Mr. James Doorley:

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to discuss with them the issue of strengthening the social dimension of the economic and monetary union. The National Youth Council of Ireland is a representative body comprising some 50 organisations working in every community in Ireland with some 380,000 young people aged ten to 24. The contribution of the European Union is becoming greater in many social policy areas, including the youth dimension. Some years ago, for instance, we saw the first European youth strategy, and there are youth dimensions to the Europe 2020 initiative. During the Irish Presidency earlier this year the Government took a lead on the youth guarantee, which I am hopeful will have a fundamental impact in terms of addressing youth unemployment in this country.

We welcome any strengthening of the EU's commitment to the social dimension, which cannot be separated from the financial side. As Ms O'Connor said, the economic and social are essentially two sides of the same coin. We need economic growth in order to enhance the social dimension, but progress on social issues such as education, equality and the provision of decent housing all, in their turn, contribute to economic growth. If we have large numbers of very poor people or people who are otherwise excluded, that will have an inhibitive effect on growth. In addition, the OECD has pointed out that youth emigration inhibits growth. We must see the two dimensions as working in tandem rather than a case of having to sort out the economic issues first and only then seeking to deal with the social dimension.

We welcome the references in the Commission document to a focus on youth employment indicators. There is a sense that if something is counted, then it counts. If, on the other hand, it is not reckoned or monitored, it may be forgotten about. We welcome the emphasis on such measurements as long-term youth unemployment, the numbers of young people not in education, employment or training, NEET, and the numbers of young people at risk of poverty. The proposal to include these indicators in the alert mechanism report as part of the European semester process will give them more emphasis at both a European and member state level.

We would like to see some reference in the indicators to the types of jobs being done by young people. After all, it is not just about employment versus unemployment but also the quality of employment secured. Some years ago the Lisbon strategy talked about not just more jobs, but better jobs. One of the issues we have come across in our work is that those young people who are working are often in poorly paid, temporary and precarious employment. It would be very useful to have indicators regarding the numbers of young people in temporary versus permanent employment, average wages and the numbers on the minimum wage. Those types of data give us a bigger and better picture of what is happening.

In the document I circulated to members, I included a snapshot of where Ireland stands at this time in respect of several of the social indicators we are discussing. There is some good news. For example, we are doing very well on school completion, with a significant reduction in the numbers of young people leaving school early. On issues like youth unemployment, however, we do not score so well, even though the current rate of 26% actually represents a decline on recent years. Moreover, half of that cohort are long-term unemployed. We have one of the highest rates in the European Union of young people not in education, employment or training and the highest percentage of people aged 16 to 24 at risk of poverty and social exclusion. If these indicators were centrally compiled and transparent, there would be a greater impetus, at both European and national level, to address them. Progress has been made on the youth guarantee scheme, but more investment is required in terms of integrating young people into the labour market.

In terms of the process itself, it is important that it is meaningful and effective. Ms O'Connor and I spoke before the meeting about our involvement in a previous co-ordination of policies initiative at European level called the open method of co-ordination. That was a useful and interesting exercise in terms of sharing best practice and so on, but it was very process-intensive. There was a great deal of work involved for organisations engaged in different policy areas, but it was sometimes difficult to see the results. Having said that, the incorporation of the social dimension into the macroeconomic imbalance procedure has significant potential. There is also a reference in the Commission document to a linkage with EU funding. Whatever about the economic side, it might well concentrate minds if funding were dependent to some extent on member states meeting agreed social targets.

Those of us who work in this area are familiar with the range of indicators already in play, such as employment policy indicators, the social protection performance monitor, Europe 2020 targets and the youth policy indicators the Commission has developed. It is a question of ensuring there is effective co-ordination in compiling those data. We acknowledge there will be limits, constraints and challenges in terms of implementing these measures. We are subject to the monetary policy set down by the European Central Bank and to the provisions of the fiscal compact and the Stability and Growth Pact. While the inclusion of social indicators would be very welcome, the question is whether the economic and fiscal parameters within which we must operate will still trump anything on the social side.

We must keep in mind, too, that indicators can sometimes be very crude mechanisms which do not necessarily capture the full picture. They can also have perverse outcomes where, for instance, they create incentives for governments to force people into poorly paid or otherwise unsatisfactory jobs in order to get the unemployment figures down. There must be mechanisms in place to ensure there is real progress and not just progress on paper. A particular question that struck me, and it is obviously a debate that will have to take place at European and national level, is what might constitute a good or bad score in regard to youth unemployment, long-term unemployment or the NEET level. Should countries be aiming for youth unemployment of 20%, for example, or 10% or zero?

There is an issue for us in that much of this process will happen at a European level, as part of the semester structure, and will not, therefore, be very accessible to organisations at a national level. There is a question - it is a question on a broader level, not just for our organisation but for the committee and the Oireachtas - as to the nature of the engagement at national member state level. If the Commission decides there are problems in a particular member state and begins the process as outlined, with country-specific recommendations, corrective plans and so on, what engagement will there be at national level? Will the Oireachtas have an input into that and will there be a role for our MEPs? From our perspective, we can engage with this committee and with the Oireachtas, but we probably cannot engage with the Commission in Brussels. In a situation where the Commission has identified that Ireland is falling down on a particular social indicator, how then do we as a member state engage with that and how do we as an organisation get involved?

We very much welcome the emphasis in the document on social dialogue. That is a key point in a context where it is governments and European institutions which make the decisions. I would welcome an acknowledgment that it is good to make decisions based on all the information and having heard the views of all parties. A problem with many EU policy documents is that they limit the definition of social partners to include only employers and trade unions. We acknowledge that these are important players, but they are not the only players. Unemployed people are automatically excluded because they are not members of trade unions and are not represented by employers. Ireland has a good tradition of looking beyond the standard European model of social partnership.

We certainly need to engage with a wider range of parties in order to be effective and legitimate.

We welcome the proposal and we are of the view that it has the potential to influence the policy agenda. We would like to see reference to broader indicators in respect of young people, including those relating to the number of young people in temporary employment and minimum and overall wage levels. We are of the view that these would provide a more complete picture. There is a need to ensure that the process is effective and meaningful and to acknowledge the limitations and challenges involved. We would like some clarification in respect of what will be the role of member states, the Parliament and the actors at national level in the context of engagement with the process. There is also a need to consider social dialogue in the context of engagement with civil society. In most democracies, that is how it is viewed and there is not just a very narrow focus on employers and trade unions.

I thank the committee for its time and I will be happy to answer any questions members may wish to pose.