Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 22 November 2016
49. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Social Protection if he will provide a full list of the companies that were removed from, or initially prevented from participating on, the JobBridge scheme when it was in place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36023/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraI thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. There is no doubt that the JobBridge scheme was a disaster. If one was not of this opinion initially then the report conducted by the Minister's own Department would quickly change it. I welcomed the end to the JobBridge scheme when it was announced. At the time there were a number of companies that were removed from the scheme. Will the Minister provide details and name the actual companies that were removed?
All JobBridge participants are entitled to a quality work experience and every reasonable effort is made to minimise the risk of exploitation of the scheme by host organisations. All complaints are taken seriously, fully investigated and appropriate action taken in any cases of non-compliance. In addition to responding to complaints, the Department operates a robust monitoring regime and has conducted over 13,000 on-site inspections. The evidence from these inspections is that the vast majority of host organisations are fully compliant with the terms and conditions of the scheme. In fact, of more than 19,000 host organisations that have participated in JobBridge, a total of 86 have been suspended from participating in the scheme. The level of misuse of the scheme is therefore much lower than is popularly thought and this position has been confirmed by the recent Indecon study.
Nevertheless, I acknowledge the public interest in disclosing the names of organisations that breached the conditions of the scheme. There are, however, restrictions and difficulties associated with such publication as the scheme administrative rather than a statute based scheme, like for example taxation. Taking account of the fact that, on its inception, host organisations were not notified that their names might be published, the Department was concerned at the consequences of disclosing information that could result in a material financial loss or prejudice to the position of a host organisation in the conduct of its business. The Department is aware, for example, of instances where bona fide host organisations had their premises picketed and of one employer whose business was subject to denial of service attacks by anti-JobBridge protesters.
In addition, naming and shaming requires a high standard of investigation. In this regard the Department has had to take account of recent decisions of the Information Commissioner in line with the Freedom of Information Act and a ruling from the Information Commissioner which issued on the 2 October 2015. In line with this ruling the Department cannot release the names of companies suspended from use of the scheme as the decisions to suspend host organisations were taken on an administrative basis by individual inspectors and the host organisations had no recourse to a review or appeal of the decision.
In light of the Information Commissioner's ruling, new procedures were put in place in April 2016 which enable the names of errant host organisations investigated since that time to be published. Accordingly the Department can, and will in future, name organisations that are banned from participating in JobBridge or its successor, although this point is somewhat moot given that the JobBridge scheme is now closed to new entrants. I will, however, ensure that this issue is considered in finalising the design of any new work experience programme that I institute to replace JobBridge.
The Minister's own Department internal report on the JobBridge scheme highlighted high risk concerns. These were the same concerns that Sinn Féin Deputies, and especially my colleague Deputy Ó Snodaigh, had raised continually from the outset of the JobBridge scheme being introduced in 2011. The Department's own auditors had expressed concerns over a lack of initial validation of the employers' eligibility and whether the use of interns could lead to a possible displacement of real jobs. The report also noted that no checks whatsoever were carried out on the redundancy payments issued by companies who hired interns which could mean that some companies may have laid off workers, the positions being filled by interns. The auditors questioned the accuracy of data supplied by so called host organisations, specifically with regard to the number of staff that the companies claimed to employ.
I thank the Deputy.
The Minister, Deputy Varadkar likes to refer to the Indecon report when I raise questions about JobBridge.
I thank the Deputy.
One of Indecon's key findings in that survey was that nearly 30% of employers using the JobBridge scheme said that they could have taken on a person in fully paid employment.
The Deputy has exceeded his time.
I urge the Minister to release the details. He said there are 86 companies that had been removed.
Deputy.
I urge him to release-----
The Deputy will have to respect the rights of other Members.
-----those details.
I would not have any difficulty releasing the information other than the fact that the ruling of the Office of the Information Commissioner ties our hands in that regard. From April onwards, if there were any abuses that required publication then I would not have any difficulty doing that. I am sure, however, that the Deputy is not actually advising me, in this House, to disregard a ruling on data protection by the Office of the Information Commissioner. I hope that is not what he is seriously asking me to do. A previous Minister got into a lot of trouble for doing that sort of thing on "Prime Time" and I am certainly not going to do it.
It is important to say the internal audit report is available on the Department's website. The team did not find any evidence of employers acting to abuse the scheme. All of the managers' responses were accepted by the internal auditor and the internal audit committee is responding adequately to the issues raised in the initial report.
The Minister gave the number of 86 companies and we know that the Indecon report raised serious concerns which were not acted on at that stage. I imagine the number is far higher than 86. When we look at the type of jobs being advertised, a well-known company which I will not name advertised for a sandwich artist. A deli assistant position was advertised as a sandwich artist position. The company hired many people using JobBridge and essentially it was free labour. The Minister has outlined his intention to bring forward JobBridge 2.0. My concern is that the 86 companies - I imagine the number is far higher - will be allowed to take part in the next scheme. Will all of the companies which abused and exploited the predominantly young people on JobBridge be allowed to sign up to JobBridge 2.0? We still have not seen the detail of the Minister's replacement scheme. Will he outline it?
The Deputy has not seen it because there is ongoing public consultation on it. We have received Sinn Féin's proposals for a new work experience scheme. Something I learned in going around the Intreo offices around the country, including the one in Arklow in the Deputy's constituency, was that among the really strong supporters of JobBridge were the case officers.
And the employers.
They are not employers; they are civil servants in the Department. They have huge experience with people who they were trying to get into employment and who had no work experience. A total of 70% or 80% of the jobs are in the private sector, in SMEs.
What work experience does someone need to have to make a sandwich - a half an hour's training?
Perhaps the Deputy might think working in a restaurant or cafe is beneath people, but as somebody who worked in a restaurant and a shop, I do not think it is.
It certainly is not beneath them, but they should be paid.
The Minister to continue, without interruption, otherwise we will move on.
I do not think it is beneath people. The evidence and advice I receive from case officers working with people who are trying to get a job - perhaps they are trying to get a job in a cafe or a restaurant; good for them if they do - is that if a person has on his or her CV real work experience with a small employer, an SME, it is valuable and makes it easier for him or her to get a job than it is for somebody who has no work experience with a real employer.
