Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Jun 1976

Vol. 291 No. 13

Employment Premium Bill, 1976: Committee and Final Stages.

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

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I should have submitted a number of amendments on this section but for a number of reasons I decided otherwise. When several amendments were submitted a year ago they were ruled out of order as imposing extra charges on the Exchequer. I disputed that with you then, Sir, and I did not want a repetition of that dispute on this occasion.

The Bill says the scheme so far as it applies to agriculture shall come into operation on 3rd August, 1975, and so far as it relates to manufacturing industries shall be deemed to have come into operation on 29th June, 1975. The only difference is the extension to 8th January, 1977, from 6th June, 1976. A year ago we believed this scheme showed some imagination but it was allowed by the Minister to drag its feet because its confines were too narrow. There is no point in saying 5,000 were employed under this scheme who might not have been employed otherwise. If the Minister had accepted our amendment, 10,000 people could have been employed as was envisaged when the £1.25 million was provided. The fact that only half that sum was spent is an indictment of the operation of the scheme.

The Minister referred to the reasons why the construction industry and the services industry were not included. The reasons advanced by him do not stand up to examination or investigation. There is no reason whatever why they could not have been included. I take the point about the extension of the date. We support the concept of the scheme, but we blame the Minister for continuing to confine its scope. It is too narrow to be as effective as it might otherwise be. I want to be constructive. The Minister advanced a number of reasons why the building industry was not included. I accept that there are certain difficulties, but that is not an adequate defence. Nor is the other explanation he gave adequate, that the Government's way of assisting the building industry is entirely different and that it is by way of capital investment. Speaking on Second Stage, I predicted that answer. According to some statistics, 5,243 more jobs were lost in the building industry in a certain period. In view of that, surely an effort should have been made to overcome the difficulties.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but he seems to be getting away from the subject matter of section 1, which is rather limited and is confined to the extension of the date of operation of the Bill from 26th June, 1976, to 8th January, 1977. I have given the Deputy some latitude, but I want him to have regard to the very limited nature of the section.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I appreciate the latitude you have given me, Sir, but I have been trying to point out why we did not submit amendments on this occasion. I am sure you will forgive me, Sir, if I refer you to section 2.

An Ceann Comhairle

We shall be dealing with that shortly.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

If you read subsection (2) of section 2, I think you will forgive me for deviating a little from the narrow scope of the section we are dealing with. I do not intend to be long. I merely want to say to the Minister that, while some of the difficulties he has mentioned are real, they are not insurmountable in either the service industry or the building industry. My party and I would be prepared to agree to any amendments that would broaden the scope of the Bill. I would refer to subsection (3) (a) which reads: "So far as it applies to agriculture (including horticulture)..." This was added on and it created 32 desirable jobs. The Minister also extended the scope to food processing, and that produced 33 jobs. I submit that if he would broaden the scope still further the number of jobs provided in other areas would be far in excess of that.

We should make every effort to spend what is provided for in the Estimate and not have to confine ourselves to the narrow limits of this Bill. It is disappointing that the gross expenditure was only half of what was provided in last year's Estimate. I had a close connection with the building industry before my entry here, and I was very disappointed to read in the paper last week that one of our leading, long established Dublin building firms had got into financial difficulty, jeopardising the jobs of about 200 building industry workers. As I say, the difficulties mentioned by the Minister can be overcome. The sites do not matter because in most building concerns the head office administers the pay roll. If we provided or recreated even 1,000 of those jobs, would the effort not be worth while?

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister has missed a real opportunity here for doing something worth while with what could be termed a most useful Bill if its scope had been widened. For example, as the Minister is well aware, Dublin Corporation have been told to cutback to the extent of affecting the jobs of 400 to 500 workers in a full year in the maintenance department. This will result in houses falling into disrepair, and the cost of erecting new houses will be much greater than the cost of maintaining those men in employment. Immediately those men go into unemployment 75 per cent of what they were getting will fall to be paid for by the taxpayer in unemployment benefit.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy appreciates that this section is not the appropriate place to raise a matter of that kind.

Mr. Briscoe

I promise to be very brief, and want simply to state that the Minister could still possibly extend the provisions of this Bill to cover people working in local authorities particularly. I know that what is happening in local government is far away from the Minister's Department, and yet they are directly connected in so far as the Minister for Labour is concerned with people in employment. I would earnestly appeal to the Minister to examine this with a view to extending the provisions of this Bill, even if it was to be brought in before this Dáil goes into recess, to cover maintenance workers and give the local authorities the premium or some sort of contribution towards keeping these people in employment. There are 400 or 500 people here in the city of Dublin——

An Ceann Comhairle

I have allowed the Deputy some latitude to make his point, but he ought not to develop his argument along those lines.

Mr. Briscoe

You have been most generous, Sir. I have made my point and I hope the Minister will recognise its importance.

Mr. Enright

This extention is welcome so far as it goes. Even for the period it has been in existence, up to 26th June, 1976, sizeable progress has been made in that over 5,000 people have been employed under the scheme. Under any scheme that would come before the House one would rarely see a net improvement in the job situation of 5,000. I would like to ask the Minister a specific question about the Table to this section which reads.

(3) The Scheme shall

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

That is being extended now. In his concluding remarks on Second Stage the Minister said the scheme would apply to people employed in bacon factories, meat processing factories and so on. If a farmer has, say, three farm workers and he takes on a farm manager, does he qualify for the extra £15? Jobs such as these provide exports and there is the extra employment involved. The scheme is to run to January, 1977, and in that six-month period there will be four months of very intensive employment on farms, and I would like to know if the type of person about whom I have asked is covered under the scheme.

Earlier I touched on the question of the extension of the scheme to local improvement and local employment schemes. I do not intend to dwell on that because you have ruled it out of order, Sir, but I hope the Minister will consider these suggestions, because I believe he will be coming back to the House for further extensions after 8th January, 1977. I hope the Minister will consider a much more wide-ranging scheme that will encompass more people. It would be desirable if he could channel money from his Department to some of the authorities to enable them to provide much-needed incentives which will result in greater employment.

I would also like to see the Minister extending the scheme to tourism, because excellent employment could be provided in hotels and restaurants for many young boys and girls.

The Minister is a young man with active ideas and this is a scheme which has shown his common-sense approach. I was very pleased to see agriculture involved. I would be equally pleased to see tourism involved because this is an industry where many young people could find employment which is very necessary at the moment.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We constantly examine the possibility of extending the scope of the scheme in the light of our experience of its working and where it is possible to extend this scope without departing from its essential objective, which is to get people back to work who have had jobs in industries affected by the recession. That is the guiding criterion of this piece of legislation. If we can get changes that strengthen that purpose we incorporate them without any trouble. I can assure Deputies we will constantly keep that in mind.

The main difference between the schemes as they affect agriculture and industry is that in agriculture the person who is to be assisted must be retained in continuous employment for a minimum of nine calender months before the premium can be paid. The corresponding arrangement in the case of manufacturing industry is that the premium is payable in respect of net increases in each four-week cycle period over and above the base date of 20th June, 1975. That is really the main difference. There must be nine months before it can be paid out in agriculture.

Mr. Enright

If a person takes on an extra employee and he retains that person for a period of nine months will he then get nine months multiplied by £15 per week?

Mr. M. O'Leary

He will be fully paid. He must, of course, qualify.

Mr. Enright

I appreciate that. That point has not got across to the general public.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

In view of the Minister's statement that the Department constantly keep this scheme under review, with a view to improving it or broadening it, did they give any consideration to ways and means, even as an experiment, of how assistance could be given to the 400 to 500 maintenance workers in Dublin Corporation?

An Ceann Comhairle

We are getting away from the section.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

I have allowed a reference to be made to this matter. It was out of order.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

If we have to be so technical I will keep the Minister an hour or more yet.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is immaterial to the Chair.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

You let a Deputy from the other side of the House put on a performance of buffoonery that would not be equalled in any Parliament in Europe.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not attribute any unfairness to the Chair.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

When I am genuinely concerned about employment in the country you shoot me down.

An Ceann Comhairle

All that is involved in this section is the extension of the date. The debate must be restricted to that proposal.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

This was a scheme designed to provide 10,000 jobs but because the Minister was so lazy only 5,000 were provided. Deputy Enright referred to tourism on this section of the Bill, which endorsed what I said earlier in relation to this industry. I am sorry it is not Deputy Enright we are facing across the House because I have no doubt he would have listened to the sensible pleas made from this side of the House and we would not have been given the unresearched, incorrect excuses given to us by the Minister.

Mr. Briscoe

Why is it necessary for people to be out of their jobs before this scheme is applied?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Because it is an unemployment scheme.

Mr. Briscoe

Surely it is sensible to keep people in permanent employment? If the Minister is disbelieved on this side of the House it is his fault because we have learned to take with a grain of salt almost everything he has to say to us. Earlier today we were told a Bill was completed and later we were told it was almost completed. We do not know what to believe.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us get back to section 1 of the Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

Approximately 500 people in Dublin are about to lose their jobs. Their wives and children will be affected by this but the Minister is not lifting his little finger to help them. He is not pressing his colleagues to allow him to extend this scheme. A total of 120 people are already gone from Dublin Corporation. What is the Minister doing about this? We have window dressing from him. Only half of the money provided is being spent. The other half remains there. He has no intention of spending the full amount allocated because he is being told not to.

Mr. Moore

Would the Minister consider a job in a hospital as a service industry? Would that come within the scope of the Bill? Would a porter in a hospital come under the scope of the scheme?

Mr. M. O'Leary

That would not be a manufacturing industry which this legislation is intended for.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

It would be saving a job and saving money on social welfare.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I have said repeatedly that this Bill has narrow defined ends and it is most valuable when confined to those ends. Those objectives relate to manufacturing industry suffering in this recession. It is no disparagement on other industries to say that they do not come within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Moore

Deputy Briscoe referred to the people who have been threatened with redundancy and have been transferred from a department in Dublin Corporation and feel that eventually some of them will be dismissed. The Minister for Local Government told me today that nobody would be dismissed.

An Ceann Comhairle

Again, I must inform Deputies that the salient aspect of this section is the date of operation of the Bill. I have allowed a reference to the matter but I cannot allow a debate on Dublin Corporation. It is out of order and Deputies know that.

Mr. Moore

I accept the ruling of the Chair but I must point out that this is the Committee Stage of the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no scope on his section for such reference. I have allowed a lot of scope.

Mr. Moore

You must excuse our anxiety because during my tea break I met some unemployed people. I know it is not good for my digestion but one is prepared to put up with that if one could help. I ask for some indulgence from the Chair in order to drive home by every means we can the very serious position we are in now regarding unemployment. If we make some worth-while suggestions the Minister might like to hear them. We are very often accused by the far side of not making good suggestions. While we accept this is an unemployment scheme and we see the Minister's point in it, we have always been told that the best method is prevention rather than cure. Perhaps the Minister would get in touch with his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, to see what he can do to assure the House that the 500 men in Dublin Corporation will not be dismissed.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the section agreed to?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

It is agreed with reservation because we do not believe that the Minister is extending the scope of it adequately.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

This Bill, the Employment Premium Bill, 1976, basically an extension of the Employment Premium Act, 1975, which now may be cited together with the Employment Premium Acts, 1975 and 1976, is an effort to recreate employment and get a number of people back to work.

It is important that a Bill such as this should go as far as possible in an effort to provide as many job opportunities as can be done, particularly during a period of high unemployment as we have at present. In criticism I say that the Minister has looked on it. He has not studied the situation and the problem of the situation on a year-to-year basis. We have had two inadequate Bills now formed into one, and he told us a year ago that the first one was for a brief period to carry us over the few months until we saw a regrowth. Now we are told that this is a further carry-over operation. If the Minister and his Government had looked more positively at the serious cancer of unemployment, the approach would have been an entirely different one.

This Bill, of course, has advantages. The Minister has called for the co-operation of employers and of personnel managers and production managers. I sincerely hope that this scheme is a huge success.

Mr. Moore

Hear, hear.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

My party and my colleagues always were and always will be concerned about employment, about having as many people as possible at work. It has been spelt out here this evening by those who contributed that the desire of the majority of Irish people is a desire for genuine, honest work, but there are times when it is difficult to see whether the approach of this Minister and Government is a negative one or not. Calling on employers is fine, calling on personnel and production managers is fine, but these people are not going to avail of a programme unless they see a need for having employment created in their industry. Therefore, while it is desirable that we ask for their co-operation, that we publish it as widely as we possibly can and that we support it in the strongest possible manner, we must also look at the other areas that have not been covered. I am not satisfied with any explanation given in this House this evening, or a year ago, that the building or construction industry, whichever title one cares to use, could not have been brought within the scope of this measure. The same applies to the services industry, to hotels, guesthouses and tourism as mentioned by Deputy Enright.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but as this is the Fifth Stage all we can debate is what the Bill contains.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I presume we may take it now that the Bill is the Employment Premium Act, 1976. The Bill contains an extended time for the payment of certain aids to manufacturing industry and to agriculture. For the achieving of the targets as were first outlined by the Minister a year ago when the target was 10,000 jobs, up to today 5,185 were achieved. They were achieved for the most part in manufacturing industry, all but 32, so we can take it that 5,163 were achieved in the manufacturing industry. The Minister may be under a false impression himself, as he did list a certain number of manufacturing industries in his concluding remarks on Second Stage where jobs could possibly be created. Yet many of the industries he mentioned are not included in those which have been assisted during the past year, obviously because they did not look for that assistance or, perhaps, were not qualified because possibly of their workforces having slipped below the 20th June level.

Therefore, it is not 5,185 jobs we should have achieved now under this scheme after a year, particularly when 10,000 was the target, but we should have at the very least been looking for a second 10,000 or even more. We achieved only 50 per cent of target with the 1975 programme. It was the duty of the Minister to see why we did not, where the greatest loss of employment was, and if difficulties which were then experienced extended to cover any of those areas. I submit that all those difficulties could have been overcome. The Minister, in a typically optimistic speech when he knows he is on a weak wicket, referred to the mainland of Europe——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am afraid we are getting away from what is in the Bill.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

——and the efforts to recreate employment within the EEC. I personally cannot see how the fact that the Minister, apparently, was disappointed that he was not able to attend a meeting last week regarding unemployment and related to this could take it outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare who could not attend as a result of difficulties here in the House. No Government representative could attend.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Was that the wage freeze Bill that the Minister introduced last week, and I understand he introduced a wage freeze Order today?

An Ceann Comhairle

Back to the Employment Premium Bill please, and what it contains. The Fifth Stage must of necessity be very limited.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Limited it may be, Sir, and I accept that, far too limited for my taste and that of my colleagues and obviously for the taste of the only backbencher on that side of the House who spoke. This is an indictment of the efforts of the Minister to recreate jobs or to show his interest in having them recreated.

There is no doubt about it that under the Bill we were too late on the footwear and textiles scene. Textiles and footwear were helped, but we could have saved more jobs in many areas had we been in the field earlier. I want to see this Bill being successful, but to achieve anything worthwhile, effort must be put in, the foundations must be laid. I submit this has not been done. If it had been done, the Bill would provide far greater advantages to many people.

Mr. Briscoe

I suggest to the Minister that the Department either contact the Dublin City Manager or that the manager contact the Department——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This does not arise on the Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

Some degree of cooperation could be achieved between the two bodies to keep those people at work. There are 109,000 people out of work. There is something wrong when we did not immediately achieve our target of 10,000 extra jobs by this legislation. I ask the Minister to co-operate with the city manager to try to keep those people at work. It is no use paying people to get workers back in their jobs if others who have been in employment for a long time lose theirs. This is relevant now because we will not have another opportunity to raise it before this excessively long recess which will be the talk of the country.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I think I have spoken sufficiently. The important thing is to get the Bill to work.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Is the Minister showing a lack of interest?

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is not rhetoric we want now. We want to get the Bill to work.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

We want effort and we want it damn soon.

Mr. Briscoe

Would the Minister be willing to talk to the city manager? Will he not reply? This is a typical lack of courtesy to which we have become used from him.

Question put and agreed to.