly monitor. There are 9,000 monitoring visits a year across the scheme and we carry out internal audit projects, as shown in this case. The job club is still engaging in CV preparation for jobseekers and the activation process. It was being enabled to provide an additional service. Mentoring had to be provided for the person participating under JobBridge. I am happy that the mentoring and training were taking place and that we did not decrease the capability of the particular job club programme involved. It was carrying out what it said on the tin, as it were.
Perhaps my thought processes this morning are a little slow, but I am still confused. Is the Minister of State saying the job club in question was properly and fully staffed with the appropriate staff and that the interns were brought in to assist the existing staff? The newspaper reports on the audit report suggest the work of two senior staff in a job club was effectively being done by interns under the JobBridge scheme? Which is it?
I will endeavour to provide the Deputy with a full written response to that question. As I said, the positions were advertised at FETAC level 6. The aim was to give the JobBridge interns practical experience. Job clubs are local not-for-profit community enterprises. The one we are discussing is located in Kilkenny and has provided a very good service for the community in the area for some time.
The audit was to make sure the organisation was providing the service it was contracted to provide under the Department of Social Protection. The auditor had a query but management was satisfied it was honouring the full contract. I am satisfied with the information, as given. On the points the Deputy asked me to clarify, I will revert to him and clarify them in full.
