asked the Minister for Labour if he is satisfied that the youth levy to date has been properly utilised, and if a high proportion of the fund has been used for job creation purposes or if the fund has merely been used to fund programmes that were in existence prior to the youth levy.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Youth Levy.
19.
Under the provisions of the Youth Employment Act, 1982, the youth levy may be used to fund training and employment programmes for young people. Since its introduction in April 1982 the levy has been used in this way and I am satisfied that it has been properly utilised.
The main levy funded activities aimed at reducing the burden of youth unemployment include training, job creation measures for the private sector, the work experience programme, temporary employment programmes and vocational training and preparation programmes.
Some training, work experience and temporary job creation measures were in existence before the introduction of the levy. Since its introduction, however, these activities have been significantly expanded and their quality improved. In addition new programmes have been introduced. These include: the enterprise allowance scheme run by the National Manpower Service, the community enterprise programme, youth self-employment programme, marketplace, young scientists and technologists programme — STEP — European orientation programme, national co-operative farm relief services run or funded by the Youth Employment Agency, the skills foundation programme and the community workshops run by AnCO and the certificate in farming run by ACOT.
A measure of the major impact of the levy in improving the employment prospects of young people through training and employment programmes can be obtained by examining participation levels on programmes. In 1981 just over 22,000 young persons participated in training and employment schemes. By the end of 1985 this figure had risen to over 66,000.
Does the Minister accept that the youth employment levy was geared to creating sustainable jobs but that all accept £5 million of the levy is paying for existing courses under the National Manpower Service, AnCO, YEA, ACOT and a number of other agencies and that the amount used to create sustainable jobs is almost negligible? Does he also accept that, because of that, the principle and the spirit of the Youth Employment Agency Act, 1981, have been totally defeated?
I do not think the Act has been totally defeated although the Deputy is probably right in saying that many people expected it to result in direct employment. When the Labour Party devised the Youth Employment Agency we expected them to provide jobs. The research done and the decisions taken by the board of the Youth Employment Agency which comprises representatives from various sectors, employers, the Congress of Trade Unions, farming organisations and young people indicated that the major barrier to employment for young people then, as now, related fundamentally to their skills and training levels. Therefore, the vast amount of money raised by the levy was put into training schemes and the Deputy is mistaken if he thinks that it was simply a substitute for money already spent. The programmes in general were substantially increased over those operating in 1981 and, in some cases, new programmes were created.
That concludes Question Time.
Questions Nos. 20 and 21 resubmitted for oral reply.
I have just received a report from Marseilles that posters are being put up offering the Irish Spruce for sale at a sum of £3 million. This is national sabotage — I do not know if the report is true — but could anybody enlighten me on this matter?
Well, I certainly cannot tell you. You will have to find out some other way.
Perhaps the Minister could come into the House and give us information.