asked the Minister for Labour if he will give a report to the House on the effects of the cutbacks in the AnCO training schemes for 1986.
17.
Ceisteanna-Questions. Oral Answers. - Training Scheme Cutbacks.
8.
asked the Minister for Labour if he will give details of the cutbacks affecting manpower services for 1986.
20.
asked the Minister for Labour the full extent of the major cutbacks in the training programmes conducted by AnCO and the other agencies; if he will confirm that the Teamwork scheme has been cut by 41 per cent; and if he will state Government policy in relation to training-work programmes in 1986.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 17 and 20 together.
AnCO, CERT and the Youth Employment Agency are planning outputs of 15,000, 2,414 and 4,634 man years of activity respectively in 1986 which is broadly in line with that achieved in 1985. The original allocation for Teamwork in 1985 was £6 million. During the year a further £2.5 million was provided giving a total of £8.5 million for the scheme in 1985. The allocation for Teamwork in 1986 is £5 million. The allocation was decided upon in the light of the budgetary situation.
I expect to achieve in 1986 an overall activity level of 45,250 man years on training, employment and work experience programmes as against a figure of 38,484 man years in 1985. The broad picture is, therefore, one of an increase of 18 per cent in training, work experience and employment schemes.
The word coming back from all the training centres is that there are massive cutbacks. There are many courses which are not taking place. There are others which have been severely reduced and others where the numbers are way down. It is easy to put up the overall numbers by having classes double the size on minor and limited courses. Would the Minister of State not agree that the more sophisticated courses and in particular the Teamwork courses have been drastically reduced this year?
In some cases this is related to the fact that European social funding might not be available for the particular schemes. For instance, it is interesting to note that under the social employment scheme there was an increase of 604 per cent in participation from 1985 to 1986.
I do not object to the grouping of the three questions, but the social employment scheme has nothing whatsoever to do with AnCO.
I am giving the overall activity level of training, employment and work experience programmes. These have gone up from 38,484 to 45,250.
I do not object to the Minister of State grouping the three questions, even though they are broadly based. Could the Minister of State give the figures the question asked for in relation to AnCO — the number of people who will be trained by AnCO, and no other organisation, during 1986?
In 1985, 13,250 under 25 years and in 1986, 13,400.
Would the Minister of State agree that, with the large number of young people who are out of work and the continuing increase in school leavers who are unable to obtain employment, there is no increase in the numbers involved in AnCO training schemes in 1986? Would he further agree that the range of courses has also been severely reduced, that the numbers attending courses have risen dramatically and that the whole quality of AnCO training has been severely affected for 1986?
The quality of AnCO schemes and the determination of the number of schemes in operation are separate questions. This refers to the effects of the cutbacks on the AnCO training schemes. If the Deputy wishes to put down a specific question with regard to the workings of any scheme, or the range of schemes, I would be happy to give him full details.
The number of people attending courses has risen dramatically and this lowers the quality of training because instructors are not able to give the individual tuition which they previously gave. Surely that is related directly to the effects.
Does the Minister accept that AnCO, for the first time in a number of years, have not received adequate funding and what is the reason? The training programmes have been severely affected. The number of instructors has been reduced and the numbers attending the courses have risen dramatically. There are not as many courses in operation now as there were in 1968. Does the Minister accept that?
I accept that everybody is concerned with youth unemployment. These questions refer to AnCO training schemes, manpower services and training programmes. I have given the Deputy the overall picture with regard to those three matters.
May I ask the Minister what action the Government will take to give the necessary funding to AnCO which has been taken away by the lack of resources from the European Social Fund?
The overall position, as I have said, is that the figure was increased from £38,000 to £45,000 for 1985-86.
Would the Minister give the reduction in the amount of money given to AnCO because the European Social Fund has not been funding AnCO courses? The Government failed to supplement that difference in 1986.
The Deputy is aware that we received 13 per cent of the European Social Fund last year. That is down to about 9 per cent this year.
How much in money terms?
I do not have the figure but I will communicate with the Deputy in the matter.
May I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that the services being provided by the Manpower offices have been dramatically curtailed, if he will consider reintroducing the work experience programme? This programme seems to be at a standstill at present.
That is a separate question.
It is not. It is Question No. 17 which I put down about the cutbacks affecting Manpower services. Will the Minister give a commitment that the work experience programme will be reintroduced immediately because of the problems young people are facing in trying to find jobs when they leave school? It was providing a very valuable service and it is a scandal that it has been neglected.
The participation level in the work experience programme for 1986 is estimated at 3,900.
My question was in relation to Question No. 8. The Minister grouped Questions Nos. 8, 17 and 20 together. In relation to Question No. 20, may I ask the Minister if the statement which is in my question, that the Teamwork scheme has been cut by 41 per cent in 1986 is correct?
The Deputy is reasonably good at mathematics. In 1985 the number of people participating in the Teamwork scheme was 1,912 and in 1986 is is 1,125. That is a reduction of 41 per cent. On the overall national training programmes and manpower services the increase is 18 per cent from 1985 to 1986.
If, as the Minister said in reply to an earlier question by Deputy De Rossa, this Teamwork scheme has been so successful and if the scheme has operated with such beneficial advantages to so many people, why did the Government in the preparation of the Book of Estimates cut the scheme by 41 per cent? The answer is not that there is nobody on the waiting list.
The Deputy is probably aware that when the applications for the Teamwork scheme were received initially those who were active and farseeing enough began to apply for a range of schemes which were extremely broad. The trend of expenditure under the Teamwork scheme for the period of its operation was spiralling upwards. One could spend up to £20 million on the applications which had come in. Many of these were not strictly related to the initial brief of the Teamwork operation. Many which were refused assistance under the scheme have drawn assistance from the social employment scheme which has increased dramatically since last year.
If the application for the Teamwork scheme is refused and if, as in the case of a Dublin person where there is no social employment scheme, people are not able to transfer from the Teamwork scheme to the social employment scheme, what is the position? His or her only recourse is social employment assistance and the dole queues.
That is a matter for the Minister for Social Welfare.
It is the logic of this which defeats us all. Would the Minister not think it would be better for people to receive money under the Teamwork scheme when they are doing something of community value rather than being on the dole queues? Has that been taken into account?
As Minister of State with responsibility in this area I accept that it is much more logical to have young people employed in productive work than to have them drawing practically the same amount of money from the social schemes. I am concerned about this and I would like to see a further allocation made under the Teamwork scheme. There was a secondary allocation made last year bringing the amount to £8.5 million. I have requested further funding but I am not in a position to say whether it will be granted.