I had looked forward on this occasion to the Government producing a radical document in the form of the Minister's Estimate but, unfortunately, in fact it gives little hope for confidence in the Government's handling of the economy as shown through the Department of Labour. It hardy serves its purpose because it will not bring about confidence in the people or boost national morale. I find few good things in the Estimate. Indeed, the omissions are startling. For one thing, the Minister did not deal with industrial relations at any length or even mention the problem of the national pay agreement. Yet, we are in a situation which could lead to economic chaos if the question of pay and salary increases is not resolved in an expert way that will give equity to all section. It is, therefore, time for the Government to define their role in wage negotiations. Without going into details, a typical example of this is the RTE dispute. People living in single-channel areas have been ten or 11 days now without the national television service.
Vote 41: Labour (Resumed).
This is hardly relevant to the Estimate.
I am not dealing with the actual negotiations but with why no Government action was taken.
The dispute in question is a very distinct matter.
I do not want to aggravate the situation but, according to the newspapers, the question now is whether the Government will permit the agreement reached between the Authority and the unions to become effective. I do not know the actual issue the Government face here but I think the situation puts into true perspective the position of the Government as regards any wage agreement. It is now back to the Government. If the newspapers are right—I presume they have been briefed by somebody—and if the Government say no, do we have a continuation of the RTE dispute? If they say yes, do we hope that the strike will be over? My point is that the Government have to be brought in now after an 11-day strike: why did they not use their good offices earlier? It would have saved the loss of the service and saved many people involved in the strike much hardship.
The same applies to the national pay agreement situation. The Government held back, then put suggestions forward and then held back again. This is not good for negotiations because the unions no doubt strive to do their best for their members, not hurt the economy and reach agreement. I suppose the same can be said for the employers. If, at the outset the Government had spelled out their idea of a settlement—I know they cannot impose a settlement—and given guidelines to both sides the position could have been made clear and we could have had a national pay agreement adopted long before now.
I hope the negotiations succeed; indeed, they must succeed or we shall face chaos. Things are bad enough with 120,000 people unemployed, with many more threatened with loss of jobs all because of the diffidence of the Government in not producing guidelines for an agreement. I do not suggest the Government can have their own way in such a matter but I believe all sides in the negotiations would welcome guidance from the Government in regard to the serious issues involved. Instead, the Government have been standing aside, giving no lead. I believe in free, collective bargaining but I realise that in the present situation the Government which are probably the largest employer cannot stand by without offering any help and hope that the best solution will be reached. I cannot understand the diffidence of the Government on this matter.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I would prefer if he would refer to matters which are specifically the responsibility of the Minister for Labour, whose Estimate we are discussing, rather than refer to matters appertaining to the Government. Matters related to the Department of Labour are relevant.
The Minister for Labour is the key in the whole matter of industrial relations and pay negotiations on a national scale. If this were a private dispute between two companies I should not attempt to raise it here. The State, of which the Minister is a servant, should be spelling things out for trade unions and employers. However, if the Chair would prefer me not to continue with this matter, I shall certainly desist, but I suggest we should take a look at some of the other countries in the EEC and find out the way in which they manage these negotiations. I am not saying they have the perfect system. I am not saying they do not have strikes. Of course they do, but they have far less industrial trouble than we have. In this latter quarter of the twentieth century the State must have a big part to play. I should hate to see a national pay agreement arrived at and the Government, any Government, pleading inability to pay. Were that to happen the Government would simply be asking for trouble.
The Minister is making efforts, even though they may be feeble efforts, to provide some training especially for young people who have become unemployed or who have failed to obtain employment in the first instance. Lack of job opportunity for young people is one of the biggest problems facing the country. If an individual becomes unemployed in middle age, or later, social welfare benefits compensate to some extent, but only to some extent. More mature people are able to assess and accept the situation though they go on hoping they will soon be back in employment. I deplore speakers who say people do not want to work. The vast majority want to work in gainful employment.
Only one who has suffered unemployment can appreciate the feelings of the unemployed, particularly the feeling that there is no place for one in society, the feeling of being rejected by society. We should try to understand the feelings of the unemployed person. We should respect him and we should try to give him some dignity by way of adequate social welfare benefits if we cannot so arrange economic matters that each person seeking employment will be able to obtain that employment. I know that is not easily done. There are problems. In the situation in which the Government now are, in the situation in which the country finds itself, the Government should come forward with worth-while proposals, get down with the trade unions and the employers and face facts squarely. Economically we have gone wrong somewhere and it will be a long hard road back to stability and prosperity. But this effort must be made. The drive must be spearheaded by the Department, especially in the interests of the young people who cannot get work.
Consider the reaction of the young boy or girl who, having obtained an intermediate or leaving certificate, finds he or she cannot obtain employment. I can well appreciate the disappointment and disillusionment they must suffer. Their parents strive to provide them with a sound education, an education which will prepare them for life later on. One cannot go very far in life unless there are employment opportunities. The bulk of our youth at the moment are suffering grievously because they cannot find employment. It may be suggested that there is an economic blight—perhaps "blight" is too strong a word, an economic imbalance—and that is why these young people are being denied the right to work and prepare themselves effectively to be good members of society. I believe the Minister's proposals for the training of youth are too little, if not too late.
The Minister may well feel almost complacent and say he has more in training than were ever in training before. I accept his word for that but I can also say that never before were there so many people without jobs. The Minister talks about the money being put into training. That may be so, but inflation was never so high. I want to pay tribute to AnCO and CERT for the efforts they are making to give young people a proper training. As Deputy Fitzgerald said, it is heartening to hear on the radio—that is, when we have a radio service—advice to young people to contact CERT and be trained in the hotel industry. Mention was made of 500 posts; 500 out of the total of 50,000 leaving school is pretty small. It gives one some idea of the training opportunities there are.
The Minister expressed a wish that every person seeking retraining would be able to have it. We all subscribe to that but it is just not on at the moment. That is why we, on this side, are compelled to make suggestions which might give those who have lost their employment and those who have never been able to find employment some hope for the future. We can point to what may happen to young people if they do not get proper employment. I believe our young people today are as good as any of their predecessors. I believe they are being asked to shoulder a burden of unemployment which, with proper economic planning, could well have been avoided.
The construction industry affords tremendous opportunities for enlargement; yet the Minister refuses to include that industry in the premium employment programme. The Minister told me on a previous occasion that he would examine this, and he decided that it was not practical. I have not got the expert guidance the Minister has, but in present circumstances the Minister must re-examine this and try to offer some retraining or re-employment for those people who have lost their jobs in the construction industry. I am not an economist, but it has always struck me as crazy that, when we have the skilled personnel to build houses, when we have many of the materials produced here at home and a colossal demand for houses, we cannot evolve a system which would enable us to put the idle craftsmen back to work building houses.
Yesterday I attended a conference in the House here with the Minister for Local Government on matters affecting the housing situation in Dublin. There is the prospect that up to 400 men will be displaced in Dublin Corporation's housing maintenance Department because of a cutback in finance. I know this is not the time or the place to deal with the corporation's financial troubles, but it is symptomatic of the position we are in at the moment that we shall have to forego the proper maintenance of existing housing stock because of a shortage of money, that these houses will deteriorate and in two or three years' time it will cost more money to restore them to the condition they should be in now.
I hope the Deputy will not be pursuing that line.
I do not intend to pursue that line. I just mentioned the matter in passing. What I am trying to lead up to is the idea that if the Government had a plan for economic development, we could overcome many of these ills, and this is where the Minister has failed in his approach to this question. Admittedly, he has provided for more training for people who are unemployed, but that is only a drop in the ocean. Fine craftsmen in the construction industry are being made idle and they can then claim in social benefits 85 per cent of their normal income. Surely it would not take a genius to work out a scheme whereby the men could be paid an extra 15 per cent for building flats, houses and other buildings. Apart from the benefit to the economy, these people would be given employment, which is good for any human being and which the vast majority of unemployed people are seeking today.
In the Government's mind there is a blind spot and they will not admit that things are as bad as they are. If the Government were to admit that things were very bad, that they were at least a contributory cause to the present state of things, and then set about righting this, they might make some progress. As long as they treat these problems in a cavalier fashion, the revival of the economy we all seek will not materialise.
I have spoken at length, both in this House and outside it, about young people. It may be boring to some listeners, but I have tried to hammer it home that unless the Government formulate some worth-while schemes within the next few months, there will be a great deal of social unrest, and if that sets in the Government will face a much bigger problem than they face at the moment. If they could convince the people that they are doing everything possible to bring about a wave of prosperity, it would help immensely, but they are not doing that. The Minister's brief convinces me that while he is aware of the problems, he has made no worth-while attempt to solve them, I appreciate that they are not easily solved, but they must be tackled as firmly as possible.
I mentioned earlier that when the Minister was on this side of the House he and his colleagues called on many occasions for the declaration of a housing emergency. The calling of such an emergency may have influenced the trend of events, because we now have that housing emergency which the then Opposition called for, but not in quite the same way as they meant it. I suppose they meant at that time that emergency measures should be taken to cure the housing shortage. Now the construction industry is in a bad way. Workers have become disemployed and the housing list has grown bigger, in the city anyway. I am sure that in the future somebody will look back on these years and see what a crazy set-up existed. The Minister, being a member of the Government, must take his share of responsibility for the present state of things. I have spoken to some young apprentices who have been released by their employers and are being trained under the AnCO scheme. They were satisfied with the training they received. The only thing about it is that it is not long enough, that because of the restriction of financial aid these young men are given certain training and then have to move out so that someone else can move in.
I suppose it is not easy to keep young boys in training until they get employment. I am afraid that young boys who are let go by AnCO and do not find employment will lose their skills and expertise. This is a pity. The Minister should look at the possibility of providing training from the time a young person or even an older person becomes unemployed to the time he goes back into employment. The Minister might get together with employers and unions to work out a system and to remove any restrictions which might hamper this solution. The Minister in another scheme has provided temporary employment of a semi-social nature for these young men, and it is a worth-while project. However all this is inadequate to meet the present situation, and the Government must step up their efforts and investment in the training of young people until such time as conditions are so that industry, public and private, can take on young people and put them into good employment. In order that their training under AnCO will not be lost it is essential that the training period be extended to the greatest possible extent.
The Minister dealt at some length, but not at very great length, with career information. Even in normal times career guidance is absolutely essential if we are to have a well organised, well trained work force. When we were leaving school there was very little career guidance. A person would take any sort of a job offered and may have paid later in life for his impetuosity in accepting the first job that came along. It was inevitable at that time that many people would end up in the wrong career or with no career at all. I think the Minister could have dealt at much greater length with the matter of career guidance. Although jobs are hard to come by we should not curtail in any way a full career guidance operation. The Minister said that 250 career leaflets were sent out. This is all to the good, but more definite steps should be taken to ensure that every boy and girl is given the benefit of a career guidance scheme and where possible they should be given aptitude tests.
I noted in one city on the Continent last year that at the end of the school holidays a career guidance seminar was organised in the local town hall and representatives from the various professions were available to brief boys and girls in their chosen careers. I know the Department do something like this but it is not on the same scale. I want to emphasise that although young people find it difficult at present to obtain employment we should at least try to compensate for that by demonstrating our interest in their future, by saying that if we cannot give them a full-time job, we will at least give them the benefit of our experience in career guidance. If young people do not get jobs at 16 or 18 they should be given the benefit of the doubt and should not be considered too old to become apprentices or enter a profession in a few years time, because their failure to gain employment initially would have been due to the bad years of the seventies when employment was not to be had. We must give them some latitude to make up for our failure to provide employment for them.
The resettlement scheme mentioned by the Minister would not, I suppose, apply to young people. The Minister said that the numbers availing themselves of the grants under the scheme are increasing annually and that he is confident that the scheme will help towards ensuring that sufficient skilled workers will be available for the industrial developments now proceeding in various parts of the country. Perhaps the seed of proper thinking is there, but I do not know if it is big enough through the National Manpower Service to cater for all the people who are looking for jobs. Some time ago I asked the Minister if the manpower service was free from Government directions as to how jobs should be filled. The Minister said that no Minister had directed the National Manpower Service to inform him of any vacancy. I accept the Minister's word on that although I have been told that that is not so. The Minister might spell out further the independence of the National Manpower Service. Any undue Government interference there might well not be in the interests of the service.
The Minister spoke about the manpower and training for oil and gas exploration and development. We do not know what the future in this sphere is, whether we will find vast resources of oil and gas off our coasts or whether we shall find very little. Naturally, we all hope we will strike a bonanza here and there. What we can say is that, having found some gas off Kinsale, it would be most unlikely if we did not find more in other parts of our coast. Therefore, our workers must be trained to play their full part in this exploration. Here I do not mean merely men who use a shovel to dig or a pump to pump water away and so on. I mean a man who helps a tradesman or an engineer, that such people be trained to play their full part in this new development of that section of our economy because it could be a very big thing indeed. The Dutch, British and others who found such resources off their coasts, in turn, trained their workers. However, we do know that we must have foreign expertise in certain operations. This is the promise of a further dimension in employment-giving services. I hope the Minister will pursue this to an effective end, giving us hope in the future, so that we may be able to say: "Yes, we are training people to help in these operations and to contribute to the expertise being given under a proper training system."
I am disappointed at the lack of comment by the Minister on industrial relations. The Minister speaks of the success of the Labour Court which, indeed, has been very successful. One must pay tribute also to the Congress of Trade Unions which, despite many difficulties, helped in the solution of many disputes in the general field of industrial relations. On some future occasion, perhaps, the Minister could devote a whole brief to this very important sector. I often feel that we have quite a sophisticated system. Nevertheless, I have seen instances where the congress, the trade unions and employers, having spent a long time negotiating something, see it all negatived because somebody takes unofficial action. I know very well that the Government, congress or employers do not find it easy to stop unofficial action. But they can try to establish why men will take unofficial action when they have at their disposal the full resources of the Labour Court, the trade unions and employers' organisations. Such action must be taken from a sense of grievance.
Therefore, in the future, we must probe much deeper than heretofore into each industrial dispute. First of all, we must ensure that our industrial relations legislation is up-to-date, is modernised and is effective. I know it will be very difficult to stop every individual from acting irresponsibly because the action of even one man placing a picket on a large factory can cause chaos. The Government, unions and employers will have to probe more deeply into our system of industrial relations, first of all, in an endeavour to obviate the necessity to strike. Though I speak as a member of a union. I always feel that, when one goes on strike, one has actually lost one's argument, that the great strength of the strike weapon is when it is being threatened. As soon as a man goes on strike he loses pay and, very often, his family suffers. One must remember that he can ill afford a loss of wages, whereas employers do not feel the pinch so easily.
I do make a plea—in the 20th century, especially in this country— for greater consideration by all concerned in an industrial dispute so that we will not aggravate the present high level of unemployment. In saying that I probably speak for the vast majority of people who do not want disputes, strikes, or even ill-feeling. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that there are certain irritants that cause a man, or men, to go on strike. One of those might well be the length of time it takes to have a grievance resolved; something may drag on for months while the position continues to worsen when, perhaps, an unofficial strike takes place. Then one reads that certain steps have been taken to bring the matter to the Labour Court or, perhaps, that even the Government have stepped in. While the Minister's early alarm system is probably of great importance here, he must always remember that industrial relations are really human relations and that a man who may go on strike on a factory floor is no different from the rest of us who may have some grievance with life; he does not act merely to cause trouble but because he knows that, by so doing, he can bring the matter to a head much quicker.
When the Minister introduces new legislation on industrial relations he might ensure the speeding up of the hearing of any dispute from the time it is recorded to the time it is heard by the Labour Court. I have great admiration for the work done by the Labour Court since its establishment. We may have to record millions of days lost through industrial action but we must remember also the millions of days saved because of the dedication of members of the Labour Court and, indeed, of the trade unions and employers' organisations. The point I am trying to make to the Minister is that, in introducing his new legislation, he must ensure that the most modern techniques are included in respect of the hearing of disputes because if a man has a grievance burning in his breast all day, it continues to worsen and, by the time he takes action, he is a very embittered person and it is much more difficult for him to accept a suggestion of the Labour Court or an employer that he call off his protest.
I hope the Minister will refer to the amalgamation of the trade unions in his reply. We have, I think, 93 trade unions for a comparatively small labour force. There may be an historic reason for that. But if we are to maintain the level of European economic and industrial development, we must see how others on the continent do such things. I do not suggest that they are perfect but, with the exception of one country, possibly we have the worst record for days lost through industrial disputes. At least on three or four occasions we topped the league. There must be reasons for this in our case. Perhaps, it is that we have not a long tradition of industrial development or relations. But we must learn very quickly, indeed, because, if we are ever to have full employment, we will achieve it only when we have perfected our financial and industrial machinery and also improved human relations. If one of those things is missing, we will not be able to reach the true fulfilment of our ambitions. In this country we believe in free collective bargaining and the right of people to strike. Each one of us can do a lot to bring about a better atmosphere in industrial relations and save many thousands of people having to strike with the consequent loss to the men and women involved and also to the national economy. We are inclined to accept, with unemployment figures so high at present, that we must always have unemployment. It is fatal to accept that.
I feel that the Department of Labour is one of the most interesting and rewarding Departments of Government. The Minister may say that it is one of the most trying also to the individual or to the Government. This side of the House are not satisfied with the Minister's performance in the Department because we feel he is not doing enough for the people who are unemployed. There is a very high percentage of people unemployed in Dublin and we also have thousands of school leavers who cannot get gainful employment. I have been told by one large industrial concern that there is great trouble brewing there. I do not want to mention the name of the firm because I do not think it would help. I feel that the industrial scene is not improving and that it is much easier to solve our industrial problems if employment figures rise. If we had full employment in the north and south of the country, but particularly in the north, we would have a lot less trouble than we have had in the last few years.
The Minister will have to look at much of the contents of his brief and he will have to set out to convince the people that the Government have some plan for the improvement of the economy. So far they have failed to do this. A national despondency is setting in and the people are inclined to lose all hope. They want some moral booster. The greatest boost they could get is if the Government convinced them that they are a competent Government. They will find that very hard to do. We feel that the only step which can be taken to ensure a general improvement in the national outlook is to have a change of Government. I look forward to the day when that will happen which I feel will be in the very near future.
I should like to start by taking up where the previous speaker ended, that is, to stress the need for an injection of confidence in the people. The present unemployment situation should be regarded as a crisis one that needs immediate attention. The position of those on the unemployment register is alarming enough but we all know that in the very near future thousands leaving schools and colleges will also be looking for work and will inflate the unemployment figures very considerably. It is serious enough when one finds people of mature age without work but it is far more serious when young people starting their careers full of hope and ambition, anxious to make homes, settle down and secure their future find that after preparing themselves to the best of their ability for a position in life they are unable to obtain a situation. That is worthy of serious consideration by everybody both inside and outside the House. It should be regarded as a crisis and something drastic should be done about it.
We hear and read a good deal about the visits of the Taoiseach and various Ministers to America and other countries to entice industrialists to come over here, start industries and give employment. We also read that each job created in that fashion costs several thousand pounds. I cannot appreciate why more effort is not made to keep those presently at work employed and not allow industries to close if it is possible to keep them open. We know that there are some industries which cannot be kept open and that it would be wasteful to try to keep them open but I feel that financial help should be given to others to enable them to keep open and keep their people employed until alternative accommodation has been found for those employees or a new industry has been created in the area.
I do not want particularly to single out one factory but the Cork Shoe Company had at least 200 employed but because of bad management posibly they had to close down. It certainly was not bad workmanship because they had the orders and the market. This firm were in debt and they eventually had to close. The 200 people thrown on the unemployment market are now costing the community as much as the interest on loans the firm had from the banks or other institutions to keep the people employed. I feel that it would only have been necessary to help them for a very short time. I only use this argument because I do not believe the people throughout the country are satisfied that enough is being done to keep those presently employed in their employment rather than throwing them on the unemployment exchanges and social welfare. This demoralises them and causes a great deal of agitation and worry to their families and the community of which they are part.
If we want to have full employment we must have people who are able and willing to invest money in industry. That should be very clear to everybody. Why should a potential employer risk his life's savings or what he can borrow from the bank or any institution to invest in an industry at the present time without confidence that the industry will succeed? First of all, he would have to meet competition in whatever industry he went into and, secondly, he would have to put up with labour relations which have not got the best possible reputation in the country. He would also have to be tax gatherer for the Minister for Finance, for his employees and himself. He would have to account for every penny he made and if he made a profit it would be very seriously taxed. The time has come when such a man will lawfully be expected to sit down and make up his mind between two choices: first, to risk everything for the sake of satisfying the Minister for Finance eventually that the profit he has made is not taxable and he is entitled to keep and use it to expand industry and employ more people, or there is the temptation to invest the money in Government stock at 14 per cent. Then he can put his feet up, smoke cigars for the rest of his life and live on his interest. He takes no risk when he does that.
The job of the Government and our job in Dáil Éireann is to try to make it clear to such a person that he should invest his money in industry. One will not get very far asking a man to risk everything he has and the future of his family in an altruistic—I will not use the word "patriotic"—gesture, like starting an industry which he does not have much hope will succeed. We must be able to persuade him that he has the help and the blessing of the Government to succeed and he will be allowed retain something if he succeeds in making the business viable. That, to my mind, is fundamental. Until such time as we have restored the confidence of such people, we will not get anywhere with employment.
The Minister spoke about an increase in the amount given to create new jobs. That sort of thing is merely a sop to the people. If the tax measures seemed less penal, and a person felt he was entitled to a profit, that would do much to restore confidence. The worker, too, must have confidence that he will get a fair return for his work. I am not casting any reflection on those who cannot work through no fault of their own—I want them to live as well as the country can afford and I would like them to have a good living and to be well off— but to keep a man's mind at ease, he must feel that he is better off working than being idle.
Official and unofficial strikes were briefly referred to. We have the extraordinary and unfortunate position in this country where two people can decide to go on strike, walk up and down outside a factory carrying a placard and keeping 1,000 men out of work. That is an unofficial strike and is deplorable. Nobody should want to see such a situation occur. I am not blaming the two men. Maybe they have tried every avenue to redress their grievance but could not succeed.
We are inclined to blame certain sections of the workers if they do something drastic, such as withdrawing their labour from a key industry and holding the country to ransom. We have a salutary lesson in what happened here in the last few months. Educated men with a great deal of advantages—the Department and the Minister on one side and the teachers on the other—were holding up students for six months. A decision could not be reached until strike action was taken. In this case the students, the innocent victims, had to suffer. My point is: have we not reached the stage when educated men can sit around a table and hammer out a solution, which will have to be reached eventually? A solution has been reached now, but, to my mind, six months too late. This leads to a lack of confidence. It stretches into every home in which there is a student, the mainstay of this country in years to come. They are now feeling for the first time this awful uncertainty which can be caused by strikes.
We are told that every Department has problems; there are world problems and it is not the Government's fault that things are as bad as they are. Every family has to face problems. A family is judged by the way they overcome those problems. Whether the Government like it or not, they will be judged by the people on how they face up to their problems and deal with them. It would be hard for even die-hard suppene porters to make the case that the Government have acted wisely all the time and have made a fair show to overcome these problems. There is no point in informing the population of how bad things are in other countries, while things are not so good here.
It is only very recently that some Ministers admitted that there was a shortage of money. I think there is one Minister who does not admit that. He says that there is money available for supplying what he wants for the country. That view cannot be substantiated and the people do not believe it. Other Ministers have used diversionary tactics to take people's minds off the economic problems. That is a reflection on the people's intelligence: it implies that they do not understand such things. The Government will find in the next election that people are not as gullible as some of us think. They have the intelligence to know what is right and wrong and what is true.
Unemployment is reaching into every home. The first thing the Minister must do is restore confidence which has been ebbing away through the economic life of the country. I must say once more that the man who is in a position to invest money should be assured that he will be entitled to keep a fair return for his investment. This is one of the most serious problems facing the country at the present time, mainly because it is affecting the breadwinner and hundreds of young people whose future is at stake.
The subject we are dealing with here on this Vote is something that permeates all the Estimates where expenditure is involved and it permeates the whole fabric of the State. For that reason it is very difficult to confine oneself to a mere consideration of the details of policy of labour, to the technicalities such as rates of payment, numbers employed and so on which may be involved. They are not so much technicalities as specifics related to the Vote.
In order to deal adequately with the subject, one has to take into account the fact that the whole subject of labour permeates the economic and social structure of the State. Therefore, it has a bearing on every facet. Keeping that in mind it is highly undesirable to attempt a debate of this nature on narrow, political lines. I should like to approach the problems posed by the raising of this Estimate at this time in a constructive spirit so that we may examine what affects the state of labour in the community at present and also the impact on the community of the state of labour within it. Therefore, I shall preface my remarks by saying that it is in an objective spirit, not in a competitive spirit—to which we might very easily succumb—that I approach this Estimate on which I have not contributed very frequently in the past.
By way of background, may I say that I think we are losing our perspectives at present in all our policies. In particular, the Government as the agency responsible are losing their perspectives in failing to recognise that for the healthy functioning of any community there must be a continuing active economic development and activity which is productive of wealth and of the wherewithal by which a community lives and prospers. If sight is lost of that fact the consequences could be disastrous.
When all is said and done any community is governed by what is commonly called "Adam's curse". All that means is that humanity must work, must strive and must produce the wherewithal for surviving in the first instance and for developing in the second instance. It must produce that wherewithal from the natural resources about it. If a community fails to do this the result is starvation and decline in some shape or form. When I use the word "starvation" I am not merely confining it to starvation of the body through hunger which would be the extreme and logical conclusion of the failure of a community to take steps to provide the means of living. I am using the word in a much wider sense. From the point of view of the community, in some way it will be starved, deprived or inhibited in its growth. Its standards will fall unless it is nourished by productive activity which is generating the wherewithal to live; to use a technical term, it is production generating wealth in real terms.
Under the aegis of the present Government the word "wealth" tends to be used as an expression of opprobrium and contempt. However, I am talking about the wealth of a community, what it has or should have, not what its individuals must have in monetary terms. Wealth for the community in real terms is not only highly desirable but it is an absolute necessity for the community to live in health and comfort.
These remarks may seem abstract and remote from the issue but sometimes it is essential to consider our perspectives before dealing with the specifics. In this case I plead it is essential in order that we do not degenerate into a dispute or argument, scoring points when at present as a community we can hardly afford the luxury of such, so serious is the situation.
I should like to make some remarks about priorities before I get down to particulars. It would be in the tradition of the House if I were to refer to previous experiences. If I refer to achievements when we were on the Government side, I do not do so in any spirit of boasting or claiming credit but simply as a factual demonstration of the validity of the line of thought I am advocating and with which I am attempting to approach this Estimate. In 1955-56 the Government which, like the present, was a coalition of Fine Gael and Labour essentially, were faced with a situation which was in some respects analogous to the situation this Government have had to face. Whatever our criticisms of the way they handled the situation then—I leave those to history—there are essential facts relevant. In 1956 there was a problem of unemployment, a problem of economic depression and a problem of emigration. There was the problem of improving the situation and of finding the resources to do it in a depressed situation.
It is only fair that I should say that a Coalition Minister for Finance, the late Deputy Sweetman, appreciated the problems and, within the scope available to him in a Coalition which had such elements of doctrinaire irrationality attached to it on the wings, made a contribution. He attempted to prevent deterioration and, without taking credit from those who succeeded him, provided a precursor to recovery. I do not make that statement in an attempt to be generous or for any other reason but objectively. The result of his contribution was that the situation was nothing like as bad as it is today. His successor in this Coalition has not realised the magnitude of the problem facing him and that successor has made the problems facing the Government and the country more difficult than they were at the end of 1956. One cannot push comparisons too far because there are differences in the situation. I frankly admit that, perhaps, the environmental pressures and problems are greater in the present context and in leading into it than they were in 1956.
However, under a new Government and particularly under the far-sighted direction of the late Deputy Seán Lemass in 1957 it was possible to implement a programme of recovery and thereafter a programme of expansion. Vital and important in that was the labour element. Vital to the labour element was the fact that the keynote of the whole thing was a programme for economic expansion, where there was a drive to develop basic economic activity productive of wealth and that in turn reacted on the labour situation and the labour situation in turn reacted on it. That is the lesson to be learned from this. What is conspicuously absent at present is that we do not have the stimulus let alone an expanding economic activity producing wealth. As we do not have that, we have labour problems and difficulties to face of a disturbing magnitude. On the other hand, the lesson of that time was that that expansion could not have been possible without the labour element's active implementation of it. That could not have been got unless the morale of managements and workers was built up by the policies embarked upon. The fact that their confidence was sustained enabled them to do the job and without that confidence it would have been futile to talk about plans for economic expansion or anything else. Though it would be highly interesting from a logical point of view to go into the details of the success of that approach, suffice to say that on the basis of real economic activity whatever can be said about the economic expansion of the sixties the rising of the standard of living of our people and a certain prosperity were the hallmarks of that period and they did not happen by accident.
What is wrong today? We do not have that element. On the other hand, we have the emphasis on administration, on taxation, on the alleviation of the consequences of depression while we are not doing enough to stimulate and develop the source of support for social services and the like. This is the key to it. Today, we find high unemployment in our community. The Minister may say— reasonable people will see beyond causes, beyond mere political polemics—that there was depression and so on which was responsible. That may be true initially, but what are we doing positively to get people to work, raise their morale so that they will work and so that there will be a general contribution of the community, management and workers, to production? Instead, we are, without meaning it or otherwise, providing disincentives. Instead of trying to deal basically with the amelioration of unemployment by providing jobs, we have been content to try to alleviate the want created by people being out of jobs. That must be done; I do not suggest that people can be left to starve. It was this party, when it came into office, that adopted the progressive approach many years ago when the party with which the Minister is associated took a more conservative line. That in itself is not enough. You cannot support a policy of that kind unless you have productivity which will supply the financial resources to furnish these reliefs and social services. This is the kernel of the whole thing. When a community or a Government anywhere forget the priorities or get them mixed up, things go wrong.
The priorities for any democratic Government are that you first have a clear, political policy which you can make evident to the community, which will inspire them, raise their morale and induce them to follow you. You have that when, having made a rational decision, you are prepared to take the consequences of objection to your policy and when you are determined and completely committed to its implementation because you believe in it and it appears to be right. If it is adopted by a majority of the people, you can be sure there is sufficient justification that will make it a success. If you are prepared to commit yourself to a definite productive policy and argue with those who will object—and there are bound to be objections of various sorts and if the plan is worthwhile there will certainly be debate and opposition— and if you seek and get the support of the community and feel there is sufficient justification to push it through, then push it through and let the issue be decided in public as it should be in a democratic society. The best man will win.
That has been the history of all successful democracies no less than it has been the history here. I stress the political angle because it is from it that the confidence of the people steams, workers, managers and all concerned in this Vote. As in the case of an army, if you give a clear lead and the morale of those behind you is high, some measures of success will be achieved for the benefit of all.
Granted the political element, you have the psychological prerequisite to get down to work. In those circumstances people will make personal effort and even personal sacrifice if they know it will be worth while in the interests of the future. They will work and build and the community will advance. This is borne out in our history for anybody who looks at how the State developed from the beginning, the circumstances that enabled it to survive the emergency, the unity of the community then and the high morale and co-operation that was evident. There was also that period in the sixties of which I spoke and in all these cases there is material to support my argument. Where there is a clear political lead and the morale of the workforce and others concerned is raised, the people will make the effort and even make sacrifices as they did in the economic war, as the small farmers and agricultural labourers did at that time, for the ultimate benefit of all.
This is the first prerequisite. The activity must be directed to production, towards gaining real wealth for the community and by that production confidence is generated to produce more. When that is achieved, you have the surplus for social services and for the expansion of desirable activities such as expanding education, improving the lot of the aged, the unemployable and so on. If you mix priorities, you get demoralisation. The priorities are; first, to give the lead and build up morale, then provide activity that is productive and in itself morale-sustaining because the results of the development are seen as you progress. It is like tending a garden: when you see the plants coming up, you are encouraged to do more; if they wither and die, you are rather liable to say that you might as well read a book inside. But, if you see the production there, then the wealth multiplies and, when you have got that, that is your second priority and the third priority then is the surplus available.
In order to complete my argument I freely grant you cannot plan things altogether as neatly as that and, in the course of activity as in the course of battle in war, there will be emergencies and perturbations. I freely grant you cannot wait to give social services. You will have to find the money—we had to do it back in the thirties—to alleviate unemployment while you are actually trying to correct it. You will have to find money for social services so that people will not sink to absolutely destitute standards. These are the problems of battle. They are also the problems of life. I am not for a moment suggesting these things must not be done. What I am saying is that they can only be done effectively, even though there are sacrifices at the moment and there is a drawing off from the main stream, if you keep your eye fixed on the necessity for encouraging agricultural production, industrial production, trade and all that produces wealth for the community and thereby raises the standard of living.
Again, this steams back to political morale, economic activity and these other things in their particular priorities. If any of these priorities is wrong, you have demoralisation. If priorities are wrong, morale goes and when morale goes, productive activity suffers and, after that, it becomes very nearly a free-for-all on the one hand and coercive action on the part of the lead on the other hand. Let me draw an analogy again with an army, the analogy I drew on the Finance Bill. The successful army in action will have a sure lead and high morale; its troops will be co-ordinated and producing the desired results. There will be problems of battle but, by and large, that army will succeed. If the lead falls and morale degenerates, then disco-ordination sets in and the fighting troops fail, the fighting troops being equivalent to the productive elements in the community, in industry, in agriculture and so on. When failure begins to show itself, the high command, instead of leading, has to go back and try to drive and it becomes a free-for-all with the danger of a breakdown along the line and the high command is forced into coercive efforts and the result is, of course, disaster and defeat. There is a very close analogy here.
The high command of this State, the Government, have failed to give a lead and have allowed demoralisation to set in in the fighting troops— that is, in the productive elements—because of the necessity of trying to hold things together and provide for the contingencies of battle which have arisen—for instance, unemployment as a result, high casualties, even factors beyond the control of the Government. Nobody will concede quicker than I will the difficulties this Government found themselves in from 1973, difficulties beyond their control, but when a Government find themselves in this position, not giving a lead, they have to use coercive methods. What are those coercive methods? Taxation at a level that threatens now to cause serious social disturbance, as I pointed out on the Finance Bill only a week or so ago.
I am sorry to interrupt but I think the Deputy will agree he is ranging pretty wide of the Estimate for the Department of Labour.
I am getting to the Estimate. When I say these things I say them objectively because it is relevant to this Estimate that the failure of productive activity is responsible for the unemployment figures at the moment. There is a failure to give a lead. There is high unemployment and that high unemployment is to be attributed to the failure of this Government to take timely steps to keep productive activity in motion. I think that is relevant to the Estimate. The high unemployment figures and the lack of activity by the Government are responsible for a lack of confidence on the part of business and management and that lack of confidence has resulted in a failure by business and management to provide employment opportunities. Is that relevant? I think so. I think it is very relevant, but I will bow to the Chair's ruling.
I have not said it was not relevant, Deputy.
I know. I am trying to show that I am trying to be relevant. If the Government gave a lead, if managements were prepared to expand and make use of money that I think is available, albeit at very high rates, we might be able to make a more productive inroad in solving the problem of unemployment. Will we take the risk? This is my point about the political lead and the morale of the Government. Because of the absence of these things, there is a depression and, following from that, there is something that comes very near this labour situation where, when you have high unemployment, you get a demoralisation that brings almost a free for all and then you are bound to have management, and even labour, looking for solutions that minimise the employment content of industry.
In order to keep logic right I find it hard to know which to put first, whether to point out that, because of inflation, taxation and so on, labour costs tend to soar and, because of that, management and even labour itself tend towards solutions that bring about redundancies and a minimisation instead of a maximisation of jobs. Or, logically, should I say that the present situation is making the labour force lack the confidence to have faith in the future and to invest, as well as the management element, in the future by voluntary co-operation and effort? Does the present problem in regard to remuneration stem from inflation or does it stem from a lack of co-operation as a result of a lack of confidence on the part of both sides in the future?
However I put it, the factual situation is that labour costs are now so high that there is a positive disincentive to expansion of industry that is labour-intensive and the tendency seems to be to look for solutions that will minimise jobs rather than maximise them. The result of this is further demands for remuneration, further taxation, and then the burden of taxation aggravates this trend. There is a demoralisation setting in that is disturbing to anybody who thinks about it, so disturbing that one hesitates to proceed with a logical discussion on it for fear of aggravating an already serious problem.
Some time ago I listened to various elements of the community coming on radio or television, all pressing their own claims, all with their own solution as to what the Government should do and should give them, without appearing to understand that there are other elements and that the improvement in their position that they were looking for depended on the improvement of the whole. I think that is a demoralisation, and it all stems from the lack of concentration on productive activity, which is my theme in this. Therefore, if I appear to be somewhat general in my remarks, it is in a desire to avoid aggravating particular issues at the moment. I would not like to be put in the position of having to deal with certain issues at this stage, but there are these signs of demoralisation there.
I have already placed on record here an insistance on productive activity, that is, employment in industry, employment in agriculture, employment in business that is productive in the real sense of the word.
We have now also to consider what is the problem of employment in what I might call the service sector. The service sector also involves the State sector. Again, one has to understand that all the service sectors, for their support and standard of living and standard of remuneration, depend essentially on the productive sector. What we are witnessing here today is that, in order to support the service sector in our community and also to support the demands of the social services, the Minister for Finance has to resort to taxation at a level that is further inhibiting what should be the main activities of the community. Perhaps, a Cheann Comhairle, you will extend me a little indulgence here, in that, although I think I would be perfectly within my rights in being fairly specific about this at this moment, today I do not wish to do so. However, I will say that generally the burden of taxation has made workers restless and indirect taxation has made the whole community restless, despondent and discouraged, has tended to depress the standard of living, and that this is the root cause of the lack of confidence in labour and managements. What is more, unless productive labour and productive management are stimulated to provide the wherewithal, the goose with the golden egg will be sick, indeed, for those who eat eggs.
Turning the pages of the Minister's brief at random, I see he talks about the general economic climate, about unemployment premiums and their extension, about industrial disputes and strikes, about remuneration and so forth. All these things are unified. All these things stem from what I have tried to emphasise here. We should be seeking some positive approach instead of just collecting money as we are doing. As I said on the Finance Bill, the Revenue Commissioners are being driven into the position of the publican in the gospel, and I fear very much that ere long they will attract the odium which will be a disaster. Instead of scraping the barrel in this way the Government should be embarking on a constructive programme of expansion whereby people would be encouraged to invest their resources, workers could be encouraged to co-operate in the area in which they are working and to have confidence in their own future, and ready to invest a little in their own efforts and show restraint in the sure knowledge that such co-operation, under the lead of proper Government, would bring them worthwhile results. If we could do that, many of the demoralising factors present at the moment would disappear. It probably would still be necessary to keep taxation at a fairly high level; but at least the man in the street and the manager would know that the money that was being taken in was, in a reasonable proportion anyway, being applied to stimulate the economy and to help in producing the money that is being collected in taxation, not as things are at the moment.
Young people have, as we all know, at the moment a problem in being placed in employment. It might be possible to do something to provide employment for them or at least to do something that will ensure that when opportunities for employment come this generation that is passing through is not unemployable. One of the great dangers of the present situation is that the generation passing through this year might find themselves in a category of the unemployable because of the situation obtaining when they were going through the critical age. There is no longer the traditional safety valve of emigration to relieve the pressure. There was a time when we strove against the drain and regarded it as a great achievement when the drain was curtailed. It is the maximisation of employment that must be sought not current trends which seek to control costs by minimising the number of jobs. Industry no more than anyone else can survive uncompetitive burdens and it has been forced into this situation by increased costs, and cannot be blamed for this. It all steams from a lack of appreciation of priorities by the Government.
Another problem that has become acute is that as the numbers engaged in the active sector, the wealth producing sectors, decrease in proportion to those in the service sectors or in the category of the supported, there must be an aggravation of the present situation. It has reached the stage where the warning that was given on the Finance Bill may be very relevant. There is not only a disincentive generally to industrial revival and the confidence of workers and managements but there is a positive personal disincentive built into the labour situation. The worker who finds that when he gains higher remuneration he is getting a decrease in return for his efforts will quickly realise that it is not worth going beyond a certain point. It is a desperately demoralising thing for society when this happens, and I suggest that it is happening at the present moment. Inflation in this country is pretty high, and that is putting it mildly. There is a positive disincentive in that whatever a worker's net pay packet is, when he looks at the rate of inflation, instead of investing with confidence in the future for himself, let alone the community, the tendency is to spend it now, because the value is likely to be so decreased tomorrow. This often means spending it on amusements or something like that.
Is it not demoralising to have a situation where workers reach a point where they feel that further effort is unrewarding? Is it not demoralising when they feel that what they earn is not worth investing in the future for themselves but must be blown immediately? That is a psychological attitude which is sufficiently abroad to be disturbing. It is not wholesale but there is enough of it there to call for comment and to say that it is disturbing. These things must be corrected. Unless they are, we will find ourselves accepting the pattern which is developing in regard to labour, that is unemployment in the very place where unemployment should not be, the productive sector. Then there is the necessity of servicing the unemployed. This Government have looked at that from the point of view of even boasting of it. Our employed people have to pay for it and then when that happens we have Government corrective action coming in. Money is taken from the community all the time and dissipated in an unproductive way. The standard of living of all is tending to fall. What can be expected from a labour force in this situation?
I have been purposely very general in my remarks out of a certain sympathy for the problems of the Government, which may seem strange for me to say. I do so to exhort them, even at this moment to get their priorities right. Get production going; give a lead; let us have confidence or, if they cannot do it, get out and let somebody else do it. Let us have expansion and recovery as we had at the end of the fifties and go into another period when the historic task of this generation will once more be—to quote the late Seán Lemass—to lay, not this time the economic foundations of independence, but the economic foundations of the survival of this State and the community at a dignified level and a proper standard of living. Let us have a lead, a policy. Let us get our priorities right and, if that can be done, there is no reason for the country to be despondent.
I thank the Chair for his indulgence. I hope the Minister will understand the reason for my generality, that it was in order that I should not exacerbate what is already a very difficult problem.
I am pleased to have an opportunity of contributing somewhat briefly to this debate resultant on the Minister's introductory speech concerning the Estimate for his Department. I am glad, in the political sense, to have an opportunity to speak because all of today, apart from the Minister's contribution has consisted of speeches from the Fianna Fáil Party.
I listened to Deputy de Valera's speech with some interest. It seemed to me that he spoke in a very negative sense, and in a political sense, in that there was no attempt to relate the problems existing here today, in the area of the economy with which he concerned himself, to events happening outside these shores. It would be comforting, in the mid-1970s, to propound solutions and to have within ourselves the capacity of carrying out such solutions for the problems within this island but it simply cannot be done because we are living in a much wider world than that of the era of protectionism in the thirties. The problems we have today relate and interrelate to a very great extent to events that happen in other parts of the world. It seems to me that the tendency in the speeches of Fianna Fáil spokesmen has been—and I suppose it is a legitimate political device by an Opposition—to look at our problems within this island and to lack the appreciation necessary of the extent to which our policies and efforts at creating employment here are hampered and limited by world events.
I have before me some references from the OECD Observer, No. 76, for July and August, 1975, lest some people believe that it is fiction that there are problems in other countries. At the start of a brief article relating to unemployment benefits and related payments in the seven major countries in the OECD—which would comprise most of the larger countries of Europe—I see the following:
Faced with the prospect of sharp rises in unemployment to levels unprecedented since the Great Depression, some countries began taking action, in late 1974 and early 1975, to improve income maintenance. This was primarily achieved by increasing coverage, by easing eligibility provisions, by extending benefits beyond normal benefit periods, by raising benefit rates, with increased payments for training and job creation programmes in some instances. Action has also been taken in some countries to raise contributions to unemployment insurance schemes. Given the likelihood of continuing high levels of unemployment, further changes in unemployment transfer schemes in the course of 1975 cannot be ruled out.
I merely read that short quotation to put the Irish situation into perspective because, from listening to the debate we have been having in the economic area in this country for the last six months, one would imagine that we had an almost extreme left wing, socialist Government introducing a welter of measures completely repugnant to our people, completely in isolation, and entirely unrelated to the policies of other countries. Indeed some of the countries quoted in that article, with that type of social policy, are amongst those that might be termed middle or right—when we talk about Canada, the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom, or Italy. Therefore there is something akin to a mirage in this debate, a lack of reality sometimes very hard to accept and, certainly for those of us on this side of the House, difficult to understand.
If I might relate that to Deputy de Valera's speech, when he spoke about what he termed the emphasis in this Administration on taxation, he said we were doing nothing to stimulate the source, namely, industry. Then he converted that to suggesting that we were not doing enough. Then there was an inference that, instead of providing jobs, we were only alleviating the want. Then he suggested that we must be prepared to commit ourselves to a productive policy. It seems to me that running through that speech there is an inference and an assumption that, in some way, this Government, in 1976, are against development, against job creation, against the increase of our productive wealth. Apparently that inference and assumption are made because there is a social policy. They are not mutually exclusive and we would need to point that out.
We would need also to look at the recent record of the Fianna Fáil Party in speeches in Opposition, and their performance when in Government, relating to certain aspects of economic development. It was not my intention to make a speech of a political nature but, faced with this kind of remarks, inferences and assumptions about the attitude of the Government, it is necessary to put certain matters into perspective. For example, where the Government are concerned, there is the widest range of incentives available to productive investment that exists in any country in western Europe, and probably in any country in the developed world. There is a range of incentives which runs through the tax concessions, complete relief on export sales, capital grants towards costs of fixed assets, the policies of the Minister for Labour in the employment premium which was increased recently. Then there is the credit support through the Government Industrial Credit Company, research support through the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, marketing support through córas Tráchtála, the technical assistance grants administered by the Department of Industry and Commerce. And there is the support in the country to the local authorities for industrial development and employment. Therefore to suggest, as Deputy de Valera attempted, that the Government are in some way against development in circumstances in which the development programme of the Government is more progressive and favourable in terms of tax climates and investment climates than any country in the developed world, is to fly completely in the face of facts. It is sad that certain elements in this country apparently are buying the story some of our Opposition spokesmen are selling.
I can understand, in an economic climate which is depressed, as is the present economic climate, depression in the business community. I can understand an attempt in some circles to make it rub off on the Government. I can understand the human tendency of an individual to see that the buck must stop somewhere and that the Government of the day are going to be blamed. But objectively we must look at these facts. We must look at this range of incentives and at the international position. We must look at the crisis that hit this country, which was the greatest since World War II, which put an appealling trough into every developed economy in the world and affected this country in two or three serious ways. There was the enormous imbalance in payments from the oil crisis, with a downturn in exports from existing manufacturing industry—because of depression on world markets; with a downturn in industrial investment here, again for the very same reasons.
I would suggest that the Government, in this context, have kept the country on an even keel, are continuing to do so, that indeed at present there are suggestions that there is an upturn and that, without any question, there are better times ahead. As against that it is fair to ask—as Deputy de Valera referred to the matter I hope I will be allowed to refer to the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party in the area of labour development and of employment—what is happening there. One of the major initiatives of the Government was in an area which will hopefully be vital to our financial interests in future years. I refer to the policy in regard to offshore oil and gas development. We can see in certain other countries in Europe at present—in Britain and in Norway—massive developments taking place which will bring them in enormous wealth. We can see a situation in Norway where oil resources will provide between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of the entire gross product of the country, a resource that had not existed a decade ago.
If they have this wealth in Norway and if they are beginning to have it in Britain they have it as a result of policies developed by the Norwegian and British Governments a decade ago. Fianna Fáil were in office for 16 consecutive years. What were they doing that time ruling the country which supposedly had an offshore wealth and the only concession granted during that time was to one particular oil company for a pittance? There were no other concessions; there was no thinking; there was no research; there was no employment of consultants to analyse. We slept when the other European countries that had this wealth got on with developing it. The result is that we are a decade behind. It took the present Minister for Industry and Commerce to get that moving.
Let us face certain facts and let us get away from the snide inference that the only party in the country concerned about industrial development are the Fianna Fáil Party and that the Coalition Government are weak on development. If we are concerned about the Opposition Party who aspire to running the country what about their policy on industry at present? Their spokesman on Industry and Commerce two or three months ago introduced a motion which categorically sought a situation under which the IDA would be bound to give half of their grants to native industry. In theory this sounds fine but if there is a limitation to the extent of native industrial building it means in effect that the IDA would have to cut back enormously on the grants which they are presently giving for manufacturing investment in the country and consequently in jobs.
This is the stated policy in the industrial field and in the employment creation field of the party who aspire to running the country better than the present Government do. We can see also that in the difficult times which I have discussed Irish exports in the 12 months ended April, 1976, reached a record breaking level of £1,520 million exceeding the April, 1975, figure of £1,200 million by over £300 million. These are the facts. If we are to have a discussion about economic performance, or performance where employment creation is concerned, let us look at the difficulties we are facing in the context of difficulties experienced by other countries. Let us put Ireland into perspective and let us talk about the facts in the country rather than have philosophical speeches about the supposed policies for the past 30 to 40 years.
I would particularly like to congratulate the Minister for Labour on his achievement in being instrumental more than any other person in arranging that the European Foundation for Living and Working conditions, an institute of the EEC, which is under the ambit of his Department and other such Departments in Europe, will be, through his initiative and with the support of other agencies, established the first EEC building in the country. It is a desirable development. It brings an EEC institution into the country. It will certainly be a most welcome development.
I am very glad to note from the Minister's speech, and knowing of the developments in AnCO, that there has been an increased allocation from £5 million last year to £8.5 million this year in the training area. We should remember that this in effect doubles the money spent here because we are getting pound for pound from the European Social Fund so that in effect after bringing the level up from £5 million to £8½ million means expenditure in the region of about £16 million in the training area which is most welcome.
It is very apt at this time to say a few words about this type of training which AnCO are providing which is, singly, the most valuable type of training and education which can be provided in the country at present. With the development of free second and third level education and with the natural ambitions of parents for university status for their children in recent years we tended to go overboard so far as the liberal arts were concerned and so far as university education was concerned. The extent to which we went overboard in this attitude, which I suppose is human and understandable, is seen very clearly and in a very startling way at present when we look at the list of graduates coming out of our university system. We have a very considerable surplus of doctors. There is also a very big surplus of teachers and arts graduates coming on the market. We read recently that only 57.6 per cent of those who qualified with the higher diploma in education are engaged in permanent teaching appointments and 20 per cent of those who are trained to be teachers are not in teaching jobs. Of the 1,110 jobs taken by graduates in general a very small proportion went into industry. Only about 126 of that number went into industry which means that the liberal arts training may be all right in the bigger company and it may be all right in certain management positions but the emphasis for development is that the skills have got to be in technology and technical training. It seems to me that the future in the job market will lie to a very great extent with the people who have technical training. Therefore, the increased commitment by the Government in the technical training area is absolutely vital and most necessary.
At present, because of the high level of unemployment many school leavers find that work is not available. We hope that the economy will improve quite a lot in the next two to three years and if a substantial number of those school leavers can be absorbed into training programmes it will be an extremely useful social and economic function which we should stress. I understand this is being done in other countries.
There is a policy in Britain which we might look at, under which they pay a subsidy to companies of £5 per week per place for the first 26 weeks of work for unemployed school leavers. This is something which would not cost a fortune and it might help to get employed school leavers into their first jobs. It might also give incentives to certain companies to take them on.
I note the reference in the Minister's speech to the building industry. Despite all the criticism of the capital budget there is a commitment to spend £325 million, an increase of £45 million on last year. Deputy de Valera urged the Government to become involved in the matter of providing jobs. He stated categorically that the high unemployment rate was due to the failure of the Government to keep productive activity in motion. This is a lot of rot. He spoke of a lack of confidence in business and management. If there is lack of confidence in business and management and if it develops the Opposition will have played no small role in encouraging such lack of confidence by the nature of some of the speeches we have heard lately.
Deputy de Valera urged the Government to provide the actual jobs. Is this by direct Government investment? Does it entail an increase in the capital budget? If it does Opposition spokesmen are ranting every day in the week about the extent of the capital budget so where is the logicality of suggesting that the Government should provide the actual jobs and at the same time suggesting that the capital budget must be kept in check? It is much easier in Opposition than it is in Government to level those charges.
At present, while there is an appalling problem in relation to unemployment and while the percentage is high, the situation is entirely different from that which obtained here 20 years ago. At that time there were substantial outlets abroad for employment. There were substantial outlets for work in the United States and in the United Kingdom. Those outlets do not exist now. There are benefits, conversely, within the country which fortunately allow a much higher proportion of people to stay here than could afford to do so 20 years ago. We are not comparing like with like when we speak like this.
I was very interested to note the Minister's reference to what he termed the community youth training programme in which the local authorities and vocational bodies put forward programmes. It is possible that I am not a very diligent member of the local authority of which I am a member, or of this House, but I do not believe that that is the case. It seems to me that not a sufficient number of people are aware of this programme. The Department of Labour might engage in more public relations activity, releases or advertising, to acquaint people throughout the country of the extent of this interesting programme.
As a Government in the labour area we want to tackle certain problems and anomalies in rural Ireland. We have unemployment benefits and, at the same time, local improvement schemes which entail work on minor roads for which there is not sufficient money. We know the reason for that—financial constraints. There is an anomaly in the sense that labour is available and these schemes, in which there is a high labour content, need to be done. In my opinion, we have not looked sufficiently at issues such as this to see if we can possibly relate the situation where unemployed persons and schemes, such a minor road and drainage schemes, are concerned. We should make some attempt to get the available productive labour which is not working, channelled into such schemes and increase the level of activity which can be engaged in. We should also attempt to provide an income for such people on public works schemes rather than through the unemployment benefits system.
This is an issue to which there is not a simple answer. I do not think it applies to the city to the same extent as it does to the country. The will to work is there in the country, but we need to give a lead in this area to see if we can develop such schemes. It is worthy of engaging in a feasability study by Departments, such as the Department of Labour or the Department of Social Welfare, to see if something could be done in that area. I wish the Minister well in a difficult area and at a difficult time.
In the Minister's speech there are many generalities with which many people will agree. In my view, he does not get to the root cause of many of the factors involved. The previous speaker mentioned something I am keen on. I do not see why people of 19 and 20 years should be retrained by AnCO. That is wrong. We must look at their earlier lives to find out where the causes lie and try to remedy them.
When we look at our second-level schools system, I wonder if the Minister has made any effort, in consultation with the Minister for Education, to bring about a more favourable balance in relation to the practical or technical, vis-à-vis the theoretical. Some years ago—I think around 1976 —statistics showed that 75 per cent of our output from these schools tended to be theoretical and only 25 per cent practical. In some of the Scandinavian countries, the reverse was the case. If we have a hard look at this, we might be able to start along the road to recovery. There is not much point in people leaving school after 12 or 13 years with a theoretical education if job opportunities are not seen to be there for them within a reasonable time. They then have to move in to a third level to be trained in a technical field.
When Deputy Faulkner established the regional training colleges, that was a move in the right direction. I do not think we fully appreciate the value of these colleges. While they meet the bill in many respects, I would encourage the Minister to get in touch with his colleague, the Minister for Education, to see how best the individual can be served in second-level schools. It is a great pity to see so many people leaving the schools unqualified for any employment. It is the right of a young person after 13, 15 or even 20 years full-time education to expect a job at a level that would be compatible with his educational qualifications or standing.
We have heard a great deal of talk over recent years about schemes in the public work sector. The previous speaker mentioned local improvement and amenity schemes. That is all very well but they are manual jobs. After 13 or 15 years' formal theoretical education, these young people would not find this work compatible. It would hardly be socially acceptable to the Minister if this suggestion were put forward. Many people would be only too glad to take this kind of employment as a holding operation. Nevertheless, this of itself is not sufficient.
These schemes are suitable for people who are accustomed to manual outdoor work. Has the Minister been in contact with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare to have a look at employment exchanges? What defeats progress within the system itself are these minor classifications. Might it not be opportune for the Minister to have his colleague look at the various classifications of the registered unemployed? Would it not be possible to broaden the categories or make them more general? Some surveys uncovered the fact that there were not sufficient would-be workers available in the categories in which schemes might be proposed. If the Minister has further information on that, he might like to comment on it later. Could it be that this system already defeats any programme of local improvement, amenity or small drainage schemes we might have? These schemes might beautify various small areas throughout the country.
The Minister has a duty to combine his efforts with those of the Minister for Education who is the person responsible for education. We must consider whether people are geared for life when they finish school. Unfortunately, we know only too well that there are very few opportunities available now. It requires a large investment on the part of the State for a person to continue for two further years undergoing a training programme which might have been done effectively, even in part, during the course of second-level education. Perhaps these suggestions have already been considered and the Minister might deal with this aspect in his reply.
People may have had fixed attitudes with regard to what they expected by way of further education for their children and what qualifications they expected them to acquire. This is only right but in the present situation many people are making a reassessment of this matter. This is where leadership and direction is required and I look to the Minister for Labour, in conjunction with the Minister for Education, to offer that leadership and direction. People are not averse to change. Many people have had change thrust on them and in the present situation it might be opportune to consider how we could move forward. When things are going well and jobs are available, people do not consider change too readily but that situation does not apply now. We must consider whether we are turning out balanced people who can adjust to situations. Perhaps the Minister will consider that suggestion further. The regional technical colleges have an important function——
The Deputy will appreciate that we do not want to enter the realm of education. The Minister has not responsibility for education and the Chair does not want Deputies to stray too far from the Minister's Estimate and the administration of his Department.
I appreciate that. I was endeavouring to set out the point of view of school leavers. Many of them feel obliged to go further when in fact, what they want to do is to get a job. CERT plays an important part with AnCO in fitting young people into a walk of life. However, it is not the situation that a colleague of the Minister is militating against the Department of Labour when we see that tourism and the hotel business are in jeopardy or are hindered by Government proposals? It is all very well for the Minister for Labour to speak about opportunities for new recruits in the CERT training programme for the hotels and the catering industry, but it may be that he and a colleague are hampering the growth of the industry in the budgetary proposals they put forward. Such action would appear to be blunting his purpose as set out in this Estimate. Under the heading of community youth training programme the Minister states:
The expansion of the CERT training programme for new recruits to the hotels and catering industry, which I have described, is also aimed mainly at school leavers.
The policy is wrong in that regard. Instead of the Minister emphasising to his colleagues in the Cabinet the multiplier job aspect of this industry, it appears that the Minister for Finance is having his way in pruning too much from what should be a growth sector and one that might play a bigger part in the absorption of these young people. The Minister has a responsibility here to see that this industry flourishes. If that happens, jobs will be available.
The community youth training programme sounds wonderful. The caption is great but will it be a success? It would be ideal if we could use the enthusiasm, drive and ambition of our young people and direct it in a positive way. What has been mentioned here are tasks of a manual kind. The Minister referred to repairs to old folks' homes, to community halls, children's playgrounds, centres for handicapped children and premises for travelling people. Should he not have added to the list centres for people to learn to read and write? There are many people who have not had the opportunity to do this. Perhaps they are hidden, perhaps they are overshadowed.
Could some of these school leavers be engaged in this task? It would be easy to get such a programme under way and it would not require much money but it would bring about a huge improvement socially. I am aware that in large towns many voluntary groups are active and the Minister should try within the youth training programme to develop the work of such groups so that still more people can learn to read and write. It is possible that in the Minister's constituency there is such a voluntary group engaged in a person to person literacy programme. It is possible that in his area teachers and the less fortunate get together for a couple of hours each week so that the less fortunate person can improve socially. Could that idea be utilised within the youth training programme? In my view it would blend in more with the type and the qualification of the person leaving school.
It is difficult to think up tasks and programmes which would absorb to best advantage people who have a certain qualification, but the suggestion I have put forward is one way of doing that. More could also be done for handicapped people. Helping the handicapped is a fine rewarding task and young people would be happy to do this on an interim basis. Many of the tasks outlined by the Minister were undertaken by groups of people abroad such as VSO, but a lot remains to be done within our community and with our people. It is not sufficient to speak in terms of the manual work alone. We must have an important criterion in mind. If people have been educated in a theoretical fashion for 13 years it would not be socially satisfying for them to be engaged in a manual type of task; it would be more compatible if something akin to their achievments could be arranged for them.
In reply to question the Minister gave me information with regard to the number of guidance and placement officers in the National Manpower Services and I should like to know if he has considered increasing the number of such officers. Are there more officers now on the basis of the number of people who need help compared with three years ago? Is the Minister for labour curtailed by the Minister for the Public Service in the creation of these posts? Is full use being made of the mobile unit on careers? Would the Minister consider arranging for officers from the National Manpower Service to visit secondary schools to speak to students who have just obtained their intermediate certificate? Such a visit would help to direct them at a time when it would be most beneficial. It is sad to find people leaving school with the leaving certificate and the feeling that they are not qualified for the job they wish to take on.
I am aware that I must speak mainly to the Department of Labour Estimate and that many of the aspects I have mentioned are educational but there must be a get-together on such topics.
Is there any danger that money from the social fund will be channelled into other projects? I hope that money will not be used to meet any form of current expenditure such as salaries and wages, and I hope the Minister will reassure me on that point. Is the Minister responsible for moneys which can be used for the input of plant, new machinery and expertise into businesses? I would like to see capital used in this way. After a difficult spell it often happens that companies are not in a position to reinvest in their own plant or machinery. Does the Minister offer inducements or aids to such companies lest some of their plants become outdated?
The Minister in the course of his speech stated:
The Government's strategy for 1976 is to give priority to expenditure that would promote growth and sustain and increase employment.
That is laudable but when one looks at the strategy and the budgetary proposals has growth been stimulated or stifled? Again, the Minister might question his colleagues in Social Welfare or in Finance as regards the cost now to the employer of the social welfare stamp. Has he been involved as Minister for Labour in the renegotiation or re-examination of the system which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare told us about whereby originally it was thought by the Government that over five phases the cost of the stamp would be borne completely by the employers and employees and the State would extract itself——
That is a matter for another Department.
But when you see in the Estimate speech a statement of the type which I have read:
The Government's strategy for 1976 is to give priority to expenditure that would promote growth and sustain and increase employment.
I think it is relevant. The function of the Minister for Labour there is to intervene and state that in regard to the creation of new jobs and even in regard to the retention of the present number of employees the tax levy of the stamp at this point in time is very high and if it were to go higher would mean more unemployment. If a colleague of the Minister is re-examining a policy decision the Minister for Labour should be involved in giving his advice on this aspect of that policy.
Has the Minister put forward to the Department of Social Welfare the desirability of having a part stamp, a stamp that would meet occupational injuries only? Perhaps this would boost the number engaging even in part-time work. At present many workers do not want to engage in part-time work, perhaps in the office cleaning sector, because of the amount taken away for stamps which makes it not worth while. If we can somehow promote growth and increase employment, boost morale by introducing this limited stamp which would meet the needs of a worker, surely we should do so. If this review is undertaken I should like to see this occupational injury stamp as the outcome.
The Minister also stated:
This investment in jobs, if allowed to work through the economy, will return many now out of work back to productive employment.
The Government should analyse that themselves. As I see it their present policy will not allow investment of extra money by the Minister to give a return in jobs. It looks well and it reads well—"if allowed to work through the economy...". Is it the function of the Minister to spell this out? It is left somewhat vague. How can this be allowed to work through the economy? Perhaps the Minister would clarify or expand on this later.
A Deputy on the opposite side said, as I suppose was natural for a Government spokesman, that there are external factors that have brought about the present position. There was no mention of any culpability on the part of the present Administration but it would be a more honourable and honest approach for that Administration to state that many of their decisions have been wrong and have militated against the provision of jobs. That is what the vast majority of people are saying just now. For a long time people were fed a diet of promises about many things in respect of which a Parliamentary Secretary later stated it would not be possible to fulfil them no matter how much a Government wished to do so. That was a case of somebody seeing a little light and the people getting through to him and saying that the Government have helped by their own decisions in many cases to bring about the present malaise. It is up to the Government to show leadership which will result in the two quotations from the Minister's speech being achieved. It is all very fine for the Minister to put these things down on paper, but the fact is that the jobs simply have not come. It cannot be socially acceptable to have such huge numbers out of work.
The register of unemployed is called the live register. That would indicate that each person on the register is available for work. I wonder if, medically, every person on that live register is available for work. Has any effort been made to analyse the register from that point of view? The Minister may seize on this and come up with a slashed figure of only 20,000 or 22,000 unemployed. We would all naturally welcome a reduction but not one achieved by that method.
The more our people are enabled to return to gainful employment the faster the recovery will come in our economy. There are at present factories and plants around the country whose expensive machines stand idle.
That is a statement of fact and we are not told what the policy is to get these plants going again.
The Minister's brief was full of lofty thoughts and verbiage but I cannot find in it any semblance of an action programme, the action programme so badly required.
This is a most important Estimate and I am surprised at our having to wrap it up so quickly. The Estimate needs very careful consideration in an effort to put forward some ideas as to how to get the large number of unemployed back into productive employment. Every Member of this House has experience of people coming to him every day, highly qualified people, who cannot find jobs. The Minister has indicated what he intends to do to get the economy moving. He referred to increasing the premium from £12 to £15. We welcome that but why not give this premium right across the board to anyone who will employ someone? I am thinking of business people who came to me recently and said that, if this premium were available to them, they might take an extra young person into their employment. The stamp costs about £6 and so the £12, while, reasonably attractive, was just not good enough. One of the conditions is that the employer must take the employees off the unemployment register. There are hundreds of young people unemployed who have never been on the register and it is most important that employment should be provided for them. I was talking to a priest recently and he told me there were two types of young person, the intelligent young person who wants to work and use his brain and the young person who will stay in bed half the day while his father and, perhaps, mother go out to work. If the intelligent young person cannot get work, then he starts working on something else. My fear would be that these young people would turn to violence and the most important task the Minister has is providing employment for these young people.
The previous speaker referred to the educational system and the Chair said it was a matter for another Minister. The Minister for Labour and the Minister for Education will have to get together and consider the vital importance of educating young people into employment in industry rather than into clerical jobs which are just not there. I am glad the Minister emphasised technical education. AnCO are doing an excellent job.
My suggestion about paying the premium right across the board would result in keeping people off social welfare. That would be an excellent thing for the country. At the moment we are bogged down on a national pay agreement, which has been agreed by the trade unions, the bodies allegedly representing the lowly paid workers. They have agreed to an increase of £6 for a man earning £30 a week and £10 for a man earning £100. At a time when we have so many unemployed how, in the name of goodness, can these bodies look for £10 for a man earning £100 and £6 for a man earning £30? This just does not make sense and I can tell the Minister the ordinary worker is becoming very well educated in this and is asking who these fellows really represent. In Britain it is £5 across the board. Here some people apparently want a special increase for the more privileged. Talk about justice. This is miles away from a just society. I feel very strongly about this. I remember when I wanted a sliding scale of subsidies to farmers the Minister agreed and said the biggest percentage should go to the smallest people. Here we have the reverse in this proposed agreement.
Worker participation was mentioned. I have been advocating that for a long time. Workers are honest people and eminently reasonable when they understand how a business is running. As it is, they are not allowed to know anything about profits, directors' fees and so on. Some years ago when Irish Ropes were in trouble the workers worked three days for nothing. I believe Irish Ropes would never have got into trouble had the workers been taken into management's confidence.
Another matter that is mentioned in the Minister's brief is the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, because it is desired to put agricultural workers on a par with industrial workers. I agree, but do not criticise the Agricultural Wages Board. They set a minimum wage. Nobody could hire a man for a minimum wage; the rates paid were always above that. One thing I would suggest to the Minister is that the representatives on this new board should understand agriculture. Agricultural workers and industrial workers work under entirely different conditions. Whether the day is wet or fine the industrial worker goes out in the morning, does his work and goes home. The agricultural worker gets food from the farmer, and there must be a value put on that. The farmer and the agricultural worker are like brothers. They eat at the one table. A Deputy from Kildare was talking about big farmers, and what I am saying might not apply in that part of the country. The agricultural worker in the part of the country I am talking about is different altogether from the industrial worker. Therefore, I would hope that the people on the new board would know all about agricultural workers' conditions.
It is very hard to deal with all the matters I want to raise in the short time at my disposal, but I want to raise the question of workers participating in industry. I am all for that, and, as a member of the co-operative movement, I have always held that there should be workers on the committee. When workers are told how an industry is run and that it is making a profit, they know everything is all right. However, I would like to ask the Minister if the unions want it that way. Do they want to be at both sides of the table? I would like to see a situation whereby a budget would be brought out every year and that it would be said: "We must make X pounds to run this business. We must have a certain amount for the rainy day and any profit over and above that will be given in bonuses to the workers". If industry was run that way, there would be better industrial relations and there would be no strikes. The further the worker is kept from the management the more suspicious one gets of the other.
I understand this debate is to finish at five minutes to seven, so I will make a final point. I would appeal to the Minister to give the £15 premium to country councils and other local authorities to give employment. Everyone who is taken off the dole is being taken off social welfare. Social welfare must be paid to the unemployed, but surely money should be geared towards employment rather than social welfare. If it is accepted that more and more people have to live on social welfare because they cannot get employment, the country is going the wrong way.
I am glad to see from the Minister's brief that he intends to channel more money towards employment. I would give a certain amount of relief, even taxation relief, to people who would invest money in employment so that we could get more people working. There is a feeling of despair among younger people. I am not here to lacerate anybody, but the Department of Labour must be prepared to spend money and even borrow money to create employment and do it quickly before the young people despair altogether. It is demoralising for young people to continue writing and writing—I have even my own doing it—and only be able to say: "I got regrets again this morning". This £15 should be given to businessmen in order to try to get people back to work. The vast majority of them want to work. They certainly do not want to live on social welfare, particularly the young educated people. I would ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the question of paying this £15 to anybody who will employ young persons particularly, whether they be on the employment register or not.
Before you put the Estimate, a Cheann Comhairle, there is something that needs to be clarified, particularly in view of what Deputy Callanan said during his speech. There is no question whatever of curtailing this debate. It does not finish tonight. We have agreed to give the Estimate on the understanding that the money is urgently required, tomorrow or the next day, in the Minister's Department. The debate will continue on a token Estimate and on a motion by the Minister on the redundancy payments scheme. Nobody would expect that this debate would finish after one day in view of the situation in the country at present.
I shall not make any comment at this stage.
Would the Minister not consider extending the premium employment scheme so that more people would get the £15?
We have made certain changes in the premium employment programme today, and I think we should see how that operates.
It is no use.