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

I have a couple of additional questions. I thank the witnesses. They are doing great work. I thank them on behalf of everybody who is a victim of this vicious system. I do not know whether any of them watched "I, Daniel Blake". It was on television again over Christmas and it was my second or third time to see it. What keeps coming back into one's head are the outcomes of the vicious ways of trying to force people into employment, including unsuitable employment. Mostly it is vicious because, now in 2019, there is almost full employment and employers are crying out for workers. Why are the penalties increasing?

I tabled a parliamentary question on this issue in October. The number of sanctions increased from 359 in 2011, when the system was introduced, to 11,169 in 2018, with 55,828 in total over the whole period. There is no explanation for that other than that it is punitive. It cuts back on the appearance that the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection is doing its job. In fact, it is paying out all the money to private companies.

I have a few questions for Mr. Rudd on that issue. As mentioned by Deputy Brady, a figure of €557.70 per signature was quoted, which I accept. How in the name of God is such a figure calculated? It is €557.70, not €558, €600 or €550. Who is it calculated so exactly to the level of cents? What the hell is going on there? What is going on when the two companies are subcontracting or outsourcing their own work? Could the delegates explain what they believe is happening? Is it that the companies cannot cope with the volume of penalties they are introducing or the volume of individuals coming to them through Intreo or random selection?

Have any of the delegates done work on the number of individuals who have been blocked from going back to education or into a community employment scheme? They are called into JobPath and are told by a different Department, almost simultaneously, sometimes within days or even hours, that they have the back-to-education allowance or that there is a community employment scheme on which they may participate. They are immediately blocked by JobPath from going into the back-to-education scheme or community employment, which is a huge contradiction in terms of what the Government says it is trying to achieve.

It is also very clear that much of the work individuals are being forced into is precarious. Before Christmas, we passed a Bill, the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, to try to organise around and stop the spread of precarious work. Look at what we are doing; we are forcing people further into precarious work.

I, too, want to comment on the name change forced on the Traveller man to hide his ethnicity. I came from a meeting with the Oireachtas Traveller group the other day at which the Minister explained to us all the various initiatives the Government is taking to bring about the recognition of Traveller ethnicity. It is another contradiction in Government policy that an effort was made to force Travellers to change their ethnicity while another Department was spending a fortune on creating committees to help Travellers gain ethnicity rights.

Those are my main questions. They concern the blocking of individuals, the calculation of the cost, outsourcing and the precarious nature of employment.

My last question might require a long answer but if that is the case, Mr. Rudd might be able to expand on it in writing. In his submission, Mr. Rudd said that one of the agendas of the Department is to honour the IMF and the EU agreement. Will he expand on that? What does the agreement actually state that the Government has agreed with the IMF and the EU? What does it state about forcing people into this kind of a contract through the State machine?