Dún Laoghaire): By agreement and notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, Members should be called in Private Members' time this evening as follows: 7 p.m. to 7.15 p.m., a Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.15 p.m. to 7.30 p.m., a Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.30 p.m. to 8 p.m., a Government speaker; 8 p.m. to 8.10 p.m., a Fianna Fáil speaker; 8.10 p.m. to 8.15 p.m., a Government speaker and 8.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., a Fianna Fáil speaker.
Private Members' Business. - Youth Unemployment: Motion.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the appallingly high level of unemployment among young people; condemns the Government for their failure to provide adequate employment opportunities for them and calls on the Government to undertake immediately a comprehensive programme of measures to deal effectively with this emergency.
Never in the history of the State has the problem of youth unemployment been as great as it is at present. According to the Minister's figures today there are 230,357 people unemployed. Of those, 70,597 people are under 25 years of age. In the lifetime of this Government at least 50,000 people have left this country in forced emigration because they have no choice due to the lack of employment opportunities at home. We have had from this Government many pious platitudes. We have had from the parties in this Government many promises, one of which is stated in the document Jobs for the Eighties, a Fine Gael document outlining their policy in October 1982. Probably the greatest indictment of all is the first paragraph of the Joint Programme for Government in which the incoming Government stated that a figure of 170,000 people unemployed at the time was a totally unacceptable figure and the the major priority of the new Coalition Government was to tackle that problem and to have that figure reduced.
We now look back on that promise and on the way in which they attempted to solve that problem. The answer is to be found in the statistics which I place before the House this evening. There are 230,000 people out of work. One could easily add another 50,000 people who left the shores of this country. Add to that a further 45,000 people whom I do not consider to be employed. They are participating in short-term employment schemes at a very high cost to the taxpayer. The PAYE taxpayer has made a very significant contribution towards solving the unemployment problem, significant in that the taxpayer has contributed £300 million since the inception of the 1 per cent employment levy. This money was paid in good faith to a Government who, it was intended, would proceed with providing sustainable jobs. This must be the greatest scandal of money wasting in the history of the State. Can the Minister for Labour tell us what number of sustainable, economic jobs now exist as a result of the expenditure of that money? What we found is that the Government, in order to try to decrease the level of people on the unemployment register, have literally put those young people into any kind of what I describe as a graveyard job in order to keep them off the unemployment register. Consequently, over the last number of years we have had a major plank in the Government's job creation policy amounting simply to putting young people into short-term, six month employment schemes and giving them £35 or £40 per week.
A survey, which I will refer to further in a moment, only out this week tells us that 57 per cent of long-term unemployed young people have received between £31 and £40 a week and 30 per cent have received less than £30 a week. In other words, 87 per cent of the long-term unemployed have been in receipt of less than £40 per week. They have gone from one scheme to another. When the frustration sets in they have gone to the boat. It has to be the saddest mark that this Government have left on the country. It is a mark that I believe is completely unacceptable when one considers the promises which were made at the outset.
It is important to point out that it is possible to create worth-while sustainable jobs. There is no reason why with the proper policies — I will outline Fianna Fáil's policy, to get employment moving again, towards the end of my speech — the difficulties that have been created cannot be overcome. The problem with this Government is that they have created a hostile environment for economic expansion. They have simultaneously increased taxation and reduced capital expenditure. Through their borrowing policies they have kept interest rates artifically high. They have contributed more than any other Government to the high cost of inputs such as electricity, transport, telecommunications and so on.
On the other side of the scale they have been negligent in their efforts to try to encourage investment. The figures which I will now give are a clear indication of that. They are the estimated figures for the public capital programme for 1986. They show that the capital investment in agriculture decreased in value by 59 per cent since 1980. Those are the Government's figures. They show that the capital invested in industry has decreased in value by 39 per cent since 1980. They show that the capital invested in fisheries has decreased by a massive 60 per cent since 1980 and the capital investment in transport has decreased by 31 per cent since 1980. That is the clearest set of figures which can be put forward to show the way in which the Government have totally neglected their portfolio for investment in the vital areas for job creation. There is no need for me to say anything further. I ask the Minister to explain to this House why the Government found it necessary to cut back in the most vital area of the economy which I have just mentioned.
It is interesting that the one or two good developments that this Government have brought about for capital investment have been sadly neglected. The venture capital scheme, which is basically a good idea but is much too restrictive, is the kind of scheme that can do much for investment in industry and, if it was further developed, in the other areas also. A tax amnesty for tax evaders who are prepared to invest money in such areas as industry would be a very progressive step. All politicians know that there are millions of pounds under the beds both inside and outside this country because it is simply not wise to invest it legally. The black economy is rampant and this Government's policies have assisted in the black economy.
There are numerous other areas which I do not have time to go into this evening. The most serious problem created by the lack of employment opportunity is emigration. It is nothing short of a scandal that so many young people have found it necessary to leave this country to find employment. The figures are startling. Today I spoke on the telephone with Fr. Bobby Gilmore who is in charge of the Irish Centre in London. What he had to say was nothing short of alarming. He said that last Saturday 25 young people were turned away from the Irish Centre in Kilburn. In the Irish Centre in Camden Town people were sitting on the steps because they could not get in. The social workers had an emergency meeting last week because of the magnitude of the problem which is now facing them due to the numbers of young people in England who cannot find adequate accommodation or employment. He said that they are overworked and cynical. That is where the problem of Irish unemployment is being faced up to. That is where the Government have washed their hands of the problems caused by their lack of initiative in creating employment. The situation is not much different in respect of the United States. The American Embassy gave a figure last year of 5,000 people going out on holiday visas and not returning. Last Wednesday at 8.30 a.m. I went out to the American Embassy and counted 200 people in a queue waiting for visas. I hope they were going on holidays. It was quite clear that many of them were going on a holiday which will last for a long time.
The recent report commissioned by the Irish Youth Centre in London showed some startling statistics as to what is happening to our young people over there. Sixty-one per cent travelled to London alone; 34 per cent had less than £30 on arrival in Britain; 70 per cent had less than £100; 57 per cent had not made definite arrangements for accommodation; 27 per cent had spent some time sleeping rough in London since their arrival; 17 per cent spent their first night sleeping rough; 79 per cent had experienced unemployment since their arrival in London; and of those 81 per cent were currently unemployed compared with 18 per cent who managed to get employment. The Minister can say, as he has done already, that they should not go unprepared. If they go with less than £30 in their pockets, it says something for their status in life before they left.
I want to put it to the Minister in the strongest possible terms that the Government have much to answer for to our young people. Let me say, particularly when our party leader is present, that there are ways of tackling unemployment. Rather than asking Ministers to consider initiatives, as I have done on numerous occasions in the past, tonight I will ask our party leader to consider a number of initiatives which I am quite confident will bring about employment and will be put into action by Fianna Fáil. Before doing so I want to quote from an article written by Seán Lemass in 1961. This is the kind of progressive thinking that is now required to get the country out of the morass it is in. I quote:
Some time ago I spoke of making every Department of the Government into a development corporation in the particular field of national activity entrusted to it. I had then in mind the bringing about of a change of attitude and outlook amongst civil servants, a new psychological approach to the Government's development responsibilities, rather than matters of organisation, but all experience teaches that the right kind of organisation can help in developing the right attitudes. Can we feel certain that the present structure of our civil service tends to encourage the right attitude?
I think it is true to say that in some Government Departments there is still a tendency to wait for new ideas to walk in through the door ... At this time, the positive stimulating attitude of our Department of Finance is a very important factor in the building up of the widely deployed development effort which is now evident.
There are numerous opportunities. There is the international service industry where prestigious jobs can be created. Yet, we charge firms in this sector 50 per cent corporation tax. There is the food sector where we have 11 different agencies and four different Ministers making a hash of what are the finest natural resources in the country. There is massive room for development in this area. There are other ideas such as the payment of a tax rebate whereby we would give to a two parent family a £6,000 or £7,000 tax rebate over a five year period if one of them leaves employment. There would be no compulsion on anybody. It would be a free choice. We could create an economic, sustainable job at much less cost than we are creating jobs at present.
The Government are digging a hole for themselves daily. My advice to them is to fall into that hole and let Fianna Fáil get on with the job of ruling this country. I want to say in west of Ireland, lingo that the Government have proved to be the most disgraceful shower of "Latchikoes" who ever had the honour to sit on those benches. I have to put it in those strong terms because it is necessary for me to get across to this House the frustration felt by so many thousands of young people at this time, particularly by the many thousands of young people who, unfortunately, are feeling their frustration on the streets of Britain, of New York, Chicago and other US cities.
I support the motion so ably put by my colleague, Deputy Fahey. There is no doubt that the Government have failed miserably to respond to the needs of young people. They have abandoned young people. They have cast them aside saying: "Look after yourselves; we have no interest in you." The attitude of this inept Government is shameful. The tragedy of youth unemployment is that we are not just talking about 17 year olds or 18 year olds; we are talking about the age group of 16 to 25 years. Under this inept Government a generation of highly educated and talented young people have been consigned to the dole queues. That is the greatest shame of all in a young, growing nation. It is shameful that the Government should allow this to happen.
The problems of young people have become a talking shop for politicians. We hear politicians say daily that our young people are our greatest national asset but what are politicians and the Government doing about them? We have much lip service but no positive action to deal with the real problems facing young people. If one looks at and assesses the election figures over the past three or four years, one will see that young people are not going out to vote. They are cynical about politicians and political parties. We must ask ourselves why. The Government stand accused of creating such cynicism because of their failure to respond to the needs of young people, and particularly in tackling the high levels of unemployment. If one walks the streets and talks with young people about what they feel about Ireland today, one will find them frustrated and disillusioned. They see politicians as sitting in an ivory tower unaware of the real world which they are facing. They see us as being incapable of tackling the problems which are facing them. The only thing some politicians in this House can talk about is an increase in TDs salaries. That is not acceptable in this day and age when we have so many young people who have no job and no money in their pockets. It is shameful that politicians should be talking that way at present.
Deputy Fahey dealt with the question of emigration. The number of young people leaving the country at present has been put at 50,000. Last Easter I was in London with the local GAA club. I saw for myself the serious situation which exists — young people without a job, without money in their pockets and nowhere to stay. The Irish centres are at crisis point and are unable to cater for them. We must tackle this problem. It is deplorable that those young people cannot remain in this country and make a living and help to develop this country in the way they would like to see it going in the years ahead. They are going to America in their thousands, most of them illegally on working holidays and not coming back. Many GAA clubs and county boards could tell us that the number of players they have transferred in the last year is running into the hundreds mark. That is proof of the high numbers who are emigrating.
I have a document which lists 26 training schemes and ten addresses of agencies. That is a duplication of services, a source of confusion to our young people. Those agencies should be under the one umbrella spending moneys where they should be spent, on young people, rather than on the civil service which is full of bureaucracy and red tape and of no advantage to them. Training schemes are all right in themselves but it is frustrating and disillusioning for young people to spend six months or a year on a training scheme and then have to revert to the dole queues. What our young people are seeking are long term, sustainable jobs from which they can earn a decent living for themselves and their families.
There is much talk at present about crime, vandalism and social unrest. There is no doubt that unemployment is partly responsible for that and for so much disillusionment among young people. In some families there may be a husband unemployed, with three or four teenage sons or daughters who cannot find work either, which is not good for the home environment. This Government must be seriously criticised for their inability to provide jobs for young people. People may contend that it is not possible to provide long term jobs. I do not subscribe to that viewpoint.
This Government have failed miserably in the development of our natural resources such as forestry, fisheries, tourism, the building industry and agriculture, using our basic raw materials. Long term sustainable jobs could be created in those areas for our young people. The IDA have been involved in many projects over the years and have done a reasonably good job in attracting multinationals here. Unfortunately, most of those industries are now remaining in their own countries because of job scarcity. The large investment at present being made in the IDA should be directed at the development of our natural resources thereby creating jobs for our people.
Agriculture is one sector that has me and, I think, the farming community confused, again because of the Government's refusal to develop that sector. This means that farmers' sons and daughters are competing with others to obtain scarce jobs. Agriculture should be the subject of major development, encouraging farmers' sons and daughters to remain on the land and earn a worth-while income. More importantly, there should be emphasis laid on the development of value-added products, but this Government have shown no interest in that area either.
There is tremendous potential for development also in the food, fruit and horticultural industries. We should have an internal agency responsible for the promotion and development of the food processing industry and its value-added products. The IDA attract industries here, Córas Tráchtála promote exports, but we need an internal agency for the development of agriculture and the food processing and horticultural sectors, where there is tremendous job potential.
Because of the inability of this Government to tackle the unemployment problem our young people have three choices open to them — first, they can go on the dole; second, they can emigrate; or, third, participate in a training scheme. But their chances of securing long term, sustainable jobs are very slim and it appears that this Government have no interest in their creation. We see young people today of 21 or 22 years, married with a family, who never had the dignity of a job. That is an appalling environment in which to rear young children. Certainly, it is not in the best interests of proper family development in the future. That is occasioned by the lack of initiative and policies on the part of this Government.
One might have expected that the Labour section of this Government would have been interested in our young people, the people they always tell us, prior to general elections, they care about, the unemployed and poorer sections. During the lifetime of this Government the Labour Party element have shown no interest whatsoever in our young people or in the creation of jobs now or in the future. Young people are disillusioned, being frustrated in every attempt they make to acquire a job. With so many resources put into educating our people from the mid-sixties, now, when we should be reaping the rewards of such investment, it is unfortunate that our young, well educated people are forced to emigrate. They want to remain and work here. They want the dignity of a job. Yet they must leave, go abroad to earn a decent living. They will not return, bearing in mind our economy, taxation system and environment generally, because it would not reward them. It is a shame that the people the taxpayers' money went into educating cannot remain and earn a decent living for themselves and their families.
The Government tell us that they are doing their best with the various training schemes in operation. There was the 1 per cent youth levy. I believe that the PAYE workers — it was they who, in the main, paid the levy, because it was stopped from their income at source — have been conned. They willingly donated 1 per cent of their salaries, thinking that it would create long-term jobs for young people. Instead the moneys were expended to prop up different Departments that had been funded by the Exchequer heretofore. That has been one of the greatest scandals under this Government — that money given so willingly was not used for the purpose intended, which was the creation of jobs. Rather it has gone into the Departments of the Environment, Education, Labour, has been lost on the way, and has not provided sustainable jobs.
One could continue to criticise this Government, but I do not think they pay any attention to such criticism. They do not have any interest in our young people. They have adopted monetarist policies. They do not care about people. They talk about balancing the books. One might have expected that they would have changed some of their policies midstream when they saw the frustration and disastrous consequences of the high unemployment rate among our young people.
At the next general election I have no doubt but that our young people will show how this Taoiseach and Government have failed them. They came into office full of promises and ideas vis-á-vis young people. Somewhere along the road they lost their way, leaving those young people more frustrated and disillusioned than ever. At the next general election those people will turn in their masses to the Fianna Fáil party to bring about a solution. As Deputy F. Fahy has pointed out already, we have the policies, we have radical changes and ideas to advance which will afford those young people the dignity of a job, the right to remain at home and develop this nation along the lines we would all like to see in the next decade, if not into the next century. It is not in the best interests of any country to turn its back on its young people. That is what this Government have done. I believe young people are becoming restless, they want to see the end of the disastrous Cabinet and Government, the Labour Party in particular standing indicated for what they have done to our young people.
I was anxious to participate in this debate, even though it was brought forward by Deputy Fahey for the Fianna Fáil Party, presumably in his capacity as spokesman for youth. I was anxious to hear what Deputy Fahey and Deputy Browne had to say. I accept that it is part and parcel of the tradition of parliamentary democracy that Opposition Deputies oppose and criticise and make legitimate points through cut and thrust, where those points can be made. I participated in that process and perhaps on occasions over-indulged myself. Now that I am on this side of the House, I say that with a little more sorrow than sentiment. I do not think I ever stood up on the other side of the House and criticised to such an extent without offering any kind of positive alternative. I say that more in sadness than in anger. I do not think I ever tried to make a debate that would not leave the issue somewhat further advanced at the end than it was at the commencement, as perceived by both sides.
In effect what Deputy Fahey wanted was effectively to raise the issue of migration and particularly emigration. It is a theme to which he has given a lot of attention, a matter on which he has spoken frequently. I am delighted he is concerned about this matter but I am saddened that his party have not been as concerned in the past as he is now. It was not until I became Minister for Labour that a little bit of honesty came into the reality of migration and emigration as it occurs in this country. It was not in 1982 that people started to emigrate from Galway, nor was it 1972 nor 1952, It was before Deputy Fahey and I were born.
I found to my surprise that there was a body called COWESA — the Council for the Welfare of Emigrant Services Abroad — in the Department of Labour. It consists of about 21 members, most of them clerics and all, with the exception of one, living in Ireland. They advise the Government of the day on how to spend the miserable £38,000 on welfare services for Irish emigrants abroad, effectively in England. I read the file and looked into the history of it. I found petition after petition, letter after letter from Irish people in Britain going back over the years to a time when even the present Fianna Fáil Leader was a backbench councillor in Dublin Corporation. These were letters and petitions asking the Irish Government of the day to do something about welfare services. People are born Irish first and take on their political allegiances second.
We want to stop people going abroad.
I did not interrupt Deputy Fahey. I will come to that question and ask whether he really wants to stop people going abroad. Deputy Fahey has collected facts and figures from Bobby Gilmore and others. These people are now in a position to talk to him because they have resources and facilities which this Government unashamedly and without conditions gave to emigrant services abroad to provide services for those people who unwillingly or unpreparedly left this island.
I began my contribution by departing from the speech I had prepared because of the frequency with which Deputy Fahey returned to this theme. Emigration is a dreadful problem that has afflicted this island for many years. Nobody denies that. No political party has a vested interest in it and it is not in the interest of any political party to stir the pot in relation to that matter. All of us are against emigration and trying to take measures to counteract it. It behoves us in honesty to recognise that it has existed for a long time and the victims of emigration should not be ignored because we are against the phenomenon itself. If Deputies opposite are not happy with what this Government have been doing in this respect I suggest that they talk to Fr. Billy Gilmore and the others, as well as the Council for Emigrant Services Abroad run by the Irish Hierarcy, and get their views on this matter. In the past three years we have increased by about 300 per cent the amount of money available to help those people who have emigrated against the advice of people here. In some cases they would have been better served if they remained here.
I should like to stop the kind of emigration Deputy Fahey is talking about but if he had done his research properly he would have found that under the career break system which we have introduced since we came into office to provide the kind of flexibility he talks about — and not, incidentally, at the price of £6,000 per person — about 40 per cent of those who take a career break leave this country. Are they emigrants?
They are not forced emigrants.
They have a permanent job in Ireland and the right to return in three years' time, yet about 40 per cent of them have opted to leave this island. Are they emigrants? When I was a student I went each summer to work in England to obtain money for my fees.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
I am replying to the points made by Deputy Fahey. Perhaps I am getting too close to the bone. Deputy Fahey says that he went to the US Embassy at 8.30 last week and counted approximately 200 people waiting for visas. If he had done that in the mid1970s when there was an economic boom or if he had gone to USIT he would have found similar numbers or possibly more. He probably went abroad himself.
And I came back.
Deputy Fahey did not make these points.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please. The two Deputies who spoke before the Minister were not interrupted once.
I am trying to recognise the validity of what the Deputies are saying but I am inviting them to disaggregate the information they have given so that——
Semantic exercises designed to confuse the House.
Deputy Fitzgerald will expect to get a hearing and I will see that he does, but if I do not get one for everybody I cannot get one for anybody.
I think there is a certain anxiety to perform in view of who is in the House. Deputy Fahey was right to introduce the factors he did. I do not disagree with any of the things he said. I am simply saying we should start to look at those facts and separate the real problem from the gross numbers. We have real problems and tragically they have not been addressed in the contributions from either Deputy Fahey or Deputy Browne. It is in the interest of everybody, particularly those who are forced to emigrate, that we have an honest debate about the numbers. I have attempted to engage in such a debate, not just in this House but elsewhere, and I am prepared to do so again and to make all the facts and figures available to the Opposition, so that we can begin to focus on the areas of real problems rather than on some areas which are not as problematic as they appear at first glance.
Will the Minister give us the figures for emigration?
Deputy Haughey should give the Minister an opportunity to make his contribution without interruption.
I will give Deputy Haughey all the figures. On previous occasions I have given such figures to the Opposition spokesperson for Labour and the Public Service. Members are entitled to those figures and when I make them available Deputies opposite can draw their own conclusions from them.
The last figure given by the Taoiseach was 8,000.
For more than 30 minutes I listened to two Fianna Fáil speakers without interruption. I find it extraordinary that four of them constantly interrupt me.
I asked a question.
And I replied.
The Minister said he would give us all the information.
I said that I will make all the figures available to the Deputy.
On a point of order, may I ask the Minister——
That is not a point of order.
On a point of information, I should like to ask the Minister to spell out what he is prepared to do about the problems we have outlined. If the Minister does that we will not interrupt him.
The Minister should be allowed proceed without interruption.
This is an extraordinary performance by the Opposition. Two Deputies opposite came into the House — it may be their immaturity as young Deputies — and lectured on impartial facts and put forward suggestions as to what should be done but when they were challenged they could not control themselves sufficiently to listen to the entire argument, even if they reject that argument.
Fianna Fáil in their motion call on the House to deplore the appallingly high level of unemployment among young people; to condemn the Government for their failure to provide adequate employment opportunities for them and to call on the Government to undertake immediately a comprehensive programme of measures to deal effectively with this emergency. I know that argument by comparison is not very attractive to Deputies opposite but, without attempting to say that our level of youth unemployment is acceptable in any shape or form, I must point out that it is not by accident that, while this State has had the highest level of unemployment among people over the age of 25 in the EC, we are the fourth lowest in terms of youth unemployment, for those under 25, in the EC. On previous occasions we were the lowest but the advent of Spain and Portugal has altered those statistics.
While the figures are appallingly high — I accept the criticism of Fianna Fáil in regard to them — they should be set in context relative to other European countries that have had a longer period of economic independence and greater resources available to them. If Deputies opposite wish to make a judgment about what can be done they should look at the figures in the context of other countries. I accept that the figures are appallingly high; but, relative to other countries, the amount of time various Governments have had to deal with the problem, and the level of resources available to us, they are not as bad as some people argue. They are lower than could reasonably be expected. If we have the highest level of unemployment for those over 25 one could reasonably assume that we would be at the same end of the league table for under 25s, but the reverse is the position. That has not come about by accident. We can claim some of the credit, but nobody can claim all the credit for the improvement. The rate of increase in unemployment has been declining during our term in office. It is a type of negative argument that one does not wish to boast about but it is a fact and it makes our job a little easier. We are probably responsible for some of the factors that brought about that reduction but Deputy Haughey, as a former Minister for Finance, will recognise——
Will the Minister permit me to ask a question?
The Deputy may put a question to the Minister at the end of the debate.
Will the Minister please give us the actual figures for emigration?
I will resist the temptation to refer to when Deputy Haughey went out of office, but in 1983 the rate of increase in unemployment——
Up to 60,000 fewer were unemployed.
——from one year to another was 15.6 per cent, reduced to 8.4 per cent in 1984 and to 6.4 per cent in 1985. Between May 1985 and May 1986 the gross increase in the total number unemployed was only 3 per cent. Those figures have to be set against an increase of 27,000 in the labour force between April 1982 and April 1985. What is disappointing is that we still await the it improvement in young people's employment position which were anticipated last year. The OECD and the ESRI forecast growth rates in the GNP this year of approximately 3 per cent and 4 per cent in 1987.
The problem, which was of enormous proportions in terms of the growth of unemployment in the entire labour force, has begun to subside and the figures I have given can be tested by any Member of the Opposition. Two independent bodies, the ERSI and the international body, the OECD, are suggesting growth rates of the level of 3 per cent and 4 per cent, not sufficient in either 1986 or 1987 to get the levels of employment that we require in a mixed economy - mostly coming from the private sector but, nevertheless, more positive than we have had in the past. It is for that reason that the Government have introduced an enormous number of programmes and interventions in the labour market to help young people. In the past we were criticised for introducing so many programmes. In the course of a debate in the House we were accused of having too many confusing programmes. We were told that people did not know what to do.
They are only a waste of time.
Earlier Deputy Browne indicated that they were full of bureaucracy, that they were more for civil servants to occupy their time. He said we needed direct action and not more of those programmes; but then he proceeded to call for the establishment of another agency in relation to agriculture. I am not sure if the Deputy would regard agricultural bureaucrats to be more or less productive than those involved in employment agencies. The contradiction in Deputy Browne's contribution underpins the fact that Fianna Fáil, tragically for the nation, have not any great ideas other than, as Deputy Fahey couched as a personal view, have a buy-out available for married women to leave the labour market. He suggested that they should be paid £6,000 over a number of years. Deputy Fahey's option to create more jobs was to buy-out married women. He suggested one or other of the partners should be bought out; and, as it is the male who earns more than the female in most families, therefore it is reasonable to presume that he is suggesting that the female should be bought out of the labour market at a price of £6,000.
I gave three examples of how to create sustainable jobs.
The Minister should be allowed continue without interruption.
The Minister should not say something that is incorrect.
The suggestion put forward by Deputy Fahey was a personal one. For many years we have had problems in regard to unemployment of a locational and structural nature. Youth unemployment reached astronomical proportions in the late seventies and early eighties. Deputies opposite will recall that they ran a very successful campaign in 1977, complete with pop tunes and teeshirts, on that issue. At that stage it was emerging that it was a major problem because of the way our population, fortunately for the first time in about 100 years, had at last started to grow in this part of this island. We established the Youth Employment Agency, a move which was supported by all sides of the House. Deputy Fahey was correct when he said that the YEA had spent £350 million from the youth employment levy, all of it well spent.
Where are the jobs?
We did precisely what Deputy Browne did not want us to do. We did not let the bureaucrats get their hands on it. We did not let the so-called staid and stolid civil servants get their hands on it. We invited people who might have a fresh view. The Deputy quoted a very illustrious father-in-law, the late Deputy Lemass, in regard to harnessing new insights and energy. As far back as 1961 he indicated his is disgust of those staid and stolid civil servants. We avoided those. In the board of the YEA we have nominees from Congress from the FUE, from agriculture, not politicians, not people selling party lines——
Tell us how many jobs they have created.
Would the Deputy allow the Minister to speak without interruption?
If the Deputy would control himself I would tell him that we brought to the board people with fresh vision whom the former leader of Fianna Fáil felt no longer resided in the Civil Service. We made resources available.
Truth is hard to take sometimes.
Would the Deputies please relax and control themselves? All of those things are implicit in the quotation the Deputy read this evening. For both sides of the House, facts are often hard to accept; but some of us have the courtesy to listen to them and the ability to swallow them. During a five year period the YEA people made recommendations as to where the money would be spent. Deputy Liam Fitzgerald is an inner city school teacher and knows better than many others where the money should be spent.
As a consequence of the YEA programmes, we have the lowest level of youth unemployment in Europe relative to our youth population. It is still not an acceptable performance. Youth unemployment is still too high, but the programmes that those young people participate in are excellent ones, and I challenge Deputy Fahey to go to any of the young people in those programmes and say: "You are not really employed. You are wasting your time. Come on off that programme. Why do you not honestly be what you are, unemployed, and go on the register?" I challenge the Deputy to go to Louvain and to talk to young people out in the market places of Europe selling Irish produce on a market of 300 million people and say to them: "Listen, you are not real persons, you are not actually getting a training, you are a kind of fudged statistic, you should be at home signing on once a week and declaring that you are unemployed." This is the logic of what Deputy Browne has been saying.
How many are there?
There are not enough. At present there are more than 40. They are the first of the programmes. There are 40,000 people in training of one kind or another. Sixty per cent of them go on to get jobs. They are not my statistics. They are not from private briefings available to me from the bureaucracy of the State apparatus because I happen to be an office holder. The YEA people came in to brief Fianna Fáil. They sought my advice on it and I said that every Member of the House is a parliamentarian and entitled to the fullest information available. As Deputy Haughey knows, in other circumstances when AnCO were required for a particular purpose and when advice was sought, I readily gave it so that Deputies on all sides, as members of political parties, would have full access to full advice and information.
The Minister could not stop them.
There may be interruptions, but there is no excuse: the information I am quoting from will be readily available to the Opposition for so long as I remain an office holder in this Government. Access to those agencies will remain open to Opposition Deputies. This issue of youth employment is much bigger than the careers or aspirations any Member of the House might have. The continuity required in the matter of policy is so substantial that it cannot be subject to the vagaries of cheap debating ploys or interruptions that all too often this House fall for. In relation to migration, youth employment or anything else, Deputy Fahey has full access to the information currently available to me and which I have been quoting from.
That is great consolation.
The Opposition have been criticising bureaucracy on the one hand and promising to establish another bureaucratic agency on the other. The constructive debates we have had in relation to manpower policy has informed the Government substaintially in that regard——
The Minister is like a man living on Tory Island.
Control yourself.
There are 11,000 unemployed in Wexford, 40 per cent of them young people.
Would Deputy Browne control himself and obey the Chair?
Perhaps the way I made my statement did not get across to the Deputies. The level of unemployment among young people on this island is appallingly high. I accept the first part of the Fianna Fáil motion. The performance of this Government as compared with other Governments in the EC is commendable and stands up to criticism and evaluation. Though we are doing better than many, than any of the larger and better endowed nations in Europe, the performance is not sufficient to meet the aspirations of young people in Ireland.
For that reason we have made extra resources available. We have developed more programmes. We have made more interventions into youth unemployment. I could give the entire list but I assume Deputies have got it. I did not expect Deputies opposite to compare our performance with that of their party when in Government. There is no complacency on this side of the House. I have never sought to make this issue a political football and I do not propose to begin now. Again, I invite Deputies opposite to make full use of all of the resources of the State available to them as parliamentarians and to inform themselves on the real nature of the debate. The issue is bigger than all of us. It began before any of us came into the House and, tragically for the victims, it does not look as if it will be resolved between now and the next election.
Táimid faoi láthair i dtréimhse cinniúna maidir le óige na tíre. Tá líon an óige anois ar an bpointe is airde mar chéatadán de iomlán an daonra ná mar bhí sé in am ar bith i stair na tíre. Ach in ainneoin sin tá díomá agus easpa dóchais i mease an óige mar nach bhfuil fostaíocht le fáil acu. Tá méadú fíochmhar ar imirce, ar choirpeachas, ar fhoréigean agus ar mhí-úsáid druganna.
Seo toradh an díomhaointis agus an éadóchais atá fómharaithe ag polasaí an Rialtais. Má táimid le dóchas a spreagadh iontu, caithfimid ar dtús athrú a dhéanamh ar an Rialtas agus na polasaithe náireacha atá á gcur i bhfeidhm le blianta beaga anuas.
The motion before the House depicts very accurately the very serious emergency through the country in relation to youth unemployment and its regrettable corollary in the form of mass youth emigration. When I ponder the question of youth emigration, one of my most abiding memories is the recollection of the number of friends and relatives who found it necessary to take the emigrant boat during those bleak years of the fifties. The reasons that forced them to leave were many and varied and indeed are not all that dissimilar to the reasons which are forcing increasing thousands of our present young generation to try to seek a living abroad over the last few years.
It is not just a coincidence that both these periods have been dominated by Coalition Governments. Then, like now, it was the misfortune of this country to have a Government completely bankrupt of ideas to stimulate an economy crying out for investment. Then we had a Government incapable of opening factories. Now we have one whose Ministers are tripping over each other to close them down.
I believe it was D. H. Lawrence who said: "The only real tragedy is loss of heart". It is unpardonable of any Government who, having lost faith in themselves, proceed to destroy the hopes, dreams and legitimate aspirations of the young people. A Government who do not understand the mistakes of their past are doomed to repeat them.
In the past four years, this country has sadly witnessed unemployment climbing to almost 250,000, and this graph is still rising. Penal taxation is stifling investment and enterprise. It is forcing many into the black economy and is making emigration the only option for thousands of others.
Just as Coalitions of the fifties saw emigration as the solution to the unemployment problem, this Government see nothing amoral in foisting the young jobless thousands to the same foreign shores, in many cases young people who are illequipped, unprepared and who are cast as vulnerable fodder for the ruthless commercial interests they inevitably encounter. Every Irish citizen is entitled to claim the right to work in his own homeland and every Irish Government are charged with the responsibility of managing the resources of the country towards that end. This Government's inept handling of our affairs has rendered this fundamental objective totally unattainable. Surely it represents a crime against the youth of Ireland.
At present there are at least 60,000 of our young people on the live register. All of them have actively sought for some sign of hope, some sign of commitment to the provision of jobs in the past few years; but they have been left with their aspirations frustrated and their dreams shattered. Not taken account of in those figures are the many thousands of our young people who at any one time are involved in training programmes. At present there are about 45,000 young people involved in training schemes. We must add to this sad picture the 25,000 to 27,000 of our young people who have been emigrating annually for the past few years. The total picture represents a serious indictment of this Government and, as has been said earlier, reflects an attitude on the part of the Government of indifference and cynicism towards the needs of young people.
The Taoiseach, in response to Dáil questions from Deputy O'Kennedy and Deputy Frank Fahey on 19 February 1985, refused to accept that there had been any alarming increase in emigration. Yet, the Minister opposite on 3 April 1986 acknowledged total emigration to be 25,000 per year. Of course, these figures are based only on official records. They do not take account of the invisible permanent haemorrhage of unofficial emigration. It is only fair to say that the Central Statistics Office must have a reliable estimate of the extent of youth emigration and total emigration. Surely it would be a test of the sincerity of this Government if they published the figures in that connection, but they have failed to do this. The reason is that were they to do so they would bring down on their heads the wrath of the public and the youth of Ireland.
If the Taoiseach is so smug as to take comfort and consolation, as he has been wont to do recently, in what he describes as a reduction in the rate of increase in unemployment — if I heard correctly, the Minister opposite also seemed to be taking comfort and consolation from that particular aspect — he and Ministers should be reminded that their smugness will be at the expense of the 25,000 plus of our young people who will be forced out of Ireland this year in search of jobs.
Just as the solution to the unemployment problem proved beyond the capability of previous Coalitions, so too has it baffled the present administration. Now young people are left without hope or opportunity and they have to suffer an increasing uncertainty due to the crisis management of the country. On this side of the House, we have never believed in or accepted the politics of despair. Consistently we have asserted the potential of our highly educated and flexible workforce not only to come to terms with the microchip revolution but to harness its power and influence its direction. Surely what is required of any Government worth their salt is to charter a course for the national economy towards achieving that objective. The industrial base throughout the world is ever-changing, with new markets being created. We must ensure we get our fair share of those markets.
As everyone knows, this Government are constantly reminding us that taxation levels must remain high in order to pay off our crippling foreign debt, which, by the way, they have succeeded in doubling since coming into office. Of course, they will tell us that this tunnel vision approach to solving our problems is working and will work. Perhaps they fail to recognise that what they see at the end of the tunnel is not the light but an oncoming train.
Anyone involved in the PAYE system will be all too painfully aware of the difference between gross and take-home pay. In the past three years we have come to the ludicrous point where a worker can find himself in the highest tax band with an income of just over £10,000 per year. Despite oil prices falling through the floor since last Christmas, we are still in the position here of having the dearest petrol in the EC. There is no way any economy or any country can continue to sustain such a ridiculously high level of taxation. The burden being carried by the Irish people, both in direct and indirect taxes, is having a devastating and demoralising effect on the country. It is frightening away huge investment from abroad, it is putting a dreadful damper on the investment potential of our own people and impoverished families are being pushed deeper into the poverty trap. Last year almost 1,000 businesses went to the wall and the burden of taxation has led to the creation of a hitherto unknown group, namely, the poor middle-class. We have a rampant black economy. This Government have succeeded in hammering the building industry.
What we need urgently is a properly worked out and balanced programme of tax reform, of investment in the building industry and infrastructure and the development of the potential of many or our native industries. For example, tourism is one of the fastest growing industries worldwide. Yet, our industry here has been static and in regression in relation to other countries. Surely nobody has to ask the reason? We have become an unattractive destination for tourists, who have to pay over £2.80 for a gallon of petrol here and £1.77 in Northern Ireland. The cost factor with reference to indirect taxes is the most important and fundamental factor. As everyone must know, we have the potential to develop this industry and the cost factor is a key element.
Another area that should be developed is that of science and technology. At present there is an unco-ordinated framework of Government Departments and State agencies who in many important respects are working in conflict with each other. We need proper co-ordination and a clearly worked out strategy to enable research and development to translate into real jobs.
Let us be clear what we are talking about. We are not talking about voluntary emigration; we are talking about forced emigration. The failure of the Government to create meaningful jobs is causing a massive haemorrhage and that situation will continue. We talk about training schemes — they have some limited value but they do not address the fundamental problems. This Government stand indicted before the people because of their abject failure to provide leadership and meaningful government. They seem to have lost hope not only in the country but in themselves.
I, too, accept the first part of this motion: that Dáil Éireann deplores the appalling high level of unemployment among young people. I listened to some of the contributions made by my colleagues across the House about young people, employment, unemployment, emigration trends and so on. I gathered that Fianna Fáil seem to be against all training schemes. It is an accepted fact that no Government ever managed to create the number of jobs we all would like. For years we exported brawn and built every city in the United States and the United Kingdom. In those days we had a different type of emigration. I am not saying that emigration should be accepted, but it is a fact.
Eighty five per cent of our education system is as good as one would find anywhere. I accept that there must be a very close link between the Departments of Education and Labour in the context of developing the attitude many Deputies have mentioned — increasing personal motivation, increasing personal and national pride, increasing productivity and raising the competitive level of Irish workers as against their European and international counterparts. Responsibility for developing this proper attitude lies with parents, teachers and different organisations. It has been my view for the past number of years that it is only when Irish people are exposed to the competitive instinct in Britain, on the Continent and in the United States that their inherent ability comes to the fore. We have made it to the top in every walk of life outside Ireland, but we have not managed to do that here. Perhaps our insularity is a disadvantage. I accept that our attitude towards work, motivation, the development of the country and pride in our nation is not what it should be. For that reason developments are taking place in the Department of Education.
Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in the world. CERT have a 100 per cent placement of those who have completed their in-service or new training courses. I was interested in Deputy Fahey's contribution. In December 1974, in the Industry and Commerce magazine he said that full employment could become a reality but only if this country were managed as Ireland Incorporated. He then mentioned the concept under which he could see the Government operating. He said reform would involve decentralisation of the service, greater co-ordination between Departments to avoid duplication, the introduction of modern management techniques, giving responsibility and accountability and the examination of work practices to the applications of work study and industrial psychology and so on. These are all very important matters, but training schemes, whether they be run by AnCO, CERT or the Youth Employment Agency, are attempts by the Government to meet a demand. This demand will lessen in the younger age group because in the next few years the emphasis will be on the 25 to 44 age group. In the next ten years there will be 80,000 fewer pupils attending primary education. That will create difficulties in terms of pupil-teacher ratio, perhaps for the better, but there are also implications for the building programme and the schools.
As Minister of State at the Department of Education I agree that there must be a link between that Department and the training agencies to develop a proper attitude and motivation which can only produce greater productivity, greater competitiveness and a greater awareness that we live not in a small island but in a bigger and more competitive world. If we develop this attitude we will come out on top.
Mr. Cowen:
I have been listening to the Minister telling us to take our medicine but if he waits a few minutes he might be able to take some medicine himself. He came here quoting statistics but I will quote some of my own. First, while acknowledging that unemployment is a global problem, a European problem and a developing country problem, the Irish unemployment problem — an area for which he has responsibility — is particularly severe relative to other EC countries. In 1982 the Irish unemployment rate was 12.8 per cent compared with an average of 9. per cent in EC countries and 9.5 per cent in the United States. The EC rate has since stabilised, while the United States rate has started to decline, but in Ireland unemployment has continued to rise. End of story.
The second point is that last week a report was issued entitled "The Young Long-term Unemployed". The Labour Party continually talk about helping the socially disadvantaged and about their commitment to the poor. This report, based on a survey carried out in April/May 1985, was issued by the YEA. It says that in the under 25 age group the number registered for more than one year on unemployment has increased fourfold. From April 1980 to April 1985 — and the Minister was in office for most of that time — it has risen from 3,800 to 16,300. A quarter of the long term unemployed left education before they were 15, half of them left between the ages of 15 and 16, half have no educational qualifications whatsoever, one-third have done their intermediate or group certificates, 11 per cent have their leaving certificate and 0.5 per cent have third level education. This is the Minister's area of responsibility: we are talking about Labour Party politics. What do we do for these people? We put them on the dole and they are paid £29.75 a week on average. Note they do not get the full £31.75; £5 is stopped because their parents feed them while they live at home. Of those people, 90 per cent are on unemployment assistance. These are the working class, the people the Minister is supposed to be looking after.
Third, when the Youth Employment Agency was set up in March 1981 the number of youth unemployed was 36,800, but in May 1986 the number of youth unemployed was 70,597, a difference of 33,800, a 92 per cent increase.
Fourth, I am prepared to accept that the Minister does not have total control over the manpower policy because it comes within the macro economics sphere, about which I know nothing. For that reason I am referring to the NESC report on manpower policy. In 1965 a man called Sean Lemass produced a four page document which could be read in two minutes but which got more people to work than the Minister will get in a generation. Now we have this glossy report by the NESC. I have not been in this Dáil for very long but I have an interest in this area because I am the youngest person in the House. For the last two and a half years the Minister has been promising a manpower policy but we have not seen it yet. What we have is an NESC report on manpower policy. What does that tell us? It tells us that the primary deficiency in the manpower policy, an area for which the Minister has responsibility, is the weakness of the Department of Labour, the need to take an active role, a total lack of co-ordination in the Department. The Minister says he is doing his best but that is not good enough. The report goes on to say that there is a need to set up a State manpower agency by merging the activities of existing bodies. What have we? An extra Youth Employment Agency.
A young girl came to see me in my clinic and asked me where she would go to get a job. I told her to go to 50 different places because that would take her a week and would employ her for a week. That is what is happening on the ground. We want one national manpower agency. This is Fianna Fáil policy. The Minister has had this report on his table for the last four months. He is monitoring it and listening to the very informed debate in the Dáil. I understand all that, but will he tell me if this Government are committed to establishing one national manpower agency? That is all I want to know but we have not heard from him yet. That was in an Ógra Fhianna Fáil document in 1984. This proves that young people know something. The NESC consultants happened to agree with Ógra Fhianna Fáil.
Secondly, it says that the priorities should be determined by the needs of the target groups rather than the sources of funding. A little target group in the Minister's political constituency are the long term unemployed. Since the Government came into office their numbers have increased fourfold. I refer to people on unemployment assistance. That is politics, reality. That is what the Minister has to listen to because that is what the people on the street are saying, and they are sick of it, and young people are sick of it. They would like a little mandate and a little opportunity to give the Government their opinion of how much they are sick of it and we will see how many Labour Party Deputies will be in this House in the next Dáil. Therefore, let us get away from OECD reports based on 1985 figures. On the ground there is no growth in this economy this year, and there will not be. Most people, especially young people, are unemployed.
We hear that the existing training schemes are adequate and we should not criticise them. Let me put it to the Minister that Fianna Fáil have brought out a document on science and the new era in technology and the need to create employment for our young, most computer literate society in the developed world. What do we do? We have little or no organised funding for that area. We are going to bring in a policy to ensure that it is doubled, that we will bring in the third level institutions to help us in research and development, because we realise that over 50 per cent of the people in Japan who are employed have third level education. A good many of the long term unemployed here will never get third level education. That is the Minister's constitutency looked after. He will not have too long more to do it.
The point I am making is in relation to existing programmes. I can mention the much vaunted 1984 Youth Employment Agency. What does my research tell me? It tells me that £25.55 million was spent on secretarial courses. The 1 per cent youth employment levy, or at least some of it, is going on secretarial courses. I should not say that because a fair amount of it is going into AnCO. What did the NESC report about manpower policy say about AnCO? It said that they regarded with some hesitation the fact that the balance seemed to be in favour of social type skills as distinct from skill oriented training and that a big review in this matter was needed. In other words, many of the courses they are doing should really be in the Department of Education, in a reformed curriculum system, the extra year in the leaving certificate and so forth. In other words, the AnCOs of this world are trying to justify their existence.
State-sponsored bodies and semi-State bodies were set up for one purpose — to serve the interests of the people, not for their own interests. Little bureaucracies arise and mini-republics develop. The Department of Labour, this weak section of manpower policy, do not seem to "cop on" and so we have a major problem. The Department of Labour, which the Minister is head and for whom he is responsible, have no major policy role.
Let us come to the programmes we are talking about. The social employment programme is very good. People employed by Offaly County Council, one of the counties I represent, will tell you that 53 per cent of that programme for materials, supervision and equipment is totally inadequate and not worth getting. Things cannot be done properly. By the way, the voluntary organisations get only 15 per cent under that heading. We talk about community involvement, participation, self-reliance, get people up off their backsides to help themselves. The tidy towns committee seek a grant and are told that they will get 15 per cent and to go to the county council, where there is no shortage of engineers but a great shortage of manual workers, and they will get 53 per cent. The Minister is supposed to be in favour of the old public service. The number of people on manual work in Offaly County Council dropped by 10 per cent in the last few years.
We have a social employment scheme and under that scheme people do the work of the people we have made redundant, the permanent workers on Offaly County Council. A little circular argument goes around and around, and what does the county manager say? "Give me the funds and I will do the work". That is the old, simple way of doing things. Give the local authorities the funds, trust your local democracy and your local representatives who might know a little more than someone in Mespil Road about what ditch should be cut and what corner should be taken out, and you might get a little value for money. However, he is told that he cannot do that, he must go to the social employment scheme because there are a few people up there whom we have to keep operating pushing a few pens.
That is what the people on the street are saying. It makes no sense. We have had reviews and papers on manpower policy and the NESC report. I did not bring them all in because I would need a lorry for that. The ordinary people in the street, whom I know the Minister wishes sincerely to represent, are not interested. They want action and to see commonsense.
One of the arguments in this report about young unemployed people is that four-fifths of their parents happen to be unemployed as well. Therefore, not only are they in a poverty trap; they are in an unemployment trap and cannot get out of it. This Government are doing nothing for them, and the Minister comes in and quotes statistics until he is blue in the face to the effect that the rate of increase in unemployment is decreasing. I know where he got that one. It came from Deputy Garret FitzGerald who said that the rate of increase of public indebtedness is decreasing, and we end up with £12 billion in 1982 and £22 billion now. That sort of logic bamboozles people, but it does not confuse them. They are not stupid. The ordinary man knows that a fellow who does painting or some menial job gets £75 for that and does nothing for the other two and a half days. Another fellow, who works five days a week and knows the job because he has been there for 40 years and knows where the problems are, will get £100 for those five days.
People are beginning to wonder what is going on. To the ordinary man in the street and to me it does not add up. Thanks be to God, I was blessed with a little education, but it does not add up to me. It is difficult to figure it out. Many people in local authorities who want to help out their local communities find that it does not add up for them and they are becoming cynical and sarcastic. When they come up here on deputations seeking money they are regarded as the local idiots. What would they know about it? We are running the country. We have the 250,000 unemployed and we are looking after them, and what is all the fuss about? People just do not understand this.
The Minister of State here and I had a conversation a couple of parliamentary question sessions ago about the much vaunted Teamwork scheme. I had information that only £500,000 was available for new schemes that were applied for this year. It was £8.5 million last year cut back to £5 million and I heard that the Minister gave them an extra £2 million. These schemes involve the community. They are the schemes that the YEA and so on talk about, but the money is not available.
What other schemes have we? The employment incentive scheme limits the number of people we can employ. If you are an employer you would like to employ a few lads on a bit of real work with real experience, but you are limited to five on that one. You cannot take on ten or 20 because that would be cheap labour. They will not be able to do anything on the roads because certain trade unions and local authority areas will not let you do that, but they can cut the grass and next week they can cut it again and get good money for it. That happens in County Offaly and every other county. I am a politician and I am asked to justify it. I am glad I am not the Minister because I would hate to have to face these people. The youth employment levy takes in £140 million per year, and yet there is a fourfold increase in socially disadvantaged areas.
I can see the point made by the Minister regarding the increased labour force and I realise that it is very difficult to create 23,000 new jobs every year. However, what we are doing is not making sense and we could do an awful lot more Let us not mess around any longer. It would be better to get Joe Walsh to organise a package tour for young people and subsidise it to the extent of £200 per head. It would be better for them to go to America instead of doing nothing at home.
The Deputy's time is up.
Mr. Cowen:
Young men who went to school with me can see no future in this country. They are not afraid to work, and enterprise is very much alive in young people. There is no need to take my word for it: Brian Patterson, Director General of the IMI, said that those who say that the spirit of enterprise is dead are wrong. Our young people are full of it, the black economy is driven by it and the enterprise allowance scheme has been swamped by it.
Motion put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor.
Question declared lost.