Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Egan acknowledge that the model outlined in the first tender ends the community-based, not-for-profit model that has existed for 25 years and also that the Department is closing the door to walk-ins? Mr. Egan cited two pieces of legal advice on the obligation to tender in the first instance. If he cannot share or is not willing to share either of them, will he share what the Department sought when requesting that legal advice? What was the question asked? If we take it that this unseen advice is exactly as Mr. Egan says, then why not maintain the current model? It has been said repeatedly that the local employment services and jobs clubs do not exist everywhere, but there was no reason or obligation for the model having to change, through procurement or otherwise. If we take as read Mr. Egan's position on the legal advice and the need to tender, why change the model? Why move from the community-based, not-for-profit model to an entirely different model?

Mr. Egan place a major focus on consultation and engagement. During that process, did staff suggest a change in the model at any point over the years? Did they suggest we end the service for walk-ins, wrap-around services and the community basis of the service?

The tender appears to totally disregard jobs clubs. I know from engagement with jobs clubs in Ballaghaderreen and Ballinasloe in my constituency, they feel totally disregarded. A tender has been issued which does not mention them and almost leaves them to one side. They have been left in a vulnerable position. These workers, highly-skilled and educated people, have given years of service to people in my constituency, including vulnerable people in Ballaghaderreen and Ballinasloe, and they are being left to one side. It is regrettable how they and staff throughout the local employment service and jobs clubs have been treated. I wish a conversation had taken place with them earlier on what exactly would happen at the end of this year.

We know from the unions and staff on the ground that some local employment services and jobs clubs were not in a position to tender because in some areas they do not have an annual turnover of more than €1 million. Mr. Egan stated that quality is a major focus ad will account for 75% of the weighting. However, an organisation that does not meet the annual turnover requirements in the first instance is eliminated before the issue of quality is addressed. While the focus is being put on quality, the financial constraints on these organisations, most of which have charitable status, means the Department is purposefully locking them out by basing the tender, in the first instance, on cost.

Mr. Egan cited the external review of contracted employment services. That work was done by a university in Bristol. Has it been published? If not, we are basing all of this on unseen legal advice and an unseen external review on contracted services and we are supposed to just take Mr. Egan at his word on both.

Mr. Egan also stated it is hoped the service will provide employment services for a range of cohorts. We know those obliged to engage in employment services are jobseekers. How will the Department widen that and is that its plan?

The document before us features a table showing the number of people who have taken up employment through JobPath. Clearly, the only outcome that is taken into account when the Department looks at local employment services, jobs clubs and JobPath is a job. Any job is the basis of the outcome. Does the Department count referrals to labour market programmes, training and education or part-time employment across the board, or is it just a job?

Mr. Egan indicated that 70,740 people had found employment through JobPath. Is that sustained for more than one year? I imagine it is not. The table on page 12 is quite misleading. Will Mr. Egan explain the difference between JobPath and what is being proposed under this first tender?