Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Nov 1981

Vol. 331 No. 2

Youth Employment Agency Bill, 1981: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. S. Brennan

Before the adjournment I made the point that the country is sitting on an economic time bomb. I said that the Tánaiste during the week-end pointed to an unemployment figure of 145,000 compared with today's figure of 129,000, meaning that the Tánaiste was suggesting an increase in unemployment of 16,000 between now and Christmas. I pointed to the statement by him that he did not believe we could create any more jobs, that the answer to our unemployment problem was in early retirement and work sharing.

I should like to continue by referring to another aspect of the Tánaiste's statement during a weekend interview. He singled out our young people and used the rather depressing words that we should think of our young people being out of work on a semi-permanent basis. I said before lunch that I did not intend to introduce party political rancour into the debate, but I find it depressing, uninspiring leadership from the Tánaiste who should be trying to lead our young people into worthwhile quality jobs. Is it any wonder that in recent weeks we have had renewed talk about emigration, of our young people not being able to find the jobs they want at home and having to go abroad? They are entitled to those jobs at home and Irish Governments have a responsibility to provide those jobs for them.

If the Tánaiste throws his hands in the air and says that our young people will have to become used to being unemployed on a semi-permanent basis, what are our young people to do but the same thing, to throw their hands in the air and say: "Michael O'Leary or the Government do not have the answer to our problem." That leads to increased frustration, to an increase in crime and other social problems, all the side effects of unemployment referred to in the House this morning. This is not good enough. Perhaps it is even dangerous.

I do not share the Tánaiste's pessimistic view. Given the right kind of leadership and commitment we can get back to growth levels of 3 per cent or 4 per cent. Throughout 1980-81 we managed to have slight positive growth. There is no reason why with the right kind of leadership we cannot get back to 3 to 4 per cent growth and that would provide needed jobs.

I do not share his pessimism either because a lot of the jobs which are being lost are in the traditional older industries and they are beginning to work their way through the system with the result that we are increasingly dependent on our newer and more successful industries — pharmaceutical, electronics, health care, the newer and brighter types of industries which we have been attracting and establishing for some years past. The losses in the older industries must now be getting to the stage where they are levelling out. There is still some scope in this country, despite the pessimism of our Tánaiste, to attract investment, particularly from abroad. This should be and can be done in a systematic, organised way. Even a small increase, a tiny increase, in investment in this country would have an enormous effect on the number of people employed in manufacturing jobs. For example, there are more people employed in Birmingham in manufacturing industry than there are in all of Ireland. That gives an idea of how small an increase in investment we need to have an immediate effect on the number of jobs created.

I reject the pessimistic, depressing, uninspiring approach of the Government to this whole question of providing jobs for our young people. It certainly is not designed to give them the hope, the encouragement, the determination, if the Government cannot provide them with jobs, at least to get on their own feet and go out and look for jobs and provide jobs for themselves by their own ingenuity. A lot of damage has been done in this particular case.

I want to deal with the Bill very briefly. I have a number of criticisms of the Bill. I do not question its sincerity. I want to say that to the Minister. I do not question an honest attempt to put young people to work. What I do question is its effectiveness and to a certain extent I have to say I feel it is a little bit of a fraud because, first of all, it is dishonest to suggest in this Bill that somehow there are new funds being made available, there is a magic £90 million being switched on which we did not have before which is now coming on-stream to allow us to provide jobs for our people. It is dishonest to say that. We should call it what it is. It is a tax, a straight-forward tax on people and obviously from this Bill it is a tax on people's income. So, let us call it what it is: it is an income tax to fund employment.

Considering that, we should look at some of the figures involved. I am open to correction on this when the Minister is replying, but in the Minister's speech he mentioned a figure of £40 million from his Department from the end of April to December next year and said that this would be the amount which would be allocated for this particular purpose. If you go through the various figures allocated at present under the same headings you come up with a figure somewhere between £25 million and £30 million. That is my figure. I am sure there will be other figures throughout the day. Overall, the impression to me is quite clear that what this fund is trying to do is to fund the existing operations, to fund the existing schemes. There would therefore seem to me to be no new funds brought to bear on the problem of youth unemployment. If there is, then it is certainly very marginal and only what could be expected by way of a normal increase under those various headings next year. I suggest that it is really an income tax to swell the Exchequer and perhaps we should be honest enough to call it that and to see it in that way.

I welcome this attempt to coordinate and to pull together the various agencies and the various efforts to provide youth employment but I am not happy with the implication, the insinuation, that somehow there are bright new funds suddenly being made available to provide jobs for young people. It seems to me to be more of a work-sharing exercise rather than creative. It is taking money from the public at large basically to try to share out what work we have available, which reflects the attitude of the Tánaiste in that particular interview also, that there is no new work; let us just be happy and content to share the work we have and to take it from there. I find that a very depressing attitude.

I would worry lest this £90 million should really become a super dole. I would worry lest it should become just another means of paying for social workers generally. What I would like to know is: are jobs going to be created in the social area, like the Tánaiste suggests, and how will that affect the embargo on the public service, if that is the case, or are real lasting productive jobs going to be created by this fund? Is it just another transfer from people within the system or is it a real attempt to provide lasting, productive work the effect of which will go on long after the money is spent? I would suggest that if it is just more funds being added to the great growth of the State machine, going to add to the size of our public service, if it is money heading in that area, I would prefer that it were not spent.

If it is to be effective the money spent under this heading will have to provide continuity in employment. I honestly cannot see any new money in the scheme, any new wealth being created as a result of the expenditure. It would appear to me to be just another sort of finger in the dike effort in terms of holding back the unemployment figures. It will have a short-term effect but no lasting real permanent jobs the effect of which will go on long after the money is spent. That has to be the real test of any expenditure of this sort. Otherwise, it is another super dole, a State hand-out and the great State system is already creaking and I do not believe it can take much more.

Looking at the figure of £90 million, the IDA suggest that it costs about £10,000 to provide an IDA job. If we do our sums on that we should be looking forward to 9,000 jobs. Otherwise that money could be given straight to the IDA and they could provide 9,000 jobs with that — 9,000 per annum. If that is the case, how can we reconcile that with the Tánaiste's view that there are not any new jobs, that we have to share what jobs we have and not be talking about new jobs or working towards new jobs? If we are going to spend £90 million, we should be getting 9,000 new jobs a year. I would suggest to the Government that they are not going to do that, that what will happen is that this money will be frittered away on revenue items and at the end of the periods in question we will have spent some more money but will not have created the solid productive permanent jobs we hope to create.

Another point worth mentioning is that I believe from Deputy Fitzgerald's breakdown this morning that some £10 million of that is coming directly out of people employed in Irish industry. Again, these figures are very much open to correction because they are very preliminary. If you are taking a figure like that out of Irish industry — £10 million or £20 million, or whatever the figure may be — to give it to an agency to provide jobs which may end up being service jobs, are you not in effect making it more likely that the industry that gives you the money will be in greater financial difficulty and therefore will not themselves be in a position to expand their own employment? If we are just taking money from Irish industry to give it to some new people to create some new jobs, were we not better in the first place to leave it to those industries and encourage them to provide the jobs? That is what we seem to be doing in this scheme. We have to look at it a bit more carefully.

Speaking of Irish industry, I mentioned in my opening remarks that I do not believe there are any solid figures on it but I believe that up to half the private companies in this country are in a loss-making situation. I saw a corresponding figure some time ago, published by the Confederation of British Industries, which suggested that a somewhat similar number of British industries were losing money. Considering that, perhaps it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Government to take a long, close look at some sort of rescue operation for small Irish industries.

Recently our farmers put together a very attractive package of interest rates. They came up with a figure of the order of 10 per cent. I do not begrudge it to them but many small businesses employing ten, 20, 40 or 50 people who are at present crippled by interest rates would dearly love the State to help them with a 10 per cent interest rate also. However, there are always difficulties in this area and there is no panacea for these ills. Irish industry cannot take much more by way of levies or taxation because their losses have not yet come to the surface. This will happen by way of redundancies and reduced employment opportunities, so we must be careful about putting extra burdens on business companies. We can do a lot more by way of joint ventures with foreign companies. I feel that Irish firms do not have the clout they should have in international markets, because by the time they get on to the world stage other firms in other parts of the world have moved up to a higher level of importance.

One of the ways to create jobs is to keep moving the capital budget and the amount of money we spend on our infrastructure. It is disappointing to see suggestions coming forward at the moment that our capital programme should be cut. If the capital programme is cut, it is cutting directly into jobs on the factory floor. We can ill afford to cut back on investment when we so badly need jobs. It is foolish to be talking on the one hand about providing £90 million to create jobs for young people when some other arm of Government will cut £90 million or perhaps more off the public capital programme or our productive spending. It is a contradiction to be taking jobs away and trying to recreate them by some form of agency whose future has not been debated as it should be.

We should examine where we are going. We need to examine our needs and resources. We will have to stop the double thinking that we can let things drift. We must put together an economic philosophy and an economic programme. We must have a fundamental re-assessment of the economy. Do we place our trust in the great State machine, as perhaps Deputy Michael Higgins would like, or do we place our trust in individuals, as the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy Kelly, suggests? I see the role of the State as controlling the worst excesses of private industry, speculation and private enterprise. In the past these excesses have contributed to our level of poverty but I do not see the State as continuing to increase its involvement in running our enterprises. I prefer to see the State controlling the people who run our enterprises. We have to state unambiguously, as a philosophy, that there is a poverty line below which nobody should be allowed to fall, for whatever reason. There is a duty on us to provide housing, education and all the basic human needs which people require. We must be a humanitarian State with a keen sense of social justice.

Enterprise is at an all-time low. Our productive base urgently needs to be expanded. If we do not do that through enterprise, the great State machine will have greater weights to carry on its shoulders and will finally creak to a halt. There are approximately one million people in education, one-third of our population. Sister Stanislaus wrote a very fine book recently in which she said there were one million people, 700,000 on permanent social welfare benefits, the balance making up the total figure in receipt of social welfare. The public sector is getting larger by the day, despite efforts of Governments to try to control it.

Last week we agreed to pay £27 million to people in receipt of social welfare benefits. We had to borrow the money to do that. I do not begrudge it to them but we must be honest and try to ensure that there is a poverty line below which nobody falls. If we do not teach our young people to create enterprise, our economic growth will fall off and we will be looking to the various Departments of State to swell the coffers by taking on more and more people, but this will not provide us with the surpluses we need to maintain our social welfare system.

This genuinely worries me. Recently I spoke to about 200 commerce students in a university. At the end of my speech I asked them how many expected to employ people or how many would like to be lawyers and so on? About 5 per cent saw themselves as being directly in the employment of other people. They were the economics graduates of our universities. If young people in the future cannot create work for their fellow citizens it will again fall on the State to provide employment. I do not believe the State is in a position to continue to do that on the scale which is needed. We should somehow teach our young people the lesson of enterprise. If necessary we should ask the IDA to launch a business school and to highlight the attractiveness of a career in marketing and selling our products abroad. Whatever we do the key must be in this area, expanding our productive base and asking our young people to put their work into that area.

I would ask the Government to ensure that as much of this £90 million as possible will find its way to the type of philosophy I have been putting forward here today. If there are other philosophies which work, I would like to hear them but I have not heard them so far in this debate.

In this basic re-assessment of our economy we have to be honest enough to examine some institutions and schemes which we have always taken for granted and assumed served the needs of the people. In the sixties we fostered the semi-State companies and spoke about the tremendous contributions they made to our economy. I believe they have made substantial contributions but are they suitable for the eighties and nineties? Do we need enterprises which would involve the State with the private sector? Do we need to take our trade unions off the sidelines, in their role as watchdogs? Do we need to bring them into a more participative role, with the banks and institutions, in the running of Irish enterprises? Can we encourage the trade unions to share the risks and rewards of industry? Can we devise a taxation system which will care for the people in our society without at the same time putting a damper on dampening enterprise?

The political parties have the responsibility of making policy and we have to get the people to adopt a philosophy based on widening the productive base, looking after the disadvantaged and encouraging our young people to participate in the widening of this productive base quickly. The first thing we must do is to get the people to adopt a basic economic Irish philosophy of that nature.

From that policy I would see coming forward, sooner I hope rather than later, an economic and social plan. Some time ago we had a Government investment plan before this House in which we hoped to spend £1,700 million in the productive sector. I do not know what this Government's view of that plan is, or whether they intend to resurrect all or part of it, but one thing I am sure of is that this country desperately needs an investment plan within the confines of an economic philosophy with which we can all agree. We waste a lot of time and energy fighting the various conflicts in society. What we need in the eighties is a clear objective on which we can all agree. Then we can get down to work.

In the sixties we had a clear objective. We wanted industrialisation, we needed housing and we were dashing for growth. We knew exactly what we had to do, how to do it, and we did it. The amount of conflict in society was not very great. In the eighties we have high inflation, slow growth and various conflicts of interest from pressure groups which all blur the economic and social objectives. The first thing we have to do is to sort out the scandal of the huge numbers of our young people who are unemployed. They are not given any hope for the future by this Government. In a reply to a Parliamentary Question the other day the Minister said an economic plan would be available for discussion some time in the spring. I look forward to that. At that time perhaps we will be able to discuss the objectives of this country and how, together, we will solve some of these difficulties.

I do not mind a political debate, attacking the Government or blaming politicians for not doing this or that. That is all a useful and necessary part of politics but at the end of the day if, as politicians, we do not sort out the direction of our economy, the people will be quite right in saying "a plague on all your houses. You have not lived up to your responsibilities to provide work for the young people". As politicians that is our role in the immediate future. I am looking for an investment plan which will tell us in clear terms how we can employ our young people and where the money will come from.

I welcome this half-hearted effort to do this because it is better than nothing, but it is not tackling the root of the problem in a serious and determined way. I will be looking for an investment plan from this Government at an early date.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Go raibh maith agat, agus comhghairdeas ar ocáid do chéad oráid sa Teach seo.

Miss Myra Barry

I would like to congratulate Deputy Brennan for his constructive speech. This morning our Youth Employment Agency was dismissed as an exercise in public relations. Such cynicism does not give our young people much hope for the future. I am glad Deputy Brennan thinks we are sincere in our efforts to find a solution to our unemployment problem. I am happy to witness the establishment of the Youth Employment Agency. This is a concrete step forward and there is money to provide young people with some hope for their future.

In reply to a Parliamentary Question last week the Taoiseach told me there were 30,000 registered young people without jobs. He admits that all young people do not register as unemployed. I believe the true figure to be in the region of 45,000. There are many reasons why young people do not register for unemployment benefit, and one is the means test. Young people do not think it worth their while to sign up for £2 or £3 a week. This is a problem our young people face.

As I said, 45,000 young people are unemployed and the Coalition have a responsibility to do something about this situation quickly. That is why we hope this Bill will pass through the Dáil without any undue delay. We must prepare our young people for the future. Deputy Brennan spoke about the needs of the young people and said they should be enterprising. It is not easy for people who spend every day in bed to be enterprising. If we want to be enterprising we must provide them with meaningful activity. We believe the solution is the Youth Employment Agency.

If there had been adequate planning in the past there would be no need for such an agency because all our young people could be employed, but because there was very inadequate planning in the past we have a crisis situation so far as our young unemployed are concerned. We must take corrective steps because, if we do not the social implications will be worse in the long term. A lot of those young unemployed have become very cynical, bitter and bold because after they fill up many application forms they do not get a job. A new phenomenon is that a lot of the jobs that are advertised are not available. This should not be encouraged. It is the duty of any employer who advertises a post to give every person who applies a fair crack of the whip. All applicants should be interviewed and the successful ones picked on merit. That does not seem to be the case any longer.

Young people have become very frustrated with society and it is true to say that politicians have failed them. We were all aware of the expanding population and that we had the fastest growing population in Western Europe. We were also aware that half of our population was under 25 but we failed to cater for them. I do not think politicians can disagree with the young people who claim that they have failed them. We last spoke about youth unemployment here in February when a Labour Party motion was discussed. That motion stated:

That Dáil Éireann, seriously concerned about the increasing number of young persons who will be seeking work in mid-1981, calls on the Government to review urgently and introduce adequate job creation schemes for youth employment.

That motion was backed by the Fine Gael Party but the Fianna Fáil Government had a different view of the situation and decided to table the following amendment:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and insert "approves of the policies of the Government for stimulating the creation of employment for young persons and is confident that the Government will keep the operation of these policies under constructive review".

We all know what is meant when a Government state that they will keep something under continuous review. They mean that they will not do anything. When we put it to the then Minister for Labour, Deputy Nolan, that more money should be made available for youth employment schemes and that a youth employment agency should be established he dismissed the problem of youth unemployment as part of the overall unemployment problem. Youth unemployment is so rampant, large scale and unique that it requires a unique solution and that solution lies in the proposed youth employment agency. The only other reason that Deputy Nolan could give for ignoring the problem of youth unemployment was that there was a baby boom in the country. We are all aware of that but to sit back and not to do anything about youth unemployment was not helpful for the 50,000 people under 25 who had completed 14 years in a narrowly based educational system. When they left school they found that jobs were not available. In our educational system there is a lack of vocational training and experience as to what the world of work entails. The proposed youth employment agency will give young people a chance to come to terms with the world of work and vocational training. As a result of our academically based system which is at present under review a lot of young people leave the system not knowing what to do or where to go.

Only 17 per cent of those leaving school will enter higher education institutions. That represents a considerable investment in our future but we have a responsibility to cater for the other 83 per cent who do not go to third level institutions. This year, as last year, a lot of young people have come to me seeking the traditional type of employment. Invariably, young people leave school with the idea of being a nurse, a guard, a teacher or a bank clerk. Recently one bank had 6,000 applications for 60 posts. There were more than 6,000 applications for 300 posts in the Garda Síochána and in the case of nursing one gets about 100 people looking for about ten posts. There are no future prospects there and it is not surprising that our young people become very disillusioned. Some of the obstacles to youth employment lie in the lack of proper career guidance. There has not been great emphasis on career guidance or on how the needs of pupils can match the needs of the working world. It is pleasing to note that more emphasis is being placed on career guidance and counselling but it is still insufficient in this rapidly changing world.

We are not under any illusions about the youth unemployment problem. It exists throughout Europe and various solutions have been put forward such as early retirement or a four-day week. Those suggestions must be looked at because with the micro-chip on the horizon we will have to divide the work available amongst all people. I am proud to be able to say that. I do not think any section of the community should have a monopoly as far as work is concerned. The right to work is a basic need and we should be in a position to provide such employment for our people.

Prior to the election the National Youth Council of Ireland circularised all parties expressing concern about the growing problem of youth unemployment and urging all parties to do something about it. The council, which is the umbrella organisation for all youth bodies, came up with their solutions. On unemployment they suggested:

All current indications are that within the total unemployment crisis, youth unemployment is the greatest single section requiring remedy. It is on this basis that while recognising that the solution to youth unemployment ultimately rests within an overall economic approach, special measures are required to remedy its worst effects on vulnerable school leavers and the young population in general.

We knew they were talking about a severe crisis among our young people and that is why we committed ourselves to setting up a youth employment agency. The key demand of the council was:

The immediate establishment of a youth employment agency with an initial operating budget of £30 million, representative of the youth organisations, the employers, trade union movement and the Government....

We have more than responded to the needs of young people. They asked for £30 million which they regarded as considerable.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy give a precise description of the document she is quoting from.

Miss Myra Barry

Priorities for Youth (No. 2); Investment for Youth. We doubled the amount they sought in making finance available to combat the problem of youth unemployment. I am glad to note that prior to this they welcomed this Bill as being necessary and of vital importance to their future. The Youth Employment Agency will have the job of co-ordinating all the youth schemes at present in existence and of furthering them.

We all know that the National Manpower Service do a good job in their own right as do AnCO. Equally we all know that the youth schemes at present run by the Departments of the Environment and Education are very effective but I have always felt that lack of co-ordination led to a waste of talent, money and of good resources. Therefore one of the aims of the Youth Employment Agency will be the co-ordination of all the youth employment schemes, a very important facet of this Bill. Of course the Youth Employment Agency will be funded by a one per cent levy on those who can afford to pay it. The one per cent levy will not be taken from the weaker sections of the community, such as those on social welfare benefits. I can honestly say that I have heard no complaints so far about a one per cent levy being deducted from anybody's wages. This demonstrates the generous heart of the Irish nation, a heart that is very much alive. People are prepared to give one per cent of their income to people who have no jobs and who cannot give anything because they have nothing to give. Were we to say that we would set up a Youth Employment Agency without saying how we would pay for it people in general would be right to accuse us of insincerity. But we are sincere and we are honestly telling people how we intend to provide the 20,000 jobs so badly needed for young people of a vulnerable age. Many of them find themselves in a catch 22 situation — they cannot get a job because they cannot gain experience and cannot gain experience because they cannot get a job. We hope to remedy that situation.

The board of the Youth Employment Agency will be comprised of two representatives of the ITGWU, two representatives of employers, two representatives of youth interests, one each from the Department of the Environment and the Department of Education and three to be appointed by the Minister. Therefore this board will consist of a variety of people who should represent young people's interests to the full and I have no doubt but that they will do so.

This is an excellent Bill and one which will be much welcomed by young people. There is just one suggestion I would make to the Minister, which is this, that there are no proper statistics available of our young unemployed. Therefore it is difficult to ascertain the real extent of the problem. I would hope that the Youth Employment Agency would devise a method by which they could ascertain exactly how many young people are unemployed and, if there are severely disadvantaged areas around the country in which a particular problem is being experienced, that they would highlight these facts. Otherwise these facts cannot be ascertained except through parliamentary question. I believe this type of information should be available to the public.

To dismiss this Bill as not constituting a genuine commitment to our young unemployed people is to be very cynical. I am sure that the 20,000 young people who will benefit from the provisions of the Bill and from the fund to be established next year will have some hope with this genuine commitment and, thus, some hope for their future.

Professor O'Donoghue

I want to begin by saying that I come neither to bury the Bill nor to praise it. At this stage what we must do is keep a somewhat open mind on the question as to what exactly this agency will do and how effective it will be. I shall revert to those points in a few minutes. By way of beginning, the first obvious question to be posed is: is there a need to do something on the employment front via State action and then go on to ask: is this agency the most effective way of doing it? As for that first question — is there a need to do something — I am sure there is fairly widespread agreement in this House that there is indeed a need for action on the employment front but I wonder whether there is the same measure of agreement as to the form that action should take. We, on this side of the House, have pursued employment creation as a major objective of policy over a number of years. There has not been the same unanimity on the other side as to the types of policies which should be followed. Perhaps that explains the lack of any clear direction as to what exactly this new agency will do.

If we go back to the various proposals put before the electorate in June last we find that the Fine Gael Party — in the section of their proposals dealing with employment — listed 11 steps they proposed to take, the bulk of which were in the form of reductions of taxation on various industries and so on. They rounded off those sets of proposals by saying that the 11 aforementioned proposals would create productive employment instead of temporary make-work jobs because they were targeted towards sectors which could sustain development. However, it was the Labour Party who brought forward proposals that spoke specifically of dealing with the employment problem especially in the youth area. It was they who spoke about the danger of total unemployment approaching 200,000 in the relatively short period unless some emergency measures were adopted. And it was the Labour Party who went on to put forward what they described as a guarantee to young people, a guarantee that young people without employment for a period of more than three months would be provided access to a training programme, a work experience programme or some other form of State-initiated employment for a period of up to three years.

I would suggest therefore that there was quite a sharp difference in the approach of the two parties who now occupy the Government benches. Indeed we have heard further echoes of the Fine Gael approach in statements made by members of the Government. For instance, we can recall within the last couple of weeks the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy Kelly, being quite critical of further employment within the public service. I think he used phrases like — people pushing pieces of paper backwards and forward to one another and so on. Therefore, quite clearly we can see that there would be quite a reluctance on the part of at least some senior people in Fine Gael to engage in what they themselves described in their manifesto as make-work jobs.

On the other hand it is the Labour Party who see some substantial role for direct State employment creation programmes. It is interesting that in the Minister's introductory remarks this morning he talked about the size of the overall employment programme. If I recall correctly, he said that the major initiative the Government would take to tackle this so-called programme is the setting up of a National Development Corporation, a vehicle for greater State involvement in the field of employment creation.

Therefore those divergent views were there before the election and are still, quite clearly, there six months afterwards. I would suggest that they might help us to understand why there is such a noticeable lack of specific information, specific proposals, as to the manner in which this new agency will operate. Indeed, I suspect that one of the few things which they were able to reach agreement on was the title of the new body, "Youth Employment Agency". Of course, Deputy Myra Barry has helped us to recall the reason they were able to agree on that title because she very helpfully quoted from the proposals which the National Youth Council had circulated shortly before that election in which they had asked the parties to set up a youth employment agency. In addition to the Labour Party with their quite specific proposals for a guarantee of youth employment, there were Fine Gael's proposals on employment which appeared quite early on in their document and then, about 40 pages later, they have a section dealing specifically with youth and they talked about consultation and dealings with various bodies, an informal Oireachtas youth committee and so on. There are plenty of talking shops but when they get to employment they say they will establish a youth employment agency which will provide for "the integrated development of the concept of youth employment schemes".

That might well be a positive step forward. I do not know. I like to see myself as a reasonable person open to reasoned argument, but when I read that sentence I could see in it, if I may use a term that has been flung around so far today, nothing more than a cynical attempt to appear to meet the demands, the wishes of the National Youth Council. In other words, they were going to have the name, they were going to have a youth employment agency and go through the institutional procedures. But what will they actually do? This is supposed to provide an integrated development of a concept. It is not actually doing anything, and it is not quite clear what concept is envisaged. From that point of view I was somewhat disappointed when the Minister, having reminded us, given us some echoes, of the Labour Party's approach to this question of employment creation by referring to a National Development Corporation and so on, nevertheless when it came to this agency, seemed to consider that the most immediate and most important task it would undertake was the co-ordination of various existing programmes and activities. That is certainly the activity which, on a quick reading of the speech, appeared to be given the greatest emphasis.

That is the basis of my opening remark. I find myself in a position in which I am not able to give the Bill a totally enthusiastic welcome because I do not see any evidence of substantial activity for this new body as yet. Neither, of course, do I wish to condemn it because it may well be that a new body such as the proposed agency may find itself carrying out some valuable work in this field. Certainly I share the wish that we could have a substantial impact on the unemployment programme and therefore would not wish to hinder any programme brought in by the Government which would help to bring about that result. That is why I must adopt this somewhat neutral stance in my references to the proposed agency.

As to the basic problem itself, I would say that there is a need to do something substantial to provide additional employment opportunities and a major part of any additional employment should be directed towards young people. This is important not just on economic grounds and not just on the relatively narrow social grounds of the immediate hardship or lack of enthusiasm and so on which would arise within the young people themselves and within there immediate families. If youth unemployment is allowed to grow on the scale which we have recently suffered then we will have to think seriously about the whole future of society as we know it. I just cannot bring myself to believe that any young generation worth its salt would tolerate for any great length of time a colossal level of unemployment and a colossal lack of opportunity in their own country.

This constitutes the greatest challenge to us as political leaders for the decade ahead. I fear that at times we spend too much of our thought and too much of our energies in rehashing and going over old battles, old differences, old issues which are no longer really relevant or important in the Ireland of today. If we are to live up to our responsibilities to give political leadership to the people, then we have to look ahead and ask what sort of country will we have, what sort of circumstances are we creating or allowing to arise, if we are simply going to accept growing levels of unemployment, especially growing levels of youth unemployment, as inevitable. I fear that that is part of the argument which we hear from some people. They say that the world does not owe us a living — that is true — that we are a small nation which must trade in order to win for itself whatever standard of living is possible and therefore we cannot guarantee that we will be able to provide enough productive jobs in industry or agriculture. So many people, those who would follow the make-work attitude enunciated in the Fine Gael document, would say that, while a lot of unemployment arises, this is regrettable but inevitable and unfortunate, that there is no way we can get around it and that any attempts to tamper with it on the part of the Government will ultimately make the issue worse because they will have to impose heavy taxation burdens to finance these make-work projects. Of course we know that that is a doctrine that is enunciated not only by Fine Gael, or a substantial section of Fine Gael, but has also been put into practice in a neighbouring country in recent years, and we are able to see the consequences of it.

My own view — and it is one which has a wide measure of support in all parties and in all sections of the community — is that it is possible to do something sensible, to do something constructive to create more employment opportunities. But to do this we must be prepared to break away from some of our older practices, some of our older arrangements. That calls for rethinking and reorganising not just the institutions over which the State has direct control, such as Government Departments and agencies, not just setting up new agencies such as the body proposed in this Bill, but it almost certainly calls for changes in attitudes and work practices in industries. It therefore calls for changes in the policies pursued by the trade union movement. There are many ramifications to any worthwhile, comprehensive, sustained attack on the employment programme. If we are to set about that task effectively it must be done in the context of some adequately spelled out set of policies for at least a number of years ahead. That is why it is essential in our conditions that we have the Government's five year plan brought before the House as quickly as possible so that we can see more closely the nature of the whole set of policies which they would pursue.

It would be appropriate on another occasion to develop more fully some of these points. I mention them in the context of this Bill because, as I have tried to make clear, there is a very important issue at stake here which may ultimately involve the whole future of the nation. It is important therefore that we try to resolve the differences of view which inevitably exist in a democracy. It is healthy that they should exist. However, we should try to understand the nature of these different opinions and arrive at some agreement as to which policies will actually be pursued, and pursued effectively, until the problem is resolved. It is against that background that we must turn to this Bill and ask what contribution will this proposed agency make to resolving this unemployment problem, and especially unemployment among young people.

I have already said that one can detect different approaches to this question in the respective programmes which the two parties which now form the Government put before the people at the time of the election. We would have expected that when this Bill came before the House there would be a greater degree of information as to what had actually happened. The Bill itself tells us virtually nothing on that score. It takes us through the necessary steps of setting up a company which can undertake various activities, the arrangements for financing that company and the usual arrangements for dealing with any offenders who fail to comply with the various requirements. As to the actual activities of the agency, virtually nothing is said. There is a quite comprehensive list of the functions which the proposed agency will have conferred on them by their articles of association. We are told that they will establish, develop, extend, operate, assist, encourage, supervise, co-ordinate and integrate, either directly or indirectly, schemes for the training and employment of young persons. That is quite a comprehensive list of the various ways in which one might set about doing something to help young people.

When we ask, however, which of these things will be done by way of the agency's opening activities, or whether they have any initial agenda, some opening projects which they want to undertake, or some idea when they might commence any of these various functions, virtually no indications are given to us. All we have before us is a proposal for the enabling legislation — something which would provide the legal framework within which the agency can then operate.

Indeed, the Minister's opening speech had references which were even somewhat more discouraging in the sense that, apart from being fairly confident that one of the tasks which the agency could undertake would be this co-ordination of what everybody else is already doing, when it came to any new activities, there was the suggestion that it would be the agency, when we appoint these 11 directors and so forth, which are expected to bring forward some new proposals for programmes which they, themselves, might undertake.

Six months after the publication of this Labour Party programme and, indeed, of the Fine Gael programme — although I would not expect anything from the Fine Gael one because of the nature of their election programme — I would have expected some development of the Labour Party programme, especially since a Member of that party is the Minister responsible. Six months later we have not a single new idea, proposal or example of the way in which this body will set about providing the proposed target of 20,000 new job opportunities of one kind or another for these young people. That is a very disappointing aspect of the present position. I would like to feel, before the House concludes this debate on the Bill and gives its final blessing to the creation of the agency, that we would be at least encouraged in our support of it by having some firmer basis for that encouragement and that we would be given some examples or indications of the particular activities which might help to achieve this target of 20,000 new job placements.

As of now, one must, at best — if one wishes to be generous — keep a relatively open mind on this subject, no more than that. As one reads through the co-ordinating activities basically what emerges is a promise of more of the same. Whatever is being done now will, presumably, be done on a somewhat larger scale. If that is so, let us be told that that is so. If not, and if there is some new development, some new forms of youth employment schemes to come forward, I am sure that this side of the House would be only too happy to welcome them.

Having asked what the functions of this agency are and coming to the conclusion that we must, at best, keep an open mind on them, if we look at one or two inevitable consequences of setting up the agency, we face one or two further questions. The next necessary aspect of the agency set out in the Bill before us is the method of its financing. As other speakers have already made clear, this proposal to raise the necessary funds by a 1 per cent levy on virtually all incomes of those at work is not exactly the most equitable form of revenue raising. Having said that, I want to make clear that I do not necessarily reject that form of levy collection. If one wants to raise substantial sums of money and be able to relate those to some objective—to have a form of earmarked tax—it is probably necessary to have a rather crude and, therefore, inequitable tax, provided of course that one recognises these inequities and deals with them through consequential changes in other parts of the taxation system. I am not necessarily opposed to a rather crude levy of this type.

I might be so modest as to draw the attention of the House to the fact that some three years ago, when putting forward proposals for a possible programme to achieve full employment over a period of five to seven years, inevitably the question arose as to how one would set about financing these. In that report the point was made that it should be related rather heavily to a financing effort by those already at work. It is not unreasonable to say to the fortunate 90 per cent or thereabouts who have jobs that they are fortunate but that, if they are concerned for the future not just for themselves but perhaps for members of their families, or their own children, their friends and neighbours, they should think in terms of sacrificing some of their own income increases and contributing them to a special fund for employment creation. At that time I suggested that the way in which it might be done was by beginning with a 1 per cent levy in the first year of the programme and building it up over subsequent years. The best estimate one could then produce was that a total levy of about 5 per cent of income would be needed to finance a job creation programme. The figures would be somewhat different today because of the higher levels of unemployment by comparison with three years ago but the logic of that approach might still be valid.

If efforts to build support for special schemes of this type are to be successful the agreement of the trade unions and of other interested bodies must be secured. Since the trade union movement represents the bulk of employed people, their agreement is essential. For that reason there were references to financial arrangements of this type in the discussions leading to the national understanding and it was suggested that part of the justification for a form of income levy or income restraint was the achievement of the very desirable social objective of employment opportunities for all. It is right to record in this House that the trade union movement and their leadership have always expressed support for developments of that nature. Their view is that they would be opposed to any arbitrary impositions, levies or direct and indirect taxes if they did not see some worth-while social consequences arising from the spending of that money.

There is possibly a valid case for having what is admittedly a rather crude form of tax as a means of financing an employment creation programme, provided the results can be set alongside that financing in order to justify the burden. In these circumstances I would hazard the guess that there would be the necessary degree of public support. If, on the other hand, we found that there had been an additional tax burden imposed which had not been used to achieve any substantial additional employment creation but simply as a rather roundabout device to refinance existing activities, then there would be justifiable resentment, howls of anger and ultimate rejection both from this side of the House and from the citizens and voters as a whole.

Financing arrangements for this agency are not the happiest because the crude 1 per cent levy clearly does not allow for differences in circumstances of those at work and there may be the need for appropriate adjustments in other areas of the tax code. This is a matter which I trust the Minister will work out with his colleagues at the appropriate time.

Having looked at the financing side of this agency, we must ask how the money will be spent. The Minister said that the 1 per cent levy would yield over £60 million in a full year and also referred to the possibility of reasonable support from the European Social Fund. I am not sure exactly what figure would be appropriate there but if one applies the sort of grant percentages normally entailed we could add another £30 million. We are probably talking of total resources of £90 million being disbursed by this agency in the course of a full year. I am rather puzzled as to why only £10 million will be collected between April and December of next year. That would be two-thirds of a year.

Mr. Kavanagh

I corrected that figure which was due to a typing error. It should have been £40 million.

Professor O'Donoghue

I was not in the House when the Minister spoke but that sets my mind at ease. I thank the Minister for clarifying the point. The sum of £90 million is very hefty and must be seen in the context of the spending entailed in other programmes. AnCO will spend this year about £40 million and programmes operating through the Departments of Education and the Environment, together with payments under the work experience programme, will cost between £50 million and £60 million this year. That is the total spending of the various agencies associated with employment or training opportunities for 20,000 people this year. It seems that the additional £90 million will not finance an additional 20,000 jobs and the bulk of it will be used to finance existing activities and to ease some of the Government's other financial headaches, many of which they have brought upon themselves. That is a reasonable inference and if I am wrong I would be happy to stand corrected. I would welcome the Minister's comments on this point.

I think I have said enough to illustrate why at this stage it is not possible to give an unqualified welcome to this agency. There are questions as to what exactly the agency will do by way of new initiatives in the job creation field. There are questions about how exactly this fresh money will be employed, how much will go for these new projects and how much will be syphoned off to pay the bills for existing programmes.

If we had been given more information we might be better placed to be more enthusiastic in our responses to the proposed agency. It is not unreasonable to conclude at this stage that given the passage of six months since the proposal was first put forward we would have got more concrete proposals by now, especially since it was Deputies opposite who were stressing the urgency as well as the scale of this programme. We agree there is urgency but why have we not yet had some definite action rather than have us talking in November about a legal framework to enable this body to set about making a positive contribution towards solving each of the very real and potentially dangerous problems of the nation.

I do not question the good intentions of the Government and particularly of the Minister whom I wish well in his efforts to launch this and similar initiatives in this field of employment creation, but I must say that good intentions alone are not sufficient. We need positive action. Though institutional changes may be necessary as part of the process of taking effective action, institutions by themselves do not solve anything. It is people who solve problems and we want to see the people who will do this work getting started and beginning to demonstrate the effectiveness of these proposals.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If this Bill only serves to provide a debate to highlight the seriousness of youth employment it will serve a great purpose. I am glad the opportunity has been given to the House to comment on the seriousness of the problem. I will preface my remarks by referring to the many debates here in the forties on the provision of employment for young people. In the fifties I heard similar discussions and in the sixties I recall Deputy Seán Lemass in Clery's Ballroom dealing extensively with the problem of unemployment and producing a plan by which he would provide 100,000 new jobs.

The seventies arrived and we were still faced with serious unemployment, but we were given some hope in that decade when a number of people were let loose on the country advocating our entry into the EEC. They told us that from the moment we would become members of that Community we would join economic experts in Europe for the purpose of providing full employment for all our peoples, with special reference to school leavers and young people generally. Many of our people tore up the paving stones in their rush to hear the words of wisdom from the mouths of the experts, economists and others.

I never have been a believer in words of wisdom from the lips of economists, and here I am reminded of the story of a US employer who put an advertisement in a newspaper for an economist with one hand, for whom he had a vacancy. There was some concern about that advertisement to which there was not a good response. The employer was asked why he wanted a one handed economist and he said: "I have been advised by economists in my firm, and on all occasions when they gave me advice they said: ‘On the one hand this will work, but on the other hand it may not'. What I want is an economist who will not be referring to the second hand. I want first hand information but I cannot get an economist who does not refer to his second hand".

I have yet to hear a European economist anywhere dealing fully and effectively with youth unemployment and giving a serious answer. Today we and our European partners are faced with many millions of unemployed throughout Europe.

To be effective, this legislation depends on some money from European funds to set up this agency. The last Government did not do anything but this Government are at least thinking about the problem and looking at ways to deal with it. I am afraid the problem of youth unemployment is getting speedily out of hand. This gets worse with the growth in our population, and we see every year better educated and more young people leaving our schools, facing gloomier and dimmer prospects.

That is why I am seriously worried about this big problem not alone for us but for Europe. Of course we can let the Europeans look after their own affairs. We have the responsibility to look after ours. The task of providing jobs for our young people must be undertaken with speed and efficiency.

We are at the crossroads without any ray of light and without any signpost to indicate where we are going. Our young people have lost confidence in a democratic parliament. That is the grave danger I see facing us. We must think of the younger generation who have left school and those coming to the end of their years in school. What must their state of mind be? They had to study hard, sit examinations and meet keen competition and then they find that when one job is advertised there are at least 20 to 25 applicants.

Our educational standards appear to be getting higher each year and, at the same time, jobs are becoming fewer and fewer and more difficult to obtain. Our young people cannot stand the strain indefinitely of seeing no prospects for the future of a job with good wages and no hope of secure employment at home. During the forties, fifties, sixties and seventies vast numbers went to the United Kingdom and were employed there, but they cannot go now because of the serious unemployment position there. Our young people must remain at home with very little prospect of getting employment in Ireland, a land which we were told when we entered the EEC would be flowing with milk and honey in which there would be food, work, clothing and shelter for all and emigration, unemployment and poverty for none.

What disillusionment and depression there must be in the hearts and minds of our young people who, on leaving school, enter their names with the National Manpower Service and then have to join the tail end of the already long queues outside the various labour exchanges. They are humiliated. They must surrender their independence and depend on the charity of the State. They are deprived of the right to work, the right to independence, the right to use their hands, hearts and minds. They want to earn their living through their own hard work and industry, their own initiative and their own drive, but instead they have to put out their hands for a paltry sum extended in charity for nothing.

Sooner or later in a very determined manner they will register their resentment in some form of action to indicate their belief that Irish politicians have failed Irish youth, and that no steps were taken to give them even a ray of hope for the future that one day they will be able to marry, have their own homes and bring up their families in the full spirit of Christian decency. How disturbing this must be for our young people. There is an old saying that the devil finds work for idle hands to do. That is why we have vandalism and illegal activities, the use of drugs and drug abuse, and alcoholism.

It must be very difficult for young people who are full of energy and "go" to have to spend 12 hours standing on street corners, or sitting at a fire, or walking the streets. This is demoralising and degrading to the human person. One of the great concepts of human rights is the right to work. We must emphasise the God given right to work. There is an endless amount of work to be done in this country. All that is needed is the political will to provide that work and pay the wages. In most democracies our whole concept of economics appears to have broken down.

The problem of youth employment should have top priority in this national Parliament. We have many economic problems today, including the great problem of agricultural revival but the problem of providing jobs calls for major action. If they cannot be provided within the system, elected representatives have a responsibility to go outside the system to provide work for our young boys and girls who are in need of it. The agency the Minister is setting up will only scratch the surface and, sooner or later, we hope to hear what plans the Government have to tackle comprehensively the serious problem of unemployment.

While tackling the problem of youth unemployment we must not close our eyes to the problem of adult unemployment which also has grave social consequences for younger people. The mental decay which has already set in on unemployed adults is being passed on by word, example and deed to unemployed youth. The big problem which faces the Government is to break the back of unemployment. Economic experts said this morning that by the end of 1982 the numbers of unemployed will be vastly increased. There appears to be endless money available for preparations for war. Even in the United States, where there is a grave unemployment problem, money is readily available to provide nuclear weapons, arms for the destruction of mankind and the destruction of God's gifts to man. But there does not seem to be money available to provide employment for adults or youth. If a world war broke out in the morning there would be plenty of money available for weapons of war and the destruction of mankind, but in peace time there appears to be no assistance to deal with the problem of unemployment.

We are heading for economic and social decay. The whole quality of life changes with the arrival of dole forms and standing in dole queues. There is nothing more degrading, especially for well-educated youth, than seeking work in vain, with no prospects for the future. The Government and trade unions should examine the problem in relation to early retirements in order that some vacancies may be made available for young people. We should have a policy for those who retire early because we never seem to plan for leisure. The retired person should be helped to plan the rest of his life. People are living longer now than half a century ago and that is all the more reason for planning for retirement. There should be a separate programme for those who retire early so that the benefit of their experience and wisdom as workers can be put to good use during their retirement. As soon as people retire they enter a new stage in their lives. Unfortunately, many of them are unable to manage on their allowances, pensions, gratuities, superannuation or whatever they have to live on when they retire. In many cases on retirement they have to seek some form of employment which means that it is of little advantage to youth. There should be planning on a large scale in regard to how and by what means retired people are going to fulfil their lives as able-bodied citizens, because many who retire at 60 are as efficienct at their work as they were at 25 or 30. Many of our population are living to the age of 80. What plans are we making for those between 60 and 80 to live their lives in a productive manner and make a contribution to the economy so that those valuable years will not be lost entirely? These are problems which have to be dealt with in relation to the whole question of the provision of jobs for young people.

The Minister knows we have one of the saddest records of mental handicap. Our mental hospitals are full. If we contact the various health boards we see clearly that there is a large number of young people who are either voluntary patients or have been referred by their GPs for some form of mental treatment. In many cases the cause of mental disorder in young people is that they are unemployed and unable to cope with pressures and the grave consequences of lack of a future. At this stage they take to the roads, protest and become agitators. They lose confidence in themselves and in the democratic parliament. They view politicians with suspicion because they feel we are not delivering the goods.

All Governments have failed miserably to provide jobs for our young people. We see the serious economic position that exists in the Six Counties where some people of 50 years of age and over never had any form of productive employment in their lives. Time is running out for us because a well educated youth of today will not take what the semi-educated youth of 30 years ago took. Work is a human right. If we are concerned about maintaining human rights the best guarantee we can give our young people is the right to work. I hope any steps taken by the Minister will be in the right direction.

The Minister said that during 1981 it was expected that 5,000 young people would take part in the National Manpower Service's work experience programme, 10,000 young people would be trained in AnCO's general training programmes, with a further 2,000 apprentices, 1,700 young people would participate in AnCO's community training programme and a further 1,000 people would be engaged in schemes run by the Department of Education and the Department of the Environment. These are all right as temporary, emergency, stop-gap projects, but when these training schemes are completed, will permanent jobs be available? There is little use training young people if there are no jobs where they can use their skills.

In my constituency, youth employment has become a very serious problem. The IDA have created a number of jobs but whether they balance the jobs lost is questionable. Is there an ultimate goal at the end of these training schemes? Where are these young people going? Will they have permanent jobs when they are trained? Can they be confident that they will be provided with full-time secure employment, with decent working conditions and proper wages?

The aim of most of our youth is to set up their own homes. In Ireland the family is the fundamental unit of society and we must help in the foundation of that family by providing a secure job for the head of the family.

I do not know what projects the Minister has in mind or what type of work will be undertaken by the agency but am I correct in saying that the agency will provide constant employment, paying not less than the trade union rate prevailing in the area? I hope early and effective action will be taken to solve the unemployment problem.

I want to refer to the financing of the scheme, with special reference to the levy and the European Social Fund. I am not happy — and I have never been happy — about levies, whether they were agricultural levies or levies on the ratepayers or taxpayers. Whenever levies are mentioned I am gravely suspicious. I would have given little thanks to the European Community for providing all the funds necessary for the effective working of the agency proposed in the Bill. It is right to express a measure of thanks and a nod of affection to the Community but the European Social Fund will only scratch the surface again in relation to this problem. When workers and farmers not included by health boards are asked to pay the levy I am disturbed. It disturbs me to think that those in employment will have to contribute to the operation of this agency. If any other way was found for dealing with this problem other than by way of a levy on a section of the community it would be more welcome.

I am not satisfied that those in responsible positions, particularly those who can be heard in Brussels, have made a sufficiently strong case for the weakest and most impoverished country in the EEC for help to establish the agency in order to provide employment for our young people. Are we a part of Europe or are we the poorer relation of France and Germany, the richer European countries, who want to give us the deaf ear and the blind eye or is the real spirit of economic revival and assistance all gone? Is that all in the past? Is that all dead? No other member state has the same case as Ireland for financial assistance because they do not have as many worth-while employment projects as we have. How many additional jobs can be provided if we work towards giving an efficient transport service? How many jobs could be provided if it was decided to manufacture all the requirements of CIE here? Jobs were lost in the past because it was decided to pull up railway tracks and dismantle railway stations while other European countries were putting down rail tracks and building railway stations to take the heavy volume of traffic off their roads. We tore up our railways, caused unemployment and put our heavy traffic on the roads even though we did not have the roads suitable to take a small number of the juggernauts that now mow people down. We should have a transport service that will employ thousands in the movement of all heavy goods by rail.

The Government will have to change their attitude completely in relation to economic planning because we cannot afford to embark on the policies of Mrs. Thatcher. Her policies will not work here. They may in the UK but because of the nature of our youth employment problem we must adopt a different attitude. Restricted measures in regard to transport, building, agriculture, the marketing of our agricultural produce, the building of houses and maisonettes for our people, old and young, are not acceptable when there is a great need to provide full-time and useful employment. We must give our young people hope and encouragement and an adequate wage. Our building industry is capable of employing thousands more. It is capable of taking on young painters, carpenters, plumbers, bricklayers and stonemasons. What about the revival of our arts and crafts? There is no care, no thought, no attention and yet many of our young people could be effectively employed in that industry.

In our towns and cities additional staff could be taken on in shops and business premises if the demand was greater but our economy is slowing down at such a rate that all sections of the community are suffering. It all reverts to the purpose of the Bill, the provision of employment for our young people. We should not give them useless jobs; we should give them worth-while employment; we should train our young people for jobs for the future. In relation to peat and fuel development, the full development of our coal deposits and mineral resources, a vast number of jobs can be made available. However, we are scratching the surface in relation to the European Social Fund for a few paltry pounds. We are like Lazarus waiting with our mouths open for the crumbs to fall from the tables of the rich men. We are allowing the main artery of our nation to go freely into depression, gloom and decay.

What has been done about preventing the decay of the great skill of mining? How many apprentice miners have we? In the coal mining district of my constituency there has been a great tradition of mining. Old miners always spoke with courage of the water filling in various mines and of the skill of propping up the mines and keeping the trolleys filled with anthracite and coal on their way to the top of the shaft. Young people heard old folk discuss in their homes the skills associated with mining. We have, in our Leinster coalfields, some of the best coal and anthracite to be found anywhere in the world. What is the European Regional Fund, Social Fund or any other fund doing about giving us money to get the miners working, to train young miners and get the coal and anthracite out of our mines? We may talk about all of this until it is too late because there is little time left in which to do something about it. I sincerely contend that time is running out quickly for democratically-elected parliaments. We, Members of Parliament, democratically elected, must pinch ourselves into a sense of realisation that in the minds of young people in this country and in Europe we are becoming ineffective.

For that reason let us hope that the Youth Employment Agency about to be established by the Minister, even though it will only scratch the surface, will do something to provide our young people with the thousands of jobs the Minister has in mind. I hope it will not meet the same fate as did the 100,000 jobs prophesied in Clery's ballroom by the late Seán Lemass. The problem confronting this Government is the immediate creation of jobs. They have that responsibility. They will be looked to for advice, guidance and leadership in this respect. I wish this agency success and good luck. I am not happy about the method of financing the agency. Nevertheless it is worthy of trial. It is better than nothing, which is what we have at present in regard to the problem of youth employment.

If this agency are not successful after a very short time, then let us examine the problem again. I fear we must take more serious and drastic measures in order to provide the necessary employment for our young people here at home. Our nation depends on our young people. I am the sole surviving member of the Dáil of 1943. Are we going to leave parliament with no goodwill but young people doomed to life on the dole queues? Or will we take courage in both hands and have confidence in the fact that Ireland is a young, developing country? Think of the amount of work that could be given on afforestation in the valleys and mountains. Think of the additional young trainees who could be taken into our forestry training colleges. One is reminded of the wonderful work undertaken in afforestation in the Mississippi valley. Then one sees the waterlogged land around the Shannon valley where afforestation would change the whole face at that valley. Yet nothing is done.

In areas such as housing, telephone development, the development of modern postal and telecommunications, there is in every Department room for the employment of some thousands of our young people; but we seem unwilling to avail of this. Of course the Minister will contend, quite correctly, that they have not the money to do it. I shall answer that by saying that money appears to be a licence to live, a licence to exist. There are a few private individuals responsible for issuing these licences to live. I am afraid that sooner or later a Government, with the will to provide all our people with employment, will have to look with a very jealous eye on those responsible for the creation of currency to implement national development schemes. We cannot allow the present situation to continue in which, if we borrow money at 20 per cent to create employment, that must eventually be repaid. I would expect some breakthrough in the provision of money for national development and of employment for all our people. Everybody knows that every time one borrows from a bank it constitutes a means of creating currency.

If, within the present system, this Government foresee that they cannot provide money for jobs for our youth and for the adult unemployed, they cannot allow the nation to fold up. I am afraid we shall then have to consider seriously moving outside the system because we must survive as a nation. And we cannot survive without our young people; they are the salt of the earth. Whatever else may be said about our young people today, I contend that they are as good as if not better than any generation we have had.

Instead of unfairly criticising our young people we should encourage them, because Ireland is theirs, not ours. The present generation of young boys and girls have to stand up to the pressures of the modern, materialistic world. We did not have the distractions of drink and drugs, the craze for gambling, violence and terrorism. The young people are well worth what the Minister is doing for them. There are great boys and girls in this country today. One has only to go to any of the community services centres to see this. They are visiting the sick; they are in the Simon Community, the Samaritans and the St. Vincent de Paul Society. They go to Macra na Feirme lectures and take part in the activities of Macra na Tuaithe. We have a fine generation of young people. Let us help them and encourage them. Let us give them good example and provide them with work and wages so that they will be able to take their place in their own homes with their own families as men and women of a proud nation, with full and secure employment in the full terms of Christian decency.

Mr. McCreevy

Since this is the first occasion I have spoken in this House on a Bill introduced by the Minister, let me congratulate him on his appointment.

It would be naive to imagine that any Government measure could solve a problem such as this overnight. The creation of this new agency will not solve the problem of youth unemployment. We might as well face up to that. I will come later to what I think should be done in the whole area of unemployment. But this Bill gives us an opportuntiy to look at the whole area of unemployment and I welcome any measure that tries to do something about this continuing problem.

The greatest problem facing this Government is the problem of unemployment. Full employment has been the goal of all political parties in this island, but it would seem that the trade unions, the employers, the politicians and all the political parties have abandoned this goal. It is all very well to talk about full employment, but we do not seem to be getting anywhere near it. At the moment there are 130,000 people unemployed. If things go on as they are, there will be 145,000 people unemployed next April or May, according to the Tánaiste. We have a history of high unemployment with the Irish average being far in excess of the EEC average. In the thirties, forties, fifties and sixties the problem was solved by mass emigration. Some of our finest people had to go abroad. Despite that we still have the highest level of unemployment. Since I became interested in politics the unemployment figures have been the one thing that kept my mind on the job. We all tend to blame someone else, but the people who are to blame are the elected people in Government. The majority of people have no say in the election of a president of a trade union or a president of an organisation. But they do have an opportunity every four or five years to elect the people they want in Government.

If we are really serious about the goal of full employment there will have to be a change of heart on the part of the people and the State. The Irish economy has come a long way in a short time. Let us take 1960 as a benchmark. People who were around in 1960 could not have dreamt of the progress that would be achieved by 1975. I was a schoolgoer at the time and I can remember that there was high emigration in my area and very little employment. People did not have a motor car; now people have two motor cars. People did not have televisions. Farmers did not complain about paying income tax; they had no income on which to pay income tax. People did not take to the streets and march in PAYE demonstrations because they were paying too high a level of tax; they did not have a job or if they had they were lucky. But in a few short years all that has changed. People's expectations have now risen to such a level that they expect progress to continue without effort on their part.

We, the politicians, the leaders of the people, have, perhaps, encouraged them in the belief that this prosperity is going to continue unabated. We are the givers of good news and good things. We are all at it. I have done my political stunts in my day. I may have — but not deliberately — given people the impression that I could do something for them that, in the event, I could not do. The progress which we have seen since 1960 is almost unbelievable to the people who were around then. Unless we get a grip on ourselves, Ireland as we know it and the institutions as we know them are not going to continue. In 1960 people did not remain in education up to 20 or 21 years; they emigrated at 16 or 17 years. Now we have highly educated young people for whom emigration is not open and they expect and demand a living in their own country.

By the nineties there may be 300,000 people unemployed, most of them between the ages of 18 and 30 who have gone, at least, through second level education and, in many instances, third level education. Some may not have had a job for years. Will they pat the backs of the politicians of the seventies and eighties who made decisions for all types of motives? They will ask what good were these politicians for them and will not accept the rubbish which was handed out to them. As I said many years ago, unless Irish society, and particularly our political leaders, take it upon themselves to redirect the goals of the Irish people, in a few short years the people will not tolerate this treatment and one will see a different institution or system altogether, because they will say that the present system has failed. If I am still around, if and when that does happen, in whatever capacity, I will be able to say that I thought things should have been done a little differently.

My general approach to the Bill is that I welcome it. The Minister, the Government and all the Members of this House would like to do something to correct a situation which may become intolerable. If we continue to sectionalise Irish society by putting the farmers against the PAYE workers, playing off one against the other, we will get nowhere with this problem in the background.

Ireland has special problems which no other country in the EEC has. We must recognise those problems. We cannot expect ever-improving standards of living unless we realise the constraints under which our system works. Between 1973 and 1979 our population rose by 9.5 per cent, which is 6.75 times the EEC average. The Irish birth rate is the highest in Europe, at 20.7 births per 1,000 population. Between 1971 and 1979 was the first inter-census period here which saw nett immigration to the country rather than emigration out of it.

Our age dependency ratio is also the highest in Europe. Our young people under 15 years of age constitute 31.3 per cent of our population. The rest of Europe have only a 22 per cent level in that age group. Combine our high birth rate with all the other factors mentioned and you will see that this problem will not go away overnight. It will not go away because we set up this or that agency, but will continue. To get to grips with this problem there must be a radical reappraisal of what we are about. These figures are frightening. They have frightened me for the last six years. We can no longer export these people to somewhere else and say "They are your problem now. They must get jobs over with you". Present world economic conditions no longer allow for that. We must provide for those people here.

Thanks to the advent of free education, expectations are higher. People are going to school for a longer period and expect a certain type of job. In addition, in the past eight years there have been two depressions or recessions. We are living in changed economic conditions due primarily to the price of fuel oil. The whole problem of employment must be looked at on a global basis. No capitalist will come to Ireland to create employment prospects here as against going somewhere else unless there are reasons why he should come. In the past couple of years we seem to have forgotten that we are in the world trade for capital, and must try to get these people to come here. Ever-increasing numbers are coming on the unemployment register through technological changes. A machine can do the job of five people, so five fewer people are employed eventually. Different levels of skill will be needed for the new economic conditions but, generally, changing technology has meant more people being thrown out of work. We must cope with that problem also.

If we continue to introduce work practices and other aspects of industrial life which prevent people from coming here to finance new projects, that will accentuate our problem. If excessive wage agreements make the cost of Irish goods uncompetitive compared with that of our competitors, there will be a loss of jobs. There is no point in saying that the trade unions are committed to full employment if the trade unions look for excessive wage increases at the expense of jobs for other people. This is a fact. It is generally accepted that, in the last national wage agreement 7 per cent was what the Irish economy could stand, yet we settled for 16 per cent. We must consider that in comparison with what happens in other European countries with whom we are competing and realise that our export markets will be lost and more people will lose their jobs.

In relation to this wage agreement, the Government asked their three economists to put forward a reasonable figure and they suggested 6.5 per cent as the most the economy could afford. It now looks as if the wage settlement will be twice that figure. People here do not want strikes and put pressure on the Government to settle, even though the settlement increases the rate of inflation. It must be recognised that excessive wage increases are at the cost of jobs of fellow workers and of people now coming on the market. It would seem to be the norm that the settlement figure in national wage agreements is double the figure we can afford. We all pay lip service to moderation until pressure is put upon us. We all aspire to the goal of full employment but we are not prepared to accept lower wage levels. Here in Leinster House we also look for increases. There is much waffle about achieving full employment but we do nothing about it.

For employment to increase in a free enterprise economy it is necessary to have a reasonable growth rate. It has been the belief of economists that budget deficiting increases the growth rate and, therefore, employment. Any theory stands only until the facts refute it. It has been proved beyond all doubt that in an open economy budget deficit financing will not bring about increased growth rates or further employment. It leads to an increase in the balance of payments problem and to many other problems. Instead of creating jobs at home, budget deficiting helps to create jobs in Japan and other countries because we use the extra money on the purchase of imported goods. We must accept that the answer to our problems does not lie in budget deficiting. Such a measure does have some benefits and at some stage I believe everyone here was in favour of it. However, it no longer works.

Major improvements in employment have been achieved by the IDA and I compliment them on their work. They have been helpful in setting up new industries but, as in the case of any organisation which has existed for a long time, people are inclined to leave them alone and say that they must be doing a good job and that their budget should be increased each year. I believe we should examine their activities because many of our industrial policies are wasteful. Our greatest resources are based on agriculture and the fact that we are surrounded by the sea and it is alarming that the number of jobs in the food processing industry has fallen. Our industries should be agriculture-related, yet many of the new industries which have been set up are completely alien to our circumstances. We are grateful to the firms that have established themselves here but they did not do so for love of the Irish people but because we offered them more than they could obtain elsewhere. We could benefit more from the setting up of an industry by an Irishman because it would be his total enterprise on which his livelihood and that of his family would depend. It is not the same in the case of foreign firms and we must examine the favourable grant facilities available to them.

During the past few years it seems to have been the aim of the IDA to approve a certain number of jobs each year and they have always reached target. I am suspicious of anyone who consistently meets his target because it is not possible always to do so. There is a big difference between job approvals and actual jobs.

I should like to see the result of a study of the position since 1973, of the jobs approved by the IDA and those actually created. For instance, in County Kildare the IDA approved a factory which was supposed to produce 1,400 jobs. It has been in production for two years but there are only 200 jobs and it will never see 1,400 jobs. In another Kildare factory 2,000 jobs were supposed to have been created but redundancies brought the number down to 400. We have to look at the millions of pounds paid out to attract firms here and we must consider whether it has been a total waste.

The IDA give out re-equipment grants to firms who in normal circumstances would be re-equipping anyhow. The grants do not have the slightest effect on further employment prospects. The IDA have built advance factories which are lying idle.

We will have to have a hard look at the policies of the IDA. I agree that they have done and will continue to do useful work but could not the money given out in grants by them have been spent more usefully otherwise? For instance, could we not encourage people in the food processing industry rather than bring firms in here who have no business being here at all, such as the business of candle-making. Would it not be better to have encouraged industries based on our cattle and pigs? Our national budget is not so large that we can say to the IDA: "Here is so much, do what you like with it. You are still doing a good job, bang away at it". I suggest we should be getting a better return for our money.

This is a normal Bill. It is just an enabling measure for the setting up of a limited company to be known as the Youth Employment Agency. Most of the sections provide for the setting up of that company whose business will be set out in their memorandum. The Bill does not give us any idea of the work they will do. The Bill enables the Government to collect 1 per cent from practically every worker in the country, an estimated £63 million in a full year. In other words, the Bill provides for the raising of this money from the taxpayer to pay for existing schemes. I am not sure extra work will be done because apparently the main purpose is to raise money to pay for existing schemes by another form of direct taxation to be known as a levy. A spade should be called a spade: this is another form of direct taxation.

The money will go into the Exchequer but the full amount collected may not go to the employment agencies. It will be available to the Minister and no-one else because section 19 provides that it will go directly into the Exchequer like the proceeds of other forms of taxation. One must therefore ask why the agency cannot be funded by a grant from the Exchequer. The Bill enables the Government to collect money. Section 24 sets out what is being done. If the Bill provided that all the money so collected would go to the agency I would welcome it but I doubt very much if it will all go to the agency because I feel sure that every year some of it will remain in the Exchequer. That is why I suggest that it should be treated as direct taxation.

This very likely will have an effect on wage levels because people are mainly concerned about their take home pay and they will not be fooled when the Government call this a levy. This new form of direct taxation will yield £63 million in a year and we are told we can expect £30 million from the European Social Fund, bringing the amount up to £93 million. If all of that money were to go to the Youth Employment Agency they could do a very good job with it, but I will be amazed if the £93 million will be given to the agency.

I welcome the principle of the Bill which shows recognition of a particular problem. We must all accept that a serious youth unemployment problem exists but I am afraid it will continue because I do not think the idea of this agency will solve it without a complementary commitment by all in society. To solve it, we must all be willing to accept new work practices and perhaps ideas such as early retirement and work sharing. Work sharing means income sharing. Irish society has changed so much that we find every section looking for more and more for less and less. I do not believe any political party will solve the problem overnight unless the evil is rooted out. We are elected to do so. If we do not find the way there is no point in blaming somebody else. We have the opportunity to do so. I wish the Government success — as I would wish any Government — in trying to alleviate a very acute problem. If not, the consequences of our inaction will be disastrous.

Mr. McCartin

I welcome the Minister. I am not surprised that he is already active in the field of youth employment. This Bill is evidence of his concern for young people and their problems. In the European Parliament he was a member of the Committee on Youth Employment and Cultural Affairs. When I went over there I heard many references to papers he had prepared and committees on which he had worked. I am glad he is now able to pursue that useful activity with a concrete proposal for effective legislation.

There are many different ways to solve this problem. Perhaps the way the Minister suggests is not exactly the way I would choose. Youth unemployment is often talked of in a patronising way, as if it were any different from any other unemployment. This problem is more obvious and more significant when an economy is slowing down and industrial output is falling, and when we cannot capture markets we could capture if we were more competitive. If new jobs are not being created, and if jobs vacated by retiring people are not being filled for one reason or another, it is natural that people leaving school and coming on to the labour market will be more in evidence in the area of unemployment than older people who had established themselves in better days. While youth unemployment is a special problem to some extent, it is also part of a much bigger problem of general unemployment here and in Europe. The fact that unemployment is emerging in more competitive and more highly industrialised countries is rather frightening.

If the more highly industrialised countries are facing redundancies and unemployment, and if they are failing to compete in world markets — countries whose productivity is 20 per cent to 30 per cent better than ours — we can expect to have serious unemployment difficulties. Until we face up to this, and take steps to solve our problems of competitiveness and productivity, the problem will continue and the people who will suffer most will be the younger people. As the years go on, more and more young people will be on the labour market without jobs years after they have left school. That is a frightening prospect and it is one with which we have not been familiar in the cities or in the countryside. We did not have many people who were unemployed for years. That is the prospect we will face if we do not take corrective measures to ensure that our industries and services become more competitive in order that we can sell more and thereby create employment.

I hope this Youth Employment Agency will not mean the setting up of a new department which will use an excessive proportion of the funds being made available for administrative purposes. We must guard against that carefully. We cannot afford to expand our public services and to create jobs which are not productive and which will not create real wealth and have the spin-off effect of creating growth in our economy.

We must beware of the temptation to use available money to create mickey-mouse jobs and mickey-mouse solutions to the problems of the unemployed. The funds available must be directed primarily towards the creation of employment which, in the short term, will create genuine wealth and, in the long term, lead to growth in our economy and to stable employment. On entering the EEC when we found ourselves with access to funds from the European Social Fund, we tended to rush out and put into operation some ill-conceived ideas. This was a waste of money and did not lead to the creation of employment or wealth. We must guard against doing that again.

We must establish a programme to prepare youth for employment and to provide them with training which will enable them to understand what employment and industry are about. We cannot look forward to the creation of jobs in the public service in the same numbers as in the past. I do not have to go into the whole story again. The creation of jobs in the public service as a solution for unemployment amongst younger people will not work in the years ahead. The Minister recognises that. I hope he will create a genuine programme to train young people for useful employment in industry.

This is not a small or insignificant amount of money. The idea of a levy is an intelligent approach to the subject. I see it as being different from normal taxation. The money will be raised for a particular purpose. The people making this contribution will know exactly for what purpose the money is being raised. It will be a contribution from those who have jobs to help create employment and opportunities for those who have not got jobs. If it is seen only as a temporary levy on their pay packets which they will make up during the next round of wage negotiations, the effort will be wasted. That would cause increased wages, increased industrial costs, lack of competitiveness and reduced employment, which would cancel the intended effect. It is fair and reasonable that the Minister should ask employed people to make a specific contribution to solve the problem for another generation who are less fortunate.

We know there is a high proportion of young people coming on to the labour market. Industrialised Europe will quickly get over this because their birth rate is so low. In four or five years the number of young people coming on to the labour market in many sectors will not be sufficient. We cannot look forward to this. We recognise that improved technology will make it more difficult to solve the problem. We should not be afraid of improved technology because it will enable those in employment to produce more and the goods they produce should be cheaper and, therefore, available to more people at a reduced price. In order to achieve full employment and to maintain our existing employment we must have a growth rate of 4 per cent to 5 per cent. Nobody is optimistic enough to forecast that growth rate in the years immediately ahead, which means that our rate of unemployment is far more likely to increase than to stabilise or drop.

To create jobs for young people we must increase our growth rate by much more than this. We cannot ignore the technology that is there because that would lead to lower standards of living. We must look for the most advanced technology and give our young people the training not only to use it today but to enable them to adapt to flexibility in industry. The Minister should concentrate his efforts on preparing people for a working life in a world of rapidly changing technology and renewed opportunity. I am not too pessimistic about our youth. In many ways they are fortunate in the place and the time in which they live. We recognise there are tremendous pressures not only on young people but also on their parents. This pressure is more evident on parents of big families in rural Ireland who see their children coming to school leaving age and worrying about jobs for the older members of the family. They worry also about the discontent of young people when their hopes are not realised.

While young people may say they have every right to a job, they must also recognise that they have an obligation to work. At no time in the history of civilisation could people say they were destined to do a particular job or to enjoy a certain standard of living. In an ever-changing world young people will have to accept the jobs which are available on the labour market. They must recognise they are going into a world in which they must compete. There is no possibility that we can close our economy and insulate ourselves from the necessity to compete in world markets.

In Strasbourg recently I was approached by the president of a multi-national electronics manufacturing company. He said we should recognise that the vast benefits that came to us through our industrial development programme and the establishment of branches of multi-national industries here was at grave risk because unemployment is rising in Europe and there is pressure within individual nations to protect their own national industries. Even if they do not pass laws to do that, by one means or another state and semi-state bodies, who control so much of the purchase of computer and electronic equipment, will protect the industries in their own countries. In those circumstances the prospects for job creation become less bright than in the past because those multi-national companies will be quick to recognise any move towards protection and will locate their industries in countries which provide them with more opportunities and bigger markets.

We must be very careful to protect and cherish the idea of a free market in Europe. If there is any form of protection, countries like Ireland will suffer most. We have been fortunate in attracting investment from abroad and, because of the advanced nature of technology which those industries brought to us, they have survived the blizzard of inflation to which they have been subjected in recent years. Our service industries have survived it to some extent because they can pass on their costs. The public service have also survived the effects of inflation because they can demand and get higher wage increases. I do not believe our manufacturing industry can survive much longer. We must control our inflation or see jobs lost. That has already happened in agriculture.

We cannot divorce any discussion on youth unemployment from the utilisation of our natural resources. We must educate young people to exploit our natural resources. It is obvious that some agricultural land is not worked to its full capacity. We could increase our agricultural production by 10 per cent per annum and we have guaranteed markets for it. We have a declining number of people employed in the food processing industry and we cannot expect to rapidly increase that number because our productivity does not match that of European countries. We will have to increase the amount of agricultural produce we process in order to maintain the number of people already there. The same is true of our waste and marginal lands, which should and could be used because we have a climate which enables us to convert these lands to the production of energy.

Debate adjourned.