On the last occasion this matter was before the House, a number of Senators dealt with the undesirability of having the Department of Social Welfare in a controlling position in regard to the employment exchanges. According to the NIEC Report, which I quoted at length on the previous occasion and which I do not propose to quote again, reference is made to a 1963 lecture by an officer of the Department of Social Welfare in which he pointed out that the employment exchanges were places where workers seeking employment and employers seeking workers got in touch with each other.
That is not a fact today. The employment exchanges as we know them in this country are, in the minds of workers, primarily associated with the idea of benefits, the dole, and the question of employment arises only incidentally. The Parliamentary Secretary has to get over this psychological problem—the detestation of workers for the exchanges. He is starting off under a severe handicap. He may argue that even though the Department of Social Welfare man the labour exchanges the Department are not the controlling influence.
For years, according to the officer of the Department of Social Welfare, the major function of the labour exchanges was to get employment for people. If so, they failed to do it. How does the Parliamentary Secretary propose to put across his views to the very same people now when they did not do it themselves? I cannot see how the Parliamentary Secretary has powers to force a Minister to do the job when we all know the Parliamentary Secretary is only a junior member of the Cabinet. I understand that as a junior member he is barred from Cabinet meetings.
If the Government are serious about a manpower policy, the man responsible for the control and direction of that policy should be one of the most important figures in the Cabinet. Instead of that, all a Parliamentary Secretary can do is go in on the invitation of the Cabinet to make a report, but he cannot sit in on decisions on this fundamental problem. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us—he has the goodwill of this House —how he proposes to direct this agency which at present is controlled by the Department of Social Welfare.
So far, Senators have all strongly opposed the idea of allowing the employment agency to be left in the hands of the Department of Social Welfare. There is also opposition to the idea outside. For instance, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have issued their views on this in a report dated 25th January last. They opposed the idea of setting up an agency under the Department of Social Welfare and stated they realised the administrative difficulties that could arise if the NIEC Report were adopted. Rightly, they say they are satisfied that the people in the public service do not lack the imagination and flexibility to overcome the difficulties involved.
This question of manpower policy is one that has been the subject of many investigations and discussions by European countries, members of both the Common Market and EFTA. There are a number of reports available to the Minister and to the members of this House on this question of manpower policy. I have here a copy of the OECD Report for July, 1965 which contains a special article on this question of employment and redundancy prepared by OECD personel. The heading of the article is "Public Employment Service, —Cornerstone of an Active Manpower Policy." It says:
As OECD Member governments take steps to implement an active manpower policy, their employment services are being transformed. An agency that has often been associated, in the minds of employers and employees alike, with the unemployment queue and hard-to-place workers is being called upon to expand its coverage so as to include a wide range of employees and jobs.
Even there, it is admitted in the minds of workers and employers that labour exchanges have been associated with employment queues and the dole. Many European countries and other countries have taken steps to get over that difficulty. According to this report, one widely-advocated means of improving the public image of employment services is to separate physically and, in some cases, administratively, the payment of employment benefits from unemployment activities.
There is a very interesting comment by the Social Affairs Division of OECD Manpower and directives. A number of seminars were held and the view was taken that it would be desirable to separate the functions of paying relief on unemployment from the function of providing employment. The Government should get off to a good start in this country in that regard. The position in Britain and in other countries is that they have already taken a number of steps to set up such employment agencies that work on a very comprehensive and geographical basis. The position in Britain, of course, is different from that in Ireland. Their problem, to a great extent, from now on, will be shortage of workers. Our problem will not alone be to provide work for the people who will be displaced as a result of the new Trade Agreement with Britain and, possibly later on, after we go into the EEC, but to deal with the seemingly everlasting problem of emigration.
This presents a much different problem from the British one and it is even more important for us here in Ireland to get off on the right foot as far as a manpower policy is concerned. In that regard there is a further OECD Report on what has been accomplished in Canada. Here we have something that should interest particularly our State and semi-State bodies. Canada has, according to this OECD Report, been one of the most active in dealing with manpower and social problems. A special committee of OECD examined into the Canadian experience. One of the big problems in Canada is underemployment where, during the summer season and autumn season, there is a great deal of employment but, in the winter months, according to this OECD Report, there are approximately 585,000 people losing their jobs. Consequently, there is a great deal of seasonal employment.
The Canadians have taken steps to deal with that problem. We have a similar problem here. We have it in Bord na Móna, for instance, where the peak season is reached around May and June and then from October on, the employment content goes down drastically. The ESB is another body concerned in that regard and indeed, also the Sugar Company. So far, in this country, no effort whatever has been made to put those displaced workers into other employment during the winter months. We should take immediate action in the setting up of a manpower plan.
Last year, the Federal Government in Canada spent ten million dollars in training 27,000 adults. There are special training centres for the unemployed and, during the period the unemployed are being trained—I would like the Minister to note this—they still receive unemployment benefits and, in certain cases, additional allowances as well. There is no question of workers in Canada being asked to pay for the retraining where the question of redundancy or unemployment is concerned. Further still, in Canada —this is something which should be interesting—there is a lay-off early warning system, where particular firms find the going hard, perhaps through competition or amalgamation, or, as the case will be here, through outside competition with the protective barriers removed. We must insist on early warning being brought into operation here so that the workers will have plenty of time to take advantage of whatever plans the Government have available to retrain them and to compensate them during the period when they are unemployed through no fault of their own.
The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to industrial efforts here as one of the means by which a manpower policy is being implemented. Two areas have been chosen in this regard—Waterford and Galway. While I agree with the selection, I think the problem is too urgent to justify selecting just two areas, both of which are reasonably well off at the moment, and let the remainder of the country, particularly the west of Ireland and, perhaps, down along the south coast, wait until the Government see the results of their planning in the Galway and Waterford areas. This problem of unemployment and emigration in Ireland is too serious to dilly-dally with like that—a long term wait - and - see - what - happens - in - Galway - and - Waterford outlook—before taking steps to deal with the remainder of the country. If we have to wait until those two areas are dealt with, there will be nobody left in the undeveloped counties and the Gaeltacht areas. There seems to be no feeling of urgency on the part of the Government to tackle these localities. Counties like Kerry, Clare, Donegal, Cavan and Longford are suffering grievously at the moment from emigration. It is not merely the sons and daughters who are leaving but the fathers and mothers are packing up on these small holdings, and the Government's White Paper and the NIEC Report have admitted that, by 1970, they expect to see a reduction of approximately 36,000 people in the land; in other words, a flight of 36,000 people from the land.
That is the view of the Government in planning the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, and it is also the view of the people who prepared the NIEC Report. But, to show how far the Government have realised this, I should like to quote from a speech by Dr. E.A. Attwood of An Foras Talúntais, as reported in the Irish Times of Friday, 28th January 1966. He was speaking, at a lecture, on the exodus from agriculture in the Republic which would create difficult social problems throughout the countryside. He said:
Already the rate of migration is nearly double that foreseen in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.
It is fantastic to find that in 1965 people were leaving the land in approximately the same numbers as the Government estimated they would be in 1970.
What will the position be over the next five years? The Second Programme has been proved wrong; the NIEC people have been proved wrong and the Government's estimates have gone haywire. There is the proof. So, when we find no feeling of urgency in dealing with this, it will not be worthwhile trying to do anything about it by 1970. I should like to quote exactly what Dr. Attwood went on to say:
Migration on such a scale would create difficult social problems in the countryside; the present rate was now nearly double that foreseen in the Second Programme, and the level of the farm employment was, at this stage, very close to the expected position in 1970.
When we have that position in the country, it makes me very doubtful of statistics produced by the Government to prove how successful their Second Programme will be, and it throws doubt on the sources of income available to the people who prepared the NIEC Report.