Mr. Niall Egan:

I do not acknowledge or agree that the model we are proposing closes the door on the community and voluntary sector.

We are trying to build a model that is designed to keep the best of what we have in the existing employment service providers. It will be a national employment service model with a designated area to provide greater flexibility and scope as economic circumstances change, and it will be a regional employment service model specifically designed to focus on supporting those furthest from the labour market. We acknowledge that cohort requires a different service, and in many cases, as a previous speaker said, 12 months is not sufficient. In the model we have proposed, it is possible to extend the length of engagement up to 18 months. There is additional time because we know the individuals we are dealing with are farthest from the labour market. We are also building into that model recognition of the importance of the existing network for delivering access to other State services to build a wrap-around service for jobseekers and other cohorts. It is important to acknowledge that.

On the question on walk-ins, the Department through Intreo already takes in walk-ins across the board. In any area where there is an existing local employment service, that already happens. In cases where local employment services exist, we deal with walk-ins as well. We are adopting a model that is close to the Employ Ability model. Any individual who seeks access and support to employability, whether he or she goes to the local employment service or jobs clubs, will be referred to Intreo which will do an assessment of the individual and, if appropriate, send him or her to the correct employment service provider. We believe in the regional employment service, that if the individual is far from the labour market, he or she will be referred back to the regional employment service model.

We are changing the model because there are serious problems with the fixed-cost approach we have on an annual basis. That was expressed to us in consultations we had with the sector. The existing model requires us in the Department and the providers to verify every euro spent on overheads. There is very little flexibility for providers to innovate in the model or to have security in terms of multi-annual budgeting. We are changing the model in that regard. We are enhancing key performance metrics in the model to make services comparable. We cannot at the moment compare services across the board between different employment service providers. By the end of this process, we will have that comparability and be able to identify far quicker than we can at the moment service providers who are struggling to support the individuals, whether through progression or placement into employment.

We consulted every provider extensively. In many cases, staff members participated in those meetings with officials, but not in all cases. Members of the board or management were involved in those meetings as well. The Institute for Employment Studies, which we got in to help us build the future model, consulted nominees from the sector without the Department being present. We wanted a true, proper engagement for them to speak their mind in relation to consultants.

On jobs clubs, the services they provide are included in the request for tenders under phase 1. It is important to acknowledge that. It is true, given the areas we are covering in multi-county lots, essentially two counties, that there is a significant difference in what the regional employment service is delivering. It is an intensive employment service engagement for 12 to 18 months. A jobs club that provides services between one and four weeks for a small cohort would have problems in terms of scaling up. We have, therefore, since 2018 and when we published the Indecon reports, informed all jobs clubs and local employment services of the need for them to come together and work collaboratively on a future tendering process. That is clear and it ties in to the Deputy's question on annual turnover. She is correct to point out that the annual turnover, in the request for tenders under phase 1, is a minimum requirement, but we accept any similar contracts, whether they be community employment, Tús, the social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP, or the existing contracts as proof and if they combine with other service providers. A jobs club and a partnership working together should and would be able to meet those annual turnover requirements.

The Institute for Employment Studies, I think, is the external review the Deputy referred to. That review has not been published yet. It contains information we are using on pricing and lot sizes. It recommends a considerable consolidation of the lots, particularly in the Dublin area. In the Dublin area it proposes a consolidation of three lots. At the moment we have 12 local employment service providers. The Department is carefully considering that because we are aware of the difficulty that having three lots in the Dublin area, which would be Dublin north, Dublin south and Dublin central, would pose to existing providers. We are actively looking at that.

The request for tenders under phase 1, it is important to say, had scope within it to provide and send non-long term unemployed jobseekers in relation to it. It is described as other cohorts. There is a pricing structure relating to that for providers. They are informed of the level of resources the Department would provide for that. From the Department's perspective and in accordance with the commitments contained in Pathways to Work, we want to build an employment service that gives the Department flexibility to support people with disabilities, lone parents, carers or other individuals. That mechanism is placed within the existing request for tender and we see that continuing into the second phase.

I will ask my colleague, Mr. Kane, to talk about the JobPath referrals. On the Deputy's question regarding the figure of 70,740, that is total employment from JobPath. The figure for sustained employment for a 12-month period is approximately 24,000.

The Deputy asked about the difference between the model of the regional employment service and JobPath. They are very different models. In the JobPath model the only guaranteed income is a referral fee of an average of €311 per individual referred. They have to engage with that person for 12 months, that is 52 weeks, irrespective of whether that person progresses into employment. Any subsequent payment is only made if the person secures sustained employment at 13-week intervals. The model we have for the regional employment service pays 90% of average fees based on a starting and an engagement process. That engagement process is about progressing and tailoring a service that is unique to the individual. That may include access to education, training or, as I said in the opening statement, employment support programmes. There is a 10% performance incentive if that person can be progressed into employment thereafter. It is almost the inverse of the JobPath model. I ask Mr. Kane to contribute.