Mr. Dermot Stokes:

As for the timescale, it would be possible to do it very quickly if it simply was a matter of getting it on the table. While one must take a long-term view of all these measures, one can start in the understanding that one will not finish it very quickly. I was handed the brief for Youthreach in 1988 and it took the guts of two decades to move from the point at which there was nothing to something that was able to stand alongside other things. Consequently, one must take a long-term view, even though one must act very quickly and one can do both.

As for the local structures, one item afoot under the proposals in respect of education and training boards and so on is an attempt to establish local structures that will be responsive. There is a risk that this could be instrumental and would lose the developmental functions, for example, that VECs traditionally have fulfilled. However, if one takes into account the education and training boards that are coming into play, the local development companies and partnerships, as well as the new structures in the context of the local authority reforms and realignment, it may not be a matter of establishing new entities at local level. However, as Mr. Doorley also mentioned, local action is extremely important. This is because there are variations right across the board and whatever national framework policies are introduced they must be capable of interpretation at the local level in flexible ways that are tailored to working.

In respect of the payments for results issue, the critical point pertains to cherry-picking. If several hundred young people are looking for a place, if one has 20 places available and placing them all in employment is a condition of getting all of one's funding, inevitably one will select those who are most employable and cherry-pick. That was a major problem with some of the FÁS programmes in the late 1980s and early 1990s such as the youth skills programme. When one comes to monitoring their effectiveness, one actually winds up monitoring the "in person" factors rather than the "in training" factors, if members understand my point. In other words, what looks very effective when one considers the results may actually not pertain to the effectiveness of either the training or the action but to the people one has selected to participate. This is a significant issue.

On apprenticeships, I wish to make two points. First, I refer to those areas where numbers declined in, for example, traditional apprenticeship areas. Incidentally, we have a very narrow apprenticeship system in Ireland. However, with regard to such areas, in the past we have made use of mechanisms such as, for example, the community youth training programme that FÁS used to run. One still sees signs around the country that houses, buildings or old heritage sites were renovated. In many instances, they were temporary employment mechanisms that allowed people to continue on the path of apprenticeship during a period of low employment or a period in which employers were not able to take them on board. FÁS also had a linked work experience programme, which was another useful mechanism. Consequently, the models are available to maintain the apprenticeship line, but it also is the case that there is an increasing interest internationally; one can see it here in initiatives such as JobBridge, in what might be described as apprenticeship-style measures that focus on using the workplace, linking the training and the workplace and putting the individual in a work environment. There are many benefits to so doing, but perhaps it is at a higher level and might be described as a professional apprenticeship model. That also would surmount a comment which frequently is made by many employers to the effect that many young people are ill-prepared for work when they are employed. I have heard it from small employers and very youth-friendly employers, as well as people who had no particular bias one way or the other and it is a consistent comment from small, medium and large employers. Some of this pertains to expectations, perhaps as a hangover from the Celtic tiger period, when people expected to walk straight into a job which paid well. There are many possible explanations for this.

There is a remarkable consistency in what employers say. For example, a person may come in having done a degree and having had 30 days to do a project in the workplace, they are expected to do that within a day. I have met groups of employers in Dublin and the south east as part of the study I was working on. They consistently said it takes six months for a young person to get up to speed in order to make a contribution to the enterprise.

Apprenticeship approaches, including internships like JobBridge, are a way of overcoming that. They are also a way of connecting the world of employment and work with the world of education and training. Over the years in Ireland we have allowed for that. The high demand in the labour market meant nobody needed to work hard at that bridge, which simply existed by virtue of high labour market demand. As a model to connect the world of work with the education and training sector, apprenticeship is very significant and important. I anticipate that we will be paying much more attention to that in future.

A question was asked about IT skills. The FIT programme is an effective way of working, particularly in relatively disadvantaged areas and connecting them with work in the IT sector. There are good data supporting the approach and a strong evaluative culture within that action.

It is the case that those who find it most difficult to engage with the labour market and services are, simply by virtue of how things work, liable to wind up at the back of the queue. That is something that must be addressed.

A question was asked about whether public employment services were fit for purpose. A discussion needs to occur at the operational level between employment services, education and training providers, and community and voluntary services, including local development companies.

People on the social protection side are focused on the disadvantaged and those furthest from the labour market. Their worry is that because education and training providers will be judged on the basis of placement and results, the focus will be on the easy to place and not the most disadvantaged. Regardless of whether that is correct, it indicates a strong need for them to talk and all be of one mind when it comes to focusing on target groups at a local level. In other words, the action must be consistent, coherent and collaborative between different arms of the service.

It comes back to the point about whether the public employment service is the gateway to the youth guarantee. If so, it would suggest that the public employment service is in the driving seat. That sets up another relationship with employers and education and training providers who become clients of the public employment service. Historically, there has always been an uneasiness on the public employment services side regarding their relationship with education and training providers. Equally, the latter are very uneasy with seeing themselves as being service providers to the public employment service. Therefore, a serious conservation needs to happen, especially at a local operational level.

The question of guidance is particularly pertinent to the more disadvantaged clients of the public employment service. It comes back to how people are being trained. At the moment, substantial numbers of people are being drawn together from three very different services into the one organisation through Intreo.

A community welfare officer has a set of skills that do not readily translate into the case management of an unemployed person, yet that is how the service will operate. There is a good deal of inter-service knowledge exchange, which will be important. Creating the time for that is also important. Intreo staff will have to meet people three times as often as they did under the national employment action plan process. Suddenly therefore, people will have a significant increase in their workload. At the same time, we are asking them to engage at close quarters locally.

Employers consistently say they are not talked to locally about service provision, employment services or education and training. We had a meeting with some very significant employers, who have been doing important developments in the south east. They said it was the first time anyone had ever asked them to such a meeting. The employment service got to meet that set of demands from the local education providers and also increased their level of activity. It is quite a challenge.