Mr. Damien Fagan:

How does the IMF mix in with JobPath? That was the Secretary General's own admission. The last time he was before the committee on 8 March, he stated that the JobPath programme is in line with the document from 2011 entitled Supports and Services for Unemployed Jobseekers: Challenges and Opportunities in a Time of Recession. It states that anything discussed regarding the creation of a system to deal with long-term unemployment in a time of recession must always meet the terms of the IMF agreement. Regardless of what is discussed, it must still abide by these three conditions. These conditions are to profile, monitor and sanction when someone does not comply with the regulations. How is the IMF involved? It is involved because the paperwork links it all together.

I was asked what I would like to see happen with regard to JobPath. Unfortunately, even if the programme was shut down today, there is nothing one can do. As long as these contract terms are in place, a new programme will be set up to run the same way. I would love to a see a proper activation programme that is designed to help people back into employment or education that is designed specifically for the user but we cannot design it because the IMF says we must have these rules. A company then uses these rules as a business practice from which to benefit. Regardless of whether we shut down the programme today, tomorrow or in two years' time, this will happen with every programme we create until that money is repaid to the IMF and EU. This is just one term and condition that is being applied to the people in the system. There are other areas of the IMF agreement that apply today but this relates specifically to social welfare. There is nothing we can do. I would love to be able to walk down to my local employment office, say that I would like to find a job and ask what the office could do for me but I cannot. It is all for the benefit of the company.

Regarding the deferral of sanctions, specifically on the ground, it is true that the Department applies the sanctions. It is the organisation that physically puts the stamp on the seal and tells the person he or she has been sanctioned. It actually comes directly from the two companies. Under the section on sanctions in the tender document, it is outlined in detail and involves the email that is sent, what is written, what level of sanction exists and how long it will be applied for. Once the Department gets that email, the sanction is automatic - no "ifs", "ands" or "buts". It has been proven in my case when it was before the High Court. I have probably dealt with 60 or 70 cases, all of which involve the same issue. One of the worst things about it is that a person will never see what that email says. It is hidden from the person at all times. When the person goes to the appeals office, the companies do not have to attend. They are the ones making the claim against the person but the person does not have any evidence of the claim - just the Department saying that the person has failed to engage because it has received reports that the person has failed to engage. Once the company says it, that is it and the person is sanctioned. The Department takes it at face value. The Oireachtas Library and Research Service report from 2015 warned about this in the same month in which the programme went live. It stated that the belief in the companies would outweigh belief in the people. This was warned well in advance of the programme's creation yet nobody paid attention to it. There is no oversight or governance and there are no proper records because of arguments about privacy and confidentiality.

Regarding the contract, the PPP is defined in the tender contract as a plan to help people back into employment, which is fine. I have my own PPP, which was submitted in court, with me. Most of it is fine. It is meant to outline my skills. The problem really arises with the last pages of the PPP. They turn the PPP from a plan to get somebody back into employment into a contract. It states three to four specific terms very clearly. If the person does not agree with the company, it will sanction that person. It states that if the person does not provide the company with information, it will prosecute him or her. I never know if private companies can prosecute someone for not sharing personal information but according to the agreement a person signs with Turas Nua, he or she can be prosecuted if he or she does not share his or her information with the company. The State will argue that this is not a contract. The State has argued in court that it was a contract. I have tonnes of records and audio recordings from people who have been in meetings and all of them contain the same thing, namely, the person must sign the contract or he or she will be sanctioned. The contract term did not come from me or any other record. It actually came from the Department.

While most people may not realise this, I check the records. The State held joint information sessions on the JobPath programme on two specific dates and I have outlined these in my timeline. The first was on 26 July 2013 when the then Department of Social Protection held two information sessions. I provided the committee with a list of all those who attended that meeting. The second, on 7 November 2013, was a joint information session by the Department of Social Protection and Enterprise Ireland. I have provided the presentation to the committee. At that meeting, Enterprise Ireland clearly told the companies they were to contract people in two separate ways. It was, therefore, the Department that defined this as a contract. If people agree to the terms of the contract, their rights are gone and they no longer have a choice about what career or educational course to enter. That choice is made by someone else to make profits. People must work for someone else's profit and for no benefit to themselves.