Vol. 331 No. 8
I move:
That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution for the payment, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of that Act and regulations thereunder, by or in respect of individuals over the age of sixteen years of a levy, to be known as Youth Employment Levy, in respect of certain income of the individuals.
Is the motion agreed?
I regret we do not have more time to deal with this rather important Bill on Committee Stage. I said on Second Stage that I looked forward, as did many of my colleagues, to having a worthwhile debate on many details of this Bill on Committee Stage. But because of the way it has been introduced among other items to be cleared before the recess we are regrettably deprived of that opportunity. Had we longer to discuss it I believe we would make it a better Bill. Because of this I do not intend opposing the motion except to say that I have grave reservations about section 15 which is I think the section imposing the levy. I would have grave reservations from what has been said in this House today on Second Stage because I posed some questions to the Minister on what exactly was happening this money. The Minister for Defence replying yesterday evening confused the issue for me when he said it was the Government's intention to increase the figure this year to 40,000. I welcome that proposal but I want to know how it can be achieved within the present structures. I am fairly satisfied now that the levy is in substitution for Exchequer funding. I am satisfied that it is the Government's intention now to save substantially on the Exchequer's funding of all these schemes by applying the 1 per cent levy to it. It must be remembered that we are entitled under many of these schemes to 5 per cent ESF assistance which of course makes more funding available. I would be satisfied were I absolutely sure that that 1 per cent was in addition to the existing Exchequer funding, that on top of that there would be the Social Fund contribution. I believe it is not. I believe we will see a transference of funding arrangements, perhaps from many of the AnCO functions, from Exchequer responsibility, as at present, to the 1 per cent levy. Of course this is the reason for the Financial Resolution before us — the 1 per cent levy on the worker, from whom it will be easiest to collect. Of course it will apply to the farmer in the tax net, to the self-employed and to all other sections of the community. That 1 per cent constitutes a very substantial contribution.
The question should be posed: can we be certain that all of this 1 per cent levy will go to the worthy causes intended here? I heard a local radio commentator last week make a reference to this Bill. He was lining himself up for an interview and his comment was that it was intended by way of this Bill to provide 20,000 jobs. It is amazing how people do not bother to check their information. Of course that is not the position. It is merely providing for 20,000 extra training places, work experience places, places in various schemes whether they be environmental, educational or otherwise. Therefore we should not run away with the idea that there are 20,000 jobs here, because there are not.
We are not opposing the motion. Perhaps we would had we adequate time to discuss Committee Stage but time is short and, for that reason, we are not opposing the motion but are going on to discuss the Bill in the limited time available to us.
