: Senator Robinson, is there any special order in which you would like us to take your reports?
Exchange of Young Workers.
There are two reports of the Social Affairs Sub-Committee. The first deals with the exchange of young workers. It examines the second programme for the exchange of young workers, which is based on a Council decision of last July. The first programme ended in 1977 and originated in 1964. First of all, the Committee examines the objectives of the programme which are set out in paragraph 5. It has three separate but complementary objectives. Firstly, to supplement vocational training for young people to improve their employment prospects and to encourage the free movement of workers. Secondly, to help young workers to acquire abroad an understanding of living and working conditions in other countries. Thirdly, to break down barriers by the development of contacts and exchanges.
There are various limitations to the programme. To be eligible for participation a young worker must be between 18 and 28 years of age, must have received basic vocational training and must have commenced working before the age of 20. The training periods are either of long or short duration. By long is meant between four and 16 months. By short duration is meant between three weeks and three months; in other words, not less than three weeks. In paragraph 9 we set out the degree of Community aid which would be up to 75 per cent of the travel cost, a flat rate weekly contribution per trainee and supplementary aid for language training for the long-term exchanges.
The overall allocation is set out in paragraph 11 of the report. The Committee will see that it does not involve a substantial amount of money. For this current year, 1979, the amount was 650,000 EUA. It is 1.5 million EUA for 1980 and 2 million EUA for each of the years 1981 to 1984, inclusive. The allocations for 1980 to 1984 are provisional.
From paragraph 12 onwards we set out the views of the Joint Committee. First of all, we note that, during 1979, thanks to efforts being made by the Irish body dealing with the placement in Ireland, five young Irish workers availed themselves of an exchange and went to Belgium. Five young Belgians came to Ireland. I think they are still in the country. Last week they visited Leinster House as part of their programme. There were considerable difficulties for the people involved in trying to put together this exchange visit. One of their problems was that the competent authority in Ireland had not been designated. It has now been designated as the National Manpower Service.
In paragraph 13 we put forward the view that the programme is a modest one because the number of participants for the whole Community in 1980 will be 1,500. The target figure for 1980 to 1984, inclusive, is 1,600. There is no formal quota system as such. Therefore, we believe that it is important that a concerted effort be made to ensure a fair allocation to Ireland of the places available. We refer to the National Manpower Service as the designated and competent authority and we urge that as many young workers as possible should be able to avail themselves of the programme. We note that it will be necessary to monitor carefully the implementation of the programme. We refer to the advantage of the short-term visits in that they provide important contacts for young workers.
The view was put forward to the Sub-Committee that young workers do not have many of the advantages which young students have of student cards and travel organised by travel bodies for groups of young students and so on and that there is need for very positive promotion here so that as many young workers as possible throughout the country could avail themselves of these exchanges. In paragraph 15 we say that there are advantages in short-term visits and that employers should be encouraged to release workers to enable them to avail themselves of them. We should also try to have Irish participation in longer-term exchanges which might have a more substantial vocational, training and language benefit for the young workers participating in them.
It would be fair to say that Committee Members regarded this as a modest but extremely important area which we would like to see promoted. We heard the views of Congress, of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, FUE and the CII as well as AFS Ireland who are the Irish agency working under contract with the Commission to organise these exchanges. We had the benefit of the views of Dr. Alan Harrison of AFS, Mr. Peter Mooney of the Dublin Youth Service Council and Mr. Michael Wall of the ITGWU. This is an area where the Joint Committee, by examining the exchange programme and by having a very positive and encouraging approach to it, may have helped to ensure that during 1980 as many young workers as possible will be able to participate. We say that the National Manpower Service should seek to use its best endeavours to make sure that employers do release young workers. One of the problems is that it is not too difficult to get them released for two weeks which would coincide with the holiday period; it is the third week which causes the problem. It will be necessary to encourage employers to be positive in their approach to this programme for young workers.
Did your Sub-Committee give any consideration to the concentration of these exchanges into areas where one might consider scarce skills are concerned?
What did come up in the Sub-Committee was the importance of ensuring that there be a geographical spread for young workers so that it would not mean just young workers in Dublin city or the greater Dublin area but that a conscious effort would be made a to build exchange so that young workers throughout the country would have an opportunity of participating. I do not think there was any formal discussion about trying to promote special skills because the number involved is so small—for the whole Community about 1,500. We got the impression, and I think the view was shared both at official level and in the bodies that gave us their views, that the Community have not invested a lot in this area but have put a very modest budget at the disposal of organisations at the European level that have Irish counterparts like AFS to implement it. It will not involve very much direct Community effort. There may be other parallel proposals for the promotion of training and exchanges of workers. However, this proposal is modest and unless we give it very strong support here there would be danger that we might be left out. We might have been left out entirely from the 1979 allocation if it had not been for the efforts made. It is very important that we get a very substantial part of the 1980 allocation for young Irish workers. Hopefully, those organising the programme will take that into account.
Do you think it would be helpful if we added a sentence imparting a view on that—in the light of the situation generally, when the learning of things is so very important, a direction from the Joint Committee to the body that would be operating it that they might find it easier for this country to accumulate skills if they concentrated on particular areas, even though we can anticipate that they will do that in any case? If Senator Robinson could contribute a sentence or so on that it would seem to me to be desirable. Sometimes if one leaves something unsaid what one hopes does not happen. In paragraph 12 at the end, you say very properly that the successful organisation of this visit seems to reflect great credit on those responsible. Should we not name those responsible? I do not know who they were. Senator Robinson named a number of bodies and thanked them, but who in fact did the exchange with Belgium?
It was the AFS group who did it. I think it is almost implicitly there. The arrangements, as far as I am concerned, were made by the AFS.
That is all right.
I am not clear what circulation our reports get normally but I think it would be valuable if this report could be sent to the particular bodies like the AFS, the DYSC and so on who normally would not perhaps have any interest in or access to our reports.
We do have a practice when we refer to people or bodies that have helped us of ensuring that they get the reports. The AFS would get this in the normal course.
It would also be well to ensure that this report goes to the Students' Union, the various colleges and the students' advisory services in Bolton Street and Kevin Street so that students will know about this. This will not happen or will not be actively pursued unless somebody in the National Manpower Service has that very special job. In fact, there is a target for 1980 to be achieved in this regard. It is probably the type of operation that is awkward for some people, to have to arrange for young people to go abroad and to encourage them to do so. Very often the people at this side do not know what is happening abroad. Some type of liaison is required between people in other countries and people here, an equivalent to the National Manpower Service in other countries. I do not see this happening unless somebody has responsibility for it.
There is a European body called EFIL and AFS are their local agents here for the purpose of arranging exchanges. The Community works through the European body and its agents in the various countries and enters into formal contracts with them. The competent authority in the Member State, which is the National Manpower Service here, approves in the sense that they have sight of the draft contract and are able to say that it is all right, or otherwise.
Am I right in thinking that there is a problem of awareness here among people who might benefit from the existence of this programme?
Yes.
In paragraph 3 you draw the attention of the Houses of the Oireachtas to this programme so as to enable Members to assist in ensuring that young workers participate to the maximum practicable extent. Presumably Members of the Dáil and Seanad would be able to see that this information will reach their areas and help people in those areas, so that instead of you looking for people, people will be seeking to use the programme. Could we set off a pressure from Ireland that Brussels would have to recognise? We have not a quota; let us demand that they at least give us what we should get.
In the Sub-Committee we discussed the question of whether it would be suitable to try to have a debate in one or other House to draw attention to this matter. Obviously, this is not the time of the year. I certainly think it would be very helpful to have copies of the report go to those who assisted or wrote to the Committee and, as Senator Mulcahy said, also to the various youth organisations, the youth network. If it got into that network we would then get a very substantial response.
Will Senator Robinson bear with me if I move away a little from her report? I wonder whether in relation to any report coming from a Sub-Committee, whether the chairman in question might not have his mind directed to the idea of suggesting to the secretariat the special personnel or bodies that might get the particular report as an addition to the normal circulation?
Yes.
Paragraphs 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
PARAGRAPH 4.
I move :
To add after the first sentence in paragraph 4 the following :
" The Joint Committee is indebted to Senator Robinson and her Sub-committee for their work."
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 5 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
PARAGRAPH 16.
I move :
In the last sentence of the paragraph to delete " This suggestion " and substitute " It is a suggestion which ".
Amendment agreed to.
I move:
To add to the paragraph the following :
" In seeking participants the Committee believes that there should be due regard to skills for which a need exists in this country."
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 17 agreed to.
Draft Report, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered : To report accordingly.