I wish to welcome the Minister and to congratulate him on his appointment. This is his first Bill before the House and I should like to congratulate him on the presentation of the Bill.
We support the Bill. I especially support it provided the Minister excludes old age pensioners from the 1 per cent levy and that he excludes those people on the very lowest incomes, and here I am thinking of the impact on families. He will have our support provided the money is used to create additional employment and additional training, apprenticeship and work schemes and also provided the Bill will include the disabled.
At Question Time we had an opportunity to raise the matter of old age pensioners and the Minister told us he will exclude them. I am very happy with that aspect. He is considering what might be done in relation to those on the lowest incomes and I am happy with that. I am very concerned to ensure that additional employment will be provided and we will be looking closely at different aspects of the Bill and its implementation to ensure this is done. I was disappointed the disabled were not mentioned in the Minister's speech. I urge him to include them in a very positive way. I know he mentioned people in particularly disadvantaged conditions and circumstances that arise from their local environment but I ask him to include specifically the disabled. They should be referred to very clearly in the Bill.
There is no mention of a fund in the Bill. I should prefer to see a fund established however it was operated. It is mentioned that the operation of a fund can be complicated and technical but if a fund were established we would be able to see what happened to the money. In addition, I think the agency should have a fund available. I should prefer also to see a separate agency free from the undue influence of the Department of Finance. Some speakers have pointed to the many references in the Bill and in the Minister's speech to the function of the Department of Finance in relation to the agency. I should prefer to see it based on the concept of a development corporation. There are many examples of attempts to establish such a concept and this is one area where it should be applied. Further, I should prefer to see a list of some of the new jobs and the kind of jobs proposed in the Bill. The Minister has not told us anything about that. He has said the Bill will co-ordinate activities and support them but he has not given any indication of the new activities and the ideas that might be introduced in this area.
I would prefer to see a more equitable form of collection. There is reliance on the easy way out of putting it on people paying PAYE and PRSI. I know it is on health charges, which extends it somewhat. I asked a question in the House in July about the distribution of the new health charges and found that, of the £86 million to be collected under them, £76 million will come from those paying PAYE and PRSI, £5 million from the farming sector and £5 million from self-employed. Taking that overall it means that the PAYE sector will pay 88 per cent of this. We know that it is very difficult to collect money under the health system. The Minister cannot deny this. We hear from farmers recently, particularly in their statements last week, that they are thinking of withholding health charges totally. Hopefully they will not. At present there is considerable difficulty and inefficiency in collecting health charges.
While the estimated figure is set within £63 million, the actual collection will be considerably less than that. I have no doubt that those paying PAYE and PRSI will contribute over 90 per cent of the cost. This kind of inequity is in too many of the Government's schemes. It will bear too heavily on the PAYE sector. Most people would be happy to contribute 1 per cent for specific purposes as long as they can see where it is going and are satisfied it is not being absorbed into the Government coffers. I am not happy about the way the Minister is going about this. I am unhappy about the omission of the disabled. I am sure the Minister did not intend to omit them, but he should make it clear, especially in this year of the disabled, that this Bill is for them also.
The Minister referred to previous performance and I am happy to note that he agrees that the position has improved. He said it was encouraging that unemployment had been rising more slowly in recent months, with the rate of increase since the end of April being under 1 per cent per month as compared with 2½ per cent per month between December 1979 and April 1981. This must be related to the investment programme. The whole purpose of the £1,700 million investment programme at the beginning of the year was to stimulate employment in a range of areas. This could not have had any effect until the May period. It can be seen from events subsequently that it did have an effect. That is important because it shows that, if we invest money in areas of creative and productive employment and in general areas of infrastructural development and housing, that will help the situation in a real way. The Minister indicated clearly what had been happening in that regard.
Despite what is in this Bill we know that the Minister for Finance has been clawing back some of the funds which were made available. In the Department of Health I know that a number of projects have been stopped. I asked a question about this and got an answer giving a list of the projects which were stopped at contract stage. They would have created 500 jobs. This represented a £2.5 million clawback on the capital budget announced in the Estimates the week before last. We find difficulty in dealing with the Government because on the one hand we are talking about an agency which is supposed to be creating jobs and, on the other, the Minister for Finance is stopping projects and the building industry is suffering as a result. This worries us and particularly so when we hear the leader of the Labour Party say that he is pessimistic about the future in this regard. Unless he agrees to further cutbacks on a capital basis, I do not see why he has to be as pessimistic as he is. He said he did not see unemployment falling below 125,000 and mentioned a figure of 145,000 in the not too distant future. Other commentators visualise a figure of 200,000 unemployed. We must act to reduce unemployment. The Minister has shown what the investment programme can do. Unless we invest substantially we will not create jobs.
I am aware, and the Minister also said in the House a few weeks ago, that there are 3,801 jobs in the public service which have been held up. On the one hand, the Minister for Labour says that we must create jobs and, on the other hand, the Minister for Finance puts an embargo on jobs. That makes it very difficult to believe in the Government. I am concerned that the Minister has taken the easy way out of putting the main burden on the PAYE sector, who are already under siege. They are beginning to realise that. The Minister could have chosen other ways to raise the money. It could have been collected from banks, insurance companies, or the luxury VAT rate. These groups will benefit from the increased apprenticeship schemes and the fact that more people will be available for employment through the Youth Employment Agency.
A disadvantage of putting it on the PAYE worker is that a single person who earns £120 per week will pay £1.20 at 1 per cent. A married man with three or four children who earns £120 a week will pay £1.20 also. This is inequitable and indicates the weakness of going for the easy, quick method of collection without considering the social consequences of the measures taken. One might ask what about employers? Have they no contribution to make? Is there an undue influence of the Fine Gael side within the Coalition in relation to the way this money will be collected and the levy applied?
As regards job creation, we all agree that the IDA are the principal authority and the one on which we rely most. The Minister expressed some concern about their activity, which I shall come back to later.
The NRB are the body who deal with the disabled. This body have been reorganised during my period in office and their arm has been strengthened for the purpose of creation of employment and placing people therein. It was heartening recently to see a 30 per cent increase in the employment of disabled this year under NRB schemes. However, there are a lot of other works at the moment, and the Minister could have said that he would see some of the money going to increase the moneys available to these other works. For instance, Dublin Corporation give tremendous employment and it would be good if they could be told now that they will get some money from this scheme to enable them to create employment right away. Painters, journeymen and other skilled people who are out of work now are looking for opportunities and are prepared to take on apprentices and give them work. For example, a number of our schools, community centres and public buildings are in need of painting. Surely, on the old Keynesian approach, it is better to give some of these skilled people support from schemes such as this. After all, this money is coming from my pocket, your pocket and the pockets of other PAYE people to solve short-term problems and to help improve the situation on a short-term basis. It would be worth while to make some of this money available and let some of these people get on with work. I know plenty of people on the north side of Dublin who could give employment to youth if this kind of work was there. I am disappointed that the Minister has not given some indication of the kind of things he might do. It is important to get people working now.
It is particularly disillusioning and disheartening, and becoming increasingly so to realise the increasing numbers of unemployed. In a survey of one of the communities on the north side of Dublin it became clear that in many cases three, four or five people in the one family were unemployed. It is bad enough to have one child unemployed. Anyone who has a son or daughter will know that to have that child complete his or her education and then sit at home with nothing to do is very upsetting for that child, whose disillusionment is heartbreaking. For that to continue for any length of time is a great upset to the whole family. I would like to see the introduction of some special measure to deal with such situations. In some cases the father has been made redundant at perhaps 50 years of age because of present economic circumstances and he has two or three good grown-up boys or girls who at present are not working either. Indirectly this brings us into the disadvantaged situation mentioned by the Minister. I have some direct experience of that and it is not a very pleasant experience. I would like to see some of this money applied very urgently in such areas.
In my practice as a TD I find the work of AnCO in relation to work experience and apprenticeship programmes is first class. The main problem is the question of having sufficient opportunities and places and consequently enough money to create these. They have the mechanism to do the job and in trying to find places for the people such as I have mentioned earlier AnCO are a tremendous aid and the National Manpower Service likewise. If they can be given additional funds they will do the job.
One thing is happening in Britain which we should be very careful to see does not happen here. We do not want to see the father's job being taken by the son. A case was recently reported in Britain where the father was made redundant and the son was taken on through one of these schemes. We must be careful about that, and here is where we come back to the expertise of the agencies. The people in Manpower and AnCO have been working with these companies for some time, they know the situation and, generally speaking, they will be able to prevent that sort of thing happening.
We are talking here about additional money or, if we are not, the Government should be honest and say that they are just trying to sidle some of this money into the coffers of the Minister for Finance. I am working on the basis that we are talking about additional money and we will be pursuing it on that basis subsequently. I warn the Government that any shred of credibility they have will be lost if it is not seen clearly that this money is used in an additional sense. Of course, this money could be used to extend the numbers in the Army, the Garda, the health services or the Naval Service for cadets, or in the State agencies such as B & I, Bord Fáilte and so on who are employing people. A number of these young men are very keen to get into the Army where, in the first instance, the training is very good for them. It is to be hoped that some of the major investment programmes will have progressed by the time they will have done their Army service. I would like the Minister in his reply to say how he envisages some of this additional money will be spent. He has given us no plans so far.
Why have a new agency? Does it mean that AnCO, the National Manpower Service or the IDA are defective in some way? In relation to the IDA the Minister said:
While some efforts have been made to remedy this imbalance they have lacked real conviction and consequently their impact has not been significant.
The Minister should take that out of his speech and throw it away. I would not like to have that on the record of this House in relation to the activities which have been undertaken by the IDA, AnCO and the National Manpower Service. It is not our experience either on the ground or in Government and I do not think that the Minister really believes that. If he feels that there is a need for an additional agency he should talk about the value of the additional agency and not denigrate the activities of the existing bodies who have been working hard to try to meet a very difficult situation with considerable success, especially in comparison with our European partners, in these recent years.
Further on the Minister referred to the same theme and I quote:
While the present and future activities of the IDA and other development bodies will go some way towards the necessary expansion in our productive capacity and in exports, the Government are convinced that further initiatives are needed.
He said "some way". We must be very clear that the activities of the IDA must be our mainspring activity here to create productive employment. They have gone a lot more than "some way" towards meeting the situation. It is a suggestion that their efforts and operation have been defective in some way, and I do not agree with that. We can all do with improving personally our own effectiveness in this House in Government, as backbenchers and so on. By any standards the IDA have made a major contribution to solving the problems facing us.
With regard to the whole question of the semi-State bodies in relation to the National Development Corporation the Minister said:
The work of the corporation in promoting efficiency in this area will help develop a professional, vigorous and successful State sector which can contribute greatly to the growth of the economy.
There are suggestions in the Minister's speech that these bodies are not pulling their weight or being effective. If that is the case, then it is not desirable to make that kind of reference in a general way. The Minister should be more specific about where he believes this to be the case.
I would be concerned that in this Bill and in these statements there might be a conspiracy between the National Development Corporation and this agency to take back the semi-autonomous powers from AnCO and the IDA, whose real virtues were their freedom from bureaucracy. We may disagree with some of the things they do, but the Minister should bear strongly in mind that it was their very freedom which gave them that flair to attempt new projects. It is well known that AnCO were most successful in developing our segment of the European Social Fund. In the first instance it was their go-getting approach which set that under way. Indeed they surprised everybody by the amount of money they were able to recoup from the European Social Fund. I would be most concerned that the independent and autonomous nature of those activities might be affected in any way. The Minister should take particular care that this new agency will not interfere in any bureaucratic way with the activities of those valuable organisations.
I note that with regard to this agency that, right from the point of setting up, the Minister for Labour is dependent on the Minister for Finance for consent for action, change and so on. Of course the Minister for Finance controls the finances down to the last penny. Presumably, even if they want to buy toilet paper, they must get some form of clearance. That is a dangerous sort of situation. It is important to ensure that they be given the independence previously given to AnCO which they used successfully in tackling the tasks assigned to them.
There is a danger also of some conflict of interest in getting funds from the European Social Fund — the Minister referred to this also in his introductory remarks — where the European Social fund will be involved in funding the programmes concerned. Presumably this will be done through the agency. AnCO have been especially successful in getting funds in this respect. There is the danger of conflict arising between the agency, AnCO and the Department of Education and, on the other hand, the Department of Finance, who will be controlling the agency and its funding. I would be most concerned about that aspect also, which is something the Minister should consider carefully.
Of course we will be watching the Estimates to ensure that the normal increases are given to these agencies, such as AnCO and the other training activities that come under the umbrella of this agency. We should see an increase in the Estimates anyway for these activities and there should be additional moneys granted. We will be watching carefully to ensure that that money is granted. I am addressing these remarks more perhaps to the Minister for Finance and his colleagues rather than to the Minister for Labour directly, because I am sure the latter will be glad to receive as much money as he can.
We will be watching carefully for the necessary increase along with these additional moneys, which I am sure the vast majority of people will be prepared to pay provided they can see them being spent on additional activities. We will be scrutinising these Estimates to ensure that any additional moneys granted are not used in an attempt to collect money for the Minister for Finance, thereby evading his responsibility in this area. There have been examples of this in Britain where the autonomous powers were taken from their training boards and given over to their Department of Finance, leading eventually to approximately 16 of them being abolished recently. This is something about which I would be most concerned. It would be better that this agency be established more as a semi-State body attached to the Department of Labour, affording them the freedom to get on with the job. trusting the people who will be involved, allowing them to do the job on our behalf. Let us talk about general policies but let us allow them get on with the job on a day-to-day basis. Let the Department of Finance say how much money they will or will not give them and then allow the Comptroller and Auditor General ensure that it is spent in accordance with the wishes of this House. If the Department of Finance must have a say in all of their activities, that can have a stultifying effect.
Of course the Minister is not here giving a guarantee of a job. He has said that he hopes all of these things will lead to a much improved atmosphere for job creation. I have said that I would particularly like to see work carried out on the environment and in the caring professions where there is tremendous scope. I know that some Members of this House have said that these caring jobs are not as productive as are direct, productive investment in industry or agriculture. However, I believe that their contribution to the economy and to the social fabric of our society is productive and important. Indeed there are many young people keen to look after the handicapped, old age pensioners and so on. Therefore I would hope a proportion of these funds would be used in the caring professions. The Industrial Development Authority can make a huge contribution in the creation of employment.
I mentioned the question of the disabled and usage of the funds specifically for them. The first step here is their assessment, now being undertaken by the National Rehabilitation Board on a very limited budget and numbers of personnel. One of the features of this International Year of the Disabled, becoming increasingly clear, is that disabled people themselves have felt more prepared to come out and look for work because they have discovered there is a place for them within the environment. Speaking about the 30 per cent increase in placements under the National Rehabilitation Board this year, it should be said that they brought out this point: the disabled themselves feel happier in coming forward, it is not all a question for the employer directly, whether that be in the public service or elsewhere. The disabled themselves seem to feel sufficiently confident, wanting to come out and become involved. In such an environment there is the opportunity of further stimulation, affording the disabled and handicapped a real place in our society. Certainly I should like to see a proportion of this money being used specifically for that purpose. Following assessment by a National Rehabilitation Board team, a large proportion of the disabled will be integrated into normal employment, as has happened in other countries. Indeed it is happening increasingly here, even if slowly in relation to the numbers over all.
There remains then a minority who must attend community workshops, vocational training units or engage in sheltered employment of one type or another. They need money also. The Minister will be aware from his experience travelling around the country that the provision of such community workshops and sheltered employment units constitute a priority at present. This is an area which could receive a boost from this fund which would be welcomed throughout the country. The third category consists of disabled people with multiple handicaps who need special facilities. They should be kept in mind and given some additional aid under this scheme.
In regard to employment of the disabled, I raised the question of the civil service examinations with the Minister recently. The Minister may have discovered since that there is considerable concern about the view taken by the Civil Service Commissioners in that regard. I would like the Minister to put it clearly on the record that there is a welcome for the partially sighted and those with impaired sight of varying degrees within this 3 per cent in the civil service. The degree of disillusionment is growing considerably. This should be a welcome opportunity for the Minister to put it on the record that there is a welcome for these people. It would allow those concerned with educating the blind and those with impaired sight to look towards the civil service as one of their objectives. Blind people and visually impaired people have taken very high posts in the public service in England, even to the post of assistant secretary, and on the commercial side here a number of such people have taken high administrative posts and can handle them very competently. We can open up whole new vistas for the disabled.
I welcome this Bill with some reservations about the way in which it is being done. I hope that what I have said will be useful to the Minister when he is considering the Committee Stage of the Bill and in the subsequent implementation of the Bill. I certainly hope it will be useful in creating additional employment and training which is needed.