Vol. 331 No. 8
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 33, to delete "Act, applies or is applied)," and substitute "Act) applies or is applied,".
This simply means that we are moving the bracket behind "Act" instead of its place in the original draft when it appeared after the words "is applied". Therefore the bracket now goes after the word "Act".
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, line4, to delete "the Act" and substitute "this Act".
I presume it is "this Act" rather than "the Act" and that it has no other implications?
That is all, it is merely a drafting amendment. There are no other implications.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (2) (a), line 37, to delete "that is to say," and substitute "being principally".
This is a drafting amendment.
Is the amendment agreed?
Can we be assured that there is nothing else implied, that there is no change of substance?
The only change of substance is to afford a little more flexibility to the age limit at the top. It is possible that somebody would be 24 years of age when he started his work experience or training, and might not then qualify for the benefits under the Bill. We just want to afford that little flexibility so that people who may be on the age limit do not lose out.
We have no objection to that. We agree it will improve the Bill. It would be tragic if a hardline approach in such circumstances were to prevent young people from gaining work experience or doing a training course. We accept amendment No. 3.
In The Irish Press of today's date there is a report that Commissioner Ivor Richard may not allow moneys from the Social Fund to be used for people over 18 years, that it may be confined to the 16-18 age group. This would affect the financing of this agency. Does it mean that people over 18 years will not qualify for work experience programmes? Could we fund it 100 per cent from State resources?
The basis of this article is the result of a meeting of Employment and Labour Minister and Social Affairs Ministers yesterday in Brussels when they discussed a letter from Commissioner Richard to the President in Council, Mr. Tebbit. It has not gone before the Commission as such but it is his proposal for very radical changes in the Social Fund. We have put in strong reservations about any changes. It will have to be discussed by the fund committee and the Commission as a whole and a final decision will be taken by the Council but I felt it my duty on behalf of the Government and the country to indicate our strong reservations in this whole area.
The Minister has our full support.
Will the Minister explain to the House the feeling of the Council on this matter? In view of what appeared in the press today, I presume there was discussion at the Council meeting. I understand the Minister's reservations and I read about them. Is there any danger that the Council, as they have done on other occasions in respect of various schemes and because of proposed cutbacks in the budget, might reduce the age limit from 25 years to 18 years? From my own limited experience, I know that generally there is a chat among Ministers about matters of this kind.
It is necessary to be concerned about a very radical proposal such as that put forward. The basis of the proposal is the fact that unemployment in all member states of the Community has increased dramatically in the past few years and now approximately 10 million persons are unemployed. Certain countries who had not experienced the real problems of unemployment, as we have had for many years, are now feeling the effects of the recession in their countries and certain of their areas and regions are suffering high rates of unemployment.
There is the wish that the basis on which money from the Social Fund would be distributed would be changed from a regional basis to priority for unemployment black spots and that Articles 4 and 5 under which we qualified for Social Fund assistance would be disregarded and replaced by a new system based on unemployment levels and levels of income. This is the proposal from Commissioner Richard to the President in Council and it was right that we should have resisted that proposal immediately and strongly. I think it would be dangerous for me to accuse any particular member state of pushing this proposal but undoubtedly it is attractive to certain countries. There were strong reservations from almost all member states about such a radical change without knowing the full repercussions. Certain countries whose problems approximate to ours are strongly opposed to any change. We are at an initial stage but there is a need for concern. If the proposal by the Commissioner were adopted, a scheme like this could be affected by the amount of revenue that could accrue to it. There is no use in my trying to hide that fact. I put in a strong reservation about this whole move and, as a result, Commissioner Richard has agreed to come to Ireland to discuss the proposal on 15 January. The Irish Commissioner has also been informed of developments in this area but I am sure he was well aware of them in any event.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, between lines 44 and 45, to insert new subsections as follows:
"(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) of this section, the functions of the Agency may be any or all of the following:
(a) to act under the Minister as a body having overall national responsibility for the furtherance of the employment of young persons;
(b) to advise the Government or the Minister on the Agency's initiative or at the request of the Minister on policy for the creation of employment for young persons and related matters;
(c) to review the effectiveness of youth employment work experience and training programmes with particular reference to their impact on disadvantaged youth;
(d) to extend existing youth job creation, training and work experience programmes, with particular attention being given to disadvantaged youth;
(e) to arrange for assistance to be given to voluntary, social or community organisations, to provide employment for young persons where this is not possible under existing programmes;
(f) to arrange assistance for young persons with the establishment of an enterprise in areas other than those in which existing bodies operate; in particular to promote, through education and publicity, the concept of self-help and enterprise amongst young people, either individually or in co-operative endeavours;
(g) to carry out and administer youth employment and training schemes not provided for in existing programmes;
(h) to prepare and maintain a register of unemployed young persons who are available for employment.
(i) to co-ordinate and integrate the various schemes for the creation of employment of young persons, to ensure there is no duplication between them and, in this connection to set general standards for the various schemes in relation to such matters as the ages, wages and allowances of participants;
(j) to identify areas outside the scope of existing programmes into which Government aid to young people could be extended;
(k) to examine the possibility of improving the access of unemployed young persons to a range of educational and training courses in the private and public sectors by means of a voucher scheme for eligible youth;
(l) to submit views to the Government as appropriate, on educational policy and its effectiveness in preparing young persons for working life.
(4) In subsection (3) of this section `existing schemes or programmes' means those provided by An Comhairle Oiliúna, the Industrial Development Authority, the National Manpower Service, county development teams and other such appropriate bodies.".
It is unfortunate we have not more time to discuss this matter. What we are proposing is largely in line with what was proposed by the Minister on Second Stage. He said the agency would be set up on an ad hoc basis but we would prefer that the agency be established with the terms of reference as outlined. All the various paragraphs in the amendment are extremely important and I cannot see any reason why they should not be included. I do not know what time would be required other than for typing the additions into the Bill. It would give the impression to people that there is a greater commitment by the Government. The Minister owes it to the young people to strengthen the agency. For example, paragraph (h) makes provision to prepare and maintain a register of unemployed young persons who are available for employment. That is a major exercise.
In my time in the Department of Labour we made some progress in compiling statistical data but we did not do enough so far as young persons were concerned. I am sure that the Minister is fully aware of the many Deputies making representations to him and to the National Manpower Service. When that service goes to look up A, B and C it transpires that they are working. We are talking about an area of much physical work to be done. Registers have to be compiled, updating is necessary and extra staff are needed. Our party leader, Deputy Haughey, on Second Stage laid emphasis on the necessity to make staff available. That is just one of that wide-ranging number of areas that would give the agency a more meaningful basis. I cannot accept from the Minister that they are not necessary. The only suggestion I make to him is that if he thinks that my amendment does not go far enough when it comes before the Seanad, as I understand it will tomorrow, it can be improved or strengthened there. It is important that he accept it and if it is accepted this House will be seen to be committed to an agency who are trying to do something for young people. If my amendment is not accepted this agency could well end up as just a window-dressing exercise. There is no worthwhile argument against it. The Minister accepted on Second Stage that these were terms of reference. I do not disagree, but I refer to the statistical information. It must be tackled and obviously the figures vary from week to week. His acceptance of the amendment will show the Minister's goodwill. I will not waste time on it because others may wish to contribute. I tell the Minister that he should accept the amendment as it is and if refinement is needed let that take place in the Upper House.
I add to Deputy Fitzgerald's request that the Minister consider accepting this amendment. I do not doubt the honesty of the aspirations enshrined in section 4 which are the principal objectives of establishing, developing, extending, operating, encouraging, supervising, co-ordinating, integrating and so on. I suggest that it is not specific enough. It contains a certain amount of gobbledegook. In comparison Deputy Fitzgerald's submission spells out far better the type of thing the Youth Employment Agency should be doing. As I said on Second Stage, if we do not spell out the precise job they have to do we will be passing a Bill designed to inaugurate a super-dole system, perhaps allocating £90 million for schemes and areas of which this House has not more detailed knowledge.
Subsection (3) (d), of the amendment recommends particular attention being given to disadvantaged youth. I make a special plea. There are disadvantaged in every group in society. We are inclined to think of young people as being a huge group all with the one problem. That is not the case. There are severely disadvantaged young people under the wide umbrella of young people. The insertion into the Bill of the Words "disadvantaged youth" will give this new agency a specific task to show positive discrimination, as it were, towards that group. I need only mention to this House the sight of eight-or nine-year-olds trying to sell newspapers on the streets of this city to give an example of the kind of disadvantaged young people we have. I am not sure whether they would come under this Bill, but I would like somebody to look at this because everybody thinks that somebody else is looking at problems of that kind while these young people are still on the streets selling newspapers.
Subsection (3) (e) of the amendment proposes to provide employment for young persons where this is not possible under existing programmes. It is not clear from the Bill whether the Minister intends the agency to employ people directly at any stage. If the Minister intends the agency to employ people directly at any stage that should be mentioned in the Bill, otherwise they should be excluded specifically from directly employing people. In regard to subsection (3) (f) Deputy Fitzgerald mentioned the concept of self-help and enterprise among young people, either individually or co-operatively. It is important to enshrine in legislation like this the whole idea of the co-operative movement and the type of work that young people can help to provide for themselves by co-operative endeavour, as Deputy Fitzgerald says in his amendment. I like that phrase, which would be a healthy one to have in legislation such as this to enshrine the concept of saying to young people, "The State will do its best. The State will try to provide employment, will give the money, but do not sit there and let the State do everything. Try a little bit of self-help, enterprise, co-operative endeavour".
The idea of formulating a register under subsection (3) (h) of the amendment is excellent and it will be a pity if it is not inserted in the Bill. This refers to a register of unemployed young persons who are available for employment. A breakdown of that figure and a detailed register of it would be invaluable to employers. The final part of this, subsection (3) (1) provides for submission of "views to the Government, as appropriate, on educational policy and its effectiveness in preparing young persons for working life." That may be envisaged by the Minister and I am not saying that it is not. I am not saying that any of these are not envisaged by the Minister and I am sure that most of them are envisaged by him. However, when we go to the trouble of providing legislation like this it is no harm to write into it the specific ideas we have in mind. It would be a healthy thing to write into a Bill such as this that this body who are in close touch with the problems of young people would have the specific responsibility of feeding that information back to the Government of the day and the Departments so that they can get their educational policies the better to allow for job opportunities. I join with Deputy Fitzgerald in asking the Minister to consider some of these changes. I stress that I am not accusing the Minister of not having these ideas in the Bill. I am sure he is quite prepared to say to me that they are all in there, but I would like to see all that spelled out in the interest of young people.
I agree with many of the points raised by Deputy Brennan and also with Deputy Fitzgerald's amendment. The idea in this section is very good but, as Deputy Brennan said, it is not specific enough. It is all very hazy and we are not quite sure what exactly is meant. Deputy Fitzgerald's amendment would indicate clearly the exact direction in which the Youth Employment Agency should be working.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the last section of Deputy Fitzgerald's amendment which deals with the effectiveness of our current educational system in preparing young people for work. At the moment our system of education is far too academically based and does not allow young people the necessary scope and does not prepare them adequately for the working life that they endure when they leave school or our educational service. Far too many of our young people are not in a position at the moment to get employment, not only because jobs are not available but because the type of training and educational experience they have does not prepare them for work.
During second level school, for example, I would like to see much more emphasis on giving some sort of training on how exactly to cope with interviews, how to go about finding the sort of skill that suits them and so on. I know that career guidance is involved in most of our school curricula, but in order that it be effective the Youth Employment Agency should have a role in assessing our educational system and making recommendations about it to the Government and the various Government Departments in order to ensure that that system prepares our young people adequately for employment, and not only that but that our educational system prepares young people for the life they will lead after they leave school. Many young people when they come out of education leave their homes and go to cities like Dublin, Limerick and Galway. They move far away from family and friends and they find it extremely difficult to cope with life outside school.
Any agency which has as its basis the employing of young people and providing them with secure incomes and a means of looking after themselves must also have, as an integral part, a way of assessing our educational system to ensure that it adequately prepares young people for a working life in the world. Many courses could be integrated into our curriculum which should be part and parcel of it — for example, the teaching of politics and civics and all the subjects so important for young people to be aware of. The Youth Employment Agency has a role in gearing our educational system towards life in Ireland and, more particularly, work in Ireland.
Deputy Brennan referred to the underprivileged section of our community — disadvantaged youth. I also plead on their behalf. Many come from insecure homes and, indeed, from institutions. Very often they are not capable of holding down an ordinary job entailing the normal working hours which many of us have to work. Their insecurity has left them with very many chips on their shoulders. These young people should be helped in a very special way by the Youth Employment Agency. This section of the Bill should incorporate their needs and aspirations, making sure that they, above all else, are helped. Many are turning to the taking of drugs, which is now a serious problem among our young population. The youth agency should help such people — people who have to sell newspapers at a very early age to earn an income, young people begging on our streets, perhaps forced there by irresponsible parents, children of seven, eight or nine years of age going around the pubs of this city trying to find money for themselves and their parents. They are a very special category of our society and the Youth Employment Agency, whose whole emphasis is on finding employment for young people, must look after these people in a very special and unique way. Their insecure family background makes it very difficult for them to secure employment. Many of the schemes incorporated in this section by Deputy Fitzgerald in his amendment would go a long way towards helping the disadvantaged youth of our towns and cities.
I am a little concerned that the section, even as amended, is not specific enough and the guidelines in it are not adequate for the purpose of ensuring the essential measure of control of the activities of the Youth Employment Agency. We must have a great care here that the agency will operate, on the very substantial public moneys which hopefully will be ploughed into it, in the way that the Oireachtas would have in mind in passing this legislation.
I have heard estimates of the amount which might be made available under this scheme being put as between £60 million and £72 million per year. That is a very large amount of public funds. For that reason I wish that the section provided a greater measure of control. My fear, in a nutshell, is that, as the scheme will be directed towards the training of young people, you could have a situation where certain private sector interests might see an availability here of £60 million or £70 million and might proceed to set up spurious training centres with the object and intent of hiving off these large slices of the public funds in a manner which might not be to the best advantage. The existing training facilities should be very much expanded and the main drive of the agency in the use of these public funds should go towards the expansion of existing organisations which have the experience and potential capacity to do this work. On the industrial side, in particular, I refer to AnCO and CERT which are doing magnificent work and, no doubt, could use a substantial injection of funds. In the agricultural and horticultural section, ACOT also are an organisation which could be a beneficiary of such substantial funds. Likewise, there are training facilities available in many companies in the State sector, such as CIE, Bord na Móna, the Sugar Company, Aer Lingus and others. Those in-company training facilities should more appropriately be the recipient of substantial amounts of these public funds.
It is essential that this scheme be rigorously controlled and, having regard to the extent of the public moneys involved here, that in some form or another the expenditure of these moneys be answerable for in this House. Under the present structure envisaged in this section, that would not be possible. The modus oper-andi here would be a separate company and, no doubt, if any Member of the House attempted to raise questions about particular expenditure he would be faced with the answer that is usually put forward regarding semi-State bodies and an adequate answer about the expenditure of those moneys would not be forthcoming.
Care must be taken also because the emphasis is on training. The Minister must exercise control, if indeed he has adequate power — and I have doubts about that — to ensure that unscrupulous employers do not use any scheme arising under this Bill as a means of obtaining cheap labour, or deferring the taking on of staff which they would otherwise need. If that was seen, or even thought, to happen, it would bring the agency and the excellent idea which it embodies into disrepute. A very substantial measure of control is required. Would the Minister consider at some stage making provision that the expenditure of finances by that agency would be subject to question in the House?
I am opposing the amendment but, let me say immediately, it is not because I do not agree with any of the provisions in that amendment. It is simply because I hope to persuade the Deputies that this amendment would be more appropriate in the memorandum and articles of association. We are dealing here with the agency as it hopes to operate and it will take its guidelines from its memorandum and articles of association. In that memorandum, the principal objects, as Deputy Brennan listed today are to develop, extend, operate, assist, encourage, supervise, co-ordinate and integrate, either directly or indirectly, the training and employment of young persons over 15 and under 25 years. In my introductory statement on Second Stage I already indicated that the memorandum and articles of association of the agency would incorporate the points in paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j) and (k) in Deputy Fitzgerald's amendment. I think Deputy Brennan had the impression that it was Deputy Fitzgerald who included these? If he is under that misapprehension I want to tell him that they were already intended to be part of the memorandum.
I have some difficulty with paragraph (h) in Deputy Fitzgerald's list, which is to prepare and maintain a register of unemployed young persons who are available for employment. This relates to the administrative matters of the agency. Such a register would be prepared and maintained by the National Manpower Service. I suggest that this is the way the agency will decide to operate this area of its administration. The National Manpower Service is the Government's employment service and I propose to use, as fully as possible, the existing administrative structures.
A great deal of play was made of this in the Second Stage speeches of the Opposition. The Opposition Deputies said we were likely to set up a great bureaucratic body with this agency. In order to avoid this it is appropriate that an agency within the Department already operating in this area should do this work. It is my suggestion that the agency continue and, if necessary, be strengthened for that purpose. The National Manpower Service has offices in various places throughout the country and has staff throughout the country. It would be a bureaucratic nonsense to set up a parallel body doing the very same work. I am sure Deputy Fitzgerald is aware of the work done by those individuals throughout the country. He has said, and I am inclined to agree with him, that perhaps records are not as fully up to date as they could be. If that is a weakness it must be corrected and I am sure the agency will certainly be very quick to point out to a body like the National Manpower Service that they have their facts wrong or that they are not complete, if that is the case.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) provide that the agency act under the Minister as a body having overall national responsibility for the furtherance of the employment of young persons and advise the Government or the Minister, on the agency's initiative or at the request of the Minister, on policy for the creation of employment for young persons and related matters. These will obviously be the functions of the agency and I consider that it is unnecessary to spell them out in the Bill. In view of the Opposition's suggestion, I intend to have these included in the memorandum and articles of association with the other items listed in the amendment, with the exception of paragraph (h). This should meet the reasonable objections that could be raised by the Opposition and I believe that this is the best way that it can be done.
This agency is set up on the basis of attracting people of the highest calibre to operate it. I hope that Deputies on all sides of the House will agree that these people will be of the highest calibre and will see that it is so. If we lay down every control possible in this Bill there will be no flexibility whatsoever to deal with problems which arise and require a great deal of ingenuity to solve. I do not think anybody need worry that the Minister will spend money in such a way that the young people will not get the full benefit of it, because the board obviously must adhere to the tasks set out in the memorandum and articles of association. There are opportunities for Deputies to raise in this House problems they might find in regard to the operations of the agency. These include Question Time, Private Notice Question, Private Members' Time and so on. All these are available to them if they feel there is a need to question the operation of the agency at any time. I would hope that the Opposition would not press this amendment.
There is just one other point in regard to the number of people who will be trained and where they will be trained. I set that out in my speech, and we intend to extend the operations in this field of training and job creation. It is envisaged that up to 16,000 of the 20,000 jobs will be taken up by an extension of the various schemes at present operating in this area. Therefore nobody need be concerned that there will suddenly be a rash of bogus schemes put forward or that the agency will be too weak to see through these. The main emphasis will be on extending existing schemes. Over three-quarters of the work experience schemes or training created for young people will go to those existing agencies. I would ask the Opposition not to press this amendment but to accept that the list in the amendment will be included in the memorandum and articles of association. But I would not agree with paragraph (h) being included for the reasons I have put forward, namely, that this is an administrative problem and I do not wish to set up an additional bureaucratic structure that is not necessary.
Time prevents us from pushing it further. I have no doubt that my colleagues would like to go through every single one of those paragraphs because they are all extremely important. I am sorry that the Minister has taken that view because his colleague, Deputy Taylor, has the same reservation that I expressed at the outset: I do not believe that having them in the memorandum and articles of association is sufficient. They should be well teased out and gone into in greater detail than time allows and they should be included in the legislation being passed by the House. I do not want to delay the House because of the time strictures and the fact that we have a lot to do yet. But I do want to make one point because of the Minister's reference to it. That is in relation to paragraph (h), preparing and maintaining a register of unemployed young persons.
I agree with the Minister's reference to the National Manpower Service. On Second Stage I asked if this agency was really necessary and if the National Manpower Service could have done the job. I want the agency to work, but I do not want it to be just a scapegoat or just appearing to be doing something. I want it to be effective. I asked questions that have not been answered. I wanted to know where does the agency stand in relation to AnCO, CERT and all the others. I want to see the training numbers increased by 20,000, and more if it is possible. But, having had some experience of that Department and having been the Minister who initiated the work experience programme, I want to point out that we were gravely concerned, even dealing with smaller numbers, about abuse of the scheme. That danger becomes all the greater with greater numbers. There is a danger that the scheme will be abused, not by those participating in it but by those who would like to avail of it for other reasons. This is a real danger that the Minister must be aware of and pay particular attention to, and the agency will have to pay attention to it as well.
Because of the time strictures I will just make those two points. I would have preferred if the amendment had been accepted and if we could have teased out other details and difficulties. Perhaps this might be done in the Seanad. I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment.
Before I sit down I would refer to one other item raised by one of my colleagues: in this Year of the Disabled there should have been a specific reference to disabled persons. Even "disadvantaged youth" would have covered the situation. I accept what the Minister says with regard to his intentions in relation to the articles of association. He says he will include them but I would prefer to have it stated specifically in the legislation before the House. I accept the Minister's point and I have no option but to withdraw my amendment.
Once again I want to assure Deputy Fitzgerald that this will be included in the memorandum of association.
Amendments 5, 6 and 7 are related and, by agreement, may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, subsection (5), lines 17 and 18, to delete "such bodies representative of young persons as the Minister may determine" and substitute "the National Youth Council".
I assumed from the election manifesto of one of the parties at least that when youth were being represented that representation would be from the National Youth Council. That does not appear to be the position in the Bill. On the Second Stage I pointed out that I did not see the necessity for representation by the Department of the Environment. That is no reflection on the Department. I felt Environment probably would be the Department in which some schemes would be set up or operated but I did not see it as a Department with a direct input such as some other Departments would have. I am not changing the total numbers involved. If I were to do that I would be supporting three members from congress and three members from the employer bodies. On the congress side you would have craftsmen represented. Likewise, it is vitally important that apprentices be represented together with the general working unions, the white collar unions and, of course, the public service unions. Congress should have three. The employer bodies should have three because there are the Federated Union of Employers, the Confederation of Irish Industry and the Construction Industry Federation. I had no intention of affecting the total. I am being very reasonable in all this. May I say here the National Youth Council is an umbrella organisation and for that reason they should nominate members to the agency. Again, I think Finance should be represented. I thought the tripartite committee did great work and should be reflected in this. If Finance does not have representation there may not be quite the same commitment from that Department.
I cannot understand why an agency is being set up without the real job-creating Department in the whole productive area and that is the Department of Industry and Energy. I am not critical of the agency and the proposals I have made would improve the content of the Bill and the framework and format of the agency.
I cannot accept this amendment. In setting up this agency we decided to have an agency smaller than the usual semi-State boards. We required a body in the first instance with dynamism and flexibility to enable it to deal with this problem of youth unemployment. I do not say other boards did not work efficiently and well but extending the numbers——
I am not extending the numbers. I am keeping within the Minister's numbers.
The National Youth Council will be represented. I fully appreciate the work done by that council. I am anxious to see young people from rural areas being part of the representation. I do not like giving instructions and I do not intend to give instructions but I am very anxious that there should be representation from rural Ireland on this agency. I ask Deputy Fitzgerald to accept that I am not excluding the National Youth Council, but I want the council itself to decide who the representatives will be. If they have to go outside their own ranks there is nothing to prevent them doing so. I hope to give them flexibility by indicating two representatives from youth as part of the agency. I am anxious to spread representation as widely as possible and I believe it is important that rural Ireland should be represented.
With regard to substituting Finance and deleting Environment, I would remind Deputy Fitzgerald that on the Second Stage he spoke about the cold hand of Finance.
That was on other sections.
He is back now to the old days when he was in the Department of Finance and he wants to give Finance representation. The real reason for this is that the Department of the Environment with their environmental improvements schemes will, we hope, play a very big part in extending schemes for this agency. This is the Department that controls the local authorities. The local authorities will be very concerned with the work of the agency because of the interest in youth problems by local representatives throughout the country. Accordingly, I believe the Department of the Environment should have membership of the board because we feel their views should be available to the agency. It would be a mistake to substitute the Department of Finance for the Department of the Environment. As the Deputy has said, the Department of Finance have certain controls anyway and they are listed in other sections. All Departments can make submissions to the agency. We can consider the inclusion of the Department of Industry and Energy, but I want to be left with as much latitude as possible. In other words, I do not want to over-populate the agency's membership of eleven with too much Departmental representation on the board. If I were to accept the amendment, the balance in favour of Departmental representation would be too heavy. I ask the Opposition, therefore, to accept the reasons for my not accepting the amendment.
Did the Minister say he was considering including a representative of the Department of Industry and Energy? Does that imply that he would increase the membership of the board?
No, the number will be eleven. My concern is with the balance.
I think the Minister will consider this at a later stage. We are now bound by the time limitation. We will withdraw the amendment.
The Minister said that the agency will become involved in youth enterprise, an area in which other agencies, such as the IDA, are already involved. Is he suggesting that the funds of the youth enterprise scheme and the IDA will be operated by this agency, or will youth enterprise interests continue to operate existing schemes. If these interests are not to be involved in the future I suggest they should be represented on the board.
I hope there will be adequate female representation on the board. Unemployment is particularly prevalent among young women and I should like to see women represented on the board.
It is possible that the agency will be involved in the areas in which Deputy Daly is interested.
Will these activities be separate from the activities of the industrial and youth enterprise bodies?
I would think so. It is not envisaged that the agency would take over their youth enterprise activities.
In other words, the moneys being expended in the YES will not be the responsibility of the agency? This money was being spent to encourage young people to set up enterprises. Will these moneys in future be spent by the agency and will the activities of the bodies I have mentioned be terminated?
I will be withdrawing my amendment, although I agree with my colleague's point about youth enterprise activities. However, the unfortunate arrangement about time compels me to withdraw the amendment.
Deputy Harney suggested the need to have women on the board. The Minister for Labour will appoint three directors. The other appointments will be made by the trade unions and the employers and it will be up to them to appoint women on the board.
I move amendment number 7a:
In page 5, line 28, to delete "Act." and substitute "Act: Provided that such sums in any given year shall not be less than the amount of levy moneys accruing to the Exchequer in that year by virtue of section 24 of this Act.".
What I am looking for is an assurance from the Minister that the full amount of the fund will be spent by the agency.
I accept the objective of the amendment.
All I want is an assurance that somehow, some time, a question will not arise that although £64 million would be collected, perhaps only £60 million would be spent in any year, the £4 million finding its way into some other Exchequer activity.
I will give the Deputy an explanation why I am opposed to the amendment. I could say that so much money would be spent by the agency in each year, but practical difficulties would present themselves. Two years are involved, the financial year and the tax year, and it would not be possible to estimate in advance to the penny the amount that would accrue to the agency because one could not predict what the yield from the levy would be in any one year.
I agree with the concept of the amendment. It should be made clear to the public that at all times the entire amount of the levy will be applied for the purpose of providing employment for our youth. The public are inclined to be cynical about this and to get the impression that some of the money will get deflected elsewhere and not be applied for the purpose for which this specific levy has been designed. I accept the Minister's comments in regard to the practicalities of collection and so forth. There will have to be publicity from time to time so that people paying the levy can be assured regularly that it is being applied specifically for that purpose. It is on that basis only that they will be prepared to pay it.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
On the basis that the Minister has given an assurance. If we had time we would stay on it longer. It is a very important point. I agree with what Deputy Taylor said.
This section deals with the powers of the Minister as a shareholder. As far as I can see, this section gives the Minister the only power he has under the Bill. It enables him to exercise direct control over the affairs of the agency. In my view — and I would ask the Minister to have a think about this — it is a very inadequate degree of control. It gives him control only in his capacity as a shareholder which for practical purposes means only at the annual general meeting. So far as the day to day or month to month activities of the agency are concerned he will have no power at all. I would have thought that he should have power in special circumstances to issue directives to the agency on critical matters which could arise from time to time.
It is conceivable — I do not think it will happen; it probably will not happen — that a situation could arise in which the employment of young people in a particular industrial concern could be a possible source of an industrial dispute. One could envisage a situation in which the workers in a plant might regard youth employment as affecting in some way members of the union operating in the plant. I am sure great care will be taken and that this will be unlikely to happen. If an emergency situation arose, I would have thought the Minister should have power to issue a specific directive. That power is not given in this section.
We passed section 8 under which the agency will submit a plan to the Minister and, on the basis of that plan, the Minister will advance money. The agency will not run amok and do certain things without the Minister's knowledge. He will have approved their plan. This is the normal type of section for an agency like this. It covers the power of the Minister as a shareholder. They will not run amok and do anything they like.
Deputy Taylor has raised a very important principle. I do not share his point of view completely, and yet I am not sure what the Minister has in mind. At one time I was responsible for setting up a number of companies of this kind to do particular jobs. Government Departments are very busy places. There is a lot of different types of work to be done. Ideally when you set up a company and appoint a number of responsible people as directors should you not assume that they will apply themselves to seeing that the job is done in the optimum way.
If the Minister is tied in to important decisions of the company this brings in one of the great dangers I always see as a socialist, that is, the danger of bureaucracy and the delays of bureaucrats. They are perfectly responsible. I am not criticising them in any way. Once the Minister is brought into make day to day decisions, or even important decisions other than a decision to give power and money to the company and tell them to get on with the job, where does he stop? Where does he cease to interfere? What powers are we giving to the directors of this very important company? Where do we draw the line? Once you start saying there shall be delimitations in the power of the directors, would they not have to be specified in the Bill?
Are we not being rather vague about it? Should we not say to them: "This is a very important job. You are all very responsible people with considerable experience in all the aspects of the operation of this type of company and you must be trusted"? If you do not trust them, where do you stop? It will create serious dangers for the Minister because he will be called by us to account for day to day running matters of the company and he might not wish to do that. It might delay the progress of the company. It is a matter of policy.
I was not making the point that the Minister should have responsibility for the day to day running of the affairs of the agency or that his imprimatur would be required. I was saying that I would have thought there should have been a reserve, that in an appropriate emergency situation he would have a reserve of power to issue a directive to the company possibly regarding their expenditure of funds in a particular way or something of that sort. If he is answerable here to some extent, why not? After all, we are talking about the annual expenditure of £60 million or £70 million of public money. This is the place where it is right and proper for the Minister to be answerable. It is the only place he can be made answerable. That is the point I was trying to make.
I find that the two Deputies are at odds and I am in the middle. I did not want the Minister to have so much power that he could jump in and interfere when he thought fit. In setting up the memorandum and articles of association of the agency we tried to give them the dynamism and flexibility to go ahead and deal with the great problem of unemployment among young people. We said that when the agency have their plan of action, they should bring it to the Minister and he will give them the money to go ahead and do the work. I do not want to limit them in any way in doing the job as specified in their memorandum and articles of association. They are the guidelines on which they must do their job.
The board will consist of responsible people who will have the trust of the whole House and the public in general. We have to give them the flexibility to tackle the problem. I would not like to impose my will on them as Minister, and I would not like to see any successor of mine impose his will on them and insist that his views were taken into account. We could have brought in a Bill like the Bill which set up the IDA with everything set down, tying them down very tightly. This problem requires a quick solution. We need a flexible and dynamic agency who know they have not got somebody looking over their shoulder all the time, or likely to withdraw finance simply because they do not seem to be operating in the way the Minister feels they should. I believe that is the best way. I want this agency to be a success and not just because the Minister feels they should operate in a particular area or direction.
I am not at odds with Deputy Taylor. He has raised a terribly important point, especially in view of NET, Gaeltarra Éireann and various other companies whose records certainly could be questioned from time to time. I sympathise with the Minister in his dilemma. For instance, does one give all this money to a group? Then to what extent are they answerable to us, to the Committee of Public Accounts or, for instance, will they be subject to parliamentary questions? The House will know how we are told: "This is a semi-State company and you cannot put down a question." Will we be able to find out if we feel that something is going very wrong? To what extent will we have control, through the Minister, in so far as he must answer our questions?
Obviously this is an agency within the Department of Labour.
It is not within the Department, it is outside it. That is the problem.
As in the case of AnCO last week, we do answer questions about their activities. Secondly, the Minister could be questioned in the same way about this agency. I believe there must be full answerability to the House about its activities and the Minister must be answerable since he is responsible for the handing out of the funds. Apart from the normal checks made and the report to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the House here will certainly——
It did not work too well with NET or Gaeltarra Éireann.
I do not intend to deal with the NET problem here this evening.
Amendment No. 8 in the name of the Minister. Amendments No. 9 is cognate. Therefore amendments Nos 8 and 9 to be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 36, to delete "member" and substitute "director".
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 6, subsection (2) (b), line 1, to delete "member" and substitute "director".
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 6, subsection (2) (b), line 1, to delete "all" and substitute "one".
I take it there is nothing here of substance?
Amendment No. 11 in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are consequential. Therefore we shall take amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 14, after "audited" to insert "together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General upon such audit and a report of its proceedings during that accounting year".
The thrust of these amendments is to do what Deputy Daly wants, that is, to ensure that the accounting is as extensive as we can make it. The report will be as full as I believe Deputies would require. I cannot in the amendment specify how the report should be compiled. Perhaps Deputy Daly would tell me exactly what he would require in that report.
I am not totally satisfied with the ministerial amendment in relation to the report. I want an annual report which will give an exact account of the activities of the agency during the year and which will publish the results and findings of the agency, which probably will issue guidelines and make recommendations for future action in areas in which other agencies encounter difficulties. I am not totally satisfied that the report the Minister has in mind in this amendment is the type I want to see. Perhaps he could elaborate somewhat further.
This is a limited company under the 1963 Act. There is a particular accountancy meaning to the term "report". It can be as little as three lines signed by the auditor of the company, that the auditor is in fact reporting. It is significant that there is no mention of a report in section 12, unless I have missed it. I know the Minister has amended the section to include the word "report"— income and expenditure account and report. We are suggesting that, in addition to the ordinary three or four line accountancy report to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who would obviously audit it, there be a report outlining how successful the agency feel they have been, how many jobs they have created, all the various reports we feel this House should have.
This is particularly important in view of the points raised by Deputies Browne and Mervyn Taylor. We are giving here a figure of the order of £90 million to a private, limited company. The State is the shareholder, but it is simply a private, limited company. They can tell the Minister to get lost for 12 months and spend those £90 million virtually in any way they like, although they must take heed of the Bill. But under the 1963 Act it is a private, limited company. Because the Minister is a shareholder and not a director, we are anxious that he exercise some type of day to day control over the taxpayers' money, that at least the form of reporting be laid down specifically in the Bill to include a wider area than the broad, three line accountancy report.
When we became aware that the word "report" was not mentioned in the section we introduced this amendment to overcome the problem. I can assure Deputies opposite that it will be a very full report of the activities of the agency. Such a report is mentioned in legislation in respect of other agencies and of State or semi-State bodies. I can assure the Deputies that it will be what they require — a full report of their activities and accountability for them.
With regard to the last point made by Deputy Brennan, if he reads section 12 (3) he will see that it says:
The Agency shall on demand furnish to the Minister such explanations as the Minister shall think proper to require in respect of any balance sheet or income and expenditure account furnished pursuant to this section.
This gives the Minister power to find out exactly what is happening with regard to accountancy.
That is after the accounts have been published only. For the first 12 months the Minister would not have any say such as that because the accounts would not be published.
Well, bearing in mind the obligation to furnish a balance sheet and so on——
I would expect that, in addition to the balance sheet, there would be recommendations from the agency and priorities for action in other areas. For instance, would we have a full account of their activities for the period covered by the report, the number of meetings held, the items discussed, various statistics and so on with which they would deal? I feel it is too vague.
The pity is that we have not time to discuss these matters.
We can take it then that we do not have a right of access, through parliamentary questions, to the day to day workings of the agency, through the Minister, because subsection (3) says:
The Agency shall on demand furnish to the Minister such explanations as the Minister shall think fit to require in respect of any balance sheet...
Therefore, what is the procedure whereby Deputies can discuss the whole enterprise? Is it on the annual report? Certainly we cannot do it in the interim, as Deputy Brennan said. Is that true?
Obviously the day to day operation of the agency is for the agency. We do not want them to be harried every minute and hour of their day because a Deputy may feel that they are not doing what they should be doing. Nevertheless I accept Deputy Browne's concern. As I have said, in relation to AnCO I have answered several questions in this House. That body has never refused to give me any information I sought. I would understand that that would be the position with the agency, that if and when a Deputy had a problem, I would seek information from them and would furnish it in the form of a question asked, if that was the situation.
It has been our experience during the years that we cannot get information. The Minister's attitude has been that he does not want to interfere with the day to day working, that he has no part in it and, therefore, that he is not in a position to give us information. I shared completely his attitude on these matters up to the recent disclosures in relation to a number of semi-State companies. I wonder if this Government or the former Government have learned anything from the fact that a number of semi-State companies have behaved in a very questionable way in regard to the spending of money. Should we not take special precautions in a section like this to ensure that this does not continue? Did any of us learn anything from past experience?
As I said, I am reluctant to comment about companies in the purview of another Minister or to start a discussion in that area. We have provided in section 12 that a report and audited accounts will be available annually. I believe the report of the agency will be a full one, and I can assure the House that is the situation. Perhaps in his earlier days Deputy Browne would not have liked to see the Minister's hand being laid too heavily on an agency such as this and he might have liked the agency to be allowed to do its work in as free a manner as possible. However, because of recent disclosures he appears to be changing that view in the light of what may have happened elsewhere. I hope he will accept that the people involved in this agency will be committed people and that the way it has been set up will ensure they will do their job. I think the companies the Deputy had in mind are in the State trading area, but this agency is not in that line of business. It will have a lot of money to deal with but the strictures we are putting on it in respect of accountability to this House and the public are adequate, so that the public need not be afraid their money is being used badly or for a purpose other than was intended.
If the Minister is giving us an assurance that the report referred to in section 12 will be a comprehensive one setting out the activities, priorities, progress and ambitions of the agency, we will accept it.
That would be what I would expect from the agency. I can give the Deputy that assurance.
It should include comprehensive details of expenditure of the agency. There is a basic difference between this agency and the semi-State companies. For example, CIE are a trading organisation and one could understand that the Minister for Transport would not wish to be answerable for the trading activities of such a company. However, this agency is different. It is a spending organisation and it will be spending a very considerable amount of money. When we realise that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs can be asked a question regarding the cost of erection of a telephone kiosk in a village, it seems not unreasonable that the Minister for Labour should be answerable about how £5 million allocated to a certain scheme was spent. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the Minister to accept that degree of accountability. I ask him to reconsider it and, as a minimum, to ensure that full information regarding expenditure is given in the annual report.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 6, subsection (4), lines 27 and 28, to delete "and income and expenditure account" and substitute ", income and expenditure account and report".
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 6, subsection (4), line 30, to delete "and income and expenditure account" and substitute ", income and expenditure account and report".
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 6, subsection (2), line 46, to delete "or," and substitute "or".
We are opposed to this section. As I said earlier, it is unfortunate we did not have enough time to debate the sections leading up to this section. This section is imposing a 1 per cent levy on all incomes. One per cent on the self-employed will yield approximately £8 million; 1 per cent on rents and other property income will bring in approximately £500,000; the levy on farmers' income will bring in about £7,500,000; the levy on corporation profits will yield about £10 million and on all dividends it will yield about £1,500,000. That brings the total of revenue from those sources to £27,500,000. Then we must add the largest contribution of all, the amount from the PAYE sector. Taking the Minister's figure of £63 million as the total, an amount of approximately £35 million will be obtained from the PAYE sector.
We have a fund of £63 million to which we add a considerable contribution from the European Social Fund. I will spell out clearly why we are opposing the section. On Second Stage we asked that we be told specifically that this money was in addition to Exchequer funding already made available by successive Governments for the training, work experience and general development needs of young people. It is obvious that this is no longer the case. It is obvious that this levy of 1 per cent is an imposition of tax on workers, on the self-employed, the farming community and business people.
Those workers, those people generally, from now on will provide the funding for training. How do I figure that out? Deputy Taylor said that the income was in the region of £72 million. That probably is generally right, as the Minister has said approximately £63 million, so we will accept that. To that we add for some of the operations a 55 per cent contribution, for others perhaps less, but a contribution to most of it from the European Fund. Even if we are very conservative and say only £37 million, it is still somewhere around £100 million of funding for what we are talking about tonight. From what the Minister for Defence said last night on Second Stage it is obvious that this levy is going to fund all the schemes, existing and new, engaged in the training of young people.
We have so much in this Bill and I am sure my colleagues have a lot to say and our time is so restricted that I cannot go further. I am satisfied now from what the Minister said last night and from the figures available to us that this Government are transferring the funding provided from Exchequer sources at present to funding being provided specifically by a levy imposed on all persons. Additional activity, yes, but obviously the money is being provided to cater for both additional and existing schemes, therefore it is a hidden tax on all working people. The only people who will not contribute to that levy are those who can successfully avoid or evade payment of the taxation. We oppose the section.
I agree with the remarks of Deputy Fitzgerald. In principle the idea of an across-the-board levy on all employees is bad. It is an unfair way of taxing people and it has no regard to one's ability to pay. It takes no regard of the outgoings a person may have, his number of dependants and so on. This across-the-board idea of taking 1 per cent away from somebody's income before that person gets his hand on it is bad and, as Deputy Fitzgerald said, is another attack on some of the unfortunate people who are taxed so heavily at the moment. In particular it is going to hit very heavily the PAYE sector who are carrying more than their fair share of the tax burden. It is all the more serious that such an amount of money should be taken away from all the taxpayers of the country and that, as we established earlier on Committee Stage of this Bill, we as parliamentarians have no direct say in how this money is spent. We do not seem entitled to ask Parliamentary Questions on how such an amount of State funds are to be expended. That is regrettable, given that this money is to be taken across the board. Obviously it will increase from year to year as the unemployment figure rises and as the number of young people in our population increases and more of them will come to the age when they will be seeking employment. It will not be long before this figure increases from 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent, 2 per cent, 3 per cent and so on. As parliamentarians we should have more say in how the agency will expend these funds. The principle is bad. This is another form of taxation and it is a dishonest way for the Government to try to find funds for this agency which, on the whole, is very welcome. The idea of a levy is a bad one.
We have to oppose this section mainly because we find it to be a dishonest step to suggest that this Bill will magically put at the disposal of the Government a sum of £90 million which is now fresh, suddenly available to fund employment here. If you stop anybody in the street outside and say, "Would you mind giving 1 per cent of your wages to find jobs for young people?" the person will say, "Of course I do not like it but I will do it". People will be very glad to say that they will do so. However, what has emerged on Second Stage of this Bill is emerging again today. The public have the impression that this 1 per cent is fresh money for new schemes, and that is not accurate. The public are misinformed about the situation. We on this side of the House say that this should be called honestly and openly what we believe it to be, a new tax. It is raising tax on people's incomes. It is income tax to fund employment. That is what income tax is for in any case, but we should be open and honest about it. A glance through the various Estimates will reveal what kind of figures are there already for new schemes. You will see figures like AnCO £44 million, CERT £1 million, pre-employment courses £3 million, environment £3 million, community schemes of various sorts £4 million and so on. Before you start putting in others you will arrive at £60 million or £70 million going into new schemes from the State. One would be very suspicious when the new tax raised by this 1 per cent goes straight into the Exchequer that that money is to be used just to fund existing schemes. If there is a small increase surely those increases would have to be granted anyway in the normal course because of inflationary trends and so on.
A figure of about £10 million, it seems, is being taken from Irish industry on this level. I mentioned on Second Stage that if we are taking £10 million out of Irish industry to an extent that will damage the competitiveness and performance of Irish industry, then we want to be sure that in spending that money through this agency we are at least providing more jobs than may be affected by taking that £10 million out of Irish industry.
The key to this section of the Bill and the whole Bill as far as we are concerned is how much of that proposed £90 million or £60 million or whatever the figure turns out to be when collected will be spent on specifically new schemes or even an extension of existing schemes and how much of it will be funding what we are already committed to. If it is funding what we are already committed to, then all we are doing here today is debating a Finance Bill, raising new tax to fund Government schemes in the ordinary course. That is the kernel of it. The Minister should come clean and tell us honestly and openly if it is a new tax for totally new projects or if it is just bailing out the Government because of existing difficulties. I will leave it at that.
This is where we loop the loop in this legislation. There is no doubt that you can do almost anything in regard to shifting schemes which are already funded through various Departments into the Youth Employment Agency. On Second Stage we found that the Minister for Finance has already hived off to the two youth employment schemes and the youth employment enterprise scheme the sum of £200,000, money which has been lying idle and has not been spent at all in spite of the price level that we have. This money standing awaiting the setting up of an agency while these schemes could be under way at present through the Department of Finance bears out what could happen if this shifting of responsibility for schemes which are already in progress is practised by the Government. This bears out what Deputy Brennan has highlighted. Indeed, we could see a curtailment through the co-ordination which the Minister is talking about of the very activities we are trying to promote here. This is a dangerous situation and we on this side must oppose this measure.
I am opposed to the levy especially when I consider the dramatic steps being taken in Germany, for example, to encourage firms to provide training for young people. Here we are imposing levies which will be detrimental in the long run. Money was provided up to now from the Employment Guarantee Fund and that may well be withdrawn if companies are obliged to pay this levy. We are concerned about this sleight of hand. It will be damaging to the whole concept of the Youth Employment Agency if it is practised and encouraged by the Government. I have already had an indication, from the reply to my Parliamentary Question of 25 November, that this is already taking place. The whole question of the levy, the operation of existing schemes and the setting up of the new agency reminds me slightly of the £9.60 a week about which we heard so much.
I shall deal immediately with the point about Irish industry contributing to the income of this agency. Deputy Brennan mentioned a figure of £10 million. Quite honestly, I do not know where the Deputy got that figure.
He got it in a parliamentary reply to me.
£10 million?
The reply from the Minister for Finance was that through corporation profits, the 1 per cent levy would bring in, at 1981 figures, approximately £10 million. The source is the Minister's Department of Finance.
The youth levy covers personal income, not corporation profits.
What does the youth levy cover?
Personal income. This is a 1 per cent levy on personal incomes.
May I come in here?
Certainly.
Is this a new development? Is it only the worker who is being taxed?
No.
Is the farmer included?
Farmers are included.
Are business communities included?
Their directors' fees obviously — whatever is taxed on personal income.
Not profits?
Not profits.
This is a new departure.
I would have thought that the Deputy would have read that in the Bill from the beginning and not be raising it at this stage.
Surely, in the Dáil debate here I raised it. Deputy Brennan also raised it, and many others. I did not notice one reference to it by the Minister, Deputy Tully when he was replying yesterday evening. I have only the unrevised script before me, but no correction has been made by the Minister for Defence.
It is in the Bill.
This is another example of the danger of rushing through legislation in a few hours. There are very many defects which have been pointed out by Deputy Browne, and even Deputy Taylor. We would have liked to tease these out in great detail, if we had had the time. I said, in opening the Second Stage debate, that it was a Bill which lent itself to a very useful, worthwhile Committee Stage debate. You can see, even from the presence on our side of the House, the interest in it — which would have been far greater had we had time to devote to it. There were only two short hours and for the first time we are now told that corporation profits tax are not included. Can the Minister explain to the House why they should be excluded? Why are the PAYE worker, the farmer, the self-employed shouldering the burden of all this levy? Deputy Brennan put it very well when he said that the majority of people one met in the street would be willing, because of the unemployment situation, to contribute 1 per cent, but now the plot thickens. We had convinced ourselves, from the inadequate flow of information to us, that it is merely a change in the funding of existing schemes from the Exchequer — revenue which was being provided for it — to a specific 1 per cent levy for the existing schemes and additional new schemes. It is, in fact, a Finance Bill with which we are dealing here — a selective Finance Bill. Deputy Browne is in the House but I am amazed that Deputy Kemmy is not. I would like to hear if they are aware that this legislation does not include corporation profits tax.
Is it not true that people would pay a contribution on the basis of their income as assessed for tax, on corporation tax which is a separate tax — not corporation profits tax which was abolished in about 1976. That is a different thing. Would the Minister not agree that the idea behind the scheme is that people who are in employment should contribute in an attempt to create jobs for those who are not in employment?
The late arrival of the Deputy is a bit of an embarrassment. He does not know what we have been talking about all evening. He should go back to his county council meeting.
As Deputy Brennan and Deputy Fitzgerald have said, nobody has any objection to funding a scheme to help the unemployed to find a job, particularly young people who have difficulty in obtaining employment. The average PAYE worker, if told, as we are told now, that he must pay 1 per cent of his income by way of a levy to fund employment when the banks and all the other profiteers who make tremendous profits every year are making no contribution, would consider that an absolute disgrace. It will not have the acceptance of the vast majority of the people, who are already overtaxed.
That this is a great revelation to the House, and particularly to the Opposition, stretches credulity too far. We have had two days almost completely devoted——
The Minister kept it very quiet. He played that one down.
——to the Second Stage and two hours yesterday. We had a Bill in front of us.
No wonder the Minister kept it quiet.
We had a Bill in front of us. We dealt with the first section which set out those people who are going to pay the levy and this passed over without debate at that stage. All the people are listed there in the Bill. I cannot understand how anybody could be in any doubt that this was a 1 per cent levy on personal income, on PRSI obviously, taking in those people covered by the Health Act. They are clearly listed and nobody could be in any doubt. It was never intended that the levy be extended into the profits of business. It was a personal levy and so it was always explained and brought before the people at the general election. Anybody who has approached me — and various bodies have — has been satisfied on this point of what exactly I was setting out — that this was, at all stages, a 1 per cent levy on personal income. Nobody has been misled, except the Members opposite.
One may or may not agree that the operation of the youth levy should be obtained on personal incomes or from general taxation, but the method put forward by the Government is that it should be a levy, which has a number of attractions. We are asking the people to pay this levy for a number of reasons. There is a serious youth unemployment problem which will cost money to solve.
Let us be honest about the way we are getting the money.
We are asking those who are employed to contribute from their incomes to solve these problems. There is complete transparency in what is being done with the proceeds from the levy. In my First Reading speech, I left nobody in any doubt as to how the schemes were being financed. I clearly stated it in my Second Reading speech, and no one in this House at this stage can say that I have not given full information at all stages.
The Minister never did. Is he saying now that he is transferring funds, that AnCO and CERT and the other experienced training schemes will all be funded from this levy? Is that what the Minister is saying?
I am not saying that.
What is the Minister saying? Let him be clear about it. Let him not do what many of his colleagues are doing, adopting double standards. That is not the Minister's style.
There is no suggestion of any double standard. What I said in my first speech on this was that I wanted to see a co-ordinated approach between what had been done in the past and what has to be done in the future. I am convinced that the best way to do this is by having a single source of Exchequer finance.
Will the Minister confirm that dividends of rental income, in so far as they are personal income, will be subject to the 1 per cent?
On a point of order, I appreciate that the Chair is now putting the question according to the Order of Business. I want guidance from the Chair. We want to oppose section 15 of this Bill. I want to know how we can do that within the order of the House as laid down for the day.
It is now 7 p.m. and, in accordance with the order made this morning, I have to put the question.
It is not possible for us to vote on section 15 separately?
The order made by the Dáil this morning was that all Stages of the Bill would be taken and the question put at 7 p.m.
Deputy Fitzgerald had stated earlier on that he was opposing this section. I would have thought that was sufficient notice.
Do I understand that we cannot vote on section 15 separately?
The situation is that, if the debate had not finished at 7 p.m., the question was to be put.
I protest in the strongest possible manner. Here is a Bill of extreme importance to every Member of this House and of extreme importance to the unemployed young people. If ever a Bill needed a worth while Committee Stage, this did. It did not get it in the two hours available. There were many reservations expressed even by Members on the Government Benches on some sections of it. This section is one that we are absolutely opposed to and would be voting on, given the opportunity. The only option open to us is opposing the Bill in its entirety and we are reluctant to do that because any contribution towards helping young people, even though it be confined to training and work experience as it is in this Bill, we are prepared to support.
We could have spent several hours on this section alone teasing out the problems. This involves a transfer of funding for youth agencies, training and work schemes, CERT, environmental schemes, National Manpower Service schemes, from the workers of this country. I cannot force a vote because it would be interpreted as a vote against the entire measure. But I want it recorded here that we are opposed to the 1 per cent hidden taxation being imposed in this Bill. It is another Finance measure.
