: I would like to clarify one point with the Minister. Last night he mentioned a figure of £650 per job filled last year. Am I right in saying that? As there is no reply from the Minister I will have to look at what the Minister stated last night.
Private Members' Business . - Public Sector Job Application Charges: Motion (Resumed)
The following motion was moved by Deputy Gene Fitzgerald on Tuesday, 19 April 1983:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to withdraw immediately the charges imposed on job applications in the Public Sector.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute:
"recognises that in present financial circumstances it is desirable that the cost of some State services be borne to at least some extent by those making use of the services."
— (Minister for the Public Service.)
: Will the Deputy please continue?
: I asked a question and as the answer is not forthcoming I will have, with your permission, to go through the Minister's speech last night.
: On a point of explanation, if it is any help and if the Deputy wishes me to——
: I will quote an extract from the unrevised copy of the Minister's speech of last night.
Acting Chairman
: Before the Deputy does that may I ask him if he wishes to hear a comment from the Minister?
: I will read it and have it written into the record again. The Minister stated last night:
As regards the major examinations last year it cost £650 per job filled. Some jobs cost well over £1,000.
I presume from that that the average cost per job would be in the region of £650. When I reported progress last night I had very briefly referred to the difficulties young people are having at the moment trying to obtain employment. I would like again to point out that the amendment to our motion put down by the Government is similar in tone to many statements that have been issued by the Government recently. I would like to emphasise that there is no comparison at all between the people paying for services, such as water and sewerage, and paying for what should be a right, the chance to be employed.
The net result of the imposition of the charges in this case is that of putting a premium on the right of people to look for work. The many promises and commitments made by the Government in relation to youth make this fee deceitful and fraudulent and it is an indication of the depths to which the Government have sunk. It is also a very damning indictment of the bankruptcy of thought that has afflicted the Government and paralysed their efforts to create employment, which should be their main priority.
I would like to refer to the 1981 report of the Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission. On page 5, part 1, of that report the following is stated:
The Commission is sometimes asked what it costs to make an appointment to the Civil Service. This can vary depending on the type of post, the number of candidates and the number of appointments to be made. In 1981 the average cost per appointment was £298.
I do not pretend to know what happened in 1982 but there seems to be a very grave discrepancy between the figure given last night by the Minister of £650 per job filled in 1982 and the figure of £298 in the 1981 commission report.
This charge is just another tax but it is a tax in the main on young people. I know that others who apply for jobs in the civil service and for promotion in the civil service have also to pay this fee. It would be much fairer and more equitable if those people had to pay a little more and if the young people applying for the first time, who are seeking work in the civil service, were given the chance to do that. Those young people are already under the strain of examinations and the intense pressure to try to obtain employment. The extra burden, even though many people say it is very little, can be the last straw in this burden which young people have to bear.
In relation to a recent competition, people who were interviewed, came to Dublin and paid for a night in Dublin, have now got letters saying that because of the huge number — the Minister referred to this last night — it will be a considerable time before the commission are able to get in touch with them. This is a competition for entrance into the Garda Síochána. I feel the figure of £650 given by the Minister is an exaggerated figure. I do not believe the full figures could be available yet. I believe this figure has been thrown in here as an excuse for imposing this fee on people applying for jobs in the public service. I ask that these figures be rechecked. As was emphasised by Deputy Fitzgerald last night, there is a great difference in the expense a person applying from a rural area has to bear. There is a great drive on by the Government practically to abolish unemployment assistance as means to be assessed have been greatly increased. A parent who has two or three children looking for a position in the civil service now must cast lots to see which child will be given the £10 application fee. I welcome the fact that the Minister has given in a little on this. He and the Government should admit they were wrong. The application fee should not apply to school leavers.
This fee will hang like an albatross around the necks of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties. It emphasises the harsh and uncaring monetaristic policies of the Government.
: I support the amendment tabled by the Minister that Dáil Éireann recognises that in the present financial circumstances it is desirable that the costs of some State services be borne to at least some extent by those making use of the services. This subject has been topical in the media for some time. I appreciate the opportunity to reject categorically the not only specific fallacious allegations but the overall allegation that this is a tax on unemployment. It is not enough to put down motions on tax savings or cuts or expenditure in Private Members' Time without first looking at the background to them.
We have 190,000 people unemployed. Many people have put forward views as to how the desperate problem of youth unemployment might be solved. They have suggested providing greater incentives to agriculture and industry through private enterprise and further State enterprise through State-sponsored bodies and direct State employment. The underlying root cause of the problem was the reckless Fianna Fáil policy which was laid down in their manifesto and carried out by them in Government between 1977 and 1979 when they increased public and civil service employment. Not only did that policy not solve the unemployment problem but, as we all know to our cost, it gave us a national debt of £11 billion. Civil service officials at the time said their biggest problem was to find work for those recruited.
The need for our economic stringency is because of that reckless policy. We had to look at the alternative of imposing charges for services, whether it is agricultural development officers calling out to farmers, charges for local authority services or charges for examinations and interviews for the civil service. The initial cause for the floundering of the State's finances lies with the party who come into the House week after week in Private Members' Time and put down motions relating to the remedial actions we have had to take for their reckless policies.
Since July 1981 there has been a recruitment embargo on the civil service. The cost of each job filled and the cost of administering the procedures to whittle down the number of applicants is very high. There has been much misleading comment in relation to this subject. The total vote for the administration of the Civil Service Commission is £2,747,000 but that includes only the salaries of those employed in the commission. If we take the total cost of administering it, there is an additional £355,000 of which £100,000 is for advertising vacancies through the media and the remaining £217,000 is for accommodation which has to be rented in order to hold examinations and interviews. The proposed charges, despite misleading comments which stated that for the higher grades there will be a charge of up to £50, are quite specific: £10 for clerical assistant grade upwards. These include very lucrative appointments such as architects and so on. However, 75 per cent of the charges which will arise from the budgetary decision will be at the rate of £7 for the lower grades relating to postman, typist and technician trainees. It is not applicable to semi-State bodies and is a once-off charge.
The Civil Service Commissioners provide other services. They visit secondary and post-primary schools and provide assistance to career guidance teachers. When I researched the history behind this subject I was interested to see that there were charges in 1968. If we look at those charges and take inflation into account, we will see what a similar charge based on £2 then would be now. If we take the administrative officer grade the gross figure now would be £18.72. Similarily for executive officers. For clerical officers it is £11.70 and the same for clerical assistants. For a driver tester it is £18.72. So, although the figure of £7 and of £10 is a once off charge and has been severly criticised by the Opposition, it is only fair to point out statistically that to bring back the same level of charges with updated prices would mean, in some cases, twice the amount being charged now.
When we delve into the history of the Government decision and we see this motion condemning the Government, it is intersting to look at Fianna Fáil's previous performance in this area and answers given by members of that party in this House. Their replies clearly state their policy when they had to face their reality in Government. The following is a quotation from the Official Report of 2 March 1966, Vol. 221, column 716:
Mr. Coogan asked the Minister for Finance if he will state in respect of the past five years (1) the number of posts advertised by the Civil Service Commission; (2) the number of applications received; and (3) the amount collected in application fees; and if, in order to avoid hardship to applicants with young families, he will dispense with the payment of fees by future applicants.
Mr. J. Gibbons: The statistical information sought by the Deputy is:— ... As regards the last part of the question, the general standard of fees charged to candidates seems to me quite reasonable and should not cause hardship. It is long standing policy to charge application fees at open competitions. This has the effect of reducing the cost to the taxpayer of these competitions and of keeping the candidature within reasonable bounds thereby minimising the delay in making appointments.
I also wish to quote from the Official Report of 22 February 1961, Vol. 186, column 691:
Mr. Ryan asked the Minister for Finance if in view of the great hardship which the rule causes, he will relieve unemployed applicants for positions as postmen of the obligation to pay the sum of fifteen shillings in stamps with their applications.
Dr. Ryan: ... It has for many years been the Commissioners' policy — with which I am in full agreement — to charge application fees at all open competitions held by them. Not only do the fees reduce the charge falling on the taxpayer in respect of the expenses of the Commissioners but they serve to keep candidature within reasonable bounds and so avoid extra expense and delay in making appointments.
We see the blatantly cynical opportunism of that party when they are in the hurler-on-the-ditch position in Opposition where they do not have to face reality and take tough decisions.
It is also valid to point out in a week when the first item discussed was taxation that the difficulty is not only the overall economic situation but the intolerable levels of tax burdens. Therefore, we should look at taxes that lead to employment, instead of the Opposition fallaciously accusing us of introducing taxes on the unemployed. Do Fianna Fáil want higher tax burdens on the hotel and motor industries with their 23 per cent VAT? I was talking to an ordinary farmer yesterday who employs a farm labourer and the total contributions under PAYE and PRSI came to £43. That amount prohibits him from taking on further staff. It is recognised on all sides of the House that the limits for taxation have been reached, not only in terms of diminishing returns but also in terms of the capacity of people to pay. We have seen the vintners, motor traders and the PAYE sector on the streets protesting that they cannot tolerate the present level of taxation. We have no alternative, either we withdraw the services or charge a nominal amount for them. Surely it is equitable — a very trendy and fashionable word — that the burden should be moved from the taxpayer towards the user of the service, leaving aside the hypocritical stand of the Opposition week after week putting down motions for extra expenditure with their projected budget deficit at £150 million smaller than we outlined in our budget of £900 million.
The Opposition should clearly spell out their alternatives in terms of the overall economics and state exactly how they would get off this gravy train. The people are clearly aware that the myth that the Government pay for the services and not the taxpayers has well and truly outlived its usefulness. If we look at the specifics of the costs for various grades in the public service last year we will see the reason why not only was there proven to be a number of frivolous applications, but also that the cost to the taxpayer is intolerable. There were originally 40 vacancies for the grade of post office clerk and the cost of filling them came to £173,000. There was an initial application list of 16,235 but about 4,000 did not do the written examination. It is hard to understand why they did not sit for the examination for which they had applied some weeks previously. I have endless lists of examples before me. There were 19,863 applicants for the position of clerical assistant and 12,376 sat for the written examination, a discrepancy of over 7,000 people who applied for the position. The cost of running the examination was £201,500 to fill 900 places. Any reasonable taxpayer could validly point to those figures and say they are alarmingly high, not in criticism of the Civil Service Commission but of the high level that the taxpayer is being asked to bear which is unfair, especially when you see the number of people who apply but do not bother to sit for the examination.
It behoves Fianna Fáil to spell out the overall consequences of their reckless action in terms of these motions, and, in relation to this motion, if we take the time to study the possible alternatives, we are faced with a number of different options. Should the Government back down altogether or emulate the previous Government when they moved a Supplementary Estimate in the autumn for the Department of the Public Service of £400,000? Should we ignore the problem and push it into the future and find that all our PAYE is gone to pay interest on debt? Are we going to ignore blatantly our responsibility in Government? Are we going to reduce the cost per job ratio that I outlined earlier, which is at present £298 per average job filled? That is what it costs to go through this procedure.
Should we change that ratio by employing more civil servants? That is the very policy that got us into this mess in the first place. Should we bring in higher taxation to the amount of £400,000? Should we rationalise job applications or should we go the whole hog, which Fianna Fáil simplistically have ignored, and amend the 1956 Act whereby the commissioners are simply legally obliged to hold open competitions? The full consequences when we look at the financial aspect mean that that Act must be amended. What are the consequences and alternatives? Will it be the leaving certificate only and a screen test on the leaving certificate only despite the codes of practices accepted at present that the post-primary schools are already accustomed to? Surely this would be unfair to those who leave at intermediate certificate level and who may be have looked for some work experience. Perhaps we should have cancelled the examinations this year and used the panels of last year. That could have been done. It is a feasible option because we see the numbers of unsuccessful applicants last year on panels probably based on some talent, but surely that would run totally in the face of the Opposition's much-expressed disappointment at the lack of opportunities for this year's school leavers who were not in a position to apply last year and are on no panel. Of course, we had to hold the examinations.
The other factor is that if we use some form of screening test with higher education qualifications naturally in this day and age that would lead to claims for higher grades of pay. As always, the Opposition party have failed miserably to state any alternative in relation to the specifics and the general economic situation as to how they might go about it. Private Members' motions such as this are not only pure gimmickry, they are a charade which is an insult to the taxpayer.
I would like to comment on some general points in relation to the overall work of the Department of the Public Service and the civil service and reforms that would not only be essential and desirable but cannot be delayed. In this country we have not only a financial mess but we have two major problems. One is our unique dependency ratio in Europe and the other is a structural problem. In this matter of the entrance to the civil or public service I favour full regionalisation of interviewing and examinations to reduce the cost for the people in Wexford, Waterford, Donegal, Cork and Kerry who must come up to Dublin. On doing a little research on this I was amazed to see how touching was the commitment of the previous Minister, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, to really reducing the cost to the applicant. What did he do to reduce the cost of overnight stays by regionalisation? The existing level of activity was 17 per cent held outside Dublin. He reduced it to 12 per cent and, still not satisfied in his overwhelming concern for the poor applicant, he reduced it to 9 per cent, leaving a situation where the £7 or £10 was derisory in comparison to the accommodation costs and the cost of transport of any rural person coming to Dublin in order to participate in the weeding-out process.
In the general area of the public service I hope that the Green Devlin report will clear divisional aspects of the civil service in relation to policy versus administration, that there will be full accountability in our public service both for promotion and for culpability and that there will be open recruitment at the highest level so that we will get the best brains into the most responsible jobs. The level of money that we are talking about under the management is extremely high and the responsibility is extremely great. It is no reflection on the existing personnel there, but it is always interesting to have open-minded views of people with expertise in various areas coming into these bodies to enlighten and to get the maximum efficiency and effectiveness from our structures.
I hope that we will be able to use to good effect the one-in-three embargo which has taken place since July 1981, not so that a section of a Department would be bereft of staff but that there would be sufficient flexibility within any section to move staff from over-staffed areas and to rationalise and get full efficiency. I have spoken to young people in their early twenties who have left the civil service from pure frustration and boredom and lack of job satisfaction. That is a very sad reflection. I am not saying that it is widespread but the fact that there should be any indications of it would suggest that we must restructure our manning levels within particular sections.
Within the scope of this Opposition motion there is not the fat, the surplus, the wasteful or inefficient process with these interviews and examinations to take any soft option. There is no hedging on this. The money must be paid. The development of technology, electronic scanning equipment and multiple-choice short answer tests has led to an annual saving in the region of £45,000, staffing levels in the commission are at a minimum and in the current year a reduction of approximately £30,000 is anticipated in the cost of technician trainee examinations. Therefore, there is not scope to save £400,000 by rejigging the mechanism for admissions to the civil service. It is a simple, straightforward issue for the taxpayers who are marching in every sector or it is simply a case of Fianna Fáil opportunism that has neglected its duties.
Finally, I reiterate the facts as I see them relating to this situation. Fees were charged up to 1968 and the present rates compare favourably if we take all updating in relation to grade-weighted averages and inflation. In 1968 when this charge was abolished the number of applications to the civil service was at a low ebb and maybe that was the reason for abolishing the charge. Perhaps this was a once-off boost to give encouragement. However, on the figures I have quoted where they were dealing with 12,000 and 16,000 job applications that was not the case and, therefore, the underlying reasons for abolishing it in 1968 are now gone. It is also fair to point out the number of frivolous applicants who did not pursue their applications. I give some examples: executive officer competition, 18 per cent; clerical officer competition, 53 per cent — more people decided not to go ahead with their applications than went ahead; clerical assistant competition, 35 per cent; post office clerk competition, 25 per cent. They did not even bother to sit for the examinations. That speaks for itself.
We must accept that the 1956 Act obliges the Government and the Civil Service Commission to hold competitive tests for all posts, written or by interview, and to place all candidates in the order of merit from that competition. It would be very wrong indeed if any sector in private industry decided that because the Government had taken this action they should follow suit. There is absolutely no resemblance or comparison between the difficulties that the Civil Service Commission are obliged to undergo under legislation and the flexibility and scope that private enterprise has in relation to these matters and the lack of regulations governing them as compared with the civil service. The proposed reduction of 3 per cent staffing levels in every Department has been more than exceeded in the instance of the commissioners. There is no scope for any further efficiency and productivity.
When the hypocritical mask of Fianna Fáil is pulled away, and when their is put to one side, the reality is that or £10 — one night's babysitting money — is not an exorbitant charge in view of what the hard-pressed taxpayer has to pay.
: I support this motion. The closing remarks of Deputy Yates, who is about to leave, concerning babysitting charges in County Wexford is particularly apt in the present circumstances. This was an example of black humour. He said he was asked to speak — there are various ways of asking — on this motion and he prides himself on being the youngest Member of this House. The youngest Member of this House from the grand proud county of Wexford delivered the most priggish, self-righteous, reactionary speech I ever have heard in my long years listening to schoolchildren.
(Interruptions.)
: Allow me to speak, Deputy Yates. I listened to his smug speech with incredulity. I thought he prided himself on representing the young people but I said to myself that, if that is all the young people of Ireland have to look to to represent them in this House, may God help them. In my opinion this shows his sick humour, coming here to lecture the people as to how they should conduct their business.
When I was in the Seanad last year I remember coming to listen to a debate in this Chamber and he was speaking on a motion dealing with unemployment. He made an impassioned plea for the young people and asked that all sorts of tax burdens and inequities be lifted from them. He said he was very proud to be the youngest Member of this House. Yet he comes here tonight and says, with a righteousness that leaves me gasping, that we should whip away our masks of hypocrisy. When we were in Government his party trooped through the lobbies night after night on motions to keep Fieldcrest or somewhere else open, to reduce this or that and night after night we had razor-edge votes. They shed crocodile tears. Deputy Yates is a member of that party and tonight he comes here and tells us to take away our hypocritical masks. That young gentleman looked back to 1968 and even further back to 1961. Was he about then? Just about. When he spoke of what happened in 1961 it sounded odd, but funny. Might I be a little irreverent and say I hope he was out of nappies?
I recognise that the Minister has made what I call a sort of climb-down, similar to that made by the Minister for Education when she made a sort of climb-down on the school transport charges. The Government cannot decide whether they should give in to pressure. There have been day-long meetings about what they should do about this or that, and now they have come up with a half-baked potato. They have decided that the charge might last for this year only, and that it is only for one job application, hoping that will get them out of a hole. I want to nail my colours to the mast and say that the charges should be withdrawn immediately.
I cavil at the wording of the Minister's amendment and want to draw the attention of the House to what I think is a misleading use of a word in the amendment, which says:
that the cost of some State services be borne to at least some extent by those making use of the services.
"State services" mean that one uses something and gets something. At local authority level there has been some talk lately of charges for services, such as refuse collection or water rates. The principle of charging for services is a good one, but in this case one is not getting a service. What is happening is that one applies for an application form. One then gets back an application form which says that one must forward a sum of £10, £7 or whatever, and then the application will be dealt with. In fact, a service is not being provided. A person forwards money and gets back an application form. The filling of that form and the forwarding of the money and the form to the civil service does not betoken a service received, because the applicant may get a letter stating he is not qualified and will not be considered further. This means he has not been given a service. That should be recorded because the wording of the amendment, strictly speaking, is incorrect. It is a charge for a job application form, not even a charge for sitting the examination.
I have read the Minister's contribution. The previous speaker said we should produce alternatives. Each Minister who spoke here cried and said that because of the awful Fianna Fáil Governments which were in power they must now do this or that. This is very ridiculous because it is a negation of ministerial, governmental and Deputies' responsibilities. In the run-up to the 1982 general election there were massive advertisements in various papers saying that voting for Fianna Fáil would cost the people a packet — it reminded me of the history books and Kitchener saying one should serve one's country — but it is costing the people who decided in their non-wisdom to put in this Government four or five packets, because they decided to go for the alternative which was, reading between the lines, the Government which would not cost them a packet. They voted for this Government. Looking back and crying and deja vu and all of that are no good. They are the Government. They should carry on and not look back and try to blame somebody else.
An alternative came to my mind as Deputy Yates was speaking. We are now all contributing willingly to the youth employment levy. When we realised that this money would be deducted from our wage packets we decided that, if it would actually give employment to young people, it must be a good thing. If the Government are looking for £400,000 from the job application fee, why not take it from the youth employment levy which is intended to help young people? That would be one way of getting £400,000.
I want to take Deputy Yates to task for a remark he made. He said that for Opposition Deputies to put down motions in Private Member's time is an insult to the taxpayer. Some three, four or five years ago, when Deputies were living on a razor edge of uncertainty, they were subjected night after night to tight votes on alternative proposals in Private Members' Time by the then Opposition. This was not considered an insult to the taxpayer. Under Standing Orders time is allowed to the Government and the Opposition. The Ceann Comhairle presides impartially over the House in his wisdom. It would be a very poor country which would not permit the Opposition to put forward their own ideas and point out anomalies and abuses. I do not want to inhabit a land which Deputy Yates and his ilk would have us inhabit in which the Opposition could not put forward their point of view.
I represent the constituency of Longford-Westmeath. Whenever I like, at the proper time—and I intend to abide by the rules of the House—I will represent my constituents. I will not listen to tripe and twaddle from a youngster who tries to tell me what I can do. Deputy Yates should go home and rethink his remark about an insult to the taxpayer. The taxpayers of Longford-Westmeath sent me to Dáil Éireann and, while I am returning from that constituency, I intend to put forward their point of view. I am annoyed by that childish and damaging remark which exemplifies the attitude of the Government towards taxpayers and young people and the whole democratic process.
The motion deals with examination fees. I want to deal with it in the context of increased examination fees, increased school transport charges, increases in the price of school book, VAT increases, increases in the cost of living, PRSI increases and increases in the price of petrol. I do not blame the Government for all those increases, but I blame them for most of them. Young people who have done their examinations and put up with a lot of hassle and worry find themselves with very little money in their pockets. I do not know what the babysitting charges in Wexford are. They must be away beyond the national norm. No Wexford Deputy is here. At any rate, they decide to apply for a civil service job and they are landed with this fee. This is the straw that breaks the camel's back. This is adding insult to injury. In many cases in rural areas they must travel to a centre to sit for the examination. Athlone is a centre for many examinations and I see them coming off the early morning train from some of the western areas. They have no free CIE pass. They must also have their meals and then get home at night. On top all of that they are being asked to pay a fee.
I should like to take up something else Deputy Yates said. I hope I am not being too hard on the poor young man. He asked how many do not turn up for the examinations. How dare he? When I was teaching I had the privilege of meeting young people daily. I encouraged my girls to apply for every job that came up. If you do not do that what hope have you got of getting a job? I encourage them to buy a newspaper each day and comb the advertisements to see what would be suitable for them and apply. It is only by saturating the market with their job applications that they might be lucky enough to get an interview and then a job.
The Deputy quoted a figure of 17,000 applications for one grade in the civil service and said only 12,500 turned up for the examination. So what? Are not the young people of Ireland entitled to apply for jobs? The jobs are scarce enough. Very often job applications dates clash and they are unable to turn up for both examinations. You cannot say you have equality of opportunity unless you have access to that opportunity. Access means that you can apply for and sit for the written examination. Being sanctimonious and asking why they did not all turn up for the examination is just being mealy-mouthed. It also emphasises the rural-urban division which is arising more and more nowadays.
In this job application fee there is a bias against rural applicants. They have to travel, and so they have this added cost as well as the cost of sitting the examination. This must all be put in the context of the extra charges being borne today by all young people. Since this Government took office last November it is no coincidence that there is an air of hopelessness. I do not want to hear again: "It is all your fault". That is not good enough. That tune is too well worn: it never sang sweetly and it is sounding shriller each day.
The previous speaker referred to what happened in 1961 and he quoted an answer to a parliamentary question in 1966 by the then Minister for Finance. That is totally out of tune with present-day circumstances. The whole point of better Government and improved social conditions should be to enlighten. There was a change some time in the late sixties and it coincided not with a drop in the number of applicants seeking entry to the civil service but with what was then a great liberalisation of ideas and policies by the then Fianna Fáil Government with regard to young people. I am thinking of the time when the late Donogh O'Malley was Minister for Education and when he implemented the free second level education policy. It was the time when the regional technical colleges were established. These followed the OECD report on investment in education in Ireland. That pointed out that social and educational policies should be geared towards meeting the demands of the young people in Ireland who comprised a very considerable proportion of our population. It was a time when opportunities were opened up for young people and a time when outdated ideas regarding the young were discarded. At a time when there were considerable advances in education it was seen to be wrong to charge young people a fee for looking for a job. That was the situation rather than what was stated by the previous speaker who suggested it was because there was a dearth of applicants. There was never a dearth of applicants for jobs here.
As the Minister said last night, we have a huge unemployment problem with 190,000 people unemployed. I cannot see how imposing a fee in respect of an application form will help the unemployment problem. It will do exactly the reverse and it will also create a dreadful atmosphere of pessimism among young people. They will not know to whom they can turn for a job. I admit I do not have the answer to that problem but I have an answer to the matter before the House and that is to ask the Minister to scrap the charge. It will not lead to employment for young people. We have the collective task of dealing with the awesome problem of unemployment but it cannot be tackled by this measure introduced by the Coalition and which was one of their first actions. I cannot help thinking that this Government are anti-young people because their most hated and fierce measures have been directed against them. I am thinking about school transport charges as well as this charge and others which will lessen the quality of education and the quality of life for young people.
In his announcement last night, which was elaborated on this morning, the Minister said that it was hoped that it would be one fee per person in respect of several applications. I may be corrected on this but that was my reading of the situation. The Minister has gone some of the way with our proposal and I am very glad it was a proposal put forward from this side by Deputy Fitzgerald and Deputy Calleary. Some of the scales have dropped from the Minister's eyes and he has gone some of the way on the road to Damascus. I ask him to go the whole way and to drop the whole daft, silly notion because that is exactly what it was from the beginning. Since this debate started last night I have been wondering who thought up the proposal. I ask the Minister to drop the idea completely. He will not lose face if he does so. If the Government decide that this measure should be scrapped completely they will gain face. If they do that I will be one of the first to say that they have seen sense, that they realised it was a wrong measure, one aimed at keeping young people out of the job market. I ask all Members, why should our young people be deprived of a chance? It is their country, it is not just a country inhabited by us representing a certain number of people. Our country has a very large population of young people under 25 years. If we are seen to be party to any discriminatory action against them, we will not be serving the interests of the people, and particularly the young people.
We realise that our motion prompted the partial climb-down by the Minister. I ask him to go the whole way and to drop the charge completely. We must remember it is a charge for a job application form. I ask the question, is this country to be governed just by a Government with no opposition? I go back to Deputy Yates who said it is an insult to the taxpayers that the Opposition should bring in motions like this. I represent a sizeable proportion of the people of Longford-Westmeath. I mean to represent them and I will not be put off by such remarks and insults. My party will not be put off from putting down motions on various matters or pointing out what they consider wrong actions by the Government. I believe strongly in democracy and acting within the confines of a democracy. I am very glad I live in a democratic country where there is a Government and an Opposition. While there is an Opposition there is safety for all people in the country.
: I am very disappointed with the way debate on this motion has proceeded. I was in the House last night and I listened to the speeches of Deputy Fitzgerald, the Minister and Deputy Calleary and this evening I listened to Deputy Yates. I find it difficult to accept what Deputy O'Rourke said about the contribution of Deputy Yates. He sought to point out the difficulties arising for the taxpayers as a result of the change with regard to availability of jobs in the civil service. Last year a position of trainee technician was advertised. Interviews took place at a cost of £169,000. From these interviews, 40 positions were filled. In effect, for the State to employ a technician trainee in 1982 cost £4,000 — £4,000 of the taxpayers' money to give a permanent pensionable job. It is not reasonable to say that the Government were wrong to have another assessment of the costs involved in recruiting for the civil service. Contrary to what Deputy O'Rourke believes, young people who go from interview to interview become very frustrated. In a recent radio interview, young people alleged that the educational system as practised by Deputy O'Rourke led them completely astray.
: I am not practising.
: The Deputy was. She told the House earlier on that she was a practising teacher.
: I am not practising. I said that formerly I was.
: It was your wont to tell everyone to apply for these jobs. You did not tell them that it was costing their mothers and fathers all that money.
: They had a right to do it.
: Order, please. Deputy Carey should address the Chair.
: Deputy O'Rourke did not say that it was costing the taxpayer all this money for the advice that should properly be given by career guidance people.
: Is the Deputy imputing non-professional advice?
: Deputy Carey has only three minutes left and should be allowed to speak without interruption.
: The Deputy is casting a slur on the teaching profession.
: Order, please, Deputy.
: Contrary to what Deputy O'Rourke is trying to say, I am trying to help the teaching profession. There should be proper career guidance teachers——
: Tell that to your Minister.
: ——to direct in the proper way people who are looking for jobs. I can see no justification for taxpayers paying £4,000 to create a technician trainee job which is permanent and pensionable. When these school leavers are examined by the Civil Service Commission, the commission are bound, under the 1976 Act, to write to everyone of the applicants whereas in the private sector applicants may not get even an acknowledgment of their application. Why should a permanent pensionable job cost five or six times more than a job in the private sector? Take, for example, the ESB, where the cost of filling a job is £4.50, whereas it costs £30 to process the application in the civil service. It is very hard to reconcile these levels of cost. As the Minister said last night, if the general public and, indeed the Opposition, want the Civil Service Commission to continue to recruit, somebody has to pay, either the taxpayer or the applicant. Deputy Yates and the Minister made reasonable points about the proportion of costs. Deputy O'Rourke was not listening too earnestly to what Deputy Yates said when he suggested that the £7 cost to a young person on a once-off basis as indicated by the Minister——
: The Deputy has a minute left.
: ——is not an excessive fee. He said that two nights babysitting in Wexford would earn that £7. I do not know where people go for babysitters in Athlone, but I do not believe that Athlone is all that cheap for babysitters.
: For goodness sake.
: In any case, I was disappointed with the contributions. All the Opposition spokesmen have criticised the measure but have made no suggestion of alternatives in this matter.
: The Deputy should now conclude.
: From that point of view, the general public should beware of what the Opposition spokesmen are saying. It is all right to shout and scream about problems, but if the speakers have not a solution they should shut up.
: Now you know.
: Níl mé ag rá go bhfuil mé in ann an fhadhb seo a réiteach, ach mar sin féin is áit é seo go bhfuil cead ag duine ar bith a chuid tuairimí a nochtadh. Ceannaíodh an cead sin go daor. Is oth liom gurb é seo an dara cainteoir ón taobh sin ag rá nach bhfuil cead cainte ag daoine anseo.
: Hear, hear.
: I did not say that.
: I have my own contribution to make, but I was disappointed to hear the last two speakers on the Government side of the House indicate that a member of the Opposition has no right to speak unless he or she has a solution to the Government's problem. That to me is a democratic heresy. It is a challenge to the right of anybody who is elected to this House. Indeed, I heard members of the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party when in Opposition saying that the Opposition are charged with attacking the Government. I do not accept that and I do not intend to dwell on that point. Rather I hope to dwell on what is before us, in the hope that, when finished, I might have softened the heart of the Minister in respect of what he is proposing with these charges.
I respect the Minister and I know him over some years. He and I have been involved in educational matters in County Dublin. We have been involved with youth and I do not accept — he can contradict me at some other stage — that this is the produce of his mind. He realises that, especially in the times in which we live, it is not appropriate to be putting a tax on parents in respect of the legitimate pursuits of their offspring who are looking for employment. That is what we are doing here. I am not concerned about the situation which arises when any professional person applies for employment through the Civil Service Commission or any other commission. Rather would I have them paying more than is required. I am concerned that, in times where there is so much talk about the consideration we have for young people and for Irish families, here we are taxing the parents of the young who have completed their secondary education. That is what the Government are doing.
Already Deputy O'Rourke has referred to the fact that in respect of the intermediate and leaving certificates there is a charge of £20 for each examination. I know that charge was there during our term of office. I did not agree with it then and I do not agree with it now. Here we have another tax on the parents who make sacrifices so that their children can complete their education. I disagree entirely with the approach of Deputy Yates who disappointed me very much, and latterly with Deputy Carey who would say that young people are disappointed when they do not succeed in these examinations. The contrary is the position. There is a pyschological benefit to young people who have applied for positions of this kind. The hope is there and we are not deceiving them. Formerly, the situation was that out of their own pocket money, by their own industry, they could pay for the stamp, write away for the form and fill it in. They did not have to plead with their parents, as they had to for the previous years while at school for more money for books, for the bus, for the lunch. Now they must plead for money so that they can hope to enter the civil service. That is what is proposed here. That is what the Minister is requiring of this House. That is what this side of the House is rejecting.
Here I compliment our spokesmen, Deputies Gene Fitzgerald and Séan Calleary who from the very beginning took issue with the Minister in respect of this charge as it affects young people especially. People are talking about a solution. I do not mind whatever the benefit would be if the Minister tells all the professional people already in employment who are anxious to opt into better employment that they must pay twice the fee they have been paying. If he does that I would say: fair dues. If the Minister tells me in respect of the professional people, former teachers, former members of Dublin Corporation, of Dublin Country Council who are on pension and who have as a sideline the correcting of papers that he proposes reducing their fees, I would say I do not disagree with that because I am concerned about helping the weakest.
We should put another matter straight. I have heard Deputy Carey and Deputy Yates talk about the taxpayer, that it is not fair to be asking the taxpayer to do this. The people about whom I am concerned are the surest taxpayers we have. I am not talking about the sons and daughters of the self-employed, or about the sons and daughters of large substantial farmers, or of big industrailists who receive subsidies from the State in other ways; I am talking about the sons and daughters of middle income people here who by virtue of the fact that they have these families are satisfying the first requirement in our society, who by virtue of having these families are making a contribution in income tax, VAT and so on. In everything they do to sustain that family there is a pull from the Government into the pool out of which this is paid. Deputy Carey and Deputy Yates, representing counties where there is that type of person, expect me to have pity on the taxpayer who is paying. We are concerned about the families of the taxpayers and the situation that arises now. Deputy Yates went back to 1961—1961 was the year it was discovered we could do without this charge — to find justification for it.
Again, fair dues to the Minister because he has assured the House that he hopes it will be a very temporary measure. I hope the Minister will return to the Government and say: "I am displeased with what I have been asked to do, especially in relation to the 50,000 young people who sat their intermediate certificate examination last year and the 45,000 who sat their leaving certificate last year". The same numbers will be sitting for those examination this year. They are now on the market in response to the exhortations of their parents and teachers, to pursue a type of education. I will be critical of the type of education they have been pursuing in so far as it constitutes only a functional, relevant type of education that seems to satisfy those who say that education should be for employment only. I would like to take a broader view of education and I would say to the Members of this House that perhaps it is those useless subjects we have left aside which were the real subjects of value, but that is for another day's debate. But those teenagers, who have completed that education, who are not entitled to any dole, who are not entitled to any assistance, because they apply for employment, because they register with the State for employment, the Minister now proposes to charge them because, he says there is a service being provided.
Is this the headline we are setting for the private sector? Are we going to give justification to the banks, to Guinness's, to CIE, the ESB, all these, to follow the headline set by the Minister, a Minister belonging to this caring Government, who before the last election told them that they had a greater interest in youth? What does the Young Fine Gael group think about this, a group apparently who have studied the whole area of society, who are competent to speak about abortion, divorce, pro-life or anti-life amendments, who have the answer to all the problems of our youth? Have they made representation to the Minister? Has the former head of the National Youth Council, now advising the Government on behalf of youth, suggested that out of the £17 million or £30 million given to the Youth Employment Agency they might help the Minister who is searching around for a couple of hundred thousand pounds so that he can tax parents of young people applying for employment in our service? In a year when we had, on everybody's admission, the toughest budget ever—no relief in the matter of income tax for the parents of these children, when VAT was increased, with an extra 1 per cent being levied for youth employment—is this the gratitude the Minister and his Government are showing to the middle income taxpayer in lieu of all that? I hope not.
It has never been my practice to refer to what other speakers have said because they have the same entitlement to give expression to their thoughts as I have, but I must say, listening to young Deputy Yates, for whom I have the highest admiration, it was the first time I heard him indulge in emotional, useless terms, criticising this side of the House for putting on a hypocritical mask, and he was speaking on behalf of the hard-pressed taxpayer in Wexford. At the same time he spoke on behalf of the youth of Wexford who have to travel up to Dublin to sit these examinations. Apparently he has no thought for the young son or daughter of urban families. I had the impression that Deputies Yates and Carey had got a ministerial injection, together with a certain amount of bureaucratic claptrap and statistics and told: "Lads, go in there and fill in the gaps". I will not refer to the proverb which speaks of the person who rushes in where others fear to tread. But if they do it, they should do it in a manly courageous fashion. When we have applied ourselves to the subject of the motion and the amendment, with a view to extracting from the Minister a continuing softness of his heart and a continuation of the concern which allowed him succeed in having the £10 reduced to £7, and will allow that £7 be used in respect of a miscellany of applications, in the name of heavens, in the name of all that is good and holy, in the name of the young people, and of the taxpaying parents who have made continuing sacrifices on their behalf, would the Minister say to the House now, in one word, that he will do the right, the big thing and remove any question of a tax on parents in respect of applications their teenage sons or daughters may make to have employment in their own country?
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlon, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Ouinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McCartin, Joe.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzgerald, Jim.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West)
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett (Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies B. Ahern and Briscoe.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.