Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 28 May 1991

Vol. 409 No. 1

Youth Services.

I have tried on at least ten occasions to raise this matter in the Dáil and I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise it this evening. I have five minutes in which to outline the serious problems being encountered by the youth service at present and to ask the Minister of State at the Department of Education with special responsibility for youth and sport what he is prepared to do in an effort to solve the deepening financial crisis facing the service.

At the outset I should like to give the Minister of State some background information. The youth service has been the subject of a variety of policy statements since the mid-seventies. The Minister of State's bible, according to himself, is the Costello report first published in 1984. I agree with the Minister of State that this comprehensive and far reaching report should form the basis of our youth service. Notwithstanding this avowal of support for the Costello report and the guarantee given by the Minister of State on taking office that the Costello report would form the basis of the youth service structure, to put it mildly the youth service now find themselves in a financial mess through no fault of their own but rather as a result of mismanagement of the money allocated to the youth service by both the Minister and his Department.

In 1988 the youth service were allocated £10 million, £8 million in 1989, £8.3 million in 1990 and the proposed allocation for 1991 is £9.761 million. While it can be said that increased allocations have been made since 1989, we should have regard to the key 1988 figure, £10 million. At no stage since then has the allocation exceeded that base figure and it is only now, two and a half years later, that the consequences of not giving the youth service the £10.6 million they need to maintain services at their 1988 level are being felt. I wish to emphasise that this sum amounts to only half the figure recommended in the Minister of State's bible, the Costello report published in 1984. At present day values the Costello report would recommend that at least £25 million be allocated to the youth service.

Another point which has not gone unnoticed on this side of the House is that the allocation for the youth service from national lottery funds dropped from a figure of 27 per cent of the total in 1988 to 17 per cent in 1989 and to a mere 16 per cent in 1990. Equally, the allocation under the heading sport, recreation and youth decreased from 50 per cent of the total at the end of 1988 to 45 per cent at the end of 1990. The question I would like to ask the Minister of State is what criteria were used in arriving at these decisions.

What are the consequences of this lack of sufficient funds for the youth service? First, they will lose 35 staff by the end of the year. The National Youth Council of Ireland today briefed the Minister of State on this matter but it should be remembered that funds have already been allocated and job losses are imminent. It would appear, therefore, that face-saving is the order of the day and I challenge the Minister of State to tell us how he is going to solve the problem, rather than what was discussed, given that decisions have already been taken and funds allocated to the youth service.

I wish to emphasise that it is disadvantaged young people who will have to bear the brunt of the cutbacks and forced job losses. For example, Voluntary Service International have had to abandon their teenage workcamp programme and Foróige have had to abandon their summer programme and events for this year. Both programmes were targeted specifically at disadvantaged young people involved in those youth organisations. I expect the Minister of State to say in reply to these charges that the allocation for the youth service has in fact remained unchanged — I know and accept this to be true — but he must realise that mainstream youth organisations are to the forefront in providing youth services for disadvantaged young people. The report on disadvantaged young people commissioned by the Minister in 1988 and undertaken by the National Youth Council of Ireland underlines the comprehensive response of the youth service to young people suffering from socio-economic disadvantage.

I call on the Minister of State to undertake immediately the following steps——

The Deputy's time is almost up.

The Minister of State should allocate the extra funds that the service need to ensure that they do not lose 35 jobs by the end of 1991. I have no doubt that the National Youth Council will be able to give the Minister of State the exact figures involved. I also call on the Minister of State to give youth organisations their youth service grants now. Up to today they had been only allocated 50 per cent of their total allocation for 1991. This is not good enough.

I believe that the funding problems being encountered by the youth service could have been avoided if proper planning had been undertaken back in 1988. Furthermore, what does the Minister of State intend to do in relation to the increases guaranteed in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress for 1991? Does he not realise that the workers in the youth service will not get the increase agreed with the social partners? That is a disgrace. The guarantee given in the programme that youth services will continue to be provided will be reneged on if the Minister of State does not do something and I challenge him to respond on the matter.

The Deputy has exceeded his time.

I am aware of the Minister's concern and I appeal to the Minister of State to try to convince the Government that there is a need to do something.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss in the House this evening the funding for the youth services. The allocation in any one year under the youth service grants scheme takes many factors into account, including the total allocation available for youth services in general and changes in emphasis between services funded through the youth service grants schemes and other schemes, including special schemes for the disadvantaged.

Grants paid to individual organisations under this scheme do not therefore necessarily represent the full funding available to them in the youth service programme nor do they fully reflect the priorities set out within the programme as a whole for the provision of services. In allocating resources for 1991 my Department have continued with the realignment of priorities as between the youth service grant scheme and other schemes. Any reductions in the grants to individual organisations under the scheme are a reflection of this reordering of priorities and do not in themselves represent a value judgment in absolute terms on the services provided by those organisations.

I am holding an ongoing series of consultative meetings with national youth organisations to discuss funding allocations generally. These discussions will have particular regard to flexibility between various budget headings while maintaining an emphasis on disadvantaged youth.

I am particularly concerned also that employment level in the youth service will be maintained at the maximum level possible conductive with the delivery of the most effective service possible within the resources available. In this regard there is a need for positive open exploration among youth organisations of means to improve co-ordination and co-operation. Competing and overlapping headquarters structures which lead to duplication in training, computerisation, secretarial facilities, accountancy, publication and maintenance costs could well be integrated, for example, without loss of the independent identity and ethos of the various volunteer networks which they serve.

It should not go unsaid, indeed, that the 1991 allocation for youth services of £9.8 million is £6.041 million, that is 260 per cent greater than the expenditure of £3.765 million in 1987.

Out of Exchequer funding. We are talking about the national lottery.

This is a remarkable level of increase in support for the service in a period when underlying inflation was of the order of only 12 per cent. I would remind the Deputy that due to the legislation that was introduced by his own party in Government national lottery funding is exactly the same as Exchequer funding. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever.

That is the way the Government have made it.

That is the way the legislation was set up, to allocate lottery moneys. Let me say that I am deeply concerned about the fact that we have had to make cutbacks despite the fact that we had £1 million over and above what we had last year. The fact remains that we now have almost £10 million as compared with £3.7 million when the Deputy's party left Government in 1987.

That is an absolutely unfair comparison. It is no excuse for job losses.

I find it rather nauseating that the Deputy should talk about the Costello report in the way he did because when his party were in Government in 1986 they promised £2 million, which was made available and left on the books for a number of months to start implementing the Costello report, but then the money was withdrawn.

We put the national lottery in place and that enables you to go around the country and show off.

Deputy Deenihan, this is not a football match.

It is a very serious matter.

Deputy Deenihan, please behave yourself.

I would like the Minister to respond to the question I asked.

Please behave yourself, Deputy, or I will ask you to leave. I will not ask you again. This is a serious matter and the Deputy does not do justice to it by shouting across the House.

I think a correction has to be made.

There is no need for corrections. I am stating the facts. I know the Deputy does not like to hear the plain truth. It is rather hurtful——

I am a football man.

——when one considers that the Government provided £2 million but then withdrew it several months later.

We never did.

Whatever about the present lack of money, I can assure the Deputy that that kind of action would never take place under this Government.

There is no excuse for the job losses.

Every effort is being made to ensure that the effects of the cutbacks are kept to a minimum. Unfortunately, I will not be in a position to provide more money this year and the 30 or 35 jobs, whatever figure the Deputy decides are being lost, cannot be saved unless we can make changes within the budgets that have been provided, because, as the House will know, it is not possible to find extra money in the middle of the year. I am discussing this with the various organisations at present and I am prepared to give them every flexibility in trying to save as many jobs as possible within our existing budget.

Barr
Roinn