Mr. James Doorley:

I agree with Deputy Ryan about the guarantee. The EU commitment is that services will be available after four months. However, we would not want the message to go out to young people that if they are unemployed for four months all of these options will be available to them if we cannot deliver. That would be very detrimental and Deputy Ryan is right about that. We are reaching a point where some hard choices will have to be made and obviously the Government and the Department will have to make those choices about where we start. I acknowledge that we have probably been wrong in our approach in looking at the money and working backwards. What we really need to do is determine what we need to deliver a youth guarantee. We need to work out how many places we need, how much support is required and then examine the money question. Even leaving aside the EU money, we need to look at it in the broader context of an investment in young people. Obviously it will be great to get the money from the EU but we must not develop our plan solely on the basis of amounts emanating from the EU.

Another issue which has not been raised is the contribution of employers. We have a parallel labour market in a way, with very high tech areas where employers are screaming out for skilled people and on the other had, we have employers who are finding it difficult to get people to take the jobs they have on offer. I am of the view that because employers benefit from the fact that people have received education and training, they should make some contribution to this. If this is going to cost money but they are going to benefit from it, then it should not be just the taxpayer who is investing in the youth guarantee. That needs to be examined, although perhaps not in the short term, given the timeframe involved. However, in the longer term, the larger employers in particular, many of whom would probably be willing to contribute to a youth guarantee, should be asked to do so.

I agree with Deputy Griffin's point about the role of the universities and institutes of technology. We would be of the view that the scheme should be nationally led but locally delivered, particularly in areas where there are universities or institutes of technology. They could contribute a lot to the scheme. Even in the context of Ballymun, DCU is only down the road and is a big employer.

Finally, regarding the question of sanctions, we must have a real debate on that. We are concerned to ensure that the youth guarantee be seen as an opportunity for people. Some young people might be sanctioned when they may have literacy issues and might not even understand the letters they are receiving. We must have some discussion about that issue.