National Employment and Training Authority Bill, 1986: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Power

This is my third bite at the cherry. I welcome the Bill as it is a genuine effort to co-ordinate training and I hope it will lead to jobs and steady employment. Costly duplication should be eradicated and a greater emphasis laid on the progression from formal education to training and jobs. These matters should complement one another. I hope that funding will flow freely for the new Authority and that there will not be a rigid compartmentalisation of existing funds. The Department of Finance should play their part in providing the funds needed. It all hinges on a very simple theory — pay people to work instead of being idle.

Despite the fact that the Government are on the brink of involuntary liquidation. We should not despair because there will be a future for our young people if we can restore confidence in Government policies. We must also try to change attitudes and restore the will to work. That should be matched with training for work and the opportunity for young people to earn a living at home.

I grew up in the forties when the war had just concluded and we were told that times could not be any worse. I got married in the mid-fifties and, although it was supposed to be a terrible time, I did not realise it. I took a chance and things worked reasonably well; maybe I was one of the lucky ones. We should all be prepared to do the best we can to improve matters. The feeling of despair will not last forever as there is good reason for hope.

Mr. Calleary

Like most Deputies who have spoken, I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister for introducing it. Fianna Fáil and I have been looking for a Bill of this kind for a considerable length of time because, at present, the system is a labyrinth through which many young people have to try to find their way before they understand the training facilities or schemes which are available. If this legislation does nothing else, it will at least combine the various agencies under one umbrella.

The Minister said that unemployment is unacceptably high. That is an understatement because it now affects every aspect of society. The core of most of our problems is unemployment and it leaves its impact on many families. It is responsible for a fairly high percentage of crime. Unfortunately, unemployment is an evil which has become part and parcel of the life of almost every family. All of us in the House should place at the top of any list of priorities we may have the elimination of unemployment.

I take exception to two phrases we have heard from Ministers over the past 12 months. We should eliminate the following two phrases: "that unemployment is levelling out" and "unemployment seems to be stabilising". As the Minister and I know only too well the hard fact is that unemployment is still increasing. I know this is not the Minister's philosophy but if one wants to play around with percentages certainly it might be stabilising but to the person who has lost his job it does not matter whether the percentage is levelling out, he is still unemployed. Those phrases sound very hollow in the ears of any person who has the misfortune to be unemployed. We should all make a firm vow not to use those phrases ever again. Those people, particularly single people, who try to eke out a living on unemployment assistance do not take too kindly to being to being told that unemployment is levelling out.

The Minister in his speech stated that the attendance at training programmes for young people are at high levels since the introduction of the youth employment levy in 1982. I accept that fully but I honestly feel that many of those who have been involved in these schemes are now no better off having completed them. Many of these schemes are ad hoc programmes designed to fill a temporary void without any concern for the young person's future or the ultimate situation in which they will find themselves. I accept fully that working on schemes of this nature or on schemes which have little relevance may be better than being idle but the money which has been spent could have been put to far better use and could have in many cases set the young person on a definite career. It could have given him or her a definite goal.

This brings me to the question of education and where education should tie in with many of the schemes and programmes which have been in operation over the past few years. There appears to have been a lack of co-operation and co-ordination between many of the schemes and the educational system. In many cases AnCO have taken over almost completely the running of apprenticeships. I can only speak from a rural background but I can say that what has happened has been to the detriment of many small industries and small contractors in rural areas. Let me give some of the reasons. A number of small contractors — I know the Minister is interested in the construction industry — have had to let apprentices go on block release. This meant in many cases that their workforce was substantially diminished. It meant that these young people would be away from home at a relatively early age attending the various courses. It meant that many small contractors found themselves in the situation that they were literally afraid to take on apprentices. A system similar to the one which was in operation where the contractors and the local vocational schools worked hand in hand, should be considered. The vocational schools were ideally equipped for the promotion of apprenticeships, particularly in metalwork and woodwork. There was a tremendous rapport and understanding between local employers and the various teachers. The apprentices were in a much better environment. They lived at home and they had none of the problems they now have. Parents are extremely worried, particularly in my own area, about letting apprentices go a minimum of 40 miles, in many cases further, rather than being at home at an age when they are most susceptible and when they should be at home in their own environment.

AnCO have been responsible for many good projects, projects in which they could have given apprentices a far greater input. I want to refer to a scheme which now appears to have run into problems with the Construction Industry Federation. In Charlestown a scheme of houses was constructed for old people. The scheme was built by AnCO, by young people under very good supervision. Those young people learned the trade from the bottom up. They were there from the cutting out and pouring of the foundations right through to the finished house. They received a very good apprenticeship and training but unfortunately because of some problem with the Construction Industry Federation it now appears that projects such as that are now no longer suitable under this scheme.

In most of the schemes the supervisor has been a man but in some cases the supervisor has been a woman. The value of the scheme both in output and in value to the young people who are employed depended on the supervisor. Yet, in many cases the supervisors themselves were not trained and did not know how to deal with many of the problems which arose on the scheme and did not know the importance of discipline. A case can still be made for the training of supervisors either under AnCO or the Construction Industry Federation who will take charge of schemes so that the young people will get the best value which can be got. They will receive good training and learn the need for discipline. One can see the difference between a scheme which has a good supervisor and the scheme which has not. Very often people come to me and to other public representatives to complain about the behaviour of those working on some schemes. One has heard of schemes where young people were out sunbathing and that is not good training for the future. Perhaps AnCO could consider a scheme for training supervisors in order to ensure that young people on various schemes would reap real benefit in regard to the preparation for work.

The educational scheme is out of line with modern day requirements. We all knew that it was academically inclined but we felt there would be a change of emphasis. Unfortunately that has not happened and the system has not come to grips with the needs of modern society. There is a tremendous need for new technology and a greater emphasis on engineering skills, particularly those needed in industry. It is very sad to see young people with third level certificates or diplomas in architecture, civil engineering or construction studies who cannot get the work experience necessary to go further with their studies. Many young people have come to me who are quite prepared to pay employers for some chance to get work experience so that they can take the next step in their education. That situation is abominable and it is a matter to which this new Authority must give their attention.

I have one particular reservation about this Bill since I do not see the need to include CERT within the scope of the Bill. Originally I was somewhat worried about the impact of CERT when they took certain courses from the VEC and centralised them, but experience shows that they have given a perfect example of how a training scheme should be run. They have identified a market and trained their people to fill the openings in that market. The benefits are evident in the numbers of people they have been able to place. In many cases other training bodies do not identify a market. Many of them are there just to fill a void and train for training's sake rather than to fill a specific need. CERT have provided the example of how training schemes should be set up and I earnestly ask the Minister to exempt CERT from the scope of the Bill and let them carry on their central role in the hotel and tourism industry. It is evident that those involved in the industry feel that CERT would serve their needs far better left as it is. We must hope that the tourism industry will flourish in the years ahead but in that context we must engage in proper marketing, and not seek to withdraw Bord Fáilte facilities abroad, especially in England. We can still attract a great number of tourists from the UK. Finally on this point, we should leave CERT as it is and let it expand by itself. It has proved itself since 1965 and is one of the few such organisations to have tied itself into the educational system.

The Minister spoke about the problem of long term unemployment. It is degrading, disillusioning and discouraging. Many of the long term unemployed have no hope and see no possibility of getting worthwhile employment. Unemployment is the great scourge of presentday Ireland to which we must all turn our attention. It affects every aspect of Government policy from social welfare to education. I do not think this legislation will help the long term unemployed, except that one section may make a little more money available.

The Minister speaks at length about Manpower policy. No State agency is prepared to use the Manpower services. Manpower are in a very unfortunate position. I know of a case where a Manpower office sent in 280 names for 50 jobs and were then asked to send more. Rural Deputies know that many people who have put down their names with Manpower have had no communication from them for years. They are never contacted even when Government or semi-State bodies have job vacancies. There are so many names on file that it is not possible. All State and semi-State agencies should be made operate through Manpower. This is done to a certain extent but the Government should insist on it. Also, where grants are being given to private industry they should be asked to operate through Manpower and grants should be available only if workers are taken on through the Manpower office.

The Minister lists eight important developments in the White Paper, the first being the significance of the emerging change in the labour force structure as between different age categories. While he includes it later as a major item, he should also have mentioned in that first item that women are now becoming more and more important in the workforce. With regard to his second development, what definition does he give to industry as such? Does it include all segments of industry — service and construction, or only manufacturing? One would have to agree with his third point, the development of a more flexible, cost effective and relevant system of apprenticeship training. I have given some examples of where training could be far more relevant if left in local areas rather than transferred to a central area. That would be of much more benefit to the economy of many small areas.

One of the most important developments listed is that the training necessary to meet the needs of the economy must be provided. That emphasises the importance of leaving CERT as it is, because CERT had a look at what was needed for the economy and the needs of the tourist industry. If we identify the training needs of our economy we will do a great day's work. Quite a number of the training schemes in operation at the moment are there solely because, I am afraid I have to say, of empire building that has gone on for a certain length of time. I am glad the Minister has felt the need to develop a comprehensive programme of action to improve the level of access and the range of options available to women in the labour market. I hope women will not then find themselves in the same position as the majority of their male companions, with nowhere to go.

The eighth point is the development of arrangements to decentralise and devolve the effective delivery of Manpower services to improve their effectiveness at regional and local levels. All of us in rural areas would say "hear, hear" to that. Quite frankly, too much power is evolving in the city. Not only would we like to see the Manpower service devolved, but very many other services also. We have felt for many years, not only through the lifetime of this Government but of other Governments, that far too much power is centralised in Dublin.

We who represent rural areas and the people whom we represent have a much better understanding and appreciation of the problems of people living in rural areas than those who might draw up grandiose plans which are of relevance to the city of Dublin but have absolutely no relevance for rural areas. For instance, in my area one could question the training facilities for forestry, for drainage — of which we need a considerable amount — and for the fishing industry, which has a tremendous potential. Mayo has some of the deepest waters in the country, sometimes only 200 metres offshore. In two or three places we have, within 200 metres of the shore, water deep enough to take ships of up to 200,000 tonnes. That is a facility which is not being used. Perhaps not to be harvested during my lifetime or that of many who are present here, but there are undoubted mineral resources off the Porcupine Bank. Even at this stage I should like to see training facilities being set up along the west coast to cater for the needs of those who will at some stage in the future drill and take oil and gas from the Porcupine Bank.

I am continuously approached by people in relation to the social employment scheme. They see no reason why works of seemingly major importance cannot be done while others which they consider of minor importance are being attended to. Part of this problem is connected with the trade unions. The local needs are those which should be looked at and answered. If a local community set out certain works in their own area — many of which will not be done by the present county council workforce for centuries because of the cash situation — there is no reason why under the social employment schemes drainage cannot be done, footpaths attended to and the cutting of bushes and various other operations carried out. At the moment these works cannot be done in parts of Mayo. At many meetings with community councils and my own organisation, I am asked why cannot certain works be done which are of far greater importance to the local people than work being carried out. This is probably something over which the Government have no real control but as a Parliament we should be directing our attention to it. We should be spending money where it will give the best return to the community.

I spoke before very briefly about some work which normally was done under the youth employment scheme and AnCO, which now seems to have been barred. Some of these works will never be undertaken. The Minister of State handled these matters early on and he knows the problems that arose. He will agree there is no way some of these construction projects could take place — small projects for local clubs, such as GAA clubs in Mayo, soccer clubs and community councils. The local community have not the money to give to a contractor. It is better to have them done under the aegis of the Construction Industry Federation, so that proper training can be given to the future carpenters, blocklayers, plumbers and electricians. This training could be carried out and the job could be of tremendous benefit to the community. I should like to see the Minister getting involved with the Construction Industry Federation.

Some years ago two pilot projects were set up in north Mayo, one at Gweesala and the other at Glenamoy, the heart of the bogs. Both projects were set up to find out what could be grown on the bogs, to what use could they be put. In Gweesala it was grassmeal and the products that could be made from it. This project was very successful but it folded up. There was some talk of this being bought and it was hoped an industry to make briquettes would be set up there. The point I want to stress is that this pilot project proved that farming could be carried on in boggy areas but it was allowed to lapse because when the experiment had concluded, we did not appear to want to divide the bog. The only problem was drainage. If machinery had been left there, co-operative farming could have been carried on because as long as the drains were kept open farming could have been carried on. Ten or 12 extra families could have been settled in this area, because even at 100 acres each, there was a great deal of bog to be divided. It is sad to see an experiment which gave good employment for a number of years being allowed fall through.

Some years ago we were interested in biomass. I suggest that we start planning now for the many areas which at present depend for employment on Bord an Móna and the ESB. Turf is a diminishing product. There was a scare recently that a number of men would be let go by Bord na Móna. A large segment of north Mayo depends on the Bellacorick power station, the Oweniny bog project and the Bangor bogs for employment. This year for the first time there was a threat to lay off a considerable number of the permanent staff of Bord na Móna and the people of those areas saw the stark reality of what could happen to that area if they were let go. We must face the fact that in 20 or 30 years time those resources will be used up. It is now that we should be planning for what will happen not just to a town but to a whole area — Crossmolina — Killala — Bangor — Ballina. If the scare experienced by these Bord na Móna workers during the summer did nothing else, at least it woke the community up to what can happen if there is nothing to replace the existing industry. Planning must start now. I do not pretend to know the lifespan of the bogs——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy talking about alternative training?

Mr. Calleary

Yes, alternative methods using existing facilities and how best young people can be trained for the future. I admit I wandered a little——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You have been in the bogs for quite a while.

Mr. Calleary

May I talk about people setting up their own business? This was a very good scheme, but I hate to have to point a finger. These young people were encouraged to start their own businesses but nobody thought about what would happen in five or six months time. They were not given any training in business management. Many of them became involved in setting up their own businesses because they were getting £x but they forgot about the rent, rates and normal running expenses. Few if any had any training in bookeeping or any other similar skills. For that scheme to be successful, these people must be properly trained and alerted to the problems they will face. If a training course had been provided many of those people would not have had to go back on unemployment assistance. This is an area that the Minister for Labour could have a hard look at.

If the new Authority do nothing more than put money into a pool to help people in different areas, they will have done a good job. It is ridiculous that the Minister for Finance can fork out £70 to an unemployed person while, at the same time, the Minister for Labour cannot give £50 to help that person do his own work. If a person sets up his own business not alone does it help him retain his dignity but it also encourages the work ethic concept.

The Minister should appoint a temporary chairman to the board and later the Authority should appoint a permanent chairman. I accept that there will be a hiatus until the employees appoint their two directors. I understand the Minister will also appoint the first director but that too should be on a temporary basis. I accept that the idea behind this Bill is training, and a fair portion of the Minister's speech dealt with youth and youth training but the Minister should change the composition of the board and provide for two youth representatives rather than one.

I hope, Sir, I have extricated myself from the difficulty I was in earlier. I congratulate the Minister for bringing in this legislation which is long overdue. This is a Bill many people have been looking for for a very long time. Apart from my one major reservation about CERT being included, I heartily welcome the Bill.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I can identify with one of the comments made by Deputy Calleary when he says that he would be concerned at people who do not come from rural areas making decisions about rural areas. As one who comes from an urban area, I often felt that people who do not come from urban areas make decisions about urban areas. I suppose Deputies from rural and urban areas feel the same way.

The concept of unity is good. The idea of one authority or one responsible group in charge of training, job finding and equipping people for jobs is a very good thing. I wonder whether the National Manpower Service have served any purpose at all. I do not want to be unfair but it seems that the manpower service have been an unmitigated failure. For instance, what have they done that the employment exchanges were not doing before they were set up? Could the employment exchanges not have been developed to do the same work as that carried out by the National Manpower Service? I do not want to be unfair; I want to be objective. I only say this because I am genuinely concerned, as all other Deputies in this House are, about the large numbers of people unemployed. I do not believe that the National Manpower Service have contributed greatly to solving unemployment.

I hope with the setting up of the new Authority that the whole role of the manpower service will be re-examined. I am aware, as other Deputies in the House are, that the manpower service quite often send people to Deputies' clinics for help. Perhaps that is due to frustration in the manpower service. The new Authority should be given terms of reference from the beginning. The various disparate groups should be brought together so that they could, in toto, pursue the maximum number of jobs for our young people. They could cut through as much red tape as possible and set themselves targets which are achievable in a non-bureaucratic way. This body must be made work. It must be enterprising and it must succeed. I wish it every success. I think the setting up of one umbrella group will assist it in doing that.

It seems, and I would like the Minister to comment on this, that there is some sort of unofficial committee within the Department of Labour which has the power, which this House does not have and which none of the parliamentary parties in this House have and which no member of the Cabinet has, to block schemes which could provide jobs for many young people in particular. They could be put to work at such useful tasks as, for instance, tidying up Mount Jerome cemetery in my constituency. There are many community projects which could be attended to, but it appears that a committee within the Department of Labour has the power of veto over schemes in that Department. I would like to know who are the members of this committee, who appointed them, who are they answerable to, what are their terms of reference and what are their objectives? Are their objectives to retain the status quo whereby some people within the public service are paid good pensions and others outside the public service remain unemployed. I would like to know what the work of this committee is.

People within the Department and on this new board will have to determine from the beginning that there will be no nonsense with bureaucracy. The objection to developing a facility such as Mount Jerome cemetery, about which I am in negotiation with the Department at present, and giving a dozen young people a job for a year or two years is that it is an asset and these people would be put to work developing an asset as if it was a piece of plant or machinery that could be sold the next day. I never heard such nonsense. If they developed that asset it would give 12 people a job for a year or two years and would make that cemetery, where the bereaved regularly visit the graves of their loved ones, more like a park. It would give it some sort of sightly look that would make the people who pay the taxes happy. Why is it not possible to put people to work on developing a cemetery which is centuries old, which has fallen into a disgraceful state of disrepair, and which is now being used by muggers to make their escape into adjoining areas. We cannot allow such a scheme because some anonymous committee within the Department of Labour set down terms of reference which prohibit those young people from getting a job because they say they could be developing a plant or a capital asset. That is nonsense. If there is one scheme like that there are probably hundreds or thousands such schemes where young people could be put to work, could develop skills and could be taken off the streets while at the same time doing everybody a service. There is some bureaucratic tendency within the Department of Labour and its agencies to prohibit that. That has to be stopped.

There are many useful works which have been assisted by the Department of Labour and their agencies such as the community enterprise scheme limited or CESLI as it is known in what was the old, Everclear building on Rathfarnham Road, Terenure, in my own constituency and adjoining the Minister's constituency. A concept that could easily be encouraged in other parts of the city and country is to develop an asset in such a way that small units can be used to get people, who have just got employment, on their feet. When they are on their feet they can move out and let somebody else take over the unit. That has worked very well in Terenure and it is something which this new agency could study and develop. There is much room for serving the community in ways which might not easily be identified. For instance, there are many young people involved in the community against drugs groups. They set up adventure sport clubs in a part of my constituency in Crumlin. They could employ one or two full time leaders who would develop a programme of work. That could be repeated several times throughout that constituency, throughout the city and throughout the country. If we identify a need there is no reason whatsoever why we should not use the funds we are voting to give people work and not just give them money for doing nothing. People want to work and people who have jobs want to see those people working.

It is a question of order in society. There is huge unemployment in parts of my constituency where order will break down because young people and not so young people are hanging around doing nothing. They do not want a society where people have nothing to do. It is almost a need not just for economic survival but for order in society, for occupational therapy and for the dignity of having work. It is to the benefit of the community that these people are put to work. We should give priority to that.

When we face this problem we find that we have an apartheid situation. We have two public service pay rolls. We have a pay roll which engages public service employees who have promotional opportunities, paid sick leave, overtime opportunities and all sorts of possible security and job satisfaction or at least job opportunities available to them. We have also 240,000 people on the same public pay roll who do not have any rights or privileges, no paid sick leave or any hope for the future. We pride ourselves on giving those in the public service a 7 per cent pay increase, an increase that is ahead of the rate of inflation, but that means we are continuing the policy of apartheid. Many of the 240,000 on the unemployment register could have been retained in the public service if there was moderation in public service pay. However, those people do not have any rights and the sooner we realise there is a form of economic apartheid operating against those people the sooner we will be able to address this problem in the right way.

We must maximise every opportunity to ensure that those who are on the poor end of the public service pay roll are put back to work. Otherwise we cannot say we are tackling the problem seriously. A suggestion was made by Deputy Calleary that the chairman of the new body should be appointed on a temporary basis and that there should be two youth observers on the board. I do not care who is appointed to that board provided those appointed are successful. The Minister should pick the best people and pay them the maximum bonus possible based on success. We should judge their success on the number who get back to work. I would not care if the chief executive officer was paid £1 million per year if he proved successful. This matter is too important to our society not just in economic terms but in terms of the whole fabric of our society.

I urge the Minister to pay the chief executive officer a good salary and a bonus based on success. That is the only way we will get somebody to cut through all the bureaucratic nonsense that exists and serve the community well. The person appointed should be given the incentive to make a success of the job. The new board should not be set up as a bureaucratic public service type body. If the people appointed are paid a bonus on the basis of success there is every likelihood that they will succeed and will not take on the multi-coloured coat of the various agencies that have been amalgamated to form this agency as occurred when Manpower took up where employment exchanges left off. I welcome the initiative and I hope it succeeds. The Minister should give the people involved the incentive to reduce the numbers on the unemployment register. I hope the agency will be in action shortly.

Mr. F. Fahey

I welcome the Bill and I should like to compliment the Minister on the work he had done on the White Paper. We all agree that this measure is long overdue. There has been a lot of negligence in regard to co-ordination of a manpower policy between all the agencies and the legislation represents the first important step in the implementation of an effective manpower policy. While there are many fine objectives in the legislation the real test will be if the new Authority can get their act together in facing what is our most serious problem. I welcome the appointment of the new chief executive, John Lynch, and I am satisfied that he will prove a good appointment. He has had a long and distinguished career and his performance with the IPC impressed everybody. I am confident that he will succeed in this job.

Unless the new Authority make fundamental changes in regard to manpower training and placement we will not solve our unemployment problem. I hope the new Authority will not repeat the mistakes made earlier. The plethora of training schemes and temporary work experience schemes militated against the creation of worthwhile sustainable jobs. We have squandered the £300 million we collected under the youth levy. That levy should have been used for the creation of viable jobs. I understand that the Government, and any Government, must operate with adequate finance but it was shortsighted of them to replace Exchequer expenditure with finance from the youth employment levy. We must restore the amount spent on training prior to the introduction of the levy. In future the manpower levy should be used for the creation of employment opportunities. I do not object to a small percentage of the levy being used for training purposes but unless we get away from the tendency to use the levy to keep people off the unemployment register we will make any progress.

I have doubts about changing the youth employment levy to a manpower levy although I admit I am not familiar enough with this to condemn the change outright. I am concerned that the change that will result from the levy being used for all employment is going back into the trap we are trying to release ourselves from. It appears that again we will be using the levy to replace Exchequer expenditure. I would prefer if the levy were used to help those under 25 years particularly in the transition from school to work. Once and for all we should do something to help those who leave school or training to get a first break. The amount of money collected from the levy could be usefully spent in that area. Therefore, it should not be extended right across the board. I look forward with interest to how the Minister will deal with this problem when he is replying.

I am concerned about the wastage of money in regard to training programmes. We must have much more efficient use of these programmes and I hope this new Authority will be the springboard for that, though I am sure of the importance of AnCO and those involved in it. There is a need for re-assessment of many of the AnCO programmes, particularly their efficiency. I will deal later with apprenticeships.

Perhaps there is need for a new approach to the type and range of training being given and for a better response from AnCO towards opportunities. There has been criticism that AnCO continue to support the traditional trades, like jobs in building, without thinking of new employment opportunities throughout the country. I will deal later with some of them. One is marketing and international surpluses. A key area for economic growth is our ability to produce top class marketeers. We can look at the discipline of accountancy. We have succeeded in getting an Institute of Chartered Accountants but we have not established marketing with the same status. An accountant must go through a much more extensive training period involving more skills than our marketing students. It is important that we make progress here. Up to now the rate of our progress has been disastrous. We must pay the same attention to international service industries where there is room for great growth and in which there is excellent employment potential.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce recently announced something in this regard. Of course there is potential also in the field of international finance and insurance. There is potential there for graduate employment. We have had no worthwhile identification of the disadvantage of our geographical periphery which was militated against us in the past.

These are all matters with huge potential for economic and employment growth but we do not seem to have copped on to it. The amount of work we have succeeded in doing there has been successful and as a result some of our small business have benefited. Our manpower policy must be tied closely with our economic and job creation policies. I was glad to see in the manpower White Paper that the Department of Labour will have a more central role in this regard. It is a scandal that no Government have succeeded in paying proper attention to this.

One of my main criticisms of AnCO is that they do not seem to have an open face and consequently we have massive squandering of money. AnCO have been employing consultants and sending them to hotels in Galway, Tuam and elsewhere to give courses to graduates. This must be stopped. We must look at the strengths we have in regard to graduate training and ordinary community based training. AnCO are spending money foolishly in this regard. I do not understand why they have to hold those courses in hotels and elsewhere. We have many public buildings, schools and halls, in which these courses could be held to better advantage. In this respect I urge the Minister to pay particular attention to our third level colleges who could play an important joint role with AnCO in regard to graduate training.

We can take UCG in which we have a number of people doing an important job among graduates, particularly in commerce, sciences, engineering. The graduates can give the benefit of their skills to small businesses. The Minister has been supporting the UCG initiative. We have highly qualified people there who need only the resources to expand. There should be a marriage of AnCO and the third level colleges and thereby young graduates could go out to small firms. This would be of mutual benefit to graduates and the firms concerned under the joint umbrella of the university and AnCO. Professor Jim Ward in UCG is crying out for resources with which to expand the training potential but he cannot get them. The sooner AnCO get into this through the universities and the regional technical colleges, the better. It would be a way to bring about transition from school to work and it would mean full time productive work for graduates.

Another criticism is in regard to the local base. In County Galway, AnCO have a training centre which is limited because of its size and staffing ability. Limerick will be dealing with the external training programme for Galway, which seems a bit ridiculous. The work being done by AnCO is good and the AnCO people who come along to give the courses are excellent. But what is lacking is a local base. My suggestion is that every location, founded on the VEC locations or even smaller as we expand, there would be established what I would term a community based training workshop, with the local community using its own strenghts to identify the training needs of the area. An area's own strengths are, first, the people in the community where there is a whole variety of disciplines from bank managers to teachers to engineers to marketing people to production managers, right across the board but with the exception perhaps of the deprived communities which would have to be given special consideration. There is there a plethora of expertise, of people who are anxious to lend their support. Those are the people who will form the local base for both training and placement. Second, there is in all communities the physical facilities which AnCO lack at the moment, and if they are not there it is possible for local communities to provide such facilities such as training centres, halls, schools and so on. It is at that point, having pulled the local community together, and having had them identify what the needs of the community are, that one then gives them the opportunity to go to AnCO to tell them the training needs they have, and AnCO would then provide the expertise, the trainers, the instructors. Here there would be a marrying of the local people and the statutory agency — AnCO in this case. There is a crying need for that now. It is my one criticism of AnCO that they do not have a local base at the moment. I certainly look forward to this new Authority providing for that kind of development in the near future.

In regard to the co-ordination of existing services, the Minister's main concern is to bring together the various agencies, AnCO, the National Manpower Service, the Youth Employment Agency and so on. I welcome that development but I have a very serious worry about the effectiveness of the agency because of its size. it will involve quite an amount of very careful footwork on the part of the people involved to co-ordinate those services.

There are a number of pre-requisites. The first is that the Youth Employment Agency should concentrate their efforts on long-term substainable jobs so far as possible. Instead of the present widespread use of temporary schemes, we should give a very narrow base to temporary schemes, and the remainder of the work of the Youth Employment Agency should be in developing opportunities in long-term sustainable jobs.

The second key element in worthwhile co-ordination is a new system which I believe must be brought in, that is, an integrated approach to the actual labour force. It has been suggested that all people in the labour force should have specific identification. This is a vitally important development. Everybody in the work force should have a unique personnel number whether he is employed or unemployed so that the new central integrated computer system that is now being developed will be able to identify everybody, employed, unemployed and so on. In addition to that being useful from the point of view of co-ordination among those agencies, it will be particularly useful to the Department of Social Welfare where there is an amount of duplication which results in people playing the system and getting money they are not entitled to. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how far this development has progressed and what his future plans are for the development of this co-ordination.

I would also suggest, in this context, that there be a link into the educational system. Last week a young lady came to me for my assistance in gaining employment, and it was only when I informed her that she realised she should be registered with the National Manpower Agency. I went to the Manpower office with this young lady to fill in a registration form. It was my first time to visit a Manpower office and it was a chastening experience. This lady, in filling up the registration form, had to fill out details of her past, simply off the top of her head. It seems a bit ridiculous that there is not some follow-through from the educational system to the National Manpower Agency so that a file or disc would come forward automatically from the school giving the essential details of every students who finds it necessary to register with the National Manpower Agency. Here was a young lady with a break of five or six months filling up a registration form in the National Manpower Office off the top of her head. She was trying to write down her past experience from memory. There was a huge break there. This is the period when, particularly in areas where there are disadvantaged young people, the seeds of disaffection are sown. I would like the Minister to consider in the co-ordination process, having some follow-through from the school system straight into the National Manpower Agency or AnCO or the Youth Employment Agency sector. I know that will be difficult but it will be worthwhile. We must be sure to keep close tabs on people, particularly those from disadvantaged areas — and I will deal with the social guarantee scheme in a few moments in that context.

The levy and grant scheme which has been operating in AnCO has played an important part in training over many years but it is now agreed across the board that it has outlived its usefulness. The whole approach to training must be looked at in a new light. I am disappointed that the White Paper, while it has identified the problems, has not come up with any initiatives or alternatives. I would like to put forward some initiatives that I feel are worth considering. The levy and grant scheme is in need of being replaced. There is a need for a much more flexible approach and this new approach should come from industry itself. For instance, in the pharmaceutical and electronics areas, proposals were made by those sectors both to AnCO and the Minister for Labour, for a change in the levy and grant scheme but this change was not forthcoming because the flexibility they were proposing could not be adopted.

The new approach should be the one that is recommended by the Confederation of Irish Industry and which has been very successful in a number of countries throughout the world. That is the indenture system, where the emphasis would be on in-company training, on a training contract for all young people. I was just reading the most recent newsletter from the CII. They say that in Germany, for instance, 75 per cent of school leavers are guaranteed a place in an industry for training purposes. In Switzerland 60 per cent of school leavers are guaranteed a place in industry and in Ireland a miserable 6 per cent of school leavers are guaranteed a place in industry. That huge flaw in our system is the basic area we must tackle.

Therefore, I propose that the way forward is in the indenture system or the in company training system whereby each company would provide a certain number of training places on the basis of a training contract of duration between one and four years. The company would not be liable to that trainee other than as part of the training contract. Therefore, it would not be an employment contract as such. Funding for this type of training could come from the company themselves but also from the State. That would be a very useful way to spend the youth employment levy, or the manpower levy as it is now known. I am confident that with proper development of the company, the training job could well become a fulltime, sustainable job. Again I come back to the importance there of manpower policy and economic policy.

I will give a little model which will illustrate what I mean. Take the winners in this country in the small business sector, and I consider that there are quite a number of winners in the 800 strong small firms association. Pick out the good companies in those areas and give them an indenture training programme. Give them also the marketing training programme allied with an export facility. If you set up in Europe, for instance, marketing and warehousing facilities for the products of your small firms who are highly successful at home, I have no doubt that the potential those firms have for growth will ensure that the young people they have on this training scheme will in time be assimilated into the workforce of the firms as a result of their growth. The combination of an effective marketing programme, an effective exporting programme and an effective training programme will ensure that the young people taken in under a training contract in many cases will continue as fulltime employees. That kind of approach is sadly missing in this country to date. One wonders what in the name of goodness people charged with responsibility for manpower training have been thinking about that they have not come up with a proposal such as that which has been so successful in Europe and which is so much better than attempting to train people in a training centre where it is not possible to assimilate the workplace situation. I urge the new Authority to look carefully at this proposal and if it is not possible to implement it to give us good reasons for that.

I turn now to the question of training for disadvantaged people and in that category I include people who come from a deprived background and people who are disabled. I had the experience recently in my work in regard to youth policy of visiting the fourth floor of Ballymun flats to meet with Father Peter McVerry and five of the young fellows there who are homeless. I wondered how in the name of goodness these guys could ever get a job, coming from the background that they come from. We must pay special attention to those deprived kids. There is no question that their only problem is the deprivation they have had to suffer in their short lives to date. A special effort must be made in relation to those kids and industry itself more than anybody else has an important role to play in this. A suggestion I feel could be of great assistance is that in addition to a greater effort being made to give those kids a better opportunity as regards education and training — to do that we must spend quite an amount of money — we should expand the youth encounter projects and so on which are doing quite well and expand also the training facilities which are in existence. From there the most important step we can takes is to ensure that we provide the employment opportunities for these people. Industry and in particular the leading industries have a role to play in this. I would like to see discussions taking place between the Manpower Authority and the leaders in industry. I am talking about the Smurfits, the Guinnesses, the Jacobs, the Digitals, the Wangs and other top firms. It is time those firms were asked to take a quota of the deprived young people into their workforces. I put it to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that the losses that are being caused to many businesses by the crime and vandalism which inevitably come from young people who are deprived could easily be made up by a greater effort on the part of those business people to provide employment places for many of those deprived kids. It is urgent now that discussions take place with those leaders in industry and this new Authority in an attempt to provide specific numbers of employment places for those deprived young people.

The same applies to disabled young people and, indeed, to disabled people right across the board. A new impetus is required from existing industry to provide a greater number of places for disabled people. I know that some firms have made great progress in this regard but, having personal experience of assisting a disabled young person who had been through a very good training programme with the rehabilitation board, I realised that finding employment for that person was almost impossible. Unless agreement is reached at a very high level between this manpower Authority and the various sectors of industry that a certain number of places will be made available, we are not going to go very far. The training which will be vitally important to both those sectors will be useless unless employment is provided.

This takes me to the question of job creation as part of the Authority's role and as a tie with the question of training. My criticism on a number of occasions in the House here of the Minister has been that we put too much emphasis on training and not enough emphasis on creating opportunities for sustainable jobs. The link between the new manpower agency and the other agencies such as the IDA and the economic course of events that, we hope, will provide more jobs is vital. As much of the resources available as possible should be used to provide for expansion of jobs. I have given two examples and the Minister and I during a short debate crossed swords on this question of the areas where jobs can be expanded. I am satisfied that in this country now there is a clear possibility for the creation of thousands of extra new jobs, given the proper set of actions.

I will outline some of the areas. It is vital to this Manpower Authority that we should outline the areas. I have mentioned the potential of the international services sector, of offshore banking and of international reinsurance. If the Isle of Man can be successful, why cannot we? I know we have to make decisions outside the Manpower area. For instance, we cannot attract international services industries to this country while we continue to charge 50 per cent corporation tax. To drop corporation tax would undoubtedly bring in more such industries.

I mentioned food production. The added value of our agricultural products, allied with a proper processing and marketing programme will create many jobs. We have on the shelf the 1983 IDA report on the food industry which identifies several areas of growth potential. We can see how successful we have been in some food lines, for instance in the Kerry Coop. There is no reason why we cannot expand further into this area. However, we are sadly lacking in people trained to process and market our food. A former Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture told me he went to Germany to promote a number of small Irish firms who were exporting top quality beef. They had a massive highly successful display in a number of German supermarket chains but within six months each of the four chains they visited came back to this Minister complaining they could not get products delivered on time and that they could not get the same quality across the board. It is scandalous that we, the prime beef producers in the world, cannot process and markets our beef and get it into supermarkets throughout Europe. We have taken the easy way out: we have sold into intervention. This is a huge growth area. This is our huge natural resource, yet we have failed miserably to develop our raw materials in agriculture and to market them. There is vast job creation potential here and a Manpower authority will have to do much work in bringing our workforce to the required level to compete with European companies. When I was not too long in the Dáil I brought in here a Danish appletart which I had bought in Gort to illustrate the point that it is so ridiculous one can buy in the west of Ireland a fresh cake made in Denmark and we cannot produce a similar product. The reason why we cannot do it is because we have not kept up with technology in that area and have not used it to our advantage.

We have not yet succeeded in developing the potential in traditional Irish industries and in convincing our people to support Irish industry. Thousands of jobs could be created if Irish industry could compete with foreign products. That is not happening because we have not updated traditional Irish industries to compete with foreign imports and because we have not convinced the people that to be patriotic is to support Irish industry. I do not suggest that anybody should buy an inferior Irish product but I have ample evidence that Irish products are not inferior. The Government should assist traditional industries to develop in the disciplines in which they are weak and which is causing them to be unable to compete with imports. There is no reason why industries such as the leather industry, the shoe industry, the furniture industry and so on should go to the wall if we eliminate the weaknesses and convince the people to support home industry. I clashed with the Minister, Deputy John Bruton on the question of support for Irish industry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to talk on the Bill. He is moving away from it now. I accept the training aspect of the Deputy's contribution but the "Buy Irish" campaign is not relevant.

Mr. F. Fahey

It is vital that I indicate a number of areas where sustainable economic jobs can be created.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Bill is about employment and training.

Mr. F. Fahey

Employment surely relates to the creation of sustainable economic jobs. This is my pet subject, although it is not the pet subject of very many other people. If we could convince the people to support Irish industry, thousands of jobs would be saved and more would be created. It is a scandal that companies such as Mattersons in Limerick and O'Dearest are going out of business. A small example is the little co-operative set up in Westport where when the company went into liquidation the workers bought out the firm and now we have West Coast shoes. I am wearing a pair of them and they are the best shoes I ever wore. If we could convince people to support those products it would be a great thing. We should put emphasis on that area.

We have 800 firms in the Small Firms Association, the vast majority of which are doing exceptionally well though they lack the expertise to get into exports. So that they can be successful in the export market we should provide the back-up to enable them to be successful. We should provide a sales and distribution facility for them. We should, for instance, set up a warehouse facility in central Europe which could be used for small Irish industries as a distribution point, backed up by a sales force throughout Europe. The same should be done to encourage the other markets, the Middle East markets and some of the Third World markets. There is no reason why these companies which are winners at home could not be winners abroad. I mentioned these four or five areas where there is potential but they are only four or five out of a larger number which are clearly identifiable.

I wish the new Authority well in their endeavours and I am satisfied that there is a very difficult task to be done. However, the ground work has been laid and the manpower policy set out in the Minister's White Paper is something with which I agree. I compliment him on the work he has done in this regard.

I am concerned about the fact that the youth levy will be changed to a manpower levy. I should also like to see an increased representation of young people on the Authority so that they will have a more adequate input. However, the overall thrust of the policy and the legislation are welcome and we all wish the Bill well.

Deputy Mac Giolla rose.

Acting Chairman (Mr. J. Doyle)

According to the list which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle gave me, Deputy Prendergast is next. I will call on you when he has spoken.

Mr. Prendergast

It was agreed with the Ceann Comhairle that Deputy Mac Giolla could speak before me because he has been waiting for a long time. I will give way to him.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I have been waiting for a long time. I do not intend to speak for an hour or so although I wish to make a number of points. We are in general support of the principle of rationalisation encompassed in the Bill as there is a need for it. We recognise that there has been considerable waste and far too much complexity in the present system. People have great difficulty in knowing which body is responsible for what as there are so many temporary training and employment schemes. The people for whom they have been designed simply do not understand the system.

Like all the speakers so far, I have considerable criticisms regarding the existing system. Nobody seems to be satisfied with the present system involving AnCo, Manpower, the Youth Employment Agency and so on. The only organisation with which people are satisfied is CERT.

When the youth employment levy was established about five or six years ago, there were no objections from the PAYE sector, who would be paying it, because they recognised that a special effort was needed to create jobs for young people. They saw the need for hope for their own children and were quite willing to pay such a levy. Unfortunately, it was not an employment levy, as was borne out by the Minister in reply to questions of mine last year. When I made inquiries in regard to the amount of money collected from the levy and the number of permanent jobs created by it I was told that the sum collected was £253.433 million. The Minister could not give an indication of any full time jobs created although he gave details of temporary employment and training schemes. No permanent jobs were created as a result of the youth employment levy and that is still the position. The Minister indicated that huge numbers were trained and that some of them got temporary employment of up to six months or so but that only causes further depression because when people go into new jobs with great enthusiasm their despair is even greater when they are laid off. The same applies to the Civil Service which provided 1,000 temporary jobs at £60 per week. It is worse to be employed for a while and then to be laid off then never to have known what it was like to work. People's hopes are built up but then they are dashed and they head for the boat. Most of those who emigrated saw no prospect of ever getting temporary work in the future.

It is significant that this legislation is entitled The National Employment and Training Authority Bill and that under section 25 "youth employment levy" will be changed to "youth employment and training levy"——

Mr. Quinn

We are not keeping the word "youth".

Tomás Mac Giolla

I am sorry, the Minister is quite right. The point I am making is that originally we had an employment levy which did not create employment. It was really a training levy and now we are calling it an employment and training levy. It is recognising a fact but there is nothing in the Bill which indicates a change of attitude, mandate or terms of reference which would place more emphasis on employment than on training.

The youth employment levy was supposed to be applied to everybody. However, farmers and self-employed have, without odium being heaped on them, refused to pay it. There has not been any publicity about this although I presume that their sons and daughteres are availing of AnCO and other schemes. They are reaping the benefits while other people pay. In reply to a question, the Minister said that in 1982-83, £2.46 million was unpaid by the farmers and that £4.9 million was unpaid by the self-employed, that in 1983-84, £3.20 million was outstanding from farmers while £6.2 million was outstanding from the self-employed, that in 1984-85, £3.20 million was outstanding from farmers and £8.2 million from the self-employed, that in 1985-86 a sum of £3.80 million was outstanding from farmers and £9.5 million from the self-employed, making a total of over £12.8 million outstanding farmers and over £28 million outstanding from the self-employed.

As I say, they still availed of the facilities provided by the levy paid by PAYE workers. It is a scandal and it is one of the things which make farmers feel so ashamed and embarrassed. As a result, a group of farmers in Kildare said that they wanted to pay the land tax. They said they wanted to make a contribution and that they were embarrassed by Joe Rea, by the IFA and by the farmers who do not pay income tax, the land tax, health levies or the youth employment levy but who still want all the handouts. It is up to the various Ministers responsible, in this case the Minister for Labour, to insist that this money be paid by farmers and if it is not paid by farmers should not avail of the services for which they are refusing to pay such as health services and youth employment schemes.

There were many criticisms of the existing system made by previous speakers. I have many criticisms also particularly with regard to the National Manpower Service who are regarded as a joke and a farce. When somebody comes to you and asks if there is any chance of a job and you ask them about the National Manpower Service they will tell you to forget about them. They register and that is the end of the story. They go on to the employment exchange. A previous speaker referred to the fact that before the National Manpower Service was set up these offices were called employment exchanges. I think they are still called employment exchanges but they do not deal with employment.

When they were employment exchanges they either told you that there was a job available or if there was not they paid you. Now you go into a labour or an employment exchange and you are put on unemployment assistance. A week later they tell you that you are not being paid as they believe you are not seeking work. You are cut off and receive no money. You have to prove that you are looking for work. You say that you are registered with the National Manpower Service but they laugh at that and say that that is no proof that you are looking for work and they want you to prove that you are going around looking for jobs. You then have to proceed taking buses around the city, even out to a building site in Tallaght, to seek employment and to try to get a letter from prospective employers to say that you had called out to seek a job from them.

No account is taken of the amount of money spent on bus fares. The National Manpower Service are supposed to tell you where the jobs are. Surely, it is their responsibility to have an idea of where the jobs are available? If the jobs are available, they should tell you. If you refuse to take a job, there is some justification for the labour exchange cutting you off but they cut people off despite the fact they are registered with the National Manpower Service and until they show at least three refusals. If that is not a joke, I do not know what a joke is or what purpose or role the National Manpower Service have. They do not keep a register of the jobs which are available; they do not keep in touch with employers and they do not inform people registered with them whether jobs are available or not.

A previous speaker said that the National Manpower Service and AnCO may have some relevance to urban areas but have no relevance to rural areas. I agree absolutely that they have no relevance to rural areas but I want to make the point that they have no relevance to urban areas either. I am delighted that under the new system this may change. The role of the National Manpower Service was unbelieveably bad. It was a grave mistake to set up AnCO and it was also a waste of funds. They proceeded to set up a training system side by side with a system which already existed. A system which existed in the VECs for educating and training apprentices was taken over by AnCO who built new premises and employed new teachers. They set up a new course of training for apprentices. They hired private individuals and groups to provide training schemes for six to eight weeks in order to take young people off the live register. Many of these courses are a farce and have no relevance to the ordinary working-class people who are taken off the live register. AnCO developed this training scheme without relating it to what existed already. This was a major mistake. AnCO now have a staff of over 2,000 who do excellent work in the context of the mandate they were given. The mandate which they were given is totally wrong and their terms of reference are totally wrong.

The VECs had their own premises and teachers. What is happening is that the VEC system is being deprived of resources. The Minister in opening this debate on 27 November said that in 1965 with the exception of CERT and the vocational education schools that there was little or no training being done and AnCO were only on the drawing board. What was wrong with CERT and the vocational education schools? The Minister went on to point out that at that time they were training 22,500 young people. He made the point that this number increased following the youth employment levy in 1986 to 66,500. The difference in the unemployment figure between 1981 and 1986 made it absolutely essential that something be done to keep them quiet. Approximately 100,000 more people were out of work in 1986 than in 1981. Therefore, these schemes were set up.

CERT and the vocational education schools were engaged in training 22,500 young people before the Youth Employment Agency was established and when AnCO was still only on the drawing board. Today the Minister said that AnCO is training nearly 15,000 people at any one time. In addition, we now have comprehensive and community schools, regional technical colleges and the national institutes of higher education. The VECs who have provided training and education, particularly for working class children down through the years, have done an excellent job and have been in constant communication and association with the construction industry and with other industries such as the motor trade. They applied their courses in accordance with the new technology which was being developed at all times for over 40 years. The VECs have been deprived of resources both as a result of the development of AnCO and as a result of the development of the new comprehensive and community schools. It has reached the stage now where the Minister for Education, according to the Green Paper, wants to wipe out the VEC system altogether. This is an indication of the attitude of this Government. Many speakers have referred to the deprived and disadvantaged areas which need to be helped. These areas have simply become more deprived and disadvantaged in educational terms, as well as in the area of jobs. The VEC system which provided education for working-class children right up to third level is now being starved of resources and is scheduled to be wiped out.

AnCO should have been working hand in hand with the VEC schools. In Ballyfermot the VEC school is across the road from the major AnCO centre. They are less than 100 yards apart. The principal of the VEC co-operates fully with AnCO but unfortunately AnCO are not allowed to continue that co-ordination or to develop the system which was assisting the school and AnCO. AnCO must develop their own new courses with their own teachers. As a result the jobs have been created in AnCO. These are not jobs for young people but jobs for people engaged in training young people for temporary jobs.

I have been talking about the waste of resources by AnCO which can be contrasted with the excellent example being given by CERT. I support Deputies who have called for CERT to retain their identity and autonomy under this new system. CERT train annually 7,000 people, while 15,000 are trained annually through AnCO. CERT work with a staff of 72 while AnCO employ 2,300 people. How do CERT do this? They do it through the VEC schools and the RTCs and by giving training courses in some hotels during the off season. They are able to do all this without any new premises and in most cases without any new teachers. They are using the resources which are there already and the premises which are available. They have integrated into one industry. This is the reason for the strength and efficiency of CERT and their success in achieving 100 per cent placement for their trainees. They know the industry in which they are involved. There are approximately 11,000 establishments involved and 7,000 employed in the industry. CERT are fully aware of what is going on. They are aware of the different skills needed in the industry and they are in touch with the schools and training establishments to see that these skills are taught, if necessary through changes in curricula. They know about the skills required and where the jobs are. Thus they are able to achieve 100 per cent placement for full time students and 90 per cent from those taking courses from the unemployed. They pay particular attention to the unemployed and what have been called the deprived and disadvantaged in working-class areas. They are doing a tremendous job in a highly co-ordinated manner. They are providing a guideline for AnCO and this new Authority. Training should be geared to the needs of industry. In the area of employment surely industry should be in touch with the State and semi-State companies in regard to expansion. The food industry has been mentioned and also expansion into subsidiary companies through co-ordination with the training authority to provide placement and employment for people in various areas.

Incidentally, what happens to the National Department Corporation? Is it still alive? If it is, surely it has a role to play in co-ordination with the National Employment and Training Authority.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 3 Dec 1986

National Employment and Training Authority Bill, 1986: Second Stage (Resumed).

Acting Chairman

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Dec 1986