Mr. John McKeon:

I will explain how we dealt with that issue in the contract design. First, it was a specific requirement of the contract that the providers recruit at least 10% of their staff from the long-term live register. Known as a social clause in a contract, this practice is permissible. While other things being suggested are not permissible, the social clause element is permissible and we insisted on it. The providers must comply with this clause.

Second, the payment rates to contractors are contingent on them hitting performance targets. The performance target we set was to achieve 60% above what was then the counterfactual level of approximately 8% of long-term unemployed persons moving into employment in a 12 month period. We set a target of 14%, as it was 60% higher than the counterfactual level. The reason we set such a high uplift was we knew that in the case of some of those who would move into employment, it would not be directly as a result of JobPath intervention. The uplift has been applied for this reason. It also captures the issue about which the Deputy is concerned, that is, the provider must hit the 60% target if it is to be paid. While some of those accounted for in the 60% uplift figure will be people the providers recruited, many of them are not included in this figure. That is the way in which we try to control it. It would be very strange if were to ask Mr. Donnery of Turas Nua or anyone in Seetec to try to get local shops and businesses to recruit people from the live register, while directing that they should not, under any circumstance, recruit their own staff from this cohort.