Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Jul 1975

Vol. 284 No. 5

Employment Premium Bill, 1975: From the Seanad.

According to order and by agreement a supplementary Order Paper has been circulated.

May I speak on the order on the subject matter of what the Bill purports to achieve?

I understood we were to address our remarks to the actual amendments.

There is a document before us which seems to be in the form of a motion which is a repeat of the Money Resolution.

It is a Money Resolution arising from a change which has been made.

It is a Money Resolution, then?

This is only for information.

It is only when it is approved that the amendments come forward?

The order was that it was proposed to conclude the amendments from the Seanad at 6 o'clock. That was agreed on the Order of Business this morning. It was proposed to take the amendments from the Seanad at 6 o'clock.

Was the order made asking the House to take the amendments?

This morning it was agreed that this would be done at 6 o'clock, that the Bill would be coming back from the Seanad and at that stage the recommendations from the Seanad would be discussed here.

Is this not a reintroduction of this Bill into the House following recommendations for amendments made in the Seanad? It was agreed that this would be put on the Order Paper subject to the appropriate recommendations having been made in the Seanad. Now it is before the House, I suggest, for debate on whether or not we take it or at least debate the subject matter of this reintroduced Money Resolution. I just want to be permitted to make observations on the subject matter of this Bill and on the package of which it forms part.

My understanding this morning was that the House ordered that this matter would be taken at 6 o'clock subject to consultation between the Whips. I have been speaking to the Opposition Whips and I understood from them that there was no objection to that being done.

I am only looking for a vehicle on this Bill whereby I can make general observations on it.

The position is that we agreed to take the amendments at this stage. This is what the House has agreed to and we just move to the amendments at this stage.

Without any precedent, proposition or motion?

This is what was agreed. Amendment No. 4 is consequential on amendment No. 1. Amendments to Nos. 1 and 4 may be discussed together.

I understand that the amendments made by the Seanad have been circulated. I understood that the Tánaiste this morning told the House that it was anticipated that these amendments would be made. If, therefore, the amendments have been made and are brought back to the Dáil for approval, I am not too clear as to what the problem raised by the Leader of the Opposition is.

There is also circulated—perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has not seen it—a document in which there is a repeat of the Money Resolution which preceded the Committee Stage debate of the Bill in this House. This seems to me to be a reintroduction of the Money Resolution necessary for the purpose of expanding the scope of the Bill. I am only asking whether I can make general observations as I would on a Money Resolution on this particular document here.

The Deputy appreciates that there is no such thing as a Money Resolution under the new Standing Orders. This is a money message.

This Bill has come back to us basically as a result of one major amendment which we proposed on this side of the House last week to broaden the scope of the Bill. That has been done by way of amendment in the Minister's name and it has come back to us here from the Seanad. Surely that is a completely new aspect. It is a scope of activity that is being introduced into this Bill which, of course, is welcome. Surely the entire procedure has to be gone through in relation to those amendments which refer to a specific broadening of the title of the Bill as first introduced in this House. Surely the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to speak.

The Bill is coming back from the Seanad with these amendments and they can be discussed here at this stage.

We have another document before us and at this stage perhaps I might quote exactly what is in it:

For the purpose of Article 17.2 of the Constitution the Government recommends that it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to enable the Minister for Labour to make, by means of a scheme to be known as the Premium Employment Programme, payments to employers engaged in Agricultural (including Horticultural) and certain manufacturing industries for the purpose of encouraging employment, and to provide for other matters connected with the aforesaid matter.

We authorised payments of money necessary to implement the provisions of the Bill restricted to employment premiums for manufacturing industries. Now we are expanding the scope of the Bill. The Government are seeking authorisation from the Oireachtas for the necessary moneys for the purpose of this expansion. I put it to you that the Oireachtas, of which this House is part, is entitled to discuss this new amended Money Resolution as we would have been entitled to discuss the original Money Resolution.

This is a message of recommendation— just for information.

Would you not advert to the wording?

This is for information.

Would you not advert to the wording of the motion? It reads:

The Government recommend that it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

If they recommend it it is for the Oireachtas to authorise the payment of the moneys.

The position is that under the Constitution it is for information only. It does not form the basis of a debate. Money Resolutions were abolished under the new Standing Orders. It is just by way of information.

I do not want to delay the House. I want an opportunity to make general observations on the purpose of this Bill and its relationship to other matters the Government are putting through the Houses for the purpose of relieving the present economic situation. I will seek that opportunity at an appropriate time.

It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 1 and 4 together.

I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:

In page 2, lines 26 to 28 deleted and the following substituted;—

`(3) The Scheme shall—

(a) so far as it applies to agriculture (including horticulture), come into operation on the 3rd day of August, 1975, and

(b) So far as it relates to manufacturing industries, be deemed to have come into operation on the 29th day of June, 1975,

and shall cease to have effect on the 26th day of June, 1976, without prejudice to any conditions of the Scheme which continue to apply after that date.' "

This amendment is to permit the extension of the scheme to agriculture. It is consequent on the amendment of the long title of the Bill. It specifies a commencement date, the 3rd of August 1975, for the application of the scheme to the agricultural and horticultural sectors. The date of the commencement of the scheme for manufacturing continues unchanged. The scheme, of course, in respect of all sectors will cease on the 29th June, 1976 and payments in respect of amounts due at the closure of the scheme will be made after the final date. A query was raised about the date in the Seanad today, as to why the 3rd August was chosen in respect of agriculture. The 3rd August and the 29th June, 1975—both Sundays— are the commencement of PAYE weeks and the 29th June, 1976 Saturday, is the last day of the PAYE week. It is purely for convenience that these particular dates are the ones chosen here. The amendment in its choice of words without prejudice to any conditions of the scheme which continue to apply after that date is intended to cover the eventuality of an agricultural employer, a farmer, taking on an additional worker on, say, the 1st June 1976 to qualify for a premium in respect of that worker. The programme will specify that he must be kept in continuous employment because Deputies will be aware that this was a problem that we considered in farming this legislation, the need to avoid introducing the scheme where seasonality ruled. To overcome that we decided for agriculture to adopt the nine-month scheme until at least 1st March, 1977. The premium payable will be in respect of 1st June to the 29th of June, 1976. I made the point in introducing this legislation that our prime objective is to assist manufacturing industry, that part of industry which has always been hardest hit and which has been hardest hit in the course of the present recession. It is to assist that part of our economic life which has been most affected. That is the main purpose of the Bill. As I explained at earlier Stages those industries which have been most affected in the course of the present recession are those which are to the fore in inquiries on this Bill so far—textiles, footwear, engineering and plastics. These are the kind of inquiries we have been receiving so far. Agriculture is a major industry and it stimulates industrial employment. Obviously the prosperity of agriculture assists other parts of our economy and even though agriculture may be doing better than other parts of the economy at the present time I thought that agriculture might be able to bring back workers into gainful employment. This will be the State's first intervention in the area of assisting agricultural employment during the course of this recession.

I remind Deputies that the purpose of the Bill is to assist those industries which have been most affected during the recession. We have always tolerated in this country an extraordinarily high unemployment figure. As Deputies opposite will know, during most of the so-called prosperous 1960s we lived with an unemployment rate of 7 per cent which no other democratic State in Europe would tolerate. Now that always bad unemployment situation is aggravated because of the present recession. Our proposals under this legislation are designed to induce employers to take back workers that they might not otherwise take back into employment, to ensure that industries in local areas retain their work force, and to ensure that workers are available to us in the early spring and summer of next year when it is expected that conditions of general recovery will be evident in our major export markets and here in the home market.

That is why we added agriculture. I received many representations from my colleagues in Government and members of the parties in Government on the necessity of bringing agriculture into the programme. My thinking continues and remains that the main thrust of this legislation is directed towards manufacturing industry, sadly the areas which have been worst hit.

Agriculture itself can assist us also. In an otherwise rather bleak picture at present, agriculture remains one of the bright sports in the economy, and whatever arguments may arise around the common agricultural policy the fact is that the agricultural policy of this country has gained a hearing in Europe and our ambitions in agriculture are protected by the provisions of that Treaty. This is why I commend the desirability of adding agriculture to the scope of the provisions of this legislation with the change, of course, that here to preserve continuity we do require a nine-month period of continuity of employment. We do require this nine-month period and the payment will be at the end of that nine-month period.

The Minister in his opening statement in introducing this amendment has gone to the hub of the point I was trying to make, that in effect he has expanded the scope of the Bill to include agriculture which, he said, was at the instance of arguments he heard from some of his colleagues in Government and some members of the parties who are represented in the Government. The Minister very conveniently neglected to refer to the fact that there was a specific amendment from this side of the House to achieve this very purpose but under Standing Orders it was ruled out of order.

I did not forget that.

The Minister conveniently neglected to refer to it. The reasons that we are discussing these amendments here this afternoon, within an hour or so of their being recommended in the Seanad, are almost exactly as I anticipated they would be when we debated the guillotine motion in this House three weeks ago, the guillotine motion which restricted debate on this Bill as well as three, four or even five other Bills. I said then that this Bill would most likely go to the Seanad and, because of the limitation of time given to the Second Reading debate here and the total elimination, one might say, of time given to discuss amendments, that the Bill would go to the Seanad in an incomplete state. I said that the Seanad would then have to try to repair whatever defects appeared in the Bill and that there was a likelihood that, because of the shortage of time, because of the date on which the guillotine was to fall, that is today, it would be unlikely that the Dáil would have the opportunity of debating recommendations for amendments made in the Seanad. Now by reason of the consent and co-operation of the Opposition notwithstanding the continued operation of the guillotine motion, this is exactly the situation we now have before us. We are now debating amendments that could, and most likely would, have been debated in at least the Report Stage of this Bill in the Dáil had the guillotine not been applied to it. I say this because I accept that the Ceann Comhairle was within his rights in ruling that the amendments proposed from this side of the House which almost had the same effect as the Minister's amendments now were not in accordance with Standing Orders and could not be debated. It was open to the Minister, if he had time to have a proper Report Stage debate in the House, to introduce the amendments at that time and, therefore, the Bill might have left this House in a reasonably comprehensive condition, reasonably reflecting the views of Members of this side of the House—apparently the views of Members on all sides of the House now as the Minister seems to have admitted.

We are now patching up the Bill in a manner that we had already proposed. Not only is this another example of Government bungling but is indicative of the diversity of approach within the Government to many measures that were essential to the well being of our economy. It is obvious that some Ministers wished agriculture to be initially included in the employment premium scheme. It is obvious that other Ministers did not want it. There was ultimately pressure, either within the Government or without, to have agriculture included. That is the reason why we are back here.

While the Government have been fumbling and muddling from one political crisis to another, from one procedural point to another, political commentators generally continue their benevolent indulgence towards this Government, notwithstanding all their failings. Some of these correspondents are like a broken down record in their efforts to denigrate the Opposition in order to divert public attention from the ineptitude of performance of this Government. It seems to me, on the contrary, that Fianna Fáil are obviously performing too well to suit the views of the Government orientated press. The Irish public are far too politically mature to be deluded by such subjective newspaper comments. I am sure it was this maturity that caused the justified criticism that we read in this morning's press of the most recent example of Government mishandling of this whole situation.

Is that one of the critics the Deputy referred to?

The most recent handling of the Government's economic package of which this Bill forms part and is now before the House. Fianna Fáil will continue to give support to the principle outlined in this Bill even though yet it does not go as far as we would have wished. The Minister has extended it now to include agriculture. He has imposed conditions even in this respect that will make it difficult for many farmers to benefit from it. We encouraged, too, that the provisions of the Bill be extended to the service industries and the building industry. Had that been done, then this Bill would have been a truly worthwhile one.

Let me say quite frankly and openly that we welcome the initiative of the Government in introducing the principle of this Bill, but unfortunately they have fallen down in giving it sufficient scope. I believe, as my colleagues will show eventually, that had the Government extended the Bill as we proposed then it would have cost the Government far less in the drain from the Exchequer by way of social welfare payments. That can be clearly exemplified.

We will continue to support the Government's package even though by this stage it is a very tatty package indeed. I have already supported the Government's call for modification of the national wage agreement, notwithstanding the Government's failure to give a clear and courageous lead to the country and to those who were parties to the national wage agreement. I hope the Government's failure in this respect will not diminish in any way the realisation of the necessity on the part of trade unions and indeed employers, and everyone else for that matter, to do their best in trying to overcome the very serious threat to our economic survival the present situation poses—a situation which the Government have allowed to develop tragically by reason of the negligent fashion in which they approached this problem from the very beginning.

I may have more to say as the debate progresses but I thought it only right that at this stage I should express my condemnation of the Government's attitude, activities and ineptitude, and to express our continued support of the reasonable measures, as I have said before, of the Government to overcome and offset the present serious situation. I feel sure that notwithstanding the ineptitude of the Government, the ordinary people, who will be imbued with a sense of practical patriotism, will come to the help of the country as a whole even if the Government fail to give an adequate lead to them.

I welcome this amendment. I am not going to dwell on the technicalities of it. The Leader of the Opposition has not enlightened me very much.

(Interruptions.)

We have got an advantageous extension to the employment premium with the inclusion of agriculture. I give credit to the Opposition spokesman on Labour for his amendment in this regard. I should like to point out that those of us who spoke on it at the time thought it should be included as well. Everyone thought it was a good idea. Perhaps people who had to figure it out thought that perhaps there were too many snags in it and that it would be difficult to implement. In dealing with manufacturing industry you are dealing with a relatively small group of people and a limited type of machine. When you are dealing with agriculture and individual farmers you are widening the administrative net quite substantially.

Everyone has to admit that the whole of Europe is going through an economic recession. I believe that poverty in Europe is a very relative term and that there is great scope for the expansion of our agriculture. Europe is wide open for a sales campaign and the only way to do it is to produce more of the goods of the quality we are producing at the moment and the way to do that is to get more people on to our farms. Because of industrial development a great many people who would normally have stayed on in farming have found their way into various industries. I would hope that they would be encouraged back with this premium to work on the farms where work awaits them. In view of the EEC regulations with regard to hygiene and improvements to farm buildings and so on, there is a need for substantial numbers on the land. There was a time when farm workers started to move downwards while farm equipment started to move upwards. We still maintained production but now the law of diminishing returns is taking effect and we have a situation in agriculture where there is a shortage of manpower. If this Bill includes agriculture it will help substantially. When the period is up and the premium comes to an end it may well be that these men will stay on in agriculture. Industry appears attractive and agriculture very unattractive, but industry was an eye-opener to some people. It was not as pleasant as they thought it would be, but they had burned their boats. Now it may be that they will return to the land given this encouragement.

I welcome the Bill. I expect great things from it because, as I said, if we are to get out of this recession and if we are to forge ahead, we really have to make a go of this nation. It is all very well to talk about oil and gas and minerals. The real wealth of this land is the wealth that we can get from agriculture. It is generally accepted all over the world that our agricultural products are among the best. Since we entered the EEC we are inclined to get a bit lazy when it comes to selling. We have many marketing boards and all sorts of marketing arrangements, but we have become lazy when it comes to the hard business of selling farm produce. In Europe there are excellent markets for our products. We are really only scratching the surface.

On a point of order, does the general subject of agriculture relate to the amendment before the House? Touring Europe is hardly relevant.

The time is limited. There is a guillotine.

The Deputy is wandering away a little from the amendment.

I welcome this very important amendment because it includes agricultural workers. A sum of £12 each week is a substantial sum. It will encourage farmers to employ labour. That is a good thing. Many people do not like reporting to the unemployment exchange. They like to be employed and this will be good for the morale of our work force especially in areas like my own where there is a massive farm-building programme at the moment and a general improvement in dairies and so on. There is work on silo yards in order to qualify under the farm modernisation scheme grants and an additional work force on the farms will help to get all this work done. As I say, I hope this work force will stay on the land. The land needs them permanently and it is for that reason that I commend the Minister in introducing this Bill. Obviously, he has had problems. There will probably be administrative problems, and so on, but I have no doubt that all these things can be solved and that the end result will be a good one. This is only a beginning. I do not know how the manufacturing side is reacting but I can forecast fairly accurately that agriculture will avail of this very valuable scheme. I do not want to detain the House. I give credit to both sides of the House for putting pressure on here. The more of that we have the better.

The contradictions in the Minister's opening remarks on this amendment are a further indication to us of the muddled thinking there is within the Government. It is significant also that this amendment on this Bill coming back from the Seanad to us tonight formed part of an amendment I tabled for Committee Stage last week. It was ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle. I welcome the fact that the Minister has now accepted part of the amendment tabled then. I cannot understand why he has not accepted the balance of that amendment or the other activities covered under that amendment, neither can I understand how a Deputy with a certain amount of common sense like Deputy Hegarty, would not have convinced the Minister from that side of the House of the urgent desirability of including the other activities.

Let me go back to the contradictions. Last week I disagreed with the Minister. I saw the prime objective of this Bill as being an effort to create employment and job opportunities. I looked on that as the primary object of the Bill. This is what I hoped for but the Minister told me on two occasions he saw it as a Bill to aid ailing industry, a Bill basically designed to aid ailing industry. He reiterated that tonight, but I could not get clearly from him the reasons why he selected only agriculture out of the group of industries I mentioned in the amendment last week. For example, why does the Minister not accept the building industry, our second major industry? I mentioned the building industry in that amendment. The arguments put forward today by Deputy Hegarty with regard to agriculture were reasonable and could equally be advanced on behalf of the building industry, but with one major difference, and I emphasise this major difference. The major difference is, of course, that far more jobs will be created because of the easy way in which the building industry can respond to support from the Government.

If we take a conservative figure of 6,000 more unemployed in the building industry now as compared with last year, if some of those could be, through this Bill, encouraged back in by being re-employed by their employers, that would have a major impact. I am surprised that the building industry has not been included in this further amendment. I am amazed that the Minister's colleagues in Government were so out of touch with the situation that they did not twist his arm or encourage him to include the building industry as well as agriculture. They have said here in the House that this inclusion is due to pressure from the Minister's colleagues. I do not believe that for a moment. I am certain that it was because of the amendment from this side. But, if it were so, or if it were true, why then could these people, who should know the situation in the building industry not have encouraged him in that direction also?

What I have said about the building industry applies equally, of course, to the service industries. I told the Minister last week that if this Bill were the means of employing not only the 10,000 that he hoped but 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 he would have all our support from this side of the House. I have a certain concern here. We have 102,000 unemployed. There is no point in the Minister, or anybody else, saying our employment figures were always high. We have at the moment approximately 36,000 more people unemployed than there were at this time last year. I have already referred to 6,000 of those belonging to the building industry, so one in every six unemployed at the moment belongs to the building industry. The Minister has not included it as the main industry we believe it to be though all the indications seem to point in that direction. He has not accepted it under that heading, neither has he combined it with agriculture.

My worry in regard to this amendment is the inadequacy of the number. I welcome it. I pushed for it and I am glad it is being made, but what we want is a major upsurge in employment. We had figures last week of £35 million being spent by way of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance in the period from 1st January, 1975, to 30th June, 1975: £17 million of that sum related to unemployment benefit. These are staggering figures. There is no point in the Minister saying things were bad in the past. If things were bad in the past they are very much worse now. Worse than that, they will deteriorate further. Let us not disillusion ourselves. I am amazed that a Labour Minister in this Government could agree to a Dáil recess from now until the 22nd October during a period of crisis never before experienced in this country, with a Government who have mishandled and mismanaged every aspect of government right along the line. To think that that Government during the next three months will be without an Opposition to fight and point out their mistakes to them. I think it is disgraceful. I can point to savings where the Exchequer is concerned. A man, his wife and two children can draw almost £21 unemployment benefit. He can add on his pay-related benefit. If that man can be re-employed, his employer will receive a premium of £12. We have a saving of £9 on that man, plus his pay-related benefit which may be anything up to £7 a week, a substantial saving for the Exchequer. But now there is an added bonus for the Exchequer because in addition to the saving of the £12 paid out by one Department there will be, of course, by way of health stamp contributions from the employer and the employee approximately £4.50 of the £12 coming back again to the State funds.

I take it the Minister or his officials did look at our amendments and say which of them could be accepted. If we accepted every one of them we would encourage employment in every sphere of activity and we would be doing the Exchequer and the economy and the morale of the workforce a good service.

I was critical last week of the piecemeal way in which we were given the Bill. I referred to it as a "shell" Bill, which description I think the Minister did not particularly appreciate. There was no detail in the Bill. We got certain conditions issued by the service operating the scheme, the National Manpower service, already completely overworked because of the economic climate and the unemployment situation. These conditions were amended on the Second Stage. It was a piecemeal operation with no very real thought being given to it over a period despite the fact that our live register had increased by about 36,000 people.

We are now told that the commencement date for agriculture will be 3rd August. Why is it 3rd August? Is there a date for the workforce level as there is for manufacturing industries? Is there a specific date? Is it a wide open date? What other conditions govern this? These have not been spelled out for us. For example, can a person in receipt of unemployment assistance qualify for this? Can this employer qualify under this scheme? The reason that I ask this question is that, if the other schemes apply, the unemployment benefit recipient would be the only person entitled to qualify and in rural areas particularly you have many people in receipt of unemployment assistance who if they were employed by local farmers would result in a saving to the Exchequer.

It is unfortunate that this Bill should be brought to us in the manner in which it is. There is no point in anybody saying that extra time was promised. Extra time was promised at the expense of other measures. The position is that the two parties forming this Coalition Government deliberately and designedly proposed in this House on the 9th of July a guillotine motion, guillotining this among other Bills. Now we have the situation that a Bill to which obviously very little thought had been given is accorded an hour-and-a-half on Second Stage, an hour on Committee and Report Stages, was taken to the Seanad and not enough opportunity was given to our Senators who had many comments to make on it. We have it back now for a limited period and if we talk too long on it I am sure it will be guillotined.

The Deputy is aware that a firm offer was made to the Opposition that they could have as much time as they needed to debate this.

I appreciate that.

That offer was made and it was turned down.

Would the Deputy give way to me?

No, I will not, but I will keep going until 7.30 and then I will give way or we will keep going until nine o'clock or we will keep going until tomorrow or next week, on a Bill of such importance. We, as a party, deplore the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach ordered a Recess until 22nd October to allow an inept and incompetent Government a free reign over the economy, a Government that have already mismanaged——

Is it in order for Deputy Fitzgerald to deviate from the amendment under discussion?

Is this a point of order?

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Deputy Fitzgerald, will continue on the amendment, please.

Let me go back to the Minister's interruption a short while ago. I appreciate that the Minister was told by the Parliamentary Secretary just now to make the case he made. The Minister realises the weak case he is making but he has no alternative.

(Interruptions.)

I have said before that there is imagination in this idea. It has much to commend it. I also pointed out that the most a job could cost under this scheme was about £500. This is cheap, particularly in comparison with what jobs cost by way of capital expenditure under IDA schemes. Admittedly, there is a vast difference. We are in a period of crisis and if we pay £12 over a period of nine months and if we pay £6 over a period of three months it is a total of about £500 from which is deducted the stamps and possible income tax payments which return to the Exchequer. Also, of course, there is the saving if these people are in receipt of social welfare. In view of this one could say that the total cost to the Exchequer will not be a cost but a gain. I hope this will be the position. Certainly, the Minister can expect support from this side of the House in any way that he wants to broaden the Bill.

I submitted this afternoon a further amendment to the amendment which has come back. It was an amendment to the effect that——

Do you remember what it was?

Fáilte romhat abhaile. Níl mórán suime agatsa i lucht oibre na tíre seo.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy was brought back from Europe.

The Deputy should not deprecate important work in the European Parliament.

I am not denying that. I want to get a point across, through the Chair. I appreciate that the Minister is embarrassed about interruptions.

Deputy Kavanagh and Deputy Thornley never embarrass me. They come to my assistance in measures of this kind.

The Minister says it in a nearly convincing way. I put down an amendment——

The Deputy found it.

Is it in order for a Deputy who is allegedly one of our representatives at the European Parliament to laugh stupidly in this House during a debate as important as the one before us when approximately 102,000 people are unemployed?

I deny my laugh was stupid. I think it was rather sensible.

Acting Chairman

I would ask the Deputy to return to the amendment.

It is hard to do it. I wish to return to the building industry and the service industries. I put down another amendment this week. When the Bill returned from the Seanad this evening I asked to have the building and service industries added on to the Title of the Bill.

Acting Chairman

I would draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that that amendment has been ruled out of order by the Chair under Standing Orders and it cannot be debated now.

I thank you, Sir. I wanted to put it on the record of the House that that was the position. I appeal to the Minister to extend the scope of the Bill to cover building and service industries. Every person employed, irrespective of what category of activity he is employed in, is a saving to this country. It is a boost for morale.

I am disappointed the Minister did not accept an amendment I put down last week in regard to the unemployment benefit where the man has to be four weeks on the live register immediately prior to his re-employment to qualify under this scheme. We expressed our concern about this. It is completely unnecessary. Any technical or operational difficulties encountered could easily be got around if the goodwill was there. We want to help the Minister. I have already assured him of my concern and my support for any broadening of the scope of this Bill. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment and in return we will accept an amendment from him. I have pointed out that there is no cost to the State: it is probably a gain for the State. It will help create more and more jobs. Not enough jobs will be created within that sector, not nearly as many as would be created within the ailing building industry and within the service industries. The Bill could afford to cover all activities within our country at no further cost to the State and with tremendous benefit to the economy.

First, I heartily welcome the Bill. On Second Stage I was one of the people who exhorted the Minister for Labour to bring agricultural workers within the ambit of this Bill. I spoke at some considerable length on the Second Stage of this Bill and I asked the Minister to ensure that agricultural workers were brought within the scope of this Bill. For this reason, now that it has been brought in, I heartily welcome this extension. In fact, on a previous occasion in this House, on the 7th May, 1975, dealing with the Agricultural Workers (Holidays) (Amendment) Bill, 1975, I mentioned to the Minister who was taking that Bill, Deputy Clinton, that some scheme would have to be devised whereby agricultural workers would be paid a premium such as is being offered at present. I will quote what I said on the 7th of May, as reported in the Official Report at column 1275:

Schemes will have to be devised to help farmers retain their employees because it is not possible to find employment for all of them in industry. Our aim should be to keep them on the land. If farmers cannot afford to employ workers, we should provide some incentives for them to do so. Perhaps the Department in conjunction with the Department of Social Welfare, could devise some sort of farmers' remuneration scheme whereby financial assistance would be given to farmers to help them pay their workers. I doubt if such a scheme would contravene any EEC regulation but something of this nature is absolutely essential. It would be a good deal better to maintain a worker in employment than to have him draw the dole. It should not be very difficult to devise a scheme of direct subvention to farmers for this purpose. Neither should its administration prove too difficult because the subvention could be paid to farmers, say, every three months.... It would be an incentive both to farmers and to their workers.

In regard to this matter it is essential. I believe that in this country our most important natural asset is our land. For this reason, because of this important natural asset and because of our vast potential, because of our vast agricultural exports, we have to maintain sufficient men in agriculture.

A situation had been reached in which approximately 10,000 annually were leaving agriculture between 1951 and 1971. A constant drain of this nature is alarming and dangerous. A crisis situation, if this continues, is bound to occur.

A Bill of this nature may stem some of this flight from the land. We have to maintain our numbers to be able to continue to keep our farms working and be able to maintain our exports. Our agricultural exports in this country are highly important. Added to this, we have to maintain our employment so as to retain the necessary expertise in many different aspects of farming, let it be dairying, poultry, pigs and so on. It is absolutely essential to have a sufficient number of qualified people who are able to work on the land and who understand what this is all about. For this reason I mentioned this on the 7th May on the Agricultural Workers Holidays Amendment Bill. That is why I mentioned it on the Employment Premium Bill on Second Stage. I do not know if I was the only one who mentioned it but certainly I dealt with it at great length on that occasion as well.

I was the first to mention it.

This extension is heartily welcomed by everybody in the agricultural community. I think full details of this amendment should be sent to every county committee of agriculture throughout the country. I am sure each one of them will be deeply interested in this extension and will all want full details in regard to the manner in which this Bill works.

It is especially welcome that the Minister for Labour should be bringing in this matter because I believe it is good to see all our Government Departments being involved in agriculture. The Bill is certainly to be welcomed. Many different incentives are coming from it, incentives to create employment and maintain employment. The economy can only benefit from it. The benefits that will be derived in regard to social welfare stamps, income tax and so on are important. The Minister is to be congratulated in bringing in this extension. It shows great initiative on his part and I whole-heartedly support it.

With the other Members of this Party who have already spoken, I would agree that it is rather unfortunate that such an important Bill as this should be rushed through the House in the manner in which it was pushed through. It is nonsense to suggest that extra time was offered. We know that there were many very important and technical financial Bills before the House which had to be discussed and we were in a guillotine situation and, therefore it was not open to us to continue the debate on this Bill. I say it was unfortunate that it had to be rushed through the House because I am convinced that we had sufficient time to discuss it, many changes would have been made in the Bill which would have improved it very considerably. The fact that we are now dealing with amendments from the Seanad proves that if the Minister had sufficient time to consider the various matters which we put forward—and many more which we would have put forward had we had the opportunity to do so—and if he had the time or the opportunity to hear the various points put forward from this side and possibily from his own side, many other worthwhile changes would have been made in the Bill.

We are pleased with the fact that the Minister has made this particular change in relation to agriculture. As Deputy Fitzgerald said, this was an amendment which was originally put forward by him and which was not accepted by the Ceann Comhairle because of the rules of the House. Nevertheless, we are pleased that it has now been accepted. I regret that the Minister did not find it possible to include the other matters which were referred to by Deputy Fitzgerald, the building industry in particular. We are all aware of the fact that no industry would respond so quickly to assistance as would the building industry in relation to employment. We have no other lead industries in this country and there is no doubt that were a worthwhile incentive to be offered in the building industry the number employed in that industry would have increased and increased relatively rapidly.

The Minister mentioned the fact that what he was mostly concerned with was manufacturing industry and particularly those industries which were hard-pressed, the footwear industry, the textile industry and the engineering industry. I know these industries are under very severe pressure at present because in the constituency I represent we have what would be termed the headquarters of the footwear industry: we have many textile industries and we have engineering industries, all of which, as the Minister says, are under pressure and we are pleased that this money has been made available to help them.

I spoke on a number of occasions in this House about the building industry but I would like to draw attention to the fact that the fall in the number of those employed in the industry over the past year is equal to the total number employed in the footwear industry, for example. In fact, it is greater than the total number employed in the footwear industry. This shows the seriousness of the situation in the building industry. In April, 1974, there were 13,298 building workers unemployed and in April, 1975, this number had increased to 19,857, which was an increase of almost 50 per cent. To that figure must be added the number of those who lost their employment in ancillary industries. It would have been a worthwhile gesture on the part of the Minister if he were to accept that it was necessary to involve the building industry as well as the other industries covered by this scheme.

The Minister in his reply may say that money was made available in the budget to help the building industry, but I would point out to him that of the £10½ million which was made available, £9 million was for loans and £1½ million was for grants. These sums are not going to give the fillip to the industry which is very necessary at the present time. The £9 million which is being made available for loans under the SDA loan scheme is to a very considerable extent committed and, in fact, much of it is already spent. The £1½ million for grants simply brings the amount of money allotted for this year to the same level as the money made available for grants last year. It does not take into consideration the fact that in the building and construction industry there has been an increase in the inflation rate of 32 per cent over that period. It will be accepted that this particular money will not bring the results which we all desire. The money to be made available through the banks has yet to be tried out. We do not know how that particular scheme is going to operate.

We suggested to the Minister for Local Government and to the House the way in which we could ensure that there would be worthwhile development and increased employment in the building industry. We proposed that the loan figure of £4,500 be increased to £6,000 and that the qualifying income limited be increased from £2,350 to £3,000. Rather than accept our advice on this, the Government took the opposite view, and not only did they not increase the loan but they increased the interest rate on it from 10½ per cent to 11½ per cent and they reduced the number of years from 35 years to 30 years. The actual result of the effort by the Government in relation to the building industry in the budget is worse than negative.

Again, I suggest to the Minister— as Deputy Fitzgerald has said—we would be only too glad to give him the Bill immediately on the basis that he would reconsider the position in relation to the building industry and that he would include the building industry in this scheme. If he did this, it would give assistance to an industry which is capable not only of considerable expansion but of rapid expansion. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this proposal.

As I said earlier, I have no doubt that had the Minister had the opportunity of thinking over the proposals made from this side, as he has quite obviously thought over the position of agriculture, he would have accepted what was contained in the amendments put forward by Deputy Fitzgerald, as he accepted part of what was contained in the amendments relating to agriculture. In the circumstances where we are not only, in relation to this particular Bill, endeavouring to help industries which are in difficulties but also endeavouring to increase employment generally, we are putting forward a worthwhile proposal, and I ask him to accept it.

I welcome the amendment. I pay tribute to Deputy Fitzgerald for his advocacy of it on the last occasion and for his common-sense approach to the whole matter. This may well have brought about a change of mind on the part of the Minister and it is a compliment to the efficiency of Deputy Fitzgerald. We had an amendment down previously regarding the waiting period for re-employment. The Minister will now see a strange anomaly in the whole Bill. Most factories are in urban areas so it would be relatively easy to have people qualifying for re-employment, but when a farmer wants to re-employ some men he may not be able to find suitable men near his own farm. He must penalise his former employees by telling them that the law will not allow him to re-employ them in order to draw the premium. He may have to secure a worker from a distance of 20 miles or more to work on his farm. Thus, the local man will be kept out of employment and will put the State or somebody else to the expense of transporting a farm worker from, say, 20 miles away, so that the farmer will qualify for the premium.

The Minister has amended the Bill to include agriculture and horticulture. If the Bill is to be workable in a rural area, he should now accept the amendment regarding the waiting period of four weeks. As the Bill stands, a farm labourer who wishes to return to work for his previous employer is prohibited from doing so for four weeks. It is absurd to pay unemployment benefit to a man who is living near a farm and then pay a man from 20 miles away full wages for his work. It shows up the inadequacy of this Bill and it is a reflection on the Government because they have clearly not given sufficient thought to it. The Minister will be forced by various Deputies——

The amendment makes no reference whatever to four weeks.

That is one of its mistakes.

What amendment is the Deputy discussing? I do not mind the eve-of-holiday spirit gripping the Opposition but I would remind them the amendment was specific.

I ask the Minister to forgive Deputy Moore. There has been enough guillotining of Bills here——

The Opposition were given ample time to discuss this Bill.

Deputies are genuinely concerned and are making valid points. Is the Minister trying to prevent that?

(Interruptions.)

Let us get back to the amendment.

I want to demonstrate that the Minister has made a mistake once again. I do not know if the Minister was fully behind this amendment——

Acting Chairman

That is not in the amendment.

The amendment will be unworkable. I suggest at this late stage that the Minister accepts Deputy Fitzgerald's amendment on the four-week waiting period. Otherwise farm workers throughout the country will be standing idle because of a silly omission in this Bill. I would appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment proposed last week and try to make the Bill workable.

I welcome this Bill in its entirety. I welcome in particular the amendment which the Minister has introduced to include agricultural workers under this scheme. Some of us have made these representations to the Minister and I am glad that the Minister has accepted them. I believe that the agricultural community can help in the difficult circumstances this country is in and can do their bit to reduce the number of unemployed at this time. The amendment which is being presented by the Minister will go a long way to reducing the number of unemployed in rural areas. I am glad the Minister has introduced this amendment as a result of the representations which we on this side of the House have made to him.

We are on Committee Stage here and we are dealing with the amendment which came back from the Seanad. This debate does not spell out what is to be included even in agriculture. It was restricted in its concept and introduction by the fact that the Minister said he hoped it would cater for 10,000 people although we have 102,000 unemployed. At that early stage Deputy Fitzgerald had amendments down which were not accepted and which covered a far wider scope than agriculture. It is very high-handed of somebody like Deputy Kavanagh to come in here and tried to claim credit for something about which he knows nothing.

I am entitled to come in here and express my views.

Some Deputies are claiming credit for certain things. There are other things which are not included and which we are precluded from mentioning here. The Minister should straighten out this matter and bring in a decent Bill.

It is a good Bill.

In his reply, will the Minister say what is meant by "agriculture"?

The Deputy should read the amendment.

The Deputy knows nothing about agriculture, with all due respect to him.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy must allow Deputy Meaney to make his speech without interruption.

I want to ask the Minister what is the position of an agricultural contractor who sows, tills and reaps on contract for a farmer? What is his position if he employs a man who is in receipt of unemployment benefit? Will he qualify under this Bill?

Will agricultural contractors who erect hay barns, milking parlours and who plan farmyards qualify?

These are detailed questions but if that is his sole means of business and he contracts to erect such buildings for farmers, obviously that would be an industry, not agriculture. The Deputy's question related to what is "agriculture".

The point I am making is on behalf of firms whose means of living is to work for the agricultural community putting up sheds, hay barns and silage layouts. The Minister has stated that the agricultural contractor will qualify. That in itself is very good news. All this is going to arise at a later date when somebody will have to decide on it and there is no better person than the Minister with his advisers. Will agricultural contractors who are engaged permanently on land project schemes, that is improvement of agricultural land, qualify under this Bill?

Perhaps the Deputy would wait until his fellow Deputies have finished speaking.

I shall be quite happy if the Minister deals with my question later. Must a person be a rated agricultural occupier to qualify? Can a person be classified a contractor without being a rated agricultural occupier of land. These are technical questions that will have to be answered in the Department some day. What is the position of horse-breeders who own land? They take on stable lads, they employ boys to look after the stud animals, the sires and the mares. Do they all qualify if they decide to go into that line of business on a more expansive scale? What is the position of creameries and general milk processing plants? Do they come under manufacturing industries or will they come under agriculture? I think they will have to qualify under either one section or another. There is a recession in some of these firms while others are working at full capacity. If a company such as Golden Vale, which is expanding all the time, decides to take on 100 extra men will they qualify under this? They have an unpredictable employment situation depending on the demand for their produce and very often they take on 100 extra men. I would like the Minister to give a decision on that.

I understand from what the Minister said that a person has to be on four weeks' unemployment benefit, that it will not do to be on unemployment assistance. There are young people growing up in rural areas who cannot get employment and they cannot come under unemployment benefit. While they are in receipt of unemployment assistance if they are employed by somebody that person should be entitled to be paid the same as all the other people whom the Minister has mentioned on Second Stage.

If a person has agricultural land but has an income from another source, how will he fare under this Bill? Under which heading will he qualify? If he does not qualify under the manufacturing industries and if he had land will that man be considered under this Bill? It is a good thing to subsidise so as to give employment. There is nothing wrong with it but it does not go far enough. I would be only too delighted to support the Minister to go further in this line of activity because it is better to have a person at work and drawing a steady income than to be relying on UA or UB.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share