Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Professor Pissarides and thank him for his encouraging words of direction to the Government. He is shining a spotlight on the important topic of youth unemployment. This esteemed House has endured since 1922 and is known to be a place of ideas and debate. We would also like it to be a House of solutions. In taking over the European Presidency in January 2013, we have a unique opportunity to lead on the issue of youth unemployment. As leaders and national parliamentarians we will have an opportunity to address youth unemployment across the European Union. That makes Professor Pissarides's visit all the more special.

A report published today revealed that 25% of our young people believe that recession is the worst part of Irish life. More than 66,500 young people were surveyed for this report. Youth unemployment is a scourge that we ignore at our peril. History teaches us about the dangers of an unemployed and disaffected youth. We need only look to the 50% youth unemployment rate in Germany in the 1930s, which is the same level as in Spain and Greece today. Our youth unemployment rate stands at approximately 30%, or twice the level for the population as a whole. The President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, recognises that Europe's biggest problem is unemployment among young people. One of our own great writers, Peig Sayers, wrote "Measaim ná fuil aon dá sheoid is luachmhaire ná an t-óige 's an tsláinte," which means "I think there are no two jewels more valuable than youth and health". Our youth and the health of this society are under threat. It makes sense for us to act resolutely and I wish to focus on the solutions.

One of the best investments we can make in society is in our youth, not only for themselves but also because a working youth will fund our pensions. Inputs for youth will lead to a healthy cycle of life. I note the professor's recent comments to the British Government regarding the importance of social protection measures and the need to avoid cutting them for the jobless.

We are also committed to this. I was particularly delighted to hear Professor Pissarides speak today about job creation and public investment programmes. We should make no mistake about the fact that young people across Europe are not happy. They believe the implicit contract they bought into has been broken. They were told they could have a better way of life than their parents if they worked hard and studied hard. A young Spanish woman who was interviewed by The Economist said she felt as though she had trained for a world that no longer existed. We all know that for many people, leaving school or college is hopeless in the absence of an outlet for one's skills, natural enthusiasm, hopes and dreams. As Professor Pissarides knows, we almost had full employment during the boom, from which very high expectations resulted. Our bust was particularly sharp. Therefore, the fall has been so much harder. The sad thing for many parents is that they are no longer in a position to help their children because they are struggling with basic household payments. All countries that are in programmes are in trouble. We know we need a return to growth across the eurozone. In the meantime, we cannot wait. That is why it was good to hear Professor Pissarides's recommendations. The good news is that young people bounce back quickly in an economic recovery. The problem is that this recession has been going on for a long time.

What can Europe do? I want to put a proposal to Professor Pissarides. It is not the case that Ireland is not doing a great deal. We have drawn up the Pathways to Work proramme and the Action Plan for Jobs. We have signed up to the Europe 2020 growth agenda. Some 52% of those who have finished the JobBridge programme - approximately 10,000 people have started it - have gone into paid employment. I would like to put my own theory and policy direction on these matters to Professor Pissarides. We have made mistakes in education. We often educate purely for employment, rather than also educating for self-employment, which means that when people lose their jobs in a recession, they think there is no work they can do. We should be educating for self-employment and entrepreneurship, as well as for employment. It should not be an add-on, which is what many of educational institutions meddle in, for example, as part of the transition year programme. It should be part of mainstream education. If we are to do this, we need parallel creative and entrepreneurial education pathways which receive the same value and status as the traditional academic pathways. I would like Professor Pissarides to respond. What is his experience of other countries? Are there countries that have entrepreneurial pathways which receive the same value as the traditional academic pathways, on which we have relied for so long and have served us well but are not enough in a recession? I look forward to hearing Professor Pissarides's response.