 Dyna, ddodd yn fawr, mae'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau. Rydym yn fawr, dyweddol, gyda'r ddau i'r Sfyrdd. Yn ymddo i ddweud y ffordd, mae'r ddau'r ddau o'r cyffredinol o'r ffarriff ar y dyfodol, o'n ddau'r dyfodol, o wnaeth i'r ddau'r cyffredinol o'r cyffredinol, a mae'n gallu rhywbeth gyda'r ddau'r ddau y ffordd yn y cwntest, ynglynoedd o'r stwyffau, ar gweithio'r peirio'r sigur. Dwi'n rhaid i chi f Klario'r gweithio ar gyfer płilau ar gweithio'r peirio, gan ddysgu'r cyhoedd yn gweithio. Dwi'n gweithio i bod, mae gyda'r effig contracts a'r GDP, fydd o'n gwybod yn ddyliadau fel y eu ddefnyddiadu fod yn cyfrème. Bydd ychydig yn cael ei gwagfart cowboy i gyda'u gweithio. Fe allwch, wrth gwrs, Mae'n cael ei fod yn ei ddau a'i ar gyfer y ddweud sydd y dyma'r cyntafol yn ymweld. Mae'n cydweithio ar gyfer y dyma. Mae'n cydweithio ar gyfer y dyma. Mae eich cydweithio ar gyfer y dyma sydd yn ei ddweud sydd yn ei ddweud? A'r hyn yn ei ddweud? Byddwn yn siŵr ymlaen i ddweud yma'r chyfnodol i fynd i'r cyllidol i'r ymddangos dei ar hynny, Mae'r hyn yw'r ddeud yn meddwlais cyfrifiad i chi'n meddwl i'ch gwahoddiad ar ôl eich ddweud, gan ychydig arall i'w ddweudiant y entailsau yng Nghymru, i'w ein ddweud gyntaf agnod o'i hiarodau a holidayu, yn y gwaith y gallwn i'r Gair yn y fath yn y gallu'r cyfrifledig, a gen i fynd i'r cyfrifledig. Ac mae'r ffrifledig athwaith â'r ddwyf yn ei ddigonio ydi yn gweithio'r gyfo. Y cwestiynau ar y cyfnod, yw'r cyfnod o'r myfyrdd yn ymgyrch ar y cyfnod Cresis, wedi'i gael eich myfyrdd yn eu Llyfrgell, ac yn ymgyrch ar gyfer y cynllunion, yn ymgyrch ar y cyfnod Cresis yn 2008, ac yw'r cyfnod Cresis yn ymgyrch ar gyfer y cyfnod Cresis, ac yn rhaid i'r cyrchaf yn y gallwn ni dyn nhw'n dod am y byd hynny, a'r cyfrannu hynny yw'r cyfrannu hynny yn ymweld, a'r cyfrannu hynny yw'n ddiddordeb sy'n mynd i'r rhaid i'r cyfrannu fel y cyfrannu hynny o'r cyfrannu hynny o'r cyfrannu hynny, oherwydd ei bod yn y byd yn Irobi o'r Beijing. Ond y pryd yn ychydig i'r ysgrifennu, gan ystodd gyhoeddfeydd i gweithio yn eistedd i bwysig y ffyrwyd. Mae'n gweithio i ddigwydd eich llwr yn cael bod leir iawn yn oedd hanfodol arais byd i Gweithio Gweithio 2008 wrth fy gydag, gan cyfnod鬢gen gweithiol yn gael i'n ddweud. Mae'n gweithio wedi amddangos iawn i ddirchwch y stryd ac yn oedd y cynllun aethaf i gydag erasol fel y gweithwyr I hope that the lessons of the crisis. But also a number of longer-term drivers of change in our labour markets, which are combining, I believe, to transform it at unprecedented velocity. The answer may imply, may imply, that existing or traditional instruments of labour market policy could be becoming increasingly inadequate to the challenges ahead, ac mae oedd yn bwysig i'r cyflwyster wedi lle sydd wedi'u hyn nhw'n gwneudol pheth gynllun o bob ni'r plan a'r hwn o ein prelwydiau? Rwyf yw, yn y rhan o'r ddyliadau o'r bobl a'r practicynau ar y cyflwyster ar ddi'u ll scrapau gwyrdol, o'r cyflwystio ar y cyflwystio ymgyrchegol fwyло. Ac mae'n fawr o'r cyllid o'u cyflawniol, oherwydd mae'n gobeithio i gael gael y cyflawniol ond o'r cyflosio ac yn diolch o'r ffrosio cyflawniol sy'n ei gwneud yn gennym. Ac mae'n gobeithio i gael'r cyflosio i gael cyflosio, i gael ei gwneud o'r gweithio. Sometimes in the form of the type of cataclysmic financial misadventure which hit Ireland so devastatingly, but which happens more permanently through the so-called financialisation of enterprise behaviour. I think both of these constraints deserve detailed consideration, but they're not going to get it from me today because I'd like rather to draw your attention instead to three, what I think are major issues, which if they were with us pre-crisis have been made more manifest by the crisis, and what I think be central to labour market policy well into the foreseeable future. The first one inevitably is jobs. Lest we forget, amid the talk and the hopes of recovery, we still have a world crisis of unemployment. Here in Ireland unemployment is still above the EU average, although it has come down a long way, but we all know that in the countries in the south of Europe joblessness remains stuck at really devastatingly high levels with young people, its particular victims. If you're under 25 in Greece, if you're under 25 in Spain, you're more likely to be out of work than in a job, and in Ireland still one in four under 25s was out of work last year. And in Ireland, as in Europe, the number of job seekers becoming long-term unemployed is on the up. In Ireland rising from 27% before the crisis to over 62% last year, and in Europe 12 million of the more than 23 million unemployed have been looking for a job for a year or more. And we all know the consequences of this situation, erosion of skills, social exclusion, poverty, and often that risk of simply dropping out of the labour market never to come back. A massive waste of productive potential and huge human misery. Ladies and gentlemen, the bad news is that at the global level, the unemployment situation is getting worse, not better, and is going to continue to get worse, not better in the foreseeable future. The figures over 201 million people around the world unemployed in 2014, over 31 million more than before the start of the global crisis, and our best estimate is that world unemployment on current trends is going to increase by 3 million this year and a further 8 million in the following four years. Now global employment growth has stalled. It's stalled at a rate of about 1.4% since 2011, and some would see in this a deceleration of long-term economic growth capacity, the advent of so-called secular stagnation, and the accompanying deceleration of employment growth could be set to intensify as this new wave of technological innovation which is increasingly talked about impacts upon the world of work. Think robotics, think 3D printing, think about what some consider the massive demise of manufacturing employment around the world as being just around the corner. Last night, the president delivered a wonderful Edward Feelin lecture in honour of the Irishman who led the ILO from 1941 to 1948, and he cited a series of lectures given in 1931 by Feelin himself and by John Maynard Keynes no less on unemployment as a world problem. I dug those lectures out and I quoted them last night when responding to the president. Let me just recall again that in 1931 Keynes began his lecture by describing the situation then, and I quote, as the greatest catastrophe due almost entirely to economic causes in modern human history, and commented that the view then from Moscow, 1931, was that our existing order of society will not survive it. Well, the current view from Moscow is probably focused on other things, but we could probably do well to recognise that unemployment is indeed a world problem and not only is Feelin remarked the problem of the unemployed, and this should not be a historic footnote from the depths of the Great Depression. Any more than the ILO's widely ratified employment policy convention, which commits governments to pursue policies of full, freely chosen and productive employment, should be considered a symptom of excess from the heady days of the 1960s when it was adopted. Seems to me that we have to decide whether we're going to step up to the commitment to full employment and take the steps of commitment that are required, not small steps, and then ask ourselves if we have the policy instruments to make good upon them. If we don't, the commitment is futile and the political consequence of failure very negative. Feelin's answer in 1931 was international cooperation, as he said, based on an ever-increasing conviction of the solidarity of human society. I'll come back to this, but my second point is that it is not just full employment, but also the quality and the very character of employment that we need to focus upon. Consider this. In Europe today, 35% of those who go to work are neither employees nor work full-time, and that 35% is 5% higher than the figure was at the beginning of the century. So far cry is it not from the expectations and experience, at least of my parents' generation, of that standard open-ended full-time job for 35 or 40 years of working life with a predictable pension at the end of it. Of course, if we look beyond Europe, we find that more than half of the working population is engaged either in own account work, unpaid family help work, or in informal work. Now these are unfortunately the experience of work today for hundreds of millions of people. Now we have to understand the dynamics which are bringing this about, and we have to try to understand how to manage those dynamics if we are to reconcile them with the objective of quality decent work. And I think that starts with getting to grips with the idea that the way that we work is organised today in ways which are changing at a rate which is very quickly outpacing our capacity for policy adaptation. The trend increase in the proportion of wage and salary employment in total unemployment has stalled and in a number of advanced countries, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, it is actually in decline. That means that a growing number of workers who in the past would have been employed in enterprises as wage earners are now working for their own account. What I want to get to is the fact that this reflects complex and multiple changes in the employment relationship. It is less and less stable. In particular, the incidence of temporary employment has increased in most advanced economies during the past decade. Working time patterns have become more diverse with growing part-time work, telework and the like. Let's remember those 1.8 million people on zero hour contracts across the water in the United Kingdom. At the same time, medium-skill jobs are declining in advanced economies, partly replaced by low-skill occupations, and this too is a factor contributing to rising inequality in developed economies and the so-called hollowing out of middle-income jobs that we see in Ireland and elsewhere. These trends, transforming traditional understanding of the employment relationship, not only introduce elements of precarity and insecurity in employment, but often pose as well challenges to the capacity of labour market institutions to provide the types of labour and social protections for which they were designed. For me, the point is this. Where society has predicated the provision of the protections it considers appropriate on the existence of a stable employment relationship, then the erosion of that relationship presents a choice. Either we give up on those protections, maybe in the name of competitiveness or affordability, or maybe reliance on individual responsibility, or we find other ways of providing them. The only other way is to restore the relationship itself. And too frequently, it seems to me, we choose only to ignore the choice. Unchecked, you could detect in the current direction of labour market drift, the movement from the employment relationship as the default contract arrangement in the world of work to a purely commercial one, where the demand of a service and its provider meet, increasingly in cyberspace, and strike a deal which links them only for the length of time that it takes to provide the service and for that purpose only. And people look forward to this vision of the future in very different ways. Some as a utopia of free acting individual agents, and for others a dystopia of labour commodification. Either way, it doesn't look very good for labour market economists. The third trend that I want to talk about is inequality. The global crisis was preceded by a long period when income inequality increased in advanced countries, and even in emerging and developing countries where the middle class is now expanding, top income earners tended to become much richer, much more quickly than did others, just as was the case in advanced economies. And this has inevitably been associated with a long-term decline in the labour share of national income in nearly all countries, and in addition strong polarisation of wages within that shrinking share. Some countries have recognised this increasing inequality as a problem rather than just a fact and have done so some time ago. Surprisingly, perhaps, China stands out as an example. But it seems to me that it has taken the looming spectre of deflation to spur others into action. For some, it's a bit surprising to find governments from Japan to the United Kingdom urging the need for pay increases for their workers and other companies such as Walmart offering them unilaterally. Surprising, maybe, but I don't think it's illogical. What is ironic is that the usual labour market instruments that would normally generate such increases, social dialogue, collective bargaining, minimum wages, are not now generally looked upon favourably as good sense institutions of the labour market. Now, as I see it, inequality is back on the labour market and the wider policy agenda and back on the agenda in an important way because of the coming together of two currents of thinking and of opinion. The first current has to do with the basic notions of fairness in ILO parlance of social justice. I think you are better placed than I am to judge this, but my assessment is that the experience of crisis-induced austerity is that people will accept the belt tightening regime. They will do so much more readily if they believe that the burden is being shared in accordance with basic tenets of equity. By the way, they also want to see that they work and too often they have seen that this is not the case. When that has happened, with the tinder of bankers' bonuses and tax avoidance readily to hand, public intolerance of excessive inequality has come very much to the fore, including, it seems, through anti-establishment politics. In similar vein where inequality is synonymous with discrimination, the case for action I think is unanswerable and nowhere is that more the case than in respect of gender. It is striking that after half a century or more of equal pay and anti-discrimination legislation around the world, much of it inspired by ILO conventions and advocacy, the global gender pay gap still hovers around 20%, with no sustained movement to its elimination and women's labour market participation rates are still about 26% lower than those of men. That is the social justice issue. The second current in respect of inequality is couched directly in economic terms, and given the times that we live in may be all the more powerful for that. There is an increasingly influential body of opinion and of research that leads us to the conclusion that inequality at the levels it has now attained, at least in many of our countries, constitutes an important break on economic growth. It's the International Monetary Fund no less that has been to the fore in making this case, and one must hope that having made it, it can make the necessary adjustments to act upon it. Supporting this economic case is the accompanying view, and it's rather an orthodoxy now, that the inequality that we have now attained has switched off the escalator of social mobility. We've got to the point where the best indicator of an individual's future position in society is a position in which he or she was born and not the innate abilities with which they came into the world. Over and above the obvious injustice of that situation, it is a massive economic waste of human potential for gone by talent unrealised that we cannot afford. Ladies and gentlemen, those are the three things I wanted to highlight. Jobs, the employment relationship and inequality. There are plenty more. I could have mentioned demographics, I could have mentioned social protection, migration, the green economy and others. But it brings me to the stage of my remarks when we have to think about what is to be done. In the lecture I mentioned earlier, as I've said, Edward Felon in 1931 put his money on international cooperation. If you think of the world circumstances then it was an act of some faith. The question I want to put to you is whether today we should follow Felon in his optimism about international cooperation. The obvious place to begin to answer that question is Europe. Europe where many countries were laid low by the crisis. Europe which has assumed collective responsibilities and competences in the responses to the crisis. And Europe which by interregional comparison of growth and jobs is performing very badly in the recovery stakes. Assessing the results of European cooperation in confronting the crisis invites many polemics not least around the issues which are very much today's news concerning its continuing interaction with Greece. Ireland must bring, I think, particular perspectives to that debate. So let me limit myself to just a couple of telegraphic thoughts on it. My first thought is that the basic reality that recovery of public finances depends crucially on the achievement of growth and job creation has been insufficiently taken into consideration. Secondly, that long term competitiveness will not come from indefinite downward pressure on wages and living standards. And thirdly, with Irish echoes in my ears, that the value of social dialogue, social justice and solidarity inherent to the European project are critically important instruments to overcome the crisis. They did not cause the crisis. They can help us get out of it. It is, of course, reasonable and necessary for individual countries, Greece included, to accept their own responsibility for their circumstances and to undertake needed reforms. But as they do so, they should be able to count on the support of their European counterparts without punitive intent or any misplaced belief in the character-forming virtues of austerity. Ladies and gentlemen, Europe has not got everything right in recent years, nor has the erstwhile troika, but it has many opportunities for positive action and now appears, I want to believe, intent on exploiting them. The explicit emphasis placed by incoming Commission President Junker on jobs on growth and on fairness promises well, and it's been followed up by the announcement of the European Strategic Investment Plan. The ILO's own research has concluded that if designed consciously with a strong inbuilt social dimension for employment, it could generate 2.1 million jobs and reduce European Union unemployment by a full percentage point. Not perhaps a solution in itself, but a compelling example of what European cooperation has the potential to achieve. If one looks one level higher to the prospects of global cooperation, I think there are broadly two vehicles for action that we can examine. One is the formerly constituted multilateral system of the United Nations and the other is the G20. Let's remember the G20 was tailor-made in 2008 as a conscious response to the imminent danger of collapse of the global financial system, and it worked. Because so long as an unprecedented financial implosion seemed a real possibility, and it did, world leaders were ready to engage in unprecedented international cooperation to avert the unthinkable. And that even extended into social and labour fields with millions of jobs preserved or saved as a direct result of G20 cooperation. And yet with the onset of the sovereign debt crisis from 2010 onwards, that impetus and sense of common purpose has been lost. Five years on, the question is whether the G20 can recover that original purpose and bring the necessary political will to bear to tackle labour market challenges ahead. Maybe it can. The very first sentence of the last G20 leaders' communique from Brisbane last November says, and I quote, raising global growth to deliver better living standards and quality jobs for people across the world is our highest priority. And the leaders back this up with action plans to meet the goals and establish a working group on employment. These are all positive signs, but the ILO has to be deeply involved and it is deeply involved with the G20 to do what we can do to make sure that these fine words are followed by action. As regards the United Nations, it seems to me that, like the English cricket team in the World Cup and like the Irish one, the system needs to record a few big victories to restore public belief in the effectiveness of global multilateralism. And that's more than ever needed at this time of renewed geopolitical tension. Colleagues, this year the UN marks its 70th birthday. It's got two big opportunities to move forward. One you probably know well about in December in Paris, it must conclude the deal that alluded us in Copenhagen in 2009 to really begin the job of combating climate change. And we know already that this has enormous implications for labour market policy because we are going to need to engineer the just transition to a sustainable low carbon economy which will protect and promote decent work at the same time as we preserve the planet. That's entirely possible, but the fact is it's not going to happen automatically. But before the rendezvous in Paris, in September, the UN General Assembly will adopt the world's post 2015 development agenda, a series of development goals which will pick up where the millennium development goals leave off. Ireland is leading this process as a co-facilitator and we feel we're in good hands. And as in the case of the G20, the ILO is deeply involved and we've already come a long way in ensuring the inclusion in this agenda. Whose overarching goal is the elimination of extreme poverty by 2030, explicit goals on decent work and on social protection. And with one out of every ten workers in the developing world, those who work still in poverty, the need to put decent work at the centre of the end of poverty agenda is I think quite clear. Our challenges in regard to this project, I think, is to mobilise public opinion, to support the agenda and to mobilise the financing that will be needed for its implementation. So my conclusion is that we would do well to follow feelings internationalist impulses, to act upon them and to have our governments act upon them. But there's a final thought that I want to share with you before closing and it's this. That underlying all of this consideration of coming labour market challenges and what we can do about them, there is a growing sentiment. I detect it amongst governments, amongst social partners, I detect it across the world, that our tried and trusted policy instruments, our labour market institutions, our mechanisms of interest representation may be becoming increasingly inadequate to address entirely new circumstances in a transformed world of work. What if we persist in applying 20th century policy levers to 21st century labour markets and they simply do not work? Do you not produce the outcomes that societies want? Fail to generate sustained, balanced and inclusive growth? Fail to bring the basics of social cohesion and equity that we need to meet human needs and expectations? I think we need to consider these questions because we should be in anticipatory not reactive mode. And I say this not because of any belief in imminent labour market meltdown, but rather because of already observable shortcomings. It seems to me that our policy performance is failing people, particularly the young, but also contributing to a gradual eating away of confidence in and commitment to the institutions and the actors of public life. The world of work has always been the crucible in which significant and lasting social change is forged. That's true whatever the surface appearances may be. It would be strange indeed if the convulsions of recent years did not generate that type of change. And it's surely in our interest to anticipate, channel and manage it. And it's with all of this in mind that the ILO has already decided to market centenary in 2019. We are the oldest family of the international system with a series of initiatives at the centre of which stands but we are calling the Future of Work Centenary initiative. It comes with high ambition. You want to reach out to all interested parties in a four year process of reflection on the place and the meaning of work in our societies and in our lives and to look beyond the everyday immediacy of policymaking towards the longer term horizons. How are we going to organise work? How are we going to compensate it? How are we going to distribute it and its fruits? How in short are we going to deliver on the ILO's mandate for social justice as the essential guarantee of lasting peace? I think these are questions that are worth asking and that is the initiative's purpose and I think it's worth joining in. Please do join in. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you.