Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Feb 1981

Vol. 326 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Youth Employment: Motion (Resumed).

On 3 February 1981 Deputy Horgan moved the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann, seriously concerned about the increasing number of young persons who will be seeking work in mid-1981, calls on the Government to review urgently and introduce adequate job creation schemes for youth employment.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1.
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and insert "approves of the policies of the Government for stimulating the creation of employment for young persons and is confident that the Government will keep the operation of these policies under continuous review."
—(Minister for Labour)

Last evening before reporting progress I was referring to the admonition of the Minister of Labour, Deputy Nolan, to the media not to emphasise the doom and gloom which now surrounds us because, as he said, it was bad for the morale of our youth. As I said last night, I would hope that the media will reflect the mood of the country in an impartial and honest way. When the Minister has good news to announce the media will react accordingly. There is little good news at present. The Minister's choice of words as an excuse for the disastrously high unemployment level, particularly among the youth, leads one to think that the Government are intent on manipulation of the English language. He gave three reasons for the high level of youth unemployment. One was an euphemism, "lack of overall job opportunities". The second was the post-war baby boom and the third was reluctance of industry to take on and train young people.

What the Minister said in regard to the reasons for so many young people being around may be correct but that should not give him the opportunity to shed his responsibility or that of his colleagues for the provision of jobs for the young people. Fianna Fáil boasted of having been supported by those young people three—and—a—half years ago. In that infamous manifesto the young people were hoodwinked into thinking that their salvation depended on support for the Minister and his colleagues. They now know otherwise. They have been let down. I note, with a certain degree of satisfaction, that the latest result of a poll carried out by The Irish Times states that many young people have seen the light and no longer see their future salvation as safe in the hands of this administration. This is a welcome trend. I hope they are not let down by us when we are on the opposite benches.

The Minister referred briefly to the importance of education. His predecessor, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, as Minister for Labour, expressed the hope that we would not suffer any further shortages in trained personnel in the electrical and chemical engineering areas to cater for the new technology which confronts us. This hope was also expressed three-and-a-half years ago and only in the last few weeks did I hear mention of it by the Minister for Education. He expressed the view that something should be done about it and that our educational system was to have a new orientation in order to provide more trained personnel for the technological era. These urgings, hopes and wishes are no use unless the people who have the power to make changes have the will to do so. The power is there, all 20 of a majority, but the will seems to be lacking. Even at this late stage I ask that action be taken in this sphere because it would ensure that we would be in a state of preparedness when the real demand comes for trained personnel in those fields. It would also have the advantageous side effect that foreign capital would be attracted here if we had trained personnel and could show that proper training facilities were available for young people.

I was somewhat taken aback watching on television recently an American industrialist who had set up an industry in Belfast being interviewed by an RTE correspondent. When asked why he chose Belfast despite what would seem to me enormous problems in the area from a political and social viewpoint he said it was because he was convinced that the training facilities were better there than here. I was surprised — not pleasantly — to hear that because I felt we had facilities here which enabled a good job to be done through the AnCO training scheme. While AnCO is doing its job one wonders if it is aware of the urgency of the problem of the training that is necessary.

If I may be parochial for a moment, in my constituency in the town of Ballina we have had an AnCO training centre for about 12 or 13 years. However, it has yet to be deemed to be a permanent centre. The building is inadequate and is still a temporary centre although other centres which came into existence later have since become permanent. If the Government are serious about depressed areas and areas of high unemployment, surely it is not too much to ask them to put their action where their wishes are and to show their commitment by declaring this a permanent centre.

I wish to reiterate my disappointment at the fact that the Minister did not show any great degree of urgency. He showed sympathy and said he understood the problem. He outlined a list of schemes but obviously they are not adequate. The 31,000 young people on the live register prove that. The Minister has nothing for those young people who are seeking work and who are entitled to get employment in their own country.

I am very glad to speak on this important debate. When Fianna Fáil took office in 1977 they were faced with a major problem and they gave a clear undertaking to the young people that they would endeavour to provide jobs. I do not wish to harp on the record of the National Coalition Government but it was amazing to read this motion from the Labour Party. I see that the former Minister for Labour, Deputy O'Leary, is present. When they had an opportunity to help young people to get employment they did not do so. They left it to us and when we took office we faced a major challenge with 160,000 people unemployed. Many of those were young people. We gave a firm commitment to the electorate and we have honoured that commitment. Deputy Horgan spoke on behalf of the Labour Party last night. I will quote from today's newspapers and, if it is not correct, I hope the Deputy will say so.

Is the Deputy paraphrasing the quotation? I do not think he is giving a direct quotation.

I am quoting from a statement in the newspapers. The Deputy said that we should inform our young people of the jobs available abroad — at least it is alleged he said that here last night. The Deputy made four suggestions and that was the first one.

I do not think the Deputy is quoting correctly.

We have brought people back to this country from abroad. That is our policy.

That was in the Fianna Fáil manifesto.

There should not be any interruptions. I want to make one thing clear, Deputy Leyden is paraphrasing, he is not quoting. I hope that is understood.

I can say it is from The Irish Independent and I think that paper is quite accurate.

I do not think everyone in Fianna Fáil would agree.

The section dealing with the Dáil report is usually accurate. Fianna Fáil will not encourage our young people to emigrate. We have succeeded in bringing back 100,000 people from abroad and I am proud of that. We turned the tide of emigration and we intend to ensure that people here have employment. We will continue with our policy of bringing back emigrants, many of whom left this country during the period of office of the National Coalition. However, there was one notable emigrant during our period of office about whom I do not feel any regret — I refer to Dr. Cruise-O'Brien. He went home to London to The Observer. To balance that there were many genuine emigrants who have returned to work here.

An interesting point was made by the Minister for Labour, Deputy Nolan. Incidentally, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating him on his appointment. I know that a man of his great experience will make a major contribution to the work of his Department. Last night he said that AnCO placed 70 per cent of the 17,500 people whom they trained in 1980. That is a tremendous achievement. We owe a debt of gratitude to them. It should also be remembered that AnCO train adults. I should like to congratulate the manager of the Athlone Training Centre, Michael Fitzgerald, on carrying out tremendous work in the training of young people and adults. The contribution of AnCO in our area is appreciated.

Recently we received the publication Manpower Information Quarterly dated December 1980. It referred to the Coordinating Committee for youth employment schemes — and it made the following comments:

The above mentioned committee was set up by the Department of Labour in August 1978 for the coordination of youth employment schemes and includes representatives from the Departments of Labour, Finance and Education and AnCO. The various schemes being co-ordinated by the committee include the following:

(1) Work Experience Programme administered by the National Manpower Service;

(2) Temporary Grants Scheme for youth employment sponsored by the Department of Education;

(3) Environmental Improvement Schemes Programme — Department of the Environment;

(4) Community Youth Training Programmes — AnCO.

In 1978 the various schemes involved a total of 7,142 young people at a cost of £4,825,000, while in 1979 the total participation of young people reached 11,122 at a total cost of £10,704,000.

The report also referred to surveys undertaken. This is of tremendous help to young people who receive training under the schemes. The work experience programme administered by the National Manpower Service has been an outstanding success and the Government can be very proud of introducing the programme. I refer again to the alleged concern of the Labour Party now and I wish to point out that there was much unemployment among young people during their term of office. The former Minister for Labour, who is present, may wish to comment on that. Why did they not introduce a scheme such as the work experience programme

This scheme is working extremely well. I have endeavoured, as a TD, to get every young person who got in touch with me fixed up in this field. In the majority of cases, the employers have this work experience programme and they then take people on on a permanent basis. The experience which they get under this scheme stands to them when they apply for permanent employment. They are paid £20 per week and all other expenses, like insurance, PRSI and tax, are taken care of by the Manpower Service. The employers who take on on these young people have only the cost of providing accommodation. This scheme, which gives people the first opportunity in employment, was not in existence when I was leaving school and looking for work and I am sure that no Deputy had experience of it when young. This scheme is a tribute to this Government. It has been retained by them and will be fully financed. There is no question about that. We believe very strongly in this scheme, which was initiated by us in 1978.

The temporary grant scheme for youth employment is sponsored by the Department of Education, with Deputy Tunney as Minister in charge. The amount of work achieved under this scheme is spectacular and a tremendous contribution has been made to the many organisations who have availed of it and obtained grants to improve their facilities, grounds and accommodation. Not only does it give those opportunities but it gives young people work experience in a difficult period between leaving school and starting work. Many who started in this scheme are now permanently employed using some of the skills learned which they went on to further develop. The Department of Education should be complimented on the streamlined operation of this scheme. Many organisations which have availed of this grant have complimented the Department on the efficiency and lack of red tape in the administration of the scheme. We showed our concern and commitment and put money into that scheme to help people to get temporary employment which has led in many cases to permanent employment.

The environmental improvement scheme programme administered by the Department of the Environment is carried out by the local authorities. There again, this scheme is usually operational in the summer months when young people have left school. Roscommon County Council have been working on and administering this scheme for a number of years. It has given very worthwhile employment. The wage under that scheme is something like £50 per week, a great help, particularly for someone leaving school. It gives assistance in the first few months until permanent employment can be obtained. Many students attending universities find it of great assistance in raising funds to help them through university in pursuit of their educational qualifications.

The community youth training programme administered by AnCO is, again, a tremendous success. In my constituency in Roscommon, many youth centres and social centres have been erected under this scheme under very experienced foremen and other people with skills and it provides a full service for the erection of community centres in different areas and similar development. If Roscommon is any gauge of the national success of this scheme, it is an outstanding success. We have now centres in places like Dysart and Taughmaconnell in south-Roscommon and in Ballyforan we have improved our facilities and another scheme has begun in that area. I would have to spend too much time listing the schemes throughout the whole county, the progress made in administering that scheme and the contribution it has made to different areas, and rural areas, in particular. It has helped many young people to develop skills while carrying out those projects and has led to permanent work. All skills are provided in the erection of those buildings under experienced foremen and at AnCO level. The quality is second to none. In this regard, I compliment the trade union movement for their full co-operation in the development of those schemes. If that co-operation had been lacking, those schemes would not have had the success they have had.

Another recent development is the provision of the development officers scheme, operated by the Department of Education. In 1980, grants for the employment of something like 90 fulltime development officers were made available at a cost of £285,000. In 1981, the Government have laid aside £380,000 for the continuance of this scheme. This is an innovation, mostly administered by the vocational education committees. We provided funds in the 1980 budget, and, even though times are difficult, we have provided an increase in funds to continue this scheme in 1981.

I want to reiterate our total commitment to the provision of employment in general and, in particular, for young people who are our greatest national asset and the Government realise this. We are providing these schemes and plans for the employment of these young people. In the investment plan 1981 we have provided funds for the development of the economy generally and, in providing these extra funds, we are in turn providing employment. It is the young people who benefit to a great extent. The investment plan provides for investment in 1981 of over £1,700 million, which represents an increase of almost 40 per cent over the 1980 outturn. It will give a powerful thrust to national development, both in the short term and long term. It is designed to put the economy in good shape through the present difficult period of world recession and to provide for rapid and sustained growth as the expected upturn in world trade and output develops later in 1981.

In the longer term, the productive capacity of the economy will expand, its efficiency will improve and a solid foundation of investment will be created, so that our young and growing population will, by their own efforts, be able to obtain sound, secure and rewarding employment. The plan is strengthening infrastructural facilities and expanding the productive base, and will boost domestic demand and support employment. It will increase the number of people in productive employment this year and contribute to generating more rapid growth and a greater expansion of employment in succeeding years, as increasing advantage is taken of the solid foundation of basic services which the plan will provide.

This is something very positive which is being greeted throughout the whole country as a plan worthy of support. If given the proper support, both by private enterprise and nationally by the State agencies, it in turn will create that extra employment needed. It is sensible, at this stage, to provide this investment plan which will give the necessary employment in 1981 in difficult times. There is, at the moment, an international recession. Our Government are steering the ship of State faithfully through a dangerous course.

I dread to think what the situation would be today if we had not come into office in 1977. At that time there was a dreadful lack of Government planning and investment and I dread to think of the number of people who would be seeking work now if the Coalition Government had lasted for many months longer. The people judged the situation and gave us the mandate.

The creation of new jobs and the retention of existing employment has been our main priority. We are proud of our achievement. We are looking forward and we propose to provide necessary employment for our people. Tonight we have been given an opportunity to explain our aim. Last night the Minister for Labour gave an excellent summary of our position, outlining clearly our position in relation to new employment and the retention of existing jobs. On his recent TV appearance, on the "Today Tonight" programme, while the former Minister for Labour treated the whole affair jocosely, the Minister for Labour outlined where we stand in relation to the development and retention of employment.

Last night we had the experience of hearing Deputy Horgan — I hope Deputy Michael O'Leary will contradict him in relation to his statement — advocating emigration for young people. It would be a retrograde step for any Government here actively to encourage young people to emigrate. It would bring us back to a period when there was no alternative to emigration. That trend has been reversed. We can look at the situation in Britain where 2.5 million people are unemployed. The situation there is desperate. Here we have managed to sustain employment in a difficult time. Our Government are orientated towards the creation of further employment and that is enshrined in our Investment Plan for 1981. The people accept our achievement in the employment field between 1977 and 1981 and I hope we will be able to develop and expand that in the years ahead.

It is correct to categorise the problem of unemployment as possibly the greatest single socialevil here today. Among its casualties are people of all age groups, but it is true to point out that the real figures of those out of work under the age of 25 years, of both sexes, cannot be far short of 50,000. I would make the point initially that the failure of society in the Republic to give the chance of gainful work to our young people in the employment field can be as formidable a threat to our democratic institutions as the failure of Northern Ireland society to give equal treatment before the law to all its citizens.

That is why it is not an exaggeration to say that unemployment is the greatest social evil stalking the streets in towns and villages and in the country generally. The proper conduct of our economic affairs would be the Government's main contribution to settling this problem. I do not suggest that a wand can be waved and that jobs will grow on trees, or that any short-term policy will solve the problem. I am not even seeking to segregate the problem: I am not suggesting that unemployment is worse for one age than for another, because a married man in his thirties or forties with a young family is affected equally by unemployment as the 17 year old who cannot find a job.

In this motion we are not suggesting that unemployment is a matter than can be segregated. It is inter-connected in all age groups and it is a sine qua non that a properly conducted economic policy with the objective of maximising employment for all must be pursued ruthlessly. It is clear in our situation that the expansion of jobs can be attained only as a result of successful exploitation of exports markets. It is clear that we have been hampered in that task by the recession, but we must be in a position of preparedness, ready to take advantage of markets when they arise. However, a serious doubt arises that we are so prepared, that we have managed to keep our costs to the point where we can exploit markets successfully as they arise. We do not have the opportunity to go into the whys and wherefores of our balance of payments and the mess of our economic policies with regard to public finances. It is sufficient to say that we cannot depend on simple stimulation of our home market to provide the required jobs.

Politicians talk about the challenge for the State posed by our young people and I have made the point that politicians often have no answer to this challenge. We have seen very few answers to the question of how to settle the demand for employment by our young people. We have such a large proportion of young people in our population and yet our efforts have been pitiful in meeting the employment demand.

The depreciation of the punt against sterling has to some extent safeguarded our products on the British market. How long that situation will continue is anyone's guess. Britain still absorbs much of our exports and the depreciation of our currency has enabled us to hold our position in that market. This is an artificial situation which will not continue indefinitely and if our costs cannot be brought into some kind of comparability with those of our competitors we cannot maximise employment opportunities.

Apart from the mess that has been created by the present conduct of economic policy and the fact that our public finances are not in a very healthy position, the depressing fact is that the schemes which have been created in recent years to alleviate to some extent the unemployment problem among the young have been cut back in the recent Estimates. The employment incentive scheme was introduced by the Coalition Government and it operated very successfully, so much so that it was continued by the present Government. It is a tribute to its success that the incoming administration did not see fit to scrap it. However, in the recent budget they saw fit to cut back the allocation for this scheme from £4.1 million last year to £2 million this year. That is a very disappointing reaction to such a formidable problem. I am not suggesting that the employment incentive scheme is a comprehensive answer to the problem of unemployment but it has been a valuable scheme and has induced employers to bring new workers into their workforce, perhaps in advance of normal vacancies arising. I would be critical of the changes in the scheme made by this Government in bringing banks and services into the scheme. I fail to see how the banks are in any need of a subvention from taxpayers to induce them to take on extra personnel. As we know, the banks conduct their personnel policies from year to year and are in no need of any artificial infusion of scarce money. In reply to a recent parliamentary question the Minister admitted that a sum in the region of £0.5 million had been paid to the banks in recent years under this scheme. Subject to that criticism of the widening of the scheme to include the banks and services, the scheme was a useful one. In my opinion it was most useful during the period of my responsibility when it was confined to manufacturing industries, particularly those industries which were hardest hit. There is always a scarcity of money when Governments are examining these problems and it behoves the Government to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent to the best advantage. It is disappointing that this scheme is being cut back.

I have heard good and bad reports of the work experience programme. In my opinion it is a useful scheme because it bridges the gap between education and employment. The amount available for this scheme has been pegged at £2.1 million and that is not a very realistic figure in the light of inflation and possible demands on the scheme this year. The Department of the Environment's scheme has been cut from £1.5 million to just over £1 million. This scheme involved community projects throughout the country which utilised the work of young people and any cut back in this area is to be deplored.

I should like to see all these various schemes brought under one authority. At present they are divided between the Department of the Environment, the Department of Education and the Department of Labour. There are now Ministers of State attached to all these Departments and it is desirable that these schemes be brought under one umbrella, most appropriately, perhaps, in the Department of Labour. The Minister of State there could relieve the Minister of this chore and take on the task of coordinating the various schemes.

The other body who are most usefully employed in the training of young people for employment are AnCO, but the amount of finance available to them this year is not adequate in view of the demands which they are supposed to meet. They have increased the general grant for AnCO in the current year by 11 per cent from £17.5 million to £21 million. Looking at the huge demands made on the AnCO training programme and the number of young people who are still turned away when they seek entry to the various training programmes, it seems that the grant should have been increased by far more than 11 per cent even to take account of inflation. The capital grant was increased from £6 million to £9½ million but we must take into account that the 1980 capital grant was inadequate. The increase granted still does not defend the Minister from the general charge that the finance made available to AnCO is inadequate.

The training courses are designed for all who are out of work, but almost 80 per cent of those taking part in the training programmes are in their twenties. It is a pity that sufficient finance was not made available. In my period in office it was always my objective to ensure that whatever else suffered cutbacks in that period of recession, the training authority would not. The figures for the period between 1973 and 1977 show that. The fact that we increased in real terms the money available for such training programmes and so on during the Coalition period was a solid advantage from the national point of view because the more money we put in the more was matched from EEC sources. It is false economy to spare financial subventions to AnCO because the grant we make is matched £ for £ from the EEC. I always pushed as hard as possible to gain what we could from the EEC Social Fund for training and retraining. We know that such is the unsatisfactory nature of the European social policy that it behoves the State and its representatives to hammer incessantly on the door of the EEC to get as much money as possible for training and retraining. Of the original nine EEC countries no country had such problems of underdevelopment and unemployment as we had and there is no inconsistency arising from our membership of the Community, when we look for as much as possible from the social fund. By not giving the money necessary to AnCO this year to enable them to bring the maximum number of people into training courses, we have relieved the EEC by slackening our pressure on the social fund. We should not have done that. We should have kept up our insistence that the fund and the moneys from it should be increased.

When I was Minister for Labour I suggested at Social Affairs Ministers meetings in Brussels that an employment fund should be set up. If the present Minister looks up the files in the Department he will find reasonably well outlined proposals that were put in 1975 and 1976. The proposal did not get much support apart from support from the Italian Government of that period. I do not know the prospects of success if that suggestion were put today, but it might be better. We had it at one of the summit meetings of Prime Ministers on the agenda, but we failed to secure sufficient support for it mainly as a result of German opposition. Naturally enough, the Germans, as the main finance providers of the EEC, were loath to see the social fund or a new fund established which would take even a higher subvention from the German taxpayers. I would ask the Minister when attending Council of Social Affairs Ministers meetings to attempt once more to resurrect the idea of an employment fund at EEC level especially as the social policy of the EEC has been unsatisfactory from our point of view apart from the money we have managed to gain for AnCO in training and retraining.

I do not suggest that the training and retraining of redundant workers is the total answer to our unemployment problem but it is a very valuable thing that we should get that cash back £ for £ from the Social Fund. Employers, especially in small firms, tell me that the training grant they get from AnCO has meant the difference between dissolving their firms and maintaining their heads above water. It is an important source of finance for small firms especially.

People will ask after all this talk just what this State with all its fine proclamations will do for them. The Government and Opposition argue that unemployment should be adequately dealt with and yet it is not. The very minimum that the State should do on behalf of the people if it cannot manage affairs through its agencies in co-operation with industry, so that the majority of young people will have a chance of getting gainful employment, is to at least provide courses which will enable our unemployed young to improve their skills. The very least obligation to be discharged by the State in a period of unemployment for many citizens should be to freely provide facilities to improve the range of skills of the unemployed. They are not doing so. At present there is a great demand for places on the various AnCO courses and the places are not available. However much we may blame the international recession, we must be able to say under any Government at the very least that we can offer to those who are looking to increase their skills the chance of a training course. Even during this period of high unemployment there is a shortage of skilled manpower. We also know that there is a direct connection between the incomes attainable at work and the kinds of skills one has. We all know that women and young people are the major victims in high unemployment. We also know that the unskilled are at the bottom when unemployment figures rise. If our work force remains largely unskilled it will be largely a low income work force. It will also be a work force that is unattractive to the kind of investment, the micro-chip industry, which increasingly will be the technology and industry of the future. A very valid report on youth unemployment was produced last December and I have a short summary of the main conclusions of that report. The report made the point that those leaving school at the minimum school leaving age at the moment are leaving school inadequately prepared for work because there is a lack of technical orientation in Irish schools. That report was compiled by a sub-committee of the National Manpower Consultative Committee. It urged a comprehensive examination of the education system regarding its relevance to modern technical employment. The Minister should look at that report to see what can be done to implement some of its very wise suggestions.

The report said that the schools do not engage in adequate vocational preparation, particularly for young people who leave school at 15 years of age. It stated that a curriculum is mainly geared to meet the needs of those who stay on for the leaving certificate examination rather than the early school leaver. The committee said that there should be in our schools more work-experience programmes, pre-employment courses and more training for employment.

A suggestion was also made that school leavers who remain unemployed for over a year after leaving school should be regarded as priority clients for the allocation of AnCO training courses. There may be some point in looking at young people who are out of work for a long period and giving them priority. I believe, however that AnCO should be so adequately financed, their capital programme so extensive and training places so general throughout the country that no person of any age should be refused admission to those courses. If we refuse them the facility of increasing their skills we are condemning them to low income jobs. If the reports are correct in saying that the unskilled are the main casualties with women in the low income jobs we are condemning them to that kind of low income environment.

It should be the basic right of all our citizens out of work that the State should provide sufficient facilities to enable them to increase their skills in a period of unemployment. It is more necessary for the State to do this when the EEC, through their social policy, are prepared to back up £ for £ the investment of the State in relation to training facilities. I usually endorse economy by the Government but it is false economy to cut back the investment in AnCO at a time when so little is being done in relation to unemployment.

Employment incentive schemes and AnCO courses will be useless our economic policy enables industry to operate in an environment in which our costs are reasonably low so that we can compete with our competitors in the other trading countries. We are protected to some extent in the present situation from the consequence of the increasingly high industrial costs here by the fact that almost 30 per cent of our trade is with Britain, the punt is depreciating against sterling and our products still can compete in the British market almost on an equal level with British products. We cannot depend on that peculiar situation continuing indefinitely. I am not suggesting that the discovery of Irish oil this summer might reverse that situation but there is no doubt that if oil is discovered in the near future we will not have that depreciation of our currency against sterling, and the protection afforded us at present, because of the depreciation of the punt against sterling, in relation to our products on the British market, will no longer obtain.

We will do nothing except give further grounds for cynicism among our young people if this debate simply conveys the message to them that politicians in Leinster House are simply exchanging charge and counter charge. I hope to see emerging from this debate a new purposefulness by the Minister for Labour and his colleagues, an agreement that unemployment is a social evil and a resolution to look for solutions to it. There should be more cash for AnCO, the restoration of the employment incentive scheme and tackling our industrial costs.

The greatest Frankenstein of this day is the Frankenstein of unemployment. A former leader or the Fianna Fáil Party the late Seán Lemass, said the only way to judge a Government is on their performance in relation to unemployment. Everybody knows that the Fianna Fáil manifesto promised full employment within five years. After three and a half years of Fianna Fáil Government unemployment is 122,000. I want, this evening, to specifically speak for the 45,000 young people who are without jobs. We can no longer afford to hide the plight of young people under a blanket of silence. The basic right is the right to work and this right is denied to an increasing number of young people this year. Their frustration is justified. They become cynical, pessimistic and bitter and nobody can blame them.

There is no hope for them or for their prospects in the future because the Government are doing nothing for the unemployment situation. The only thing we can expect in 1981 is further dole queues. The youth employment scheme is very praiseworthy but sufficient finance has not been made available for its continuation. Last year there was a severe cut back in the money made available for the youth employment scheme. In 1978 £9.9 million was allocated to the youth employment scheme. In 1979 this was cut and last year there was a further cut. This year there is a further cut in the amount of money available.

The amount of money available for the work experience programmes has been cut from £4 million to £2 million. The environment improvement grant has been cut from £1,500,000 to £1 million. The temporary grant schemes for youth got an increase of only £50,000. What good is this? The only youth employment scheme which got any increase is the AnCO training scheme but this increase is totally inadequate. Lack of funds for those schemes continues to perpetuate the unemployment situation for our young people who find themselves in a catch 22 situation. They cannot get a job because they cannot get experience and they cannot get experience because they cannot get a job. Has the Minister any compassion or understanding for these young people who cannot find jobs? It is very demoralising to leave school and to enter the world of work and find there is no job for you, and no prospects of a job.

I propose that increased finance should be made available for youth employment schemes. This would give young people a chance to help themselves. The Minister should look at the obstacles to youth employment. Our educational system does not meet the requirements of the working world. We all know there are more jobs available in the field of technology than there are workers for the jobs. Our educational system is orientated towards non-technological jobs. There are work areas, like the technological industry, where we have a lack of manpower. There are too many people available for jobs like teaching, and so on.

The Minister could induce people to enter the technological area by introducing an honours paper on building, construction and technical drawing in the leaving certificate, at present these subjects can be taken only at pass level. Our educational system is geared towards the points system and this narrows the choice of a student after the leaving certificate examination.

Only 17 per cent of our school population will enter third level education, but our whole educational system is geared towards the points system and entry into higher education. What about the other 83 per cent who will never enter the field of higher education? Why should the needs of the minority cause the majority to suffer? This is grossly unfair. The leaving certificate should be the yardstick for all spheres and the matriculation examination should be the entrance requirement for universities.

Another obstacle to youth employment is to be found in the area of career guidance. There is very little career guidance in our schools. We need to increase the numbers of career guidance teachers, and we need more skilled personnel. career guidance should be introduced in the first year in our secondary schools. This would enable people to take advantage of the benefits which can derive from proper career guidance. At present it is introduced in the fifth year when students are under severe examination pressure, are preoccupied with their studies and have little time to give to the vitally important factor of career guidance.

When I was at school— and that is not too long ago—adequate information about jobs was not available. Nobody knew in what area of employment jobs would become available, and nobody knew the geographical location where jobs would be provided. Such information should be complied and made available to young people. Then we would know the position about supply and demand. The need for a youth employment agency is obvious. In most European countries they have such an agency. This idea works well in other countries and I cannot see why we should not have such an agency in Ireland where it is badly needed.

The Minister should make a pledge to the young people that, if they find that they cannot get work after they leave school, they will be given priority in the youth experience programme, by the temporary youth employment agencies and by AnCO. This would save them from the demoralising effects of finding themselves without work. It is very difficult to discover the number of young people who are unemployed. Perhaps nobody knows the real extent of that problem. A register should be compiled of all the young people who leave school and find themselves without jobs. Steps need to be taken quickly if we are to solve the youth unemployment problem.

It was all very well for the Taoiseach to say at the Ard-Fheis last year that they recognised the idealism and the enthusiasm of youth as our hope for the future and that they would make jobs available for them to equip them for the future. We all know how that lip service has worked. It has not worked at all. If I were a young person who had just left school I would be very cynical about such talk. The Minister should make more funds available for youth employment schemes. He should remove some of the obstacles to youth employment. He should provide more career guidance and make more information available to young people. I appeal to him to set up youth employment schemes and to make a special register available for young people. The Minister has this power. Deputy Nolan, Minister for Labour, has young children and I am sure he appreciates the problems of young people on the dole and on the streets. I appeal to him to take an initiative quickly.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 42.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Cogan, Barry.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Loughnane, William.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Farrell, Joe.
  • Filgate, Eddie.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
  • Fitzsimons, James N.
  • Fox, Christopher J.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Dennis.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gibbons, Jim.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Keegan, Seán.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Killeen, Tim.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Murphy, Ciarán P.
  • Nolan, Tom.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy C.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Barry, Myra.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Cosgrave, Michael J.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • D'Arcy, Michael J.
  • Deasy, Martin A.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • Mannion, John M.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Moore and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and B. Desmond.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 5 February 1981.
Barr
Roinn