Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for bombarding Mr. Conlon with more questions but that is what he is here for. My first question was prompted by the Chairman in private session. The Department has indicated it would not be favourably disposed to Seetec or Turas Nua appearing before this committee to give evidence. Will the witnesses comment on that and explain if that is true? If it is true, what is the reason for it?

My next question is quite direct. I do not know if I know the answer already. If someone is engaged with Seetec or Turas Nua, are they then taken off the live register and do not appear as part of the statistics of unemployed people? I have queries that I have put through the Department involving an individual - I will not use names here because there is a two-pronged edge to it - who was told that once that person was in Seetec, the individual would not be on the live register. The person was told this by Seetec. We probably need to know how that changes the unemployment figures.

I have two questions about how the scheme is used. Members are at the coalface and deal with people who are engaged in these schemes all the time. They come to our clinics, ring us up and write to us and we table parliamentary questions on their behalf. Many people are being crossed over between being offered a community employment scheme, a Tús place or a course that might really put them on a career path and give them training in order that they could do something they would like to do that they find socially useful and that enhances their humanity, rather than running down their dignity. They are being told consistently by Seetec that they cannot go on the community employment scheme and that if it overlaps with Seetec taking them into its scheme, they cannot go on it. I received a very interesting letter. I will refer to the man concerned as "Mr. X". Mr. X lives in Ballyfermot. He was randomly selected for the Tús initiative in November 2016 and was interviewed for a Tús placement in January 2017 and placed on a panel. Mr. X was interviewed again on 30 January 2017 for a placement with a host company and Garda vetting was submitted on 2 February 2017. Mr. X was selected for JobPath on 9 January 2017, which was prior to the Tús placement being offered. JobPath would take the priority over Tús in this case. However, having spoken to Mr. X, I contacted JobPath central to inquire whether his selection for JobPath could be deferred. JobPath advised that there were no extenuating circumstances in the case of Mr. X and that he would have to remain on JobPath for 12 months but in the following year, he could avail of any other schemes. Who is running the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection? Is it Seetec and JobPath or is the witnesses? The Department was willing to make an exception and allow Mr. X to go on the scheme for which he was looking but, according to the Department, it was overruled by the company itself. That begs the question as to who is pulling the horse. Is the cart pulling the horse or is the horse pulling the cart? This is a genuine question. I come across this dozens of times. There is clear written evidence from the Department in two cases in front of me.

Incidentally, I hate the way the Department calls people customers and note Mr. Conlon called them customers in his statement. That is a post-modernism. My next point relates to giving support for child care. In his statement, Mr. Conlon stated that JobPath provides flexibility in addressing whatever barriers a jobseeker may have in securing employment, for example, child care, travel expenses, training, etc. Let us take the case of Mary who is on JobPath. She went for an interview with JobPath with her child because she was not told she could not take her child and had no money to have the child minded. Seetec sent her home and told her she should not be there for the interview with her child. Seetec reported that to the Department. The following interview that was arranged for her was scheduled when her child was in Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Crumlin. She was sitting with the child and reported that to the Department. Seetec then reported to the Department that she failed to appear for the second appointment and her payments were cut by €45 per week. It is now on appeal. The statement that Seetec provides support for child care and does its best flies in the face of what happened. It happened with the collusion of the Department because the Department states that the way the scheme works is that unlike the UK, Seetec does not apply the sanctions; the Department does. I really want to know what is going on here. It is a can of worms.

My next question concerns the High Court judgment referred to by Deputy Brady. The judgment was not given in favour of Mr. Fagan because the payments were reinstated by the Department beforehand. Can the witnesses comment on why the payments were reinstated all of sudden before the High Court got to rule on the case? Is it the witnesses' estimation that if the High Court got to rule on the case, it might have further implications for other individuals on the scheme? This is why I had page six of Mr. Conlon's statement on my brain. Page six makes reference to individuals signing contracts with private companies. It states that participants with the JobPath service are not required to sign a contract with the JobPath companies but they are, in the same manner as all customers referred to the Department's internal and external activation services, requested to agree to and sign a personal progression plan. Should they refuse to sign it, as Mr. Fagan did, are they liable to penalties? I invite the witnesses to comment on this issue.

Have the witnesses read a 2016 study by Boland and Griffin that describes the system as one that is becoming more alienating and punitive where welfare recipients feel humiliated, degraded and coerced by sanctioning processes and increasingly experience anxiety, depression and erosion of personal agency? Will the witnesses comment on that study because I do not think there is a huge amount of academic studies in this area in Ireland? I am interested to see that some of the independent academic studies tally with a lot of what is being said, which is that services are being delivered that are like the services delivered in Britain and portrayed in "I, Daniel Blake". Britain has had much longer experience of it and there already have been incidents of corruption and deceit, as already have been outlined by the previous Deputy. In addition, the impact on the individuals concerned can be hugely corrosive, degrading and destructive.