The House has decided to sit not later than 11.30 p.m. to dispose of the Seanad amendments to the Employment Premium Bill. When progress was reported on amendment No. 1, I understand the Minister was in possession.
Employment Premium Bill, 1975: From the Seanad (Resumed).
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1.
SECTION 2.
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.
—(Minister for Labour).
When progress was reported there was some discussion about how this amendment came to be carried through the Seanad. Deputies opposite are in agreement with the extension of this Bill to agriculture. The reason for this extension is the benefits that can be got from the gainful employment of more people in agriculture. Deputies opposite also adverted to the desirability of other service industries being brought within the scope of this legislation. I emphasise that the intent behind this Bill is to ensure that extra workers will be brought into employment by means of this measure, workers who would not be brought into employment but for the passing of this measure. The target we have set will, in the main, be taken up by manufacturing industry. Anyone who looks at the position impartially must agree that manufacturing industry is the area of our economy which has suffered most. The Bill's provisions, therefore, are designed to bring workers back into those sectors of manufacturing industry which have been worst hit. We have not extended it to areas where seasonality rules, where people would be brought into periodic work irrespective of this Bill.
It is not quite true to say that there is no cost to the State in this measure. There is a cost but it is a cost the State and this Government are very willing to carry. We hope to take people off the live register. We hope, within a qualifying period, to ensure that those who are unemployed can be brought into employment.
The difference in the regulations between agriculture and industry is that in agriculture they will require a nine months' period. Most Deputies will agree that there is a similarity operating in agriculture and we are anxious to see that the provisions of this Bill bring about a situation where continuity of employment is guaranteed to those brought into agriculture as a result of this measure.
There has been criticism of the fact that the Bill has been brought back to this House incomplete because this provision has been added to it. I have adopted as a general principle keeping an open mind on all legislation from my Department. If good arguments are put up, I listen to them carefully. If I see no difficulties in accepting proposals from any part of the House, then I accept them and incorporate them in whatever the measure is. That is what I have done in this legislation on its passage from one House to the other. I was approached by members of both parties in the Government who made strong representations to me on the desirability of including agriculture. I make this point to their credit because I understand it is the function of the Opposition to claim credit for amendments that are carried. Deputy Fitzgerald had such an amendment here last week but, for the record, it is important to point out that I received representations from Deputies in my own party. Deputy Kavanagh, who spoke here this evening, made strong representations to me for one constituency with a rural background. He said that agriculture should be included. Members of the Fine Gael Party also approached me and in this House we had the amendment from Deputy Fitzgerald. I do not mind who wishes to claim credit for it, but we are all agreed it is a desirable addition.
We will find that the people who comprise this target of 10,000 extra workers will, in the main, come from manufacturing industry because this is the area most in need of this particular measure. I have used the criterion of aid to ailing industry. All along I have made the point that the legislation was designed to be an incentive to employers to bring back into gainful employment workers who would not be back in gainful employment but for this legislation. This is an endeavour to bring us up to the period of general recovery which, it is generally anticipated, will occur in the spring or early summer of next year. It is not a panacea for unemployment and no such claim was made. What is a panacea for unemployment is an extremely complicated question indeed. Under all Governments here we have always tolerated what would be a socially unacceptable level of unemployment by the standards of any other democratic country in Europe. There has been an increase in unemployment, an increase added to a chronic unemployment figure, chronic under all Governments, chronic in the best days of the Members opposite even while this country was really participating in the general economic expansion around the world.
This measure will assist and all those who spoke here admitted that it could be of benefit in bringing us through the winter months and in ensuring that industry will bring back workers they will need in the period of general expansion next year.
Is the Minister satisfied that there will be a period of general expansion next year?
I would advise Deputies opposite to have faith in their country and faith in the European Economic Community.
Faith without good works is dead.
Deputies need not take my word for it. They can see from what has been written about it that the United States economy is already showing strong signs of recovery even on last month's returns.
Nobody told the Taoiseach about it.
Only a recovery in demand in the home economy and a recovery in our main export markets can bring about a real improvement in the employment figures. That alone can change unemployment. This measure will assist materially. It will help towards bringing us back to a more normal situation. It is not claimed that this measure is a complete solution and it would be nonsense to suggest it is. It will assist in bringing workers back in the months ahead into employment and it will ensure that the workers will be there when recovery takes place.
It was asked both here and in the other House what other measures should be taken to assist the work force. Should we be doing anything about training? We are, and Deputy Fitzgerald and other speakers know that we have the largest expansion ever in our training programme.
On a point of order, is training of workers relevant to a short debate on an Employment Premium Bill and on the amendment before us here?
That is not a point of order.
If the Deputy studies the debate we have had here tonight he will see that it has been broadened to an extent that certainly did not meet with my agreement. It was broadened to bring in the employer/labour agreement. Such a speech was made by the Deputy's party leader and I have explained, relative to other measures, what is claimed for this measure. It has been criticised on criteria I have not adopted. I have said that it will be a helpful measure in bringing back into employment a certain number of people who are unemployed at present, but Deputies opposite constantly use the yardstick of the total unemployment situation. The Bill is not designed to deal with the total unemployment situation——
The Minister can say that again.
——but it must be seen as a help in assisting to solve the present unemployment problem. It will bring back a certain number of people into gainful employment. It should bring aid to the service industries. The fact is this Government have already materially assisted the building industry. We have made a large investment in that industry to assist its recovery because that obviously was necessary to assist in our balance of payments and we have done this. The Minister for Local Government has given information to the House about the measures that have been taken in that regard.
I make these few points on this amendment which embodies many suggestions made by members of all parties. I have heard no criticism of the amendment, except that other categories should be added to it. I have explained the reasons why we have not added other industries to it and I have indicated that I am confident that the main thrust of this legislation is directed towards manufacturing industry where the greatest unemployment has occurred but agriculture also can play a part in aiding our intention of bringing back workers into employment.
Will the Minister tell us are there any differences in conditions as between manufacturing industry and agriculture?
There is the nine months' period. By this measure we make it possible for a person to be brought back into full time working within the confines of the nine months' period and this employment can extend beyond that, as it says here, without prejudice to any conditions in the scheme which continue to apply after that date. After the closing date for agriculture we would have discretion to permit it to continue.
First, I want to point out to the Minister that he accused me of saying that this Bill was an aid to ailing industry. I never said such a thing. What I said was that he had disagreed with me on what I saw as the priority of the Bill. I regard as the priority creating jobs and getting people back to work. I did not expect that in one move 36,000 extra people who have become unemployed in the last year could have been put back in gainful employment by this Bill. We would be more positive in our approach if we could look at it as being a means by which a sizeable number of people could be given the opportunity of returning to work in any industry.
This Bill if used properly to create employment opportunities will result in an overall saving for the State Exchequer if it is properly guarded and controlled and if no violation of the regulations is allowed. As I pointed out earlier the man in receipt of unemployment benefit, if he is married and has two children is drawing £21 per week plus pay-related benefit—a direct cost and charge on the Exchequer. If that man can be employed under the scheme and if that scheme covers all facets of industry then the Exchequer will pay £12 to his employer. There will be a saving initially, if we take the case of a married man with two children, of £9 plus his pay-related benefit per week. In addition, in the case of a man or woman there will be £4.50 approximately repaid to the State by way of the social insurance stamp plus possible income tax payments. I cannot see how this Bill can be anything other than a saving to the Exchequer. There will be a charge against the Department of Labour on the one hand, admittedly, but against that there is a substantial saving in the Department of Social Welfare.
The Minister has no clause in the Bill to enable him to broaden the scope of it to include building industries or service industries or any other areas where people can be gainfully employed. I take the point the Minister makes about the greater opportunities being in manufacturing industry: I hope he is right. He said he looked on the 10,000 jobs as being a target, but when I questioned him on that figure on Committee Stage he indicated that he hoped that was only the beginning, that it would go on from 10,000.
A target, yes.
But surely a target is something you aim at. In my opinion the sky should be your limit as a target. Our urgent need in this country is employment, to get people back to work. There is an added bonus in getting people working and getting people off the live register: it is a morale boost to them and their families. There is nothing more disheartening or degrading than being unemployed.
The Minister said that he had representations from his colleagues in Government and from this side of the House. I welcome this and I was amazed when some Deputies on the back benches asked us if we were opposing this Bill. We have supported this Bill from the beginning but we are asking that it be made more effective by broadening the scope of it. The very arguments that the Minister is using now against further broadening the scope to include building and service industries could equally apply to agriculture. We cannot erase from our minds the fact that one-sixth of the total number unemployed over and above this time last year, 6,000 of the 36,000, are in the building industry. That does not take into account the jobs in the ancillary industries that are dependent on the building industry, which would be significantly greater.
If at any time between now and 22nd October the Minister sees the opportunity of extending the scope of the Bill and bringing in these industries, of creating further job opportunities, he may not do so under the terms of this Bill. This is what we criticise. The arguments used against the building industry and the service industries can equally be used against agriculture.
The Minister has not mentioned in either House a target for the number of people he hopes to bring in under agriculture: I hope it is big: the greater, the better we will like it. Of the three categories I mentioned in an amendment last week, its contribution to re-employment is probably the smallest. I am sure the Minister will agree on that point. For that reason, I wonder why he has brought in agriculture and kicked out the other two. I take it that a man must be reemployed by a farmer or in agricultural industries ancillary to farming for a minimum period of nine months. We have not been told if 20th of June is operative in regard to the work force level. Is 20th June the date? Is there any operative date? Is there any operative work force level? It is also significant that under the conditions of the scheme as we have been given them, amended though they were, only the unemployment benefit recipient or his employer can be qualified. I see nothing wrong with taking a man off unemployment assistance if that opportunity arises, if he gets employment. In rural areas particularly it is desirable for many reasons that the work force in agriculture be gathered from the local area. For that reason, why not extend this scheme to include those on unemployment assistance? Any of these conditions have not been spelled out for us. Surely if we are serious about agriculture, if we are genuinely interested in making the scheme worthwhile to agriculture, there is nothing wrong with taking any man off the live register whether he be in receipt of unemployment benefit or assistance, because as I explained already, it would be an overall saving on Exchequer funds.
That cannot be denied. I am disappointed to hear the Minister speaking about a target of 10,000 jobs. The Minister said he looked forward to, and I hoped he would be, coming back to this House for more money to operate the scheme. I hoped we were moving in a positive direction at last and that our negative approach was gone for ever. If we are not serious in our approach to this Bill, it will not be as effective as it could be. The Minister is debarred from expanding the scope of the Bill—if he does not make this change—until the 22nd October. We are prepared to give the Minister power to broaden its scope, enabling him any time between now and then to cover those industries I have mentioned. It can only benefit the economy and the work force.
Would the Minister spell out for us why people in receipt of unemployment assistance cannot qualify, particularly in the agricultural sector? It would appear to me to be a natural development to cover agriculture. What is the operative date? Are we discarding the work force level completely in respect of agriculture? What is the situation there?
We have a very short time at our disposal and I want to ask the Minister would a person employed in a factory building system-built components for houses be included in the scope of the Bill. He is working in a factory that is part of the construction industry.
Take a factory like the Ballymun factory where they make components for houses and flats. Supposing a man working there is laid off, would he qualify for benefit under the Bill? He is in the construction industry but he is working in a factory.
He would qualify.
Well, then, if he would qualify why not the man who is making concrete blocks for houses?
The Deputy is now going into the details of the actual scheme. We are discussing the legislation——
I know that, but take a man working in a joinery shop who is making staircases for houses. We are very keen on bringing in the building industry. The Minister has already brought in part of it, so why not extend it? The Minister also said it was seasonal. I know the period is nine months but one could also say agriculture is seasonal and perhaps that is where the nine-month period ends.
As Deputy Fitzgerald said, we welcomed this Bill from the word "go". We backed the principle of the Bill. We find the Minister saying "unemployment is bad but it was always bad". As we pointed out, the target of 10,000 is small. We still have over 90,000 unemployed. As Deputy Fitzgerald again pointed out, there is no clause in the Bill to enable the Minister during the Recess to enlarge the scope of the Bill. What we are passing is a very limited measure which will do a little good but not very much. The Minister should, even at this late stage, give himself an escape clause somewhere in the Bill whereby, if the Bill is working well, he can extend the scope of it. If it is not working well, he could change the wide regulations which he should give himself. Otherwise the Bill will die almost at birth. There is a good idea behind it but it is a scandal that the Minister will not be more expansive. He is tying himself down to a target of 10,000 which is absurd.
There are 5,000 people in training but some of those people might well be included in the 10,000, so that the Minister will not be taking a great number of people off the unemployment register in any case.
Deputy Fitzgerald referred to the case of a married man who is drawing £21 a week. The Minister will pay the employer £12 to take him back into employment. It is crazy economics to see 20,000 building workers unemployed and thousands of people waiting for houses. The Minister should decide to accede to our request to include the building and service industries. After all, on the First and Second stages of the Bill, the Minister would not include agriculture and horticulture even though other Members pressed for that. In order to make the Bill work well and create a worthwhile weapon against the scourge of unemployment, the Minister should decide to bring in the building and service industries. Otherwise, it will be nothing more than a damp squib contributing nothing but a little more trouble to the present troubled scene of 101,000 people unemployed.
While I do not want to repeat what the previous speaker said I thoroughly agree with him. When we were last speaking on this, I asked the Minister if he could spell out—and I asked because we were not allowed any chance to put down amendments to the amendment——
Is the Deputy referring to the question of horse breeders?
I thank the Minister for the reply he gave. I asked if anybody who is an agricultural contractor engaged in ploughing, seeding or reaping and works on the land on a full time contract would qualify by employing somebody.
I want to be specific about this because we should get some indication in this House rather than going to the Department and having somebody there give a decision on it with no further discussion. If the person in the Department had some guidelines coming from the Dáil it would be a great help. I am not criticising the Minister on this. Would an agricultural contractor—a person who puts up haysheds, milking-parlours and lays concrete yards—qualify? Or the person who goes out on land project schemes, draining, laying pipes? They work on the land completely. They are contractors who hire men and no doubt as more people become involved in farm modernisation they will be anxious to employ extra men. I asked the Minister would it be strictly adhered to, in regard to his definition of agriculture, that a person must be a rated occupier of land. I do not think that would be advisable because those contractors need not be rated occupiers of land: they could have beef-fattening lots, big piggeries and so on and give valuable service to the community. Perhaps the Minister would give some guidelines to his Department on that.
I mentioned horse-breeders as well, people who keep mares or stallions— do they come under that heading? Could the Minister also specify if creameries, milk-processing plants and meat-processing plants come under manufacturing industries or agriculture, or do they come under either?
No.
They are under neither. It is important to have another look at those. I would like to have a long discussion on them. They are areas where there is a potential for employment. They sometimes have a bad season and sometimes a good season. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has exhorted us to make room for the storage of beef, for the killing-out of cattle and so. Now we have an opportunity to help them to employ people. It would be money well spent.
At that time I also asked the Minister how he was going to differentiate between two incomes. I should like an answer to that question. If a person has a small shop and also has agricultural land will he qualify? If such a person decides to employ a man for 12 months will he qualify and get a premium?
I would urge strongly on the Minister to include people who are on unemployment assistance, even if he sets the age at 22 or 23 years. There are young people who cannot get unemployment benefit because they have not been employed and have not got a card. They have just left school and have failed to get jobs. There are many people with H.Dip. degrees this year who have not got employment and some of them have applied for unemployment assistance. They want to get money from any source. If they decide to work as a manager on a farm, is that farmer entitled to qualify for the premium? I think he should qualify. The Minister should not discriminate against young people in this way. He should think more kindly of them. It would be a good thing if we could keep those people in the rural areas. I want to urge that point strongly on the Minister.
I notice that a person must be nine months employed and section 2 states the benefit will cease to have effect on 26th June, 1976. The stipulation regarding the nine-month period is very strict. The Minister and his officials should know that farmers and their employees come to an agreement as a rule on 1st February each year and sometimes 1st March and the contract runs for nine, ten or 11 months. That is the general rule throughout rural Ireland. It would be better if the Minister stipulated six months. What would be the situation if a farmer employs a man in August for six months, lets him go at Christmas and takes on another man on 1st January? Would that farmer be paid the premium if he has two different men employed?
Yes, if he employs the second man for nine months.
The point is that between the two men he will have them for ten months.
We are not interested in that. He will have to give continuity of employment to the one man.
The Minister is not recognising what is happening in rural Ireland. In agricultural areas the working year ends on Christmas Eve and the new year begins on the 1st day of February. The Minister knows that, he has a good rural background. There is a movement of agricultural employees every year; they move from farm to farm and they should be so entitled. There will be representations from Deputies to the Minister on the 1st day of February regarding this matter. I think he should take a long look at the matter.
Do I take it that the Minister said that the seasonal element in agricultural employment would be taken into account and that where there was an increase in employment seasonally that such employment would not qualify? Is that right?
Yes. On the agricultural side we insist on a nine-month continuity of employment. As I understood Deputy Meaney, he raised the question of a man leaving employment of his own free will according to custom or otherwise in the region. If a farmer gets an alternative employee within three weeks the continuity would be preserved. We tried to offset the seasonal element in agriculture, which is the reason we exclude certain industries, but the nine-month period should offset that.
My second question deals with manufacturing industry. I think the food processing industry is excluded. Is that right? In manufacturing industry where there is a seasonal element other than the ones excluded by the Minister, what type of rules does the Minister apply in such cases? What would be the position of manufacturing industries, other than food processing, where there might be a seasonal element?
We do not have to worry about the seasonal element in the case of manufacturing industry. There is no contesting the fact that there is a seasonal element in certain industries and we do not wish to see the funds of this scheme used to subsidise employment which would have occurred in any case. I repeat it is designed to bring back to employment people who would not be drawn back to employment but for the passage of this legislation. Where the intake of an industry is definitely seasonal, obviously this legislation is not designed for that case.
I understood on Committee Stage that food processing industries were not excluded as such but that the seasonal nature would be excluded. If they qualify under the workforce level and the other conditions of the scheme they will not necessarily be excluded. Am I right in that?
No, I think the Deputy may have misunderstood. There is nothing one can do where there is a certain seasonal component in an industry. The facts of the industry determine that this is the case and this legislation does not apply.
For that reason food processing industries are included unless the seasonal nature of their operation excludes them. Is that not true?
I would remind Deputies that Deputy Wilson is still in possession.
Is the brick-making industry covered? It is an ancillary to the building industry but it is an important business. It is somewhat different from the case mentioned by Deputy Moore. In this industry we are dealing with a factory where kilns are enclosed and so on. I would be interested to know if it is included. The Bill mentions a possible exclusion if grants or loans are received from semi-State bodies. What type of discretion has the Minister under section 3 (3)? In other words, if a factory had been granted money by Fóir Teoranta would that necessarily exclude it from benefiting under the terms of this Bill?
I think that is under section 4 (3). I do have that discretion. The case was mentioned by Deputy Faulkner at an earlier stage of a particular industry with which Fóir Teoranta were already involved. I indicated then, using the notional base figure on the starting date of the scheme, that even where such a firm was in receipt of State moneys, I had discretion to assist it where I was satisfied about the basis of the work force on that date. I do have that both from the IDA and Fóir Teoranta.
I am glad to hear that. I asked one other question regarding the brick-making industry.
It will be included.
With regard to the food processing industry I do not know at what stage we can differentiate between manufacturing and food processing. Jam-making, for example, is one that comes specifically to mind. The Minister intimated that all food processing industries were subject to seasonal fluctuations. Are food processing industries in themselves excluded, or is it because of their seasonal nature or variety of their work?
Because of the seasonal nature.
We welcome the Bill. Deputy Colley and myself said it was a good idea when the Minister for Finance mentioned it. This side of the House wants to make the Bill work. When this was first mentioned I said agriculture should be included and that people on the dole should be included. I agree with Deputy Fitzgerald. I would like to know how the Minister can say the State will lose money on it. I could not see that happening when one considers pay-related benefit, redundancy payment and social welfare. I think the State would make money on this.
It is a pity that we have not a Committee State debate on this. Deputy Meaney has mentioned some very important points regarding agricultural contractors. Are they included? They are the most likely people to employ men. With regard to the limit of nine months, many people do not seem to understand that the farmers change at the end of each year. If a subsidy were granted for six months, much work could be carried out by farmers. If we take a man off the dole for six months, we are doing a good job. The period should be reduced for six months.
I cannot understand why the building industry is included because in my area only two builders have asked me about it. Both were prepared to take on men if the subsidy were extended to them. Our objective should be to take as many as possible off the dole. This is where it has the support of every side of the House. I do not think we should be cheeseparing. The problem about it, as the Bill is worded at present, is that the Minister has no option. It is only when this Bill is starting to work that the Minister will know where it is most effective. I have reservations about industries that are not doing well, taking on a man just for £12, where they will still have to increase his wages up to £34 or £35. I have reservations about that type of employment but I have no reservations about the lot of the building industry. It could be the best area. I would prefer a period of six months for the farming sector. If we had a Committee Stage debate on this it could be discussed objectively across the floor of the House and I believe we would make a very good Bill of it. It is a pity that a Bill which I think has good potential got such a short debate so that both sides of the House could not go into it in detail.
The Minister now admits that pressures were brought to bear on him from that side of the House. I hope that it was not his attitude that he would have accepted suggestions from this side. There are good ideas from both sides of the House. By discussing Bills thoroughtly we can make good legislation. I would like to see the options left open for the Minister in this case.
There may be difficulty in defining what will come under agriculture. I would appeal to the Minister to leave his options open so that if it is not working in one particular section he would have an option to operate it on any section.
That is a reasonable request to put in an enabling clause. We will come back if the Minister wants to recall the Dáil to extend this legislation but we are giving him the opportunity now to insert an enabling clause in the Bill. If he considered the scheme is not making satisfactory progress he can go ahead on his own.
I find the Deputy's commitment to his parliamentary duties touching.
Our dedication and devotion to parliamentary duties is not important. What is important is our effort here to take steps to reduce unemployment.
The Opposition had plenty of time. I realise the Deputy is not the senior figure in his party. It was a quarrel between him and his party's spokesman on Finance. He hogged all the time.
Has the Minister any estimate of the number of jobs that will be regained in agriculture? I do not agree with 10,000 as being the target. I would see it as a minimum effort. I would see the sky as being the target. Has he any estimate of how many jobs are likely to be picked up in agriculture?
I have made it clear that there is no ceiling on expenditure in this area. That has been made clear on numerous occasions in discussion on this legislation. Probably the Deputy's idea of a target may differ from my own when I mentioned the figure of 10,000. That is the target I am aiming at but certainly our efforts will be to get as many people as possible back into the areas of manufacturing and agriculture. The Deputy asked for a figure in agriculture. I do not have that figure. There has been no such scheme ever before by the State in agriculture. This is the first time the State has ever stepped into this whole area of agriculture with a measure of this kind. We do not know and that is the honest answer. I believe in being honest with this Parliament. I think the less we have of forecasts that do not have a basis in fact the better. As far as I can see the best thing to do is to look initially for a figure of 10,000 between manufacturing industry and agriculture. As to the contributory numbers from both sides one cannot say. We have attempted to get over the seasonal problem in agriculture by insisting on this nine-month period.
Deputies have mentioned the desirability of certain industries being included. I have been concerned about one thing, to avoid erecting cumbersome administrative machinery in this measure. I was concerned to see that what moneys we had went directly to the employers who would bring back the employees. I do not want to see another army of inspectors added to an already too large inspectorate, superintending all State activities. The fact is we will operate with our National Manpower Service and in the agricultural sector in consultation with the agricultural advisers, in particular areas they will be the operating agents throughout the country. We have manpower offices in most areas throughout the country.
This question of seasonality has prevented me going into certain areas. I am anxious to see that jobs are provided where they would not otherwise be provided. We have had inquiries back from industries, from textiles, metal work, electrical, domestic appliances, plastics, furniture manufacturers, footwear, engineering and paper manufacturers. Some of these industries will be interested in the scheme and will quickly take up the initial target we have set ourselves.
The question has been raised, in terms of rural employment, that some people are in receipt of assistance. If the person involved has taken one day's unemployment benefit in any period in 1974 he or she will qualify. That would mean the person concerned could be unemployed as far back as 1973. We are concerned with those who are unemployed in the present recession. I have explained that we have always had an unhappy figure in terms of unemployment. It was always at too high a level, but always tolerated. The answer to that middle section of that permanent unemployed force here, which all Governments have tolerated, is to expand our training programme. That is what we are doing in this period of economic slackness, we are training as many of our workers as possible to ensure that there will not be a shortage of skilled workers needed in the period of recovery.
For those who are out of work in the context of this present recession we think a qualifying period is necessary.
May I interrupt the Minister to ask him if he will accept our plea for an enabling clause to give him powers between now and 22nd October? There are two more amendments, brief ones, but we would like an explanation of them between now and 11.30 p.m. Is there any hope that the Minister will accept that plea?
I have already explained why we will not go into some of these areas. Deputy Meaney asked a number of specific qustions. We regard as involved in agriculture those people whose incomes are derived mainly from farming. That would be a definition that could be used here. We do not want to go into the details of the scheme itself. Throughout this debate I have given a clear indication of the general criteria we would follow in the scheme. We will, on passage of this legislation, ensure that there will be energetic propagation of the benefits of the scheme by the National Manpower Service. I am confident that the target we set ourselves will be taken up. Do Deputies wish to go on to the other amendments?
Obviously we have no choice at this stage but to accept the amendments. I wish the Minister to explain, particularly with reference to amendment No. 3, why the word "weekly" was deleted.
The deletion of the word "weekly" is only a drafting amendment to avoid confusion between the rate proposed, £12 a week, and the actual method of payment of the premium which will be four-weekly in arrears for industries. It is purely a drafting amendment.
What about the other one, amendment No. 2?
That is a question of the elimination of a comma. I suggest that in the closing minutes it would be better for the Deputy to go to the Title.
I understood amendments Nos. 1 and 4 were being taken together.
I am only saying that one is concerned with a comma and the other is a question of drafting.
May I plead with the Minister, for the sake of the work force, to accept the suggestion of an enabling clause to give the Minister the opportunity to broaden the scope of the Bill. It is a long recess, an unnecessarily long one during a crisis time. Between now and 22nd October the Minister would have no opportunity of extending the scope of this Bill. That title should include other specific activities.
We will be hard at work while the Deputy is enjoying his holidays.
No argument the Minister has used could convince me that the building and the service industries should not be included. It would be a money-saving exercise for the Government. When the conditions are finalised I hope a copy of all those conditions are submitted to Members on the opposite side of the House.
That will be done.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
2. In page 2, line 30, "so far as the Scheme applies to manufacturing industries," inserted after "Finance".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
In page 3, line 2, "weekly" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:
In page 2, lines 8 and 9, "Employers engaged in certain manufacturing industries" deleted and "Employers engaged in agricultural (including horticultural) and certain manufacturing industries" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment to amendment No. 4 not moved.
Amendments reported and agreed to.
Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.
The Dáil adjourned at 11.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 22nd October, 1975.