The first speaker, Deputy Frank Fahey, has ten minutes. The Government side will speak from 7.10 p.m. to 7.40 p.m., the Opposition from 7.40 p.m. to 8.10 p.m., the Government from 8.10 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. and the Opposition from 8.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.
Private Members' Business. - Youth Training and Employment Schemes: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy B. Ahern on Tuesday, 7 May, 1985;
"That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to rationalise and co-ordinate the multiplicity of different schemes of youth training and employment by the different Government departments and agencies in order to concentrate on the provision of permanent sustainable employment for the greatest possible number of our young people."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:—
"Dáil Éireann notes the action already taken by the Government to improve the co-ordination of services in the area of youth employment and training and looks forward to further improvements in the context of the development of manpower policy."—
(Minister for Labour).
I wish to deal with two aspects of the question of youth training and manpower policy. The whole area of youth training and manpower policy has been in a state of chaos, particularly in the last few years. We have a multiplicity of schemes dealing with youth training, youth employment placement and youth employment. Many of the schemes overlap and attempt to do the same job. The vast majority of the schemes are simply an effort at fire brigade action to keep down the unemployment statistics. The Government have no manpower policy. A new scheme is born every couple of months when somebody has a brainwave. Money is poured into these schemes which could be better spent in the creation of long-term sustainable jobs. I should like to ask the Minister exactly how many schemes are in operation designed to create short-term employment which is not of a productive nature. I could mention framework, teamwork, the social employment scheme and the employment incentive scheme. I would accept that some of these schemes are beneficial but they are mainly designed to provide short-term employment.
There are two such schemes. The teamwork scheme is aimed at those under 25 and the social employment scheme is aimed at those over 25. There is no other scheme aimed at temporary employment.
There are a number of other schemes which are supposed to give long-term employment but there is no evidence to suggest that they do so.
I welcome the employment incentive scheme but let us consider how it has developed. We have offered £50 a week to people who become involved in this scheme. They are then supposed to go about running their own business, but according to a recent reply to a Dáil question we have given them no after care service.
The Deputy is referring to the enterprise allowance scheme.
I am aware of people who are running their own businesses under this scheme yet they do not even know how to write a cheque. That is sending good money after bad. A person cannot be expected to run a successful business in the current difficult climate without a proper back-up service, particularly in the first vital year. I hope the scheme will be successful but I am already seeing numerous people going nowhere under this scheme. They are being handed £50 a week and told to get on with the job but nobody is interested in how they are doing. The Minister will admit that they are beginning to come back, even before the end of the twelve months, saying their business venture has failed and seeking to be put back on the unemployment register. The main cause is that there is no after care service. People must be given the care and attention they need in the initial stages of these ventures. This is one example of lack of co-ordination.
The proposal before the House is that a manpower authority should be set up to co-ordinate the efforts of the various agencies. I am not being critical of agencies such as the YEA, AnCO and Manpower — they are doing their best in a difficult climate. However, I am critical of the organisation under which they operate and of the resources at their disposal. A person in Dublin who goes into a Manpower office has very little hope of finding a proper job, the reason being that there are hundreds of lists of vacancies and thousands of lists of unemployed people. It would be impossible for the Manpower personnel to have an efficient, co-ordinated placement service. They should have at their disposal a computerised nationwide system which would make all the relevant information available at every Manpower office. A person seeking employment would then be given information about the type of vacancies available. Such a system does not as yet exist and people approaching Manpower are experiencing much frustration. I do not lay the blame on the personnel in Manpower — they are doing their best in difficult circumstances. A co-ordinated body would improve the performance not only of Manpower but of the YEA and AnCO as well.
There is not much point in putting thousands of young people through training courses when there are no jobs available for them at the end. I have always been critical of the expenditure of the youth employment levy. It must be used for employment creation rather than training. There must be a significant change from training to employment creation in the expenditure of that levy. Young people finishing most of the training courses find that no jobs are available for them and they are going on the boat to England and America. The value of their training is being lost to this country. Of course it is better that these young people should have some skills but we spend somewhere in the region of £200 million per year in training and the vast majority of people on whom we are spending that money have to go abroad to find employment.
Therefore, there is not much point in continuing all those training courses in order to keep the unemployment register as low as possible unless we are prepared to put the money into long term sustainable jobs. Statistics show quite clearly that we are not interested in doing this and the redeployment of the youth employment levy in the last two years is nothing short of a disgrace. That levy is used to pay teachers' salaries and this is not acceptable. The Minister can excuse this by saying he is putting it into the Department of Education for training in that area but, once the money is taken away from employment creation and direct training for jobs, it may as well not be spent on employment creation.
I should like to begin, as the Minister for Labour did last night, by expressing the view that this debate is timely and opportune. It is appropriate that the Oireachtas should look at the whole question of the co-ordination of employment and training. I should like to echo his remarks about the very positive and constructive approach adopted by the Opposition during the course of this debate. The tone of the debate was set by Deputy Bertie Ahern last night, which clearly showed the depth of his knowledge on the subject. I should like to respond to a number of the points raised by him. The issues which he raised concern us, and in many instances the road along which he pointed us towards a solution is a road that we have already been travelling. Given the degree of consensus existing in the House, it would be inappropriate to divide at the conclusion of the debate and, while I think that my amendment has a better formula of works than the motion in the name of Deputy Ahern, I will not quarrel with him in that regard and we will not be dividing on this motion.
Inevitably in a debate of this nature some Members took the opportunity to broaden the discussion and to address themselves to the wider question of employment and the quest for permanent, sustainable jobs. That is a natural approach and it would have been quite extraordinary if that did not happen. Deputy Ahern rightly said that this is not really the place for a debate of this kind. In recent times the House has had other opportunities to debate the wider issue of employment and, no doubt, will have further opportunities in future.
However, we are concerned with something different, the interventions of the Government in the area of youth employment and training and the way in which those interventions can best be targeted and directed. That is not to say, of course, that all our quest must be in the area of sustainable jobs, although that is what we must all seek. I am sure all Members accept that permanent, sustainable jobs will only come about as a result of economic growth, and the whole thrust of the Government's approach is spelt out clearly in Building on Reality. The thinking behind our budgetary strategy, which is central to our industrial policy is geared to the central objective of creating a climate for sustainable employment. We can take some satisfaction from the fact that some of the most material indicators seem to be flashing in our direction, such as the falling level of inflation, which was under discussion before the change of business, and the export figures, which give us some reason for hope and confidence.
The most recent school leaver survey has shown that more young people are getting jobs than was the case in the early years of this decade. As the Minister said last night, in European terms, in comparison with our partners in the Community, we have done far better than them in relation to the problem of youth unemployment. Of course not everything in the garden is rosy and the fact that we are doing better than France, Germany or other countries is no consolation to the person who does not have a job, to the parents of those who do not have jobs, or to the parents of young people about to sit the inter or leaving certificates who wonder what their prospects are in the future. However, we are always very good at highlighting our own shortcomings and it is not inappropriate to take a collective pat on the back for the fact that, as a country relatively less well off in terms of resources, we have managed to do much better than any of our neighbours. Of course, our demographic structure and growing labour force will ensure that there is no room for complacency.
Tonight we are discussing the question of the co-ordination of youth employment and training measures. I have lived with this over the last 12 months and one of the things which has heartened me is the extent to which the debate has proceeded without reference to mythology. Twelve months ago I was asked by the Taoiseach to direct my attention to this question and to consider the matter in some detail. One of the things of which I immediately became aware was that over a period of years all sorts of perceptions, doubts, fears and suspicions had grown up. Taken at its most extreme, I think there were people in the educational world who believed that there were big bad AnCO people, usually wearing raincoats, outside school yards trying to entice pupils into AnCO courses. For their part some of the people in the training field tended to believe at times that in the world of education many people wanted to get technologists operating in the higher reaches of high technology and to return them to the study of second steps in Latin or whatever. Of course, I exaggerate. But those fears are there and it is significant and worthwhile that those myths did not feature substantially in the course of this debate.
Because of the slack in the labour market the Government have provided resources for training and work experience for as many young people as possible. In the current year about 69,000 young people will benefit and that figure is slightly more than the total number of young people leaving the educational system this year. It would have been possible for the Government to say that our future is in economic growth and that they were concerned to get the engine of the economy running. Last week I referred to the philosophy of the rising tide which would lift all boats. This Government rejects such a philosophy because we are satisfied that not all boats will rise on the tide. We are satisfied that some of the boats are so fragile, some so poorly constructed or holed that the rise in the tide will be of no avail. For those groups a particular response and intervention is required. We have identified two such groups as requiring that response and support: the young unemployed and, within that group, the early school leaver without qualification and the long term unemployed.
A number of speakers have addressed themselves to the problems of the long term unemployed and, in particular, to the new social employment scheme. On a very rigid interpretation of the rules it might be that the Chair would rule out any such references on the basis that the social employment scheme is specifically targeted at those who are not young unemployed. The concern of this motion is with the young unemployed. However, as everyone else has addressed themselves to this subject, perhaps I could also do so in passing.
I accept there have been delays in getting the scheme going and I regret those delays. I wish we were further along the road than we are, but members will be aware of the reasons for the delays. There were difficulties within the National Manpower Service for historical reasons which we do not need to go into and, as a result, schemes took longer to get off the ground than we would have wished. More than twice the targeted number of people, some 20,000 have contacted the Department to express their interest in participation. Hundreds of potential project sponsors have been in contact with the Department. Now that the scheme is under way I am confident that the target set by the Government will be achieved and perhaps exceeded.
Deputy Fahey referred to the teamwork scheme which I launched a few weeks ago. It has drawn a staggering response by any standards and indicates the depth of interest there is among voluntary and community groups and their anxiety to play a role in providing employment opportunities for young people. I am convinced they will be equally anxious to help the long term unemployed. The evidence available suggests the scheme will prove very successful.
We cannot wait for the tide; we must intervene. A number of Members expressed concern about the diverse range and multiplicity of schemes that are provided for young people. I understand that concern. However, it stems from a somewhat superficial examination of the position. I do not use the word "superficial" in a pejorative sense. The depth of research displayed by Deputy Ahern displays how inappropriate it would be. However, it does not take account adequately of two factors. Firstly, it does not take account of the fact that the funding for all these schemes comes from a number of different sources: the Exchequer, the youth employment levy and the European Social Fund. It is necessary to tailor the schemes to take account of the requirements of the European Social Fund and the age qualifications that apply for the various forms of activity supported by that fund. Secondly, we must have a range of options because of the varying educational levels of young people and the different requirements and aspirations they may have. The multiplicity of responses follows from the fact that the Government quite rightly put a lot of emphasis on categories of young people with particular disadvantage and a number of schemes are tailored to meet their special needs. A number of responses are designed to familiarise young people with new technology. That will be a key element in the labour market in the future.
I have been living with this problem over the last 12 months. When I addressed myself to the problem it seemed that it fell into two parts. One was some anxiety between the educational world and the manpower world and a feeling on the part of the educational world that their territory had been invaded and that work was being done in the manpower area that they could do more effectively and at a lower cost. Within the manpower area there was some lack of clarity of roles on the part of the various manpower players on the pitch. It was to those two issues I addressed myself and had two objectives in mind. The first was to try to ensure that as far as possible the young person would get the best possible service and the other was to ensure that the tax paying public would get value for money. Many of the conclusions I arrived at, which have been the subject of discussion with almost all the people involved in this area, echo the thinking suggested in contributions earlier in the debate.
A number of speakers expressed concern at the fact that a young unemployed person seeking assistance from the State may find himself in a position where the possibility of mainstream employment would be available and he would be placed by the National Manpower office or there may be a question of work experience or participation in a short term employment programme or the question of a training course with AnCO, ACOT, CERT, and so on. Concern has been expressed that such is the range of options available that it is possible for someone to get lost. That danger is greatest in the case of young people who most need support and assistance. The young person who leaves school ill-equipped for the world is most likely to be bemused and bedazzled by the range of options available. I have been anxious to ensure that the National Manpower Service and the schools work in the closest possible harmony and that in the first instance the co-operation and partnership should take effect in the case of early school-leavers.
I am pleased to say my thinking on that has been taken up by the Youth Employment Agency in their social guarantee programme now operative in a number of parts of the country on a pilot basis. It will be nationwide by the end of the year and has an essential element to it — the fact that the schools and the National Manpower Service should work together in the case of the priority client group: the young person leaving school without any certificate. That is one aspect I identified as being important and which the Government are committed to. It will find favour with Deputy Ahern on the basis of his contribution last night.
The second aspect I regard as important is that the young person should not have to go from office to office to find out what was on offer. The National Manpower Service should serve as a single point of contact. A young person could present himself there and the range of options could be reviewed there. The placement officer, having discussed the young person's interests, aspirations and so on, would direct him towards the most appropriate response, be it an AnCO course, mainstream employment or whatever.
The other area which it is fair to say has been central to my work was to ensure value for money. Concern has been expressed particularly by people in the educational world that a great deal of training has taken place in the past without reference to the expertise and the resources available in the world of education. They pointed to the availability of skilled educationalists, tutors, teachers and to the possibility of resources in terms of classrooms, laboratories, and so on. I am glad to say I have secured the agreement of the agencies in the field. When it is proposed to take on a training module using external trainers, AnCO will in the first instance address themselves to the question of whether or not those resources are available within the world of education and will offer the opportunity of providing the training to the world of education on a first option basis. That course of action should find wide favour in the House. We have been able to secure the agreement of all participants to it in the course of the past 12 months.
What I have been engaged on in the past 12 months has not been the root and branch type exercise which Deputy Ahern called for in his opening remarks in this debate. I accept that. Perhaps that is a criticism although, given the task that faced me, I do not think that was a realistic option. Quite consciously I operated on this basis: "There are a number of players on the pitch. Let us now see how we will get them to play most effectively as a team." What we have done in the past 12 months ensures that the various bodies in the educational world and the manpower world concerned with providing a service for young people co-operate more effectively and will continue to co-operate more effectively.
That is not the last word on the subject and it was never intended that it should be the last word. The Department of Labour are engaged on the completion of their work on a White Paper on Manpower Policy, the first such White Paper in 20 years. The change in circumstances over that 20 years is so obvious that it hardly needs to be stated. The concern was about the possibility of job shortages and skilled shortages, but now the emphasis inevitably will be on an interventionist approach by the State in the labour market. Those 20 years have seen the role of a number of bodies evolve in response to changing circumstances. The National Manpower Service, from being a placement agency matching vacancies to applicants have become involved more and more as the provider and the administrator of schemes, first with the work experience programme and more recently with the employment incentive scheme and the enterprise allowance scheme. The staff of the manpower service have responded quite heroically to that change of role.
So too the role of AnCO has changed significantly. From a time when they might have seen their role as providing the requisite skills for an anticipated industry, increasingly they have become involved in the area of services for the unemployed and a response to the needs of the disadvantaged to provide some sort of equality of opportunity. In those circumstances the approach suggested by Deputy Ahern was: "Let us get them all together, wipe everybody off the pitch, amalgamate them and have a new manpower authority." That would approximate quite closely to the approach which has been taken in Great Britain. I have no hang-ups about it, as the Minister for Labour indicated last night. I have qualms and reservations. My concern is that such an amalgam might prove to be a soulless monster and that in such an amalgam the expertise and enthusiasm which are the hallmark of a number of those bodies would be lost.
I think of CERT, a very small, trim, tidy, cost-effective organisation who know the tourist industry and the catering industry inside out and have done a superb job over the years. I am not sure that it would be possible for them to maintain that close contact with the industry as part of a much wider organisation. Perhaps it would. It is not as simple as is sometimes suggested. Mixing everybody up together and saying we have a brand new authority does not get us anywhere. All of the jobs which are now done will still have to be done. We will still need a training division, a division particularly concerned with the disadvantaged. Presumably for the foreseeable future we will need to provide short term employment. We need a placement service. I am not convinced that causing all these bodies which now provide those services to lose their identity and merge into one great monster is the way forward. I accept that the last word has not been spoken on this. I certainly accept that there is nothing sacrosanct about the present structural arrangements. It is time to reconsider those structural arrangements.
I have only a few moments left so perhaps I could take up three or four points mentioned by various people. One was the question of the relationship of the link programme and COMTEC. There is a misunderstanding there. The link programme is an AnCO programme which operates on the basis of bringing training to people rather than the other way around. It is a very effective programme as is shown by the number of enterprises it has spawned. I see Deputy Flynn in the House and I know he has some knowledge of the operations of that programme.
The COMTEC programme is quite different. It is not the programme of any one of the participants in the field. It seeks to bring them all together and operates on the basis that the training and employment needs of any area are best determined locally, that Dublin does not know best, that it is much more appropriate to get local participants together to decide what is the most appropriate response for the area in which the COMTEC is established.
Another issue was raised by several speakers who, I am glad to say, expressed appreciation of the various temporary employment measures. While accepting their limitations, there was the difficulty of insurance. This is part of the wider problems facing the insurance industry. It is a problem to which the Minister, Deputy Quinn, has been addressing himself in relation to the social employment scheme as I have been in relation to team work. We have now got to the stage where we will have a solution to those difficulties within the next day or two.
Deputy E. O'Keeffe raised the question of the community youth training programmes? I very much appreciate his kind remarks and the tribute he paid to AnCO. I agree it is a very worthwhile programme and that much of value has been done around the country. He expressed the hope that the programme would expand into the heritage area. He referred to the very fine monuments and buildings around the country. He also talked about the possibility of historical research as distinct from construction activity. I am not clear about that. AnCO are in agreement with him about the prospect of providing worthwhile training opportunities in that area and it is already in hand.
I wanted to take up a number of other specifics but time does not allow me to do so. I express my appreciation to the Opposition for putting down this motion which is a subject of concern to all of us. The Government recognise that this matter requires attention. It is receiving attention and will continue to receive it.
It is always gratifying for the Opposition to have a motion like this accepted by the Government. The indication from the Minister of State that the House will not be dividing this evening is a clear acknowledgement by the Government and the Minister of the inadequacies of the existing system. When the Government say it is not their intention to divide the House this evening, they are accepting the motion as tabled by Deputy Ahern on behalf of this party. The Government are also accepting everything contained in that motion and that means that they accept that there is complete fragmentation in the area of activity under the Minister's control in dealing with youth training and employment and generally related matters. That is to put it mildly but it is some element of self-condemnation of the Coalition's performance in regard to tackling the employment problem. It is pleasing that, even at this late stage in the life of this Dáil, we have a Minister of State who, on behalf of his Minister and the Government is prepared to indicate that the Government have failed to address themselves adequately to dealing with the unemployment crisis.
The Deputy still wants his pound of flesh.
If he continues in this vein, we may well divide on the motion.
I am only outlining in practical terms what acceptance of our motion entails. It means that the Government realise that the system they have been operating for the past two and a half years has failed and failed to the stage where they could not even frame an amendment by way of trying to gloss over their failure and of trying to make some case for dealing with the problem. We take it in good faith that the Minister accepts that the Government have failed in their efforts to deal with the unemployment crisis.
At least the Minister is admitting that failure here but of course his attitude is entirely contrary to the outpourings of the Taoiseach and of other Government Ministers in the recent past who have been preaching to all and sundry that the tide has turned, that the crisis is over, that unemployment is now under control and that all the agencies are functioning at maximum output. We are being told that the Coalition are doing an excellent job in the matter of unemployment but——
We have been doing an excellent job.
——the truth is, as the Minister of State admits, that matters are out of control.
I have not said anything of the sort.
The Minister of State accepts that the agencies within his control and who should be attempting to deal with the unemployment crisis are not functioning.
On the basis of that behaviour on the part of the Deputy, we will never give him a bone again.
The Minister failed to indicate what he proposes to do about the crisis. He refers to suggestions offered by Deputy Ahern, suggestions which he finds praiseworthy but he does not indicate whether he intends taking on board those suggestions. He tells us he is open to all kinds of suggestions but we are not here to listen to that kind of bleating as to what the Minister might consider appropriate. In his admission of guilt in so far as the administration of the agencies within his control are concerned, we are asking him what his intentions are.
The Minister continues to talk about considering further options. While his admission is praiseworthy in its frankness, it must be condemnatory in so far as his party and the Government are concerned. One can only assume that what the Minister has been saying this evening will only add further to the frustrations of the people he purports to support and help in the job marketplace. These people had been told by senior Ministers that everything was changing and that they could expect to be guaranteed placings on the job market in the immediate future but now they hear from the Minister of State that not only are matters not well but that they are out of control, that there is no co-ordination and that there is a multiplicity of different schemes. In other words, by accepting our motion, the Government are agreeing that we have been right in what we have been saying for the past two and a half years. However, it has taken a long time for the Government to recognise what is a fact of life. How can one expect young people to be anything but cynical when all the outpourings of the Government of the past six months in relation to dealing with the unemployment problem have been shattered by the admission of the Minister this evening?
The Deputy has not said one word so far about the motion.
Having accepted our motion, one would have expected the Minister to set out his programme. Later I shall have some harsh words to say by way of indicators as to where his performance might be improved. If the Minister had set out a programme of activity we might have been able to judge him in regard to how he intends implementing the terms of the motion he has accepted. However, the Minister chose to deal in generalities and in ambiguities. I expect he was mandated to do so because of the Government not having a clear enunciated policy. They are still searching about, making trawls internationally and at home as to what the best modus operandi might be in terms of implementing what is contained in our motion. It is regrettable that more time and study was not devoted to this matter by the Government so that they might have set out clearly what steps they propose to take. If they had done so I am sure they would have had the full support of this side of the House.
The Minister of State rejects the rising tide philosophy. There is no tide in that context at this time. The commercial life of the country is grinding to a halt and has virtually reached the stage of no return. Consumer spending is well down. There is no buoyancy in the economy despite the prediction of the Minister for Finance in his budget statement. I do not know whether there is a lack of awareness on the part of the Government in regard to all these matters or whether they are not prepared to accept the position that exists in the marketplace but the country is in dire straits.
I am wondering whether the Deputy is speaking to the motion.
I have been wondering about that, too.
One would have hoped that in accepting our motion the Minister would have accepted these factors and would have indicated whatever plans there may be by way of schemes, training and so on, to deal with the problems.
It was always intended that the manpower services would reduce the unwarranted recourse to the social welfare system and would provide training, work and analagous schemes as an alternative to unemployment benefit and assistance. We would have expected that there would be a great need for the manpower agencies. There is a need also for a great training agency. One complements the other. They should not act exclusively of each other but that is what has been happening to a great extent in recent times.
In these circumstances one must ask what are the real unemployment figures. In reply to a written question here last week the Minister left us in no doubt that the unemployment figure is seriously in advance of the figure quoted in the live register. I say this because even in the list of schemes outlined in the tabular statement supplied, it is indicated that there are almost 20,000 persons involved in the various schemes to which the Minister referred. These schemes are costing about £45 million. In effect therefore, there are 250,000 people unemployed. It is time someone would admit that. There is nothing wrong in saying what the true position is. When one adds to that the emigration figure, one realises the true picture and that is that one in five of the population has no job. Our demand is that the Government provide schemes of training and of jobs that will deal with that situation.
One must ask whether the money should be used to organise and to administer a variety of schemes when the proportion of the money spent on the jobs provided is totally out of focus. The Minister last week gave an answer beyond yea or nea. The question must also be asked if it can be shown statistically that we are getting value for the money spent. The two criteria on which the Minister bases his activity are value to the consumer and value to the taxpayer. He did not give a positive response to his own questions, which is an indication that he is far from satisfied.
Would the Minister accept that there is a certain amount of empire building going on with regard to some of the organisations mentioned by the Minister? People are saying that these organisations are developing cosy little schemes to perpetuate their existence. I am happy that the Minister recognises the multiplicity which is there and is going to do something to reduce it. In the recent past, whatever age group or pressure group demanded a particular scheme to deal with the situation they wanted addressed, a scheme was always devised to accommodate them. That is bad planning and bad usage of public money. If the Department and the agencies are fully aware of the demands in our society, they will recognise these situations and, rather than having pressure brought on them by select groups, would be providing arrangements to deal with these matters. Otherwise there is the piecemeal response to the national crisis which we have been getting for the past few years. It is time that was changed. It would be Parkinson's law gone mad, feeding on itself. The danger that exists in organisations is that they will create their own momentum without a necessary accounting for value for money given. There is public expediency in the devising of certain schemes and the allocating of funds to them, without proper evaluation of the end result. If the Minister accepts our motion, he must also admit that that has been happening and that he is not satisfied that value for money has been achieved.
I draw the Minister's attention to the question of apprenticeship schemes. The number of apprentices in training has been decimated for quite some time. We now have a plethora of short term training courses. I see this resulting in a certain type of tradesman being created who is unable to hold down a permanent post which requires qualifications. These people add significantly, later on, to the black economy so that we are creating our own monster which has been hurting the economy at both ends. I should like to see a complete apprenticeship scheme implemented. Could the Minister arrange to provide a finishing off of apprenticeships for those who, through no fault of their own, have become redundant or have gone out of business and find themselves with a year or a year and a half of unfinished apprenticeship? It has become increasingly difficult to place such people in positions where they can complete their apprenticeships. I can understand the reluctance of employers to take on somebody whom they did not train initially, but this is the type of service which the Minister could arrange and which would help enormously to reduce the frustration of those people.
Perhaps the Minister would accept a recommendation which I have been asked to put to him, to allow apprentices a release for the first year of their apprenticeship rather than the block release lasting six or seven weeks at a time. This causes quite some pressure in job places and with employers. Apart from the apprentices getting the theory right initially, they will be much more useful to their employers when they return and have not this shunting backwards and forwards which disrupts the workplace.
It is generally believed that we have somehow smothered initiative with much red tape and administrative barriers, not just the Minister's Department and the agencies involved with it, but in many other areas, including the Industrial Development Authority. People trying to get a start and get discretionary money from whatever source would benefit from greater powers being placed with the Minister's local managers and development secretaries generally throughout the country, to give the initial push to these entrepreneurs or young beginners who want to take a chance in life. The people interviewing such people feel curtailed and consider it is not worth all the paperwork involved. Something could be done there as well. There is no condoning sluggishness in creating job opportunities or the environment to motivate self-movement by the unemployed young or over 25 years of age.
Commercial life has suffered greatly, it has almost ceased. To put it colloquially, it has been asphyxiated by overtaxation and over-administration. It has certainly been brutalised by the huge wall of bureaucracy which has grown up. A large measure of this exists in the Minister's Department. Take as an example the National Manpower Service. There is insufficient staffing to deal with the multiplicity of schemes which has been foisted on them. Each additional scheme has stretched their resources to breaking point. The service is aimed now at temporary schemes such as cleaning up graveyards. That is necessary work, but it has always been done in the past. They are now taking it on instead of seeking placement in permanent jobs.
The National Manpower Service, because of the multiplicity of schemes, have no time to do what they were set up to do, to interview applicants properly so that they can be channelled to the appropriate training scheme or job. Whether the Minister knows it or not, what is involved is an applicant filling in an application form and hoping for a response at some other time. The service was never intended to be like that and the Minister must bring it back to taking a personal interest in the applicant and his or her proper interviewing and subsequent advice.
The employment incentive scheme has not increased the workforce. It is the same employers who are benefiting from the scheme year after year. It is not having a beneficial effect on the number at work because the Minister is doing away with the base level each year or each period that he chooses. The employer who gets the grant one year for increasing the number employed can get it again when the Department alter the base level and that is what has been going on. Consequently, no additional jobs are being created.
AnCO have been referred to. They have their own training centres with full time instructors and I must put it on record that they do a good job. They are a vital, integral part of the whole scheme of things. They deserve our compliments and I gladly give them. However, there is over-use of outside consultants. These consultants are putting on programmes and courses and certainly have excellent PROs and excellent brochures. There is no question about that. However, I must ask if the Minister thinks we are getting value for money. Does he think there is that great need for all these outside consultants being used in the system? It would be interesting if the Minister took a look at that area.
The Minister said I would have firsthand knowledge of the AnCO link programme and that is the case. It operated in south and east Mayo in 1984. It provided opportunities for people to go into a kind of training for a certain period but I should like to ask the Minister if he has carried out any monitoring of the follow-up of that scheme. For instance, so far as the south Mayo scheme in 1984 was concerned, will the Minister say how many people ended up in employment at the end of the course and how many of those who participated in the scheme are in employment today? I realise that that is too much to ask the Minister to reply to this evening but there are not that many link programmes. I should like to know the answer to my query so that we might consider what benefit has accrued from the money spent. Can the Minister tell me the number of people in permanent or semi-permanent employment who have participated in the link scheme one day after the scheme finished and one year later. The work committees are not working. They are supposed to function after the link programme moves on but that does not happen. It is not right that we should try to put a smokescreen around what happens after such schemes cease to operate. While they are in operation they are all right but the question must be asked if they are really only a stopgap to reduce the numbers on the unemployment register.
The special employment schemes are not being taken up and the Minister mentioned one of the difficulties in that connection. The major reason they are not taking off is because there is only class J contribution under the PRSI system available to those participating and that allows a person to qualify only for occupational injury. It does not entitle a person to benefit other than by way of assistance after participation in the scheme. The Minister and the Government will be disappointed in respect of the numbers who will participate. If that scheme had come on stream as indicated in the budget, it would be in full operation now.
There are 20,000 inquiries.
The scheme is not taking off in the way necessary to make it a working model to solve the unemployment crisis. At this time there is a graduate drain from the country and I should like the Minister to apply himself to that matter. The Minister will accept that it is necessary to have higher levels of manufacturing to provide jobs and the living standards to maintain graduates in employment. We hear much about ordinary schemes for people under and over the age of 25 but we cannot forget that the universities are turning out thousands of graduates. As far as I am concerned, we are just exporting highly skilled people who have much talent. We are sending these people abroad to work with our competitors who will face us in the marketplace. There is a great need to devise a new arrangement that will help to keep those people here.
The Minister said he was extremely happy with the teamwork scheme, that it had had a staggering response. I do not know what the Minister regards as staggering but the figures in a reply I received from the Minister's office suggested that there are 400 people participating in the scheme. I suggest to him that 400 young people is not a staggering figure when up to 70,000 young people under the age of 25 are unemployed. I should like to think the Minister would revise his estimate of what he considers a staggering figure. In the administration of that scheme, I should like him to make one change. When schemes are contemplated under the teamwork heading, an official from Dublin has to come down to the country to decide whether the scheme will proceed. When the local National Manpower Service office can deal with the SES schemes and make decisions regarding large amounts of money, I cannot understand why they are not allowed to handle this little scheme. I ask the Minister to do something about this matter.
I should like the Minister to clarify the position concerning the National Manpower Service. What is his priority list so far as their functions are concerned? As far as I am concerned the list of priorities he has given the National Manpower Service is back to front. The first priorities with which he has charged them and the ones to which they must give the most urgent attention are the social employment schemes, followed by employment incentive schemes, social guarantee schemes, work experience programmes, enterprise allowance schemes, Youth Employment Agency schemes, community youth training schemes and job placement in permanent positions is in eighth place. I do not think the National Manpower Service should be asked by Ministerial diktat to apply priority number eight to this important matter. That is not giving the proper priority in dealing with our employment crisis and youth training. I should like to see item No. 8 take its proper place at the head of the priority list. I should like the Minister to have permanent job creation as his first priority and to so indicate to the National Manpower Service offices. Social employment schemes should be given their proper place in the queue but not in advance of permanent job placement.
A practical example of the Government's inactivity and inefficiency in dealing with the National Manpower Service can be given by me. This organisation deal with the ever-worsening unemployment situation which this evening the Minister, on behalf of the Government, at last admitted exists. This is the first time it has been admitted in two and a half years. People will recognise that the Minister of State at least had courage, something many of his colleagues have not got.
The National Manpower Service are responsible for the administration of major employment schemes costing millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. Yet, the 44 permanent offices are operating with archaic filing and administration methods. They do not have even the proper office technology that one would expect in a small office. Simple dictaphone equipment is not available in these offices. One would have imagined that, in dealing with a crisis where 70,000 young people are unemployed, at least the National Manpower Service would have a computerised filing system linked to a central terminal in the Minister's office or in some other office in Dublin. However, the offices are being denied proper levels of manning and the equipment to deal with the problem.
Since the Minister will not allow his Deputies to go through the lobbies this evening—and obviously quite a number of them were not prepared to vote on the Government's side on this occasion — I will put to him the Fianna Fáil position——
The Deputy should not be so childish.
We want one manpower agency in control of the schemes. We want a reduction in the number of agencies. We want their terms of operation redefined and accountability arrangements spelled out by the Government in regard to what is to be done to bring them into line. We want the Government to do it now, to stop the wastage of money, regaining the momentum necessary to provide job opportunities for our young people. We are pleased that at least the Government recognise they have failed to deal with the problem to date.
Deputy Bell has five minutes.
I might make a few brief points in the time available to me. I would suggest to Deputy Flynn that the present Minister for Labour and his Minister of State have done quite a good job in regard to the whole question of social legislation and employment schemes. That is generally recognised by the public. I might put on record the fact that most or 75 per cent of the social legislation introduced in this House over the past 20 years was introduced by Ministers of the Labour Party. That is a fact of life that cannot be denied.
While people criticise the activities of AnCO, the moneys spent on the training of people, one should remember that 50 per cent of those operational costs comes from EC funds which means that they cost the taxpayer 50 per cent only. I was chairman of the Louth/Meath AnCO link programme. Other Members of the Oireachtas served on that committee, including Deputy Faulkner. It provided an opportunity to co-ordinate training at local level rather than continuing the institutional type training that obtained heretofore.
I was a member of AnCO from their inception and am familiar with their developments over the past 20 years. Much of the original training provided by them is no longer relevant to industrial or commercial activity here. For example, many thousands of young people were trained in all sorts of engineering activity, using very expensive equipment, only to discover that when their training was completed there were not any jobs for them. There were not any jobs then and there are not any now. There would not be sufficient engineering works in the whole of Ireland and the United Kingdom put together to cope with the number of people trained in that way.
I always felt, and still feel, that programmes like the link programme define the type of training required within a community, that we should gear our training programmes to areas in which there will be vacancies. I notice that clothing companies are looking for skilled people. At the same time that there are 500 or perhaps 1,000 young girls or women unemployed signing at the employment exchanges on a weekly basis, the textile clothing industry experience difficulty in recruiting people. The reason for this is obvious: that there is very little, if any co-ordination between the various Manpower offices and the employment exchanges. In former years when one became unemployed, whether on a parttime or fulltime basis, one signed on on X number of days; in fact at one stage one signed daily. When jobs became vacant employers were obliged to notify the local employment exchange, such notices being listed in the exchanges and when people went into sign they were obliged to go from the employment exchange to that job at least to be interviewed. That is no longer the case. Through no fault of theirs one will find on the records of Manpower large numbers of people who are unemployed — some have emigrated — and the records are absolutely out of date.
The Deputy must now conclude.
I believe that the enterprise allowance scheme has been a huge success and has encouraged young people to commence much entrepreneurial activity, much of which has succeeded in my area. The new "work worth doing" scheme has been a huge success also, in respect of which I congratulate the Minister for Labour. It will take people off the dole, even if only for two and a half days and will deal a mortal blow to the black economy, meaning that people can work in an effective way particularly on environmental schemes and be paid for doing so, rather than hiding or doing anything illegal. I strongly recommend that scheme.
I agree with Deputy Flynn in his reference to the position of redundant apprentices. There is a scheme under the aegis of the Department of Labour, the redundant apprenticeship scheme, which is not nearly sufficiently used. For example, local authorities can avail of the scheme for the reconstruction of old housing and other public buildings. The position is that, while AnCO pay the trainees who complete their training under the scheme, the supervisor and part of the administrative costs, the problem arises with regard to material costs and it is those that prevent local authorities from availing of the scheme as they should.
This motion on behalf of Fianna Fáil has drawn recognition from the Government benches of our responsibility in putting it down in a timely way, expressing what is the widespread concern felt throughout the community about youth unemployment, the complexity of agencies, the multiplicity of schemes and so on. The Government must have experienced some difficulty in the wording of their amendment because it is so similar to the motion itself. Indeed, to admit that the House will not divide is clear recognition that the problem obtains, that it is a serious one. At last it has come to the attention of the Government that they should see the wisdom and constructive approach of Fianna Fáil in putting down this motion, having it debated and well thought out.
There is widespread concern, especially as we find ourselves now in an unemployment emergency. That is what it amounts to at present, its dimensions being in the region of 250,000 people unemployed. If one were to add on to that figure the thousands of young people not receiving any unemployment assistance because they are living at home with their parents — their parents' means are supposed to be sufficiently good to maintain them and keep them off the unemployment list — plus a realistic figure for emigration, now running close to 30,000 annually — illegal emigration to the United States, legal to Europe and the United Kingdom — had we to face those sorts of figures here then I have no reservations in saying that we would be sitting on a time bomb with a slow burning fuse. Before that fuse blows there is a responsibility on this House, and a bigger one on the part of the Government, to respond to that unemployment emergency, to be seen to take effective action rather than concerning themselves as unfortunately they have for much too long, in good public relations exercises, glossy brochures, a multitude of schemes, all of which add to the confusion and cynicism in the minds and hearts of all our young people and their parents as well.
We are failing in our duty and responsibility in this House, but the overall responsibility must lie at the feet of the Government. For the two and a half years they have been in power they have closed their eyes to the reality of the situation. They are more concerned with perception than with performance in Government. When one hears the utterances of the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance one begins to wonder if they are living in a real world at all, are they living with the real problems obtaining here at present? Not alone does one wonder if they are living here but one wonders if they are on this planet at all. We have had the Taoiseach say time and time again that there is light at the end of the tunnel. We heard that last year. I saw the Fine Gael document — the Democrat or whatever it is called — shoved into every door around the country, contending that the economy is up, up and away; 15 months ago it was on its way and it has not yet taken off. Yet repeatedly we hear the Taoiseach preach to the people that there is light at the end of the tunnel. I doubt if the Taoiseach has even found the entrance to the tunnel, never mind finding his way out of it. The light at the end of the tunnel is being hung out again because June 20 is approaching when the people will have an opportunity to cast a vote of no confidence in the Government. We will again see all the brochures and statements in all the pigeon holes in this House. Every member of the House got a document from Minister Liam Kavanagh listing his achievements since 1982. That is not what Government is about.
This motion addresses a hodge podge of multiplicity, duplicity, complexity, all adding to the confusion. What are the Government doing about it? Last night I listened to the Minister for Labour. Sometimes I wonder if in this Government the left knows what the right hand is doing. The left was here last night saying that there was no duplication or waste, and now this Minister is saying that he accepts the basis of our motion, that there is duplication and waste. There is waste to the tune of £160 million being spent by various Government Departments and agencies on a multiplicity of schemes. We put down a well presented motion saying that the time has come to call a halt, the time has come to do what my good business man would do, to set up a manpower service under one single authority. The expertise from all the individual agencies could become an arm of the new authority. That authority should have a central computer containing all the necessary data so that clerks would not spend endless hours writing lists of names over and over again. No wonder the young people are turned off. The Government should set up the single authority along the lines I have outlined so as to avoid confusion.
While the Minister is at that, he might tell his other colleagues not to run flashy advertisements on the television offering to develop ideas for people. The young people in the streets will say that they go into the agencies to see what is available. How can we expect a young person coming out of third level or second level education to be able to focus immediately on a whole new world of work or business if somebody is not there to look after him? There should be personal care for these people to help them get under way.
I have not time to go back to the root causes of the situation, but certainly some of it rests with the educational system. Sustainable jobs relate to products and services that sell, but look at the third level education, look at what happens. The people who develop ideas in the science and physics sections do not know anything about business, and on the other side are the commerce students. They should be brought together for a six months post graduate course. People should not be paid £30 a month to stay on in seventh class. That sort of nonsense will get us nowhere. If the people with the ideas and the people with the business minds are put together they will emerge better equipped to get a new project under way.
In the schools we should encourage the students to think of themselves as being employers rather than employees. In any secondary school today 70 per cent of the pupils will say that they want a job in an office and so on. The academic jobs they are aspiring to are not available and will not be available. It is up to the Government to make use of all the money available, to get value for money on behalf of the taxpayers. Everybody accepted the 1 per cent youth employment levy in good faith because everybody knew the reality of the problem which loomed. About £160 million is being spent, and nobody can see the value for money so the taxpayers are now cribbing about the 1 per cent levy; they do not want to pay it. We are training people for jobs that do not exist. The Government are talking about social employment schemes which will add to the black economy. We have three types of economy. One is the export economy. When a local authority are told to introduce a scheme and that the Government will be responsible for 53 per cent of the cost, and they are starved of money, where will they get the 47 per cent needed to start the scheme? In these circumstances the scheme will not start. Everybody knows that the trade unions have put up barriers to stop this scheme working. If a person gets a project going, what is happening in the insurance world? Employers' liability is going up by 300 per cent this year and some of the schemes set up under the enterprise allowance scheme are already being put out of business this year. In many instances they cannot get cover, and when they can the cover is so expensive they cannot afford it. If the Minister wishes this scheme to work he should put in an after care service. There is no point in setting up young people for three or four months and then running away. These people will have cash flow problems and they will need after care service. That is the only way to achieve success.
The Government should not say that this economy is rising, because it is not. We are talking about an increase in exports coming from two sectors of industry, electronics and pharmaceuticals only. The money that is being created here is not coming back to this economy, and that is why there is no uplift in the economy. The other economy here is our indigenous economy which is not rising at all. Consumer spending for the first three months this year shows that. When Deputy Bell talks about traditional industries, the only way they can succeed is if consumer spending rises. The third economy is the black economy, which is the only one doing business at the moment because the policies being pursued by this Government are creating a bigger black economy every day of the week. The white economy is being squeezed to death while the black economy flourishes. The white economy is being squeezed to death by penal taxation and by more and more Government interference. If the Government want enterprise to flourish they should remove the heavy hand of Government. The Government should introduce selective reductions in taxation so that enterprise will be rewarded. Without investment today we cannot have jobs tomorrow. We should invest in the areas which produce results. If we carry on in the present fashion the country will go further down the tube. People who do not want to go into the black economy are being forced to engage in it to survive.
Yesterday in the House I heard the Minister for Agriculture, who could make a significant contribution if he addressed himself to the problems and to the opportunities that exist in small farm enterprise. The Minister when asked about aid from Europe said that not alone did it apply to mares but it applied to jackasses, mules and jennets. That is not the sort of glib reply we expect from a Minister for Agriculture, a Minister in charge of our greatest industry who could make a significant contribution to the economy. There are far too many Departments and far too many agencies with their finger in the pie. The Government should get the job on the road in the manner promoted in our resolution moved by Deputy Bertie Ahern here last night.
If they want evidence to suggest that they have too many agencies, let them go to the Committee on Public Expenditure of this House where Deputy Hugh Coveney, being the honest man he is sometimes, says that there is no need at all for the YEA. We told them that the day they started it off. It is a brainchild of my friends in the Labour Party, another stillborn child like the National Development Agency with phantom policies, phantom jobs, phantom everything but get the perspective right to keep the socialist souls happy. That is what those boys said. It is a non-runner, and the same end result will be forthcoming from the National Development Corporation if it ever sees the light of day. They have spoken about it for 10 years and Deputy Bruton is going to ensure that it never materialises. I wish that the man who is away abroad would come back and realise that we live in this little country, that we have real problems here. There is plenty of evidence of that. There is plenty of evidence in the papers where we read about a £100 million jobs scandal. They do not have to take it from us. If they want to continue their public relations exercise they are only codding themselves and the time bomb they have laid will explode in their faces and all the PR releases that they issue between now and 20 June will not stop that explosion but the real explosion will come in autumn 1986.
The Deputy has exceeded his time.
I indicated in my contribution that we are not pressing our amendment having regard to the constructive approach of Deputy Ahern if not of the following speakers.
Is the amendment withdrawn? Is the motion agreed?
Of course it is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.
Since the motion is agreed would the Minister state at the end of this debate when we will see a White Paper and some action on this?
Soon.