Employment Premium Bill, 1975: Second Stage.

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the establishment of the premium employment programme. The target I have set in this programme is the return of 10,000 people whose names presently appear on the live register of unemployed to full-time gainful employment. Further, the objective of the programme is to encourage the re-employment in manufacturing industry of workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the current recession.

We have relied here in the past almost exclusively on grants for capital expenditure as an aid to industry and for the creation of new jobs. That strategy has by and large worked successfully. The recent report of the OECD on manpower policy in Ireland questioned the appropriateness of this policy and argued that a "scheme of employment premiums, might for a given injection of funds, lead to a greater incentive to increase employment". This is the first active intervention through wage subsidisation in the area of direct job creation. I will be watching carefully to see if the operation of the scheme adds weight to the argument that our overall incentives for industry might not be more directly related to employment creation.

It is proposed under the programme that premiums will be payable in respect of full-time employment of persons who (a) were in receipt of unemployment benefit at any time after 20th June, 1974; and were (b) continuously on the live register for not less than four weeks immediately preceding their first employment under this programme or who were (c) attending a training authority course, full-time, immediately preceding their first employment under this programme; or were (d) employed by the same employer on a short-time arrangement in the PAYE week beginning on 15th June, 1975. Additional employees recruited on a parttime or short-time basis will not be regarded as eligible for the purpose of the scheme.

I mention these details because the text of the Bill relates mainly to such regulations and rules and I wish to draw the attention of the Deputies to these items in the Bill.

The scheme generally applies to manufacturing industry as this sector has been most affected by the current recession. It will apply to such industries as textiles, footwear and engineering.

The programme will be administered through the National Manpower Service of my Department and the staff of that service, which has a national network reaching into every county throughout the State, are in contact with employers on the operation of the programme.

Preliminary information has been made available to interested employers. Already over 200 inquiries have been received at departmental level though this does not include contacts made at local level.

As might be expected, the largest volume of inquiries so far received came from the textile sector, and we feel that in this industry in particular the scheme can be a significant factor in stimulating the re-employment of workers who have been laid off during the recent recession.

Inquiries have been received also from employers in such sectors as plastics, footwear and engineering, and other industries affected.

The amounts of the premiums will be those announced in the budget statement of the 26th June 1975, that is, £12 per week per eligible employee from 29th June, 1975, until 27th March, 1976, and thereafter £6 per week per eligible employee until the termination of the scheme on 26th June, 1976.

The suggestion has been made here in the course of debate during the past few weeks that instead of a flatrate system of payment the premium should be based on a proportion of earnings. The criteria for selection of flat rate rather than percentage payment consisted in our assessment of what was most appropriate to the industries which had suffered severely in the course of the present recession. It has been our experience so far that the industries which have shown most interest are precisely those for which the scheme was intended to aid, namely, the labour intensive industries.

There will be no ceiling on the funds available for the premium employment programme. As I said, the target I am working towards is the return of 10,000 to full-time employment. Tomorrow morning we will be considering the Estimate. We have a figure for the Estimate and I will be very happy to come back to this House as quickly as possible for authorisation for the disbursement of extra funds to aid this programme because, as I said, there is no ceiling on the fund to be made available to it. In addition, all employers who see business operations are suited for inclusion in the programme will be contacted.

The purpose of section 3 of the Bill is to enable a decision to be made on the industries and persons to whom the programme will apply.

Section 4, the heart of the Bill, gives me power to pay premiums to eligible employers.

Section 5 would give power to require an employer applying for payment under the scheme to provide information both as regards the industry carried on by him and an employee or class of employee in order to enable me to determine whether the scheme applies. It would also enable me to provide forms for the purpose and generally to provide for the effective administration of the scheme.

Section 6 gives power to appoint inspectors who would generally have similar powers to those appointed under the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973.

Section 7 contains the usual provisions relating to prosecutions and in section 8 there is a standard provision covering expenses.

I appreciate we have only a limited amount of time for the discussion of this important measure tonight. I do not wish to monopolise the time of the Opposition Deputies and the Opposition spokesman, who I am sure wishes to make his usual criticism of this measure, although I think it has been received with a good deal of constructive comments from the Opposition spokesman and other speakers from his party. I thought it better to outline briefly some of the main features of the Bill and to indicate, as I indicated in the recent budget debate that while employment in general cannot be expected to improve significantly until we see improvement in the position in our main export markets and in the demand situation on the home market. While these are conditions essential to full recovery in the economy, this present measure is designed to assist. It is an incentive to industry to get men and women at present unemployed back to work. It does not take from the importance of that prior condition of recovery in our market and in other markets, but it should certainly assist industry in bringing back needed man power and woman power to help when full recovery takes place.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

It is unfortunate that the time allotted to this Bill is inadequate because of a guillotine motion in this House on the 9th July. It is unfortunate that a discussion on a subject such as this—what I believe to be the greatest need within our severely hit and badly governed economy at the present time, this loss of job situation which is creating huge unemployment —that we should be confined to just one hour on this Stage of the Bill and again an hour on Committee Stage.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I understood that an offer had been made to the Opposition to speak on this Bill for something like three hours and that this offer was refused.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

My information is that a very substantial and allembracing motion was passed through this House on 9th July which makes specific reference to this. I have not got the Order Paper with me, but I am sure you will recall that on that motion proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach he said—and this is our main criticism of this guillotine motion— that there were Bills, and this was one of the most important of them, the debate on which would be confined to two hours. It is an unfortunate situation. This is the time of the year which we have become accustomed to call the peak employment period. I am sorry we cannot say that about 1975. Not only is this an evil from the economic viewpoint but also because of its effect on the morale of the work force generally and because of disappointment being created about the lack of opportunities for the young people.

We should be prepared to sit here, even through the month of August if necessary, if by doing so we could achieve something for the work force we are elected to represent. If this Dáil did nothing else but put through a measure that would be effective in seeing the unemployment figures substantially reduced, giving opportunity to people to return to their place of work, it would be to our credit. These are areas we must be concerned about. The Minister for Labour and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in addition to the normal economic functions they perform, must have a social regard for people's welfare and the morale of people, in particular the working people, who have been held in a very common place. If we had to sit through the month of August—

Acting Chairman (Mr. Pattison)

I must draw the attention of the Deputy to the fact that we are not discussing the allocation of time at present. I would ask the Deputy to relate his remarks to what is in the Bill before the House and not to depart from that.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I will not have any differences with you, Sir. Time is too short to do that, otherwise I would take you to task on that statement as well. It is very vital to the matter we are discussing and I am sure the Minister is as concerned as I am.

Mr. E. Collins

The Deputy may not argue with the Chair.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Time is so scarce. I have no time to answer Deputy Collins either. He can carry on and make his normal contributions to this House, which are interruptions.

One can gain some idea of the seriousness of the situation by looking at the unemployment figures and comparing like figures with like figures. If we compare the figures for the first week in July, 1973, a few months after Fianna Fáil left office, with the figures for the first week in July, 1975, we will find that 36,329 more people were on the live register in July of this year than there were in the same week in 1973. We will also find that 27,941 more people were in receipt of unemployment benefit than there were in the first week of July, 1973, an increase approximately of 89 per cent. These figures are startling, but they are something we must concern ourselves with, because we can never hope to see an up-turn in our economy until we can effectively reduce these frightening figures.

To make matters worse, in regard to the situation for the first week in July we have to add a huge number of school leavers. This year there is a very large number of school leavers who cannot get employment. We also have to add the very many industries that unfortunately have closed or will be closing during this month of July. Industries that existed in areas not only for years but for centuries. These are all figures which will be adding enormously to the unemployment figures.

If I thought this scheme in its present form would produce 10,000 jobs I would laud it wholeheartedly. I would say, of course, that it is not enough because not alone do we want 10,000 jobs but we want 30,000 plus what have been lost. The position is so serious that there is no point kicking political footballs across this House. I could say that the Minister, when he was in Opposition, was most unkind to Minister in my party. I would ask them to think for a moment of the sound situation which existed then compared with now. I would appeal to the Government to at last act responsibly and to realise that on this side of the House there are people who are and always have been concerned with employment and job creation. When a measure such as this is brought before the House we should have time to discuss it in detail.

As I said earlier in my contribution to the budget, I support the Bill in principle, and so does the party in Opposition. However, before this Bill goes through the House we will have one hour to discuss the Committee Stage. There are many amendments which have to be put down to this Bill and it is disappointing that we will not have the opportunity of discussing in detail some of these amendments that we think are necessary.

My first criticism of the Bill is that it gives one the impression of being a hastily prepared document. That in itself may not be a grave sin in the existing situation, but it also appears to be not well researched. This is something that cannot be forgiven, because we are aware for a considerable time now that jobs are being lost, that opportunities are not being created. Therefore this measure should have been well researched long before the 26th June, when it was first announced in this House.

Another aspect of the Bill is that when the Minister for Finance in his budget debate of the 26th June mentioned this premium employment scheme, he gave us a certain amount of detail. On the day following, the Minister himself came in as promised and we were told we would get full details; eventually we did get some. We have no details whatsoever of the scheme in the Bill. The Minister is looking for powers. Personally I am all in favour of giving discretionary powers to a Minister in normal circumstances and would feel that it would be, in a crisis situation, a useful thing to do. But in regard to legislation of this sort for a temporary period, for a specific period of one year—we are led to believe this measure will be in force until June next year—out of mere courtesy to the Members of this House, both the backbenchers on the Government side as well as the Deputies here, the Minister should spell out in greater detail the conditions of the scheme.

We have been given some of the details in the speech of the Minister for Finance, in the Minister for Labour's speech. The National Manpower Service have already compiled provisional conditions, I understand, and again tonight the Minister has added on an extra condition to it. I want to go through the conditions at a later stage, but before doing that, as I say, I am criticising the fact that the Bill has not spelt out to us in greater detail what is involved in it. It is a framework, a framework to provide the employment premiums, but the opportunity for discussion is denied us. It is denied because of the time being given to it——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Pattison)

Again the Deputy is out of order in discussing the time factor.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I would respectfully——

Acting Chairman

The Deputy should not question the ruling of the Chair. The fact is that he has referred to the time factor on a number of occasions. He is out of order in referring to it. It has been decided by the House. He should relate his remarks to what is in the Bill.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I can now appreciate the time-delaying tactics of the Chair as well.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy should not cast any reflection on the Chair. The Chair's job is to carry out the ruling of this House.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Having said that, I also want to say that we are being denied the opportunity of adequately discussing this document because the conditions in the Bill have not been spelt out. It is a shell, a framework. It does not give us the opportunity for that, nor indeed had we adequate time to do it. We are entitled to assume that the conditions are as laid down by the Minister in his statement to the House. Before dealing with that I want to refer to his statement here tonight and the 10,000 jobs. I sincerely hope we get 10,000 jobs under this scheme.

What I am concerned about is the uncertainty, and possibly a lot of it has to be guess work. We have the supplementary estimates from the Department of Labour. He said he would be delighted to come back and look for more money. So indeed would I be delighted to see him come back and look for more money. But the point I want to make is that in this supplementary estimate a figure of £1,250,000 is mentioned. That equates to 2,500 jobs. I am glad to hear the Minister say tonight that there is that improvement already. I find it hard to understand why so recently we should have been budgeting for 2,500 jobs. Tonight he comes to the House and tells us we are budgeting for 10,000. There appears not to be enough research done on this measure, as I said already.

I want to come to the details of the Bill. Its title emphasises the narrow scope of the Bill. We are told that it is an Act to enable the Minister for Labour, by means of a scheme to be known as the Premium and Employment Programme, to make grants available to employers engaged in certain manufacturing industries for the purpose of encouraging employment.

Are the Government as sincere as we would like them to be about encouraging employment? According to this Bill certain manufacturing industries are excluded. It has not been spelt out for us what these industries are. We are told food processing industries, but we do not know which ones. But if we take it that all manufacturing industries are provided for, I would again refer to a few figures I have here. In the period January, 1974, to January, 1975—unfortunately later figures are not available—the number of males in insurable employment here was 445,857, of which only 150,249 were in manufacturing industries, a third approximately. On the female side—and here our figures are a little bit further back—from July, 1973, to July, 1974—244,584 females were in insurable employment, and of these only 83,497 were employed in manufacturing industry, or again a third or less than a third. These were the figures at January, 1975, and July, 1974, I am sure everybody in this House will agree with me when I say the ratio is now far worse than 1:3 as regards those employed in manufacturing industry. The point I am trying to make is this, that I believe the Minister has greater scope available to him for providing employment in other fields and other spheres. We may say—and he does so in his speech—that he is devoting his efforts generally to certain weaker areas in manufacturing at the present time. His reasons for that are sound enough, but in view of the crisis situation we are in, I am saying to him that he is not going far enough. In service industries like the hotel industry, there is scope for encouraging employment and creating employment and creating jobs.

If we look at what the £12 is going to cost net to the Exchequer, we will find in fact that the amount given is far less than £12. If we deduct from that £12 the social welfare stamp contribution of the employer and the employee and if we take it that a number of these people will also be paying income tax back to the State, we will probably find that as a result of the employment being created by the £12 premium £6 of that will be coming back to the State. As I say £6 will be a considerable figure by way of revenue in the area of finance in income tax and in social welfare contributions.

For that reason the idea is to extend it to the spheres or areas where it is easier to stimulate jobs and to create employment. I accept this and I accept the point the Minister makes in his speech about the industries that have been affected. There is particular interest in them. What concerns me is whether we are in time where the textile and footwear industries are concerned. Many jobs have been lost. Are the order books of the companies that are in trouble gone too far? Has it been too late? These are all questions we must ask ourselves. I am afraid that in certain areas, for the textile industry particularly it is too late. It is unfortunate that in my own constituency, for example, we have two industries closing this month. These concerns have been operating for centuries. This is why I feel that the scope of the Bill should be widened in view of the fact that the Exchequer will not have to pay the full £12 because there will be a certain substantial come-back.

The idea of providing jobs under this scheme has imagination. If we look at the cost, we are talking about something like £500 per job. On the supposition that premium employment has been paid for the nine months to March and for the three months from March to June, I am estimating it at £504. If we compare it with the cost of providing jobs under the IDA, we will find that this could well be a very cheap scheme indeed. It can be said possibly that the IDA scheme is a capital investment one, that is of a different nature, that they are permanent jobs. I hope that at £500 a time these jobs will also be permanent jobs, and that whether the scheme continues in 1975 the jobs so created by it will remain. If that will be the case £500, by comparison with the IDA jobs, will be a very cheap price to pay.

This is another reason I would encourage the Minister to accept amendments or to add amendments himself and I promise co-operation with him on the Committee Stage if this is done. It will all be in the interests of the work force of our country that is so badly hit at present. I understand the IDA cost per job can vary a lot but, on even a very conservative estimate, it would be at least eight times what I reckon to be the cost of providing jobs under this scheme.

There are embargos or discriminations in the legislation that concern me although I appreciate that there are reasons for them. There must be a guard against exploitation. This is essential. I am concerned about the guideline date of 20th June for the work force level. There is at least one firm, a particularly big employer, which closed on that date and which I believe is reopening very shortly. Are they debarred from participating in this scheme because their work force was at a certain level on 20th June? I am also concerned about another major industry that is closing during this month although it is hoped it will reopen in three to five months, with a big labour content. Perhaps there could be the incentive for them to reopen if they could be brought within the scope of the scheme. I appreciate that there were reasons for the date specified but I would request the Minister on Committee Stage to examine the possibility of extending this date to cater for as many as possible of those firms. As I am sure everybody is aware, the firms concerned are not trying to exploit the situation or the employment scheme that has been created. They are in their present situation because the economy has been badly handled by the Government and because of the situation that exists in the country. If we could encourage them to re-employ, then the extension or the bringing forward of the date of 20th June would again be a worthwhile exercise. On Committee Stage I would like to spend a day discussing this; there is so much in it.

I referred to extension of the activities to cover service industries and I mentioned local authorities. I would prefer to see local authorities assisted in other ways than by this measure but I accept that we could assist both the local authorities to get work done and we could provide jobs by extending it here. We are aware that the amenity grant schemes have been cut back. We are aware that the Road Fund grants have been cut back. We know that there is concern among local authorities about the employment situation. It would be a good exercise to encourage local authorities to make use of the employment scheme to employ people from the live register; the State would probably be given the money back again. In addition we would be doing useful work in an area, particularly in the amenity grants sphere, and certain smaller road jobs and repairs could be effectively carried out if this encouragement were given to local authorities.

We must tackle positively our unemployment situation. There is no point in looking elsewhere unless we are prepared ourselves to tackle what are our problems. There is no point in blaming foreign factors or outside interests. The present situation has been created by this Government but it is there and we must approach it in a positive way. I believe that if this Bill could get a proper discussion in this House we would put it into shape. We on this side of the House would help to make the measure far broader and to include many more people. I am afraid the number of people who can be attracted to manufacturing industry in the present year will not be enough to make an effective impact on the unemployment situation.

I have been critical before of the way Bills are introduced in this House. Section 3 (1) of this Bill states:

The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine (and shall specify in the Scheme) the industries or the activities in specified industries to which the Scheme applies and the persons or classes of persons to whom it applies.

Subsection (3) states:

(3) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, specify in the Scheme industries, activities in specified industries, persons or classes of persons (denoted by reference to any matter or in any manner which he thinks fit) to which the Scheme does not apply.

These are probably the mechanics of drafting a Bill but to me it seems superfluous. If the Minister specifies one thing, surely that is adequate; he does not have to not specify it. Instead of this unnecessary duplication, I would have preferred to see conditions of the scheme laid down. I do not know if the Minister will be putting down any amendments. I should like to know if the conditions laid down here are those that will be operative under the Bill. The Minister has told us about unemployment benefit payable after 20th June, 1974. The Bill states "be continuously on the live register for not less than the four weeks immediately preceding their first employment under this programme". This is where there is discrimination. Why is it necessary to have this provision? If a man becomes unemployed because of a situation over which he himself has no control and he is on the live register for only two days, he has not the same opportunity as a person who has been on the live register for four weeks. Why the distinction? Why should there be that embargo on persons who have not been on the live register for four weeks? This is an unnecessary qualification.

There is no encouragement for employers to give jobs to young people because they will not get the £12 premium in respect of them. In the case of a widow who may not have been working previously who may get an opportunity of employment, her prospective employer will not have the incentive of the £12 which might provide her with a job. These are cases I put to the Minister for his consideration. I do not see any practical reason why a man who is genuinely unemployed should not be re-employed even the following day, if the opportunity arises.

In a rural area a vacancy could arise in a manufacturing industry and a local unemployed man could be available but because the company would not get the employment premium they might bring in an outsider and deny the local man an opportunity of getting a job near home. I should like to have an explanation of this provision.

I do not think we have been given the provision about attendance at the AnCO training centre before. This is to be commended. People who have attended courses there are commencing their first employment.

I am not quite clear about (d) which says: "employed by the same employer on a short term arrangement in the PAYE week beginning on 15th June, 1975". Is this to protect a particular situation? If it is, I am quite satisfied with it. What about the poor fellow to whom this happens on the week beginning 22nd June? We cannot expect the Minister to legislate for every contingency, but he could broaden the scope of the Bill, to bring more people into it, to give the opportunity of creating more jobs where they can be created in the more immediate future in the service field, in industries other than manufacturing. I ask him to look again at the employee situation, to reconsider the dates which may cause hardship. I would be reluctant to adhere too rigidly to regulations and to be guided completely by specified dates if moving the dates would help to provide jobs. I would not object to giving the Minister certain latitude within the legislation. I am disappointed that there is not more meat in the Bill as presented to us.

Our party when in Government were always concerned about industrial development. One of the chief concerns of Fianna Fáil was job creation. Structures at that time were different. There was a decrease in emigration and job opportunities were increasing, especially for young people. The capital programme of the IDA was encouraged and developed and employment opportunities were being created throughout the country. For two years now we have seen a setback in industry; in the past 12 months particularly there has been a steep increase in unemployment. We have given our opinions on this to the House many times.

The approach indicated by the Bill, imaginative as it is must be seen to be effective from the outset. I appeal to the Minister very sincerely on behalf of the work force of the country not to confine the provisions of the Bill too much now. There is no better way of promoting employment than in the service field. This is why I ask the Minister, if he does not introduce amendments on Committee Stage, to accept amendments from this side of the House. We would like considerable time to devote to the Committee Stage but that may not be possible at this late stage.

Mr. Enright

The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Labour are to be congratulated on this Employment Premium Bill. It is an excellent and novel idea to introduce an employment premium at the present time. It is highly desirable and most essential.

The people who will benefit most from the provisions are those who will be taken from the employment exchanges, people who are in receipt of social welfare benefit, unemployment benefit and so on. These people are not contributing as they would wish to contribute to the economy of the country. The employment premium will enable them to assist the economy by being employed. The £12 premium proposed is a generous contribution towards employment. It will also have the added advantages that the people on social welfare will be working, paying their income tax and social welfare stamps. These people will benefit handsomely under this scheme.

For many years past the IDA have been doing excellent work. They have provided much needed employment. This idea is desirable because it is a direct injection, a direct payment, a direct incentive to people to obtain jobs and it is going to the people who need it. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Labour deserve the wholehearted congratulations of the House for bringing in this important Bill. This gives the unemployed an incentive to come back into employment. It gives a similar incentive to their employers.

The Minister hoped 10,000 people would be re-employed. This is to be wholeheartedly welcomed. It is no harm to mention one of the points that has been discussed at length by the Opposition. There are 102,000 unemployed. The Government are not happy with that situation and are doing everything possible to rectify it. We should not forget that when the previous Administration were in power, there were between 70,000 to 75,000 people out of work. We were not happy with that situation and we are not happy with the present situation. I believe it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure nobody is out of work. This Government are as concerned about employment as any Member on the far side of the House. It is time that was realised. Seventy thousand people out of work is very bad; the same can be said about 100,000 unemployed. It is up to each one to provide employment and this scheme is a step in that direction. Deputy Fitzgerald mentioned that there was not a flow of people out of this country. There has been up until recent years but that has stopped now.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Deputy should make his own contribution.

Mr. Enright

I am in order to reply to any matter raised by the Deputy.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

If the Deputy has something positive to say let him say it.

Mr. Enright

There is a recession in Britain and the old safety valve which existed for 20 years is no longer there. This Bill will provide much needed employment.

A very good and positive point in this Bill is that the Government have stated that there is no ceiling on the amount of funds available for employment. This is most desirable. The sections that are of interest to me are those dealing with the textile industry. The midlands have been heavily dependent on textiles in the past. If this scheme will help to maintain employment in the textile industry, it is to be welcomed. The Acton report on textiles dealt with amalgamation of firms and in its way, this meant that closures would follow. I was not happy with that report at the time it was issued. At present our textile industry is going through a difficult period but I believe it will be a valuable industry in the future. Any steps taken at present to maintain employment in the textile industry will prove to be worthwhile.

The employment premium scheme is also welcome. The direct payments towards this scheme will have the effect of encouraging employers to take on people. Money being channelled into new industries is often not utilised to provide the most beneficial effects. A Bill of this nature must be limited. I would have liked this Bill to provide a scheme for direct payment to people employed in farming. This would have been a better idea, but I am happy with the Bill as presented before the House this evening.

I would ask the Minister to consider this in the future. A very large number of people have been leaving agriculture. This is a continuing process; approximately 10,000 have left agriculture since 1951. At the present time—I have not got the figures— there are approximately 20,000 farm labourers in this country. There are also a number of farmers' sons and relatives, who were employed on farms, leaving agriculture. With incentives they might remain. That is the point I want the Minister to bear in mind. If they stay in agriculture they will not be taking jobs that would otherwise be going to people who were not born into agriculture. The flow of people from agriculture in its own way is filling jobs that would otherwise be taken by industrial workers. If a scheme could be devised whereby the attraction was there to keep people in agricultural employment there would be more jobs available for people in industry. It has never been seriously tackled. This Bill is not sufficient. It needs a lot of thought. The Minister should get down to it in the next few months. Such a scheme is highly desirable. Agriculture is highly important and it can, in its own way provide employment for people interested in agriculture and can leave vacancies in industry that would otherwise be filled. I am wholeheartedly in support of this Bill. It is an excellent Bill. It is a novel idea and can have most beneficial effects.

Mr. Faulkner

I am very concerned about the employment situation particularly in my own constituency. The Minister says that the greatest number of inquiries was received from the textile, footwear and engineering industries. The whole economy of County Louth is based on this. I wish to refer to the date on which the grants are available. I appreciate that there must be a specific date set from which time industrial firms can benefit under this Bill when it becomes law.

I have no doubt that the Minister is as anxious as I am that as many firms as possible will benefit and he will have no objection, within reason, to revising the date. Problems are constantly arising for many industries and many would benefit by having the date changed. I suggest, rather than have the 20th June as the specified date, that he would take the date on which the budget was introduced by the Minister for Finance, the 26th June. I feel that this is a reasonable request. It would assist many industries. I have a particular interest in this matter. I am sure the Minister is aware that I have already been in touch with his Department on it. The change I propose would be of benefit to the industry I have in mind, which has had very rough times recently. I am convinced that the aid available under the Bill would help to a great extent in assisting the industry to get on its feet again. It would help to re-employ some of the workers more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

In a supplementary question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce I asked that every facility should be made available to this industry. He replied that this was being done. I mentioned that there was another facility which might be made available. I had in mind the provisions of this Bill. The Minister is aware of the circumstances in this case. They are unusual, and it is rather a fluke that the industry is outside the scope of the Bill as it stands. The workers and management are very concerned about the situation. The Minister would be making a concrete contribution to the future of the industry if he would accede to the suggestion I am making.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The time for the Bill has now expired.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 23rd July, 1975.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 17 Jul 1975