This is a very important draft report.
Youth Employment.
Excuse me for interrupting. An amendment has been submitted by Deputy Woods and we will discuss it later on.
I look forward to the views of other Members of the Joint Committee on this important subject. The European Council in June 1977 asked the Commission to examine the problem of the high level of youth unemployment in the Community and to issue a communication on it. The Commission did so in October 1977. This communication was examined by the Sub-Committee and before we concluded our examination there had been two formal proposals by the Commission on 10 April 1978, the first was for a Council Regulation concerning the creation of a new European Social Fund Aid in favour of young persons and the second for a Council Decision amending an earlier Decision to allow for action to be taken under the Social Fund to assist persons affected by employment difficulties. The draft report deals first of all with the communication on the whole issue of youth employment and concludes with comments on the formal proposals made by the Commission as well.
In paragraph 3, we look at the dimension of the problem in the Community and we note that the rise in youth unemployment poses an enormous challenge to the European Community. Every year since 1959, with only one exception, there has been an increase in the Community as a whole, both in the number of people under the age of 25 who are unemployed and the proportion of such young people among the total unemployed. The Community average for unemployed people under 25 has risen from 24 per cent to 37 per cent, although they only represent 17 per cent of the working population.
The Commission in its communication analyses the causes of youth unemployment and indicates that apart from the general problem of recession, the increased participation of women in employment and the numerical size of post-war generations coming on to the labour market have aggravated the already existing problem of youth unemployment. Paragraph 5 of the draft report looks at youth unemployment in Ireland. The members of the Sub-Committee were concerned to see how much worse the situation is in Ireland. The 1971 EEC Labour Force Sample Survey showed that 10 per cent of the total population here was under 25 and that unemployment among this age group constituted 43.6 per cent of the total unemployed, even though they represented only 30 per cent of the labour force. This compares unfavourably with the Community average of 37 per cent which is obviously causing great concern to all member states.
In surveys carried out by the Department of Labour since 1975 there is no evidence of any great change in the proportion of unemployed in the under 25 group. We conclude from these figures that Ireland is already experiencing substantially worse youth unemployment than the rest of the Community. The immediate prognosis is less favourable for Ireland than for the other member states because in the other countries the problem of the postwar bulge in the new generation will begin to taper off and decline from about 1983. The demographic structure in Ireland shows that this problem will continue into the 1990s and indeed to the end of the century as we will have numbers of young people coming on to the labour market. Therefore, we have a worse situation at the moment and the prediction is that it will continue longer than in other member states.
Senator Robinson should have got that Bill through the Seanad.
We then looked at existing Community aid in this area and noted that the European Social Fund has been used specifically to aid the vocational training of young persons. In its communication the Commission shows that since 1975 the Fund has allocated over 280,000,000 units of account in aid to vocational training programmes. That may seem a significant figure, but in the same period applications for assistance for vocational training totalled over 600,000,000 units of account. This shows that there was an inadequacy in the financial provisions made. The Commission's communiaction reviews the action being taken in the various member states. The Commission notes that there are two main forms of national aid that member states are giving. The first form of aid is recruitment premiums, which would be granted for a limited period, usually six months, for each new additional worker recruited either in the form of direct payment to employers or a reduction in social security contributions. The second is subsidies for programmes involving the recruitment of young persons to newly created jobs in the area of activities or services in the public interest. These were the types of action that member states were taking. The Commission made four suggestions in its communication to combat youth unemployment. These are, Community financial aid for the creation of new jobs by underakings in the private sector, financial participation in job-creating programmes in the public sector, stepping-up of Community aid to post-school traning and Community support for the development of labour market institutions. In the communication the Commission left open the question of whether financing would be out of the existing Social Fund or whether it would be some other budgetary measure by the Community.
The Commission's formal legislative proposals were then issued in April 1978. These refer to, and involve extending the assistance from, the European Social Fund for expenditure, first of all, on employment subsidies in respect of young persons under 25 newly recruited by undertakings in the production sector and, secondly, in respect of wage costs for young persons under 25 in connection with newly established programmes in the public interest. The formal proposals are in the area where there has been activity by the member states. The payments would be made out of the European Social Fund.
The level of expenditure set out in paragraph 11 of our draft report shows that the expenditure eligible for assistance would be limited to the following ceilings: recruitment premiums would be 30 European units of account, approximately £20.25 per person per week for 26 weeks; in the employment programme it would be 60 units of account, approximately £40.50 per person per week for 52 weeks. The formal proposals provide for a more favourable maximum contribution for countries with particular regional problems: the maximum contribution from the fund towards this expenditure would be 55 per cent of the cost in the case of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Greenland, French Overseas Department and the Mezzogiorno and 50 per cent in the rest of the Community. Account is taken of the particular difficulties of the areas with the most acute regional problems. The result of this would be as set out on the top of page 6 of the draft report. At the current value of the European unit of account the maximum aid that would be available for Ireland from the fund, because it tops up our own national aid in this measure, would be a recruitment premium of £11 approximately per person per week for a maximum of 26 weeks and, in the area of the employment programme, £22 approximately per person per week for a maximum of 52 weeks. That is the key provision. There will be a topping up of whatever national premium might be available, of £11 for new recruitment and £22 per week for those involved in the youth employment programmes.
Could I interrupt the Senator there? Does it top up or does it save the Exchequer?
Effectively it tops up. The Exchequer has to put up the——
Is it an addition to what the Exchequer has to pay?
It is an adidtion to what the Exchequer has to pay. It is only available if the Exchequer pays here.
It is definitely an addition to what is paid already?
Yes.
This could be a significant difference.
This was the impression conveyed to us by Ambassador Dillon at our recent meeting with him in Brussels. I certainly got the impression that it was a topping up.
Topping up is something that can be interpreted in a number of ways.
The maximum contribution from the Fund itself is 55 per cent of the cost of it. The other 45 per cent has to come from Irish resources.
It states clearly that the expenditure eligible for assistance would be limited to the following, that is £20 and £40, that is the eligible expenditure. The 55 per cent then would apply to that expenditure. It may be a matter for the State as to how——
They could pay more if they wanted, yes?
They would receive that level of assistance.
The point I am trying to make clear is that you have these premiums already before this comes along. Will the State decide to put this on top of what is there already or will they save the Exchequer this amount and keep it at its present level? This is where we want a policy statement.
There is reference to new programmes in the programmes of the public sector interest.
Sorry for the interruption.
The particular rules which will govern these aids involve amendment of the European Social Fund and the general rules governing the Fund at present are set out in an Appendix to the draft report. The Commission proposes that the new aid for job creation will be made either under Article 4 or Article 5 of the relevant Decision relating to the Social Fund. The Committee is somewhat critical of this approach. We would prefer a new budgetary provision instead of the use of the existing Social Fund provision and particularly we do not want Article 5 to be used in a way which could be prejudicial to other used made by Ireland of that Article 5—this Article takes into account the special problems of a regional area.
Paragraph 13 shows that the Commission envisages that the aid would only be granted in respect of regions where youth unemployment is higher than the Community average and where the rate of youth unemployment is appreciably higher than the national average. This, again, is where the Irish figure will ensure that we would get a maximum payment from the fund. The cost is set out in paragraph 14. The Commission estimates that budget commitments in 1979, 1980 and 1981 will amount respectively to 110, 165 and 22 million units of account. The payments made would amount to 40, 100, 170 and 190 million units of account in 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982 and for subsequent years. The Commission has now, in other words, set out its assessment of the level of aid which should be available and presumably the Council will not increase that amount, whatever about accepting it.
They have been known to increase it.
They might possibly increase it and it would be very welcome if they did. Beginning in paragraph 15, we set out the views of the Joint Committee. We note that the formal proposal made by the Commission at the request of the Council would seem to indicate that the Council accepted the principle of aid along the lines suggested in the communication. We regard the commitment of the European Community to the principle of aid for wage subsidies to promote employment as a most important development which we warmly welcome. Looking at the size and immensity of the youth unemployment problem we think it is important that the Community should accept this point in principle and should be prepared to initiate aid for schemes in this area.
However, we also consider that the initial budgetary appropriations proposed are inadequate because while national measures in the nine member states are costing about 350 million European units of account annually, it is unlikely that the expected payment of 40 million European units of account from the Social Fund in 1979 will prove of more than marginal benefit. Once again the commitment is welcome and the idea is one that the Sub-Committee found would be helpful in this area but we were disappointed with the way in which the money will be paid. In paragraph 16 we say we would prefer if the proposed aid were provided under a special heading within the European Social Fund and not to be regarded as being governed by either Articles 4 or 5 of Decision 71/66, as amended. If it cannot be under a special heading then we say that we trust the existing aids, and in particular those in the Article 5 category, will not be curtailed or diminished in any way. It should be a very important criterion for the Irish Government in examining these proposals to ensure that there is no diminution of the existing Community aid under Articles 4 or 5 by virtue of the fact that there is this new proposal in the area of youth employment.
In paragraph 17 we say that in our view the Community's adoption of the principle of aid for wage subsidies raises an important policy issue for Ireland, namely whether apart from the present employment incentive scheme and the creation of posts in the public sector, some more direct aid is required for the creation of jobs, that hitherto, Ireland relied heavily on capital grants supplemented by favourable tax laws to create employment, and that while grants at higher rates are provided for projects with a high labour content the overall effect may be to distort the market economy in the direction of a lower ratio of capital labour costs than would otherwise exist. Paragraph 17 also says that while there can be no question of abandoning the system of capital grants, the Joint Committee consider that the matter should be examined to see if some of the resources so employed might in future be more properly diverted to direct subsidisation of labour, possibly supplemented by a tax structure favouring firms giving high employment, and that such an examination should be undertaken as a matter of urgency, in view of the likelihood of aid being made available from Community resources. The view of the Sub-Committee was that the approach of the European Community to the problem of youth employment and job creation for people under 25 raises important policy issues for Ireland. Deputy Woods has an amendment to that paragraph. Perhaps the Deputy would like to speak on it.
It would be better perhaps for Senator Robinson to deal first with the draft report and we could then deal with the amendment.
Paragraph 18 relates to training programmes because the October communication contained a proposal to strengthen Community aid for programmes of post-school training for young people. This type of aid is already made available under the existing Social Fund and it would not require specific legislation by the Community. The Commission's idea could be that a special priority would be given for post-school training involving periods of practical work experience, that this would be accounted for in the allocation of Social Fund resources and that additional resources should be made available to the Fund for such training. The Council has accepted the principle of the Commission's proposal and has invited it to work out the measures within the framework of the Social Fund to strengthen the link between post-school training and the employment of young persons. The Council did not commit itself to the provision of additional resources for these measures. It is a commitment in principle but it is less credible unless it is backed by a monetary commitment.
The Joint Committee say, in paragraph 19, that they fully accept the importance of programmes of post-school training to prepare young people for employment and support the idea of increased Community assistance for such programmes, but that it would not serve much purpose if the assistance for these programmes was at the expense of assistance for other programmes in favour of young persons. The essential factor is that substantial additional resources be made available to the Social Fund, if it is to be a meaningful additional assistance.
Paragraph 20 relates to the development of labour market institutions at European Community level to which the Commission communication refers. It says that the Commission proposes that member states should be encouraged to strengthen their institutions responsible for labour market management, that is, for training and placement services. The Joint Committee is in favour of the expansion of the training and placement services in order to improve the capacity to deal with the problem of youth employment and would welcome greater co-operation from member states. We understood that there has been a continuous and significant expansion of the training function and that this would expand by 20 per cent this year compared with 1977. There is a commitment in the White Paper to continue this expansion of the training facilities up to 1980. We also understood that the development of the placement function operated by the National Manpower Service, which had been delayed by an embargo on new posts, has now been resumed and will be expanded up to 1980.
In paragraph 23 we refer to co-operation between the labour market institutions in the member states and we were informed that discussions have been going on between the representatives of member states with a view to bringing about improved liaison. The Commission has indicated that within the framework of SEDOC, that is a European system of the international clearing of vacancies and applications for employment, a registry of occupational activities and occupations has been completed for the use of the national placement services. The Commission has started to put the SEDOC system into operation. This would make known to young people here what jobs are available in other member states. We have to accept that there will be some rise in the emigration of young people in face of the difficulties in getting jobs here, and this system will at least improve their possibilities of knowing where there are jobs, so they will not be completely without knowledge of where the opportunities are, if they have to emigrate.
In view of the importance of the subject to Ireland in paragraph 24 we state that an opportunity should be given to Members of both Houses to express their views on the Commission proposals. We recommend that a debate on this report be arranged in each House. It was the experience of the previous Joint Committee—a sad experience—that none of its 59 reports between August 1973 and May, 1977, were debated fully in either House as a report of the Joint Committee, and we hope that this and other reports of the present Joint Committee will be debated, certainly before one or other House, if not both Houses because of the exteremely important issues that are raised and because of the policy implications, not just at European Community level but also at Irish level. We acknowledge the considerable assistance which we received from the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, the Confederation of Irish Industry and also from Dr. Brendan Walsh of the Economic and Social Research Institute. It was most helpful to members of the Joint Committee, particularly to members of the sub-committee, to have an opportunity during the visit to Brussels, from 19 to 21 March, to discuss in detail with senior officials in the Commission the proposals and the Commission's attitude towards the problem of youth employment.
I am sorry for taking up a certain amount of time in outlining the provisions of the draft report but it is very important. I wished to highlight the matters that had been discussed in detail in the sub-committee and the policy approach of the sub-committee.
Paragraphs 1 to 16 inclusive postponed.
PARAGRAPH 17.
This is probably the most important report before us. It is quite clear that we have an enormous problem on our hands but we have also an enormous asset because such a big percentage of the total population of the country at the moment are in the working age group. If this could be converted into people producing goods competitively for export it would probably be one of our greatest assets. I question a little what is recommended in paragraph 17 where we say that Ireland has hitherto relied heavily on capital grants supplemented by favourable tax laws to create employment. A departure is suggested that could have the effect of making industry inefficient. It could induce employers to employ more people than necessary in an industry thereby making it less competitive unless it was continuously propped up with labour subsidies. I am not sure that this is a good thing and there are probably many people in industry who would question the view expressed here. It is not so much a view expressed as a matter to be investigated, but it is one part of the draft report that I have some little doubt about.
In relation to that, it is something Deputies and Senators would want to be careful about in regard to the package of incentives which exists at the moment. I appreciate that it has been put to the meeting that it is something which we can discuss, and indeed which was raised in sub-committee. But when we come to adopting our final report we might want to be very careful how we present the package that we have and to indicate how we see that package. We are under pressure from our fellow members in the EEC to remove, earlier than we might wish to do so or might be in a position to do so, some of the benefits that our enterprises have enjoyed. We would not want to do anything to increase the pressure or to adopt a report that might be used against our national interests. The suggestion should merit examination. But the fear I would have is that, if we word the paragraph too strongly, it may be interpreted as a clear indication of the way in which we think and could therefore be used to our disadvantage. In that sense I would support what the Chairman has said.
I am a little bit puzzled about one thing and wonder if Senator Robinson could enlighten me—the reference in paragraph 17 to the Community's adoption of the principles of aid for wage subsidies. Do I understand this to be permanent wage subsidies or subsidies for limited periods only? I understood it meant limited periods.
The essence of the formal proposal of the Commission which came out on 10 April is for wage subsidies for recruitment of new persons under 25 and for those who will be working on programmes which were——
Yes I understand that, but I am speaking of what I heard through the Commission, that it is for a period of six months in one category and a period of a year in the other, and not beyond that. If they changed their minds, some of us did not know about it because we are campaigning against the UK employment subsidy at the moment.
No, the proposals are quite clearly for the limited period set out in the paragraph.
To get over the hump.
But I think that the problem the Commission are seeking to resolve is going to be a continuing problem of youth unemployment at a very critical level for the whole Community up to 1985. For Ireland, it is really the end of the century, certainly well into the 1990s.
You understand what would happen if this became a permanent feature. Trade throughout the whole Community would be disorientated.
I think the members of the Joint Committee are quite right to focus on this particular section. It does raise a key ideological issue. Is it appropriate at this stage to refer to the amendment proposed by Deputy Woods?
No, it is not in fact really relevant to this.
What I would say is that the issue is very much a broad issue of the Irish approach to solving the unemployment problem here and is a matter uniquely for discussion in both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is a particularly valuable report but there is no doubt that the Community's proposals are proposals to top up national measures in a sense. They are to complement national measures. We have the existing school leavers' employment scheme but we do not really have schemes for programmes in the public sector. I think we will have to create programmes of that sort which are wage subsidising whether it is for a limited period, as it would be, or———
I agree that there would be an immense difference between wages subsidies in the public sector or the semi-public sector and for community schemes and wage subsidies in industry which could land us in fierce trouble with other countries. We would be up to our necks before we would know where we were.
I might not have made it quite clear what I had in mind when I raised this point. What makes me a little bit sceptical, a little bit fearful about this is that we have a pretty attractive package of aids to industry. That package is under consideration, almost under siege, but we have been assured by the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy that if the tax relief on exports is to be removed we will get something at least as favourable in its place, and we have also been assured of that by the Commission officials we met in Brussels. If we start to make suggestions about using some of the money that we use at the moment in a specific way if we talk about shifting that around, we are giving an unnecessary lead to the Commission to tamper with it. We want to ensure that we are going to get something at least as good, if not better. Would that not be the point rather than pinpointing this in a report as being the view of this Joint Committee, that we think that everything is not right with what we are doing at the moment?
Could I say that with regard to the draft report—unfortunately I was not able to attend at its drafting—it seems to me that there is a number of areas which I would find fundamentally unacceptable. It suggests by implication, if not explicity, that somehow or other youth unemployment is a sort of an unfortunate by-product; that it is a problem that has arisen in acute terms only in recent times. We have always had unemployment. Does a male or female adult moving from age 25 to 26 cease to be an unemployment problem? First of all, I would strongly support the recommendation that the report, on adoption, be placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas for a full debate because it is fundamental to what the last election was about and what our activities and interests are about. There should be a full and comprehensive debate about it in the Houses and I would think there should be unanimous support for that recommendation. The point of view I would put and would like to see incorporated in the report is that it seems to be incredible that we are saying that, as a constituent member of the EEC, we cannot solve this basic problem of unemployment unless we tamper with social funds or regional funds or some kind of mickey mouse side operation rather than look at the essence of the economies of the nine member states. Youth employment is a function of the nine economies. Unless you reorientate the direction of the nine economies towards the creation of full employment, you will always have some form of either youth unemployment, regional unemployment, unemployment in Gaeltacht areas or Italian unemployment or whatever. There is no mention in this report of directing the strength of the Commission, the Council and the member states themselves towards a radically reorganisation of the economies of the Community to provide full employment.
I think it was either Senator Brugha or some other Member who raised the question of employment subsidies fundamentally interfering with the nature of trade and so on. I think a debate in the Houses of the Oireachtas should centre around what the primary function of any economy is. I think it was the Chairman, who said that industries might become inefficient and therefore, by implication, go out of existence. It seems self-evident to me that the first objective of an industry is to survive but after that I would hold the view that its second objective—and its primary objective—having maintained its existence—is to help to provide full employment. It seems to me that we are dealing with the whole question of youth unemployment as if it was some unfortunate by-product of an economic system which is by and large OK. If we in western Europe, with the extraordinary resources that we have cannot solve the problem of employment on the scale we are talking about, how can we in all honesty under the Lomé Convention, or anything else go and talk to the Third World about aid or anything else. What I would like to see, and I accept that it is perhaps a minority position, is that this report should at least raise the question that the Commission should look at what the major function of economies is. I am not talking about a new label for the Social Fund or messing around with the Regional Fund to deal with this abberration—that hopefully the birth rate will adjust itself, so that by the last 1990's youth unemployment will not be a problem. I strongly recommend that the Committee, irrespective of the different opinions we have, should try to get this report debated in both Houses as soon as possible. For the purpose of provoking debate if nothing else I would like to see that this draft report with a little bit more guts and strength than it currently has.
I would like to see included in the draft the question of the primary role of the EEC economy. Is it the creation of full employment, or is it the creation of high profit-creating enterprises which will generate sufficient wealth to enable us to buy off unemployed sectors of the community with temporary employment subsidies for 26 weeks in the public sector? Would anybody around this table seriously advise that any one of their relatives should take up a job on the basis of 26 weeks' temporary employment and no promise of a permanent job at the end of it? There is not. It flies in the face of everything that those members of political parties here who are committed to private enterprise believe in. There is something very fundamental in this. I would like to see it really emphasised and we should insist on a debate in both Houses.
Apart from the debate in both Houses, what does Deputy Quinn want to do with the draft? Does he want to include an extra paragraph by way of amendment?
It should be referred back. It is my responsibility having made the submission just now, to draft in written form some addendum or alternative to some paragraphs. If we accept that paragraph 17 is the core paragraph——
It is the paragraph that I am somewhat doubtful about.
If we can identify that there are a number of paragraphs of which 17 is one with some kind of analysis that gets to the core of the primary goal of the Community's economy, I will undertake to draft a proposal for consideration by the Committee.
I am very much in sympathy with both the view put forward by Deputy Quinn and by his sense of urgency about the dimension of the problem, but at the same time, the primary task of this Joint Committee is to examine communications and to follow the proposals from the Commission to the Council. A great deal of what Deputy Quinn is saying is appropriate to the discussion which I hope we will get on this report, in both Houses, that is, discussing at a political level whether or not in the totality of its approach, the Commission is really being serious, but our job as a Joint Committee is to examine in detail the context in which the Commission places it, why the level of unemployment is so high and so on. We have to draw attention to the fact that the problem has been and continues to be worse in Ireland and will endure for longer. Paragraph 17 draws attention to the fact that there may be very serious policy considerations there for Ireland. I certainly would be happy to have the draft report referred back for further comment on some of the assumptions the Commission has made, but we cannot in the reports of the Joint Committee try to broaden the debate away from the specific proposals it is our function to examine. We are a Joint Committee of both Houses. It is up to Deputies and Senators to raise the more political issues on the floor of their respective Houses. It depends on how we see our role as a Joint Committee. The approach of the Commission is a new departure in principle from the previous wisdom of the Commission which would not have proposed a wage subsidy in this sense. It remains to be seen, as the problem may become worse, how far the Commission is prepared to move in this direction, either in the agricultural sphere or in the industrial employment sphere. It is legitimate for the Joint Committee to raise the possible policy implications for Ireland. Paragraph 17 makes it clear that we are not calling into question the existing grants. We are talking about other approaches to promote the encouragement of employment. This is the basic issue facing us.
We say that while there can be no question of abandoning this system of capital grants the Joint Committee considers that the matter should be examined to see if some of the resources so employed might in future be more properly diverted. That is what I am a little bit wary of, because we are questioning the validity of the use we make of something that is protected by a special protocol and that we are fighting to hold or to get something at least as good or better.
Is there any reason why something at least as good or better would not have a very substantial emphasis on employment creation? This is the issue.
We should bear in mind that neither of the Houses, if they discuss this report, will have the power to amend it. It is not like a Bill, which either House can adopt substantially with perhaps some amendments. Either House will have to adopt it as it is, or reject it. Consequently, the Joint Committee should be totally happy with the report without reservation; otherwise the result may be that because of our reservations the Houses may decide not to adopt it.
Is it necessary that the Joint Committee in each paragraph express a consensus view? We could not really achieve a consensus on what is an ideological difference. Deputy Quinn's point is that it does not go nearly far enough. I agree with that, except that we have to stay within our terms of reference. If we seek to have this report debated and we want to stimulate a debate, would it be acceptable that paragraph 17 be remodelled to reveal this difference of view in the Joint Committee?
Could it not more appropriately go before the Houses as a draft report? Having listened to the views expressed in the Houses, we could come back here and then try to get an amendment.
That would be too democratic. But then, of course, our function is to make reports to the Houses.
The purpose of the exercise is to try to influence the Ministers who will be negotiating directly afterwards.
My point is that we have given the Joint Committee's views on the formal proposals of the Commission, and I do not sense any real dispute on that. In this paragraph we are very properly in our report drawing attention to the implications for Ireland. Do we have to have a consensus about that? It would be unreal, because politically we would not have a consensus about that.
We can have a vote. If there is something in dispute, surely the way to settle it is to have a vote of the Members.
Could we incorporate that different view in a paragraph? Two sentences would obviously reveal the differences in view. That would encourage the sort of debate we are agreed is needed.
Yes. I am concerned that Senator Alexis FitzGerald, who is absent, might have a very definite view on this that could be helpful.
There is a division in the Dáil. Shall we adjourn for it or adjourn altogether? By the time we return it will be 6 o'clock.
Further consideration of paragraph 17 postponed.
NEW PARAGRAPH.
Could I take the amendment put down by Deputy Woods?
I move:
After paragraph 17 to insert a new paragraph as follows:
The Joint Committee believes that the cause of increased youth employment could be advanced if the mobility of labour could be improved among technically and professionally qualified and experienced persons in the under 35 age group. There should be incentives available to induce such persons to leave their secure employment and set up new enterprises. The posts thus vacated would be available for suitably trained young people coming on to the labour market. In addition these people would themselves create additional employment in their new ventures. The object of the Joint Committee's proposal is to increase employment by encouraging initiative, enterprise and innovation among this highly qualified group. In the Joint Committee's opinion assistance for such new enterprises should be made available by the Community through the Regional Fund and there should be aid from the Social Fund to compensate for any loss of pension rights which such movement of labour might entail.
Very briefly, it is on the lines that the measures proposed here are mainly palliative measures, as we know. It is self-explanatory beyond that. It fits in very much with what the Chairman said at the outset, that if we are to try to convert the asset of youth into goods and services and extra jobs we should be proposing some sort of positive measures. This is why I was suggesting that we should be looking at people up to the 35 age group.
Amendment agreed to.
I think we will adjourn to our next meeting further discussion of the draft report, as amended.
I am not sure if this is within our terms of reference. It was brought to my attention on our visit to the Luxembourg Parliament that there are major discrepancies beween the terms of employment of our parliamentary ushers and those of the other eight member Parliaments. If you like I can submit the details. As a result of a Joint EEC delegation I was made aware of these discrepancies.
Could you write to the Ceann Comhairle? I do not think that is a matter for this Committee.
You are aware of the discrepancies?
I am aware of the fact that such a person in Brussels would be paid at the same rate as an Assistant Secretary in Departments would be paid here.
The point is that they have to take annual leave in order to carry out their functions.
The Joint Committee adjourned at 5.20 p.m.