Mr. Joe O'Connor:

I will take the two questions from Deputy O'Brien. On the SUSI question, it is important to note that our experience at this point is that a number of the changes and reforms which USI recommended last year have been implemented and we are reasonably satisfied that the system is quite a bit ahead in terms of numbers of applications that have been processed in comparison with the same time last year. The next couple of months, as we go into payment stage for a lot of students, will be crucial. It is vital that all Deputies continue to monitor the situation to ensure the timelines that have been set out are met and that we can head off any potential crisis. In the second year of operation, things seem to be much improved but the system is still far from perfect, although, as the Deputy said earlier, the previous grant system was also far from perfect.

The point made by the Deputy about students in receipt of grants still accessing the services of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is most relevant. We cannot allow the fact that students may get their grants in a more timely fashion this year to mask the real issue. That real issue is the fact that in recent years and long before SUSI was set up, there has been an enormous strain on the student assistance fund and on student hardship funds in individual colleges. An extra €3 million was allocated to that fund last year as a direct result of the SUSI debacle. However, that money was absolutely necessary, regardless of any delays, in terms of meeting the shortfall that exists between the cost of college and the student supports available.

For such a small amount of money, this is a direct way to funnel money to the most vulnerable students in the system. Regardless of SUSI, this needs to be prioritised again this year.

I would make one more point on this. Even if the grant is being paid a little bit earlier or on time, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, DPER, report from 2011 states that given the relatively low income thresholds at which students may qualify for support - these have been reduced by 3% since the report - any reduction in the rate would impact most severely on students from the least well-off backgrounds and possibly even contribute to an increase in rates of dropout which would negate the overall investment made by the State in such students at third level. From Government officials, that, in itself, highlights the stark importance of protecting the maintenance grant.

On the youth guarantee, the organisations - USI, ICTU and the Irish secondary schools' students' union - have come together as three groups representing over 1 million members looking at what is a huge national crisis in terms of youth unemployment and emigration, and taking a proactive and serious step in our own way to reach out and provide a positive response to this crisis. The first point is that we would like a national coherent joined-up national jobs strategy for young people across the Departments of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Social Protection - which is where the youth guarantee sits - and Education and Skills. It is vitally important that there is a joined-up approach taken to this in all of the measures which fall between three Departments included in our document, which I would be happy to circulate to members of the committee before we present it in the coming months.

The other measures we recommend include that the European youth guarantee, which will allow any young person within four months of becoming unemployed a training place, education place or some sort of an apprenticeship, cannot be merely an extension of existing schemes. There needs to be a real and substantive commitment to funding this scheme, and the three partners that have been involved in this process are heavily engaged as key stakeholders in the design, implementation, review and monitoring of the European youth guarantee. Certainly, some of the issues which have arisen out of JobBridge could have been addressed by a closer monitoring of the way the scheme is rolled out because there are some positive elements to that scheme.

We also are recommending a best-practice document which we have for work placements, internships and apprenticeships. Ms Harmon spoke earlier about the back-to-education allowance. We are proposing a national skills map across the country whereby skills gaps and deficits across regions and across sectors where there is need within the labour market would be identified using a national skills map. There is the potential in reforming labour activation schemes, such as the back-to-education allowance, to direct them towards programmes that meet those skills needs. We are not saying that one should not look at the back-to-education allowance scheme to try to improve the scheme; it can be improved. However, the issue is in students, who receive the back-to-education allowance and go to college, proceeding to get employment out of that. The issue is not the rate of the scheme because as a measure of getting the unemployed off the live register and getting them into third level it is very effective. There is a number of other proposals within that.

If I may make one last point before I conclude because I do not think there were any other questions, as the joint committee responsible for education, I want to make a pledge to it as a whole. It is very much our view in USI that education is not public spending but public investment. Too often, we get boxed off into this argument about whether we are better off having overcrowded classrooms at primary level or having young people dropping out of education at third level. It is not an either-or matter. There has been so much talk about the scale of the budgetary adjustment over the past number of weeks and months and I would ask everyone here to put forward the argument that education as a return on investment, both socially and economically, is the direction that this country needs to take, and any decisions that are taken need to stand up to that principle.