Mr. James Doorley:

Deputy Sean Fleming raised three issues. On youth work services, the analysis shows that more than 380,000 young people, which is not a small number, access youth services in Ireland. Our members have been cut by 30% and we feel this is a soft target because many of these young people do not have a vote or a voice. As most schemes are run by community and voluntary organisations, they have tried to lessen the impact on the young people through fund-raising, cutting hours here and supports there, or whatever. However, one gets to a stage at which it becomes almost impossible to run any activity with reduced funding. There were protests last year regarding the cuts but our concern is the further €3 million in cuts that are anticipated. While this may not seem like much in the overall scheme of things, taken on top of the current cuts, when it filters down it will have a major impact on many services. Our essential point is that while we obviously would prefer if the 30% reduction did not happen, at least for 2014 we seek a commitment that the aforementioned €3 million will not be cut.

I agree with the Deputy regarding young people not in employment, education or training. We were a bit astounded when we saw that figure because we had thought that while things are relatively bad here, when compared with some other countries we were not as bad. There are three areas that pertain to those figures. It does identify the young people who are unemployed, are on the live register and are not actually in education, training or unemployment. Then there is a group of early school leavers who are not signing on. I met a group of youth workers a few months ago who work in Dublin and they told me there are young people in particular parts of Dublin who either are encouraged to leave school early or fall out of the school system, and they are just out there. They are not counted anywhere and are not being followed. This is an entire cohort about which we are particularly concerned. Some of them hope to get onto Youthreach or another scheme at some stage, but since 2008 Youthreach has been capped at 6,000 places and consequently there is not much capacity there. There also is another cohort we believe is not being counted at all, namely, young people between 18 and 25 who are living at home, do not qualify for an unemployment benefit and consequently do not sign on. We do not actually know the number involved. As a result, while the current live register figures show approximately 60,000 - obviously this figure fluctuates depending on the time of year - that group is not counted. They are still unemployed, inactive and out there but they are not eligible for any support because as far as the system is concerned, one must be signing on. Some can sign for credits but they do not see the value of doing that. This is the reason we have such high levels and that something like a youth guarantee has great potential. However, there also are many pitfalls and it depends on how it is implemented. Nevertheless, I agree that it does not reflect very well on Ireland that we have such high levels of unemployment.

Finally, we perceive the social responsibility levy to be a no-brainer. It is not our idea but came from the national substance misuse strategy group.

They felt it was a way for the big alcohol companies which are making vast profits from the sale of alcohol in this country to contribute even a small fraction. I suppose we are saying that in this budget it would at least be a step along the way for them to contribute. One might argue that they should contribute more. They are paying their taxes, but alcohol is not an ordinary commodity; it has always been licensed. This is a way to contribute to the justice and health costs of alcohol.

There is also the issue, which we have raised with the Department of Finance previously, that a large multiple selling millions of euro worth of alcohol pays the same excise licence - that is, €500 - as a small outlet or pub that may sell a fraction of the amount. Similarly, there are large multinationals which are making significant profits but paying the same as a small corner shop or whatever. Potentially, there are revenue-raising issues in that regard and we are disappointed that so far they have not been taken up. We really would like to see them taken up.