Deputy Bradford is in possession. The Deputy has nine minutes to his credit.
Private Members' Business. - Youth Services Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, they are nine very valuable minutes. I must remark on my disappointment that the limited time available to discuss this very important Bill has now been limited further. I suppose that it is not the first time and will not, unfortunately, be the last time that issues affecting young people are pushed back further and further to the margins of our political activity.
Notwithstanding that, I listened with great interest to the debate throughout the past three nights. Many of those who spoke talked about youth involvement in the political process and said that they were gravely concerned that young people were quickly becoming very cynical about the entire political process. The content of many speeches in the debate, and in particular the Government's attitude towards the Bill, will certainly do nothing to change the public perception, particularly the perception of young people, of politicians. In a sense it was amusing, but also appalling, to hear speaker after speaker from the Government give a certain amount of praise to Deputy Deenihan for his efforts in bringing forward the Bill but equally quickly point out why they could not support the Bill. It has been disappointing to hear such a response from the Government when neither the Minister nor Government members have presented any clear-cut policy decisions or initiatives. That is a matter I could not address in the six or seven minutes remaining to me. Nonetheless, I must express my disappointment at that negative attitude on the part of the Minister and Government.
I should like to deal briefly with two problems in relation to youth, the first being those faced by youth in rural areas and, second, the difficulties caused within the juvenile justice area. In relation to youth in rural areas it will have been noted that over the years the two organisations that have done most for the development and enhancement of youth have been the GAA and Macra na Feirme, who have advanced successfully the cause of young people. As a former member of Macra na Feirme I must say that organisation has been a marvellous vehicle for the personal development of all its members and of the communities it serves. Unfortunately, it is one of the many organisations that has been hit by Government cutbacks on youth services.
As we are all aware, there was a certain commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to youth services. However, the Government's reneging on that commitment has had a fairly disastrous effect on Macra na Feirme, resulting in the loss of three youth workers within that organisation. It is not only Macra na Feirme who will lose as a result of these cutbacks, but tens of thousands of young people in rural areas who have and would continue to benefit from the types of services they have delivered. Never has there been a greater need for a youth development organisation in rural areas than at present. On account of the Common Agricultural Policy reform measures we are told that rural Ireland — unfortunately I think we can take this prediction to be correct — will be decimated with many young people leaving the land and deserting rural areas for urban towns and centres.
The Bill proposed by Deputy Deenihan and the types of structures he would like to see in place would constitute a forum for youth groups in both urban and rural areas to voice their concerns and causes, at least affording them an opportunity to believe that somebody is listening because at present they appear to feel nobody listens.
There are at present three or four specific problems confronting rural areas which are having a detrimental effect on the lives of young people there and which will be exacerbated considerably by the Brussels proposals. These include the enormous cutbacks in agricultural support, resulting in farmers leaving the land, in young people seeing no future on the land and leading to a position over the next ten years in which the numbers of people working in agriculture will be halved. We must remember these people will not disappear off the map or out of the country but will join the ever-increasing dole queues when the present problems of our towns and villages will quickly become those of rural areas. It was unheard of a number of years ago to have the vast majority of people in townlands throughout rural Ireland approach politicians seeking unemployment assistance and other forms of State assistance. It is no longer any surprise to find people attending politicians' clinics weekly seeking such social welfare entitlements. That practice will continue as a result of the cutback regime emanating from Brussels. It is disappointing that the forum younger people in agriculture would have had available to them to discuss these difficulties will henceforth be removed.
One area in need of immediate response from Government is that of the training of young people in agriculture. At a time when young people perceive very little future in agriculture — perhaps rightly so — those who are sufficiently brave to enter that field should be given every possible assistance by Government. Unfortunately, the difference between agricultural education funding and that available to participants in FÁS courses is quite different, again something which has not been properly addressed by Government. That is also something that the committee envisaged in Deputy Deenihan's Bill would have highlighted and made a priority for discussion. As Members may know, people who are sufficiently fortunate to train for a job in industry or to acquire an apprenticeship skill with FÁS receive a weekly allowance giving them some form of subsistence throughout the period of their training. The same type of allowance should apply to those who train in agriculture, but it does not. However, the position has changed somewhat in that people attending a full time agricultural course will have their college fees paid but receive no weekly allowance, which practice should be revised. More importantly, those hundreds of farmers who participate in green certificate courses, spending two or three days weekly on such courses, receive no allowance whatsoever. Such people receive no incentive to improve their farming skills or knowledge. That is a most disappointing aspect of present Government policy towards young people in rural areas.
I would be grateful if the Deputy would bring his remarks to a conclusion.
The Bill initiated by Deputy Deenihan would constitute a vehicle for us to address that area also.
I compliment Deputy Deenihan on having introduced this Bill leading to the debate we are now having. I am most disappointed at the Government's response which is nothing more than lip service being paid to youth services without any action.
I should like to share my time with Deputy Quinn. We would both like to share our time with Deputy Kemmy if this is possible.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I appreciate that it sounds like a cliché for me to thank Deputy Deenihan for having introduced this Bill leading to the present debate. I know the Deputy quite well and have never doubted his interest in young people at home or abroad. I wish to thank him sincerely for having introduced this Bill. While I do not agree with its provisions I always welcome Members from any party outside the Government party doing what Deputy Deenihan has done.
In the short time available I should like to express my views on the present position with regard to young people in our society. I know a number of speakers have referred to the fact that possibly in the past our youth services were malefocused. That is a valid point. However, the Minister of State at the Department of Education in his term in office always has striven to ensure equality of treatment for young men and women in co-operation with the various youth services, many of whose representatives are present this evening in the Visitors' Gallery. I support that approach.
I become worried when somebody introduces a Bill calling for more reports, policy documents and advisory committees, especially in this area. There are many tiers of organisations dealing with services for young people to whom many tributes have been paid in the course of this debate, and I should like to add mine. The Minister became angry when he spoke here — I am glad he did — because he spoke with conviction on the need for more investment in youth services. He has made £10 million available. I know he would like to do much more. I support him in his appeal and hope that the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance will listen to the strong case he has made.
Debate on our young people inevitably broadens into a wider one on Irish society, on the quality of life here, on our attitudes, values and standards. I would have to say it goes much deeper than simply throwing up a prefabricated youth centre in a disadvantaged area. There is a danger of the debate being steered in that direction.
I should like to deal with the whole question of juvenile justice, which has received a great deal of media attention in recent weeks when there were a number of reported incidents of vandalism and crimes against property in Dublin's western suburbs. Crime involving juveniles is a serious problem in this country. It is a problem recognised by young people themselves and by the various youth organisations, including the National Youth Council of Ireland.
The decision of the former Minister for Education, now Minister for Health, Deputy O'Rourke, to make new regulations governing the sale of solvents to those under the age of 18 is a welcome development. I know the Minister was concerned at the high level of deaths resulting from abuse of solvents. It would be my hope that these regulations will go some way to alleviate this problem. Obviously there needs to be a degree of public health education in this area which I am sure the Department of Health will endeavour to provide. Of course, many youth organisations provide such educational programmes at present. It is an issue that has been well documented in the Garda probation and welfare annual reports. Indeed the Costello and Whitaker reports also have recognised the problem. It is also worth noting that crime among juveniles has been increasing since the late seventies. Probably the most worrying aspect is the increase in violent crime. All of this is despite the efforts of State agenies and the many youth services.
Why do people commit crime? Is it related to the socio-economic background of the young people involved? What we witnessed in the past few weeks was no doubt accentuated by media coverage of the events. It is not the case that all crime is found in areas of socio-economic deprivation, but I have no doubt that poor housing, unstable family background, unemployment and a family history of alcohol or drug abuse or crime can be contributing factors to young person's becoming involved in crime.
While the carrying out of a criminal act is a deliberate, conscious and deeply personal act, peer pressure also puts the young person in a vulnerable position. I am not trying to find excuses for the individual's lack of responsibility in society. We must recognise that there is a tremendous lack of respect for the Garda among many who are from disadvantged areas. They ask why they should not be involved in crime. It is clear that the very rich can escape their debts, seek protection from their creditors in the courts and use insider or privileged information to make fortunes; yet a young man or woman, or even a child, can be sent to prison for evading a DART fare. What is known as white collar crime can go unnoticed by the system and those involved in such practices know that the laws in this area are hopelessly out of date. Sentencing reform in the last century was designed to reflect a degree of proportion between the offence and the crime. I would warn of the danger of allowing the evolution of a system of justice which at times operates in a two-tiered fashion. Some of the instances of juvenile penalties are exceptional, but the law must be seen to be fair and just. The quality of the administration of the law is at the very core of our democratic system. Young people deserve to be treated as equals by those who monitor our behaviour as a society.
We have the bleak urban environment of rows of semi-detached housing, often poorly built, situated in what were once the green fields of County Dublin. Proper facilities have not been provided. Lack of employment is the backdrop for disillusionment and discontent. The individual's contact with society may amount to no more than seeing corporation rent collectors, social welfare inspectors, money-lenders and so on. I have witnessed this in County Dublin during the past few years. Where there is a lack of respect for society there will develop a lack of regard for others and their property. This manifests itself in the destruction of property, larceny and minor assault — all crimes which tend to be committed by juveniles. Parental attitude, where it is ambivalent on this subject, contributes to the mentality that crime pays and is OK as long as you do not get caught.
One solution is obviously jobs. People without jobs are depressed. Unemployment scourges families and individuals. Pressure builds up on individual family members. Of course there are people who have reared their families while under the strain of poverty, low wages or unemployment, without ever engaging in criminal activity and they deserve our support. It has been asserted that social welfare recipients should be encouraged into meaningful employment. This deserves attention. Perhaps employers could top up social welfare payments. The family income supplement scheme might be re-examined.
Traditional family structures have disintegrated in the past 20 years. The focus on the family unit and the influences of the Church and school have diminished. The voluntary youth services have compensated for that lack of security in the family home. If young people are out unsupervised or causing damage to property, do the parents know where they are or do they care? If the answer is no, society has a problem which must be addressed. Familes who lived in small, close-knit communities in the inner city were moved to vast public housing schemes. The population of Dublin has doubled in the past 20 to 30 years and 20 per cent of the workforce are unemployed.
This debate must address the broader issue. There is a responsibility on political leaders, planners, public servants, teachers, social workers and health board employees to work with the voluntary agencies to provide support structures for the unemployed, single parents and others who because of their circumstances and environment find it difficult to raise children. We must not try to apply traditional solutions to complex, long term modern problems. The "hang `em, flog 'em and whip 'em" mentality will not resolve this problem but will only contribute to existing problems.
It is to the credit of this Government that they have done many commendable things in trying to address this problem. In education the bias has been in favour of disadvantaged areas and there has been an emphasis on links with home. The Minister of State, Deputy Frank Fahey, has outlined what he has endeavoured to do by increasing investment in youth services. I warmly welcome the interdepartmental committee on child care and homelessness chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Chris Flood. There are three Departments involved— Health, Education and Justice.
In the short term we need to provide costly and secure detention centres for young offenders, male and female. It is absurd and immoral that children have to be remanded in custody in Garda barracks. We have all witnessed the spectacle of district justices being forced to plead from the bench to the Government to address this problem. Disturbed and dangerous young people need to be in an environment of constant supervision, attention, counselling and rehabilitation if they are to re-enter society. There should be an extension of the juvenile liaison scheme, the probation and welfare service and the community service order scheme, to ensure that as many young people as possible are kept out of the prison regime. More effort needs to be expended on the non-custodial option. Community service orders have proved to be most effective. The Whitaker report shows how little is spent on this option. The youth organisations believe that this emphasis must change if young people are to be prevented from committing crime rather than rehabilitated after the criminal act has been committed. The Whitaker report recommended that St. Patrick's Institution be closed without delay because rehabilitation is not possible where the physical conditions are such as to nullify any proper personal development programme.
Life and social skills training should be part of the curricula in primary and secondary schools. The youth services have said consistently that young people are not given the necessary skills to cope with adolescent and adult social life. Because many young people have to develop a sense of belonging to society, criminal activity becomes easier. The individual has a lack of awareness of duty to society. The Minister must ensure that funding to community and youth groups is increased substantially to support and help these people in a constructive way. The youth services should be streamlined and the number of State Departments involved should be reduced. I pay tribute to the voluntary organisations. The services they offer are extremely good value for money and further investment should be made.
Deputy Bradford and others referred to emigration. Many of our emigrants are looking for jobs, housing and social contacts. I would encourage the interlinking of FÁS services with those provided by their counterparts in the UK, the co-ordination of these services and the computerisation of information so that young people going abroad will be well aware of what to expect. Schools should provide information on health care, AIDS and so on. There are many things young people are entitled to know.
This Bill has facilitated a very good debate and I wish we could give it more time. Most Deputies have emphasised that there is a void in respect of the age group from 12 to 17. It is necessary to follow the child from primary level through second level and into third level and to provide equality of opportunity. As I said, there is much more to this debate than putting up prefabricated youth centres here and there. I welcome the fact that many Deputies have recognised this and referred to it during the course of the debate.
May I ask how much time I have?
The time available to the Deputy and her colleague, Deputy Kemmy, expires at 8.06 p.m.
At the outset I wish to compliment Deputy Deenihan for bringing this Bill before the House. The Bill contains many sound, solid and well worked out proposals. Even if the Bill is voted down in the House tonight, Deputy Deenihan can be certain that many of the ideas put forward by him and other speakers will be incorporated in future legislation on the provision of youth services. I am sure that many of his ideas will be taken on board by the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, in his efforts to extend youth services in the years ahead. For this, Deputy Deenihan has earned the gratitude of this House and of young people who are reaching out for the kind of services proposed in his Bill.
There is no doubt that young people today are growing up in a world vastly at variance with the world in which we were reared. At one end of the spectrum the pressure for points and third level places has taken a stranglehold on the growing years of thousands of youngsters, stripping them of the freedoms, joys and delights which ought to be the hallmarks of their childhood. At the other end of the spectrum many thousands of school leavers are forced to grow up in an environment of extreme social, cultural and economic deprivation. Irrespective of the social setting in which they live, all youngsters have to make their way in a world riven with commercial exploitation and moral uncertainties. In addition, for the first time in human history the faults, foibles, deceits and dishonesty of the adult world have been cruelly exposed to young people through the medium of television.
The first thing we have to do is acknowledge the unprecedented difficulties with which this generation of young people have to grapple. Having done that, we must then resolve to put in place proper provision proportionate to the scale of difficulties. In short, we cannot confront today's problems with the recipes of yesterday. In relation to youth services, we must aim to put in place a comprehensive youth development policy based on current and emerging needs. We must make proper financial provision to ensure that this policy is fully implemented on the ground in every corner of the country. We must make policy decisions which will discriminate positively in favour of the more disadvantaged young people in our society.
There is much talk at present about the principle of cohesion at European level. That principle is based on the idea that areas of greater wealth will transfer at least some of their wealth to the poorer regions thereby bringing about a greater balance in terms of justice. At the Maastricht Summit which will take place next week our representatives will argue very strongly for the adoption and implementation of that principle. I hope they succeed resoundingly in their argument.
However, there is an equal need for us to put in place the very same principle in relation to domestic matters. We must look at the enormous imbalance which exists here between areas of high disadvantage and areas which are less disadvantaged. We must adopt the principle of cohesion we will be pursuing at Maastricht in any future policy making, funding or planning. As I said recently, much of the money from lottery sources which was granted to golf clubs and amenities of that nature in the past number of years ought to be directed to areas of high disadvantage, especially disadvantaged urban areas, the hallmarks of which have been well defined for us in recent times. I am talking in particular about areas which have a high level of long term unemployment, very high social deprivation, very poor housing, poor recreational facilities and very poor physical planning. In conscience, we can no longer afford to ignore the special problems which are emerging in such areas. We have to apply the principle of cohesion to these areas.
In any reappraisal of the present system we will first have to examine the gaps which exist. Despite the value of the youth service work currently being carried out both on a voluntary and statutory basis, these services do not reach a large number of people. We must bear this in mind in any future improvements, new legislation or new policy directions. For example, I have noticed that the people who benefit from adult education are those who had the benefit of first level, second level and third level education as a basic educational qualification. They are the people who gain further qualifications later in life through adult education. We need to ensure from here on in that our first commitment is to the people who did badly from the start. We must give these people a second chance. We must also do the same in terms of our youth services. We must aim to reach out to the people who have not been brought on board to date, people in disadvantaged areas. We must also reach out to young women. A feature of much of the youth work which has been carried out to date has been the exclusion of young women. We must ensure that this is not repeated in the future.
I fully support the convincing argument put forward by the Minister for additional funding for his Department. He has the right commitment and idea and we must all support him in his demand for national funding. The Progressive Democrats believe that the main core of that funding has to be put on a statutory basis, must come within the ambit of education and must be part of the annual Estimates. This would put the funding on a much firmer basis. It could also be topped up from lottery sources. I do not think we can leave an issue as important as youth services to the vagaries of lottery funding. We need to put it on a more statutory basis. I would support the Minister in his efforts to do this.
The Deputy should support the Bill.
I support elements of the Bill——
Then vote for it.
——and I am doing the best I can. As I am sharing my time with Deputy Kemmy, I am curtailed in what I want to say.
Just vote for the Bill.
While I agree with some elements of the Bill there are other elements of it with which I cannot agree. For example, I do not in any way agree with the proposal that we should set up an advisory committee. This would add another layer of bureaucracy to the system and inevitably lead to moneys which ought to go to services on the ground being put into administration. I do not agree with that feature of the Bill. What is needed is a co-ordinating body made up of the Departments who deal directly with young people.
That is exactly what we are providing for in the Bill.
That is the part of the Bill I support. Perhaps the young men opposite will allow me to finish as I have so little time.
Sorry, the Deputy was exciting us.
They were being assisted by a young lady. The Deputy should appeal to all.
That provision is in line with the recommendations on youth policy produced by the Progressive Democrats and I have no difficulty in supporting it. It is an idea that must be developed further.
The training of youth leaders will have to be put on a much more formal basis. I would like to see us working towards a situation where there would be proper certification of the qualifications of youth workers so that all youth workers, no matter what part of the country they work in, would be of uniform standard. In that way we would be better able to monitor and appraise the progress of their work.
All of us who are concerned about youth services and youth cannot ignore the major problems that young people have to confront as a result of under age drinking. If that is not confronted in legislation and in the enforcement of legislation all the youth services in the world will not be able to assist those young people. In the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, two provisions deal directly with the control of sale of drink to young people. Section 40 deals with the putting in place of a system of age cards and section 47 deals with the regulation of the sale of drink in supermarkets and off-licences. Those sections have not been enforced because the appropriate ministerial order is not in place. This evening, in the context of a Bill dealing with youth, I appeal to the Minister for Justice to make the order that will make those two sections effective. Those who go into a supermarket between now and Christmas will see barrels, tubs, flagons, six packs and cans of drink littered around the floor. It is most accessible to young people. That would not be the case if the provisions of the Act were implemented. I appeal to the Minister to make the necessary order and assist his colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy F. Fahey, and all of us including Deputy Deenihan, in implementing the aspirations of this Bill.
I am calling Deputy Kemmy and I remind him that he must give way not later than 8.15 p.m.
I am afraid that is not correct.
The specified time was 8.06 p.m.
Strange things happened in my absence. Deputy Kemmy has until 8.06 p.m.
It would probably have been easier for me to meet Mr. Major today in this capital city than to get into this debate. However, I am grateful to Deputies T. Kitt and Deputy Quill for giving me some of their precious time to speak in this debate. Strange bedfellows though we are, I am grateful to them for being generous with their time.
In the last few weeks we have heard much in this House about the national interest. Those two words have been bandied about in debates on the completion of the Single Market. The national interest was regarded as being paramount in our society and in this House. What does it mean? Is it a cliche that politicians put forward when they are in a tight corner? The national interest means nothing unless it means people, and especially our young people.
This Bill is a response to the problems of young people in our society. It is an important measure and it at least attempts to give priority to young people in our society. It also marks out the special problems of young people and it goes some way towards co-ordinating youth services. That is not a bad landmark or objective. In the course of his remarks Deputy Deenihan said there was a 27 per cent unemployment rate and he pinpointed emigration as being the scourge of young people. Young people are entitled to the best possible start in life we can give them. We must try to lay a good foundation for future society.
Our job as public representatives is to lay a framework for people to lead decent lives. Instead, we find great humiliation, disillusionment and cynicism among young people who are trying to find work. It is a tough, rough traumatic transition from school to the market place. Many young people are introduced to unemployment on the first day they leave school. That is a very sad, sobering thought in our society. It is difficult for any young boy or girl to have to hustle in the labour market. It is almost impossible today for any young boy or girl to get a decent job without influence. We are back to the bad old days of the thirties, forties and fifties again. It is difficult even to get in a FÁS training course which should be their right. In many cases if they do find employment they receive low wages and are exploited. The training allowances paid to young people on FÁS courses are very low.
Teenagers in our society, especially those who are unemployed, should have the same rights as anybody else but this is not the case. Discrimination in social welfare is widespread and examples have been given of the difficulties for young people——
Deputy Kemmy, I understand that the arrangements provided for Deputy Rabbitte to be called at 8.7 p.m.
I shall have to stop my contribution. It is a good job I am patient and am good humoured, I was beginning to warm up.
A Deputy
We will make the Deputy an honorary young man.
All my speech has gone for nought. I am a gentleman at all times and I give way to Deputy Rabbitte, my socialist colleague.
I thank Deputy Kemmy for his fraternal tolerance in the circumstances. I wish to welcome the Bill introduced by Deputy Deenihan and to say that The Workers' Party fully support the Youth Services Bill as a stepping stone to securing the support, provision and delivery of a youth service here with core funding, a secure supply of well-trained highly valued youth and community workers and proper certification of qualifications. We welcome the specific provision to appoint an advisory board and recognise in this a mechanism of accountability and co-ordination rather than a bureaucratic obstacle that has been referred to by some Government speakers.
Since my time is so short, and lest I am caught short like Deputy Kemmy, I should like to pay tribute to the youth service, to youth workers, to the youth members of many organisations who make up the youth service. Their dedication, and commitment and, in most cases, their voluntary effort, keeps our youth service going against all the odds. Indeed, the theme used at this year's annual assembly of the National Youth Council of Ireland was "Achievement against the Odds". According to their magazine the president of the National Youth Council of Ireland said:
Our young people are fighting a grim battle to receive a proper education, obtain meaningful employment and become meaningful participating members of our society ... our young people, the future of our country, without doubt receive a raw deal. They are the ones who bear the brunt of education cuts, rises in unemployment and rampant emigration. Young people have been excluded from our society to the extent that they have become alienated, disillusioned and willingly disenfranchised.
The Minister of State with responsibility for youth affairs was not present to hear the debate at the National Youth Council annual meeting. It was not the first occasion on which he failed to attend the annual assembly of the National Youth Council of Ireland.
That is not true, it was the first occasion.
It is regrettable that apparently he has reached the conclusion that if there is not uncritical acceptance of what young people consider to be his patronising lectures he will absent himself entirely. Several of those involved in youth organisations — I say respectfully — have told me that young people working in the youth service are becoming increasingly resentful of the Minister's patronising approach to their policy aspirations for the development of a youth service by their organisations here. I also regret having to say that the Minister seems to regard dispensing funds from the budget available to the particular section of the Department of Education — like Fianna Fáil regard dispensing funds from the national lottery — as a matter of "look after your own backyard first and then let the rest scramble for what is left".
Waving good luck to our soccer team is very popular but waving farewell to young emigrants is less glamorous but more consistent with reality. Foreign travel is so much more attractive than domestic travel to places like Neilstown, Ronanstown and other places. All of this is a far cry from the hope expressed by the same youth organisations in 1987, at the time of the Minister's appointment. Indeed, the journal of the National Youth Council of Ireland entitled Output welcomed the Minister's appointment at the time and the front page posed the question, “Will he give the youth services a lift?” Four years later we know that the youth service has in fact been taken for a ride.
I found it difficult to listen to Deputy Kitt praising the Minister of State for getting angry last week. I am sorry Deputy Kemmy has left because it reminds me of his famous remark about the Minister's colleague, Deputy Willie O'Dea, when he reminded him that he was a mighty mouse in the constituency but a mini-mouse when it came to the House. I would have a great deal more respect for the Minister if instead of roaring in the Chamber, he roared at the Cabinet table at his Minister to get more funding for the service. It is depressing for youth organisations to have to hear the Minister's impotent pleas, as if he was an Opposition Deputy, in this debate, the same Minister who imposed savage cuts in the year underway. Thirty-five full-time workers have lost their jobs as a result of the cuts introduced by the Minister. I am not impressed by the Minister's anger. I would be much more impressed if he was more successful in arguing for adequate funding.
It is a reflection on this House, and particularly on the Minister with responsibility for youth affairs, that we have not discussed this question since 1985. It is all the more regrettable that the Minister and the Government have decided to vote down this Bill which The Workers' Party are prepared to welcome as a stepping stone towards the evolution of such a policy. The Minister seems to be opposed in principle to evolving a policy on youth services. He would prefer to continue the existing patronising system where he is seen to dispense funding to grateful recipients as he determines. The Minister seems disinterested in the hostility his approach has invited from across the spectrum of youth organisation. The Minister's refusal to attend the last meeting of the National Youth Council is evidence of this.
Meanwhile, youth organisations cannot plan, do not have budgets and cannot guarantee full-time jobs. It is arguable that youth organisations have never before confronted such a challenge. To allow this Bill to pass Committee Stage would offer the prospect of a statutory framework within which a coherent policy on youth services could evolve. Any Minister with responsibility for youth affairs worth his salt would give this Bill the nod into Committee Stage. Those in the public gallery watching us tonight, or those who will read this Bill, do not appreciate that if the Minister was prepared to take his courage in his hands and nod this Bill into Committee Stage the Government would reassert control over its development from there. If the Minister has amendments that would strengthen the Bill, I am quite sure Deputy Deenihan would be prepared to consider them. Instead, the Minister seems to be prepared to continue his preference for the other half of his portfolio, posing for high profile shots with Jack Charlton and waving the soccer team goodbye or accompanying them to Rome, while at the same time offering a £45,000 pittance from he budget, for youth services, the other £9.8 million to be made up from lottery funding.
The Deputy's last comments show his lack of knowledge about the whole set up.
That is what the Minister said last week, too.
We did not hear anything about youth issues from The Workers' Party for the last five years. Do not come in here with your hypocrisy.
I was a great deal more involved in sport——
(Interruptions.)
Do not give me the "boy wonder" stuff now.
May I share my time with Deputy Deenihan?
Agreed? Agreed.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy's bitterness will not help anybody.
I compliment Deputy Deenihan in bringing this Youth Services Bill before the House. It is something we have come to expect from Deputy Deenihan who is a man of action, a man who knows sport and youth work in its many dimensions, a man who, possibly better than anyone else in both Houses, has a "hands on" knowledge of what exactly is involved. Apart from providing the House with an opportunity to debate in some detail youth services in general, this Bill marks another legislative milestone in Fine Gael's putting forward of policy issues in legislative form. I refer to the vocational education committee Bill which was much maligned by the previous Minister for Education, the mistress of novices, now gone as a fugitive to Health. I refer also to the Fine Gael Education Bill which should have provided a stimulus for the Government to act but unfortunately the Green Paper has gone by the way for the fifth time in succession. I compliment the proposer of this Bill. I can only criticise in concert with Deputy Rabbitte, the Minister's ungraciousness in not having the magnanimity to accept this Bill for what it is. For somebody who comes from a party who are supposed to expouse positive politics, the Minister's reaction has been very negative and disappointing.
The Minister, Deputy Fahey, has developed somewhat of a reputation as being precipitative and lacking in mature judgment. Was it not the Minister, Deputy Fahey, who launched Eamon Coughlan into the chief executive position in Bord Lúthchleas na hÉireann? The subsequent history of that appointment speaks for itself. I recall one occasion when Deputy Fahey took a public swipe at Irish American politicians for not doing enough to regularise the situation of the illegal Irish immigrants and was publicly rebuked by the venerable Tip O'Nell who said "Young Fahey has not quite made it; he does not understand". I am afraid that "young Fahey" still does not understand that one can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
The positive and affirmative response from the youth organisations to this Bill speaks for itself. It is good to see the people in the public gallery, people with their lanyards, with their neckerchiefs, the people from the scouting organisations and from the various youth organisations who have come as a collective force to say that they are not satisfied with the performance of the Government and that they think that this measure deserves a positive response from Government.
For the Minister of State to describe this Bill as being totally useless is insulting coming from the Minister but it is a further insult to the youth organisations. For the Minister to proceed for 25 minutes to deliver a whinging, snivelling performance about having no money for youth services was pathetic to the point of disbelief. Two weeks ago the Minister told us that he had to get the message across to the Taoiseach, to the Minister for Finance and to the Government that more money should be put into this area. Would the Minister like Deputy Deenihan and Fine Gael to arrange a deputation to the Minister for Finance which he could join so as to make the point?
I fully agree with the sentiments expressed in the Bill. In 1989 the lottery had a profit of £44 million. In 1990 it has a profit of £53 million. Section 5 of the National Lottery Act states specifically that the primary purpose of this is for youth and recreation purposes. It is scandalous to see huge amounts of the limited budget available for sport and a substantial number of FÁS programmes, going to golf clubs and to chauvinist organisations. It is a scandal that EC Structural Funds have been diverted in this way as well. It is an indication of the priorities of this Government that £600,000 of EC Structural Funds went to Dr. Smurfit's K Club while Voluntary Service International, North Great George's Street, had their budget cut from £28,700 in 1990 to £4,000 this year. That resulted in the loss of two permanent staff, the scrapping of numerous programmes involving community integration and the leaving aside of a whole work programme. I put it to the Minister that if we got something like these resources into Neilstown and Ronanstown we would not have the Minister coming in here pumping the air and protesting that he has been cut back by his own colleagues in Government.
I would further make the point that the Government are lucky to have been given an early warning shot in relation to Neilstown and Ballyfermot. These are only the bush fires that will break out into an inferno unless money is put into these areas, unless jobs, education, shopping facilities and youth services are provided.
There are Neilstowns scattered the length and breadth of Ireland. They are particularly on the periphery of the big cities of Dublin, Cork and Limerick. Unless positive action is taken by way of targeting resources at these areas these issues will boil over and we will have not brush fires but an inferno. Again, I want to congratulate Deputy Deenihan. He has put forward a positive, practical Bill with legislative proposals that any Government worth its salt would take on board and have debated subjectively, objectively and coolly in a quiet committee chamber. The Minister of State would not let up the blinds on his blinkered thinking but blasted it out of the water. This has been a bad night for the Government but a good night for youth services because we are convinced that in Government Deputy Deenihan would deliver on every one of these proposals.
I would like at the outset to thank those Deputies who have supported my Bill over the last two weeks. I believe those Deputies who have supported me understand that the youth service needs a permanent stable base from which to operate. For their support I must express my thanks. However, I am most disappointed at the Minister's lack of enthusiasm for my Bill and, in particular, I take offence at the offhand and flippant way that he has dismissed my proposal.
I am very glad to have this opportunity to counter some, at least, of the more outrageous allegations made by the Minister and other speakers on behalf of the Government in their attempts to cloud and muddy the issue in order to frustrate the passage of this Bill through the Dáil.
I was often confused during this debate because I was not sure which side the Government speakers were on. Deputies Lawlor, Martin, Coughlan and Wallace and tonight Deputies Kitt and Quill spoke about the splendid work youth organisations were doing. They spoke of the need to avoid duplication and fragmentation. Do they not understand that this Bill and the establishment of the advisory committee would make it possible to avoid duplication and fragmentation. I am at a loss to understand why when somebody else calls for co-ordination the Government call it bureaucracy, but when the Government appoint a committee such as the interdepartmental committee on crime they call it co-ordination.
I was shocked last night in the House when Deputy Lawlor referred to the young people of Neilstown as brats. These are his constituents. He seems to forget that it was Government policy to move people to Neilstown without facilities or jobs, and he calls them brats. Minister Fahey is on record as saying that if he was living there he could be also engaged in violent activity. Is Deputy Lawlor calling him a brat as well?
The Minister emphasised again and again the need for money to be pumped into the youth service. I recognise this need.
The establishment of a national advisory committee would anticipate problems, would plan ahead, would co-ordinate and regulate. We would not need knee jerk reactions like we had last week by the Government with the establishment of an interdepartmental committee by the Minister for Justice. Are they knee jerk reactions or window dressing I wonder?
Once the youth service is given a legislative base then funding can be more easily obtained. The system will have been regularised, there will be accountability, there will be monitoring, and there will be less disquiet among the public, the Government and the Taoiseach with regard to funding for the youth service. It is the Minister's responsibility to secure adequate funding for youth services. It is juvenile of him to go to the "Gay Byrne Show" and wring his hands — and in the same breath say he needs more money. It is his job to get the funding so let him wipe away the crocodile tears and get down to work Minister. He must accept collective Cabinet responsibility. The Minister has mislead the public into believing that youth services are paid for by the taxpayer. That is not the case: the taxpayer contributes £45,000 and the national lottery £9.8 million.
Moving to another topic, the Minister has made it quite clear that when he came into power in 1987 he did not intend to "have any more policy documents, reports or committees", that we had sufficient documentation and talk and what we really want is action. Thus, by extension, the Minister states that an advisory committee would be a waste of time because it would be merely further discussion leading to bureaucracy. But the Minister has missed the whole point of the Bill. The point of the Bill has been missed by the Minister because he has isolated each section and treated each as if it should stand alone. The Bill is clear enough to be read in one sitting.
The clear intention of the Bill, in case this was missed, was not only to provide a statutory advisory committee but also to give the youth service the platform, the recognition and the kudos it needs to ensure financial stability and increased funds. The Minister has stated that there is need for politicians, civil servants and the general public to recognise that the best value for Government expenditure comes from the youth service. I wholeheartedly believe this to be true and I agree with the Minister; but where is the evidence that the Minister has in any way attempted to convince all these parties that this is in fact the case. This Bill provides the opportunity of placing the youth service on a plane where it will be recognised, where the Minister's task of convincing the powers that be that more funding needs to be allocated will be that much easier. So, again, I must strongly assert that the Minister's dismissal of my Bill is not based on any concrete reasons but rather is politically motivated and is certainly not in the best interests of the young people.
I would like to point out to the Minister a major inconsistency in his argument against my Bill. He states there is no need for any more policy reports or committees. If that is so, why is the Minister at European level working on the development of a European youth policy? As I understand it the prerequisite for a European youth policy is that member states have their own policies formulated first and they bring them to the negotiating table. Because we have no policy the Minister had nothing to bring to the meetings and indeed less to bring home. If we are serious about giving our young people a real chance to prosper and develop in the broader European context we must first show our commitment to promoting their welfare at national level. Only then will we have a legitimate contribution to make to the development of European youth policy.
Another point which the Minister makes in his reply to my opening speech is that this Bill would merely put another layer of bureaucracy on existing structures. I do not think that I have to remind the Minister that he has been pressing very hard over the last number of years to ensure that youth organisations do co-operate. The Minister knows that youth organisations have been making a sustained effort to increase co-operation. Yet when the Minister is asked to co-operate, as he is in this Bill, he calls it mere bureaucracy and states that the committee would go into areas which are not the responsibility of the Department of Education. This is exactly the point of the Bill. We need a holistic approach to the management and policy development of the youth services of this country and this committee, which spans a wide range of Departments and interests, will provide for such a holistic approach.
It is cynical and two-faced in the extreme of the Minister to call on youth organisations to co-operate more closely but yet when asked to co-operate himself he sees fit to interpret this as mere bureaucracy.
As far as my proposal for local advisory committees are concerned, the Minister has stated that what we will be doing here is merely adding another bureaucratic layer which will conflict with the local voluntary youth councils already established. I must pointedly state to the Minister that it was certainly never the intention to create a further layer to the local voluntary youth councils. The proposal is that the current local voluntary youth councils in operation will be absorbed into the new structures, their powers and funding increased, and thus there will be no duplication. Rather there will be an expansion of what was already in place.
I must also add that the Minister has never been a great champion of the local voluntary youth councils structure despite what may have been said. Their work has largely gone unnoticed and unrecognised. Neither the Minister nor his Department have responded in any way to the submissions made by them, in particular, the annual reports and requests for funding which, I regret to say, have not even been acknowledged. Today, I attended the launch of the report of the County Dublin Voluntary Youth Council. Not only is the Minister failing to provide services for young people in large areas of County Dublin, he is also ignoring those who work for them.
The Minister stated he can see no reason why there should be a register for youth organisations, yet, in the same speech he maintained that, "the main difficulty which has always existed in relation to youth service provision is that it is not taken seriously by the general public or politicians on all sides of the House". In his speech he made the case for registration. He may have all the information at his disposal and his Department may have all the information they need on youth organisations and on the way funding is allocated but who else has this information?
This register would be of help to those with an interest in youth affairs and also to those who have little or no idea of the work youth organisations do. They have recognised standards, criteria for action, methods of operation and standards of procedure. In other words, such a register would be of help to youth organisations in getting more money. I should point out that we have lost three quarters of an hour during the course of this debate. This reflects the attitude of politicians and the Government towards young people whose representatives are sitting in the Public Gallery tonight.
Usually Members address the Chair, not anyone in the Public Gallery.
This Bill would make for co-operation, pave the way for action, and, by putting the youth service on a statutory footing, get rid once and for all, of the need to obtain reports from commitees — which are endless — which invariably take us nowhere. This Bill could take us a good way down the road towards the establishment of a comprehensive youth service. I urge Deputies, especially the Progressive Democrats, to support the Bill.
I am sorry, Deputy, but you are not respecting the House. The question should have been put at 8.30 p.m.
We will not allow the Government to sidetrack us on these issues.
On a point of order——
No, Deputy, the Order of the House requires that I put the question at 8.30 p.m.
Lest the Minister thinks there were no other speakers, I should say that because we lost so much time many Members, including Deputy McGinley and I, did not get an opportunity to speak.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 73.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John.(Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherloc, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Flanagan and Boylan; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Clohessy.
Question declared lost.
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Andrews, David.Aylward, Liam.Barrett, Michael.Brady, Gerard.Brady, Vincent.Brennan, Mattie.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Burke, Raphael P.Calleary, Seán.Callely, Ivor.Clohessy, Peadar.Collins, Gerard.Connolly, Ger.Coughlan, Mary Theresa.Cullimore, Séamus.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.de Valera, Síle.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fahey, Jackie.Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Flood, Chris.Gallagher, Pat the Cope.Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.Harney, Mary.Hillery, Brian.Hilliard, Colm.Hyland, Liam.Jacob, Joe. |
Kelly, Laurence.Kenneally, Brendan.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Leonard, Jimmy.Leyden, Terry.Martin, Micheál.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, Jim.McEllistrim, Tom.Molloy, Robert.Morley, P.J.Nolan, M.J.Noonan, Michael J.(Limerick West.)O'Connell, John.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Leary, John.O'Malley, Desmond J.O'Toole, Martin Joe.Power, Seán.Quill, Máirín.Reynolds, Albert.Roche, Dick.Smith, Michael.Stafford, John.Treacy, Noel.Tunney, Jim.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wilson, John P.Wyse, Pearse. |