Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Thursday, 21 March 2013

Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Union Affairs

European Youth Guarantee and Ireland: Discussion

2:10 pm

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The meeting is now in session and I ask everyone to turn off their mobile telephones because they can interfere with the broadcasting equipment.

The first item on our agenda today is the European Youth Guarantee and its impact on Ireland. On behalf of the committee, I am delighted to welcome Mr. James Doorley from the National Youth Council of Ireland, Mr. James Higgins from the European Youth Forum and Mr. Dermot Stokes, an ex-member of Youthreach.

As members will know, at the end of the February the Council of the European Union reached political agreement on a recommendation addressed to the member states to establish a youth guarantee scheme, the aim of which is to ensure that all young people under the age of 25 who lose their jobs or who do not find work after finishing formal education quickly receive a good-quality offer of employment, continued education, or an apprenticeship or traineeship. The guarantee states that they should receive such an offer within four months of becoming unemployed or leaving formal education. The guarantee is intended to provide for a smooth transition between school and work, support labour market integration and make sure that no young person is left out. The measure is a key part of the response to the worsening youth unemployment situation in Europe. In Ireland, youth unemployment stands at 32% and in countries such as Spain, the unemployment rate for those under 25 is almost 50%. We all recognise that something needs to be done and this committee is interested in exploring how the proposed scheme might work in practice. In that context, we look forward to hearing the views of our witnesses today on how such a scheme might work and whether it could be customised for the Irish market.

I wish to draw attention to the parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against an individual or entity either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it easily identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Mr. James Doorley:

On behalf of the National Youth Council of Ireland, NYCI, I thank the committee for the invitation to speak on the youth guarantee.

The NYCI is the representative body for more than 50 organisations working with young people in almost every community in Ireland. We have 40,000 volunteers working in the youth sector in Ireland and around 1,400 full-time-equivalent staff. A lot of people work on a part-time basis but the overall figure is approximately 1,400 whole-time equivalents. A recent independent assessment of the number of young people participating in programmes run by youth organisations in Ireland showed that there were about 382,000 in the 10-to-24 age group involved. A significant number of young people are, therefore, engaged with our member services and 53% of those young people are from what can be described as economically and socially disadvantaged areas.

Members are well aware of the seriousness of youth unemployment, but there have been some changes in that regard since the crisis first hit. The number of young people on the live register has dropped relatively significantly since 2010, by approximately 23,000 to 24,000. Alongside that, however, we have seen an increase in long-term youth unemployment. At the end of October 2012 there were 30,000 young people who had been signing on the live register for 12 months or more. There has also been a significant amount of emigration, with estimates indicating that 142,000 people under 25 have emigrated. Obviously, many more between the ages of 25 and 30 have also left. Even though the number of unemployed young people has come down, the number of young people in the labour force has also dropped. In 2012, the labour force participation rate for young people fell by about 10%. Between 2008 and 2012, the number of young people under 25 in the workforce almost halved. It is important to put those figures on the record to demonstrate the scale of the crisis we are facing.

Levels of youth unemployment are directly related to levels of education and qualifications, which is not a new phenomenon. International and national studies have shown that young people insulate themselves against unemployment to some degree by continuing in education. High educational attainment will not provide complete protection against joblessness; figures show that the level of unemployment among young graduates was around 18%, but among those educated only to primary level it was 70%. Ireland has the fourth highest number of young people who are in the so-called NEET category, meaning they are not in employment, education or training. The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions estimated that it costs approximately €150 billion per year, at a European level, to have that number of young people not engaged in the workforce or in training. The cost to Ireland is estimated to be €3 billion per annum. My colleague Mr. James Higgins from the European Youth Forum will talk some more about the European dimension, but the committee might be interested to note that recent statistics indicate that there are almost 14 million young people between 15 and 29 who are not in education, employment or training. That is equal to the population of seven member states - admittedly, seven of the smaller states - and is a staggering figure.

On the issue of education and training, we are of the view that while there has been some increase in the availability of some of the existing schemes, as well as new initiatives such as Springboard, MOMENTUM and JobBridge, overall, there are not enough places and opportunities to meet the demand. A few weeks ago an affiliate of one of our member organisations in Tipperary had a meeting to recruit 20 young people for a training course, but 120 turned up. Mr. Stokes would know more about this than I do, but there is evidence that many Youthreach centres have long waiting lists for their services. The lack of capacity is a major issue. We are particularly concerned that the young people who have the lowest level of educational qualifications and who may be dealing with other issues such as lack of parental support, bad experiences in school and so forth are being pushed to the back of the queue. The increase in unemployment has been so great and the demand for training courses so extensive that the young people with greater resources at their disposal are the ones who end up getting a lot of the training places, to the detriment of those who might need those places most. We did an analysis of some of the existing Government programmes and found that the number of long-term unemployed young people participating in some of them was very low, which is a worry. Additional efforts are required to address this issue. Youthreach is certainly doing a lot of excellent work but, as far as I am aware, the capacity of Youthreach has not been increased significantly since the start of the crisis.

We are also concerned about the quality of some of the programmes and courses on offer. While there is a lot of good work being done, there are some courses and training opportunities which are short-term and not very well targeted, whose value to participants is not clear or which may not be useful in leading to either further education or employment. We are spending significant resources in this area but the question arises as to whether those resources are being spent wisely and well.

We strongly welcome the youth guarantee and the decision of the EU Employment and Social Affairs Council last month to agree it. We compliment the Irish Government on securing that agreement. The NYCI was one of the first organisations in this country to call for a youth guarantee and for one to be implemented in Ireland.

However, the idea is a good one. The issue is how to implement it and how it will work in practice. For us, the three key issues are funding, quality and progression, and reaching and supporting the most disadvantaged young people in Ireland.

The International Labour Organization carried out an analysis of the funding of the youth guarantee that operates in Sweden. The analysis concluded that it cost approximately €6,600 per participant. Clearly, we cannot take a scheme from another European jurisdiction and plant it in Ireland and suggest it would be the same here, but I believe that figure would be rather low with regard to engaging with the most disadvantaged young people. Likewise, among some people who may need limited support, that figure could be rather high. Let us suppose we took the figure of €6,600 and applied it to Ireland. Let us further suppose we were to engage with young people who have been unemployed for 12 months or more. We would be facing an annual bill of approximately €200 million. However, we maintain that is money well spent because the cost of leaving that cohort of young people on the live register rather than having them engaged would cost us more in the long run. The €6 billion that has been agreed by the European Union-----

2:20 pm

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the figure for young people 35,000? Is that what you make it?

Mr. James Doorley:

The long-term unemployed figure for young people is 30,000. The €6 billion is welcome but perhaps Mr. Higgins has more expertise on that issue and I will leave it to him. Anyway, there is an issue in that the Irish Government will have to provide matching funding and this is something we need to address. I do not believe that somehow all of this money will come from Europe. Sometimes there is a sense that it will always come from Europe but we know that is not the case. However, Ireland is in a strong position to draw down significant resources from the fund.

We are keen to put the issue of the private sector on the table. The private sector benefits from the education and training of young people and many sectors of the economy have vacancies. There is a question of whether the private sector could contribute as well. It is clear that there is a lack of capacity. If the Government decided to implement a youth guarantee in the morning, we simply would not have sufficient training, education or work experience places. I am not suggesting it cannot be ramped up over time, but we certainly need to consider that issue. Another issue we have identified is that there has not been the right emphasis. We need a national emphasis but we need to engage with groups at local level as well. I imagine all Deputies and Senators are aware of great work that is being done at local level. We should engage with the community and voluntary sectors to deliver some of these places as well as ramping up schemes such as Youthreach and others.

It is important we do not increase the number of places for the sake of it. We must have regard to equality and progression. We need to ensure young people benefit from the programme, especially young people who have had a bad experience of the education system and who perhaps have other issues. Such people may need longer-term supports to enable them to get the benefits from education and training. Some young people may have literacy or addiction issues and we believe we need to do more in that regard. We do not want a situation whereby a young person goes through the youth guarantee process but ends up in a part-time or temporary job on low pay, because he or she will simply end up back on the live register within a short period.

We need to put in considerable efforts in Ireland to determine how we can implement this in the best way possible and how to make the best use of resources. There is also another concern. The United Kingdom introduced what was known as a payment-by-results model. The Irish Government is considering the introduction of third parties from the private sector to the activation system. As far as I am aware in the United Kingdom, the payment-by-results model involved getting a cohort of people off the live register and moving them into employment. Those responsible were paid based on the percentage of those who were brought into employment. However, some of those people were progressed into not very satisfactory employment. There was also a tendency to cherry pick those who were close to the labour market and those who needed least support. We need to consider these issues carefully.

We believe there is a need to concentrate primarily on the most disadvantaged young people. We are now four or five years into the crisis. One could argue that we are heading towards the previous scenario again but we do not want to create the problem which we had in the 1980s and 1990s whereby we created a cohort of people who were long-term unemployed and who needed a great deal of support to get back into the labour force. In particular we are calling for an emphasis on the long-term unemployed, especially the 30,000 people who have been unemployed for more than one year and the 17,000 people who have been unemployed for two years. They need a particular focus. The youth guarantees in Sweden and Finland, which have been quite successful, were not as successful with this cohort. We believe that the youth sector and the organisations we represent, which are working with young people and which have credibility in communities, could play a role. We have already spoken to the Government in this regard and in terms of putting forward proposals that some of the money coming from the youth guarantee should be designated to address the hardest to reach and the most disadvantaged young people. If it is not, there is a danger they will be marginalised and left behind once again. I will leave it there but I will be glad to answer any questions later.

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Mr James Higgins from the European Youth Forum.

Mr. James Higgins:

I am glad to be here. I will give some European context to the debate. On 28 February, the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council, EPSCO, approved a recommendation for a youth guarantee. This directly followed the European Commission proposal as part of its youth employment package at the end of last year. The Council recommended that member states begin to implement the scheme as soon as possible and preferably from the start of 2014. I will provide some rationale behind the scheme. Mr. Doorley said it is based on a Nordic model of early labour market activation measures which have been in operation in some ways since the 1980s. Sweden first introduced the job guarantee, as it was termed, in 1984. It was followed shortly afterwards by other Scandinavian countries, including Finland. There have been many reworkings of these schemes since they were first introduced and there is a good deal that European member states can learn from the way these countries have had to adapt and change schemes to allow for the way the labour market has changed, specifically with regard to young people.

One significant element of the Commission's proposal was the idea that youth organisations and the representatives of young people should be involved in the design and implementation of the scheme. The reason for this, as Mr. Doorley remarked, is that it is difficult, unfortunately, to reach long-term unemployed young people because of some of the issues of social exclusion that arise for them. Often, it requires civil society organisations to intervene.

One major advantage of the youth guarantee, in the way it has been implemented in the Nordic model, is that it prevents the onset of long-term unemployment when it is implemented correctly. Unfortunately, statistics show that long-term unemployment is growing in Europe as a whole. It has increased by 3.7% since 2008 and it is increasing at a rate higher than the adult rate of long-term unemployment. This is almost unheard of considering that young people usually do not fall into long-term unemployment in the same way as older people.

I will outline the way it has been implemented in Sweden and Denmark. As Mr. Doorley remarked, the programme costs approximately €6,600 per participant under the Swedish model and there is considerable popularity for the scheme there. In 2008, approximately 10,000 young people were participating in the scheme in Sweden and that figure is currently at 53,000.

The implementation of the youth guarantee in the short term places a large strain on public employment services. There needs to be a reorientation of public employment services in some ways towards the uptake from young people. I will offer one example. In Finland in 2009, due to an increased demand from young people, there was only one youth adviser for every 700 young people participating in the scheme. Therefore, Finland had to invest radically in the scheme, but it had a good deal of success. In 2010, Finland put more public expenditure towards it and there was successful intervention for 83.5% of young people participating. This meant they got some form of training or a job within the three months in Finland.

Although a lot can be said about the cost, one of the reasons it has remained popular in the Nordic countries is that in the medium to long term, it not only saves money but there is a net profit per participant. As Mr. James Dooley mentioned, it costs approximately €6,600 for young people. However, a Swedish report produced in 2010 found that the state tends to recoup the amount of money it has invested within one year. After the one-year period, the average net gain per participant in the scheme is just over €4,000. The short-term investment produces a long-term gain especially in terms of preventing young people from falling into long-term unemployment.

A total of €6 billion funding has been earmarked by the European Union under the MFF over a six-year period, based on the €21 billion recommended by the ILO, which equates to about 0.5% of eurozone expenditure. Even if this money was to be matched by member states, it would still be insufficient to implement the scheme fully. As we have seen from the way it has been implemented before, if there is not sufficient investment the services often become over-burdened and the scheme will not work to the same extent.

2:30 pm

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank James Higgins for an interesting presentation. I call Dermot Stokes.

Mr. Dermot Stokes:

I am probably one of the few people remaining who can remember the social guarantee which was introduced in 1984, 30 years ago.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remember it.

Mr. Dermot Stokes:

Thinking back about the experience of that measure, it acted as a trigger or it had a fundamental aim to help to direct funding from the European Social Fund. In Ireland it led to the establishment of community training centres, subsequently the Youthreach programme and PLCs, initially as VPT. It became the trigger or the driver of quite substantial system change. It is important to bear this in mind. I have now retired from active service, as it were, but I have been doing a study for the OECD on local youth employment strategies. I am bringing some of the encounters from that study to this discussion.

I will begin by stating that youth is changing. In 1994 when the social guarantee was in place, the transition between school and employment, between youth and independent adulthood, was a fairly straightforward. It was, relatively speaking, a short experience. Now, a generation later, youth begins earlier; physical puberty is achieved earlier and independent adult status is achieved later. Therefore, adolescence, per se, has been stretched out now between the ages of 12 and 25 - some would say even later - before emerging adulthood. It has become an extended and quite complex process. It is important to understand this process. We may think that helping young people to find a stable place in the labour market is a simple exercise but in the modern context that is not actually the case.

Work is also changing. Young people now have a greater capacity to communicate and much greater personal freedom but there is also much less structure and predictability and jobs are of shorter duration. This has a significant impact on how services conceive the idea of jobs and the transitions. Although there is increased mobility, the crisis has eroded the shield that qualifications provided. Now it is the case that unemployed young people include those with degrees. This was not the case ten or 20 years ago when a degree was a pretty good shield against unemployment. There are also significant levels of under-employment and part-time employment. The guarantee is not just a matter of switching on somebody who is stuck; it is a much more complex process.

In Ireland we are engaged in a major and extremely ambitious reform programme with regard to employment services, education and training structures and provision and reform of local government. These are very onerous reforms to be attempting while at the same time also trying to deal with a very complex issue such as youth employment and unemployment.

There is no youth employment strategy. One can infer a strategy from what is there but there is not such a strategy in place. We have to acknowledge that the Irish education and training system is socially reproductive. There are high levels of retention - meaning more people staying in education up to leaving certificate level - which is unusual in the European context. However, much of this statistic may be made up of parking, so to speak, where people have no alternative.

We have very late vocational choice in Ireland, which is unusual in the European context. That includes vocational choices in higher education. We have an extremely sophisticated and effective framework in vocational education training as per the national framework of qualifications. However, that is not necessarily mirrored in the cohesion of the vocational and education and training system. For example, we have a very small apprenticeship system and vocational education has a very low status relative to higher education and secondary education. In this regard we are quite different to many other European countries.

There are major issues to do with pathways for young people. In countries where the youth guarantee scheme has been effective they tend to have stronger vocational pathways and greater clarity in the structures. The German system is quite determinative but our system is virtually open choice and laissez-faire. Where there are not strong vocational pathways one needs to place a greater emphasis on guidance. In Ireland one could set out on one page a set of guidance measures. There is virtually no cohesion across the board and a very wide range of guidance issues.

Reference was made in the earlier presentation to the issue of disadvantage. I endorse everything Mr. Dooley said. However, when one talks to employers, there are other issues related to education and training which are very pertinent in the context of a youth guarantee system. I refer, for example, to the mismatch issue. Employers will say that they are not encountering people with the required qualifications. People are coming out of education with qualifications but these are not the qualifications which employers want. In other words, an employer advertises a job vacancy for which many applications are received but these applications do not match up to the job being advertised. We are not producing an appropriate balance of intermediate skills. Employers in the call centre sector, in the hotels and catering sector, the hospitality sector or in retail, will say that they are not encountering people with the skills they require. The jobs are available but they cannot be filled. Very often, employers have to import talent, so to speak.

We may also be producing large numbers of people with qualifications in ICT but employers will say that the particular qualifications are not the ones required by employers. We have many web designers but we do not need that many web designers; we need people with other IT skills.

Migration is an issue. Non-Irish people are emigrating and at the same time people are coming into the country. We have an immigration and emigration scenario. The research has found that some of those who are emigrating have jobs and they are moving to other jurisdictions. I refer to a study by Mary Gilmartin in Maynooth. Her view is that it is too early to draw absolute conclusions. We may actually be seeing an extended form of the gap year migration. It may be that instead of staying in Ireland in a low status job, young people are travelling the world and they may still return.

I will focus on a couple of issues to do with the youth guarantee scheme. Is it a quick fix for the current crisis or a trigger for systematic change? In my view it should be the trigger for system change.

It is important to take a long-term view as well as seeking to understand the immediacy of a crisis.

A question was asked as to whether the live register is the gateway to the youth guarantee. As members are aware, many young people are not on the live register. Information released a couple of days ago shows that the number of young people on the live register has decreased. If that is the case, then we have an issue and we must ensure all young people are accounted for on the live register. That would create another potentially significant political problem because the numbers would appear to be going up, even though it would not necessarily be indicative of any substantive change in the employment scenario.

There is an issue relating to increased caseloads in respect of Intreo and the new converged employment service. Those involved in the relevant services are also expected to meet clients three times more frequently than was the case in the past. Once one gets into caseloads, one is at risk of developing a process whereby attempts are made to move people into and off the system quickly. There are issues in respect of personal plans and profiles. For example, IBEC has questioned whether the personal plan model is appropriate if it is not embedded in a deeper guidance model. This is a matter which we must address.

Reference was made to employment options and I was asked whether there are enough jobs and, if not, what action should be taken. I was also asked if the education and training options are suitable to local employment contexts and to the needs of the individuals who are coming through the system. Travelling throughout the country with the OECD's LEED team, we were certainly impressed by the social enterprise models - as an alternative to employment - we encountered. To return to what Mr. Doorley stated, this relates to the need to keep people out of long-term unemployment and to ensure the engine of employment continues to run.

There are issues with regard to quality. The quality of what one obtains from a short-term programme must be equivalent one would obtain across the board. Quality is a measure of evaluation and it is important it is consistent and is based on good data. It must be remembered that there are structural and cyclical issues at play here. Early school leaving, for example, is a structural problem. All European Union and OECD states experience early school leaving both in good times, when systems are operating at optimum level, and in bad times. There is a need for structural responses to structural problems and cyclical responses to cyclical problems. It becomes quite an awkward issue because one may well be asking private sector providers to become involved in short-term contracts to provide for extra groups. This then begs a range of questions with regard to supervision, evaluation, monitoring and so on. In the context of the Youthreach programme, there is a quality framework whereby inspectors from the Department of Education and Skills provide external evaluations. Those inspectors publish their evaluations on an ongoing basis in the same way as they would in respect of schools. That is a perfectly open, transparent and rigorous quality system. There is also a quality system in place in the youth sector whereby anybody who has been commissioned to do work with young people not from those sectors needs to be able to satisfy the same kind of rigorous quality standards.

Overall, there is another issue which arises in respect of system animation and connecting the various elements of the system. This involves cohesion and communication. When IBEC compiled a study of employers that are using the different supports and incentives available to them in order to take people on, it discovered that a significant number of employers were not aware of these. We met groups of small and medium employers who stated that incentives were suited to very large employers but not to small employers. Many stated that they had not heard about the incentives, etc. I have figures relating to that matter which I can make available to members. It is really important to communicate what the youth guarantee involves and what we are trying to achieve. The Government recently changed the incentives in exactly the way that would have been recommended by employers and experts. However, it is important that employers should be informed of this. What we are discussing here must not merely be a mechanism for moving people off the live register. Rather, it must change the system and be part of a wider dialogue or discourse about employment, employment generation and economic regeneration.

2:40 pm

Photo of Kathryn ReillyKathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests. This is an important debate. I am compiling a report on the youth guarantee for the committee and everything our guests are saying will feed into that. If, therefore, I ask very specific questions, they will know why.

The areas on which I wish to comment are: the practical and operational details of the youth guarantee; the successes and failures which have occurred in other states and the lessons we can learn from these; funding; and the level of roll-out required in this State. Having considered the research material, I have discovered that the failure of youth guarantee programmes in other states came down the public policies that were pursued. I refer in this regard to the public employment service infrastructure. Are our guests of the view that public employment structures in Ireland are both up to standard and fit for purpose in the context of trying to deal with the youth guarantee? How will these structures need to adapt? Will additional funding be required? Who will assess the success of the public employment structures into the future? Will our guests indicate how the roll-out of the youth guarantee can be monitored effectively - in the context of job creation and placement services - to ensure it will be of good quality and will not merely be a tick-the-box exercise? Do the public employment services have the capacity to deliver on the guarantee and to monitor the various matters relating to it?

Mr. Doorley referred to youth unemployment figures and indicated that he is considering these in the context of young people who were educated to primary level and junior certificate level and those in disadvantaged groups. He indicated that failures occurred in Sweden and Finland in terms of successfully targeting disadvantaged groups. Will he inform the committee with regard to how we might reach out to young people who are far removed from the labour market at present or who do not traditionally come on the radar of the public employment services? Mr. Doorley referred to a role for youth organisations in that regard. The Council recommendation on the youth guarantee states that we should define the corresponding starting point to deliver the youth guarantee for young people. Do youth organisations constitute an alternative starting point to the public employment services and, if so, how does Mr. Doorley believe they might deliver in areas in respect of which those services fail?

Mr. Higgins referred to public employment services and the funding thereof. He indicated that even if there were matching funding for the €6 billion included under the youth employment initiative, this would be insufficient in the context of trying to deal with youth unemployment on a European level. How should this matter be addressed? There is a danger it could just be a flash in the pan and that people will say: "We are going to deal with youth unemployment and we will make some money available but we will not provide matching funds." How can we ensure the guarantee will not essentially be a damp squib? From where might we attract matching funding? What kind of financial commitment should the Government make to roll out what is envisaged? What schemes should it roll out as part of its initiative in this regard?

I will leave it at that. I am very interested in the practical and operational details. If, however, our guests have views on particular failures relating to the schemes rolled out in other states and what we might learn from these, I would appreciate hearing them.

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join my colleague, Senator Kathryn Reilly, in welcoming our guests and I thank them for their presentations.

I wish to begin by making a general point.

Our macroeconomic strategies are working to the extent that the haemorrhage of 275,000 jobs over a three year period until 2011 has been replaced by a small increase in job numbers. While tentative, that is indicative and welcome. A total of 12,500 new jobs were created last year, which is good. We have a crisis with youth unemployment that challenges all of us. A rate of 30% youth unemployment is not acceptable. The drop in the live register to 68,361 from 91,646 is welcome. I am interested in Mr. Stokes's reference to the live register. What explanation does he give for this reduction? I presume some of it is due to the creation of new jobs and educational and training opportunities. I understand emigration, while remaining high, has stabilised. Given the decline in emigration, the reduction in the number on the live register cannot be explained fully by emigration. Will the delegates explain how they interpret the change in the live register?

I wish to raise the issue of apprenticeships. I recognise that the construction industry is in a bad place, as we all know. However, Senator Kathryn Reilly and I were both campaigning for a couple of schools to be built and there is still infrastructure to be developed. I accept that there is a problem in the construction sector, but apprenticeships are important. Is enough being done to simulate apprenticeship conditions within schools, colleges and training centres? It is not possible for young people to be offered apprenticeships. It is good for a young person to do an apprenticeship. One might ask what is the point in qualifying to become a blocklayer, carpenter, plumber or electrician in the current conditions, but if a person has an aspiration and a capacity in the area, it is a building point. What do the delegates know about what has been done to simulate apprenticeship conditions to avoid people having to go on a treasure hunt seeking an apprenticeship which tends to be like jobs in Guinness’s long ago which were passed from father to son. It is impossible to be offered an apprenticeship.

I was preparing a speech in recent weeks for a debate in the House and during my research I came across the fact that there was a great dearth of IT personnel. The IT sector has indicated there are approximately 4,800 vacancies which we do not have the domestic capacity to fill. The situation is replicated in particular in Germany and other European countries. Do the delegates consider we are doing enough to produce expertise in the sector? Long-term unemployed youth have been identified as a problem. It is a challenge for us to deal with the problem. Could those with low educational attainment and the long-term unemployed be directed to the IT sector? Are there jobs at a basic level or are all of the jobs in the sector for graduates or those who require postgraduate qualifications? It is correct to applaud Youthreach. We have good Youthreach centres in the constituency. When a young person comes out of a Youthreach centre at the age of 17, 18 or 20 years with a low level of educational attainment – perhaps with FETAC qualifications – is there potential for him or her to pursue a career in the IT sector? Could such young people find a job at the level of programmer or are all of the jobs in cloud computing and at other exalted levels?

The payment-by-results approach is interesting, on which I would like some elaboration. I presume the training units and educational centres would receive payment according to results. There would be equality results also. I am a former teacher. Reference was made in the presentation to the fact that a person should stay for the maximum period in the traditional formal school system. Therein lies the key, as the statistics for youth unemployment bear out. It was clearly outlined that the bulge in the pyramid relate to people with low educational qualifications who had left school young. When the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, was in opposition, he examined this issue. It is not always easy to get the money to do such things. What is the opinion of the delegates of incentives to keep people in the traditional school setting?

2:50 pm

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call Deputy Bernard J. Durkan, I remind members that we are expecting a vote to be called at 3.15 p.m. or 3.20 p.m. Bearing this in mind, I urge the next speakers to limit their contributions to three minutes. That would be appreciated.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the delegates on their presentations. This is probably the most important presentation we have heard in recent times because youth unemployment is an important and sensitive issue. Youth are impressed by what they see around them. In terms of a determination of what is likely to happen and what has happened, they have a short perception of history. Montgomery said in the 1950s that in 1939 Britain was capable of fighting the First World War. In 1993 or 1994 we were capable of dealing with the unemployment problem in this country that we had inherited from the 1980s. That was the sad part about it and Mr. Stokes is a fitting example. I do not say he lost the hair on his head for that reason, but my hair changed colour in the intervening period. It is amazing the lessons we learn over a huge period. We saw in the early 1990s that graduates came from other European countries, both from within the European Union and outside, to seek job opportunities in this country. They worked at any job that was available. They worked as waiters and waitresses, although they were laden with degrees. It was embarrassing at the time and they were ideally placed to fill positions that became available. We discovered during the 1980s that we had to deal with the problem on the basis of applying sticking plasters. One assessed and tried to deal with issues one by one and moved on to the next group that was coming on-stream to address the matter from the point of view of the person who was unemployed and had few prospects. The changes that have taken place in meeting market requirements in terms of job skills are hugely important. All of us have tabled questions on the issue in recent years and it is clear that there was a disconnect somewhere along the line. In order to meet the requirements of the market there should be some relationship with the education system to find out what is required and how to plan accordingly. That is what we must do. I accept that the delegates are doing this and I congratulate them on it.

We also had another important issue to face. During the late 1990s and 2000s a huge number of young people with great expectations, ability and capabilities were in the education system which, unfortunately, they left early. They went into the marketplace to fill jobs in areas where there was a big demand at the time. Huge salaries were available to people with relatively few qualifications and people were attracted to them. How could one say to a young person that he or she should stay in education for another three or four years and that there would be a nice job for him or her or that there was the prospect of a job at a fairly attractive salary? We must ask ourselves what are the options. To my mind, the options are stark and simple. We must, first, encourage young people to move in the direction which is in their long-term interests. Two colleagues referred to outreach schemes. That is a conduit we must explore to a greater extent.

We have done all of that previously but the Government schemes are now beginning to focus on the issues that are affecting the young people of the country.

The emigration issue distorts our situation to some extent. We all know young people who were in painful circumstances in that they had the option of remaining on the dole for long periods, perhaps doing the occasional nixer and being caught, or emigrating with a view to doing something for themselves and trying to get back some dignity. It is very difficult and heart breaking to have to deal with those situations from the point of view of parents, the educational system, the youth services that are doing a great job throughout the country and the individuals themselves.

I would like to have the opportunity of having a longer debate on this subject because what is happening is not new. It has happened throughout history, and it will continue to happen because every generation makes a mistake, even though the previous generation did so and did not learn lessons from it. We try to introduce the finger in the dike to stop the flow at the time it happens and sometimes it works, but sometimes it does not.

I refer to the group of people throughout Europe who are disaffected and disconnected. They are not interested. The people in that group do not see any reason to continue. All the people here deal with young people in that category, and they do not see any prospects for themselves. They believe there is nothing available for them.

We must separate from that group the people with addictions because they are different. There is a tendency to encompass the people who are disconnected and disaffected in the same group as those who have addictions. The people who have addictions need to be dealt with separately. Their addictions and other problems have to be addressed. They must be helped to understand their particular circumstances and that their addiction will not be a help to them.

The people who are disaffected are slightly different. They have no confidence in the system. They believe that politicians are a shower of so-and-sos. We hear that on a regular basis. They believe the system does not address the issues of young people, but that is wrong. When I first came into this House a colleague of mine was the later Professor John Kelly who told me that he felt very sorry for young people, but they were not the first young generation. We were all once part of the young generation. Looking at the colour of the hair on my head the Chairman probably thinks I was never young, but I was. All these situations presented themselves to us in very difficult circumstances because there were very few options available at that time.

Why is there not enough places in education and training? I know the answer, but I would like to hear it again.

I referred already to the question of the most disadvantaged and those most in need being pushed to the back of the queue but what is the reason for that? I will contribute again later.

3:00 pm

Photo of Eric ByrneEric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Along with Deputy Durkan I could talk all day on this topic because it is complex. I welcome the three witnesses who are specialists in the field. Unfortunately, they are posing as many questions to us as we wish to pose to them.

The €6 billion from the European Union is more than welcome. I presume it would be over the five year period of the budget and internationally targeted throughout. I understand it will probably be broken down even within wealthier countries to targeted areas of disadvantage.

A major problem in this country is the class and structural divide between the early school leavers and the social housing dependent groups. I want to ask about the type of structures we should be putting in place. When I first got involved in the community sector I almost had to learn a new language but even in terms of targeting people into employment, we currently have JobBridge, community employment, Tús, the JobsPlus initiative and the Momentum programme. I do not know at this stage whether the CERT training programme still exists. That was a training programme for people in the catering industry. We also have SOLAS as a new structure.

My particular interest is in the statistics the witnesses presented to the committee, particularly about targeting the long-term unemployed. The long-term unemployed, in the main, tend to be early school leavers but I understand this European youth guarantee only comes into play for those between the ages of 18 and 24. To talk geographically, I represent Dublin South Central and I can tell the witnesses that one can read the statistics about the degrees of disadvantage in Dublin 10 and Dublin 8. The disadvantage is comparable in terms of early school leavers, social housing schemes, all the inner city flat complexes. In terms of Cherry Orchard and Ballyfermot, Dublin 10, there is a large number of statistics to prove disadvantage.

Do we need a number of new structures to target people? Somebody mentioned the need to involve the community and voluntary sector. Those of us who know the area well will be aware of the EU urban programme attached to Cherry Orchard and Ballyfermot, of which I was a big fan. That programme transformed Cherry Orchard and Ballyfermot. It was a successful, targeted programme to uplift a community not by way of employment, but by way of the provision of services from crèches to preschool facilities, parks, leisure centres and so on. Do the witnesses believe there is any validity in arguing that specific structures be put in place within regions of Dublin, for example, targeting a particular structure in Dublin 8 and Dublin 10 for a particular coterie of people?

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, could you move your telephone away from the microphone?

Photo of Eric ByrneEric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is my telephone on? Sorry about that.

It is rather complex. We might revisit this because I am not sure what criteria central Government will use in drawing down funds. Are we building this up as a solution to a problem that has already been created by the children who leave school before the age of 18?

What would we do if we could not look at what our Nordic cousins are doing? The problem is that they pay a large amount of taxes. The people of this country want the services but do not seem to be able to come to terms with the cost of the provision of these services.

I know intimately the work of Youthreach. It is a phenomenally successful concept and the staff who work in it are well able to relate to the client base. Everyone involved in Youthreach should take a bow. I am not as familiar with all the other programmes as I am with Youthreach, as a former CDVEC employee. My questions are about the structures and whether we are coming too late to help that coterie of people, namely, the early school leavers who will become long-term unemployed.

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I ask for a response I want to ask about an issue that was not covered by my colleagues. It concerns the timescales for this process. Mention was made of the need to ramp it up and that there is not a sufficient number of schemes. What is the witnesses' best estimate on when a youth guarantee scheme can be up and running in its entirely in the country, bearing in mind the issue of funding and the need for some sort of pilot scheme? When do the witnesses believe something will happen in this country? Bearing in mind the time, I ask the witnesses to limit their comments to about six or seven minutes each. Does Mr. Higgins want to go first?

Mr. James Higgins:

I thank the members for the questions. I want to clarify I am not here on behalf of any Nordic Government.

There are a lot of questions specific to Ireland that I will leave to Mr. Doorley. I will address Senator Reilly's question on the operation level of the youth guarantee. The first phase in tackling youth unemployment is to bite the bullet. The official rate across the Union is 24% but young people are much less likely to approach their public employment service than older people. The first stage is to get a real grip on the actual number of young unemployed people.

One weakness of the Swedish model was that it focused too much on jobs. What happened, unfortunately, was that some young people were pushed into jobs that were not appropriate for them. I refer to the skills mismatch that was mentioned. The Swedes have worked to address the problem. The Finns knew about the problem when they began with implementation so there was much more focus on vocational education and training, with a slightly more long-term approach. It has had more success, even in respect of the level of uptake among young people interested in the scheme.

One of the main problems in many European countries, as mentioned by everyone, especially Deputy Durkan, is that some public employment services unfortunately operate at a level that obtained perhaps ten or 20 years ago in terms of the labour market. The labour market is much changed, especially in regard to the flexibility younger people have by comparison with older workers. In Belgium, where the European Youth Forum is based, it takes between nine and 12 months to obtain one's social benefits and dole. This period involves an activation measure that applies before one is eligible to obtain benefits. For many young people, it takes so long and it is so difficult to get benefits that it is very difficult to motivate them to come off them. This is just one example of how some of the schemes are not in the interest of young people.

Senator Reilly asked about funding and its origin. The €6 billion that is earmarked is for a six-year period. It applies to a region known as NUTS 2 and is distributed on a regional basis. This has many advantages because some regions in Europe have a level of youth unemployment that is much higher than the national average. The fund will go to about 16 member states.

The funding of €6 billion is an investment and is to be welcomed for what it is, but in terms of the overall budget, the European Youth Forum contends that young people deserve a much bigger investment, specifically when one considers how much money the youth guarantee could save in the longer term if implemented correctly. Let me give an example. I read in The Irish Times recently that €5 billion in EU funds was misappropriated in 2010 alone. If one compares this with the €6 billion investment over six years for the youth guarantee system, one gets a more comparative figure.

There were many questions on vocational education and training. The German and Austrian systems are very developed in this regard and there is much to be learned from them. In Germany, there is a labour market that very much lends itself to vocational education and training. It is a very highly developed industrial labour market that can absorb young people who undertake training in this area. In the Irish case, there is a lot to be learned, specifically in respect of getting young people into the IT sector. The sector is well represented here.

On the question of whether we need new structures, I have learned from other countries that it is not necessarily a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are many structures in place that are very good. It is about reorienting them towards the needs of young people and bringing in measures in which young people can believe. It may be a matter of bringing in youth organisations as part of a monitoring mechanism to ensure the youth guarantee schemes that are introduced are always in the interest of the young people who participate in them.

3:10 pm

Mr. James Doorley:

Senator Reilly asked whether the public employment service is fit for purpose. We surveyed young jobseekers two or three years ago and asked them about their experience in engaging with FÁS and the Department of Social Protection. Generally, jobseekers understood the system was under a lot of pressure and that the numbers had increased a lot in recent years. Generally, apart from one or two good examples, there was a sense that jobseekers did not receive the sort of engagement they needed. Jobseekers just felt they were given information at a hatch five or six times without getting the expected support. The new Intreo model represents an effort to have greater engagement, but this requires many more people on the front line engaging with jobseekers, especially young jobseekers because many of them do not have work experience. They are in a different set of circumstances. It is really important that their needs be addressed.

Many young jobseekers take jobseeking very seriously because they feel that if they make the wrong choice in regard to a training course or work experience, it could be detrimental to their careers. They regard engagement with the service as similar to a job interview and are disappointed if they are just given five minutes. I have heard some really dispiriting examples. Just last week, we had consultation with youth workers who are working with the category of young people in question. People in the public employment services are working under great pressure and have considerable workloads and many are doing great work, but in some cases young people get a very negative reaction from staff. They may feel demeaned and this does not really help to encourage them to engage.

We need independent monitoring of the youth guarantee in Ireland. We will need to know whether it is working and we need the involvement of the young people who are using the system. The latter is vital. There is not enough external evaluation of public employment services.

One must put oneself into the shoes of disadvantaged young people. Many young people might have had a very bad experience of the education system. The level of trust of young people in the system is quite low, as stated by Deputy Durkan. They get the letter in the post from the FÁS office and automatically assume it contains bad news. Many of our member organisations and youth workers have credibility and a track record. We are not saying they comprise the total solution but that people working with disadvantaged young people have a role to play. We are not training providers and we are not offering an employment service but many of our member organisations could serve as a bridge to the young people who will not go to a training centre. Many young people in the category in question have actually been thrown off training courses because they are not prepared. They might have had difficulties and started with an addiction problem, as said by Deputy Durkan, and may not have the supports necessary to help them. It is a question of support to keep them on track.

With regard to Deputy O'Reilly's question on whether the rate is lower, emigration is obviously a factor. The number staying in education and training is also a factor. There is a growing category of young people who do not qualify for social welfare benefits. They are living at home with their parents and might be just over the threshold so do not see the point of signing on. Mr. Stokes might have said that if the live register is to become a gateway for the youth guarantee, we will have a problem. This is because there will be a category of young people who are not signing on and who will not come under the guarantee under the current model.

I agree on apprenticeships. The number of apprenticeships dropped from 8,000 per year to 1,000 per year because of the crash in the construction sector. Apprenticeships are a real alternative for many young people who may not want to be web designers. They may want a trade or skill and we need to do more about this. I recently encountered a scheme in Drogheda that offers funding to do up old local authority houses that have been neglected. The scheme uses young people to renovate houses over eight or nine months.

Under the payment-by-results model in the United Kingdom, as I understand it, the Government involved the private sector and offered to pay a certain sum if 70% or 80% of 10,000 unemployed people, for example, were moved on within a certain period.

Our concern is that for some young people, it might be very ambitious to state they will be in a job in six or 12 months. They might need a lot more support and if the process is completely focused on getting a young person into a job within six or 12 months, the young people who are closer to the labour market will be picked and the others forgotten. My understanding is it created some absurd situations where churning took place, whereby people were being moved into jobs but ended up back on the dole again, even though the private provider was paid for moving them on into that job. There were a lot of issues in this regard.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan also is correct when he observes we have been here before. Unfortunately, all the analysis shows the youth guarantee is the sort of thing one would have in the good times because it would catch people before they fell into long-term unemployment, rather than doing so in the middle of a crisis. As has been noted, it is a major task to do it while undergoing such huge institutional reform in the public employment services and further education and training sector. However, our point on the most disadvantaged young people in particular is that it is about giving them a little confidence or hope. Some young people may think to themselves there is no point in going on a training course or staying on to complete one's leaving certificate examinations because no jobs are available. However, we are trying to put forward the argument that while things may be tough, one can give them that sense of hope, as well as resilience and the soft skills many employers also seek. While people may not have hard skills, employers certainly need soft skills such as consistency, the ability to work in a team and make decisions, as well as showing innovation and similar skills that are really important in the current labour market.

On Deputy Eric Byrne's points, I agree that we must ensure the money is targeted. As to how this is done, while obviously it is a matter for the Government, during the 1990s particular schemes operated - the Deputy mentioned the urban programme - that made sure the money did not get lost between the European Union, Departments and different agencies. It did go almost straight into communities, which definitely is what must be ensured. The Deputy also made a valid point with which I certainly agree in respect of coherence. I have been trying to carry out an analysis of the different schemes and programmes and there is a lack of coherence because a lot of schemes have different conditions for different age groups. While there are certain reasons for this, there is also a lack of coherence and even the staff dealing with jobseekers find it very difficult to understand for what a person who comes in, having been unemployed for nine months, actually qualifies. It is a difficult job and perhaps we might try to make further education and training and the employment support system a little more coherent and a lot less complex. In addition, as Mr. Stokes mentioned, we could try to make it more joined up in order that it is not a lottery. People become extremely upset when they think they are eligible for a course and then find out they are obliged to wait for a further six months.

On the Chairman's points on the timescale, it would be an issue in certain respects. I assume the European funding is an integral part for the Government, but it may not commence until 2015. However, the Government can do a lot immediately. There is a pilot scheme for which it has applied in Ballymun, as far as I am aware, in which we are involved.

3:20 pm

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Doorley. While a vote has been called in the Dáil Chamber, members have a few minutes before they must leave. I suggest the joint committee continue on and listen to Mr. Stokes's response. If anyone considers it necessary to leave, he or she can always consult the full response in the online debate records. I also propose that the joint committee suspend without going into private session, as no private business is scheduled to be taken.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there is an opportunity of having a further extension of the meeting, I would greatly appreciate it.

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will remain and conclude the meeting if the Deputy wishes to leave before Mr. Stokes makes his contribution.

Mr. Dermot Stokes:

As for the timescale, it would be possible to do it very quickly if it simply was a matter of getting it on the table. While one must take a long-term view of all these measures, one can start in the understanding that one will not finish it very quickly. I was handed the brief for Youthreach in 1988 and it took the guts of two decades to move from the point at which there was nothing to something that was able to stand alongside other things. Consequently, one must take a long-term view, even though one must act very quickly and one can do both.

As for the local structures, one item afoot under the proposals in respect of education and training boards and so on is an attempt to establish local structures that will be responsive. There is a risk that this could be instrumental and would lose the developmental functions, for example, that VECs traditionally have fulfilled. However, if one takes into account the education and training boards that are coming into play, the local development companies and partnerships, as well as the new structures in the context of the local authority reforms and realignment, it may not be a matter of establishing new entities at local level. However, as Mr. Doorley also mentioned, local action is extremely important. This is because there are variations right across the board and whatever national framework policies are introduced they must be capable of interpretation at the local level in flexible ways that are tailored to working.

In respect of the payments for results issue, the critical point pertains to cherry-picking. If several hundred young people are looking for a place, if one has 20 places available and placing them all in employment is a condition of getting all of one's funding, inevitably one will select those who are most employable and cherry-pick. That was a major problem with some of the FÁS programmes in the late 1980s and early 1990s such as the youth skills programme. When one comes to monitoring their effectiveness, one actually winds up monitoring the "in person" factors rather than the "in training" factors, if members understand my point. In other words, what looks very effective when one considers the results may actually not pertain to the effectiveness of either the training or the action but to the people one has selected to participate. This is a significant issue.

On apprenticeships, I wish to make two points. First, I refer to those areas where numbers declined in, for example, traditional apprenticeship areas. Incidentally, we have a very narrow apprenticeship system in Ireland. However, with regard to such areas, in the past we have made use of mechanisms such as, for example, the community youth training programme that FÁS used to run. One still sees signs around the country that houses, buildings or old heritage sites were renovated. In many instances, they were temporary employment mechanisms that allowed people to continue on the path of apprenticeship during a period of low employment or a period in which employers were not able to take them on board. FÁS also had a linked work experience programme, which was another useful mechanism. Consequently, the models are available to maintain the apprenticeship line, but it also is the case that there is an increasing interest internationally; one can see it here in initiatives such as JobBridge, in what might be described as apprenticeship-style measures that focus on using the workplace, linking the training and the workplace and putting the individual in a work environment. There are many benefits to so doing, but perhaps it is at a higher level and might be described as a professional apprenticeship model. That also would surmount a comment which frequently is made by many employers to the effect that many young people are ill-prepared for work when they are employed. I have heard it from small employers and very youth-friendly employers, as well as people who had no particular bias one way or the other and it is a consistent comment from small, medium and large employers. Some of this pertains to expectations, perhaps as a hangover from the Celtic tiger period, when people expected to walk straight into a job which paid well. There are many possible explanations for this.

There is a remarkable consistency in what employers say. For example, a person may come in having done a degree and having had 30 days to do a project in the workplace, they are expected to do that within a day. I have met groups of employers in Dublin and the south east as part of the study I was working on. They consistently said it takes six months for a young person to get up to speed in order to make a contribution to the enterprise.

Apprenticeship approaches, including internships like JobBridge, are a way of overcoming that. They are also a way of connecting the world of employment and work with the world of education and training. Over the years in Ireland we have allowed for that. The high demand in the labour market meant nobody needed to work hard at that bridge, which simply existed by virtue of high labour market demand. As a model to connect the world of work with the education and training sector, apprenticeship is very significant and important. I anticipate that we will be paying much more attention to that in future.

A question was asked about IT skills. The FIT programme is an effective way of working, particularly in relatively disadvantaged areas and connecting them with work in the IT sector. There are good data supporting the approach and a strong evaluative culture within that action.

It is the case that those who find it most difficult to engage with the labour market and services are, simply by virtue of how things work, liable to wind up at the back of the queue. That is something that must be addressed.

A question was asked about whether public employment services were fit for purpose. A discussion needs to occur at the operational level between employment services, education and training providers, and community and voluntary services, including local development companies.

People on the social protection side are focused on the disadvantaged and those furthest from the labour market. Their worry is that because education and training providers will be judged on the basis of placement and results, the focus will be on the easy to place and not the most disadvantaged. Regardless of whether that is correct, it indicates a strong need for them to talk and all be of one mind when it comes to focusing on target groups at a local level. In other words, the action must be consistent, coherent and collaborative between different arms of the service.

It comes back to the point about whether the public employment service is the gateway to the youth guarantee. If so, it would suggest that the public employment service is in the driving seat. That sets up another relationship with employers and education and training providers who become clients of the public employment service. Historically, there has always been an uneasiness on the public employment services side regarding their relationship with education and training providers. Equally, the latter are very uneasy with seeing themselves as being service providers to the public employment service. Therefore, a serious conservation needs to happen, especially at a local operational level.

The question of guidance is particularly pertinent to the more disadvantaged clients of the public employment service. It comes back to how people are being trained. At the moment, substantial numbers of people are being drawn together from three very different services into the one organisation through Intreo.

A community welfare officer has a set of skills that do not readily translate into the case management of an unemployed person, yet that is how the service will operate. There is a good deal of inter-service knowledge exchange, which will be important. Creating the time for that is also important. Intreo staff will have to meet people three times as often as they did under the national employment action plan process. Suddenly therefore, people will have a significant increase in their workload. At the same time, we are asking them to engage at close quarters locally.

Employers consistently say they are not talked to locally about service provision, employment services or education and training. We had a meeting with some very significant employers, who have been doing important developments in the south east. They said it was the first time anyone had ever asked them to such a meeting. The employment service got to meet that set of demands from the local education providers and also increased their level of activity. It is quite a challenge.

3:30 pm

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee, I thank all three of our guests for their input. As Senator Reilly mentioned, she is preparing a report for the committee on the youth guarantee scheme. I have no doubt the contributions of our three guests today will form a valuable input into that report. I thank them again for taking the time to attend this meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.45 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 April 2013.