Mr. Philip Finn:

In terms of my own research I would echo much of what Dr. Murphy and Ms Whelan have seen already. I have certainly seen evidence of a work first model where people feel that they cannot discuss the barriers to work or where training and education is not being presented as a viable option for them and that they must go out and find work. As part of my own research I spoke to many people who were in education and training boards and have taken on courses. The vast majority of them had to find those courses themselves with little help from Intreo or other service providers. They couch these things in terms of the lack of dignity and respect when they go into Intreo in that a holistic view of the person is not taken account of. While we might have a better economy now, people are still living with the past in terms of mental health, financial concerns and housing problems in recent years, which creates barriers to returning to work.

In terms of a collaborative process, one of the approaches I take in interviews is to present people with the record of mutual commitments, which all jobseekers must sign.

We talk about the progression plans. At the vast majority of interviews, people cannot remember signing the record of mutual commitments. They have no recollection of it at all. I think that comes down to need. People need social welfare payments like jobseeker's allowance. When we deconstruct their records of mutual commitment during interviews, they tell us that the idea of training and education was never made available to them as something they could pursue.

I was also asked about the multiple regimes. As I have already said, it has been suggested during interviews I have done that factors like child care, a lack of education and mental health issues are preventing people from getting work. It has been considered that such factors are not accounted for by case workers. I made a similar point when I spoke about multiple regimes and conditionality. Along with one of my colleagues in Maynooth, I am currently engaged in exploratory research on unemployed drug service users. At present, an unemployed drug service user is treated in each service as a methadone patient and as a jobseeker. Consideration is given separately to these individual factors rather than how they intersect with each other. People in these circumstances are obliged to get their methadone. There is a lot of work involved in keeping appointments. They do not have enough time to look for work. They must also deal with the stigma associated with drug use. Employers are reluctant to hire drug service users. When their appointments and obligations clash, it can lead to sanctions being imposed and this can result in people being in danger of losing their social welfare or their methadone. I think there needs to be much more interaction between services. Rather than seeing the individual as a jobseeker who needs to be activated as part of the service delivery model, a holistic approach needs to be taken. The other point I would like to make about unemployed drug service users is that substance abuse is no longer regarded as a reason for being eligible for disability allowance. This means that a drug service user has no option other than to be a jobseeker. As I have said, this creates all kinds of difficulties.

I was asked whether there is pressure on case workers to impose sanctions too quickly. My research focuses on the lived experience of jobseekers. It does not take account of the experiences of people who work in the services. I know from other colleagues that it is quite difficult to get institutional access to interview case workers, etc. We are not really familiar with the kinds of organisational pressures they are under. As I said earlier, the level of sanctions imposed in Ireland is still relatively low in an international context. Since the introduction of Pathways to Work, however, there have been annual increases in sanctions, from 359 in 2011 to over 1,600 last year. There is evidence that sanctions are being used more frequently. Before 2010, it was possible to disqualify people from receiving payments as a nuclear option that case workers were reluctant to use. Now there is a penalty rate that can be applied for up to nine weeks and disqualification can take place thereafter. The use of such sanctions has become a tool or technique to be used by case workers as part of their repertoire when encouraging jobseekers into particular positions or courses. While there is some evidence that the use of sanctions is increasing, it is important to acknowledge that it is still relatively low in an international context. We do not yet know how this will change in the coming years, or how it is already changing, because Ireland does not have a culture of sanctioning within the system and we do not have access to case workers to see what kinds of organisational pressures they are under.