Mr. James Higgins:

I thank the members for the questions. I want to clarify I am not here on behalf of any Nordic Government.

There are a lot of questions specific to Ireland that I will leave to Mr. Doorley. I will address Senator Reilly's question on the operation level of the youth guarantee. The first phase in tackling youth unemployment is to bite the bullet. The official rate across the Union is 24% but young people are much less likely to approach their public employment service than older people. The first stage is to get a real grip on the actual number of young unemployed people.

One weakness of the Swedish model was that it focused too much on jobs. What happened, unfortunately, was that some young people were pushed into jobs that were not appropriate for them. I refer to the skills mismatch that was mentioned. The Swedes have worked to address the problem. The Finns knew about the problem when they began with implementation so there was much more focus on vocational education and training, with a slightly more long-term approach. It has had more success, even in respect of the level of uptake among young people interested in the scheme.

One of the main problems in many European countries, as mentioned by everyone, especially Deputy Durkan, is that some public employment services unfortunately operate at a level that obtained perhaps ten or 20 years ago in terms of the labour market. The labour market is much changed, especially in regard to the flexibility younger people have by comparison with older workers. In Belgium, where the European Youth Forum is based, it takes between nine and 12 months to obtain one's social benefits and dole. This period involves an activation measure that applies before one is eligible to obtain benefits. For many young people, it takes so long and it is so difficult to get benefits that it is very difficult to motivate them to come off them. This is just one example of how some of the schemes are not in the interest of young people.

Senator Reilly asked about funding and its origin. The €6 billion that is earmarked is for a six-year period. It applies to a region known as NUTS 2 and is distributed on a regional basis. This has many advantages because some regions in Europe have a level of youth unemployment that is much higher than the national average. The fund will go to about 16 member states.

The funding of €6 billion is an investment and is to be welcomed for what it is, but in terms of the overall budget, the European Youth Forum contends that young people deserve a much bigger investment, specifically when one considers how much money the youth guarantee could save in the longer term if implemented correctly. Let me give an example. I read in The Irish Times recently that €5 billion in EU funds was misappropriated in 2010 alone. If one compares this with the €6 billion investment over six years for the youth guarantee system, one gets a more comparative figure.

There were many questions on vocational education and training. The German and Austrian systems are very developed in this regard and there is much to be learned from them. In Germany, there is a labour market that very much lends itself to vocational education and training. It is a very highly developed industrial labour market that can absorb young people who undertake training in this area. In the Irish case, there is a lot to be learned, specifically in respect of getting young people into the IT sector. The sector is well represented here.

On the question of whether we need new structures, I have learned from other countries that it is not necessarily a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are many structures in place that are very good. It is about reorienting them towards the needs of young people and bringing in measures in which young people can believe. It may be a matter of bringing in youth organisations as part of a monitoring mechanism to ensure the youth guarantee schemes that are introduced are always in the interest of the young people who participate in them.