Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, to the House.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Seanad Éireann:acknowledges the important role that youth work has played and continues to play in assisting young people in Ireland, in supporting them to be active citizens and to reach their potential;
welcomes the Assessment of the Economic Value of Youth Work Report (For the National Youth Council of Ireland by Indecon International Economic Consultants, 2012),which shows that for every ¤1 the State invests in youth work there is a long term benefit and saving of ¤2.22 to the State;
affirms the important role of the voluntary youth work sector in young people?s lives with the Value of Youth Work Report noting that the sector is significant in scale and reach, with almost 383,000 young people benefiting from a wide range of programmes and services;
notes the important role of youth work in addressing social exclusion and poverty with the Value of Youth Work Report indicating that 53% of participants in youth work activities are from socially and-or economically disadvantaged areas;
welcomes the finding in the Value of Youth Work Report that 26% of young people in Ireland participate in a youth club or some kind of youth organisation, which is the highest level of participation in the European Union;
acknowledges the vital role of over 40,000 volunteers in the youth work sector who give their time and life experience to work with and for young people in their communities;
recognises the important work of 1,400 paid staff who, on a daily basis, provide many of the supports and services for both young people and volunteers;
notes the 10.4% increase in the youth population between the ages of 10-14 from 273,872 in 2006 to 302,491 in 2011;
notes that Ireland, at 18.4% in 2011, has the 4th highest number of young people not ??in education, employment or training?? (NEETS) in the European Union compared to an EU average of 12.9%;
further notes, that Ireland, at 37% compared to a 27% EU average, has the highest number of children and young people under 18 years of age at risk of poverty and social exclusion;
recognises the need to address the high levels of youth unemployment with over 29% of young people under 25 now unemployed with over a third of young men aged 20-24 out of work;
acknowledges the ¤56.8m in current expenditure provided by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs to support youth work in 2012, but is concerned at the 20% cut in funding since 2008.
calls on the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs to:

1. acknowledge the role of the voluntary youth work sector in supporting young people who are not in education, training or employment and to work in partnership with the youth sector at local and national level to address social exclusion and youth unemployment;
2. recognise in policy and funding decisions the important role of the voluntary youth sector in reaching and supporting young people from the most socially and-or economically disadvantaged communities in Ireland;
3. take into account the economic benefits and long term savings to the State through investment in youth work as outlined in the Value of Youth Work Report;
4. recognise that continued cuts in funding will undermine the capacity of voluntary youth organisations to meet the needs of young people;
5. note the increasing numbers of young people in the 10-14 year old age cohort who will be seeking supports and services in their communities in the coming five years.".

I have a long list of issues that I would like to be able to discuss with the Minister, but I will limit myself to the value of youth work. I speak as someone who has benefited from experience as a young person in a youth organisation. I was lucky to have some truly inspirational youth leaders. Indeed, I wonder whether I would have the confidence to stand before the Minister today had I not become involved in the girl guides. I can trace many of my skills to my experience in youth work.

I also had the honour of being president of the National Youth Council of Ireland several years ago. Through that experience, I learned the value of providing young people with a choice of youth activities. Just like us adults, one size does not fit all.

I tabled this motion a number of weeks ago in the hope we could have a debate prior to the budget. As such, I thank my colleagues in the Independent Group for allowing me to use our precious time to have this debate now. We know that youth work makes a real difference in the lives of young people and the communities in which they live. The Indecon report, produced on behalf of the National Youth Council of Ireland, regarding the assessment of the economic value of youth work provides hard evidence to the effect that youth work is value for money and makes economic sense.

Like me, the Minister is undoubtedly alarmed by the fact that, in the EU, Ireland has the fourth highest number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, NEETs, at 18.4%. The EU average is 12.9%. In terms of marginalisation, 29% of people under 25 years of age are unemployed and one third of men between the ages of 20 years and 24 years are unemployed. The youth population is growing, with 18.4% of our population aged between ten and 24 years. Alongside this growth, youth work organisations have reported an increased demand for their services. Perhaps this is due to the recession, in that people are searching for value for money activities. It is in light of the increased demand that my Independent colleagues and I have tabled this motion. I also thank the other Senators who added their signatures to the motion.

The report outlines the evidence, but going through it would use up all of my time. I can provide hard economic evidence as well as many case studies. In one example, young teenagers regularly drank in the fields behind the school where a youth work organisation met. Over a period of two years, they were gradually encouraged to get involved in the organisation's activities. Through gentle encouragement, they realised the harmful effects of alcohol and ceased hanging out in the fields because they had found a worthwhile activity.

In another example, an eight year old used to turn up to her youth work meeting half an hour early every week just to chat. It transpired that this young person had no active engagement with an adult from one end of the week to the other except for the youth worker. Her parents instructed her in what to do, but no one simply chatted with her.

Another young person had autism and found any group activity painful and frightening. After two years of coming along to meetings with her sister, she started to smile and progressively became more involved. According to her mother, the social skills that the young person developed were remarkable and directly attributable to her youth work experience.

While on a weekend away with a youth group, a teenager began hitting the other participants and using very sexualised language. After careful handling by the youth worker who talked with the girl and her parents, it transpired that she was being abused by someone known to the family. The abuse needed to be reported to the authorities.

I could continue with my list. I have not taken these examples from a report or research. They are my personal experiences as a youth work leader with the Irish Girl Guides. I have no doubt that any youth worker or, indeed, anyone present in the Gallery could share with the Minister a long list of examples where youth work had made a difference. The economic report also shows that. I call them magic moments. Sometimes, one goes to a meeting and does not have a great night, but situations arise that prove that youth work makes a difference.

When I tabled the motion, I tried to put down an evidence-based, factual account. I was tempted to add lines to the effect that, for example, funding should not be cut, but I decided on a wording that was non-confrontational. When I saw the Government's amendment, it struck me as an attempt to gild the lily. In recent years, most youth work organisations have seen funding cuts amounting to a cumulative 30%. Some, particularly small specialist organisations, will no longer be viable, thereby reducing the selection of organisations that young people can join. Demands on youth work organisations are also increasing because young people do not have resources within their families, which places even greater pressure on local youth work clubs' resources.

I do not wish to divide the House. To be constructive and as a first step, I will ask a number of questions. Perhaps the Minister might help by answering. I will add some of my own commentary so that the record of this debate can stand.

The first point I wish to raise is that of front-line youth work services. There are 382,615 young people participating in and benefiting from youth work, 1,400 full-time employees and more than 40,000 volunteers. My background is in guiding and scouting. For me, when we refer to front-line youth work services, we mean volunteers working on the front line who are being provided with resources and supports by staff. A small group of staff are based in a national office, and they provide and help with programme materials. They do not design those materials. Rather, that is done by the volunteers. Indeed, everything is done by the volunteers, but they need backup. When I hear "front-line youth work services", I wonder whether the true voluntary nature is understood.

In the Minister's discussions with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in the lead-up to the budget, did she discuss the Indecon report on the assessment of youth work and the benefits that it clearly demonstrated? The documents published by the Department of Public Expenditure and reform on budget 2013 showed that the Department of Children and Youth Affairs is proposing a further cut of ¤3 million in 2014. These cuts are unsustainable. Youth work funding is 14% of the latter Department's overall budget, yet is being allocated 30% of the overall cut to that budget.

This case, about which I received details today, relates to a person in Kilsallaghan in north County Dublin, which is a fine place. Senator Reilly's amendment, if accepted, would address the issue. How does the Minister of State propose to address it? I refer him to section 15(10)(a) and ask him to clarify the position in this regard.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To respond to amendments Nos. 5 and 6 in the name of Senator Reilly, one of the core purposes of the Bill, as expressed in its Long Title, is to "change the governance requirements for credit unions by removing certain management functions from boards of directors of credit unions and providing for a separate management structure and to improve the oversight and general policy functions of such boards of directors". The core change at the centre of the governance provision in the Bill is to separate the role of the board in overseeing the credit unions' operations from day-to-day operations. These exclusions are designed to ensure people are not overseeing their own work and are not answerable to themselves. For this reason and given the core function of the board in overseeing the work of voluntary assistants, volunteers of credit unions cannot also be a director. However, there is no difficulty with volunteers becoming members of boards provided they do not remain in their role as a voluntary assistant at the same time. The Government has brought forward amendments to allow a volunteer from another credit union or family member of a volunteer to sit on the board.

Amendment No. 6 seeks to delete the second two lines of subsection (10)(a) to provide that the employee of one credit union may be on the board of another credit union. The Minister addressed this suggestion on Committee Stage in the Dáil. The Government has already shown considerable flexibility in accepting amendments on board membership where to do so would not compromise the principles of the Bill.

In respect of employees of other credit unions, credit union members must have confidence that board members are free not only from conflicts of duty but also conflicts of loyalty. A director who is making decisions about business strategy or a possible amalgamation may find it difficult to maintain sufficient objectivity where the decision may also affect the neighbouring credit union at which he or she also works.

To address Senator Darragh O'Brien's point, the recommendations the Government is following are those made in the report of the Commission on Credit Unions and we are being honest to the recommendations. A potential conflict arises where a person is employed and serving on another board. The Senator asked about a person who had previously worked in this area. This scenario does not present a difficulty because the provision would not apply to such a person on the basis that he or she is not in his or her current employment. As such, the issue the Senator raises does not create a difficulty because the person is not currently employed in the relevant area.

As far as the Government is concerned, we are being loyal to and consistent with the recommendations of the commission's report, while showing a degree of flexibility towards the amendments Senators tabled yesterday.

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

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 21, line 6, after "union." to insert the following:
"The requirement of this section may be waived by the Bank in exceptional circumstances upon application by the credit union.".

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On Committee Stage in the Dáil, the Minister for Finance stated that he would look at a mechanism whereby an exception to term limits could be allowed in exceptional circumstances. I tabled an amendment to that effect on Committee Stage in the Seanad yesterday which amends section 95A of the Bill. The purpose of that amendment is to allow the Central Bank to appoint a director under section 95A even where that person may have exceeded the term limit. The amendment deals with a situation where it is necessary to enhance or improve the expertise of a board, for example, where the term limit meant that it was deficient in this respect.

This section provides that the bank may require the appointment of an additional director in such circumstances. However, it has been amended so that where a credit union is unable to source a director to meet the necessary requirements, it may nominate a director who would otherwise be excluded because of the term limit. I believe this addresses the point raised by the Senator's amendment without fundamentally compromising the core principle that the Minister is seeking to provide for in the Bill. On that basis, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

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

Is it just in terms of the term limits?

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

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

I tabled the amendment because of the limited pool of people that would be available. If it cannot meet the directors' requirements from that pool of people, could there be a waiver in exceptional circumstances? It is not necessarily related to the term limits but to that situation.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The net issue is that if there is a deficiency of numbers and the experienced people are required, this can be allowed on an exceptional basis. That is my understanding of it. If there is a deficiency of numbers coming forward and the credit union would need some people for their expertise, those people can remain. That is where the exclusion could kick in.

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

So the amendment is not necessary.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment is consequential on the change in term limits for the board of directors from nine years to 12 years in aggregate in any 15-year period. We had a good debate about this yesterday. Given that the term limits are increased to 12 years under section 15, the reference to permissible limits under this Part also must be updated to refer to 12 years. This section requires the nomination committee to review the membership of board members who have served the 12 years permissible under the Bill and document the rationale for continuance of that person.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I indicated on Committee Stage that an amendment to this section was required to clarify that the reference to member in subsection (4) is a member of the board of directors, not a member of the credit union. Therefore, the reference to member in the section is being changed to director. This was done for clarity.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment correlates an incorrect reference. Section 76N provides for the election of members of the board oversight committee either during the organisation meeting or a general meeting of the credit union.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 11 follows commitments given by the Minister in the Dáil by allowing for a director of one credit union to be on the board oversight committee of another. A number of amendments have been made to committee exclusions. This amendment mirrors the provisions in section 15 relating to exclusions from board membership. It also provides for consequential numbering changes.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 12 is negatived in the Committee of the House and is out of order.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment replaces the definition of "maturity mismatch". The proposed definition clarifies the definition used in the Bill.