Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Dec 1981

Vol. 96 No. 15

Youth Employment Agency Bill, 1981: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Fallon

This is important legislation at a time when we have a very serious job crisis. It is the worst for 50 years. While I welcome the Bill I also have some reservations about it. The Bill deals with a scheme for the training and employment of young persons and provides for the payment of a levy on incomes to defray the expenditure.

I wonder if we are introducing this Bill at the right time. I know the Labour Party were anxious to have it but, having regard to the fact that we are in an economic depression rather than in an economic expansion, I feel the Bill would work better if we were on schedule with our economic targets.

It is only right to pay tribute to groups which are already involved in this type of work, for example, AnCO who in my town have a training centre and are doing fabulous work training people. They do not get good results all the time. They do not have the success rate that we would like. Nonetheless, they should be congratulated and complimented for the great work they have been doing and will continue to do. If I were in AnCO I would show some concern for this Bill. It strikes me that there is a clear duplication of work. Will AnCO take over this new agency or will this agency take over AnCO? Two bureaucratic organisations dealing with one problem does not seem to me to be right. I wonder if this Bill should be forgotten about. If AnCO were expanded would that not suffice? If additional money was put into AnCO and into building new training centres would that be the answer?

The Bill is not as strong as I would like, and as many would like, in regard to job creation. Surely this is the nub of the whole thing. There is no point in having youth employment agencies if there are no jobs for the youth. What are we training them for? I am aware of many people who were trained for welding and were unable to get jobs. They took other jobs in our area which were completely different from what they were trained for. Unless at the end of the day there are jobs for these young people, this agency will prove to be unnecessary.

In the Cathaoirleach's own constituency there was a meeting held recently to have Westmeath and Longford declared as disadvantaged areas in the hope that opportunities for more jobs would be created. There is in that constituency one advance factory which has been built for close on seven years and nobody has taken it up. If this situation was to continue we would be training people for advance factories which maybe would never be occupied. Not enough emphasis is placed on job creation. I wonder what role the National Development Corporation will play in the future. Will it be doing the same work as the IDA? Should we not expand the IDA and give it greater powers?

If we asked any young man or woman which they would prefer, a job in the Post Office, the ESB or any of the semi-State bodies, to be a labourer or an installer or to do a course with AnCO in the hope of getting a job, I feel that 95 per cent of them would be in favour of taking the job. Therefore I feel that instead of having this agency expanded or introduced at all the embargo on jobs should be lifted. Why not allow the Department of Posts and Telegraphs or the ESB or any other body to take on these young men? They would gladly jump at it and would prefer it.

The whole strategy of economic progress by the Government is in some way in reverse. I read recently that the programmes which were planned by the National Board for Science and Technology may be scrapped due to economic pressures. Advance technology is one of our greatest industrial needs and there will be no jobs without it. While I appreciate and have very serious concern for youth and the fact that they should have jobs, I am not all that happy that this Bill is necessary. I would prefer to see an expansion of the AnCO scheme which has in many ways proved itself. Perhaps at the end of the day the result of this Bill will be that the only people who will get jobs will be the new instructors that may be employed.

It is obvious that the job crisis must be tackled and solved. The real role of Government must be to put 80,000 or 100,000 young people into jobs over the next couple of years. I cannot see this Bill doing that. The 1 per cent levy is another form of income tax and is reducing the incomes of the PAYE sector and possibly that will bring extra claims. If people were asked to pay 1 per cent or 2 per cent for the creation of jobs they would have very little objection to doing so. Perhaps when the contents of this Bill are fully realised, the people will revolt in some way. It might appear to them that this is not really the way to tackle the problem of job creation.

I hope this Bill will prove everybody wrong. I have reservations about it and I will continue to have them until I am proved wrong. Nonetheless, I have to give some agreement to it because the youth are our greatest asset and they are desperately in need of jobs.

There was a programme about Finglas recently on television and it highlighted the violence there. Because young people had no jobs, they were on the streets and engaged in vandalism and violence. I hope the Bill succeeds and I wish it every success. I hope that many people who like myself have reservations about it will be proved wrong.

Mr. R. Bruton

There are three aspects of the Bill which are very worth while. The first is the principle that the employed carry some responsibility for those who are not fortunate enough to have jobs. That is one of the great virtues of earmarking the 1 per cent levy for this specific purpose. A prominent leader of one of the unions said recently that people are willing to make sacrifices if they feel that it will benefit those in need. This is a scheme where we can make it clear that the sacrifice of 1 per cent of income from those in employment will go to a specific area of need. With reference to the remarks of Senator Fallon, the fact that it is ear-marked for a specific purpose will make the public all the more sensitive to how well the money is being spent. Perhaps this is a worth while initiative because too many schemes are financed from general taxation and nobody thinks any more about them. This one will have a specific tax allocated to it. The public who are paying that tax will be watching to see how their money is spent.

The second aspect of the Bill, which I warmly welcome, is the aim to help young people who get a poor start in their employment career. There is no doubt that many people are entering unemployment-prone occupations, particularly those who leave school without adequate training or qualification. In later years the likelihood is that they will become the long-term unemployed who have to be financed by the State. They are also a tremendous loss to the community.

The third aspect of the Bill that I welcome is the fact that it gives an opening to voluntary organisations to come up with proposals that would be financed by the agency. There is an enormous number of voluntary organisations who are doing worthwhile work but they do need a certain amount of pump-priming in cash to get their ideas going. Although there is a big problem at present for all young people seeking jobs, I should like the agency to give priority to those who leave school at 15 or earlier, often without qualifications. There is a strong bias in our educational system against children from unskilled and semi-skilled backgrounds. It has been shown that about 80 per cent of those leave school at 15 years of age whereas no children from professional backgrounds leave early. There is a need to redress that imbalance and this agency will perhaps give us an opportunity to do so.

There is also evidence that as many as 25 per cent of those who leave school early have reading problems. That is a serious handicap for anyone seeking a job. I should like to see this agency tackling that problem through its training activities. There is also evidence that those who leave without qualification are prone to very high unemployment. A recent survey showed that within a year 20 per cent of those who leave school without a qualification are unemployed whereas the proportion of those who leave with their leaving certificate is only 4 per cent. There is no doubt that people who leave without qualification are suffering high unemployment and there is also evidence that their employment history is very chequered. They get a job and they are likely to be out of it a short time afterwards when full adult rates have to be paid. I should like to see the Youth Employment Agency provide an opportunity to redress the balance in our educational system and give specific attention to these people. It is estimated that there are about 5,000 people in this category.

The Minister mentioned that he would be looking at the question of how school-leavers are equipped when they leave school. He should also look at what pressures bring them into unemployment-prone activities. Studies of the inner city show that there is tremendous economic pressure for young people to go straight into such activities as unskilled labour in the building industry where there is a high risk of unemployment. That situation should be examined to see if there is any way the agency could reduce vulnerability there.

I am a bit sceptical about the temporary job experience and public work ideas that are at present in operation. If people have a trade, in good or bad times they will always have something to put their hands to and there is not the same risk of unemployment. We may not approve of nixers but people with a trade have opportunities to do small jobs that will keep them going.

There is an anomaly in the present situation in that people without their leaving certificate who want to do a second chance course might gain entry to it on the grounds of their experience do not get assistance from the State but the Department of Education grants require one to have the leaving certificate and some of the AnCO grants require one to have the promotion of an employer. There are people who have been caught in a catch-22 situation. They did not get their leaving certificate, want to improve themselves but find they cannot get State assistance. That is another area worth taking a look at.

If I was to question something about the agency, it is that it may be casting its net too wide by considering 40,000 people. If we were to do the job properly for a small number of really vulnerable people we would be doing a better day's work. Forty thousand people are about two-thirds of school-leavers. It is an immense task to consider providing opportunities for that number. Such a scheme, with its net thrown so wide, would be availed of more by the relatively privileged as is the case with so many schemes. They are better informed of what opportunities are there and they are usually more adept at getting what is going. I question that aspect of the Bill. I appreciate that there is a commitment in that area but it would be worthwhile to emphasise a target group within those 40,000 people.

As I understand the Minister, the Youth Employment Agency's activities will be in three distinct areas. One is training, the other is something in the area of public works and the final one is in the area of new enterprise. The training programme conducted by AnCO is highly successful, particularly in the high placement rate of people who have completed the programme. I have some misgivings about the cost of the training programme. I was looking at the AnCO report and it appears that the training of an individual costs about £2,000 for an average of a 12 month course. The cost of a full year in university is hardly much more than that. The question is, why is it so dear? I do not think that payment of allowances is the explanation because they do not seem to make up the balance. Perhaps one of the results of this Bill will be to get more people to join the courses thus reducing the unit costs. There may be too many courses run by AnCO with too few members.

The other area of training is the work-experience programme which costs £400 per person for six months. This does not seem very expensive but the problem here is placement. What happens to people who do the work-experience programme and are then left without jobs? I should like to see some placement emphasis brought into that programme to avoid having the young people back at square one after the six months' course. The Farm Apprenticeship Board should not be forgotten as it could do with assistance for its activities.

The public works area is the most thorny of all that the Youth Employment Agency are taking on. It is very difficult to devise tasks that have a worth-while experience content and at the same time permit people, if they find an employment opportunity, to take it. It is designed to avoid unfair competition with workers or small businesses. Many things like hedge cutting or drainage are the sort of things people think of in terms of public works and there are legitimate private businesses who have bought equipment to serve those needs. This area will be very difficult for the agency to tackle. Another question raised by several speakers is what opportunities that will be available for people who finish these programmes. This is a big problem in a programme that does not include training content.

Another worry I have about the public works aspect is the danger that it will become a continuing subsidy towards certain schemes. Perhaps the county councils will build it into their finances and instead of providing a new activity it will end up financing something that would have gone on anyway. These are problems that have to be solved.

There are at present 20,000 new entrants into the labour force each year and the problem of youth unemployment will not go away. The two existing schemes carrying this kind of work are the environmental assistance through the county councils and that of the Department of Education. They are costing about £1,600 per person. What is not clear is whether those people get a full year's work. In the council with which I work people just get seasonal work. Environmental schemes involve council engineers who are highly paid. If this scheme is to continue perhaps it would be possible to recruit young people for work on the ground and also young graduates who would be involved in the designing and supervision of these schemes.

With regard to the public works area, the main thrust should not be through any Government or local government agency such as a county council. The main emphasis should be on the voluntary organisations who have worth-while ideas that will mean additional new works for young people. They would also provide local funding in the locality where the scheme was going ahead. All in all, it would be a much better scheme.

I would like to see a major emphasis on advertising the availability of assistance by the Youth Employment Agency for voluntary organisations. There are many things that could be done in this area. In the specific area of the disabled person's grant for home improvements there is an enormous number of people who would like to avail of that grant but are not able to and the county councils are not willing to take on the work by direct labour. That is a worth-while grant but it is effectively closed to the people who are most in need. They do not have the capacity to organise the work. That is the sort of area I would like to see emphasis on rather than the environmental work schemes that are at present being undertaken by the councils. The final area which I think is the most interesting and exciting part of the Youth Employment Agency is the commitment to new enterprise promotion for young people. I would mention a few points in that connection.

The first point is that design in this country has been the real Cinderella of our industrial policy. In Denmark and several other European countries their great success has been in their ability to have small industries which thrive by virtue of the fact that they have exceptionally good design. They design their furniture, shoes and so on specifically to the needs of their domestic market. They have perfected design. I would like to see more educational emphasis put on design in this country and more centres, such as the Kilkenny Design Centre, located throughout the countryside. If we could encourage young people, particularly young people who get a trade through AnCO courses, into thinking about design and new products, we could really make a worth-while contribution to employment creation in the country.

One idea floated recently in Wales and in Northern Ireland is that for people coming off training courses such as those run by AnCO there would be the possibility of worker co-ops setting up new employment centres where they would actually take an idea and bring it to the commercial stage. I think that is worth while studying in this country because the problem with young people who are considering setting up in industry is that they are on their own and feel a bit isolated and if they had the support of an AnCO course plus that of their own peers something worth-while could be done.

The area of new small enterprise is one which we should be thinking about very seriously. The existing IDA scheme for new enterprise is restricted in that it requires management experience for people to avail of it. To my mind the kind of person who comes forward with ideas for products is much more the person with a trade who is used to working with products rather than someone with management experience. I question that restriction in the IDA scheme. I think we should go further, if possible, and perhaps give a tax holiday of the nature that has been given to larger industry to young people setting up new enterprises. A short tax holiday could ease them over the difficult setting-up period.

Another thing I would like to see the Youth Employment Agency do is to list in areas such as counties or regions services that are available and perhaps identify gaps into which young people could slot. In the agricultural area there are agricultural relief services or agricultural contracting in some counties. There are big gaps there. People are not able to make silage because of the lack of contractors. There would be opportunities that could be identified by this agency and help given to people to fill them. When dealing with new enterprise promotion the agency should not be afraid of a high failure rate. Perhaps a high failure rate would be a symptom that it was at least getting to the sort of people who might not otherwise get a chance to get going.

I am convinced that the IDA-type job with its very high capital expenditure per place is not going to be the answer for the sort of employment growth that the Minister was talking about — 20,000 per annum new entrants to the labour force as well as our existing high level of unemployment. We must look to the new areas, such as new enterprise, on-going programmes of work for young people and training, as is envisaged in this Bill.

It is a very exciting Bill. It opens enormous possibilities but it also faces enormous problems. I would like to wish it well in the coming years. I would also like to request that perhaps every two years or so there would be an independent review, perhaps by the Oireachtas Joint Committee, of its activities. There is no doubt that in other countries programmes such as this have run into problems. The British programme was radically changed yesterday because of problems it encountered. I do not know the details of that and there may be some political activity going on there that we do not know about, but I think there is a real need to examine at frequent intervals what is going on in this area. I would like to see the Minister accept a two-year review of its activity by an Oireachtas Joint Committee.

Professor Hillery

I would like to extend a warm welcome to the Minister to the Seanad and to wish him well in his very demanding and onerous portfolio. The proposed Youth Employment Agency looks like a logical development but we will, of course, have to wait to see how it works out in practice. Clearly there is merit in establishing a single coordinating body concerned with the training and employment of young people. However, I hope the agency will serve as an imaginative forum for examining and promoting further ways and means of providing job opportunities for our ever-growing numbers of young people. Given the scale of the youth employment problem, imaginative and even radical steps will be necessary if a serious impact is to be made.

Unlike other European countries, in Ireland we have unique demographic features. Half the population is under 25 years and the birth rate is particularly high by international standards. This makes the challenge to create more jobs for young people that much greater. When I left secondary school in the fifties, emigration was commonplace. The position then was that collectively we deplored emigration but individually saw it as a valuable route to jobs, however disappointing it might have been for those who had to emigrate. Today, however, educational levels and expectations are much higher than they were 20 years ago or so. Young people today understandably expect to get jobs in their own country. Emigration in sizeable numbers is no longer an option. Job opportunities abroad are minimal particularly because of the persistence of the international recession. Like so many others, I am very disturbed by the high level of unemployment among our young people. It can result in a discouraged and demoralised youth whose educational achievements and expectations are generally high. The challenge is to make every conceivable effort to create more jobs and to avoid demoralising these young people at the start of their working lives.

Getting the first job is the biggest single problem. This is a particular problem for those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Senator Bruton has already elaborated on the problems relating to this category. Prospective employers, as we all know well, place great store on experience, especially if that experience relates to the job under consideration. However, experience which is not directly relevant can be turned to advantage. The existing programmes conducted by AnCO and the National Manpower Service are certainly important steps in the right direction. There is the need to allocate more resources to job creation for young people. If we do not — and we must look at the alternative here — not alone will the cost of keeping these young people unemployed continue to be a big drain on the Exchequer but we may provoke our youth into rejecting our democratic system, which they will see as having failed them. Government have the primary task of undertaking all possible measures to stimulate job creation and reduce job losses. I readily recognise that any Government have to operate within financial constraints.

I would like to refer to the link between manpower planning and education. Much emphasis has been correctly placed on the transition from school to work. This underlines the important link between manpower planning and our educational system. Furthermore, it underlines the need for the closest liaison between the Departments of Labour and Education. The ad hoc responses to date reflected in the training courses now available underline the need, first of all for long-term planning in relation to manpower and, secondly, on the educational and training side, the urgent need for a long-term plan for curriculum development. The need for curriculum development was emphasised and elaborated upon by the Minister for Education when we were discussing a motion here quite recently. Curricula must be constantly monitored in order to keep them relevant to the needs of our changing society. I welcome, therefore, the provision in the Bill that one of the directors of the proposed agency will be nominated by the Minister for Education. There is also an urgent need, as the Minister has underlined, for close liaison between the Department of Education and those who formulate industrial policy. It is a serious omission in the Bill that not even one of the directors will be nominated by the Minister for Industry and Energy.

On the question of preparation for work, too often we have seen the mismatch between jobs available and the skills of people who are seeking jobs. Industry and small industry in particular offer hope for jobs in the future. The Curriculum Development Centre attached to the comprehensive school in Shannon is particularly relevant in this respect. It is an exciting development relating to the preparation for the transition from school to work. This community-based learning experiment in Shannon is being run in schools in the mid-west region, in Shannon, Limerick city and in several schools in my native Clare. It is funded £ for £ by the Department of Education and by the EEC.

In order to break down the divide between schools and the community they adopt particular strategies. First, liaison groups of local parents, teachers, employers and trade unionists act as a link between the schools and the community. In Ennis, for example, the liaison group have conducted a survey on the difficulties experienced by young people in moving from school to work. In Scarriff the liaison group have worked on a module on farm accounts with a view to incorporating it into the school course in commerce.

The liaison groups serve as the link for community-based learning run by the schools. Under this arrangement young people go to a variety of work places for three hours a day over a number of weeks. Somebody in the work place acts as a tutor, as a focal point for the pupils. The pupil is expected under the guidance of the teacher in the school and with the co-operation of the tutor in the work place, to fill out work sheets, and write reports based on what he has learned through inquiry about the particular work place: what it does, the trade union side of the picture, the management side, how the company is organised and so on.

The third element in this very interesting and relevant programme is the mini-company, where students learn literally through doing. In some cases it is a part of the school metalwork course where the company product is a metalwork product, for example, the production of metal brackets. In others it is a longer running scheme as part of a pre-employment course. The most successful mini-companies have learned most from the tutors in the work place.

This experimental work in curriculum development has attracted international attention, in Britain, Germany and Denmark. It costs money but there is no financial provision for it beyond 1982. Once more we are back to the cost factor. It is a pilot scheme recognised by the Department of Education. When it is evaluated it may be considered worth-while to be recognised officially as an alternative programme available to all schools. I hope it will be so considered.

Clearly the experiment is addressing the vital phase of the transition from school to work and the results should be of immediate interest to the Youth Employment Agency.

I wish the Youth Employment Agency well and I would like to live up to the hopes placed in it by the Minister.

Mr. Byrne

I had intended to speak on two aspects of this Bill: one, the Bill itself and, secondly, the attitude of the other side of the House towards the Bill. Much has been said about the Bill, its terms and what it envisages doing and little more can be added. I will deal with the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party towards this Bill but first I should like to compliment Senator Hillery on his very constructive approach towards the Bill. His speech was an excellent contribution.

Having listened to the debate here and having read the reports of the debate in the other House, I find it extraordinary that this measure which aims to provide a solution to unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, should be receiving, in the words of the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, a reluctant acceptance. It sickens me to listen to and read reports of attempts having been made to extract what can be termed political mileage in such a sensitive and important area.

The question was posed this morning: is this the right opportunity to introduce the Bill? It has been insinuated that it is not necessary, while other speakers have questioned why it has taken so long to introduce this Bill and have admitted the urgency of taking the necessary steps.

I have heard in this House the Bill being called a monster, ready to gobble up funds made available for other jobs. Personally I do not mind if this Bill is called a monster because I associate a monster with strong teeth and this Bill will need strong teeth if it is to grapple with the many problems in this area of youth unemployment.

The Government's approach to unemployment has been classed as pessimistic, depressing and uninspiring. Yet, the people on the other side of the House supported the Bill in the other House and from what I can gather they intend supporting it here as well. It has also been described as a fraud, seeking to extract money from one area and to use it in another, or to finance existing agencies. It is spelled out clearly in the terms of reference that while the existing agencies are providing for some 20,000 places per year, this Bill proposes to facilitate 40,000 people in the year ending December 1982. One would honestly think that the Fianna Fáil Party were a new party altogether, like Shirley William's party in England, with no experience whatsoever in government.

Another feature I found difficult to accept was the inference that this Bill was an indictment of existing agencies, that the Government have no faith in AnCO, or in the National Manpower Service. That is not so. The Government recognise the tremendous work that has been done by these agencies and it is to coordinate the work that they are doing and to extend it to include more of our young people that this Bill has been introduced.

Serious reservations were expressed in this House about the operation of AnCO, particularly in relation to the apprenticeship scheme but the major point made, which I find unreasonable, was the attack on the 1 per cent levy. I suppose we can excuse it to some extent as it is coming up to Christmas, but you would honestly think that some fairy godmother existed to provide funds out of the sky for carrying out operations such as this. Concern has been expressed that the poor PAYE workers will have to put their hands in their pockets and pay this levy. I know that people in secure employment are only too willing to assist in providing employment for our young people. Someone even had the audacity to say that some scheme should be introduced whereby this 1 per cent levy would be refunded to employees. This is extraordinary double-thinking. Nowhere in the thousands of words that have been spoken in the Lower House and in this House has there been an alternative to financing this scheme. Of course, it can be said that this is a responsibility of the Government, but in my opinion it is an irresponsible attitude.

I believe we owe it to our young people to take what steps we think are reasonable, steps we think this country can afford and which the country demands, to make avenues of employment available to them. This Bill provides that no young person will be left without some form of work training or work experience within a relatively short period of completing his or her education. I take the words from the Minister's address to this House. I hope that this work will encompass meaningful work, that it will be properly supervised and lead to full-time employment.

Above all our youth must be steered away from the soul-destroying dole queues which are sapping the moral fibre of many. At a time when so much infrastructural and amenity work is left undone in this country, the payment of unemployment benefit and assistance does not make sense. I feel strongly about this. I have referred to it on other occasions and I will keep focusing attention on this system of paying out vast sums of money when so much work can be done for a little more money. I admit however, that to bring about a change would need an in-depth study but I hope cognisance will be taken of it in implementing this Bill.

Finally, I would like to join in the welcome that the House is giving to this Bill. I would like in particular to congratulate the Minister on bringing it in so soon to tackle such an important matter. Having read through and listened to the whole argument on the part of Fianna Fáil, I think they should have the courage to vote against it. I leave it at that.

Mr. Ross

I do not join in the general welcome which is being given to this Bill. I may be on my own about this. I would certainly vote against it if I had enough Members on my side to force a vote.

I see the Bill purely as the keeping of an election promise. Very little thought and planning have gone into this Bill. The whole attitude is "Let us set up this agency that we promised to set up during the election campaign and let them get on with it". That is not the way to tackle unemployment. Unemployment is a serious and a fundamental social problem. You cannot tackle unemployment by just setting up an agency, taking 1 per cent off people's income and then saying "Let us get on and see what happens". Unemployment has to be tackled in schools and in all areas of society. Unemployment cannot possibly be solved by setting up an agency like the National Manpower Service or AnCO. I do not know what the relationship of this agency will be with them but we will come to that on Committee Stage.

I am sorry that the Bill is not more detailed. We have absolutely no clear indication of the Government's thinking in the detailed tackling of unemployment. All we have is the setting up of a very vaguely defined body whose powers are set out in the Bill very vaguely also. We have no clear indication of how the Government think unemployment is going to be reduced as a result of this.

The obvious idea behind the establishment of the agency is to provide training for the unemployed. I represent a large number of graduates from Trinitv College many of whom do arts degrees — which train you for nothing — but many are extremely well trained in engineering, law and medicine. An enormous number of these very well-trained people cannot get jobs. This Bill is an escapist Bill in that its intent is to train people and thus occupy them for a certain amount of time, but they will be trained for jobs which do not exist. This happens in universities to people who are trained for very technical subjects. I would like the Government to say that at the end of this training programme, people who have availed of the services of the Youth Employment Agency will find jobs. That is where the problem lies. People who will be occupied for a certain period of time will have absolutely nothing to do after their training. Nothing is worse than over-qualification for jobs which do not exist and to have people technically over-qualified for jobs in which they are employed is not much better. The thinking in this Bill reveals that escapist attitude to training for employment.

I like the idea of a 1 per cent levy which is earmarked for a specific object but I am worried about how this is going to work. I would like the Minister's assurance about this. The 1 per cent presumably will be levied and then go to the Exchequer. When the Department of Finance get their hands on this 1 per cent will they hand it straight back to the Youth Employment Agency or will they take their cut on the way? I will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. I doubt whether the Department of Finance, having obtained that money, will undertake to give it all back to the agency immediately. I suspect that it will get lost in the system and will not go straight to the Youth Employment Agency.

The Government have put much emphasis on youth employment, but the enormous problem of middle-aged unemployed people exists. A large number of people who have been trained by AnCO and the National Manpower Service are unemployed, and they are in their forties and fifties. They seem to be forgotten. The youth are very important and that is where the votes are, but the middle-aged unemployed are a real problem. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

Mr. Leonard

I would like to add my voice to wish the Minister well. We all agree that one of the most serious problems facing our country at present is unemployment, particularly of youth. Unemployment has been the root cause of serious problems in many countries, and we cannot ignore it. It has caused wars, for instance the Second World War. The figure of 27 per cent of our unemployed in November being in the youth bracket gives rise to serious thought. We hope that the Youth Employment Agency envisaged in this Bill will operate with the various agencies that exist at present, such as AnCO, and the schemes operated by the Department of the Environment, because of their various activities should be co-ordinated.

Regarding the 1 per cent, I suppose we all have reservations regarding deductions. As the last speaker said, once money finds its way into the Department of Finance there may be a problem in re-routing it to the purpose for which it was intended in the first instance.

AnCO have done terrific work. The schemes which they are operating throughout the country should be extended to at least one VEC in each country. For instance, the centre for the Cavan-Monaghan constituency which I represent is in Dundalk. With two large VEC's in the constituency at least two centres could be set up to deal with the crafts and operations in that area. These counties specialise in furniture and footwear manufacture and light engineering and the people there are adaptable to those occupations. In the five Border counties money is made available under the non-quota section of the regional fund to promote craft industries, yet they have fewer craft industries than practically any of the other counties. At the craft display in the RDS I was struck by the fact that the areas to which money was being made available under the non-quota section were very weak as far as displays were concerned and only a few examples were on exhibit. In this field availability of money from the EEC should be examined and the various Departments should co-operate for this purpose. The Minister in his speech mentioned under the terms of reference of the company:

(g) to identify areas outside the scope of existing programmes into which Government aid to young people could be extended, for example, agriculture and other primary activities;

Here the Minister's Department are concerned in conjunction with the Department of Trade, Commerce and Tourism and the Department of Agriculture. A Department will tend to set up agencies to deal with their own area and build up their own structure. More co-operation is necessary.

The development of agriculture was mentioned. At present we import massive amounts of fruit and vegetables. Today's Order Paper for the Dáil lists Deputies' queries to the Taoiseach regarding amounts, quantities and so on. It is sad that at present we have massive imports of fruit and vegetables and advance factories lying idle. In every county large areas of land are held by the Land Commission which could be put into production on a short-term basis. Some two-pronged action must be taken to create employment and eliminate the unnecessary importation of fruit, vegetables and various other products which we have the capacity to produce at home.

Probably the local authorities and the health boards could do more in the field of youth employment. It is important that the Department ensure that local authorities do not absorb youth in maintenance and similar jobs and that money devoted to youth employment through the Department of the Environment be used on projects some of which would have long-term benefit.

The farm apprenticeship scheme has been mentioned. This country is facing a serious problem regarding employment and balance of payments, and we must take a very hard look at our natural resources. Extra jobs provided under the farm apprenticeship scheme would have the additional effect of reducing imports.

A previous speaker seemed very critical of the approach of the Opposition in Dáil Éireann to this Bill. He mentioned AnCO and the apprenticeship scheme. It is important that the Opposition keep the pressure on the Government when Bills are going through either House. They are the watchdogs and they must ensure that the best possible use is made of our resources. The Senator should not be too sensitive about the Opposition prying into every aspect of legislation which comes before either House.

Mr. Kennedy

Ar dtús, is mian liomsa fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo chun fostaíocht agus traenáil a chur ar fáil don aos óg. Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go breá leis an mBille chun chuid de na fadhbanna fostaíochta agus traenála atá againn a leasú agus a réiteach.

I would like to join with the other Senators in welcoming the Minister to this House and in welcoming the decision of the Government to set up a Youth Employment Agency so that young people can be spared the social evil and economic waste of long spells of unemployment and inactivity. The magnitude of the daunting task facing this Government and the new agency can be seen from the fact that we have 37,000 unemployed young people in the 15 to 25 age bracket. That represents almost 28 per cent of the total number of people unemployed. We must also remember that 65,000 young people are leaving our schools annually in search of employment.

Therefore, I welcome this Bill which will have a wide mandate to tackle in a unified and concerted way the great problem of youth unemployment. It will have the flexibility to embark on new departures and new schemes. The proposals in the Bill represent a comprehensive package on the lines of the youth guarantee programme in the Scandinavian countries and will assist in alleviating the plight of our young school leavers. A total of 40,000 young people or an additional 20,000 will be catered for in 1982. This is a very significant effort on the part of this Government and it represents a doubling of the effort in 1981. The agency will have a special role in catering for the socially deprived and the disadvantaged young people. I am sure that this agency will intensify the effort on behalf of those young people who have been more than six months out of school. These proposals are designed to ensure, as the Minister said, that no young person will be left without some form of training or work experience within a short time of leaving school.

I welcome the fact also that the European Social Fund will be used to play a significant role in financing the training schemes. The agency will have the power and the facility to relate directly to local interest. This is an important aspect of this Bill. They will have the facility to assist financially and with advice and back-up services and to devise and implement schemes at local level. In this connection I would like to compliment SFADCo in my own area of mid-west Limerick for the great expertise, endeavour and sense of purpose which they have shown in advancing and promoting small native industry. I believe that the new agency will co-operate fully with that company. I also urge the fullest co-operation between the innovation centre and the national micro-application centre situated at the NIHE, Limerick. The basic aim of those two organisations is to push Irish industry abreast of that of other countries in technology in export performance and in the development of new products.

In the context of this Bill I take the opportunity of congratulating a lady from Limerick, Mrs. Greta McMahon, who this week won the award for the best overall adult trainee of the year. Unfortunately some years ago this lady lost her husband and three of her five children in tragic accidents, but she picked up the pieces and got back into the world of work. It was marvellous that this week she won that award. This was due mainly to AnCO in Limerick.

The new agency will have a major role to play in alleviating the problems and the scourge of unemployment among our young people. I am very pleased to welcome this Bill.

Mr. Lanigan

I welcome the Minister to the House and I welcome the debate which this Bill has generated. I would not like Senator Byrne to think that we on this side of the House are being too euphoric about what is contained in this Bill. He ran away with himself in his comments on what was purportedly said on this side of the House. He mentioned the iar-Thaoiseach. That may have been a slip of the tongue and I am not sure what he meant. The only regret Deputy Haughey expressed in connection with this Bill was his reluctant agreement to allow all stages of the Bill to be pushed through the Dáil before Christmas, and I do not think that anyone should be too worried about that.

The Bill is merely to set up a structure which will not itself create jobs but will create within the civil service another bureaucracy even though it is being set up as a limited company. The limited company's board is to be made up of two employer representatives, two people from trade unions, two people from youth organisations and five from Government Departments. It would appear that at present the structuring of training courses and training organisations involves a superfluity of people from Government Departments. I cannot see how we are going to get away from bureaucracy if another agency incorporating too many people from Government Departments is set up.

The suggestion was made that every penny collected from the 1 per cent levy should go to youth employment directly. It has been suggested also that the money collected will go not alone to schemes which will arise as a result of this new agency but also to the agencies which exist already. What increase in money will be available to agencies such as AnCO, Department of Education and Department of the Environment schemes, the National Manpower Service and so on? It sees that very little extra will be available because no money is to be taken from general taxation and that all money will come from the 1 per cent levy.

The problem of youth unemployment is a major one and the setting up of an agency who will consider basically short-term work courses and short-term training courses will not solve it. It is impossible to get into an AnCO apprenticeship scheme at present. The training courses are completely full. One of the problems arising now in the AnCO training centres is that a number of the apprentices there who were sponsored by firms now find that these firms are going out of business. A large number of appretices at present in AnCO training centres will have no jobs when they complete their year or second year or whatever time applies to their full-time release courses.

Another major factor inhibiting youth employment is the fact that employers in, for example, the building industry, the motor industry and allied engineering businesses are not now taking on apprentices. This is creating a problem of youth unemployment on the one hand, but sufficient people will not have the skills or the training to take up jobs which will become available if and when an upsurge in our economic situation occurs.

Employers throughout the country are extremely worried because of the imposition of levies on the gross salaries of their employees and the PRSI content which they themselves have to bear. A 1 per cent levy might not seem a large imposition on any employee but taken in context with the enormous increases in PAYE and PRSI, that 1 per cent is a significant levy. According to reports it will be taken from all salaries which are taxable. Therefore an apprentice starting work, because of the low point of tax relief, will immediately be liable for payment of the levy. It would appear that in January PAYE and PRSI charges will be increased again. The levy cannot be taken in isolation. It has to be seen in the context of all the other deductions from gross salary that already exist. Nobody should criticise a levy which is intended to pay for the creation of jobs, but I am afraid that that will not be the outcome of the setting up of this agency. I sincerely hope that it will be.

Most work experience programmes that I have seen up to now have not been of great benefit to the participants. They have been of too short duration and have not produced jobs for the people who have gone through the process. People attending these courses sometimes develop a psychological belief that they will be able to continue in employment, while unfortunately, all too often the reverse is the case and they simply revert to the unemployment assistance queue. If they live at home and are assessed as contributing to the family income, they will not be paid unemployment assistance. A great many young people at present have very little income, and people then wonder why they get into trouble with their parents and with society in general. This is bound to happen.

The young people of today will not praise us if we suggest that this Bill is the panacea for all their troubles or that it will solve even a small portion of their problems. It will not. Its major beneficial impact will be the establishing of an agency who could co-ordinate the work of the agencies that exist at present in the field of youth training and youth employment, but will this be the case when there is no mention in the Minister's speech or in the Bill of the co-ordinating role that the agency will paly between Manpower, the AnCO training centres and the other services which exist at present? This Bill does not appear to set up a structural arrangement. I cannot say what will happen when the Bill becomes law. Maybe the people nominated to the board of the agency by the Minister for Labour, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Education will be working already within the ambit of the agencies which exist at present. I do not know.

Rural schemes were mentioned and it was said that environmental schemes throughout the country could be brought into play under this Bill. One thing that people need if they are going to work is supervision and the expertise of people in the county councils, or the Department of the Environment. We are at the stage, particularly in county councils, where there is no money available to employ supervisory staff of any type. It is wrong to say that we can put young people to work in environmental schemes without having them properly organised and without the back-up service being given by the county councils. There is no county council here at present which could release staff on a scheme of an environmental nature such as a work programme for young people. I may be wrong, but it definitely could not happen in our county at present.

Regarding the HEA courses available to young people at present, somebody must have a look at the courses available under the HEA scheme. It seems that the preponderance of courses which are involved there are to do with the arts type subjects which, while good in themselves, are not exactly wealth-producing. They are not job-producing in many cases. It is well for somebody who can get four or three honours in the leaving certificate and who does not have a job, to be able to head off, with a Government grant, to Limerick, UCC, TCD or UCD to do an arts degree which is going to be of no use to him or her in three years' time. Maybe it is grand for Mary from the country to spend three years in town and pretend that she is studying arts and that she is going to get something out of it. She might get something psychological from it; she might extend her mind. Definitely, as far as this country is concerned, it is of very little use. We will have to look at the third level education establishments and try to change the emphasis from the arts type subjects to the practical type subjects. Training for practical subjects is very badly needed here.

Will the agency, when they get down to looking at their reason for existing, be able to get certain people to change their attitude towards work in industry and work in factories, rather than work in the offices of the civil service, of local authorities, or offices in general? If one looks at the average industrial wage that a girl can get and then looks at what is being paid to girls in offices throughout the country, it is only a social factor which keeps them from going into factory jobs where they are available. The agency would do a very good job if they could get the emphasis in second level education changed from the academic to the practical.

Would the agency look again at the amount of money being spent on third level education, when there is such a need for an input of an enormous amount of money into first and second level education, where most of the jobs in this country are going to come from? If one looks at the industrial set-up throughout the country one will find that 90 per cent of our industrialists have not had third level education. They have succeeded and will succeed in the future because many of these people have the foresight to know where they are going and are quite capable of finding their way through the dictionaries that are spewed out by the third level education establishments. Third level students swallow the vocabulary of the business administration schools of the time, but they have no practical advantage when they get into industry. They are not able to talk to the people working with them, not to mind lead them in the industries.

The Bill is not going to solve all our problems but I welcome it because it gives us an opportunity to discuss the problems. I hope that when the agency is set up it will not jump into the matter of producing jobs for young people for two or three months, or work experience programmes for two to three months which are not going to be of any practical advantage to the country or people involved.

As one last point, would the agency look at the possibility — as has been done on a very small scale with AnCO — of young people working for periods of 12 months in particular firms, having to go in early in the morning, and go through the discipline of the employment situation. They are paid for by the training centre. Their only difference from the rest of the staff in that business would be that instead of being paid by the employer they would be paid by the agency, whether it be the employment agency, AnCO, the National Manpower Service, or whatever. Co-ordination is very important between our schools, the Department of Labour and the National Manpower Service. If the agency did nothing else except set up proper co-ordination between the schools, the Department of Labour, the employment agencies and National Manpower they would be doing a very good job.

It is not the fault of the schools, but too often when children leave school and look for a job they are asked if they are registered with Manpower and they say they have never heard of it. There will have to be better co-ordination in that area. The prospects of this Bill creating jobs for all our young people are very slim. However, it is available and it should be recommended. There should be a continuous demand for an input from industry from both sides and from the education establishments over the next few months while the agency is being set up.

Mícheál Cranitch

I wish to make just a few short points. This Bill has to do with the establishment of a Youth Employment Agency. Certainly that title sounds very well. The very mention of a youth employment agency would give encouragement to very many young people seeking employment. Times force many of us to be very cynical. We are inclined to ask the question, is this just another agency, or another scheme? While one may question it, on the other hand we welcome anything that will hold out hope of creating employment. The fact is, and of course we have to realise it, an agency of itself cannot create employment, but would help to bring it about.

One of the reasons why many of the existing agencies are not able to do as much as would be desired is that young people are unnecessarily particular as regards the work they wish to do. If a job is vacant and the applicant is able to do that job, then he should take it. It may not be the job he wishes to take up, but he should keep himself employed. We have been disastrously over-selective as far as jobs are concerned.

Employment prospects are at present appalling. Senator Carroll forecast that unemployment could possibly reach the 200,000 figure by this time next year, but we hope it will not. Anything of that magnitude is frightening and youth will form a significant proportion of that huge number.

I would like to offer a few suggestions which may help the agency as regards what could be done to create employment. There are a lot of things which should be done. People cry out about them and tourists remark very unfavourably on them, matters to do with infrastructural development. One of the greatest problems in the country is litter, not alone in cities and towns but in rural areas. That is one thing which could be tackled and would create considerable employment. A team travelling through the country with a small lorry could do a lot of cleaning up in a few days.

One difficulty about litter is the fact that indestructible plastic bags are being used and thrown into ditches and the wind carries them away. Work could also be created, through the county councils, by the development of swimming pools, hurling and football pitches, playgrounds, keeping hedges and ditches by the sides of the roads trimmed, filling in potholes and attending to gardens. The agency should concern themselves with these things which can be done and, with so many on the various unemployment lists, some people who are drawing dole could have their efforts directed towards doing necessary work.

There are 42 sections in the Bill and 12 of those specifically mention, or allude to, the word "levy". One gets the impression that this Bill has more to do with arranging for this levy to be collected than with anything else. The PAYE sector seems to be, as usual, the main target for this levy. Admittedly it is very easy to collect from the PAYE sector. I would like to ask the Minister in that connection if there is a possibility, or perhaps a probability, that this levy will be continued over a long period? I thought originally that this levy would be just for one year, but when I read section 19 I see the possibility, if not probability, that this levy will be continued year after year. Could the Minister deal with that point when replying to the debate?

Minister for Labour (Mr. Kavanagh)

I thank all the Senators who have contributed to the debate. I assure them that their suggestions and the criticisms will be taken into account by the agency when it is set up. Their advice will be important to the members of the board in formulating their policy towards this agency and in going some way towards providing some answer to youth unemployment. Senator Ross was the only person who was not in favour of this Bill and both Houses gave this Bill a general welcome, with the exception of one criticism that it was unnecessary and would not benefit those whom we hope it might. One criticism he made was that it was an election promise and therefore had to be fulfilled, and I agree with him. It is an election promise and it is being fulfilled at a very early stage in the life of this Dáil and Seanad.

Mr. O'Connell

Hear, hear.

Mr. Kavanagh

I agree generally with the analysis of youth employment set out by the Senators. They have rightly brought to attention the difficult employment situation facing our young people, the disheartening effects particularly of long spells of unemployment, changing aspirations of young people in so far as unemployment is concerned, particular problems of the disadvantaged, the importance of the transition from school to working life. What are we attempting to do in the Youth Employment Agency Bill is to make some contribution to the solution of these problems and further the right-to-work idea referred to by a number of Senators. I accept that the agency will not solve all the problems of unemployment experienced by young people. There is a need to set the youth labour market and the Government's interventions in it in the context of the total labour market and the effects being made by Government to improve its operation, to planning, job creation measures, national development corporation and other programmes. I spelled out, in my opening speech, both here and in the Dáil, what was being done in that connection.

I was also asked for a breakdown of the live register figure of 36,839 young people unemployed on 27 November. This figure is made up of 24,420 males and 12,419 females, representing 11.8 per cent and 8 per cent respectively of the estimated under 25 male and female labour forces. The Youth Employment Agency will co-ordinate what has already been done for youth. It will develop and improve schemes, will also mount schemes where there are gaps in existing arrangements.

There is no question of the agency taking over schemes that are already being done effectively by the programme sponsors, including voluntary organisations. The agency will operate in the opposite direction and will help to advise planning and finance to expand effective schemes. It will also be responsible for the enterprise schemes announced by the Minister for Finance some time ago. I referred in my opening remarks to the registers to be prepared by the National Manpower Service on young unemployed people. Their location will assist in meeting local needs. I also expect the agency to place a high emphasis on employment in agriculture and other primary activities. This will further local and rural interests.

Senator Cranitch referred to the levy mentioned in the various sections of the Bill and of course the Bill, as I said in my opening remarks, has two parts—one dealing with setting up an agency and the other dealing with the levy to provide the funds for it: obviously the levy occupies a large part of the Bill. A number of points were made on the use of the levy and I can tell Senator Cranitch that as long as this problem of youth unemployment continues the levy and the agency will continue. It would be nice to think that in a few years time there would be no need for this agency, that we would have a situation when youth unemployment would decrease. I think, however, that the role being given to the agency of co-ordinating the various schemes will be needed for a very long time to come. I hope that the underlying problem of youth unemployment will begin to decrease, and that is something about which we would all agree.

The levy has been made variable, not upwards but downwards, so that if the same amount of money were not needed in years to come, the levy can be varied downwards. If there was extra money needed and the levy had to be increased it would require legislation to do that, by way of amendment to this Bill, so both Houses would again have the opportunity to consider the matter, if that was ever necessary. Certainly, we all hope it will not be.

I can assure Senators that it is my intention that the expenditure will be at least as great as the receipts from levy. Furthermore, all funds collected will be used to benefit youth and will allow for expansion of existing schemes. Specifically in relation to AnCO, which body was mentioned by some Senators, I expect to see an increase of about 15 per cent in the number of young people trained in 1982. As regards doubts expressed by some Senators over the reference to devoting funds as far as possible to the agency, I would point out that this is a temporary, interim measure aimed at overcoming any difficulty that may arise in funding programme sponsors in 1982.

My intention remains that all the funds from the levy will be devoted, as soon as possible, to the agency. When I said as far as possible, I certainly did not intend it to be understood that less money would be devoted than was collected. The difficulty is that in the initial year the moneys will be collected from, say, a social fund towards the end of the year and it would not be possible for me to gauge exactly what amount of money we will get from the social fund. We have to make as close a guess as possible for the Estimates this month or the next month, to put before the Senators and the Deputies. We must put in a figure that we expect the levy plus social fund moneys to yield. This is why I say as far as possible. In the first year, it will be a very close estimate. We hope to get more, but it may not be that we will get in every penny. I wanted to draw the Senators' attention to that point.

As the Bill stands, persons in receipt of certain social welfare payments will not be liable for the levy, while those in receipt of other social welfare payments, including pensions, will also be exempt. Everybody will agree that social welfare recipients, as far as possible, should be excluded. We have taken that point into consideration in applying the levy. I did consider, however, excluding pensioners as a group, but since some pensioners can be in receipt of quite substantial income over and above their social welfare receipts this would be inequitable. Indeed, when we talk about pensioners there might be some pensioners in this House or elsewhere who might have higher incomes than some people working and it would be inequitable to let those escape the levy.

In addition to youth, the recession has affected other groups with a weak bargaining position in the labour market, such as the disabled and, indeed, women. It would be my intention that the agency should maintain continuous contact with the National Rehabilitation Board and Employment Equality Agency. In formulating my proposals. I took the point of my departure as being the need to build on existing structures and not to duplicate what has been adequately done already. I believe that the disabled, women and, indeed, other groups with a weak bargaining position in the labour market should have an input into the agency as well as various public and voluntary bodies who look after their interests.

Let me say that I had intended to set up an ad hoc board but the progress of the Bill has been so rapid that I may not have to do this now. I hope that we will get through all Stages today and, therefore, I can go ahead immediately to set up the board.

I have set an ambitious target for the agency. I want to give it the finance and the expertise to do the job well, so that 20,000 additional training or work experience jobs can be created for our young people. From what I have heard in the Seanad today and last week almost all Senators agree with that objective.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.