Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 May 1995

Vol. 452 No. 7

Interim Report of Task Force on Long-Term Unemployment: Statements (Resumed).

Mr. D. Wallace

I commend the work to date of the task force on long term unemployment. An examination of its initial report clearly shows that much thought and effort went into its work. While I do not agree with some of the report's findings and recommendations, it results from the complexity of the issue of long term unemployment and a wide range of possible options must be considered if progress is to be made in significantly reducing the numbers affected.

I have no hesitation in saying that unemployment represents the main structural failure of modern society. At a time when mankind continues to make vast progress on the technological front, there is an almost equivalent degree of failure to come to terms with the vital need to provide an adequate standard of living for all members of society. This is most evident in the area of employment since work is the main source of income for any individual.

Unemployment, particularly of an extended duration, is bad enough but unfortunately the financial deprivation that accompanies it drastically reduces the capacity of the individual or family affected to cope with everyday problems. Consequently the unemployed person is increasingly vulnerable to problems such as marriage brakdown, substance abuse and ill health. It cannot be disputed but that concentrated unemployment in a community leads to a decrease in the acceptance of law and order and an increase in crime.

In attempting to effectively address unemployment it is vitally important to fully recognise the multiple dimensions of the problem. I am pleased to note the task force has placed major emphasis on two requirements. It clearly accepts the need for input from a wide range of agencies and community groups including State organisations, educational and training institutions, employers and community based workers. The second requirement stressed by the task force is the overriding need for effective integration of effort. This is the single greatest challenge facing us as we attempt to come to terms with the enormous challenge posed by increased unemployment levels.

Despite the major contributions made to date by agencies such as the IDA, educational institutions and FÁS, the level of integration and focus of effort has not been adequate to deal with unemployment. In this regard I have reservations about the report of the task force. Ideally I would like to have seen greater emphasis on documenting the reasons that the substantial and sustained efforts of a variety of State, industrial and local agencies has managed at best only to limit the increase in unemployment. If we are to successfully turn back the tide of unemployment it is vital to clearly document what works and what does not work in the fight against this problem. This is the core of the issue. A co-ordinated approach to unemployment must include major emphasis on first identifying the underlying industrial and economic changes which have caused and continue this problem.

A number of factors immediately come to mind. We cannot dispute that technological change has led to a rapid increase in the level of industrial productivity. This has been particularly evident in manufacturing enterprises where increased automation on the production line has drastically reduced the need for manpower. The influence of computer technology is increasingly felt in administration-related activites. Not very long ago every major manufacturing and distribution company employed a large number of clerical staff to deal with essential services such as accounts and payroll, but the improved quality and power of modern computer software has resulted in a major reduction in the number of clerical jobs available.

We must be realistic in evaluating the major impact of technology on the level of job opportunities. While we may from time to time recall the good old days with a degree of nostalgia it is vital we take on board the simple but cruel reality that creating employment for everyone will require an unprecedented level of planning and development. In order to ensure the various State-sponsored agencies are as effective as possible in this regard, it is vital that we clearly identify what is working and what is failing to work in job creation. Without such fundamental research and analysis it is almost impossible to expect any new approach to be successful. The scale of the problem is too large and the need for success too profound to allow for anything but the most professional and planned renewed assault on the scourge of unemployment.

I totally agree with the strong emphasis of the report on the need for enhanced training and educational facilities. A succession of reports and studies have clearly indicated the link between long term unemployment and limited educational qualifications. Our problem is partly due to the age structure of our workforce and the lack of access to second level education facilities until 1966. There is no doubt that the newer jobs require specific skills. Even in institutions which require specific training, employers are increasingly likely to use applicants' educational achievements as part of the short-listing process. A lack of formal educational attainment is almost certain to add to the difficulties of the unemployed person in obtaining a worthwhile job.

On education and training two recommendations in particular are vital. The task force stresses the need for additional education and training facilities bearing in mind the potential of education institutions to participate where possible. Above all else, we must maximise existing facilities and avoid unnecessary duplication. I welcome the emphasis on the need for flexibility and innovation in the development of education and training programmes. In this regard it is crucial that new structures such as the proposed local employment service maintains close links with all potential employers. There is nothing more discouraging for the long term unemployed who fully commit themselves to a difficult course for an extended period than to find their efforts lead to no increase in employment potential at the end of the day. The sense of let down is particularly marked in cases where it is clear that such a course offered little by way of job opportunity.

A central recommendation of the task force is to establish a series of local employment services throughout the country. Where possible those are to be set up in association with the various area partnerships. I agree in principle with the concept of a service which helps to co-ordinate the work of various agencies. We are already involved in job creation and associated activities. Similarly, I welcome the provision of a well defined contact agency which is systematically focused on the overall needs of the long term unemployed. I have no fault to find with those excellent goals outlined in the report of the task force.

I have a problem, however, with the lack of specific detail in the report regarding the manner in which those local employment services will be delivered. While it is acceptable to aspire towards the integration of services and the provision of comprehensive new opportunities for 135,000 people, it is entirely another matter to devise an effective mechanism for achieving such worthwhile objectives. There is much painstaking work to be done prior to specific proposals being brought before us which, if implemented, will have a major impact on the rate of long term unemployment in our society.

The report highlights a number of other groups who urgently require support to deal with unemployment. They include those unemployed for between six and 12 months, their dependants and young people who fail to gain permanent employment. I represent the area of Cork city which has been particularly affected by unemployment as a result of the closure of major industrial companies such as Ford, Dunlop, Verolme and, more recently, Sunbeam. I have seen at first hand the disastrous consequences of long term unemployment. Those include profound social deprivation and poverty, family tensions resulting in an increased rate of marital breakdown, a rise in the crime rate and, perhaps, most important, a slow but definite pattern of lower confidence and self-esteem among those affected by long term unemployment.

We live in an age when much lip-service is paid to the need to develop an inclusive society. I have no doubt but that people who express such wishes are sincere and well meaning. Equally, I am bound to say that it would be a brave person who would talk about such concepts to the man or woman who has not had meaningful employment for a number of years. Ultimately, those most in need in our society judge all politicians on the basis of achievements, not on the basis of aspirations or intentions, and that is only fair and just.

As we consider the initial report of the task force on long term unemployment we have no choice but to exert every possible ounce of energy on ensuring the quality and effectiveness of any new structures which are given the all important responsibility of addressing the single most important challenge facing Irish society at present. This time there is no room for serious error or misjudgment, we have to get it right. Therefore, my total support for the aspirations and good intentions clearly expressed in this report is conditioned by my reservations on the extent of research and planning which has taken place to ensure the quality of the proposed solutions. I note also the extremely modest nature of the proposed financing of the report's recommendations. A package which seems to represent less than £50 for each long term unemployed person must of necessity be limited in its scope and detail. However, the underlying aspirations cannot be faulted.

The main focus of the report is clearly on dealing with the specific needs of the unemployed, particularly in terms of education and training. Such an emphasis is proper and welcome. However, there is a parallel requirement to focus on the precise way in which the necessary extra jobs are to be created. While it can be argued that we already have an established range of agencies to ensure the promotion of job creation, the reality is that the combined efforts of those agencies to date have not been able to stimulate the necessary level of job creation, particularly in terms of indigenous industry. While I would like to compliment agencies such as Forbairt, FÁS and others on their excellent work, I consider one ingredient is missing in our efforts to stimulate local industry, that of providing adequate levels of venture capital and loan provisions to local entrepreneurs.

Over the years Irish people have proven themselves at the highest levels of international business and trade. Names, like Henry Ford, Tony O'Reilly and Michael Smurfit readily come to mind in that regard. Therefore, there can be no doubt but that our people have the potential to successfully develop job creation enterprises on a large scale. However, our banking culture is by no means geared towards the challenge posed by the urgent need to create new enterprises and to expand existing companies. A general sense of conservatism and self-satisfaction seems to prevail. While there have been welcome indications of change in that regard in recent years the involvement of our banking sector in assisting such enterprises is far too modest. I firmly believe that we need a new generation of leaders among our banking community who have the ability to identify closely with the needs of our new generation of entrepreneurs. Such a link is certain to play a central role in any major growth in employment in Irish society.

Mr. Bradford

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this report. I listened earlier to the concluding remarks of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins, on his assessment of the contributions to the arts plan and I also heard some of the earlier contributions of Opposition spokespersons. That plan, its contents and objectives are designed to touch the higher senses and the soul, but these statements on the Interim Report of the Task Force on Long-Term Unemployment are of much greater and immediate significance to many more people throughout the country. Unemployment, particularly long term unemployment, is having a devastating effect not simply on tens of thousands of people but on hundreds of thousands of people including the long term unemployed, their friends, families and communities. Anything we can do to address the problem and, hopefully, to take the appropriate measures to at least commence dealing with it is welcome.

I commend the Minister for allowing us the opportunity to debate the report and I commend those who prepared it. It was only last September that the task force was set up as a result of the report of the National Economic and Social Forum on measures to end long term unemployment. This response by way of the interim report was produced quickly, it is timely and is worthy of the most serious consideration because unemployment is a serious and difficult problem. The Minister in his Dáil speech on this matter last March referred to comments from a recent EU Commission report which stated that the clear lesson of the past 20 years is that no member state has succeeded in reducing unemployment significantly and keeping it at low level for a sustained period except Luxembourg. The chances of that happening in the future without a significant change in policy or without a radically different set of circumstances are remote. That is significant because it clearly brings home to us that the problem is not simply an Irish one, that it is very much a European and international one. That does not detract from the fact that our problem, with the possible exception of Spain, where the rate of long term unemployment is higher is the worst in Europe. There is no doubt we are at the bottom of the European league when it comes to tackling the problem.

We hear favourable comments on the fundamentals of our economy being in good shape, our low rates of interest, inflation rate, high investment, record numbers of jobs being created, the announcement of new factories here and there and increased visits by IDA officials. However, it is very difficult to reconcile such optimistic comments with the fact that almost 300,000 people are unemployed, a huge proportion of whom have been unemployed over the long term. The fact that economic fundamentals are in good order is of little consolation to those who have no income apart from their weekly social welfare cheque.

Many reports and studies have been undertaken, with many initiatives by successive Governments and Government Departments to tackle this problem, without success, leading to a general feeling of hopelessness and helplessness on the part of those in this position. It is a sad fact that the electorate no longer believe Governments or politicians can solve the problem. With the huge rates of unemployment over the past ten to 15 years even candidates in the last general election might well have expected that the greatest concern expressed would have been about unemployment, accompanied by constant inquiries vis-à-vis job creation. However, there appears to be such apathy and frustration about politicians' ability to respond, that few demands are made of us or questions asked. I hope that people will once again demand that job creation is on top of the agenda, thus stimulating us into action.

Job creation is and should be a priority of this Government as the resolution of our huge unemployment problem makes other difficulties secondary. Daily, on the Order of Business — no doubt we will hear more at Question Time later — there is constant reference to the ever-increasing crime wave, much of which stems from unemployment and social deprivation and cannot be solved through fire brigade action, additional Garda and prison places. If the core problem is to be eliminated its social implications must be seriously examined. Many health difficulties also stem from the social effects of unemployment and resolution of the unemployment problem will reap benefits for health and improve the general law and order position.

While we may talk about the costs of job creation and maintaining people at work, there is no greater cost than unemployment and its attendant difficulties. While the cost of overall social welfare payments in 1995 appears to be £2.2 billion, an examination of the taxes foregone through unemployment and so on clearly demonstrates that is not the total cost. When one reflects on what could be done from a social point of view with £2.2 billion, in building roads, schools, hospitals and homes for the elderly, one clearly sees the benefits which would accrue from the resolution of the unemployment problem. I am the first to admit that, whereas it is easy to talk about its resolution, it is much more difficult to achieve.

I am reminded of a former Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, who said truthfully, honestly and sincerely that if unemployment ever reached the 100,000 mark he would feel duty bound to resign. How things have changed. If any Government within the next decade succeeded in reducing unemployment to the 100,000 mark, it would feel it sufficient justification for re-election. The goal posts and expectations have changed but, sadly, as a Parliament, we have failed to tackle the problem successfully.

Our long term unemployment problem appears more severe than within any other member state of the European Union. It is a vicious circle; anybody who has been unemployed for 12 months or longer will experience much greater difficulty in being re-employed than someone who has been unemployed for weeks or months only. The statistics in this report indicate that people who have been unemployed for over two years have a 74 per cent chance only of being re-employed, automatically lowering their general morale and expectations. Most of the long term unemployed appear to be within the 25 to 44 age group. It should come as no surprise to learn that most of them have had relatively low educational and-or training skills and almost half have had no formal education or qualification which makes it almost impossible to apply for a job, never mind being successful. The vicious circle continues so that, whenever the poorly educated or unqualified become unemployed, their chances of ever obtaining another job are minimal.

The causes of long-term unemployment are of a structural and social nature, not least of which is the educational aspect to which I just referred. In many urban areas long term unemployment has become almost the norm, passing from father to son, mother to daughter, just as in former days a trade or skill passed from one generation to another.

Nowadays peoples' expectations are so low, a son or daughter whose parents have never worked perceive little future for themselves beyond receipt of their weekly dole cheque and visit to the local employment exchange. That is a sad self-fulfilling prophesy. From a social and educational point of view we must examine the needs of communities affected in such a manner. I hope the proposal in the report to set up a local employment services network targets long term unemployment areas, particularly areas where it passes from one generation to another. The report recommends setting up 12 centres based on partnership groups and two further centres as a first step; these will cater for more than 500,000 people.

One tends to associate long term unemployment with urban rather than rural areas, but there are exceptions to the norm. The numbers working in agriculture are reducing literally by the month and many people living in rural areas now depend on paid employment for a living. As a result, unemployment has become a major rural problem and in some areas long term unemployment is emerging as a serious social problem. Therefore, while the problem may not be as serious as in urban areas, the rural aspect of long term unemployment should not be ignored. In that regard, I hope the recently announed Leader projects will, through programmes, training and work experience, offer hope to many in rural areas. Small towns need particular attention. Some 15 years ago, because of a concrete factory employing at times hundreds of people, Buttevant was a thriving town with full employment. When that factory closed the IDA was unsuccessful in finding a replacement and, as a result, the unemployment rate soared. Virtually everybody who worked in well paid local employment in Buttevant ten or 15 years ago is now in retirement or in receipt of social welfare benefit. The town has been literally brought to its knees. Many other towns which traditionally depended on one or two small to medium-sized industries are facing similar difficulties because of the closure of industries. The people employed in the industries were unable to find alternative employment and are now reaching retirement with nothing to look forward to but social welfare benefit and assistance.

Also, ten to 12 years ago Verolme Cork Dockyard was located in Cobh, employing up to 1,200 people. The dockyard closed and was not replaced by another industry. Those employed in it first became short term unemployed, but the majority of them are now long term unemployed, giving rise to many social problems in the area. The examples of those towns in my area illustrate the problems associated with long term unemployment and the necessity to tackle the problem.

I concur with the recommendations in the report of community employment. The definition of "work" must be changed for the 1990s and beyond. The days of 40 hours a week jobs with three weeks holidays in the year is gone. Much greater emphasis must be placed on part-time community and flexible work in order to respond to changing times. Community employment is not only a valuable source of employment but of social worth in a community. During recent weeks we debated what were referred to as cutbacks in community employment schemes. We recognised that sufficient funding was not available for them and, while the Government provided additional resources, the problem remains. I appeal to the Minister to place community employment at the top of the agenda. Such schemes benefit schools, community associations and development committees and enable worthwhile work to be done. They not only provide work for people who have almost forgotten what it is like to work and introduce new workers to the work-place, but they are also of benefit from a social and community point of view. As they assist in tackling the major problem of long term unemployment, they should be encouraged.

Mr. N. Ahern

Unemployment is a major problem here and elsewhere in the European Union and, while a great deal of lip service is paid to it, governments have not been successful in resolving it. The report identifies two problems, namely, unemployment and the high percentage of people who are long term unemployed. In regard to generating employment recent budgets have endeavoured to make our economy more competitive and there has been greater co-operation between the social partners. Progress has been made and most workers now recognise that it is not a pay increase that matters, but what one takes home at the end of the week.

The report deals with the long term unemployed and refers to the sense of hopelessness experienced by people in that position. The nature of work has changed. Many of the traditional jobs have disappeared and people living on a fringe of society do not seem to be able to get into the jobs market. While there is talk about the number of unemployed, employment in this city is at its highest level ever, and I am sure that is the case countrywide. In some of the suburbs, both adults in the house are in employment and they do not experience any difficulties. In many ways, we have solved one problem and created another. I realise that in many households both people have to work in order to meet financial commitments. However, we have concentrated wealth in certain parts of the city and concentrated poverty in other areas. That does not lead to a solution of the overall problem. I am not suggesting that women should stay at home — with two female Deputies facing me on the opposite side of the House I would not dare do that.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

Good.

Mr. N. Ahern

However, over the past 25 years the position has changed. In my constituency, and many others, there are two jobs per household while in other areas there are no jobs in the household. While it is appropriate that people should work outside the home and be allowed to feel they are making a positive contribution to society, that has created problems in other areas where unemployment levels are high. Perhaps we should have stipulated one job per household; I will not suggest which partner should stay at home, but the wealth of the country must be distributed more fairly.

We can no longer talk about the fact that there are 135,000 people who are long term unemployed without trying to do something about the problem. It is simply not good enough to say that with the change in birth rates, there will be more jobs available in 30 or 40 years time. The problem is not that simple. It must be urgently addressed because the knock-on effects of long term unemployment are enormous.

There is much talk recently about crime, which is rampant in several parts of the city. The sense of hopelessness felt by people who are long term unemployed is the cause of them drifting into crime. It is difficult to blame those people. There has always been crime and there has always been a degree of poverty but people are entitled to their self respect. When people feel they are making a contribution to life, when they are trying to rear their families and hoping that their children will have a bright future, they continue to do the best they can. However, if people lose self respect and if children do not see any purpose in going to school, and if they are growing up in a household where there is no work, it is difficult for them to become motivated in regard to doing homework, etc. They do not see any future ahead of them. All they can see facing them is what has always faced their parents — unemployment.

According to the report, one of our major problems is the lack of proper education for the long term unemployed. It states that approximately 48 per cent of the long term unemployed are not sufficiently educated to take up the jobs that are on offer. We must bear in mind that the types of jobs that are now available have changed. Some weeks ago, we debated the report on the future of third level education. That report stated that an analysis was carried out of the number of people in certain areas of Dublin who go on to third level education. That analysis revealed the true picture of the distribution of wealth and poverty in this city. It highlighted certain postal code areas where only a few children leaving school applied for or were accepted into third level colleges.

In regard to my own constituency, the report recommended that the Finglas-Blanchardstown area be given priority for a new regional technical college. The report was produced by a group of professional experts and I hope the Government will implement its recommendations. There is little point in talking about a problem unless we are prepared to accept the findings of these experts. In Finglas, very few people go on to third level education. The report states that this area of the city is most in need of a regional technical college, and yet the Minister for Education seems to be pushing for a new college in her own constituency, which I understand is not needed because it is already well catered for in that regard. I believe the art college in Dún Laoghaire is not even full. I hope the Minister will change her plans and implement the recommendations of the report.

This report contains many good recommendations but I was under the impression that many of them had already been implemented. I thought the former Manpower service, which came under the arm of the new FÁS, has been carrying out many of the functions recommended in this report. I realise there have been difficulties in recent years between Manpower and FÁS — I think Manpower became the poor relation of the new FÁS and was not given sufficient resources to carry out its function, which I thought was to help people to find employment.

The Department of Social Welfare seemed to have its patch set up in this area also. It had people working as jobs facilitators or something of that nature. I realise this has been a problem between Departments, regardless of who was in power, and perhaps the solution would be to set up a new body to look after the needs of the long term unemployed. I do not mind who takes on responsibility for this job but I wonder what will be the functions of the manpower section of FÁS in the future. What will the job facilitators in the Department of Social Welfare be doing in the future?

There is little point, however, in setting up and funding a new body when various other bodies exist to address this problem. There must be co-ordination among all Departments and I hope the Minister sets up the one-stop-shop so that the long term unemployed will not be given the run around by all the various agencies.

I wish to make some other points which have a local, constituency connection. As I said earlier, certain areas of Dublin seem to be doing very well. Last week, the Government announced the location of the new science park. This is something in which the local authority in Dublin has taken a great interest over the past number of years. Two years ago, the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, with the assistance of EU funding, hired international consultants to carry out a detailed examination of the possibility of having a science park in Dublin. The report supported the setting up of a science park and suggested that the Chamber of Commerce lobby the Government to have it included in submissions for EC operational funding. It recommended Abbotstown Agricultural College in an area between Finglas and Castleknock as the best site as it is near the IDA Ballycoolen Industrial Estate where there is a number of hi-tech industries, has a history of research on site as it is the State laboratories dealing with meat and food and so on, and is near Dublin City University.

The site has a lot of good points and it was the first choice recommended by an independent report, yet the Department of Enterprise and Employment made a decision to locate the science park in Dublin South-West, which happens to be the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte's constituency. I am sure it is a good location. I was rather surprised to hear the Minister of State stress last week that one of the main factors in reaching his decision was that it was a private site whereas Abbotstown was owned by the State. The Minister has changed his spots since taking office. Jobs have to be distributed in a fair way and Ministers cannot be seen to be looking after their own area. Even if I am doing that now, I am not a Government Minister. If an independent report recommends a site, a Minister should have a very good reason and should be able to explain why he veered from the site recommended and chose one in his own patch.

The local employment service will operate in conjunction with area development areas. There are two such places in my constituency, Finglas and Ballymun and they are doing a great deal of good. They are giving the long term unemployed a direction and a great deal of help. I was amazed by the recently announced new designated development areas. Initially this scheme was designed to give people in areas of high unemployment a leg up and were there to help with specific problems. There have been huge extensions of the development areas and some have been extended so far that they have rendered the scheme useless.

The Finglas development area has virtually remained the same but with the addition of parts of Cabra and this is probably justified. The Ballymun development area remains the same. However, the Coolock development area on the north side has mushroomed and takes in a huge tracts of mildle class Raheny, right out of Sutton and Marino and Drumcondra. There are houses in the £250,000 bracket in this scheme. In the Ballymun development area there would be 50 per cent unemployment and in the original Coolock development area it was probably the same, where unemployment might have been 5,000 out of 10,000; with the extension it is probably 5,500 unemployed out of 25,000. The emphasis has changed. If it is intended to give a leg up to certain groups by giving them a boost, giving everyone the same boost brings us back to square one.

According to the report the Department of Enterprise and Employment will spend £6 million, yet all the fuss lately is about the reduction in the numbers on community employment. I believe that everyone on the unemployment register should make a contribution by doing some work and I thought that was the direction we were going in the past couple of years. Politicans on all sides seemed to nail their colours to that mast but now we seem to be backtracking. There was a colossal increase last year in the number on social employment schemes. Why have we backtracked? If the current pressure to boost the numbers succeeds and we get back to 40,000, do we just stay at 40,000 forever more. Last year the numbers parpticipating in community employment increased from 22,000 to 40,000 and I thought that was going to be the rate of progress in the future. I am a firm believer in that scheme and that is the direction in which we should be going. I am not saying I believe in workfare but I would like to see everyone on the live register doing community work for a certain number of hours per week. The community employment schemes took off in a big way last year, with participants starting to cut verges and do repairs for elderly people in private housing estates. Many new groups were formed last year and were only getting up and running. I want to see the numbers on this scheme brought up to 40,000 but then, we have to retain the momentum. My philosophy is that if you cannot give somebody a 40 hour a week job, 20 hours work is not a bad start with a view to offering people in the group an extra day as an incentive to pull out the stops and show willingness and effort.

I am very disappointed with the way the community employment schemes have gone. I hope the Department will reverse the decision and keep up the pressure to increase the number on community employment.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this report on tackling long term unemployment which is based on a report on the same subject by the National Economic and Social Forum. I think we should also debate the more recent report on the jobs potential of the services sector as this is linked with tackling long term unemployment.

I am very pleased with the Government's reaction to both reports. The task force report is based on the forum's work and it is worth nothing the very positive work being done by the forum. In just over two years the forum has produced up to eight reports and action has followed on them. What is needed is action if we are to tackle the very serious problem of long term unemployment. I am glad Deputy Ahern resisted the temptation — although I think he flirted with it — to suggest that the way to tackle long term unemployment was by restricting the job opportunities of women.

Mr. N. Ahern

I was afraid of the Deputy.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

Restricting the job opportunities of one group of people is not the way to tackle unemployment. I note Deputy Ahern's concern for community employment schemes but I would be more impressed by it if his party had not budgeted for only 26,000 places on the schemes. At present there are 40,000 places. There is some difficulty getting extra money to ensure that these schemes develop and I take the Deputy's point that there is scope for them to develop. They are part of the way to tackle long term unemployment and one of the routes we must develop.

I am pleased the Government has placed tackling the problem of long term unemployment at the centre of its agenda because it has a corrosive effect on individuals, parishes and communities. The recommendations in the reports will help to tackle the problem which is a serious one.

In the years between 1980 and 1993 the rate of long term unemployment rose from 2.8 per cent of the workforce to 10 per cent or from 35,000 people to 135,000 people. This means that one in 10 of the workforce was without a job for more than a year. A large number of people have not worked for a number of years. The report states that their chance of finding work is slim.

Of the registered unemployed in October 1994, 92,000 were unemployed for two years or more and 66,000 for three years or more. Individuals and communities will not recover from long term unemployment without special measures being taken. Even if the economy continues to improve and unemployment levels fall, those who have not worked for some time will find it difficult to get back to the world of work. They will be left outside unless special attention is paid to them. That is why I welcome the Government's commitment to tackle long term unemployment through this scheme and through the £89 million which has been committed to the partnership areas where there is potential for 8,000 jobs to be created. There are measures in place to help individuals and parishes. The reaction in many communities — I saw it in my constituency — to community employment schemes illustrates the extent to which communities have become involved in trying to create jobs by taking on worthwhile projects.

I was at a meeting in my constituency about a week ago where several people spoke about how the opportunity to be involved in the schemes that were in place gave them hope. We know that the long term unemployed experience a sense of isolation and helplessness in terms of exclusion and marginalisation. We must do everything we can to break that.

These reports arise out of the work of the economic and social forum which consists of politicians, representatives of employers and trade unions and nonGovernmental organisations and is a rather unique forum. It has been successful in issuing reports with detailed recommendations on how to tackle long term unemployment. The Government decided to accept the central recommendation on long term unemployment and put in place a local employment service to meet the needs of the long term unemployed.

The way we deal with the problem is critical from the point of view of social cohesion, access to education and training and to the quality of life. It is also critical if we wish to avoid the country being divided into the haves and have nots. What Deputy Ahern said about communities who have and those who have not in the Dublin area is true. We must ensure that we do not have areas where everyone is long term unemployed.

When we wrote the report we emphasised that long term unemployment needs to be tackled through radical thinking and policy changes involving a wide-ranging departure from established concepts of work and the introduction of new, non-market based policy initiatives. We said an employment service should be established, there should be training interventions, employment experience made available and direct employment provision through the employment service purchasing temporary placements of up to six months in the public and private sector. An attempt should be made to provide longer duration contract jobs mainly for the long term unemployed and or their adult dependants in the public and voluntary sectors.

The report emphasises that early intervention in the educational sector should be developed and options developed for children who are identified as being at risk of leaving school without any qualifications. We must target this group as otherwise they will become long term unemployed. We also suggested that priority should be given to the Youth Start Initiative proposed by the European Commission.

There is much work to be done at public level to ensure that there is awareness of the degree of long term unemployment which exists. It is extremly difficult for long term unemployed people to get back to work. Those who are privileged to have work often do not appreciate how difficult it can be.

We must think of groups who would benefit from this service and would be considered priority groups — those registered as unemployed for more than six months; dependent spouses of the unemployed; lone parents and the young unemployed. The task force will report in October 1995 on the progress of the local employment service and on the range of employment options which will be available to the long term unemployed in the light of Government policy on special employment measures set out in the Government programme and the recommendations of the forum.

When we looked at the issue at the forum and tried to work out the most significant initiative to help people, it became clear from international research and local experience that the establishment of a high quality employment service was extremely important. We decided we needed to develop a service which would provide counselling, guidance, training, education and job placement for the long term unemployed which would have different modes of delivery at local level. Registration by the unemployed will be voluntary. The service will have autonomy to carry out its functions and it will have a budget.

We noted that there were many women who are not registered as unemployed but who would like to work outside the home. This group needed special help also. Deputy Ahern spoke about communities where clusters of people are out of work for long periods and where there is severe poverty and disadvantage as a result. The report states that without special measures these communities will not break out the cycle of disadvantage in which they find themselves.

The local employment service is at the core of this report and we need to discuss its merits. It is worthwhile as a gateway through which unemployed people can gain the training, education, guidance and placement they require. It will also bring together existing services and supports for the unemployed in an integrated, focused and effective way. I hope the unemployed will find that this service is a planned response to their needs as individuals and will lead to their placement either in a job or scheme which will provide the kind of training and education they require. It has been suggested that the service should be developed on a nationwide basis. While I support this suggestion, we have to monitor the operation of the pilot projects, evaluate them at the end of the year and develop them in the best way possible.

This service is about guidance, training, education and employment supports and will be managed by a local management committee operating under the area partnership boards. Obviously, links with local employers will be very important and I appeal to employers to take an interest in the service. A very important aspect of the placement service is its relationship with local employers. In other countries similar services have led to an improvement in the economy and the creation of jobs in certain areas. However, disadvantaged areas and the long term unemployed do not gain from these jobs as they have not been prepared or given the necessary training and skills. The way to deal with this is to develop strong links between the type of employment service recommended in the report and local employers. This has already been done in several areas and one can see a very good example in Coolock where the local employment service has developed good relationships with local employers, thereby ensuring that people who use the service are placed in jobs.

In America the former President Jimmy Carter has taken a special interest in Atlanta and has developed a programme dealing with the problem of long-term unemployment which I believe will be copied by other countries. When he returned to Atlanta after his term as President he was shocked and dismayed at the level of unemployment, standard of living and disadvantage in what was supposed to be a thriving city. This very detailed programme encourages local neighbourhoods to create their own jobs and to link with the employment opportunities created in Atlanta. In Ringsend the local community centre is adopting a similar approach. It has developed the kind of placement service, job opportunities, training and education which will ensure that the long term unemployed will be able to find a way back into employment. This is the way forward.

Changes are needed in our taxation policy to make it more attractive to create jobs and encourage the development of the services sector. The report on the development of services points out that there is a huge opportunity for us to create thousands of jobs in the services sector by the year 2000. We are still far behind our European partners in terms of the creation of jobs in the services area and given the right taxation climate and supports for small businesses — in this respect I welcome the initiative last week by the banks to make it easier for small businesses to obtain loans — we can, according to the ESRI medium term review for 1994-2000, increase the number of jobs in the services sector to 808,000 by the end of the century and to 880,000 by the year 2005. The projections of the creation of jobs are very positive and if we marry the proposals for tackling long term unemployment in the report of the National Economic and Social Forum — the Government has built on these in the interim report of the task force — with the proposals on the creation of jobs in the services sector and a supportive taxation climate then people will be properly trained to take up the jobs which should come on stream in it. The removal of the barriers to the creation of jobs in the services sector and the implementation of the proposals in this area will lead to a positive climate for the creation of jobs. This year the Government allocated £6 million for local training and the educational fund. A time-scale has been set for the implementation of this service and consideration will have to be given next year to the level of funding as the scheme develops.

Links must also be developed between schools and the local employment service. This applies particularly in areas with high levels of long term unemployment. In the context of tackling the problem of early school leavers, there must be links with the early educational system and between training and schools. In the past we had a very cynical approach to training and many people were put into schemes and given training which were not carefully planned. Thankfully there have been improvements in this area. The training opportunities offered to people must be in tune with their needs and must lead to jobs or provide qualifications for jobs which are likely to arise in future. It is extremely important to focus on young people between 18-21 years.

If we want to tackle the problem of long term unemployment then the training provided must be specific and marketable skills taught. It is obvious that effective programmes will return the largest number of people to work. It is also obvious that some people will need long term attention from a local employment service. The links with employers will be of major importance in the development of this service.

The report suggests that the local employment service should develop a logo. It states:

While retaining their separate identities as FÁS, social welfare or community-based centres and continuing to carry out their core function, these local contact points would share a common logo or label nationwide, identifying them as locations through which the local employment service can be accessed and where elements of the service will be available.

This is a very good idea and it should be developed without delay. The long term unemployed will know that they go to these centres and get a high quality service which will help them in their efforts to find work.

The Government's response to this report has been extremely positive. It has taken on board the essential recommendations in the National Economic and Social Forum's report on tackling long term unemployment. I look forward to the evaluation of that service in a year's time and the formulation of further plans for its development. In conjunction with the recomendations in the services report, it will create a positive climate which will help the long term unemployed return to work.

Debate adjourned.