Mr. James Doorley:

Deputy Ó Caoláin referred to the disproportionate cuts to services for young people. Unfortunately, it can be a case of penny wise and pound foolish, particularly in the context of the long-term impacts of high levels of unemployment and young people leaving school early.

We even see it with the figures relating to mental health and, unfortunately, young people who die by suicide. The activities, sports and services that our members provide to young people can make a difference. We all know from the small spaces and activities which young people are involved in that the situation outside the school environment can make a big difference. A significant adult can make a big difference to the lives of many young people. Thankfully, many young people have one within the family but many people do not and sometimes they turn to someone who can help and support them. The Indecon report we received last year showed as much. Indecon is an economic consultancy that examined investment very much from the perspective of pounds, shillings and pence. It concluded that for every euro the State invests in youth work, it gets back €2.2 in the long term.

The National Economic and Social Council and the OECD issued statements last week. They indicated that in terms of employment young people have been hardest hit. We are not trying to create an intergenerational conflict; we are trying to emphasise the need to recognise that children and young people have been hard hit. There was some talk when the promissory note was announced in terms of lessening the €3.1 billion this year. For these young people the numbers are increasing but the challenges they are facing are increasing as well. Youth work services have already taken a 30% cut in 2014. We are not looking for more money but we are calling for the cut to be cancelled in 2014.

Senator van Turnhout will be well aware of the position because of her work in the sector. Most youth services in the country are provided by voluntary organisations. They have pushed and lobbied for vetting, quality standards and a range of other things but these come with extra costs and pressures. The committee is aware that the sector has 40,000 volunteers and 1,300 full-time staff equivalent. It is primarily a volunteer-led service. The extra requirements that they must meet reduces the amount of time they have to work with young people. On top of that they must find money to run the services. Furthermore, they have been hit by the double-whammy of reduced public funding while many have significantly reduced fund-raising. Many organisations are trying to raise money in all sorts of ways to run their activities.

The alcohol issue was raised. I was on the sports marketing group some years back which discussed getting rid of drinks industry sponsorship of sport. As a GAA fan, I always believed that it was wrong. I understand where sports organisations are coming from and that they are getting the money to provide the services, but I always took the view as a GAA fan that the money they were getting was coming from companies that were doing a good deal of damage to the young people they were meant to be working with. The irony is that for any young person who wishes to excel in sport, drinking alcohol is counterproductive. I agree that youth organisations should not accept money from the alcohol industry. It is simply against our principles. We are in place to assist young people. We would have no difficulty getting money in the morning and we need to remember that in the current context. This is why we believe in a social responsibility levy. This would involve the State imposing a levy. Alcohol is not an ordinary commodity; it is a product that has always been licensed because it is seen as a product that has consequences. We believe the State should impose such a levy.

Senator Burke referred to value for money. A value-for-money review is currently being conducted by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. We believe that we must make better use of public funds, there is no doubt about that. However, sometimes because of the way the system is organised, in many cases there is no incentive for organisations to try to do things in a better way because organisations get cut across the board anyway. An organisation that has saved a great deal of money gets punished because it is told that it has cut costs here and there and therefore it will get less because it has been seen to reduce the budget. We need to consider incentivising organisations. This is not to say that many organisations have not cut budgets and costs already. Most organisations froze increments in 2008, most have cut pay and salaries and most have let people go and reduced services. There is a limit to the extent to which organisations can cut back. The irony is that it is possible for organisations to end up with staff but no money to do anything and that is not sustainable either.

I agree completely with the comments on EU funding. A total of between €6 billion and €8 billion is coming down the track with the youth guarantee. That represents a great opportunity for Ireland. It has been estimated that we could potentially access between €100 million and €150 million. I agree that we need to ensure this money is drawn down and spent well. There is only a two-year window for the youth guarantee. Our concern is that the money might be used to top up or replace some existing schemes and that would not be good enough.

Deputy Doherty made a particular point about the youth guarantee. We believe the youth guarantee should support all young people who are jobseekers to get them into work. We recognise that some young people who have left school or college recently may need a little support to get into a job or extra training but we are particularly concerned about the most disadvantaged young people because many of them have been on the live register for a long time. We maintain that of the potential €100 million or €150 million, at least a strand of it should be solely for those young people who are long-term unemployed and who perhaps have limited skills and qualifications.

The youth guarantee in Sweden and Finland has been successful. Ireland is not Sweden or Finland but those countries found it far more challenging to engage with the young people who were longer-term unemployed. More work needs to be done in this area. Some of these young people need what is called prevocational work. They may have literacy issues, substance misuse problems or family issues or they may have had a bad experience in school and need a little extra support. To throw a person into a job when, for example, he has literacy issues only creates more problems. I heard a representative of a major shopping retailer state recently that the business was sent 28 people who had been unemployed to fill positions. The business decided that none of them were ready to start work because they needed a good deal more support before they would be ready. Those people may well be ready in six months or a year. This is where the youth guarantee gives us a great opportunity but it is a short timeframe. I am involved in the pilot in Ballymun. It is a challenge to get all the organisations and statutory agencies to work together. It is a great opportunity but I agree that we need to ensure we use the money well because it is badly needed.