This section must be of concern to everyone since it involves increased contributions from both employer and employee. On two occasions already I have spoken here of the disincentive that these new rates will have so far as employment is concerned. I appreciate that Fine Gael have a certain philosophy in relation to employers but it appears that the socialist element in the Coalition consider the employer as one who has two or three heads and that, consequently, he must become an extinct member of society. I would remind the Coalition and, in particular the Labour Party, that by definition an employer gives employment. If people are willing to put their efforts into the running of companies and therefore to give good employments and therefore to give good employment they should not be humiliated, sneered at or harassed either by the Government as a whole or by the socialist element within that Government or, indeed, by the tax people, although I do not intend any disrespect to them since they are only carrying out the wishes of their masters.
The employer seems to be a continuous target for this Government. Without employers there can be no employment but in this section we are being asked to agree to a considerable increase in the cost of the stamp, the total cost of which up to now has been £4.11 in the case of male workers and £4.03 in respect of female workers whereas the new figures are to be £5.64 and £5.56 respectively. This is not good enough especially when one recalls that some firms have had to make representations to the Labour Court to be relieved of payment of the last wage round increase. In some cases the requests were met but now despite the fact that some employees did not receive the last wage round increase they and their employers are being asked to pay more in social welfare contributions.
There are some companies who simply cannot afford to pay wage increases. In those circumstances why should they be asked to pay an increased contribution towards the cost of the social welfare stamp? It is disgraceful that the Government should have included this section in the Bill. It is geared to put businesses out of operation. I have tabled a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce which I expect will be on the Order Paper for written answer either tomorrow or Tuesday next. It asks how many companies have gone out of business since the date the Coalition took up office. I await the reply with much interest because I am satisfied that if I were to table a similar question in six or seven months' time I should find that, arising directly from this section, there would be a considerable number of other companies out of business.
The charges to the Exchequer in respect of social welfare are being reduced gradually so that the whole burden is falling on the employer and the employee and it is the employee whom the socialist element in the Coalition pretend to protect but the philosophy behind this section is to put people out of work. Is it not ominous that the section is numbered 13? It will be unlucky for many people—on the one hand for people who are giving good employment and on the other hand, for employees. The section is unfair. It is a direct attack on employment. There is hardly any point at this stage in appealing to the Parliamentary Secretary to change his mind but the genius who arrived at these figures will not have the gratitude of the people. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary must accept responsibility for the decision in the final analysis. The tragedy is that it will result in longer unemployment queues.
