asked the Minister for Labour if he intends to retain the job maintenance scheme under which a grant of £500 per head was paid by the Government in respect of each employer in the textiles, clothing and footwear industries; and in the event of the scheme being abolished under EEC regulations, the alternative action he proposes to take in order to preserve and maintain vitally important jobs.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Job Maintenance Scheme.
25.
The Employment Maintenance Scheme, to which the Deputy refers, was terminated with effect from 31 March 1980 at the insistence of the European Commission on the ground that it contravened Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome. The scheme provided for payments of £5 per week per head of the work force of participating firms.
Arising out of the termination of the Employment Maintenance Scheme employer and industry organisations and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions agreed under the provisions of the first national understanding to provide a new temporary scheme in its place. That scheme — the Employers Temporary Subvention — operated from April to the end of December 1980. Under the terms of the scheme, a payment of £5 per head per week was made for 26 weeks and a payment of £4 per head per week for the final 13 weeks. It also was terminated on the insistence of the European Commission, again on the ground that it contravened Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome.
In view of these EEC objections it must be recognised that the difficulties involved are very great. The Government are, however, continuing to examine the problem to see if firms with a prospect of long-term viability can be helped through temporary difficulties, and in this connection informal discussions have taken place recently between officials of the main economic Departments and representatives of the Confederation of Irish Industry and the Federated Union of Employers. This examination has not yet been concluded.
Would the Minister of State accept that the subject matter of this question is very grave indeed? Would he accept that in 1980 the number of job losses is probably twice as great as in any preceding year, perhaps as great as 60,000? In view of that would he agree that there is an urgent need for some very determined action by the Government, even if it means breaching EEC regulations, in order to maintain jobs which have been traditional jobs and which are in temporary difficulty due to the recession?
I assure the Deputy that it is under very active consideration by the Minister and also by the Government.
Would the Minister of State accept that the Government's active consideration is not enough? We now have 127,000 people registered unemployed, we are supposed to have had 30,000 jobs created last year, and that means that thousands upon thousands of jobs were lost. I have great difficulty trying to elicit exactly how many.
Would the Deputy ask a question?
I am asking a question. It is probably about 60,000.
The Deputy is making a statement.
The time for active consideration by the Government is over. The time for action is here.
This is a statement. Would the Deputy ask a question.
Could the Minister tell me of any single action which the Government are now taking to save further jobs being lost?
I assure the Deputy that the Government have this very much under active consideration. We hope to be able to come to a decision on it very shortly.
Is the Minister of State aware that today's CPI increase of 21 per cent is a costing——
Please, Deputy, that is a statement.
——thousands upon thousands of jobs and I want to know what action the Government is taking.