Mr. Tony Donohoe:

With regard to Mr. O'Connor's penultimate point regarding the NESC, I still sit on it and it still exists, despite what one could call the demise of social partnership, or at least the disappearance of much of the formal structure around social partnership. It is a table around which all the social partners, plus the environmental pillars, sit. It carries out excellent analysis. Much of the thrust of its analysis formerly was as a precursor to the national partnership and pay agreements. They are no longer in place, but the analysis goes on. It began with a series on Ireland's five part crisis approximately four years ago, examining the social, economic, banking, fiscal and reputational crises. The third iteration of the report has just been published, and it is a very valuable piece of work. In the context of today's discussion, there has also been much research about the social consequences of the crisis. We often tend to see these discussions in terms of inputs, but it also considers how to improve services, which makes a difference to people's lives. That is as much about the efficiency of our services as how much money is invested in them.

Deputy Murphy mentioned the macroeconomic imbalances procedure and the Federal Reserve versus the European Central Bank. I do not see the European Central Bank as the appropriate body for measuring these types of indicator. To be clear, I am not saying that employment and social indicators should not be measured, as they plainly should, but the macroeconomic imbalance procedures are already complex enough, and they are what they say on the tin. They are for measuring macroeconomic balance and not the social consequences, apart from the labour market, which is a related factor. It is important that these measures are in place, but there is a problem when there is duplication of measures. We should remember the European semester and the five flagship targets in that respect, which have a raft of indicators under them. Poverty is one of those. Once there is an overlap of instruments we are in dangerous territory, as indicators have less value. That leads to confusion and very little added value. If indicators can support reform, they are valuable, but they must be carefully selected and robust as well.

Deputy Kyne asked about the skills indicators, which is interesting. This is where measurement becomes more important than what is measured. One can consider the Europe 2020 indicators and targets, of which Ireland has already achieved two. As Deputy Byrne highlighted, the numbers going to third level education far exceed the 2020 target, and I am thankful that rates of early school leaving are below 10%, which is another Europe 2020 target. Nevertheless, we still have youth unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. It is great and encouraging that we have met these targets, but this also shows how indicators by themselves are not the full story, as there are a range of other factors involved.

There were questions from Deputies Byrne and Kyne about sanctions, but such a process is not appropriate, particularly with social indicators. By definition, the countries that are probably least able to afford to pay or respond to punitive sanctions will be in the worst economic shape. I do not know what would be gained by the implementation of sanctions.

Senator Reilly asked about youth unemployment. This morning's figures show a decline in the rate from 31.1% in quarter three of last year to 26.5% now. The rate has declined but that does not make it acceptable. There is still a long way to go, which is why we are fully supportive of initiatives such as the youth guarantee. Like Mr. O'Connor, we look forward to seeing the details. My organisation is involved in a pilot project in Ballymun that involves the youth guarantee, and it is interesting to see where disconnects can exist in the system. This is not just about resources.

Senator Reilly also asked about flexibility and the interesting Cork study that considered the motivation of people who are emigrating. Ultimately, employment must lead to some sort of career progression. I still do not fully understand the word "precarious". Many people have five or six careers in their lifetime. The idea of the permanent and pensionable job for life disappeared well before this crisis emerged. It is important that those opportunities are there for young people.

Deputy Murphy referred to European mobility, and it is ironic that decades after our accession to the EU our young people are emigrating to Australia and Canada rather than EU countries. That may be more related to issues of language and culture.

It is probably less related to the social insurance system that was mentioned. Again, there should be clarity around the social insurance rules and processes. I had a problem with the rates and the idea of EU competence in that area because that is outside the treaty.

Picking up on some of Deputy Byrne's comments on educational attainment and the numbers entering third level education, it is very encouraging but it is still important, and this reflects Senator Reilly's comments as well, that the outcomes of those third level experiences are jobs. We have a very traditional middle class view of education in this country which is very academic and judges the aspirations at all social levels of young people to go to third level. That is regarded as success. If we look at vocational education or apprenticeships, they do not enjoy parity of esteem. I think this is a problem and a labour market problem as well. It is great that increasing numbers of young people are going to third level but it has to be an experience that will also result in positive employment prospects for them. Many of the courses available at third level have a strong vocational element and there are opportunities there. This is an area where Europe could really help because we hear a lot about the German dual system and the northern European economies' vocational education systems. We cannot recreate them here but we can glean some very interesting learning from them. A Government review of apprenticeships is ongoing, which is very important in terms of some of the lessons that might come out of that and mainstream that concept of vocational education which would enjoy parity of esteem and ultimately lead to employment.