Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Nov 1976

Vol. 293 No. 10

Private Members' Business. - Young People's Employment Opportunities: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

"That Dáil Éireann deplores the Government's failure to provide employment opportunities for young people."

—(Deputy G. Fitzgerald.)

Mr. Wyse

Last evening I was speaking about the lack of job opportunities for young people. I am glad the Minister is here this evening as we are most anxious to hear from him on a number of points raised in last evening's debate. We were referring to areas such as AnCO and the public and private sectors. We informed the House that 50 per cent of our population are between the ages of 18 and 25. One can see the enormous problem of providing job opportunities for those young people.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce last night spoke about creating the conditions for growth but he did not inform the House what efforts the Government have made during the last three-and-a-half years to create this growth or what their future policies are to create job opportunities for our young people. Our young people have a right to know what has been done by the Government to safeguard their future as far as employment is concerned. I hope the Minister for Labour, in contributing to this debate, will give some indication of the Government's policy to create a satisfactory growth of employment for our young people. It is important that the Minister would identify the areas where the immediate prospects of employment are and, having done that, that he would then recommend to the Government the introduction of emergency measures for the employment of the thousands of our jobless young people

We spoke about emergency powers and things of that kind some time ago. I believe everybody will agree that the greatest emergency in the country at the moment is the lack of job opportunities for thousands of our young people. New initiatives must be introduced for our industrialists to overcome the lack of confidence which is very evident in Irish industry today. This can only be done by the Government setting definite targets for the establishment of new industries and the expansion of existing ones.

The Government's lack of proper planning in industrial areas is to be deplored. Continuous warnings were given to them from the Fianna Fáil benches, together with many other economic experts. The Government were warned time and time again that industry was running down and was in urgent need of capital. However, they ignored all those warnings and advice. Consequently, we now find ourselves in a job crisis. All avenues must be explored to find a solution for this appaling wastage of the talents of our young people.

It is the Government's responsibility to provide employment. There is no running away from this and there are no excuses because the facts are there. It is pitiful to see thousands of young people year in and year out making sacrifices to provide themselves with a better education and then finding at the end it was all in vain. Last night I mentioned the frustrations of our young people and their parents who made great sacrifices to ensure that their children would get proper education.

I have close association with young people and I know that they do not want the dole or handouts. They want work and they want to be part of a great effort to build up our economy. This is the spirit of our young people. Leaders of young people plead with the Government on every platform and in every newspaper to bring in some emergency powers to provide immediate employment rather than see our young people become involved in some anti-social activities.

We must consider the blow dealt to our young people. Only last year in areas where they were getting employment, especially holiday employment, a directive was sent to health boards and local authorities to stop recruiting further personnel. This directive was also sent to the civil service. Those are most important areas for our young people. Last night I referred to the building industry. As the Minister knows, being a member of the Labour Party, large numbers of apprentices are usually employed in the building trade. Parents are now asking what is happening and what is the future of our young people. They also ask what are the Government doing about it.

Two years ago the leader of this party made a very special appeal to the Government and the Minister for Labour to introduce a community project. This was very effectively operated in the western parts of the country but I am afraid it has not gone beyond that stage. There are other areas in which this could be introduced, which would give young people worth-while work in helping the needs of their own community. This cannot be a permanent thing but it would help them over the present crisis or until the time that there is a Government who are prepared to devote their energies in providing employment for our young people. I hope from this House tonight that some encouragement will be sent out by the Minister for Labour and that now, late though it may be, he has some plans to introduce a crash programme to put our young people into employment.

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

In the severe unemployment crisis affecting this country one could make a justified case on the facts for looking at any one category in the numbers who are unemployed and asking for special attention to cater for the needs of that particular category because unemployment in most democracies is regarded as a menace to social cohesion, a problem admittedly encountered by all economies at present. I believe unemployment is regarded in most democracies as something that corrodes the basis of the self-repect the individual can have for himself.

All of the democracies in Europe at present are facing very high levels of unemployment. In the categories of those unemployed one can say that a good deal of attention has been devoted in all of the democracies to the problem of young people out of work, and to the spectacle in Britain, Germany and France of young people who have had no jobs since they left their educational establishments. It is a question we have discussed in the EEC Council of Social Affairs at our various meetings and it is a question that in the period that Ireland had the Presidency of the Council of Social Affairs an initiative of ours was succesful in bringing forward a proposal to deal with unemployment among the young people, a proposal embodied in our own country at present in the Community Youth Training Programme. But in talking of categories, and one could make a case in the general unacceptably high unemployment level of catering in particular for the circumstances of the man or woman who in his or her forties is out of work and say: "Here is a particular case, here is something that should call for immediate action", and so on. One could look at other categories amongst the unemployed and call for a special response to each category of persons out of work.

Mr. Wilson

50 per cent are under 25.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It does not serve our purpose greatly to begin to divide up the numbers who are unemployed. It is best to attempt to pursue policies that turn back unemployment as it affects all categories. That is the programme and the direction of Government policy. That is the point behind the proposals we have put to the social partners over the past few weeks. That is why the Government proposed a £100 million programme based on tax concessions and job creation.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Who proposed it?

Mr. C. Murphy

The Minister must be joking.

Mr. Wilson

I have the report here.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. There is a time limit to this debate. Members should be heard without interruption.

Mr. O'Malley

There is also a limit to the kind of jokes to be told in a debate.

Mr. C. Murphy

I have the Fianna Fáil policy here.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy may be in some confusion. I am talking about the Government. I am not talking about the opposition.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is quite some time since the term "Fianna Fáil" automatically meant Government and it will be some time before it does again. I was making the point—and I wish the adolescents opposite would behave like their real age——

Mr. Wilson

Sorry, daddy.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I was making the point that the Government did make the proposal to unions and employers of £100 million comprising £50 million in tax reductions and £50 million in job creation for the next year. That is the direction of Government policy. The success of that direction and its acceptance for that kind of proposal is the realistic way out of the unemployment dilemma affecting the economy at present. It does not consist in flash programmes such as we have seen from certain members of the Opposition in their September programme where they talk about £100 million to be invested in job creation, although on reading the programme one sees that £50 million of it is to be devoted to increased jobs in the public sector. It is not to that kind of flash programme, leading to further increased deficits in budget formation, increased borrowing abroad and therefore increased liability for productive effort at home, that we can look for any future hope for young people and middle-aged people who are presently unemployed.

It is regrettable that Members of this House, seriously or otherwise, should suggest that it is possible to do something about job creation by calling for additional expenditure and heavier deficits on ridiculous cost estimates. It is not helpful at all to serious discussion of this problem that one should hold out the hope that it is possible that jobs can be created and unemployment can be licked by programmes that have the insubstantial base of spending as proposed from the Opposition benches. That is not helpful, and I suggest that youth leaders cannot be taken in by that kind of programme.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Surely it is better than no action at all or inaction as is happening in the Minister's case.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy must not confuse the rhetoric of people in Opposition with action.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy must not, as I say, confuse type-written sheets written in the haste of Opposition based on the proposition of attracting, presumably, some support for the party putting out such a programme. I believe that a serious approach to the question of unemployment means that we must drive home the lesson to our people that unemployment can be licked and the problem brought down to manageable proportions only by getting people to accept that in their demands on expenditure, in their demands on Government, they must demand less and the Government must be in a position to earmark more resources for productive investment. That is the only way out of this dilemma, that we must ensure that our manufacturing industry will be in a position to give a greater number of jobs to people seeking them.

We have not been able up to now to satisfy the requirements of those looking for jobs. We admit frankly that this Administration has not been able to do it and our inability to do it has been made even more difficult by the present recession. However, Deputies opposite on looking at the record will appreciate that they were unable to do it through the sixties and early seventies; that the unemployment rate taken in conjunction with the emigration rate meant that they failed dismally in the matter of providing sufficient jobs for those seeking them.

Accepting these realities in the job situation in Ireland is the first step towards a realistic policy. There is no point in pretending that the problem has not existed in the past. There is no point in the Opposition saying—because it does not serve them in the long run—that the problem has arisen only since 1973. The problem goes much further back into Irish economic history than the date of the arrival of this Government in 1973. It was with us from 1958 to 1973, and in most cases the people opposite depended on emigration to settle the problem. No longer can we have the easy option afforded by emigration which option was availed of to reduce unemployment figures. One could say that we are not excessively intolerant but no other European country would have tolerated the unemployment figures that the people opposite lived with year after comfortable year when in Government. They saw 300,000 emigrants leaving this country between the late fifties and early seventies. This motion is concerned about young people out of work. Presumably many thousands of those young people were numbered amongst the 300,000 who left our ports to search for work which the Fianna Fáil Government in all those years were unable to provide; and those were years unmarked by problems such as we faced as a result of this recession.

Mr. Wilson

Did the Minister ever hear about the second world war?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. M. O'Leary

Most people, apart from some people opposite, do recognise that we have been through a recession comparable in its severity to the 1931 great depression. That is accepted in most countries. It is not accepted by the Opposition and their policies all have the imprint of the non-acceptance of this fact of economic life. I suggest to the Opposition that there is little advantage for them in pretending that the problems brought about by the recession have not existed. It will not cut ice with the electorate if they say they do not accept that there has been a recession and that there are not problems caused as a result. The electorate can see and hear about those problems every night on television. They can see programmes that deal with the problems of other countries and they accept that there is an employment problem in most other countries. They know we have been through a recession. Even in the strongest economies such as those of Germany, France and the United States, many people are worried about the unyielding nature of unemployment, that although output and exports may be improving the level of growth recorded is not, as yet, making any dent in the unemployment figures in these countries. This is a worrying problem and one that Governments and Oppositions in other countries have noted in their economies.

For a correct analysis of the situation it is necessary to point out that we have always had the worst unemployment in Europe throughout the period when the Opposition were in power. We have always had the worst record in young people being out of work——

Mr. Wilson

The Minister should talk about the Battle of Clontarf.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The worst rate of employment for adults and for young people was under Fianna Fáil rule and that must be taken into account——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

That is not true.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We had the worst emigration rate. All of these are facts and I am merely reading them into the record of the House. Acceptance of these facts will permit Deputies to face the problem squarely, understanding that past remedies have not been successful in producing results.

The point of the recent Green Paper is that we would need a growth rate of 6 per cent repeated annually to make any impact on unemployment in the years ahead. This is a figure that has never been achieved on an annual repeating basis. Throughout the sixties when we did not have problems associated with the recession we were happy to achieve in any year a 4½ per cent increase. It shows the dimensions of the problem that we would require a figure nearer to 6 per cent repeated annually into the future if we are to bring unemployment down to manageable proportions and that would still be very far from anything approaching full employment. I suggest this indicates the difficulties and problems inherent in bringing about a realistic employment policy.

Recently there has been some encouraging news regarding the economy. We have seen an improvement in exports and in output this year we will reach if not 4 per cent certainly 3½ per cent. We can say that the economy is returning to a healthy condition but even in noting these facts one must admit that these figures give little consolation to anyone concerned about our present high rate of unemployment. As I have pointed out, it would require 6 per cent repeated annually to make a dent in unemployment and we are nowhere near the possibility of achieving this.

However, there is an encouraging sign over last year. There is a reduction in the numbers out of work from September to October allowing for the seasonal position that normally at this time of the year, even in the best years, one would see a disimprovement in the employment situation. One can point to that encouraging feature this year. What is necessary is that we will be in the correct position for progress towards the goal of providing sufficient employment. We need action from the Government and we need complementary action from the unions and employers. Those three agencies are important, working together in partnership, if we are to improve the employment situation which has proved incorrigible of correction in the past.

Mr. Wyse

Are the Government not getting that?

Mr. M. O'Leary

We are working towards co-operation on these fronts. We need the agreement of the people to this direction of Government policy. We live in a democracy and, however wise one may think one's course is, it is not possible automatically to get the immediate agreement of the people to a certain course of action. We cannot wave the wand, as in the recent policy document of the Opposition, and switch consumer expenditure 3 per cent towards home-produced goods——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

It is time the Government made an effort.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We cannot make that an essential part of our programme. Neither can we ordain a two-year freeze on wages, as was set out in that policy document——

Mr. Wilson

We do not so ordain.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is difficult to do these things in a democracy. A Government can only approach the unions and employers, put propositions to them, argue them and come out with an agreement. That is the sound and healthy direction we are taking. The main job, that of expansion, obviously must occur in manufacturing industry. It has been repeated several times——

Mr. Wilson

I am glad the Minister read my speech of last week.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. M. O'Leary

If manufacturing industry is to be competitive the proposals the Government have put forward should assist them in this area. We must channel all available resources away from non-employment areas to the greatest extent possible and put them into productive job creation. We must work towards these objectives. The work of the IDA this year will assist to some extent the people under 25 years in getting jobs because we reckon that more than half of the jobs provided in the new grant-aided industries go to people under 25 years. However, it will require agreement to the proposals we put forward to see the economy begin to answer up to the challenge of providing sufficient jobs.

The central objective we have is getting the agreement of the people and of the social partners so that the Government can devote all the necessary resources to the problem. The Government believe that so serious is the situation with regard to employment that now is the time for them to invest this £100 million package to take the pressure off the pursuit of income increases that prove nominal when taken in conjunction with price rises. Instead, there should be emphasis on tax reductions which means a greater take-home increase to the individual concerned. We reckon that the tax reduction envisaged in the £50 million proposed by us would be something like a 3 per cent increase in the take-home pay each week without adverse effects on the cost of living. Here we are talking about a Government influencing the course of events.

Here we are talking about a Government who recognise the scale of the problem and seek, with the agreement of all concerned, to get them to come with the Government into a joint plan which would see our resources increasingly devoted to employment creation in the years ahead. The answer on the other side is an everlasting vista of increased deficit budgeting based on foreign borrowing. It is a cruel illusion for the Opposition to suggest to young people out of work that it is possible, on so specious a programme as they put forward, that sustained productive employment can result. £50 million of their so-called job creation programme goes into the public service; £20 million into youth employment schemes.

I am deeply disappointed that the Opposition, who have had many years of experience in Government, unsuccessful experience when it came to providing employment, should try for low political gain, because it cannot be described as anything else, to suggest to young people that it is possible the problem of employment creation can be materially altered by the kind of programme, financed as it is, which they have put forward.

We have always had the problem that we have more of our young people in the 14-19 and 20-24 groups in our labour force than any other EEC country. I have already referred to the fact that the true level of our unemployment throughout the sixties was masked by the disappearance of these people on the emigration boats to Britain. Its full extent was masked near the end of the sixties with the extension of free education.

Mr. Wilson

How was it masked?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Opposition spokesman on education, if he is still their spokesman——

Mr. Wilson

Is the Minister going to sack me?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am not well up on the pageantry of shadow titles by which Deputies are referred to now.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies must allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

Mr. M. O'Leary

In the Economic and Social Review in April, a man called Tussing wrote an article——

Mr. Wilson

Who is he?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

What are his qualifications?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The review is available in the Library and the Deputy might look at it with profit.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has only a few minutes left.

Mr. M. O'Leary

He was not a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. Perhaps that would rule him out. He wrote a very reasonable article. He talked about the effects of the free education scheme. Between 1968 and 1972 there was a reduction of 20,000 in the number of young people seeking work. In addition to the emigration I mentioned, one could talk about the extension of free education at that time——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister without interruption. An Opposition Deputy will be speaking later.

Mr. Wilson

Who will finance it?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I wish Opposition Deputies would not indulge in that kind of baby talk: was free education wrong?

Mr. Wilson

Who will finance it?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am merely pointing out a fact of life—that there were people not coming into the labour market at that time because quite properly they were staying on in extended education. I am making the point that we have a higher proportion of our population in these age groups in our labour force than any other EEC country. These are not inventions; they are facts. I recommend that Opposition Deputies, who apparently are concerned about this problem, concern themselves occasionally with facts in this area. Government are there to be attacked by people in Opposition but their attack might even benefit as a consequence if they read literature in the area, and they have plenty of time on their hands to read what is available in the Library.

Mr. Wilson

Bluntly, what are the Government's plans?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has five minutes left and Deputies should allow him to speak without interruption.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The main need of the economy is that conditions should be brought about in which it can expand. Those conditions have not been with us for the past few years because of the problems in most of our export markets which were the result of the recession, but there are signs of improvement in that respect. During that period, when so many of our people were out of work, we did not neglect their training. A very important aspect of any economic industrial revival must be the assurance that the people who will be going into that industry are sufficiently well trained. A good deal of this new industry calls for a higher level of skill than was the case in the past. I hope Deputies will note the difference between the 1,350 people trained by the national training authority in 1973 when we took office and the number we hope to have trained this year, nearly 11,000.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Where did the finance come from?

Mr. O'Malley

From Paddy Hillery?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Is it in order to drag the President-elect into politics in this Chamber?

Mr. O'Malley

Some of the Minister's colleagues might have something to say about that. The Minister put his foot in it that time.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Is this in order?

Mr. O'Malley

The answer is no, it is not.

A Deputy

Ask the Minister for Defence.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Malley

Even a smart aleck can put his foot in it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When Deputies have finished talking they might allow the Minister his time. This is a limited time debate and other Deputies will expect to speak without interruption.

Mr. O'Malley

There will not be the same cause for interrupting.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I hope that the Deputies opposite would consider the proprieties of the President's office and refrain from dragging his name into this debate.

Mr. O'Malley

Is this the only side of the House who have to consider the proprieties of the President's office?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies who want to interrupt must leave the House.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Tell us about the 11,000 jobs being provided.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We have had an increase from 1,350 to 11,000 in the number of persons trained. The training of these people will help us deal with a very important condition for industrial success in the years ahead. This means that the objective originally set by us of training 1 per cent of the labour force in any one year will be reached by the end of this year, when we will have trained something like 11,000 people. We have also had the community youth project programme.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Tell us about that.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That programme was a direct initiative of the Irish Government during our Presidency of the Council of Social Affairs. That is a very useful scheme. We have had approximately 352 in-projects and in all about 400 have gone through that project so far. We must get away from the delusion that any schemes of this kind can be a substitute for the recovery in the economy that would give young people the possibility of obtaining employment.

Mr. Wilson

The Minister is right there.

Mr. M. O'Leary

These schemes are purely complementary. They do not achieve the main objective which is expanding our industry to the point that our young people will have a chance of a job, a chance they never had in the past under any Government. If we can get general acceptance for the proposition that the Government can devote resources to employment creation next year, can go ahead with our tax concession programme, avail of the £100 million package which the Government offered to the social partners, together with the improvements we have noted already in the economy—improvements which certain propagandists might not notice, but we must distinguish between propagandists and journalists —we can say that next year could mark the first year, which, since coming out of this recession our economy would begin to offer a chance to young and old to work in their own country. It is to that I would ask Deputies to direct their attention at this point of time and not to badly costed programmes. I would ask them to direct their attention to the facts of our situation recognising we had a problem in this area in the past and that there is a problem also at present.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Live horse and you will get grass.

Mr. Wilson

At one stage in the history of Europe there was a positive plague of optimism. It was rife all over the Continent of Europe. Luckily there was a satirist called Voltaire to satirise it. Dr. Pangloss in Voltaire's Candide had the kind of easy optimism which has been inflicted on this House yesterday by Justin, Minister for Industry and Commerce, by Richard, Minister for Finance, in the economic debate——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Ministers and Deputies are entitled to be addressed by their proper titles.

Mr. Wilson

——by Michael here tonight.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must refer to Members of the House by the title of Minister or Deputy.

Mr. Wilson

By the Minister for Finance last week, by the Minister for Labour tonight and by the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday. There is a positive plague of optimism around. Let me deal first of all with a few of the points one can extract from the speech of the Minister for Labour here tonight. He started by saying he was concerned about categories of workers other than youths because the Fianna Fáil motion mentioned youth employment. Later he contradicted himself by pointing out that we had a very large number of the work force under 25. In fact the figure is 50 per cent.

He arrogated to himself the idea that tax incentives could be used in the present economic situation to improve our economic position. He knows perfectly well that this particular proposition had already been mooted by Fianna Fáil. He referred to flash programmes Fianna Fáil were putting forward to deal with the situation. I shall come back to that later, but better flash programmes than no programmes at all. He talked about the people's agreement. The people's agreement and the trade unions' agreement will not be achieved by the kind of holy Mary approach to them that this Government have been making for some time now. He talked about the training schemes. That was effectively answered by Deputy Fitzgerald in an interruption. The schemes were initiated by the Government by courtesy of the Social Fund. The Minister knows that and the Minister cannot claim credit for that.

Mr. M. O'Leary

£ for £ every £ from Brussels had to be matched.

Mr. Wilson

That was a temporary thing and would not solve anything on a permanent basis. Just to give an example now of this optimism which is around, yesterday the Minister for Industry and Commerce said the percentage increases in unemployment did not show a situation that was frightful. He went on to juggle with percentages. He forgot to tell us that where you have a small number to start off with the percentage looks big. If you have five people unemployed one year and six the following year you have a 100 per cent increase in unemployment. He juggled around with figures and he started off with a higher percentage and so the figure would naturally look more. He talked about a certain sense of pride that the Irish economy had come through such a desperate time so well. This is more of the optimism. He talked about the dangers of undue pessimism and of labour unrest. Mark you, one of the points in the 14-point programme, if anybody remembers it, was that with Labour participation in Government industrial relations would be peaceful, calm and progressive. He talked about increased public expenditure having the inevitable consequence of increased taxation. In fact the Government are taking 55 per cent of GNP at the moment, 35 per cent financed from direct and indirect taxation and 20 per cent financed by borrowing. There is no place else one can go. He said also inflation would be due, if it were allowed to develop any worse than it is this year, and it is 18 per cent, to wage spirals.

Let me quote a few items from Iris Oifigiúil of 2nd November and we will see the reason for inflation. Against £130 million taken by the Government for excise duty in the corresponding period last year £388 million were taken this year. Instead of income tax of £273 million last year the figure is almost £1,000 million this year. The Minister for Industry and Commerce should have addressed himself to these figures. What about VAT? We were supposed to be careful about inflation. Last year £143 million and this year £205½ million in the same period. What price pressure on prices. What price inflation. We must be realistic. I find no realism in the case being made on the government benches. There is a rush of simulated optimism.

One of the real gems from the Minister for Industry and Commerce was the statement that the economy is coming out of the slump. I have here a piece of information which tells me that on 29th October, 1976, there were 108,772 people unemployed and that does not take into account the unfortunate people we are talking about here tonight and that we were talking about here last night. I cannot see how anybody can come in here and be optimistic about young people who are out of jobs at the moment. Let these optimistic Ministers, the pupils of Dr. Pangloss, come down to Cavan with me and tell Pauline in Arva, who has a good leaving certificate and a high speed in shorthand and typing, a full commercial course, and a factory closed at her back door, that we are not doing too badly and we must not be unduly pessimistic. Let the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Labour go down and talk to Seán in Belturbet who has the same kind of qualifications and has been looking for a job month after month. If these three Ministers would visit our youth conferences, which are attended by increasing numbers in the hope that Fianna Fáil will pull us out of the miserable situation they are in, not all the Fianna Fáil adults at those conferences could keep them from being lynched.

This city at present has thousands of young people who cannot get jobs. The situation is grave; it is dangerous but all we can get is a pseudo optimism from the Ministers of the Government most directly responsible for providing employment for young and old here. Doctor Pangloss, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Industry and Commerce may be as optimistic as they like, argumenti causa, but they will not fool young people who are waiting around looking for jobs.

One strange thing I found in the contribution of the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday, and echoes of it in the contribution of the Minister for Labour tonight, is that they seemed to have grasped the situation, they seemed to have the proper analysis of the situation. The proper analysis of the situation seems to be that which was made comparatively recently in issue No. 26 of the report of the National Economic and Social Council. It is that there is a grave onus on those who run the economy to increase output in manufacturing industry and in agriculture. It must follow as night the day that apart from the increase in employment in those two sectors there will be—a study has proved that this has been the case throughout the expanse of the OECD countries—an increase in employment in commerce. It will involve employment in wholesale and retail shops, in restaurants, hotels, in banking and in insurance. It will also mean an increase in employment in the public utilities, in the development of electricity, gas and the provision of water for the community. As well as that, though not as directly correlated, it will mean an improvement in employment in the construction industry.

At present we have a developing mining industry and we got a promise which has been shamefully evaded that a smelter would be established to give employment right along the line. If this analysis is right—in the debate on the economy I said it was and the Minister for Industry and Commerce said it was correct last night—I should like to know what is being done about it; what kind of economic leadership is being given; what is being done to put the effects of this analysis into action. Nothing is being done and, consequently, the list of unemployed grows larger and our young people sink deeper into despair. The corollary of this assessment, and there seems no possibility of challenging this assessment, is that we must look at the market sector of our economy, mainly private industry. Believe it or not, we have the word of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, once the eminence grise of the non-private sector, that a satisfactory growth of employment depends on private enterprise. That is the conclusion of the economists who put together the 26th report of the NESC but they went a little further to say that the unsheltered section, the exposed section of our market, is the important one to look at.

That section is unsheltered and exposed at home due to the pulling down of all the barriers; it is also exposed and unsheltered on the export market. Therefore, the wages and salaries paid in the exposed sector of the economy are the ones which should determine wages and salaries across the line, in the public and sheltered sector. If that is not the case, competition will kill. In the course of his speech the Minister for Labour said that it was from manufacturing industry we would have to get our increase in employment, and I agree with him but with all the expertise at the Government's disposal, and with the influence we are led to believe the Labour Party have in trade union circles, are we seeing any real leadership on the part of the Government to make a comprehensive list of the firms in that sector. Is anything being done to get the unions together to consider the situation and to settle as a headline for the rest of the economy the wages in that sector, wages which will allow the manufacturers to compete in tough markets at home and abroad? We have all learned, having listened to Question Time, that the toughness is as bad here as it is abroad.

However, we are getting no leadership; we are getting a shying away from that position. That is the crunch of the present situation involving employment for the young and for the economy in general. The trade unions have always deserved well of this country in times of crisis and there can be no mistake about it but that this is a time of crisis. This is a time when industries can die. Industries have died and other industries are in a shaky position but yet we have waffling, no leadership and no sense of direction. There is a grave responsibility on the Government if we have, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce last night euphemistically called, deindustrialisation. Deindustrialisation means the closing down of factories, the loss of jobs and the impoverishment of the country.

We have a young and educated labour force which is younger, percentage wise, than any in Europe. It is better educated than ever before. Even without the extension of formal education our workers have always been considered as highly adaptable and very quick to pick up the technique and expertise for their jobs. We are assured there is capital at home and abroad that can be brought into play to produce jobs for the people now leaving our schools and colleges. A strict correlation between an increase in manufacturing industry output, agricultural output and that in commerce, the public utilities and so on would solve our problems if we pick our objective and go for it and bring the trade unions with us, as I believe we can, if an honest effort is made in this regard.

I do not want to appear facile. It is not easy. A Government are not elected to do easy things, but if there is a serious problem, no unit in the country is better equipped than the Cabinet, no unit has the same facilities to discover the situation and to be able to deal with it.

There will not be a great increase in the numbers leaving employment in the agricultural sector. We can hope for a slow down in those numbers, but there is a vast field in agri-industry ready to be tilled. Our spokesmen on this side, and several others, time and again have pointed out that this is a rich mine of jobs that we should try to exploit. Therefore, it is not helpful for the Minister for Labour to come here and talk about Flash Harry schemes. I think he spoke about flash programmes coming from this side of the House. We have waited long enough for some kind of programme from the Government but they cannot get basic agreement between themselves. They cannot talk about working comprehensively or making a deal with the unions or with anybody else. Anybody who thinks they can should have his head examined.

In March, the Taoiseach went to the US to represent our country, a good thing. Before he went he fired a salvo indicating there would be a pay pause. I think St. Patrick's Day was on a Wednesday. On the Friday the Minister for Labour put in his little spake. He said there would be no pay pause. How can one expect a united approach towards the trade unions or anybody else who has an important say in industrial development from an outfit like that?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy should look up the record. His memory is not so good.

Mr. Wilson

My memory is perfect. Perhaps it was not on a Friday.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I agree the people opposite have a particular malady when it comes to remembering the past.

Mr. Wilson

St. Patrick's Day was on a Wednesday and the Minister's speech appeared on Friday the 19th I am glad to have been corrected on that. There was a reference to emigration at the various youth conferences we are holding and which seem to be holding out the only hope for jobs for young people. I always exhort young people to stand their ground.

Mr. M. O'Leary

They have more sense than to listen to the Deputy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must allow Deputy Wilson to continue.

Mr. Wilson

I am not a bit worried. Last night I was challenged by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and I got on to the Central Statistics Office to see what they had to say about emigration in the latter years of Fianna Fáil administration. The CSO have plenty of time on their hands now and they are anxious to get work to do. Of course what they should be doing is processing the census which the Government refused to hold and which would have given a few jobs to young people.

However, in the year up to April, 1972, emigration was nil. In the year up to April, 1973, the net immigration, not emigration, was 2,000. I was challenged when I made that statement last night and I want to put it on record now that I was speaking the truth, that I was giving facts. We have talk about all sorts of programmes. I told the House earlier that the Government were taking roughly £338 million in excise this year as against £130 million last year; £370 million in income tax as against £270 million; £205 million in VAT as against £143 million. All we are asking is that £20 million of that vast sum would be dedicated to providing jobs for young people. A sum of £20 million would not drive the ship astray. I do not think it would take £20 million to provide the smelter we have been talking about and have been promised.

There are other job possibilities around the country. An article in the current issue of Management shows the way to provide new jobs. We could double the employment premiums for young people and this would encourage employers to recruit them in the factories which still remain open. The argument does not hold that this would increase Government expenditure. It could not do much if it were used in productive employment, and that is what we have been advocating all the time. The French give bonuses to people who employ young people straight from school. A programme of earlier retirement would help. There could be a transition year before young people go to universities. Most of the European countries have schemes of public works—I am not talking about the public works that left such a bad memory from the Famine days.

Surely there is some imagination left in someone connected with the Government. Young people could be used on archaeological sites, on ecological work and environmental work. Every job provided is an improvement on the present situation. Vocational education could be stepped up and we have the EEC Social Fund behind that. We do not want our young people's certificates, diplomas and degrees to be devalued by lack of job opportunities when they come out of schools and colleges. A wait and see policy is dangerous as far as they are concerned. There were several European schemes that I wanted to ask the Minister about to know if he has anything to report from them. I can write to him and find out. A meeting of the Council of Ministers for Education was held on 9th February, 1976, and there was a resolution about school to work problems which I would like to know about. Last week I mentioned that Marconi could take double the number of radio officers that we are training in this country at the moment. Why can we not have a special programme to train them? We want training for jobs that are there to be filled and I have pointed out the way to have those jobs provided. No matter where you look on the Continent of Europe something is being done, but nothing is being done here. There is nothing but disillusion, lack of confidence and hopelessness among our young people, and the Government have the responsibility. Young people at the moment feel like a character in Pasternak's Zhivago—a name on a list that was lost.

Mr. McDonald

Listening to the previous speaker one could hardly imagine why all the things complained of and all the infrastructures that are now missing were not planned for during the lengthy periods of Fianna Fáil administration. I do not accept that the picture is as bad as it has been painted during this debate more especially when Deputy Wilson speaks about the situation in Europe and compares it with the projections that are going on there. I feel that the Government have introduced many initiatives and I would like to compliment them on them and encourage them to expand them. AnCO has made great progress in the training and retraining of young people. This has been a reasonably successful scheme and the money made available from the Social Fund has played an important role and will continue to do so.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must now call on the concluding speaker.

Mr. O'Malley

In the brief time at my disposal I will refer to the lecture given last night by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It was very similar to the lecture given last year by the same Minister. In the course of it the Minister said that he was sometimes accused of distorting statistics for his own benefit but that no one could ever prove that he distorted them. I will go briefly through the two sets of statistics the Minister gave us last night. The Minister told us that we were very well off indeed in this country so far as unemployment was concerned because in the two years, between the first quarter of 1974 and the first quarter of 1976, Belgian unemployment increased by 126 per cent, Danish unemployment increased by 286 per cent, French by 112 per cent, German by 115 per cent, United Kingdom by 104 per cent, Ireland by 63 per cent and Italy by 14 per cent. The Minister left out the only other member in the European Economic Community, which is Luxembourg, where the rate of unemployment increased by 1,000 per cent. That is not to say that Luxembourg is now devastated or poverty ridden. The number of people unemployed in Luxembourg in 1974 was 100 and in 1976 it had increased to 1,000, that is 1,000 per cent, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us that he does not distort statistics and that because Ireland is lower than increases such as that from an abnormally low base, we are well off.

How could anybody accept again in the future statistics that are so blandly quoted by the Minister? The other statistic the Minister referred to was our position in the chart of rate of growth of output in the OECD. The Minister quoted three years—we were third in 1973, fourth in the table in 1974 and fifth in 1975, out of the 20 odd OECD nations. The Minister neglected to tell us, when he alleged that our rate of growth was abnormally high, that we were starting from what was propably the lowest base of all and therefore any kind of an increase when expressed in percentage terms as compared with the percentage of other countries which had a much higher output per capita would appear abnormally high. The Minister did not tell us how we stand in these tables by direct comparison with other countries and not by percentage growth on an abnormally low base. The Minister for Industry and Commerce in his speech last night reported in today's Irish Times, and which concurs with my recollection of it, says:

What was needed was not for the Government to take a greater percentage of the GNP for the setting up of jobs, but the creation of an environment where less taxation was taken from private and corporate sectors so that it would be advantageous to invest with the consequent creation of jobs.

That is a gem which perhaps social, economic and political historians in this country might take note of in years to come to show the development of the man. I can remember Deputies Lynch, Colley, Wilson, Haughey, Faulkner, Wyse, Gibbons and myself, and almost everyone who spoke on economic matters from this side of the House, saying that since 1973, and we were told that socialist planning would solve all our problems. When reading that statement one realises how far that man has come from the days when he graduated from 37 Pembroke Lane. We heard lectures on the economy from the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the economy debate last week. We were told that the economy had turned the corner, that we were now on the up and up, things were looking really good and there were tremendous prospects ahead for us. Then the Minister for Finance left this House, and went to a dinner in this city on last Saturday night and told the assembled accountants, who were trying to digest their dinner, that the country was now in such an incredibly bad state financially that serious consideration would have to be given to the abolition of children's allowances, free school transport, disability benefit and relief by agricultural grants—the grants that provide relief from rates for small farmers under £20 valuation. Here in this House two days earlier he told us we had turned the corner, that everything ahead of us was rosy, and that this country was just coming into prosperity, the likes of which it had never seen before.

What sort of men are these that we are supposed to listen to? What sort of men are these that the country is supposed to listen to? Is it any wonder that no longer does anybody pay any credence to their utterances? After that happening last week, why should we pay any credence to what was said tonight, for example, by the Minister for Labour? Can he blame us if we do not, or if nobody in the country does? If there were any young people listening to this debate over the past two nights, could they not have justification for feeling disillusionment at the kind of lectures and statistics we were being given, which told us we are 1¾ per cent better off than Portugal, or 1½ per cent better off than Iceland, or some other equally irrelevant country for the purposes of our problems here today? Could they be anything but grossly disillusioned with what they heard coming from those Government benches?

I should like to explain in simple human terms what faces young people who are looking for employment here today. It is not OECD reports they read in trying to gain consolation for themselves as they sit around from morning until night. It is these sorts of facts. These figures, for example, were given to me only last week by a senior official in the Bank of Ireland who is connected with the recruitment of young people to the service of that bank. They had 127 vacancies in that bank this year, they got 19,000 applications from young people between the ages of 17 and 20 years for these 127 jobs. In other words, one in 150 of those applicants will actually get a job with the bank. The only useful by-product was that I think it was necessary for them to take on a few temporary staff in order to write letters to the 19,000 people who applied for those jobs. I frequently have coming in to see me young people who have left school with excellent leaving certificates. They give me a list—and I am quite sure the same goes for every Deputy in every part of this House— with the names and addresses of 25 firms to which they have applied. In most cases they did not even get a response because the unfortunate firms are so inundated with applications that they cannot keep up with replies. These are the kinds of prospects facing young people today.

The regional hospital in Limerick took on in the past few weeks 48 young ladies with the leaving certificate. How many applications had they? Just under 2,000, and I am told the figure for the regional hospital in Galway is considerably larger. I have no doubt that the figures for hospitals like St. Finbarr's in Cork, St. Vincent's, the Mater, St. James's, and other hospitals, proportionately are much the same as those in Limerick.

These are the realities facing young people today and the Government, in a flippant and lethargic way, through their two spokesmen say: "The OECD say we are better off than some other countries and we should take consolation from these statistics." What care is there for those people? What care is there for the fact that, due to idleness which they do not wish for, unfortunately a larger and larger proportion of our young people are going into directions they should not go into, and crimes such as vandalism are increasing daily, and we have an inadequate Garda force in numbers to deal with them.

A very pertinent example of the attitude of this Government to young people and to their efforts to get employment was demonstrated in this House yesterday afternoon in a reply by the Minister for Justice to a question put down by Deputy Collins. Deputy Collins inquired when it was proposed to recruit the 500 gardaí the Government had announced on 21st June last were about to be recruited in order to increase the strength of the Garda. The Minister for Justice replied that recruitment would take place sometime in the future but examinations would have to be set and the whole entry procedure would have to be arranged so that the recruitment could be put in process.

I wonder does the House realise— the Minister for Justice must realise —that, over the past two years, there have been 2,500 young men on the waiting list for entry to the Garda. These are young men who have passed the necessary examination, or have the leaving certificate and therefore were exempt from it, who have been measured, who have been found to qualify physically for entry, who have been interviewed locally by the sergeant or the superintendent and found to be of good character, and put on a list to await medical examination. There are 2,500 young men on that list and many of them have been on it for two years now. They were told in this House yesterday by the Minister for Justice: "The whole thing is scrapped. We will start again from scratch. We will now start recruiting again and we may be able to take in some of them next year."

What is the position of those unfortunate young men? They have been coming to me in dozens, I suppose because I am a former Minister for Justice and they feel I could have some say in trying to get them called. They are frustrated and bored almost to extinction by this enforced wait. What will their feelings be now when they read that the waiting list they were on is scrapped and that, in order to save money, a new examination is to be established for people who want to join the Garda and the leaving certificate will no longer be regarded as being worth while and even those who have good leaving certificates with several honours will have to undertake an examination perhaps two or three years after they left school?

It is indicative of the fact that, when this Government want to save money, they are prepared to save it in the most vital field of all, the protection of our own citizens. They are prepared to do that at the expense of young people and force them into a situation where frustration will inevitably lead to crime and all sorts of other anti-social behaviour as a result of the situation in which they find themselves. It has been made clear to us in this debate that the degree of care which comes from those benches in regard to the situation of our young people today is very small. How any Deputy on any side of this House who looks honestly at the situation into which our young people are forced by the Government could go into the division lobbies to support the Government and say that Dáil Éireann agrees with the Government's attitude to employment opportunities for our young people today and refuses to deplore it, I do not know. Any such Deputy—and well each of them knows it—is, I am afraid, nothing but a hypocrite.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 69.

Tá

• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Syivester.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Sean.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Daly, Brendan.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Flanagan, Seán.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Leonard, James.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Celia.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciaran.
• Nolan, Thomas.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Power, Patrick.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Esmonde, John G.
• Finn, Martin.
• Fitzgerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Halligan, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Patrick.
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Dick.
• Burke, Liam.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McDonald, Charles B.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Seamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, John J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Toal, Brendan.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Browne; Níl, Deputies Kelly and Pattison.

Question declared lost.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 11th November, 1976.