Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 9 July 2013
55. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection the reason certain companies have been removed from the possible internship options on the JobBridge programme; if she will publish a list of these companies; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [33273/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe aim of JobBridge is to assist individuals to bridge the gap between unemployment and the world of work. JobBridge has made very significant progress since it came into operation in July 2011. As of 27 June 2013, 18,587 internship placements had commenced, with 5,934 participants in active internships and 1,936 internship posts advertised and available on the JobBridge website. The independent evaluation conducted by Indecon Economic Consultants which I published recently has found that 61% of interns who finish placements secure employment within five months. These progression outcomes are exceptionally positive and compare very favourably with European averages for internships.
We believe these outcomes are due, at least in part, to the voluntary nature of the relationship between the host organisation and the intern and to the careful design and active management of JobBridge by the Department. One of the strong features of internships is that part of the intern experience is in interns applying for and succeeding in getting an internship place. The internship is designed to stay as close to the acquisition of a permanent job as possible. For example, as part of this design, we ask host organisations to provide meaningful work for interns, to commit to a standard agreement detailing expected learning outcomes for the intern, to provide mentoring for each intern and assign a mentor to the intern for this purpose, to submit monthly reports to the Department and, at the end of the internship, to complete an end of evaluation questionnaire and provide each intern with a reference.
In asking host organisations to observe best practice guidelines, we are requesting them to invest considerable time and effort in the intern. This investment pays dividends by increasing the value of the internship and is a major factor in the high rate of progression of interns into employment.
We have carried out 2,200 on-site monitoring visits, arising from which 23 organisations have been excluded from JobBridge.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Given the importance attached to the quality of the internship experience, the Department actively monitors internships to check whether host organisations are conforming with its specification of best practice. In cases in which it is deemed that an organisation is not offering an internship of sufficient quality the Department reserves the right to exclude that organisation from further access to JobBridge and, in some cases, to terminate existing internships. However, it is important to highlight that the overwhelming majority of organisations are operating in conformance with the scheme design. In fact, more than 7,500 host organisations have participated in the scheme and, as outlined above, just 23 organisations have been excluded from further access to the scheme.
I do not deny that the JobBridge programme has enjoyed some success or that the vast majority of hosts have behaved in a responsible manner. That is what they are supposed to do. However, my question was tabled to find out about the minority who have sought to abuse a Government scheme funded by taxpayers' money and designed to give young people a start in life. That sort of conduct is despicable. The Minister has not answered my questions regarding what these organisations did to precipitate their removal from the scheme and whether she plans to name them.
We have carried out 2,200 on-site monitoring visits out of 7,500 host organisations that have participated in the programme. That is a high number of visits compared to the total number of organisations. Reasons for excluding organisations include a failure to complete or adhere to the standard agreement, which requires that a high-quality experience and a reference be provided to the intern and includes reporting, evaluation and monitoring provisions; a failure to provide evidence of the provision of mentoring and development to the intern; a failure to complete monthly updates; the use of interns to undertake duties of displaced staff; and a failure to provide a reference to the intern. The host organisations are getting the value of the qualifications, experience, creativity and energy of the interns and, in return, they are asked to offer a high-quality experience and fulfil certain conditions. If they do not, we will withdraw their sanction. However, 23 out of 7,500 organisations represents a low rate of failure.
I accept that, but it does not justify abuse of the scheme. When a host puts itself into the market to accept interns, it must sign up to a certain agreement. The 23 organisations that have been identified thus far clearly did not adhere to the terms of that agreement. Does the Minister propose to name those organisations? I tabled a question to that effect previously and was told that she was not prepared to name them because, for some obscure reason, it might affect employment levels and the economy. She will be aware that if an organisation or individual is in default with the Revenue Commissioners, it suffers two punishments. First, it is subject to savage penalties and interest, and second, it is named and shamed. The latter is regarded as part of the punitive process. The organisations we are discussing suffered no punitive process other than being deprived of the opportunity to continue abusing the JobBridge scheme. They have not been named and shamed, which is the only possible punishment I regard as appropriate. Why is that the case? A number of those who have been subject to Revenue Commissioners audits and penalties are also employers. That did not stop them from being named.
If the Minister does not have this information, perhaps she will undertake to give it to me, but has any of those organisations been involved in the transgression of either labour or industrial relations law in any other context?
The comparison with Revenue is not appropriate. People are bound by law to pay their taxes. The internship JobBridge scheme is a voluntary arrangement on the part of both the intern and the host organisation. As we have gone along, we have refined and improved the scheme. We have broadened it and introduced further specifications over time. In the beginning, offers were posted which were not internships and this was a frequent complaint initially. This was because we were launching a brand new scheme, unseen previously in Ireland. We have been learning constantly since.
The intern is important and it is important he or she has a good experience. Interns communicate with us monthly and we are focused on them and their experience, along with the benefit to the host organisation, because we want them to be able to move on to further employment, either with the host or someone else. They communicate with us monthly and also have access to Department staff who will visit the host organisation and conduct a monitoring visit. Where there is a complaint, we investigate it speedily and examine the cause of the complaint. As a consequence, the volume of complaints is very small.
In addition, there is a very active community in the various social media who voluntarily monitor closely every aspect of JobBridge and advise the Department. We take all of the observations made to us and reflect them in the subsequent development of the scheme. An offence or failure on the part of companies taking on interns cannot be compared to a Revenue offence, as by law, one must pay one's taxes. What companies must do with this scheme is to give interns a quality experience and a proper internship. A Revenue offence belongs to a different category. Most of the firms offering internships are voluntary members of the scheme. Where an intern has a problem, we will withdraw that intern if the host organisation is at fault and will find another placement for him or her.
