Mr. Jeff Rudd:

Rolling sanctions have been going on for some time. In one of the submissions provided, in the victim statements and in the United People report, I mention the case of Mr. Gerry Tobin. I have his full permission to refer to him. He was sanctioned from March last year until 22 December 2018. There were non-stop rolling sanctions. Under the Social Welfare Acts 2005 and 2010, after nine weeks a client or anybody who has been sanctioned, even outside of JobPath, is supposed to go back on the normal social welfare rates for at least one week before another nine-week round of sanctions is supposed to kick in. That did not happen in Mr. Tobin's case but his is only one example. It has happened in many cases.

He was sanctioned from March until 22 December and he still has not got his money back. There was a promise that he might get some of it back. We have documentation stating that he was sanctioned because he did not sign a personal progression plan, PPP. It is on record that on 8 March Mr. John Conlon, assistant secretary of the Department of Employment Action and Social Protection, stated to the Committee of Public Accounts that people do not have to sign the PPP. It is a legal right to retain the right to not sign a private contract.

Yet Mr. Tobin was punished for trying to retain his legal right to not sign a private contract. We have many examples of that. I have submitted one document today which has 101 victim statements and there are more victim statements in another document. This is an ongoing situation. Rolling sanctions are going on and that is illegal because it is not covered in the Social Welfare Acts. It was admitted that this was so in the High Court in Dublin in the case of Mr. Damien Fagan. The Department admitted that the legislation was not in place to apply these sanctions when somebody declined to sign a PPP but he or she is still willing to engage in the JobPath programme.

In the case of Mr. Gerry Tobin, he was fully willing to engage. He was informed by letter that because he did not sign the PPP, he would be punished. He later discovered, however, that had been done that incorrectly and illegally. The Department then changed the excuse for his sanctioning to non-attendance. Mr. Tobin has proof that he attended every meeting. He has proof in the form of video evidence, the visitor's sign-in book and statements from people who attended along with him. He can prove that he attended every meeting but yet there was an attempt to try to switch the excuse just to keep the rolling sanctions going. To put it bluntly, we went through hell just to try to clear his name. The Department is still only willing to return part of the money to him. That is only one issue.

The subject of a dream job was brought up. Under the Constitution, citizens are guaranteed a right to a great deal of self-determination. This completely conflicts with the Taoiseach's view of a person's entitlement to aim for his or her dream job. Everybody's ambition to even go for it is completely shut down. There is a conflict there that needs to be addressed. I am glad that Deputy Brady brought that up. According to the people that we have talked to, and, as I said in my opening statement, the people that we have cried along with, this is a big thing. From day one, JobPath strips people of any ambition. They are just told to do this or that or else they are sanctioned.

My third point concerns other agencies mentioned by other witnesses. It has been indicated that these agencies, and others that are similar, should have been adopted more and from the very start. The services that they have should have been utilised more. The State could have saved between 60% and 70% of the money that has been put into the JobPath programme by upgrading or using such services as have been mentioned. This is on record. On 8 May, representatives from such services stated this themselves before the Committee of Public Accounts. They have been starved of numbers going into their programmes. One of the victims statements I submitted is from an LES worker and because the numbers dropped - I will explain why they have in a minute - he found himself out of work. He was then sucked into JobPath and told to take a minor job.

This is a Civil Service worker. The numbers have dropped but the sanctions are increasing. The numbers of unemployed are dropping. We can argue about percentages but they are dropping. That means that the group of people available to be sucked into JobPath is getting smaller. The companies are getting more desperate, as are the tactics. There is a high staff turnover at a basic level in the JobPath system because they are pressurised to get people's signatures by any means possible. There is serious pressure on the lower level staff and on the people to sign. It is an ongoing issue that needs to be addressed.