Mr. James Doorley:

Senator Reilly asked whether the public employment service is fit for purpose. We surveyed young jobseekers two or three years ago and asked them about their experience in engaging with FÁS and the Department of Social Protection. Generally, jobseekers understood the system was under a lot of pressure and that the numbers had increased a lot in recent years. Generally, apart from one or two good examples, there was a sense that jobseekers did not receive the sort of engagement they needed. Jobseekers just felt they were given information at a hatch five or six times without getting the expected support. The new Intreo model represents an effort to have greater engagement, but this requires many more people on the front line engaging with jobseekers, especially young jobseekers because many of them do not have work experience. They are in a different set of circumstances. It is really important that their needs be addressed.

Many young jobseekers take jobseeking very seriously because they feel that if they make the wrong choice in regard to a training course or work experience, it could be detrimental to their careers. They regard engagement with the service as similar to a job interview and are disappointed if they are just given five minutes. I have heard some really dispiriting examples. Just last week, we had consultation with youth workers who are working with the category of young people in question. People in the public employment services are working under great pressure and have considerable workloads and many are doing great work, but in some cases young people get a very negative reaction from staff. They may feel demeaned and this does not really help to encourage them to engage.

We need independent monitoring of the youth guarantee in Ireland. We will need to know whether it is working and we need the involvement of the young people who are using the system. The latter is vital. There is not enough external evaluation of public employment services.

One must put oneself into the shoes of disadvantaged young people. Many young people might have had a very bad experience of the education system. The level of trust of young people in the system is quite low, as stated by Deputy Durkan. They get the letter in the post from the FÁS office and automatically assume it contains bad news. Many of our member organisations and youth workers have credibility and a track record. We are not saying they comprise the total solution but that people working with disadvantaged young people have a role to play. We are not training providers and we are not offering an employment service but many of our member organisations could serve as a bridge to the young people who will not go to a training centre. Many young people in the category in question have actually been thrown off training courses because they are not prepared. They might have had difficulties and started with an addiction problem, as said by Deputy Durkan, and may not have the supports necessary to help them. It is a question of support to keep them on track.

With regard to Deputy O'Reilly's question on whether the rate is lower, emigration is obviously a factor. The number staying in education and training is also a factor. There is a growing category of young people who do not qualify for social welfare benefits. They are living at home with their parents and might be just over the threshold so do not see the point of signing on. Mr. Stokes might have said that if the live register is to become a gateway for the youth guarantee, we will have a problem. This is because there will be a category of young people who are not signing on and who will not come under the guarantee under the current model.

I agree on apprenticeships. The number of apprenticeships dropped from 8,000 per year to 1,000 per year because of the crash in the construction sector. Apprenticeships are a real alternative for many young people who may not want to be web designers. They may want a trade or skill and we need to do more about this. I recently encountered a scheme in Drogheda that offers funding to do up old local authority houses that have been neglected. The scheme uses young people to renovate houses over eight or nine months.

Under the payment-by-results model in the United Kingdom, as I understand it, the Government involved the private sector and offered to pay a certain sum if 70% or 80% of 10,000 unemployed people, for example, were moved on within a certain period.

Our concern is that for some young people, it might be very ambitious to state they will be in a job in six or 12 months. They might need a lot more support and if the process is completely focused on getting a young person into a job within six or 12 months, the young people who are closer to the labour market will be picked and the others forgotten. My understanding is it created some absurd situations where churning took place, whereby people were being moved into jobs but ended up back on the dole again, even though the private provider was paid for moving them on into that job. There were a lot of issues in this regard.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan also is correct when he observes we have been here before. Unfortunately, all the analysis shows the youth guarantee is the sort of thing one would have in the good times because it would catch people before they fell into long-term unemployment, rather than doing so in the middle of a crisis. As has been noted, it is a major task to do it while undergoing such huge institutional reform in the public employment services and further education and training sector. However, our point on the most disadvantaged young people in particular is that it is about giving them a little confidence or hope. Some young people may think to themselves there is no point in going on a training course or staying on to complete one's leaving certificate examinations because no jobs are available. However, we are trying to put forward the argument that while things may be tough, one can give them that sense of hope, as well as resilience and the soft skills many employers also seek. While people may not have hard skills, employers certainly need soft skills such as consistency, the ability to work in a team and make decisions, as well as showing innovation and similar skills that are really important in the current labour market.

On Deputy Eric Byrne's points, I agree that we must ensure the money is targeted. As to how this is done, while obviously it is a matter for the Government, during the 1990s particular schemes operated - the Deputy mentioned the urban programme - that made sure the money did not get lost between the European Union, Departments and different agencies. It did go almost straight into communities, which definitely is what must be ensured. The Deputy also made a valid point with which I certainly agree in respect of coherence. I have been trying to carry out an analysis of the different schemes and programmes and there is a lack of coherence because a lot of schemes have different conditions for different age groups. While there are certain reasons for this, there is also a lack of coherence and even the staff dealing with jobseekers find it very difficult to understand for what a person who comes in, having been unemployed for nine months, actually qualifies. It is a difficult job and perhaps we might try to make further education and training and the employment support system a little more coherent and a lot less complex. In addition, as Mr. Stokes mentioned, we could try to make it more joined up in order that it is not a lottery. People become extremely upset when they think they are eligible for a course and then find out they are obliged to wait for a further six months.

On the Chairman's points on the timescale, it would be an issue in certain respects. I assume the European funding is an integral part for the Government, but it may not commence until 2015. However, the Government can do a lot immediately. There is a pilot scheme for which it has applied in Ballymun, as far as I am aware, in which we are involved.