The Minister has explained something that I was going to ask, that the agency means the Youth Employment Agency. Having spoken on the Bill last week and having read it again and again because it is a field I am particularly interested in, I am still confused about why an incorporation of all the existing bodies could not have been carried out rather than having to set up another bureaucratic agency. I have a thing about these agencies but not about organisations and I am totally against regionalisation, which worries me. I must again put on record that the Bill has my absolute and sincere good wishes but I am afraid that we might finish up with a board of directors of bureaucrats. While bureaucrats may not have destroyed the country, or created a lot of the trouble certainly they have contributed in a big way. I have my feet on the ground and I hope to keep them there regardless of newspaper reports.
Youth Employment Agency Bill, 1981: Committee and Final Stages.
I share the Senator's concern about setting up a bureaucratic organisation, but we have a safeguard in setting up the Youth Employment Agency in that it will be of a very representative nature. The people appointed to it will be concerned too to see that it is not a bureaucratic organisation spending the money which should be devoted to other activities on paying salaries, travelling expenses and so on. It was never the intention to set up a huge bureaucratic organisation. I kept the numbers on the board relatively small so that the servicing of that board would not require a large bureaucratic organisation. Finally, let me say that the Minister for Labour, whether it be myself or somebody else, will be following the operation of this agency. I can assure the House that under the present incumbent we will not see the work being duplicated or the funds being dissipated on very large offices with lots of people sitting around in them.
The previous Senator expressed pleasure that the Bill has made the progress it has and that it will not be necessary to set up an ad hoc group. Would it be possible for the Minister to give the House some indication of when the company might be registered and the agency itself brought into effective action? Are we talking about very early in the new year or will there inevitably, be some time lag before this can be done?
There will of course be a time lag. We are almost up to Christmas now and there is generally a couple of weeks around this time when it would be difficult to get replies resulting from approaches being made to members of the board. I would hope that by the end of January we will be in a position to have it operating.
In section 4, it is not clear anywhere exactly what the effect of the agency will be. I am worried about how this agency, when it becomes operative, will affect the present systems that I referred to. The manpower work experience is very worthwhile but I would ask the Minister to look at the badly needed updating by £20 in regard to the work experience scheme. I am still worried about the effect this Bill will have on the present schemes.
This section, stating part of what will be in the memorandum of association, is really the only section which refers to the precise objects of the agency. They are stated in general terms which is the right way to approach it if this agency is going to have new and very extensive powers. I would be concerned that the agency would have the power in its memorandum of association where necessary to commission or delegate from other bodies some of the work which it is set out here will be its objects, "to establish, develop, extend, operate, assist, supervise, co-ordinate and integrate either directly or indirectly, schemes for training and employment of young persons..." It is clear that there will have to be a much greater knowledge of the number of young people who are unemployed, and who have been for a particular period, who are precisely the group we want to help through this agency. I am not quite clear whether it is the agency itself which will do the job, for example, of compiling a register of all school leavers or compiling more precise information, or whether it would have the authority, in its memorandum of association, to look to other existing agencies for that kind of work. Perhaps, in commenting on that the Minister might give some idea at this stage of how he envisages the objects being realised by the agency, what kind of co-ordination there will be with other bodies.
Some of my questions are similar to those that have been asked already. I would be interested to know does the Minister have any clear view at this stage of the relationship between the agency and AnCO. Obviously there will have to be close co-ordination between them, since otherwise there would be an unfortunate overlap.
I was very interested in the Minister's reference to encouraging productive enterprise by young people. As I mentioned on Second Stage, I have been sceptical of the capacity of State agencies to respond to the commercial demands of these other enterprises, particularly when they are in new structures or run by young people. I mentioned the problems in Connemara.
I have not got any clear idea from the Minister yet of how it is proposed that the agency will achieve the objectives set out. Is it by the fact that it will have funding which it will offer to various other bodies and therefore would be in a position to persuade other bodies or will it have legislative authority to tell other bodies what to do?
I am interested in its relationship with voluntary organisations. The original proposal was that some of the Youth Employment Agency funds would be used to stimulate or encourage participation by young people in various voluntary services. Is this going to be a statutory function by which voluntary services will be told what they can do, or how they can take people, or will it be funds that will be available to be distributed on request or on the basis of proposals made by voluntary organisations?
I am concerned that the Minister mentioned particular concentration on disadvantaged youth and disadvantaged areas. Has this crystalised at all? What does he have in mind to achieve that? Will it be a special concentration of funds in identified areas or will it be concentration on identified groups? I mention in particular the 25 per cent or so of school leavers who leave at 15 years. Has there been any thinking of how these objectives will be achieved?
I am probably in the same area as previous speakers. I would like to ask the Minister if it is intended that the agency should involve itself in a substantial way in direct employment? In other words, will this agency be concerned mainly with encouraging other organisations or will it cut through red tape and initiate schemes of its own with direct employment?
In section 4 (2) (a) the objects are clearly stated:
to establish, develop, extend, operate, assist, encourage, supervise, co-ordinate and integrate, either directly or indirectly, schemes for the training and employment of young persons,
That is quite clear. The next part of that sentence reads:
being principally persons over the age of 15 years and under the age of 25 years.
I can understand 15 years; one bears in mind compulsory education up to then. I would like to ask the Minister what criteria were used in arriving at the age of 25 years at the other end?
On section 4 (2) (a) and (b) I would like to ask the Minister if the money raised by this levy and if the formulation of this agency, will actually provide additional job opportunities for young people or will it go towards the existing agencies that are already there in that particular area? Under the same two headings I would also like to raise the point I raised previously, whether the Minister would see this agency as having a function in the leaving years of an educational establishment.
I, too, would like to query this section. Senator Brendan Ryan has expressed what I think would be the concern, if that is the right word, about the duplication by the agency of what AnCO are doing at present. I would certainly like this to be spelled out clearly. Will this agency erect buildings? Will they engage their own people to train trainees or will they just channel the money to AnCO? AnCO are a very excellent organisation doing tremendous work turning out excellently trained people. But there is concern about duplication in the Bill. I would love if the Minister would spell out the function of this agency as opposed to the work and the present function and role of AnCO.
The last speaker probably summed up many of the points being made under this section. Let me say immediately what the agency is intended to do. On the general training for young people under the age of 25, including apprentices, we have had discussions with AnCO and we expect an increase under this heading of 2,500 trainees in the coming year. In the work experience programme we expect to see an increase from 5,000 to 7,000. The temporary grants scheme of the Department of Education can, we believe, after discussions with the Department, be extended drastically from the present 900 to 5,000. The community youth training programme, another AnCO programme, will be increased from 1,730 to 4,000. The environmental and group improvement scheme, which has a fairly low base, can be extended to 5,600. As I said, it was not intended that we take over schemes from sponsors but we will assist sponsors, and schemes put forward by them, from rural groups or from areas other than those already mentioned, will cater for up to 4,000 young people who could get experience or training or jobs with the assistance of the agency.
Senator Ryan asked about the criteria for disadvantaged people. The main criterion is to be without employment for six months. Obviously educational disadvantage, disablement, social disadvantage, would all have to be considered under the title of disadvantaged people. But the main group will be those who have not been able to find employment in the previous six months.
The register to indentify young people will be kept by the National Manpower Service because they already have the expertise and we do not want to duplicate work already being done. They also have offices over much of the country. Perhaps their register does not totally identify the problem and may need some strengthening but we feel that they have the expertise to do that job.
With regard to AnCO we have already had discussions with them on how their schemes can be extended. We have excellent relations with AnCO and they are anxious to be involved and to see their schemes expanded.
Will the agency erect buildings? Obviously not. It is not in the business of building; The sponsors do that, AnCO have a five-year programme which stretches up to 1985 and they are expanding their training centres in most of the main areas in the country. So that operation is best left to the organisations that are at present carrying out that work.
We take the age limit from the EEC yardstick for social fund measures, and 25 is now the EEC upper limit for the younger people. Here we tend to consider people a little older than that as youths or young people, particularly in rural areas. Organisations such as Macra na Feirme cover people up to the age of about 30. Therefore we feel that we should not draw comparison too tightly with the European model and we should allow people over that age, if they have started a course, to continue it, even though it might mean that we would not be able to attract funds from the EEC Social Fund for that purpose.
I agree with Senator Honan that £20 a week for the work experience scheme may seem low in this day and age but I will have a look at that when we get to that point. I think I have covered most of the points raised on this section.
I do not want to appear to be harassing the Minister. I have no intention of doing so. As I said, this is a very useful piece of legislation. But the Minister said in his address — I may have misunderstood him — that the agency was going to give special emphasis to disadvantaged young people and to disadvantaged areas. I understand from the Minister that in disadvantaged areas the percentage of youth unemployment and the level of unemployment among disadvantaged young people will obviously be greater. That would just mean that the ordinary activities of the agency would be more concentrated in those areas. My understanding was that the agency was going to pay particular attention to those areas over and above its normal duties. Perhaps I misunderstood the Minister. But if that was the intention I am still interested to know if any criteria have been established by which that extra emphasis would be given to disadvantaged young people and to disadvantaged areas.
I quite agree with what Senator Ryan is saying about the disadvantaged youth. But I am very wary about singling out the disadvantaged and separating those who were lucky to be educated from those of us who had to stop at a certain point and make it from there on. I totally agree with Senator Ryan in his concern for the disadvantaged. But I would also like to put it on record that we are not saying that the disadvantaged youth are there and the luckier people are here.
It is a fact. They are there in certain places.
Before the Minister comes in again, let me say that he has emphasised, in relation to questions previously asked, the degree of co-ordination there will be and the attempt to avoid overlapping. There is another aspect that some of us referred to on Second Stage and that is the need to ensure that the agency and its objectives are known to young people on the ground and are not remote, that it is not a further structure more remote than the agencies they know, like Manpower and AnCO. It seems from the objects which will be in the memorandum of association that the agency can deal directly with young people. That has not been brought out sufficiently.
In my contribution on this Bill I emphasised the importance of trying to stimulate creativity and action by young people themselves, that they come forward with co-operative schemes, come forward with ideas in relation to their own environment, in relation to their own experience, and seek to have direct contact with the agency. That should be one of the values of the agency, that in its approach to youth employment it would be accessible, open and receptive to young people coming forward and not either remote or intimidating or over-bureaucratic. This would be extremely important because what we want to do, as well as providing work experience and opportunities and a greater prospect of permanent jobs for our young people, is to give them some power and responsibility and some control over their own lives. We do not want to reinforce this concept of dependency, a further dependency in a limited work experience job for a few months and then back on the dole again. This agency, because it goes much further than anything we have seen before in this country — indeed it goes much further than most countries in western Europe proportionately in the amount of financial resources that it is allocating for youth employment — should try as far as possible to be in direct contact with young people, young people in disadvantaged areas or young people in any setting, whether urban or rural, and encourage them to come forward with schemes which could be funded or assisted by the agency and which could provide this kind of work and possibly lead to further development of the schemes. I would like to see an emphasis on this direct contact with young people, an emphasis on the stimulating of co-operative ventures, an emphasis on incentive by young people themselves and, above all, that the impression conveyed to young people on the ground that this agency is very accessible to them, very close to their needs and to their wishes and not either patronising or bureaucratic or alien.
Again I do not want to appear to be following the Minister on this point but I want to know where will this agency be located. Will it be a centralised office? Will there be branches throughout the country, or will it operate through the existing Manpower offices? I want to know exactly how a young person in Athlone would go to this agency and get all possible information about a job.
I do not want to evade any queries that are put to me, but one thing I must point out is that, in order to give flexibility to the agency, it was my intention not to write down every activity it could be involved in. Section 2 gives the flexibility that it will require in order to get at the problems that have been mentioned by Senators.
I do not want to identify an area and say that particular place is some sort of a ghetto, that there are many disadvantaged young people in it and therefore we are going to go in there and do something in that area. The National Manpower register would identify where young people who have no employment are and will provide the basic information for the agency in formulating their policy to deal with the various areas and their problems and in seeing what the programme sponsors can do initially and what has to be done on their initiative to bring work experience or work training to people in those areas. In no way do I want to evade any question on this point, but I believe that if the agency is to have that co-ordinating role, that flexibility to do the job, then I cannot spell out to the last comma what it is to do. Knowing what the National Manpower Service register is like and how it identifies the problems, I believe the agency's main task, first of all, will be to see where existing schemes can be used to the advantage of young people in their own area, and if the sponsors cannot be helpful in those areas, to see how a programme can be put forward to bring the mobile section of AnCO to those areas. I want to leave that sort of flexibility so that the agency can develop. As to where the agency will be located, I could not possibly say.
In Athlone.
Decentralisation.
I will worry about that when I get this Bill through. Initially it would seem reasonable for it to be housed in the Department of Labour until we have it set up. The agency will make this decision but I would imagine that since we have the headquarters of AnCO and the headquarters of the National Manpower Service and the Department of Labour in Dublin, it would seem reasonable initially to have its headquarters in Dublin. I hope that the people who will be on the board will decide on where they can do the job best and that is the most important thing.
Senator Robinson suggested that the agency should deal directly with young people and I quite agree with her. We have left some flexibility in the memorandum of association so that it can do exactly that. I would encourage it so to do.
I do not want to appear to be chasing the Minister on this; I am probably doing precisely that and should stop apologising and go ahead and do it. I hate tokenism. I cannot see a body or a board made up of the composition of this board being able to deal effectively and efficiently ——
The Senator is on the wrong section.
I am sorry.
I have a small point on section 7. Whilst the previous speaker has said he hates tokenism, I would like to reiterate a point I made earlier in the debate. I see that the number of directors of the agency shall be 11. Could five or six of these directors be of the female sex?
There are two young people out of 11. On my past experience, and I say this with respect to the various august bodies, the nominees of the Irish Congres of Trade Unions will be anything but youthful. The nominees of the employers will be anything but youthful. It is quite unlikely that either of those bodies will nominate women. The two young people will probably not be representative in any way of unemployed young people. I do not know if there is any organisation with unemployed young people whom they would nominate to a body such as this. What bothers me is that the perception that young people have of the National Manpower Service is very unfavourable.
I do not claim that this is representative. My experience of talking to unemployed young people is that they do not find the National Manpower Service particularly accessible, sympathetic or helpful. Many people do not understand young people. Our young people, particularly the urban young people, are different from the previous generation in their values, culture, aspirations and in their cynicism about the political process. Great care must be exercised in the nomination of young people to the agency. The Minister cannot tell outside agencies whom they should nominate so I would strongly urge that he should ensure those who are nominated by the agencies over which he has some direct influence, particularly Government Departments, are young at least in their mental attitude if not in years.
If this agency operates the caution that I customarily associate with senior civil servants, senior trade unionists or senior representatives of employers, it will exhaust the patience of young people. Young people are impatient. They will set up structures which are not necessarily ones that young people will be patient with and they will set up systems that young people will not necessarily be patient with. I suggest that at least five young people should be nominated, at least one or two of whom are young trade unionists. The young entrepreneurs that the country very occasionally turns up would be ideal material for this board. Otherwise I am worried that the agency will not understand young people, will not respond to them and will have great difficulty in understanding the incredible alienation of a large part of our disadvantaged and poor young people from all State agencies, services and structures. They form a large number of our young unemployed. They are alienated from all our State services. There is an urgent need to draw them in under the aegis of an agency such as this and unless the agency is imaginative, flexible and responsive in the way that young people expect to be responded to it will not do the job that it is set up to do. I am not happy with the proposed composition of the agency. Great care must be exercised in the selection of the individuals to go on the agency board.
Following on from what Senator Ryan said, I should like to know from the Minister with regard to subsection (5) how many bodies are involved? Will the Minister be nominating specific bodies or will he accept nominations from a large number of bodies? Is the Minister bound to accept otherwise respectable people nominated by such bodies as the Congress of Trade Unions? I agree with what Senator Ryan said that it is essential that this agency be seen as an imaginative approach to the problem and that it breaks through this barrier of alienation and cynicism which he referred to and which is familiar to any of us who have to deal frequently with young people.
Looking at the composition of the directors of the agency, a gap is already created between the youth and the people who will be nominated. The Minister should wait to see who is nominated. Then he, in his good commonsense, might put on that board some of the people who went out and pioneered the youth movement when it was not a popular thing to do.
I agree with other Senators that perhaps this agency more than any other established by the State will create an aura for itself by the people who are involved: the chairman, members and directors. It is extremely important that they be representative of the area they are intended to work in. I can see from my arithmetic that the Minister will have three appointments which will not be nominations from others. He obviously cannot dictate the nominations. Presumably he could indicate that it would be appropriate for Congress and for the Federated Union of Employers to consider that in this instance the directors should be representative. I agree with Senator O'Rourke that they should not only be representative of youth but should be demonstratively representative of the 51 per cent of the population which is not usually given that kind of representation. This is not in any sense "tokenism" or an irrelevant point. It is relevant to the way in which the agency will make an impact with the young people and how it will be received. If someone who is sufficiently above the age level that we are discussing here is nominated, it should be up to the body to justify that nomination. This would be very interesting.
I will take account of suggestions made by Senators when I am appointing the board. I will be contacting the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the employers' organisation and it will be their task to select their members. I hope that this debate will be drawn to their attention. I will suggest to them that they take into account the fact that it is a youth employment agency and, therefore, people dealing with youth should be considered. Whether they will be men or women is up to these organisations. That will be their task. As regard my nominees, I will take Senators' feelings into account on the sex of the various directors I nominate.
I do not intend to move away from the composition as it is set out. To directors of other agencies and boards coming from the trade union movement and the employers' organisation, we owe a debt of gratitude for the work they have done over the years.
We are dealing with employment and training and we hope employers will employ these young people. As they will be going in the main to organisations which are highly organised it is logical that organisations that know that area of the economy should be directly involved so that problems that could arise about displacement could be ironed out. That would be preferable to having some area which would have no representation and which would say that the agency would displace certain people in a county council and so on and that their members were coming out on strike as a result. We do not want that problem to occur. We can avoid it by having representation from these areas.
I intend to contact the National Youth Council. I am anxious that somebody representing rural youth be nominated to the board. It is important that young people in rural areas are directly represented. Other Departments, apart from my own, will be carrying out many of the schemes and they should be represented. They will also be giving us advice, particularly the Department of Education on the changeover from education to working life, to training and so on.
On the environmental side, through their director, every local authority, county councillor has a representative on the youth board. It is very important that members at local authority meetings can talk about the youth agency and the problems that may occur.
There is a very good balance in the composition of the board. We kept it small. We could have made it a board of 20 or 25 members and try to bring in everybody we could think of on to it. It represents the social partners, Government Departments and young people right across the board and I hope that it is acceptable.
This section together with section 15 is one that it would be helpful to have clarification on. It provides that the Minister may from time to time, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, advance such moneys provided by the Oireachtas, such sums as the Minister may determine for the purposes of the expenditure. I am anxious to have clarification on how this will work in practice. If one reads the wording, it could give the Minister a dominant control on all expenditure and, by the same token, could undermine the very independence and flexibility of the agency that the Minister was emphasising in answer to a previous question. It would be helpful to know whether there will be a block grant from time to time or if the agency will have to apply before it could advance with a particular scheme.
As we see it operating, the agency will bring forward its schemes and costings to the Minister and will look for money to meet these costs. It would be reasonable to do it on that basis rather than just give £40 million or whatever to the agency without having some control over the operation. In the end, the Minister will be responsible for the money. It is on the basis of programmes put forward to the Minister for agreement that funds will be released. That is the only way it can be done. Very large sums of public money are involved and the Minister in the end is answerable for the proper expenditure of that money.
In 1981 AnCO, CERT and the work experience programme grants came to £35 million. Now we are told the new levy will bring in £40 million. We have not been told what the administration of it will cost. Will we finish up with more money or less money? There is confusion there. Many of our youth are not concerned with legislation and would not know what Bills were being debated here or in the Dáil, but they will want to know the end result. How much money will be spent on the youth? When the Minister in reply to Senator Fallon spoke about buildings and so on, I thought he was talking about an extension of AnCO. There is only £5 million of a difference between the 1981 grant and the new levy. We do not know what this will cost.
I should like to pursue further the precise relationship between the Minister and the agency as regards control of the purse strings. There was widespread concern that the agency would be flexible, adaptable, non-bureaucratic and close to the young people on the ground whom it was desired to help and provide with jobs and work experience. I would be concerned if in relation to getting money the agency had to clear every scheme with the Minister because that would only make for potential delay and bureaucracy. I accept that the Minister is accountable to the Oireachtas and that we are dealing with a very significant amount of public money. Senator Honan must bear in mind what the other part of this Bill does. It is raising money through a levy, which has not been done before, in addition to other moneys which have been spent on various projects affecting young people. We are talking about a new scale of money and an agency to dispense that money.
I am concerned that the provision in section 8 does not spell out how exactly that will work. In relation to each scheme that the agency seeks to approve, does it have to go to the Minister for his approval? This could lead to considerable bureaucracy and could prevent the kind or risk-taking in relation to some schemes which is necessary and desirable when we are talking about schemes for young people, particularly if the agency will be open to young people themselves to come forward with co-operative ventures and with their own ideas. They may feel that, having been persuaded that the scheme is one which would come within the general terms of reference not to be funded, there is then a second stage with a period of delay in between when the Minister has to agree that the scheme is one that comes within the terms of the agency and it is appropriate that they should fund it. I want to know if the Minister will decide whether to advance money for each scheme, or once it is vetted by the agency will he automatically advance the money? In order to avoid that delay could money be given periodically in relation to schemes in advance of them being cleared by the agency? The agency could be given periodic budgets throughout the year in order that clearance and financing can come through rapidly.
Is it envisaged that the levy will be put to the moneys that have been spent prior to the setting up of this agency on youth employment schemes, work experience programmes, on the schools industry link and on all the various headings under which youth employment was helped or will the levy supersede the earlier moneys? Will the levy only go on youth employment?
The agency will not have to clear individual schemes. It will provide a broad plan of expenditure to the Minister who will approve that. This will be the way in which it will be approached rather than the Minister having to sit down every morning to agree the schemes with the chief executive of the agency. It is intended that a broad plan will be drawn up by the agency and that the money for that will be given by the Minister.
In a full year the levy and the social fund are expected to net £90 million. In the coming year, because it is the first year of operation, the only thing that can be said with certainty is the amount the levy will bring in and that is approximately £40 million. What I cannot say is how much social fund money will come in during 1982. Therefore, I cannot give an accurate answer to that because the schemes will be vetted and it will depend on the level of funds they attract. Some will attract 50 per cent, others 55 per cent and some £11 a week. It is not possible to say when the money will be paid to the agency. I hope that we do not mislead anybody in this area.
I am still worried about this aspect. I am afraid that when the social fund is distributed it may be said that Ireland is now employing a levy for youth employment and they have a fund built up for that. It is becoming clear that it will jeopardise our share of other funding which would go towards youth employment. If that is the case then it is not a good idea. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the same emphasis will be placed on additional funding as was on previous funding for youth employment.
I should like to have one point cleared up. Is the money that is at present coming from other Departments for youth schemes and so on, still going to come on-stream or will the final package be £90 million? I understand that if one adds the money coming from the Department of Labour with that coming from the Department of Education, etc. there is a figure of about £85 million.
I do not know which schemes Senator Honan refers to.
Youth schemes.
I listed earlier the schemes that would be extended. I also mentioned a few of the smaller ones that are coming from the Department of Education for which the agency will have some responsibility. We will be looking to the social fund to finance any additional schemes that come from individuals, groups or committees. We will not, in other words, be substituting something that is there already unless an organisation sees an advantage to be gained from so doing. I made it clear in my opening speech that I wanted a co-ordinated approach between what is being done, what was done in the past and what will be done in the future. I am convinced that the best way to do this is by having a single source of Exchequer finance.
If the youth group that we are talking about was supported partly by the social fund and partly by the youth agency there would simply be chaos. They would go to the social fund looking for a portion and we on behalf of the agency would be looking for a portion. We need a co-ordinated approach. We can move ahead and get money for organisations on the basis of one application for all the 25 year-olds. That should commend itself to everybody. We are creating the policy for the youth group between 15 and 25 years of age who are unemployed and therefore we should make approaches to the social fund. We should look at the schemes that are being run by the agencies I have listed as one unit rather than dividing them up. I hope Senators accept this approach rather than a piecemeal approach to the problem.
This section provides that the agency has an obligation to furnish balance sheets accounting for the money spent, that the Minister can request further information and that a copy of these will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. Neither in this section nor anywhere else in the Bill is there an obligation on the agency to submit an annual report of its activities, a report which would set out what it had done and perhaps to some extent evaluate its work and experience during that year. It is fairly common to find in relation to State agencies of this kind an obligation to report. For example the Employment Equality Agency and such other agencies report to both Houses. Occasionally such reports are debated; in this House we have had a number of debates in the past on reports of agencies of this kind. I accept that this particular agency are a company to be registered under the Companies Act, but because of the importance of their work and because they will be a permanent agency, it would be very helpful if they were required to submit a fuller report to both Houses of the Oireachtas. Simply a balance sheet on income and expenditure is not really adequate for the purposes I am talking about. It would be of great interest to this House to have an annual report on the kinds of schemes that have been funded, on the way in which the individuals and agencies had approached the agency itself and an evaluation of the success or the problems that were incurred during that particular year.
It would be a progress report and if laid before the House would by the very nature of the written report show areas where there had been shortcomings or gaps during the operation of that particular year's activities. If there were a chance then for Members to read and debate it there would be valid points of view which they could put forward. This Youth Employment Agency will be dealing with young people between 15 and 25 years. It should not be an inactive operation but should be constantly changing according to the needs of the young people whom the agency will serve. We should not just get figures at the end of each year but we should get facts regarding what had been done or had not been done, perhaps showing a way forward for changing in the following 12 months.
When the Bill was in the Dáil first we had to bring in an amendment to say that a report would be furnished along with the account. I thought this was necessary. In the debate on the amendment I gave the Dáil the assurance that the annual report would be an extensive one, dealing with the operations and policy of the agency in this area in as full a way as possible so that Members of both Houses would have an opportunity to see the progress that the agency was making in the area it was intended it would operate, and that there would be an opportunity to comment on the matter in either House.
I cannot let this section pass without making reference to the inclusion in the Bill of the winding up of the agency before we even pass the Bill.
Obviously it would be improper for a director of the agency to be in any way associated with parliamentary politics but is it not harsh on an officer or servant of the agency who is elected to this House. We do not exactly load ourselves down with work: we meet one or two days a week. If a person chooses to engage in politics in the Upper House automatically he will have to take leave of absence from his place of employment for the duration of the Seanad session. It is not exactly an incentive to people to participate in politics. I would have thought the arrangement where people had to pay for the employment of a substitute would be a much fairer arrangement than to compel people actually to take leave of absence. I have no great objections one way or the other, except that I suspect that I would not be here in the Seanad if that was the situation in my place of employment. However that is my problem, not a problem for the Seanad.
It is normal for a person to get secondment when he takes up employment and this would be the situation with the agency. It is reasonable that Members of the other House, the European Assembly and the Seanad should not be members of the agency when policy decisions or criticisms might be made here. It is the normal thing that people like ourselves are excluded from the agency.
I would like to know when it is envisaged that this levy will start to be collected, whether it will be regarded as part of the normal taxation process or whether it is something entirely different.
It is expected that it will commence with the tax year in April and that the normal process will operate.
Has the Minister considered the adverse effects that this section may have on the employment opportunities of people who have full eligibility under the medical services, namely, medical card holders? When employers become aware of the fact that they will be liable for the youth employment levy in the case of any of their employees who are medical card holders, is there a danger that there will be a tendency on the part of employers to shy away from the employment of medical card holders? This may happen on two grounds, firstly on the ground of the additional cost involved and, secondly, because of the additional administrative work that will be involved on the part of employers. Would it not be better if there was an exemption from the levy in the case of medical card holders, as there is in the case of other categories?
We had discussions with the FUE about this and they saw no great problem for their members but obviously individual members may think differently. We will be following the health contribution. It has been accepted practice in business that where a person is so lowly paid that he is also a medical card holder, the employer has to pay his contribution. First of all, there are very few involved in this. Apart from that, I do not agree that there will be any real disincentive effect on employers when employing people at that level. We had discussions on this and there did not seem to be any great problem with the employers' representatives.
I do not accept that the number would be as small as the Minister implied because the average industrial wage at the moment is well under £100 per week. A married man with five or six children and outgoings on a house, with a wage of £100 a week or in excess of this, would be entitled to have a medical card, so that all these people will be affected and the number will be significant.
We are considering the position of the levy on the lower paid and this has to be taken in context with the investigations of the Minister for Health and Minister for Social Welfare in this area. Certainly, if we reach a level where we consider this levy and other taxation imposts are causing hardship to a certain group of people in the lower paid area, I will only be too happy to exclude it.
What I am endeavouring to do in this Bill is to follow the health regulations in applying the 1 per cent levy. I have excluded a number of people who are in a very low paid sector. As regards the group that may not get employment simply because another 1 per cent is being paid by employers, I hope that number would be very small, but if it is represented to me as a serious problem, I will look at it again.
This levy will be paid by PAYE employees and that, in return, means for them a drop of 1 per cent immediately. Workers do not mind that but is there any way to show them that this will be worthwhile?
How will reckonable income be determined in the case of farmers and, in the case of employees, will reckonable income be gross income?
Senator Honan asked me to say whether the whole exercise was worthwhile. I would not be here today or in politics if I had not thought it worthwhile. For many years in the European Parliament, in my own party and now in government, I have endeavoured to get a scheme like this brought forward. I think it is worthwhile and from conversations I have had outside this House people seem to agree that it is well worthwhile and that the way in which we intend to finance it is the right one. It is proper that people in employment should pay. It will be paid on gross income. Farmers with a valuation above £40 paying tax will pay and anybody paying tax will be liable. If a farmer has a valuation below £40 and has not been considered for health contributions he will not have to pay this 1 per cent but if he is caught by the health contributions he will pay.
I totally agree with the Minister that the goodwill is there where the workers are concerned. In 12 months time if this is not effective, will the Minister be big enough to come back and say it is not working?
I intend to make it work while I am in the Department. I said we would bring in the report and accounts and Members will get an opportunity to make their comments on them.
In section 19 (1) (b) the Minister may by regulation vary the rate of levy, Paragraph (c) says that regulations under this subsection shall not so vary the rate of levy specified in this Bill that it exceeds the rate standing so specified on the passing of the Bill. Does this mean that the 1 per cent will become 2 per cent? In the future will there be a raising of the amount of levy from 1 per cent upwards?
Obviously we are talking about a levy of 1 per cent. In my main contribution I tried to suggest that we were going to face an overall situation in which conventional methods might not necessarily produce a solution to our problems in the field of unemployment generally and youth unemployment in particular. The Minister must have the power in this Bill to vary the rate of the levy so far as is needed by particular circumstances. Clearly the Minister and the Government of the time will take account of what the market will bear and what people will be prepared to contribute. One of the advantages of this levy proposal is that workers, farmers, and people with other forms of income can see quite clearly that they are making a direct contribution towards something which has a positive aim and which will be worthwhile if it provides employment for young people. I would like the Minister to know that we are very much concerned that he should have flexibility in this matter within reason.
Section 19 allows the Minister to vary the levy downwards if the amount of money being collected by the levy exceeds what is required by the agency to do their work. Paragraph (c) states clearly that the levy cannot be varied above the rate standing at present, which is 1 per cent, unless an amendment is introduced in the future.
The Minister referred to the provisions for exclusion from the requirement to pay the levy. I am somewhat concerned that the Minister's view represents a view that has already been advanced by the Government, that the only poor people are people on social welfare because the only people excluded are either people on social welfare or some other form of State support. That is not true. I dislike quoting family or personal circumstances but my mother is the widow of a secondary teacher and her income is about £50 a week. She is not eligible for a contributory widow's pension because secondary teachers did not pay social insurance at that time. Many of the widows of the public servants, gardaí, teachers and so on are on a quarter of the income of their husbands which is not that much greater than the social welfare contributory pension.
The Minister may feel that £40 or £45 a week is more than enough for a single person but that is not my view. I do not understand why some attempt was not made to determine, for instance, the minimum level of income for a single person at, say, £50 a week. I suggest that people over 65 years should be exempt because of the fact that they are low paid. There are a small number of people over 65 years who are particularly well off but, as I have said, my major concern here is the implication that the only people in our society who are poor are people on social welfare. There are many poor people who, for various reasons, do not qualify for social welfare. The means tests for all of the means-tested social welfare benefits are fairly restrictive and fairly ungenerous. Many people do not qualify under the means test because they have £30 or £40 a week from a private pension fund or from some investments. Far be it from me to be justifying investments because they are more than enough people to defend them. There are many people who do not qualify on a means test for social welfare assistance but who are poor. Yet, it appears all of those who have an income will be subject to this 1 per cent levy. I do not understand why that should be the case. I know the Minister is not lacking in compassion but I wish the Government would get away from this assumption that the only people who are poor in our society are those in receipt of social welfare benefits. This thinking was reflected in the July budget where special provision was made for social welfare recipients as if they were the only people who were poor. I wish that was the case because then we would have some measure of the problem. The problem is much more widespread, much more extensive and this levy will mean another small diminution of the living standards of a large number of people who are poor already.
Obviously, one would agree with what Senator Ryan says as regards the poor. I never said that the people who are excluded in section 22 are the only poor people. What I said was that this situation is being considered by the Government and if the Minister for Health excludes certain people from health contributions then I will exclude them too.
Initially, I would have to say that this levy on all incomes will provide a certain sum of money to deal with a very difficult problem but if I begin to exclude categories we will have to investigate them. Members of local authorities will be aware that in the matter of health cards there are differences from one area to another. Certain counties have a 66 per cent level while around the city it is 27 per cent. Therefore, we struck a clear line. I thought rather than include everybody, we should allow a small category out and these are the identifiable ones. Certainly I agree if changes are made in the very near future in defining the level of the low paid I will take that on board. There is no doubt about that.