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

The first item on our agenda is a discussion on the social dimension of Economic and Monetary Union, EMU. On behalf of the joint committee, I am delighted to welcome Mr. James Doorley, deputy director of the National Youth Council of Ireland, and Ms Orla O'Connor, director of the National Women's Council of Ireland.

There is a growing debate at European level on the role social indicators could play in Economic and Monetary Union. A recent European Commission communication on the social dimension of EMU outlined how such social indicators might form part of the formal economic surveillance under way as part of EMU. These indicators include unemployment, youth unemployment rates, changes in rates of disposable income, at-risk of poverty rates and inequality. In the past few weeks a range of speakers have come before the committee to talk about their views in this regard, including the Irish Business Employers Confederation, IBEC; the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU; the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, INOU; and Social Justice Ireland. Today we are holding the final meeting in our deliberations. We look forward to hearing the valuable perspectives of the National Youth Council of Ireland and the National Women's Council of Ireland. The views expressed will form part of a submission we will be making on the committee's political contribution to the European institutions on the social dimension of EMU. We hope to make that submission in the next few days to give them time to review it.

Before we begin, I remind members of the long-standing ruling of the Chair that they should not comment on, make charges against or criticise a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her 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 the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence.

I invite Ms Orla O'Connor, the director of the National Women's Council, to make her presentation to the committee.

Ms Orla O'Connor:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to outline the views of the National Women's Council of Ireland on the social dimension of EMU, Economic and Monetary Union.

The National Women's Council of Ireland is the representative organisation for women and women's groups in Ireland with a membership of more than 200 organisations throughout the country. The organisations include diverse organisations such as community-based organisations, organisations dealing with violence against women, and trade union and political party women's committees. I intend to bring their perspective to the table in this presentation.

The objective of promoting equality between men and women is enshrined in the EU treaties whose articles oblige the EU to mainstream gender equality in all its activities. This is crucial for the social dimension of EMU. EU gender equality policy is underpinned by the European pact for gender equality and the strategy for equality between women and men, 2010 to 2015. Europe 2020 contains clear commitments for gender mainstreaming. Those are the core documents for bringing gender equality to the social dimension of the EMU.

The National Women's Council of Ireland gives a general welcome to the inclusion of a social dimension to EMU. As Ireland has gone through the fiscal stability process the outcomes of an absence of a social dimension can be clearly seen, such as the alarming increase in levels of poverty, debt and deprivation. Those statistics highlight the impact on women and on lone parents whose poverty rates have increased during that period.

Social and economic issues are intrinsically linked and this link is highlighted by the communication on the social dimension of the EMU. In order to develop a social dimension of EMU, we need to maximise opportunities to prevent further economic crises.

From the perspective of the National Women's Council of Ireland, I wish to draw the committee's attention to three issues. The first issue is the employment and labour participation of women with the purpose of maximising women's participation in the economy. It is noted that within the EU there is increasingly a focus on the comparatively low levels of participation of women in the labour force. Europe 2020 notes that 63% of women are in work in comparison to 77% of men. The labour force participation rate in Ireland is 53.3% for women in comparison to 68.4% for men. Women are far more likely to be working part-time. Almost 70% of all part-time workers are women and of all women who work, 36% work part-time in comparison to 14% of men. In addition, having a family has a significant impact on women's participation in the labour force whereas it does not have an impact on the participation of men in the workforce. In 2011, the Irish employment rate for women was 85.7% for a woman with a partner but with no children but this rate drops to 51.5% if the youngest child is between the ages of four to five years. OECD statistics show that if a family has more than three children, the participation rate drops below 45%. Children have a significant impact on women's participation rate in the labour force. The same does not impact on men's participation rates.

Failure to maintain women in jobs means that many organisations and businesses are losing very highly skilled workers. This impacts on women's equality and also on competitiveness and growth. In our view, in order to encourage women to work and to remain in work, there is a need to invest in early education, after-school care provisions and flexible working arrangements. There is a need for much greater paid leave arrangements and also paternity leave which is important for fathers and also encourages the distribution of the work of caring for children.

The involvement of women in decision-making is an important aspect of gender equality. The National Women's Council of Ireland argues that the low numbers of women involved in economic decision-making in both the public and private sectors as well as in political decision-making, is another contributing factor to the economic crisis and is an underlying factor which should be addressed by the social dimension of EMU. There is increasing evidence to highlight the impact of the absence of women in decision-making on the financial crisis. A report by the European Commission in 2010, entitled, More Women in Senior Positions - Key to Economic Stability and Growth, stated clearly that a crucial resource for the future growth in Europe lies in the untapped economic potential of women and their full integration into the decision-making processes in all areas of the economy. While women are under-represented in key decision-making areas across Europe, the situation is particularly bad in Ireland with this country rated 19th on a par index. We are much lower than the EU average. Each of these areas can link to indicators that can be used on the scoreboard discussed as part of the social dimension.

The third area is the importance of integrating a gender perspective. The increasing tendency towards gender blindness is a significant factor. Experience has taught us that when policies are gender-blind, the experiences of women are often side-lined. Therefore, policies to support the issues being faced by women are often not appropriate or relevant.

It is known that employment in Ireland remains highly segregated by gender and that the recession and austerity have had different impacts on women and men at different times. While men were highly impacted by the crisis in construction, women were much more affected by consequent job cuts in the service sector and in the public service. We need to take into account these different experiences in assessing how women and men get back into work. The National Women's Council of Ireland has recently launched a piece of research, a woman-friendly model of activation in Ireland, which examines how women and men can be activated differently in order to achieve better outcomes.

On the issue of integrating a gender perspective, we wish to highlight the issue of gender budgeting which is key to future development of EMU. Gender budgeting is an approach to economic policy-making and planning that places gender equality at the centre of decisions on public expenditure and income. For example, the use of gender equality audits and impact assessments can assess how different sections of society are impacted and potential outcomes can also be assessed. This process is under way in other European countries and was used in the past in Scandinavian countries while Scotland is the closest example of the use of gender budgeting and equality budgeting processes. We would like this to be introduced in Ireland incrementally.

I wish to address the issue of social dialogue. The National Women's Council of Ireland welcomes the focus on the importance of social dialogue and the acknowledgement of the contribution it makes in advancing the economy. It is important that in strengthening the social dimension of EMU, social dialogue must go beyond the traditional social partners and be extended to civil society. There must be a deliberate effort to include women's organisations and those directly affected by the recession. This is critical in an Irish context where we have adopted fairly sophisticated methods for consultation with civil society but which do not necessarily lead to changes in outcomes or the impact of the consultation is not often visible.

I refer to the indicators and the scoreboard. From the perspective of the National Women's Council of Ireland, it is important that all proposed indicators need to be gender-disaggregated but there also needs to be specific indicators which target women's equality such as percentages of women with children at work rather than the use of general indicators about employment participation.

There should be indicators that consider, for example, the availability and affordability of child care. It is also important to look at financial investment in the social dimension. From our perspective, gender budgeting is core to that. In addition, budgets should be allocated with reference to the mainstreaming of gender equality and positive actions that seek to address inequalities experienced by women.

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

Thank you, Ms O'Connor. I now invite Mr. Doorley to make his presentation.

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.

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

Ms O'Connor referred to Scotland and the gender budgeting that is under way there. Is she in a position to provide examples of other countries which employ similar methods or in which social indicators of some type are used? How easy would it be to achieve consistency in respect of indicators across the European Union? In that regard, I refer to the PISA statistics published this morning. One of the difficulties faced by those responsible for PISA surveys in respect of literacy and numeracy is ensuring that there is some form of consistency in the questions asked in the states in which those surveys are carried out. In the context of indicators relating to women, how easy would it be to ensure consistency across the Union?

Mr. Doorley referred to the need to use different indicators and stated that one relating to the numbers in temporary employment should come into play. How would such an indicator contemplate the fact that many young people who are students might take up part-time or temporary work during their summer or winter recesses? How can we ensure that the statistics relating to these individuals will not skew the results? Mr. Doorley also referred to a general indicator in respect of youth unemployment. Is he of the view that there is also a need to examine migration rates? It is a well-accepted fact that the youth unemployment rate in Ireland would probably be higher were it not for the fact that people take the boat or the plane and travel abroad. Should migration rates be included in the indicators?

My final question relates to funding and is for both of our guests. I take the point that benchmarks are currently not in place and I presume that action will have to be taken in order to address that fact. Are our guests of the view that the Commission should have a role in the context of fining those who do not make the benchmarks or should it support them through the provision of additional funding or whatever? Will they indicate if the carrot or the stick be used in this regard?

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

I concur with a number of the points made by Mr. Doorley. As I understand it, we are trying to tackle the fact that 20 million are unemployed across the European Union. A wonderful aspect of the Union is that attention is paid to the social dimension of the development of European societies. I welcome the fact that a debate is taking place in Europe and that the 28 national parliaments are in a position to engage with that debate. This is a very complex issue. The 28 national parliaments and the European Parliament are using various formulae in respect of benchmarking, etc., and are creating indicators to assess how they should act. The briefing notes presented to the committee state that the Employment Social Policy, Health and the Consumer Affairs Council, EPSCO, considers that reaching alarm thresholds should not trigger any automatic actions or measures. To be fair, the European Union clearly recognises that youth unemployment and long-term unemployment are major social problems and has created the youth guarantee in response. If the EU understands that the problem of youth unemployment should be targeted and has provided €6 billion in funding to combat it, why can it not put in place some form of mechanism that would kick in when alarming levels of social alienation, exclusion or marginalisation are reached? This matter needs to be teased out.

The EU is trying to measure education, training and protection of human health in the social exclusion field. I do not like to read the rankings relating to the educational standards in schools. By anyone's standards, my constituency, Dublin South-Central, is a very challenging one vis-à-vis social exclusion. Ballyfermot and Cherry Orchard in the constituency were both targeted under the EU's URBAN I and URBAN II programmes and the people who live there benefited immensely as a result. The rankings to which I refer indicate that 50% of students from Loreto College in Crumlin now go on to third level. Leaving aside the debate about private fee-paying schools, I am under the impression - our guests can correct me if I am wrong - that we seem to be doing very well in the context of children, even those from working class communities, gaining access to further education. I presume this is one of the indicators of whether we are doing things right or wrong. Do our guests agree that we have made major strides in the context of providing a good educational base in working class communities throughout the country and in facilitating access to third level?

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

I thank both of our guests for attending and for their presentations. Ms O'Connor referred to women's participation in decision making. If there was a scoreboard in this regard, what position would Ireland hold on it? What indicators could be used to best monitor this? Ms O'Connor also referred to gender disaggregation of indicators and provided some examples. Are there any more specific indicators which are urgently required in order to track development in this area?

Mr. Doorley spoke about engagement at member state level. He referred to the role social actors should play in terms of such engagement and stated that they should have an input into country-specific recommendations and corrective plans. My question relates to the funding for the youth employment initiative - which is coming from Structural Funds - and macroeconomic conditionality. That latter is being attached to EU Structural Funds for the next budgeting period. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is on record as stating that "Macroeconomic conditionality or measures linked to sound economic governance will ensure that Cohesion Policy is consistent with wider EU economic governance".

If countries are found to be in breach of some of their obligations and they fail to take effective action on economic recommendations repeatedly, payments may be suspended. Would Mr. Doorley have concerns that the youth employment initiative might be affected perhaps not in Ireland, but in other member states? It was mentioned that if that happened or there were small breaches of the macroeconomic conditionality, there would have to be dialogue and it would be up to member states to make changes to partnership agreements, but would Mr. Doorley have a fear that it could affect the youth guarantee? A reply to a parliamentary question stated that it would be up to a member state to review and propose amendments to partnership agreements. Would Mr. Dooley's organisation feed into the Oireachtas or the Ministers to ensure that youth guarantee or youth employment funding is not affected by any potential imbalances?

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

I thank the Senator for those questions. I call Deputy Durkan.

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

I thank Ms Orla O'Connor and Mr. James Doorley for coming before the committee and giving of their time to discuss this issue.

I will direct my questions to Ms O'Connor first. On the issue of the maximisation of women's participation in the workforce, to what extent has she examined the European experiences in that area and compared them with ours with a view to addressing the issues that prevent women from participating in the workforce here and how they have dealt with those issues in the European context? She referred to the issue of rearing a family. Some women wish to take time out to rear their families. It is a choice they would have like to have as opposed to being forced to go in one direction or another. To what extent does she consider women here have a choice in that area in comparison to their European colleagues? The issue of choice in some cases is important, particularly in times of economic difficulty.

How does Ms O'Connor envisage the youth guarantee affecting the younger generation of women in this country, given the work incentive schemes in place to draw people away from unemployment? What needs most to be addressed in that area?

Ms O'Connor mentioned young single parents and I agree with what she said. One of the biggest problems in that area is the lack of adequate housing, certainly in the area in which I live where matters have reached an appalling state and young people are regularly in tears at the prospect of being homeless. It is sad situation. That is the way it is. There are no rented properties available for them other than at a rent they cannot afford. Local authorities ceased building houses ten years ago which leaves them in a very difficult and vulnerable situation.

I saw a recent study on young people, boys and girls aged ten to 17, which is a very vulnerable age group, who were referred to accident and emergency departments with suspected self-harm arising from self-harm. To what extent, does the Ms O'Connor's organisation have the wherewithal to focus on and address such subjects. It is a sensitive and difficult subject but one which remains with us. Oddly, twice as many girls as boys in that age group presented at accident and emergency departments.

Turning to Mr. James Doorley, how does he consider the youth guarantee is likely to work when it percolates down into the Irish system in addition to the systems already in place to deal with youth unemployment? In Europe, research has been done which suggests that young people do not wish or are reluctant to work, but I do not find that to be case with males or females. There is some research to back up that view and that may well be the case throughout Europe. However, given that disincentives to encouraging young people into workforce has been largely removed, albeit through necessity in this jurisdiction, how does Mr. Doorley consider the situation is affecting young people's morale, their sense of well-being and their confidence? What is the best way to address the issues presenting to them in terms of gaining access to the workforce? He mentioned that many young people are offered temporary jobs, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It gives them experience, an opportunity to gain confidence in the workforce and realise what work is like and what they have to do in order to compete with those around them. From my experience, a high proportion of temporary job placements have led to permanent jobs in the same firms. I would like to hear Mr. Dooley's comments on this area.

We have a high proportion of young people, much higher than some other European countries, although the Latin countries also have a high proportion of young people, but we do not always compare like with like. Given that youth unemployment levels are extraordinarily high throughout Europe, in the context of an upsurge in the economy, does Mr. Doorley consider our young potential workforce will be well placed and have sufficient skill to access that employment? I attended a seminar on this subject not so long ago at which it was indicated that many employers consider the skills of the young people presenting to them are inadequate to meet the challenges in today's workplace. How do we deal with that?

I presume I mentioned the matter of individualisation.

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

No.

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

I thought I did. If I did not mention it, this is an issue for Ms. O'Connor. I should have led on to individualisation from my point regarding women having a choice of going to work or not going, that being their entitlement and right. Individualisation has been cited as an obstacle or a method whereby women were forced to work in all circumstances even though it was not advisable for them to do so in certain situations. I apologise for going on so long.

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

That is quite all right. It was very interesting. I suggest that we ask Ms Orla O'Connor to respond first and then Mr. James Doorley and if there are any outstanding questions we can return to them.

Ms Orla O'Connor:

On the Chairman's question, an example of a country other than Scotland that uses gender budgeting is Iceland. It is a good example as it also experienced a huge financial crisis and recession. It has also used processes of gender budgeting and equality budgeting. The Icelandic experience is interesting in its use of these processes. It implemented austerity measures but it used those processes to ensure that they did not particularly impact on women and women with children. After each budget it assessed where things fell and in one budget it highlighted that a measure had a particular impact on women and reversed it in the next budget. Therefore, it used these processes as a tool. We had a speaker over from Iceland who spoke about this and that speaker said that now that Iceland has shifted into growth it also using this process - having regard to all the data that has been gathered by using a gender budgeting process - to highlight what it needs to focus on, who got particularly hit from measures and who needs to be focused on now. In its last budget, it increased payments such as children's allowances. That is one example of the use of that process. While they have not necessarily called it gender budgeting, the Nordic countries have used a series of indicators around women's equality and they have been using those for a long time.

On the issue of consistency, I agree it is important.

I agree that it is important. It is difficult. The gender pay gap is an example of where there has been real attempts across the EU to bring up consistency of data in order to get good comparisons. There are areas where the work on consistency has already happened. The other area is child care. The Barcelona targets have been set for preschool child care places. Data have been brought up to a level where they can be consistent. I accept it is an issue but a lot more work is being done, in particular now through the new European Institute for Gender Equality which is based in Vilnius.

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

It is headed up by Thérèse from Ireland.

Ms Orla O'Connor:

Yes, Thérèse Murphy, the former chair of National Women’s Council of Ireland. The institute is compiling a lot of comparative data and baseline data on gender in order to get consistent indicators. There are huge advances in that area and it should not hold us back.

You mentioned funding, Chairman, and the carrot and the stick. I agree with what Deputy Byrne said. It is important that the sticks do not all relate just to the hard economic stuff and that the social dimension is all about the carrot because that is part of the problem. Our experience of the open method of co-ordination and the series of action plans on poverty and employment is that they were all about the carrot and did not push countries other than to say they were falling down in certain respects but it did not make them do anything. There must be obligations in terms of the social dimension.

Senator Reilly’s first question was where Ireland is in the EU. I will come back to her. I think we are about 19th but I want to check because I am not fully sure. I am happy to e-mail the information to the committee. In terms of indicators that could be used around women, the participation of women with children is an important issue so that we do not get lost in overall employment rates. A really good series of indicators were developed in Ireland when we put together our national women’s strategy. Indicators included the availability of flexible working options. That is an issue being examined in other European countries as well. The Barcelona targets were used to assess child care places. The number of after-school child care places available was also assessed. An indicator used quite a lot by the OECD is the percentage of child care costs as a proportion of net income. That is important in terms of Ireland because our child care costs are such a high proportion of net income. A number of indicators can be used.

Deputy Durkan referred to how we compare in Europe in terms of women’s participation. The labour force participation of women is 53.3% and the average is approximately 63% at EU level. We are about 10% less. What is indicative in terms of Ireland is the drop when children are present, in particular when there are more than two children. The same drop is not experienced in many other European countries. Ireland stands out in that regard.

In terms of part-time workers across the EU there is a high level of women working part time so we are not particularly different in that regard, other than the Nordic countries which have a much higher proportion of women in full-time work. Choice is an important issue. From our work with women and from existing evidence a number of things limit choice for women. The issue is whether the choice for women in Ireland is extremely limited; if they choose to work part time or if they choose to leave work because they want to leave work when they have two children. One factor which constantly emerged both from statistics from research and also anecdotally is the cost of child care in Ireland and the impact of that. If one has more than two children the cost is prohibitive.

There is limited paid parental leave in Ireland. If one compares Ireland to Scandinavia and the Nordic countries, one has generous proportions of leave in the early years of children’s lives and then women go back to full-time work. As there is no substantial paid leave in Ireland women drop out and will not necessarily go back into the workforce. In the Scandinavian countries the connection to the labour force exists all the time. That is a huge difference in Ireland and really inhibits choice. It does not support women to return to work. We know that the longer women stay out of work it becomes much harder to go back and to keep one’s status in the labour market. Many women who have two children in a crèche say the only reason they stay in work is so as not to lose their place. All their wages go on child care.

The youth guarantee is something the National Women’s Council has been raising with the Department of Social Protection. We think there does need to be a gender dimension to the youth guarantee and how it plays out. The National Women’s Council of Ireland has a youth initiative called the Y Factor and a lot of the young women in that have been talking about their experiences of unemployment. We are doing research on the different experiences of young women in comparison to young men in terms of unemployment. The European Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men has also said there needs to be a gender dimension to the youth guarantee. I think I have answered all questions.

Mr. James Doorley:

The first question you asked, Chairman, was about temporary employment. That is a valid point. There will always be a cohort of young people who will be in a temporary contract by choice when they are receiving college education. The issue of temporary contracts was one of the indicators. There was an examination of temporary contracts on a voluntary basis and an involuntary basis. That gives a sense of the number of students, for example, who want to work part time but also the number of young people who work involuntarily on a temporary basis. That has already been captured by the youth indicators in the work done by the Commission. That probably deals with that issue.

Reference was also made to migration rates, which is a big topic in Ireland at the moment. EUROSTAT brought out figures in recent weeks on migration rates per 1,000 citizens. Ireland has the highest rate in the EU in terms of the number of people per 1,000 in 2012. The European Commission wants more mobility. It is in favour of people moving around the European Union but it is probably not too enthused with young people going to Australia and Canada. From its point of view it would like to create a scenario such as exists in the United States. If there are jobs in California then people move from Massachusetts to California to get the jobs. The Commission laments the fact that mobility is quite low in terms of the percentage of people who migrate to another member state.

From our perspective there are opportunities in Germany or on the Continent that are closer to Ireland than Australia or Canada but unfortunately language skills are a big problem. Ireland scores very low in regard to language skills. That is something that is in the document that I did not raise in my presentation. If that was an indicator Ireland and the United Kingdom would score badly in terms of people having a second language or a third language.

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

Some people speak Latin.

Mr. James Doorley:

That is true. In terms of sanctions, the carrot and stick approach is an issue. Deputy Byrne mentioned that as well. The European Union always worked in this area on the basis of voluntary participation and more on the name-and-fame approach rather than the name-and-shame approach. It is a question of whether a member state is trying to do something and failing or is not bothered. If a member state, through its economic or social policies, were to create instability in Europe or social unrest, that would be an issue for the rest of the European Union. It could create a problem whereby a member state which has limited resources would get punished for not doing more, which punishes people in the state more because there is less money going into an area. It is a catch-22 situation. As Ms O’Connor said, the carrot approach is preferable but there must be a sanction. That brings me back to the point made by Deputy Byrne that as a last resort we need some sanction if a member state is failing to act on youth employment or other issues because it does not care or is not bothered. If they do not deal with it then it will probably become an issue for the rest of the European Union.

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

There were no sanctions under the Stability and Growth Pact-----

Mr. James Doorley:

Yes.

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

-----although Mr. Doorley said if it is counted, then it counts. It was counted then but, unfortunately, there was no way of enforcing it.

Mr. James Doorley:

This process is not part of the legal framework. We know that if member states infringe a treaty, a directive or the other legal mechanisms they can be referred by the Commission to the European Court of Justice from which there are potential financial implications, but a treaty change or some other change would probably be required to have that happen.

Deputy Byrne spoke about progression on education. That is probably one of the areas where we have seen a good deal of success in Ireland. In terms of the Europe 2020 strategy on school completion rates, Ireland is doing very well in keeping young people in education for as long as possible. On employment, data was published some years ago indicating that youth unemployment for third level graduates was approximately 18% whereas for young people who left school after the junior certificate it was approximately 65%. There is a big correlation, therefore, between educational attainment and employment. That is a success. Nobody can deny that we have done well in that area but the question is whether we can do even better in that regard.

Senator Reilly raised the issue of the macroeconomic conditionality. That is a major concern because if on the one hand a member state is told it must meet all the social indicators while, on the other, it is required to reduce spending or debt to GDP or whatever, there is a clash between the two objectives. It is being told to spend and invest more in young people or women, in terms of addressing issues of inequality, while another arm of the Commission is telling it that it must reduce its spending. That is a dilemma.

We had a meeting with the official regarding the European social funds. In the past the process was that the member state produced the plan at the start, was required to do a mid-term review of spending following which the funds might be adjusted on the basis of its performance, and then it would be reviewed at the end of that process. The European Commission is now insisting on an annual review of the work being done and, therefore, if a member state is not seen to be implementing what it promised at the start of the programme or whatever, the Commission is stating clearly that it will examine the amount of funding that has been given.

Deputy Durkan spoke about the youth guarantee. There is a good deal of progress in that area. The European institutions have allocated €6 billion to this area, which is very welcome. Ireland must submit its youth guarantee implementation plan by the end of the year. The Department of Social Protection held a consultation meeting a number of weeks ago. We have made a submission. We are concerned that what is being guaranteed, which is a quality offer of education, training and work experience within four months of becoming unemployed, will be a big ask. The funding currently available, which is approximately €200 million in 2014 and 2015, is not sufficient in our view in terms of having enough resources to provide the places or the actual staff to engage with young people because the individual plan each young person is meant to undertake is part of that. We may need to examine from where we should start in that regard. Obviously, we will not start with all young people who meet the criteria. There might be a question of starting with those young people who need it most. Young people who have been the longest unemployed would be one criterion. We are making progress. We would hope there will be some engagement with civil society before the Irish plan is submitted to Brussels. We would be anxious to contribute to it.

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

What is the window in that regard?

Mr. James Doorley:

It has to be submitted to the Commission by the end of 2013.

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

If there is to be engagement, does Mr. Doorley mean next week?

Mr. James Doorley:

Yes.

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

Has the request been submitted to the relevant-----

Mr. James Doorley:

Yes. We would have made Departments aware. I understand it is complex and involves a good deal of work. It is complex even from a funding point of view but it is important to get the plan as correct as possible. In fairness, there is a lot of pressure on to get it done but the Commission officials to whom we spoke last week were clear that it will be a living plan. They will not come down heavy on a member state that says one thing and then cannot deliver it within a certain period because I understand the timeframe is-----

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

In terms of the pilot.

Mr. James Doorley:

Yes.

On the other issue Deputy Durkan mentioned, the demographics in Ireland are very positive. We are of the view that if the economy recovers young people will be well placed but we need to invest in something like the youth guarantee even more now than when there were no prospects of employment growth because we must prepare young people to be job ready.

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

On behalf of the committee I thank Ms O'Connor and Mr. Doorley for attending, for their presentations and for answering our questions. We will be preparing a political contribution that will be sent to the Commission within the next ten days. We will make sure Ms O'Connor and Mr. Doorley get a copy of that.