Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú:

I thank Deputy Harris. There have been a number of different reviews of the EGAF and we have certainly learnt a lot from them.

We should place the Deputy's comment in the context of considering a group of redundant workers. We all recognise the trauma that a group of workers goes through in the time leading up to redundancy. Typically but not absolutely in terms of the EGF, the workers would be working in a company, although I know there are companies that are linked. Sometimes, the company might help in getting staff ready for a redundancy and sometimes it might not. We are all aware, from our interaction with our friends in society, never mind the EGF, of the trauma that unemployment brings to any individual. In the early days of redundancy, it is quite difficult to find ways to engage. What we are seeking to do and what we have learned in the EGF unit is that we must seek to engage in as many different ways as possible.

The standard former mechanisms that were in place within FÁS and the Department of Social Protection have been integrated in Intreo. That has to be a very formal part of the intervention such that people who have been made redundant will have interaction with the State services. That is an appropriate interaction. The interaction can lead to some people moving on to further training immediately, or it can lead to a period of reflection for those who may want to enter training at a later date. Others may already be moving to employment and may not even need the type of interaction in question. The difficulty and challenge with knowing what is effective and not effective is that, because of the different backgrounds of people who are made redundant, they can take different options. The key for us, as has been advised in the audits of the European Court of Auditors and Comptroller and Auditor General, is to try to capture a way of measuring the effectiveness of the overall outputs - that is to learn for the future - while at the same time having a real manner of engagement with the groups of people who are made redundant so we can try to develop the programme locally to meet their needs to the greatest extent possible. In some cases, it is possible to develop particular unique programmes to assist where there are a number of redundant workers in a similar position. This can mean the work is done by a private contractor, or it can mean that FÁS steps in. It is all in the manner of the engagement.

In terms of the review of the effectiveness, on an ongoing basis and afterwards, the comparison has to be between those for whom there has been some intervention and those for whom there has been none, while not forgetting that there may be reasons there has not been an intervention. The reason may be because somebody has moved on to employment relatively quickly and, therefore, did not need an intervention. It may be that it is more mobile workers who do not require intervention. That may not always be the case. We have developed - we have given quite a lot of details in the brief - a quite sophisticated way of trying to measure the outcomes. We did this for the construction workers and for TalkTalk. It is a matter of trying to contrast the impact on those who had no intervention with the impact on those who did. We have a lot to learn from that on a continuing basis.

We are not just learning for the EGF. It is right and proper that we have be a big focus on the EGF. Obviously, today, there is a chapter on the EGF, but for us it is really a matter of how we deal with people being made redundant. Not all workers who are made redundant are made redundant in the context of a redundancy that arises from globalisation or under the crisis derogation that we had. They may not be of that scale. Therefore, we must learn continuously how to work with people who have been made redundant and the unemployed. In that regard, we work very much in partnership with the Department of Social Protection. We are working very closely with FÁS in that regard.