Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Much of the ground has already been covered on Second Stage and up to now on Committee Stage. It might come as a surprise if I were to say I agree with the comments made by the Taoiseach and others about handing out money to 18 and 19 year olds and that it would be far better to have them on a training course or upskilling. I also agree there should be more training courses. Therein lies the problem. There are not enough training courses in place. Therefore, the question remains what is to be done about this large cohort of people who, irrespective of what Senator John Kelly said, will have less money in their pocket as a result of this proposal? The figures are staggering. Senator David Cullinane has quoted extensively, as others have done, from the National Youth Council's papers in this regard but it is worth emphasising that only an additional 3,250 places have been created for the under 25 year olds while extra places on JobsPlus depends on employers. Also an OECD report, Getting Youth on the Job Track, found in 2011 that 40% of young people aged 16 to 24 in Ireland were at risk of poverty, which is the highest in the EU. The Vincentian Partnership states that the cost of a single adult living as part of a household will be €184 in 2014. Young people on €100 and €144, respectively, will be surviving on incomes well below the poverty line. Also young jobseekers living with their parents are subject to a means test where the income of their parents is taken into account in a process known as benefit and privilege assessment. We also know that more than 19,000 applicants under the age of 25 had their application for jobseekers's allowance refused between 2009 and 2012. This clearly shows, according to the submission, that the payment is going to young people who are living in relatively low income households. They are the people who will be adversely affected as a result of this proposal.

The OECD report, Getting Youth on the Job Track, stated:

A comprehensive national strategy to tackle the very high unemployment rates among the young is lacking. Youth policy is fragmented with several Government Departments taking individual action. A more co-ordinated and tailored approach to this is required.

Perhaps the Minister would have a view on that particular segment of the OECD report. It appears there is either duplication or inefficiency across Departments but the end result is that it is not delivering what, presumably, the Minister and her Government colleagues wish to do.

Some of the other main points in the report make interesting reading but I will not quote all of them. However, one or two should be highlighted. It states that at present each case worker in the Department of Social Protection oversees 800 jobseekers, which is high by international standards. I was astonished that one individual oversees 800 jobseekers. Therefore, each case worker has a file of 800 people with whom he or she has to deal. I do not know whether they are doing this exclusively in the jobseeker's area or whether that is part of their additional duties. One way or the other it appears the Department officials are overloaded with work in this regard and, obviously, it is bound to affect efficiency.

Also, we spend only 0.05% of our GDP on placement services while the UK spends 0.19% and the Nordic countries 0.21%. This disadvantages young jobseekers as they require more support, career advice and job counselling. The impression seems to be abroad that there will be no great difficulty about this proposal, that at the end of the day all that has to happen is that jobseekers in that cohort between 18 and 25 years of age turn up and they will get on to a course that is suitable and tailored to their needs, which is plainly not the case. Therefore, the question remains what will the Department do about it? What is the general Government policy in respect of providing more training places? Unquestionably, there is a skills shortage in certain sectors of the jobs economy in this country. We know that in the high-tech area that jobs are available and that there is a shortage of skilled workers. On Second Stage somebody referred to the lack of language skills. I have often wondered how it is that the Department has not encouraged more young people to go into language courses, particularly those who, from anecdotal evidence, have done many basic and medium level computer skill courses. I doubt if there is a young person in the country who does not know how to operate a computer. It appears there are a number of opportunities in this area that can get young people on to a path to employment. Again, I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this issue.

I was particularly interested in Senator Jillian van Turnhout's reference to the experience of an actor to whom she referred. I am a member of Equity. On the Social Welfare Bill last year, I raised an issue somewhat similar to that raised by the Senator about those who find themselves resting between jobs. They are now encouraged to go on to a training course which means that they may not be available for work. Meetings took place between representatives of Equity and officials of the Minister's Department. The Minister and I discussed this on more than one occasion in the earlier part of the year. If the Minster has anything further to add in this regard I would be interested to hear it. The problem remains that for those who are actors, being forced on to training courses that take them out of the potential jobs market is not in their best interests. One may contrast that with what has already been decided with the fire fighters where the Minister has already taken an initiative in this regard to ensure they will not be penalised for working part time. It was in that context that I had raised the position of actors.