Ms Fiona Dunne:

I am conscious that the committee has heard many presentations and there is agreement on many of the issues. The ICTU welcomes the concept of the youth guarantee. It is important because young people have been dramatically affected by the recession and they still are the largest unemployed group even though they have flexibility in that they can remain in or return to education or emigrate. We are disappointed with the funding for the youth guarantee. We have heard the numbers that have been indicated to make it an effective solution and it is unfortunate that more money has not been secured. A small amount has been allocated and we hope a larger investment will be made throughout. We hope it will deliver for young people whatever way considerations are made. This should be something new. It should not be a numbers exercise or an extension of what has gone before. It is not simply about moving people into training opportunities that are not tailored specifically to their needs. I agree with the NYCI that implementation should be speedy and done with sufficient resources, because the objective of a youth guarantee is to ensure our young people become active in the labour market in decent jobs with decent pay and conditions and opportunities. That is the core of what congress talks about in terms of decent work and opportunities.

We have outlined a number of principles in the Locked Out? document. As Mr. O'Connor said, the scheme should be additional. We would also like to have an input into the implementation and design of the scheme. Our organisations represent more than 1 million young people. It is important that their voice is heard.

The main objective of a youth guarantee should be a lead-in to sustainable employment, but there should also be a recognition that there are different routes back to employment. Training and education are hugely important, particularly when skills are obsolete, but work placements, as Ms Horgan mentioned, are also important for those who have a higher level of education and need learning opportunities within the workplace. There also should be a mechanism whereby jobseekers are identified along with the option that suits them most. That will have cost implications, but if money is spent on such a guarantee, it should be as effective as possible.

The scheme should also commission regular independent research to establish the contribution of each element to sustainable employment. It is important that there is an evaluation mechanism that is clearly monitored to ensure there is no exploitation such as has happened in the JobBridge scheme and to assess the sustainability and quality of employment on the scheme, including that which has been secured after training. Given the level of investment the Government is suggesting, decisions and choices will have to be made. The NESC suggested recently that difficult decisions have to be made with regard to targeting and that it may have to happen under the youth guarantee. The questions we have identified are as follows: Is it to be a quick fix? Is it about moving people into employment or is it a numbers exercise for those to whom it is easier to allocate positions but who may benefit anyway from an economic upturn which we hope will happen soon? Some young people who have been the subject of significant educational investment may leave the country. Is that more beneficial? Should the scheme address the needs of those who are further removed from the labour force, are harder to place and may not have the capacity to avail of economic growth? Congress believes that a targeted approach is necessary in the absence of additional and adequate funding.

The committee needs to consider that it is difficult to reach young people, particularly those living in unemployment black spots or those who may come from families that have experienced intergenerational unemployment. The guarantee can assist in breaking the cycle of unemployment. With such limited funds, we will need to ensure they deliver for our young people.

The crisis in youth unemployment cannot be fixed solely by the youth guarantee. There should be a national jobs strategy for young people and an investment stimulus. We should look to expanding sectors such as green jobs, hospitality and high tech industries.