Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Jul 1975

Vol. 284 No. 3

Employment Premium Bill, 1975: Committee Stage.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

This section deals with the interpretation. We have a short time to discuss this Bill here tonight. I pointed out on the Second Stage the reason why the fact that we have the one hour to discuss the final stages of such an important Bill is a tragedy. I am disappointed that this Bill was included with eight others in the guillotine motion moved in this House in July.

The Minister has said to me, and he will say it again, that extra time was offered for it but the position is that extra time would have been taken at the expense of other necessary legislation. This Bill is so important that we could have discussed it for a full day on Committee Stage and gone through each section. We shall be discussing the other sections later. That is all I wish to say on section 1.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, after line 28, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), the net additions of employees to whom the Scheme applies, made by an employer to his total insured work force shall be measured by reference to the level of the work force on the 20th day of June, 1975, provided that a date which is later than that date may be specified in respect of certain industries".

The reason for this amendment is obvious. It is a difficult Bill on which to move amendments because it is very much a shell within which guidelines have been set down by the Minister.

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

The shell is intended without any pejorative meaning, I assume?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Yes. The date set by the Minister is 20th June. The Minister is already aware of industries that closed on 20th June, or just after that date, and perhaps having this enticement available to them would be an attraction to industries to re-employ their workers. In other words, the company who closed with a work force level of a figure of X hundred on the evening of 20th June, as the guideline stands at present, are debarred from availing of the payment of these premiums subsequently if they re-employ in the month of July or in the month of August.

I fully appreciate that there are probably very good reasons why the Minister fixed 20th June as the date. It was probably to avoid evasion, or to prevent unfair advantage being taken of the scheme by people who would be prepared to become involved in such practices. I ask the Minister to assure us—and I think he will—that he will accept this amendment from us if we give him the opportunity of deciding on the date. He will be able to look at each firm in detail and if its application is genuine, the Minister should decide in its favour. In this Bill there are many powers given to the Minister. This is one that should be specifically handed over to him so that he will not have to confine the date to 20th June in case it might debar some firms from re-employing their workers.

Mr. Faulkner

I support this amendment. The amendment was put down for the purpose of making the Bill more flexible. We are seeking to give the Minister the opportunity to include industries which, as the Bill is now framed, do not appear to be eligible to benefit.

As I said on Second Stage, I have a particular industry in mind of which the Minister is aware. As the Bill stands, it appears to me that this particular industry will not benefit. It is an important industry, employing quite a number of workers. It has gone through a very difficult time and any assistance the Minister might give through the provisions of this Bill would be of considerable benefit. It is estimated at the moment that only 50 per cent of the workers will be taken back—approximately 300. Some of these workers have already been taken back but a considerable number remain to be taken back. I am convinced that if the provisions of the Bill covered these workers it would be possible to take them back much more quickly than was originally estimated by the firm.

If the provisions of the Bill were applied to this firm, not only would it be possible to take back workers quicker than originally estimated. Possibly, and hopefully, the boost that would be given to the industry might help, in the longer term, to get back some of those who at the moment have no hope of being taken back. I wish to impress upon the Minister the need in this case to accept the amendment.

We have not the knowledge in relation to draftsmanship that is at the disposal of the Minister. If it should happen that this amendment is not acceptable from a drafting point of view, I am sure the Minister could have it redrafted so that it would do what we hope it will do, make available to those who are ruled out because of a specific date the benefits under the Bill. The Minister knows the facts in relation to this industry and I would be glad if he would accede to the request from this side of the House.

Mr. Moore

I support the amendment. I should like to remind the Minister that we welcomed the Bill and we described it as imaginative thinking. We are keen to ensure that the Bill will do what it sets out to do. This amendment would take the Minister out of the straitjacket he may find himself in, if he is going to stay within the rigid framework in the Bill. I hope the Minister will meet this in the spirit in which it was put down. It would make it a better Bill and would give certain people who have become unemployed a better hope of being reabsorbed in industry. If the Minister does not amend this section in some way, he may find that it will be practically unworkable after a while. The Opposition are trying to show the Minister that the Bill would be better if the amendment was accepted. The Minister should accept the amendment.

Mr. M. O'Leary

As Deputy Faulkner said, I am aware of the problem in AET. Approximately 600 employees were working there up to Friday, 20th June, 1975. All employees were dismissed at closing time on that date. There is participation in management by Fóir Teoranta in that company's affairs at present, and as Deputy Faulkner knows, in an effort to restore efficiency to that company, its reopening was based on a reduced work force. It seems that the reopening of the firm with a reduced work force—fewer than the 600 who were there at closing time—would mean that this firm could not benefit at all from the scheme. Deputies opposite will appreciate that we must have a starting date to any scheme of this kind. Otherwise the door is open for people to seek a subsidy from the State for an augmented work force which would be taken on in any case. The purpose of the scheme is that we wish to induce industry to bring back into employment workers whom they would not bring back at this time if it were not for the existence of the scheme. It is not a subsidy without strings attached. The string attached is that it is an inducement to re-employ labour now.

Officials from my Department have met the management of AET to consider this problem, as they have been meeting other managements who are interested in the scheme since it was announced. In telling Deputies that I do not accept the amendment, I want to assure them that I think it will be possible to meet the case of AET and other firms. We have not, of the number of cases so far, come across a case which has similar features to the AET case. It is a cut-and-dried case of State participation by Fóir Teoranta organising its reopening on a reduced work force the following week. I have taken powers to overcome the problem posed by the AET case. Under the scheme I will have powers in exceptional circumstances, to determine a base level of employment for a firm other than that based strictly on its 20th June, 1975 level.

Mr. Faulkner

Does the Minister have that power in the Bill?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Yes, I have sufficient power in the Bill to have that discretion in the scheme.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Where is it?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Under the general powers section of the Bill. Section 3 (1) will give me that power. Under the determination of application of the scheme in section 3 (1) I have sufficient powers to do what I am suggesting, to determine a base level of employment for a firm other than that based strictly on 20th June work force. While the date would remain unchanged for starting, I would have powers, in certain conditions, to act on a notional base level, that is, a base level other than the actual work force on 20th June. That would meet the case of AET.

Mr. Faulkner

Can we take it that the Minister will favourably consider this case?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy can take that. It is to meet cases such as AET that the scheme is presumably intended. We are continuing discussions. I understand that 75 workers have already gone back into employment in AET and that the company intend to re-employ up to 300 workers.

Mr. Faulkner

I know the facts.

Mr. M. O'Leary

At any rate, with the most favourable possible approach.

Mr. Faulkner

Would the Minister accept that if the industry had closed the previous week they would automatically have——

Mr. M. O'Leary

Yes.

Mr. Faulkner

I agree it is necessary to have a specific date but as long as it covers this I am satisfied.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am still not satisfied. I accept the reasons for a date but if we want to be particular about certain cases—it probably affects all constituencies—I know of a fertiliser company that laid off employees for a period they hoped would be three to five months. Unfortunately, this layoff came on 11th July. There is no guarantee of re-employment but if this scheme was available, it might be an encouragement to them to re-employ. Again, there would be the problem of the work force level. Can I take it that if we withdraw this amendment we can expect that the Minister is accepting the principle of it?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am not accepting the principle of movable dates because we could not have a scheme on that basis. I am accepting the principle that on the date which causes difficulty, the 20th, that in a firm which is contemplating increasing its work force and which may in fact, in pursuit of such policy, re-employ extra workers on that day of that week—in such cases where such are proved and where my officials are satisfied that that is the case, I can vary the base-line of the employment.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

If that be the case, we can take the Minister's assurance that this applies to all genuine cases? The case of AET has been mentioned. Where all genuine cases arise we have the Minister's assurance?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Cork is not excluded.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

We should not be so parochial. We might be Corkmen but I think it is important that employment be assured in each area. I would be concerned that any guidelines would create a situation in which workers may not be re-employed because of the non-availability of the scheme. In that case, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Moore

There are powers in section 2 which we think the Minister should have. Does the Minister stipulate how many hours a worker must work per week before an employer would qualify for the subsidy?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would not arise on the amendment, Deputy.

Mr. Moore

I ask merely as a matter of interest.

Mr. M. O'Leary

He should be a fulltime worker within the ordinary definition; whatever is the normal working week in the firm concerned.

Mr. Moore

Looking at this perhaps the Minister would be able to make some differential between parttime workers.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It does not affect part-time workers.

Mr. Moore

It could possibly apply under this section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Reverting to subsection (1) of section 2 which gives the Minister discretionary powers to amend the scheme, I welcome this but I am critical of the fact that there was such little detail in the Bill. I fear we will have an anomalous situation. We on this side of the House would have put down many more amendments but we realised that the time was not available to us to discuss them and that we would be dragging the business out all night. It is left to the Seanad to go into this Bill in detail. Naturally, where more time is available, I have no doubt that that House will be putting down amendments which I believe the Minister will accept. Does that mean then we have to come back here, go over this Bill again, because there is an urgency about it? I would have preferred that we could have dealt in detail with those amendments here.

Subsection (2) says:

The purpose of the Scheme shall be to encourage employers in industries or activities to which the Scheme applies to employ persons....

This has been going on since 26th June. As far as I can see we on this side of the House do not know yet the specific industries included and these excluded.

I thought this Bill could have been extended to help to create employment in all spheres at present. If one looks today at a Question to the Minister for Social Welfare and the reply to it, we see a figure of £18,356,000 being paid out in unemployment benefit from the 1st of January to the 30th of June, 1975, and unemployment assistance of approximately £16,779,900 and one realises that these figures are staggering. It would be an imaginative idea were this Bill extended to embrace all industries, all activities and not confined to manufacturing industries. But, of course, I accept that there would have to be control. We could not have a situation in which people exploited its benefits. Certainly that would not be acceptable. If it were more embracing, we could then see real value being gained by our Exchequer generally. We would see a saving in the figures I have just mentioned. We would see the contribution by way of stamp, and possibly some income tax, out of the £12 being paid by the State towards the premium. That is why I express disappointment at its narrow nature. I would appeal to the Minister —and we will give him power if he wants to amend the scheme—to broaden its scope in the coming months. In that way only can I foresee a realistic number of people re-employed under the scheme in the coming months.

Mr. Moore

Again speaking on subsection (2) of section 2, when will the Minister spell out the industries to which it applies? Is there a date set for that, or will he do it every month or every week? When will we know what industries the Bill covers? It is very difficult to discuss it adequately here when we do not know. Would the Minister say it would be six months or three months? Could we have a full list saying this applies to the following industries from A to Z?

Mr. M. O'Leary

We thought the best thing to do was to make it as wide as possible in terms of definition, by describing is as manufacturing industry, by stating that it was not the purpose of the Bill to assist seasonal industry. As I explained, it is a Bill designed to induce workers into industries which would not take them on at this time but for the fact that this Bill has been brought through this House. Deputies may say it is a Bill which simply gives me powers to do these things. It is true that the Bill gives me a great deal of discretion in choice, within the general limits of the industry being manufacturing. All I can say to Deputies on that is that I will be back here presumably in the autumn looking for extra money, at which time they will be able to judge whether the Bill has been working satisfactorily.

Before we publicise the actual scheme fully and proceed to sell the benefits of this employment programme, we must get this legislation through the House. With that done next week I hope the officials of my Department and I will be free to approach employers up and down the country in industries in the manufacturing area.

Mr. Moore

Could the Minister say he was extending it to the building trade, for instance?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

And to service industry?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The real purpose of it is to aid the areas worst hit which are in manufacturing industry. It is our idea that it should be a programme that would be easy to administer and effective. It is only a temporary programme to take us through these months ahead to the summer of regrowth.

Mr. Moore

The Minister means second spring.

Mr. Cunningham

Is the Minister saying he expects to be back with us in the autumn? Would he consider this Bill provides for people who have been made redundant or disemployed? Has he looked at the employment premium schemes in operation in Northern Ireland where, rather than allow the disemployment to take place —where it is clear in an industry that disemployment is about to take place —premiums are paid, admittedly not as high as £12? The Minister should and may need in future to consider the situation rather than allow these workers to become disemployed. Some action should be taken prior to the break which would be more satisfactory all around.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Might I ask the Minister—if he says it is manufacturing industries and if he is refusing, despite our pleas, to broaden the scope; we have to accept that for the moment because we have not got time to go into it in greater detail—if I may refer to the title of the Bill which does say in certain manufacturing industries. I should like to know, even if it does not specify what ones are included, what ones are excluded, or is it only those of a seasonal nature? If it were the latter I would be concerned.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is service industries.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

No, certain manufacturing industries.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Yes, but I thought the Deputy asked which industries were excluded. I have already made clear, on earlier Stages of the Bill, that seasonal and service industries generally were excluded.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Yes.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The scheme referred to in Northern Ireland is a different one entirely. It is an employment subsidy scheme.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister may have missed my point. What I am asking is—forgetting about the service industries—within the manufacturing industries, what ones are excluded? Much of the manufacturing industry can be hit by seasonal trends. They all have their peaks and valleys during the year, admittedly some more than others; certain food industries take on workers in the summer months. May I take it that any permanent employer working throughout the year in any manufacturing industry is covered under this scheme? Why is there a necessity, in the title of the Bill, for mentioning "certain" ones? Could the title not state "manufacturing industries", excluding only a few under the scheme? Could the Minister give the House some indication of what industries are excluded?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The general point of the scheme is confined to those industries which have suffered most from the present recession. If funds came from the programme and assistance went to employers in seasonal industries the possibility would exist in that case that the programme would be assisting employers who were taking on extra workers for a seasonal chore, but who would be taking on extra workers anyway. The programme is directed at the centre of the areas which have suffered most from the recession. It is directed to induce employers in those industries which have been worst affected, such as the textile and footwear industries. The Government are suggesting to employers in those industries to re-employ workers who have been laid off.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister said those worst hit by the present recession. If any industry, despite the type of business, increase their work-force level over that of 20th June, provided they comply with the other conditions of the scheme, will they qualify for the scheme? There are no exclusions other than the seasonal intakes? On the question of State aid, what industries are excluded or what is the situation in regard to firms in receipt of State aid or grants?

Mr. M. O'Leary

What part of the Bill is the Deputy now referring to?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

It is not in the Bill but I thought there was a reference to this and I wanted to tease it out a bit further. There is little information contained in the Bill. What is the position of industries in receipt of State aid by way of grant? Are they all entitled to qualify under the benefits of this scheme?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I think the Deputy's query relates to section 4 (3). Is he asking me which State industries are in receipt——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

No. I am asking the Minister if there are any exclusions because they have received aid from Fóir Teoranta, the IDA, the ICC or any of these institutions.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I have power under section 4 (3) to reduce the number of premiums payable to an employer in cases where the employer is in receipt of, or has received grants or loans from the IDA, Fóir Teoranta or other State agencies for promoting, encouraging or assisting employment.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Does that mean that certain conditions would be applied to those industries? To be realistic, many of the industries which are in difficulties at present have received State aid from Fóir Teoranta, in particular.

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is discretion. This is another area of discretion.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

What I am afraid of is that there is so little in the Bill and we will squeeze it so much that we will not get any worthwhile value.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We have already cited the case of AET in which, as I have informed the House, the Government are bending the terms of the Bill to the point that we are allowing them in when, technically speaking, they could be excluded without anyone worrying about sections of the Bill. Although I have power to vary the premiums that could be payable to a firm in receipt of State aid—an example is the firm referred to which, by any technical assessment of the provisions of the Bill, is totally outside the limits—the Deputy can rest assured that all cases will be examined very carefully. The purpose of the Bill is for the Government to ensure that the maximum number of workers are re-employed at this time. There will be no impediment put forward to that purpose by my officials, even in cases where firms may be in receipt of State moneys. The Government must examine those cases very carefully, and they have the discretion to do so. There is no sense in which aid or premiums are totally excluded.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

That is the assurance I wanted from the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Cunningham)

Amendment No. 2 has been put down but it is ruled out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Revenue. We are now dealing with section 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am sorry the Ceann Comhairle is not present because I do not agree with his ruling on the extra financial charge. My reason for putting down this amendment was to eliminate discrimination in the Bill. Section 3, subsection (2) refers to

...a determination of a person or class of persons may include a requirement of the specified minimum period of unemployment.

I submit that this amendment which has been ruled out of order does not do what the Chair says it can do. It is imposing no extra charge on this particular Bill. Instead of imposing a charge on the Exchequer generally, it will mean a saving of money for the Exchequer. Therefore, I cannot understand the ruling of the Chair on this amendment. Section 2 states it may include a requirement of a specified minimum period of unemployment. I understand one of the conditions mentioned on the Second Stage last week by the Minister was that they must be continuously on the live register for not less than the four weeks immediately preceding their first employment under this programme.

I suspect that somewhere along the line someone said: "We will have to stop evasion and for that reason, we will ensure the workers will be on the live register for a specified minimum period." I believe this discriminates. Whether my amendment is accepted is not important, especially at this stage when we have only an hour to devote to the Bill. The way I look at this is: it will discriminate against the newly unemployed. If a group of people in a town are unemployed, some for a period of six, eight or ten weeks, and others for one or two weeks, or even two days, when a company who can otherwise avail of the employment premium seek workers they will discriminate against the newly unemployed. That is why there is no charge in the Bill.

The same number of jobs can be created, but a group of unemployed will be denied the opportunity of being considered by the employer. The Minister is aware that the first days and weeks for many people who are now becoming unemployed are the traumatic weeks. This is the time they begin to feel a disruption of their lives.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Would the Deputy accept that there is need for a qualifying period?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

No, I do not. The Minister's stipulations of reservations and guidelines of the scheme should refer to the employer. Exploitation by the employer must be eliminated. I accept the point of two employers combining to try to get around this scheme and fiddle—if that is the correct word to use in this House—the Department by dropping and picking up workers. That will not be the case with the guidelines set down, and with the inspectorate keeping their eye on the situation. There should not be even a day's unemployment. The Minister will find that there are people of 40, 45, 50 and 55 years of age becoming unemployed now, who never knew the difficulties of unemployment, or the problems of queuing to draw their unemployment benefit.

The first day these people are unemployed I know this from experience —they will scour their towns, cities or counties in search of a job because work means something to them. They want to work. They want the independence of work. It is unfair to say to these people, as employers will say: "We will not take you on, because if we take this other gruop we will be able to collect our £12 premium from the Department from now until next March and £6 for three months afterwards".

I do not think it is necessary to limit this scheme on employees. I feel very strongly about this. It is grossly unfair and can only discriminate against them. The majority of people on the live register do not want to be in receipt of unemployment benefit. If they have to hang around for four weeks before they can effectively look for work, it will be a social disaster for many of them. I appeal to the Minister to withdraw that condition forthwith. I will depend on the Minister's discretionary powers to ensure that there is adequate control of the firms and companies operating it, but take away the condition.

As I said, this amendment does not impose an extra charge. I am disappointed that the Ceann Comhairle ruled this out of order. If he were here and I had time, I would make the same submission to him. I appeal to the Minister to look at this section.

Mr. Moore

Time is running out and I have not much time to add any further weight to the case made by Deputy G. Fitzgerald, not that it needed it. As Deputy Fitzgerald said, to become unemployed is a traumatic experience. Even for politicians it can be a traumatic experience.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is a hazard of the occupation.

Mr. Moore

The Minister has not experienced it yet.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is not nice.

Mr. Moore

Deputy Fitzgerald mentioned that people becoming unemployed, who have worked all their lives, want to go on working. To find that they must stay on the live register for four weeks to qualify under the Bill is a very harsh decision. If the Minister will not accept our amendment he could amend it himself. If the Minister looks at section 3 he will find a great deal of verbiage. Section 3 (1) gives the Minister the power to decide to whom it will apply. In subsection 3 of section 3 the Minister can decide to whom it will not apply. That whole section needs to be tidied up. The Minister could embody in it the sentiments expressed in Deputy Fitzgerald's amendment.

We, on this side of the House, are bending over backwards to make it easy for the Minister to make the Bill a really workable instrument. We feel very strongly on the four weeks. The Minister may say there must be time to adjust the records in respect of people becoming unemployed but we feel their cause is so worthy that the Minister should be well able to speed up the machinery of the Department to ensure that these people do not have to spend four days, not alone four weeks, unemployed.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The only thing I would bring to the attention of Deputies is that there must be some qualifying period to distinguish the person who is genuinely unemployed from the person simply changing jobs. If we do not have such a distinction, it would merely be a general subsidy to employers up and down the country. There would be no guarantee whatever that it would be assisting those whom this legislation is intended to assist.

I have discretion under the scheme to consider hard cases that are brought to my attention where the qualifying period debars a person genuinely unemployed from participation in the scheme. Again what holds true of the date holds true of the qualifying period. We must have a recognised qualifying period. The Deputies opposite, on reflection, will see that a qualifying period is necessary. If no period of unemployment was specified, all would be eligible. Such a provision, namely, that all would be eligible, could prove seriously disrupting to the maintenance of a stable labour force. It would not assist in the direction that this Bill intends.

It could be said that acceptance of an amendment on the lines suggested by the Deputy would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to encourage employers in manufacturing industry to re-employ on a full-time basis those who have lost their jobs as a result of the recession. It is our hope that by means of this programme we will re-employ something like 10,000 people. That is our objective. We wish to ensure that those re-employed are those out of work at present as a result of the recession. We believe a qualifying period is necessary. Otherwise we could have the situation where employees transferring from one employment to another, or employers transferring workers from one firm to another, would simply benefit from the scheme intended for a totally different purpose.

Mr. Moore

What is so magic about four? Why not two?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputies are arguing for no qualifying period. I am saying there must be one.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am saying there must not be. There is no necessity for it. To quote the Minister's own words, the main purpose of this scheme is to stimulate employment and create the opportunity of employing or re-employing people in manufacturing industries. There is a full stop there. The Minister can rest assured that he will have every support from this side of the House on this measure but, for goodness sake, at this stage do not tie up in red tape the odd person who may try to do something unfair under the scheme because the vast majority of people will suffer for it.

Let us look at the situation at the moment. On Friday evening company A are laying off 50 workers, male or female and company Y down the road is re-employing workers. If there are opportunities for some of those people in factory Y and if they are lucky enough to get some of those jobs they would never experience unemployment. But company Y would be in the position of having to say to those workers: "No. We will not take you on because we cannot draw the unemployment premium in respect of you, but we can draw it in respect of 20 men in the next street, in the next road or the next town." In my opinion, this is a weakness in the Bill. I would appeal to the Minister not to inspect people who want to operate the scheme as schemes have been operated in the past. This is for a specified minimum period. This Bill is introduced with a good intention and let us ensure that that good intention is implemented. Eliminate this from the scheme because ways and means can be found to get around it. There is no point in saying there must be proof of unemployment. I do not want the Minister to be involved in cases where there is some argument about just one man. We have too many at the moment and the Minister knows that as well as I do. Where there are 20 or 50 or 100 people unemployed those people will be stymied by this scheme. That is the reality of the situation. This may not militate against opportunities in other industries but in the manufacturing industry people will be prevented from being re-employed for at least four weeks. Many wage earners and breadwinners in constant employment for many years are facing unemployment. This is a new and traumatic experience for them.

Mr. Esmonde

If a person has been a good regular worker and there are vacancies in another factory down the road, is it not more than likely that he will be employed because of his record? This is a safeguard.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I would love to believe that what the Deputy is saying is right. If it were right I would not be so hard on the Minister, but the unfortunate situation is that we are becoming very money conscious. The employer the Deputy is talking about would give preference to the people who would earn the premium for him.

Mr. Esmonde

An employer will take a finished worker before an inexperienced one.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I would love to believe that, but I can assure the Deputy that will not be the experience. If a person employs 20 people who have been on the live register for four weeks he will benefit to the extent of 20 times £12 per week until March of next year. That will amount to a sizeable sum at the end of that period. Whereas, if that employer takes the other 20, he will not benefit.

Mr. Esmonde

The Deputy has some experience.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am talking about the reality of the situation. The Minister appreciates the reasoning behind the point I am making.

Mr. Esmonde

I appreciate it too.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am asking the Minister to let us look at the realities and the problems for a 12-month period. After the recess we can come back and have a look at it again. In the meantime, for goodness sake, scrap this guideline.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is true that, for a certain qualifying period, the worker about whom the Deputy is concerned will be excluded from jobs that are vacant. Is it not a fact that, when the qualifying period is over, workers will be in the same position as the person who qualified the previous week?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

My answer to that is that he may well have passed up his chance of being re-employed in that four weeks. I would hope that initially there would be a good reaction to this scheme and consequently there would be a number of people employed but the newly unemployed may suffer. This is the peak employment period. This is July. August has always been a holiday month, a bad time for the creation of new jobs or new employment. I am concerned that there are a number of firms in which more people will be unemployed in September and October. Opportunities will be slipping away in those months. Difficulties will arise in homes. This is effectively discriminating unnecessarily against the newly employed. The Minister's objection may possibly be an administrative one. How can we be sure that they are unemployed and there is not a deliberate attempt by employers to gain benefits under this scheme? That problem can be solved with an adequate and alert inspection. We are giving the Minister a free hand in that. I am genuinely interested in this.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I hope we will not see——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am being very fair about this Bill. If the Minister wants to be sarcastic——

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy is getting thin skinned.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am trying to be helpful. I would be delighted to see jobs being inspected but the inspections in return should give us the type of re-employment needed.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Would the Deputy agree that the country is groaning under a weight of inspectors?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

It may be, but is that important?

Mr. M. O'Leary

We are ad idem that we do not want to see money under this scheme being used to erect a very complicated bureaucratic edifice. We want to see a scheme that is quick and brings back as many of the unemployed as possible into employment.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

This is introducing a complete irrelevancy. I was following completely what was said. The inspectorate aspect of it is irrelevant at this stage, and the Deputy has not indicated to me what he knows about the unemployment situation——

Mr. Esmonde

I know a little more about it than the Deputy might think.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

——or about the way people are employed, or about the things that can encourage people to take on employees during a period of recession. The problem is this. We have a huge pool of unemployed people. That is the reality of the situation. I am trying to encourage the Minister to do something I believe he is morally bound in justice to do. The Minister is morally bound to give every person employment because these are a new group of people coming on the live register.

Acting Chairman

Could I remind the House that we have just four minutes to go?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Does that not indicate the futility and the disappointment caused by the guillotine measure?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Now does the Opposition regret all wasted time?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

We did not waste time. I said on Second Stage and I repeat that if we could make a good Bill of it, it would be worth our while sitting through until August. If this Dáil did nothing else to benefit our community other than to introduce a Bill which would effectively re-employ not only the 10,000 the Minister talks about but many more, which would save some of the huge expenditure we have had on unemployment assistance and benefit in the first six months of the year, a total of £35 million approximately, and divert it back into gainful employment, we would have done a good job. What is our position at this stage? Can we get an extension now?

Acting Chairman

There are three more minutes to go.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Could I ask the Minister to look again at this? It is important. If he has to impose a week—I do not think it is necessary— I would settle for that. Do not make it four weeks. Would the Minister look at it again before it goes to the Seanad?

Mr. M. O'Leary

We will keep looking at any provision that might cause hardship but it is necessary to have criteria built into this legislation to ensure that aid goes to where it is needed most.

Mr. Moore

This will cause hardship.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Explain that in more detail?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I accept the Deputy's concern for any category of unemployed but I take it that, should the hardship of unemployment continue for any person, such a person would in time, in fact, over a week or two, achieve the status of being four weeks unemployed and would qualify for the scheme if that were the period of qualification.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Is the Minister not basically discriminating against the individual's rights in this Bill? These are good people. They want to work. They probably will not be re-employed because while the concern may want to employ people they will give preference to people for whom they will get a subsidy. There is an injustice to the individual rights of the person.

Mr. Esmonde

That is a terrible indictment of employers in Ireland.

It being 8 p.m. the following question was put by the Chair in accordance with the Order of 9th July, 1975:

"That the Bill is hereby agreed to and is reported to the House and the Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.

Agreed.