Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Dec 1984

Vol. 354 No. 11

Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill, 1984: Second Stage.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. B. Desmond)

I move:

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

This Bill is designed to implement two decisions which were made by the Government in the context of the Government plan Building on Reality 1985-1987. The first relates to the introduction of the new social employment scheme for the long term unemployed and the second decision concerns the abolition of the intermittent unemployment insurance scheme known as the wet-time scheme. The Bill is a fairly straightforward one but I trust that Deputies will have found the Explanatory Memorandum circulated with the Bill helpful in their examination of the various measures being proposed.

In regard to the social employment scheme, this major new initiative will be brought into operation over the coming months by my colleague, the Minister for Labour, who will be giving an outline of the scheme in the House tomorrow. For that reason I do not propose to go into any great detail on the scheme except to refer to the aspects of the scheme which are relevant to the proposals in this Bill.

Under the new social employment scheme persons who have been unemployed for at least a year and who are drawing unemployment assistance will be offered part time work for two and a half days a week. The work will last for up to 52 weeks for each person and the £70 wages under the scheme will be paid in lieu of the unemployment assistance that would normally be paid in respect of a full week. Accordingly the savings on unemployment assistance will partially offset the cost of wages, supervision, materials and general overheads. The wages under the scheme, like wages under any other employment, will be liable for income tax, where appropriate, and for PRSI deductions.

This Bill will facilitate the introduction of the new scheme by providing for the exclusion of participants in the scheme from unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit and by setting out the PRSI arrangement for the workers concerned.

Sections 3 and 9 of the Bill deal with the PRSI arrangements for employees under the social employment scheme. The effect of section 9 is to classify employment under the new scheme as an "excepted employment" for the purpose of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. This excludes the employment from normal social insurance cover. However, section 3 of the Bill provides that the employment will be insurable for occupational injuries purposes. This is the type of insurance cover that already applies to employment under schemes promoted by AnCO and the Youth Employment Agency. The intention is that the social insurance position of social employment or training schemes should be broadly similar.

As employment under the new scheme will be insurable for occupational injuries benefits only, the Class J rate of employment contribution will apply instead of the normal PRSI contribution. The Class J rate normally amounts to 3.4 per cent 0.4 per cent for the employer and 3 per cent for the employee. The 3 per cent comprises the 1 per cent health contribution, 1 per cent youth employment contribution and the 1 per cent income levy. However, where the employee has a medical card — and it can be assumed that many participants in the social employment scheme would be holders of medical cards — the full 3.4 per cent contribution is paid by the employer.

It will, of course, be open to persons employed under the social employment scheme to engage in other employment for the remainder of the week. Depending on the hours worked and other factors, that employment could be fully insurable and this will enable the person concerned to maintain his existing insurance record and the possibility to requalify for unemployment benefit. However, where a person does not succeed in getting insurable employment for the remainder of the week his social insurance record will be fully protected through the award of special credit contributions. These credits will substitute for the credits normally awarded when a person draws unemployment benefit or assistance and I will be making regulations for this purpose on the same lines as those already in force in respect of AnCO and youth employment trainees. Accordingly, workers in the new scheme can be assured that their social insurance records will be fully protected.

The other side of the coin is that participants in the social employment scheme will not be eligible to receive unemployment payments for the balance of each week that they participate in the scheme. To allow participants to receive unemployment payments while employed under the scheme would undermine the whole rationale of the scheme. Sections 2 and 4 of the Bill provide that they will be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance respectively. As I have stated already, the scheme is being funded on the basis that participants will not be eligible to draw unemployment assistance — hence the provision in section 2 of the Bill. Participants will also be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit through section 4 of the Bill — this is necessary because some participants could by virtue of getting fully insurable employment for the balance of the week succeed in qualifying or requalifying for unemployment benefit.

The new social employment scheme will I believe offer new hope to the long term unemployed and I am glad to bring forward measures in this Bill to facilitate its early introduction. The new scheme compliments the special efforts which have already been made by this Government to improve the social welfare incomes of the long-term unemployed. Deputies will be aware that this group have received special increases in their rates of payment over the last two years. These were the 5 per cent increase granted in October 1983 and a further 1 per cent above the level of general increases in payments in July last.

I now turn to the winding up of the wet-time scheme which is dealt with in sections 5 to 8 of the Bill. Before looking at the individual sections of the Bill, I would like to give the House a general outline of the scheme and the background to the Government's decision to abolish the scheme from the beginning of the new year.

The scheme was introduced in the Insurance (Intermittent Unemployment) Act, 1942, and is now incorporated in Part V of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. It provided insurance against loss of wages due to inclement weather for manual workers in the building trade. Prior to that, those who were normally paid by the hour, received no compensation for loss of earnings due to recurrent short periods of interruption of work due to bad weather and a great deal of hardship ensued. In 1955 the scheme was extended to include manual workers in the civil engineering and painting trades.

Under the scheme workers are compensated for the earnings lost in periods of inclement weather, up to a maximum of eight hours per day. The wet-time benefit is paid by the employer and is repaid to him by the Department of Social Welfare out of the Wet-Time Fund. To qualify for benefit, a worker must have 12 contributions paid between the beginning of the previous contribution year and the date of the stoppage of work.

The hourly rates of wet-time benefit payable since 27 May 1978 are as follows:— skilled worker £0.87; unskilled worker, £0.79 and young person £0.32.

The total cost of benefit payments is borne by the contributions of employers and employees which are paid into the wet-time fund. The costs of administration, however, are borne by the Department of Social Welfare. There is a separate weekly wet-time contribution distinct from the PRSI contribution and payable in equal shares by workers and employers in the industries concerned by means of stamps affixed to or impressed on wet-time books which are issued at employment exchanges.

Contribution rates have been adjusted periodically over the years to ensure that the fund is adequate to discharge its liabilities. The current contribution rates are:

	Employer	Employee	Total
Skilled worker	£0.71	£0.71	£1.42
Unskilled worker	£0.69	£0.69	£1.38
Young Person	£0.26	£0.26	£0.52

The original objective of the wet-time scheme was to compensate workers in the building trade for loss of wages due to unemployment caused by bad weather. This was certainly a valid objective at a time when no other form of compensation for such a loss existed. However, improvements in the conditions of employment of the workers concerned have meant that there is no longer any loss of wages because of unfavourable weather.

Under an agreement dated 1 June 1966, which was registered under section 28 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, with the Labour Court, the Construction Industry Federation and Trade Unions agreed that the working week would be 40 hours. The agreement also provided that a worker who kept himself available for work throughout the normal working hours of each working day of the week but who had been prevented from working due to inclement weather during any part of that week was entitled to payment of not less than 32 times the hourly rate applicable to him. This became known as the guaranteed week.

At that time I was very much involved in the negotiations on that question. A great deal of work was done by the construction industry workers and the trade union officials, notably by colleagues, such as the late Leo Crawford, who were instrumental in ensuring the implementation of the scheme.

By a further agreement which became effective from 1 November 1980 the guaranteed week is now 40 hours. A worker in this industry, therefore, is paid for a full 40 hours regardless of any time lost because of any weather and the consequent loss of wages which is part of the definition of "intermittent unemployment" no longer applies. The existence of the guaranteed working week in the building industry is the main reason for the Government's decision to abolish the scheme.

In practice what happens at present is that where a stoppage of work occurs due to bad weather, the employer pays the full wage in respect of the guaranteed 40 hours and subsequently recovers from the wet-time fund the amount of any wet-time benefit due. In effect, therefore, the wet-time benefit partially subsidises employers in implementing the 40 hour week to the extent that it is 50 per cent financed by the employees. This subsidy costs employees over £0.5 million a year.

Another factor in the decision to abolish the scheme was that the administration of the scheme in recent years has given rise to a great deal of difficulty and my Department meet with a great deal of reluctance on the part of both employers and workers to comply with the provisions of the scheme. This adds considerably to the administration costs of the scheme. Abolition of the scheme will relieve the Exchequer of the cost of the staff of the wet-time section in my Department. In addition there are costs with regard to social welfare officers, employment exchange and accounts branch personnel, post office charges, etc., which are not precisely quantifiable. The termination of a scheme which no longer fulfils an effective role is all the more important in present circumstances when a central objective of Government policy is to reduce public expenditure.

A further consideration in the Government's decision to abolish the scheme is that the fund from which benefit is paid was intended to be self-sufficient. There is no provision for any Exchequer subsidy to meet a deficiency in the fund. The only assistance which can be provided by the State in such an event is to lend the necessary moneys to the fund and these must be repaid with interest. It is now apparent that the fund will not continue to remain solvent beyond the end of the year. To maintain solvency it would be necessary to increase the contribution rates substantially — by about 30 per cent — even to maintain present benefit rates.

Benefit rates were normally maintained at approximately 60 per cent of hourly wage rates in order that a worker affected by stoppages due to bad weather would not suffer any significant reduction in his take-home pay. However, these rates have not been increased since May 1978 with the result that they are now equal to only about 30 per cent of wage rates. To bring the rates of benefit into line with wage rates would require further significant increases in contributions and I do not imagine that the workers would be willing to pay their share of the increased contribution rates with no benefit to themselves. This is another argument in favour of winding up the scheme at this stage.

I will now briefly refer to the individual sections of the Bill which give effect to the Government's decision to abolish the scheme. Section 5 substitutes a new definition of "intermittent unemployment" the effect of which is that payments of wet-time benefit will not be made for any periods of work stoppage occurring after 6 January 1985. Section 6 provides that contributions under the scheme will cease to be payable after 6 January 1985. This coincides with the end of the contribution year under the scheme. Section 7 provides that applications from employers for repayments of wet-time benefit may be made to my Department up to 29 March 1985. This should give employers ample time to submit any outstanding claims.

It is likely that there will be insufficient assets in the wet-time fund in 1985 to meet the cost of outstanding claims and section 8 of the Bill provides that any deficit will be met through an Exchequer grant to the fund. It is estimated that the short-fall could be of the order of £0.5 million and provision for this sum has been made by Government decision in my Department's Estimate for 1985.

In present day circumstances it is particularly important to identify the priorities among our social objectives and indeed to question whether some of the original objectives are still entirely valid. The introduction of the new social employment scheme, which is facilitated by this Bill indicates the priority which the Government attach to relieving the appalling plight of the tens of thousands of long-term unemployed. Likewise the abolition of the wet-time scheme is evidence of the Government's resolve to eradicate unnecessary and wasteful public expenditure at present so that resources can be freed to help the most needy sectors of our community.

Accordingly I commend this Bill to the House for favourable consideration. I am hopeful it will have a relatively speedy passage.

I want to apologise to my Opposition colleague for the haste with which the Bill was introduced. I have had difficulty with a good deal of social welfare legislation in the past two or three months, in having a Bill drafted and cleared by Government. At present there is a substantial log jam of a very large volume of legislation, including an exceptionally large volume in my Department, both in regard to social welfare and health. I want to thank Deputy McCarthy for having agreed to receive the Bill on Monday last which I know placed him in considerable difficulty in regard to his response at this stage.

Dr. McCarthy

I am pleased the Minister has endeavoured to explain to us why this Bill was presented to us in such unseemly haste, having been presented, as it was, for the first time on Monday last. It appears to us as if this constitutes an attempt to rush it through with undue haste and has rendered things more difficult for us in our preparation for it, in our consultations with one another but I do accept the Minister's attempted explanation.

With regard to the introduction of part time employment for those who have been in receipt of long term unemployment benefit or assistance for over a year, who will now be enabled, on a voluntary basis, to obtain part time employment for two-and-a-half days a week and be paid for that — losing their benefit or assistance — it is unlikely that the figure advanced by the Minister of 10,000 people benefiting from its provisions will come to fruition. I would contend that that is certainly over-optimistic. I would hope that such numbers would avail of its provisions. Members on this side of the House would support anything that would help to reduce the numbers on the live register, whether they be in receipt of benefit or assistance. We would support anything the Government would do which was fair and logical to reduce those figures.

This would appear to be a slightly gimmicky type of scheme which might appear attractive from a publicity point of view, but whether it will achieve its desired effect is another question which only time will tell. Of course it would be ideal if a lot of people did reap its benefits because the type of work in which they would engage would be non-profit-making, probably community-type work. More than likely their employers would be comprised of local authorities and other such bodies, including voluntary bodies. Indeed that type of community work might help to bring about an improvement in the face of our countryside and towns, giving us a cleaner image as a nation which in itself would be a good thing and something about which tourists have complained consistently.

I am led to believe that this scheme will be financed by the Department of Labour. It has not been brought to our attention but it should be noted that its funding will be provided by the Department of Labour while, at the same time, the Department of the Environment will lose their youth employment grant schemes. I do not think there has been any allowance given for such schemes in the Book of Estimates for next year. Therefore, in a sense, this scheme will constitute a replacement thereof.

The Government should have taken more positive action in relation to the whole concept of unemployment tackling its real basics. I might add a note of warning to the Minister and the Government with regard to possible dangers inherent in the implementation of this scheme, that is that people who engage in this part time, two-and-a-half days work, may take up other employment which will be taxable. It will be very difficult then to explain to other people in receipt of short term unemployment benefits — that is under 12 months duration, people who would not be eligible for the benefits — of this scheme — that they would not be entitled to engage in the same type of work while receiving their unemployment benefits. They might feel that they had open licence to do the same as their counterparts in receipt of long term unemployment benefit or assistance and, if and when it was discovered that, by so doing, they were in breach of the Social Welfare (Amendment) Act, they might well feel they were being hard done by. I am not in any way condoning such practice. I am merely adding a word of warning lest it had not occurred to the Minister and his advisers.

If one is talking about unemployment then one must realise that one must examine its broad, overall concept and what must be done in order to reach a solution. Any such concept has been totally omitted from this crazy document, the national plan, which all of us on this side of the House are sick looking at. It is about time it was put in the dustbin.

Mr. Kenny

It is the way forward, though.

Dr. McCarthy

Did the Minister convince the people in Mayo when he went down there because I gather only ten or 12 people turned up? There were not too many in Cashel anyway. It is sad when a Taoiseach and a Minister must endeavour to convert the converted within their own party in relation to a document such as this——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is dealing with the Government instead of the provisions of this Bill.

Dr. McCarthy

——because that is what has happened and Deputy Kenny is chirping up there as if the whole problem of unemployment had been solved through the provisions of this Bill. We have now reached the rather sad stage when there are approximately 217,000 people on the live register rapidly advancing toward the 250,000 mark. It appears that no real attempt is being made to stem the tide. In fact, if we refer to November we will see that the projection for that month was that unemployment would increase by 2,400, but in fact the number of people who lost their jobs in that month was more than 4,500. It must be remembered that many of the projections in the Government's book on unreality are based on such figures. In the case of the month of November Government projections were 50 per cent out.

It is sad that the Government are not making a more positive attempt on the broad aspects of economic policies to try to stem this tide. Every additional 1,000 people on social welfare benefits cost the country in the region of £2,500,000 annually. Sadly most of our young people have little hope of obtaining employment. The Government, aided and abetted by their national handlers, the propaganda merchants who remain in the background, consistently flood the media with false promises of what will take place. Approximately 70,000 young people are listed as officially unemployed but that is not a true position because the figure does not take into account the number of people who are not on the live register. When discussing the problem of unemployment one must carefully quantify and analyse it and, for a start, the figures must be correct. I have no doubt that 12,000 to 14,000 young people who live at home with their parents and who because of the means test are disqualified from obtaining unemployment assistance are not included in the figure quoted. Those young people are unemployed and many of them do not have any hope of obtaining employment.

How many thousands of young people are engaged in training courses? How many young people have decided because the outlook is so bad to remain at school for a further year? Those young people are better off at school rather than sitting at home. Many of them have lost all hope of obtaining a job. Such people have not been included in the so-called real figure of young people unemployed. I am sure that the number of unemployed young people is near 100,000.

By their policies the Government have done inestimable damage to the possibilities of job creation. Their policy of cutting back on the capital development programme has had severe repercussions in the construction industry. That industry is very labour intensive and down the years it has provided thousands of jobs, but the cutbacks in the capital development programme have done a lot of damage to it. The Government are obsessed with economics. They could be called a computerised Government because they are not concerned about people but about figures, pseudo-economists because on occasions they get their figures wrong. It is not so long since the Minister for Finance showed that he was not able to add properly. A short time later the Minister for Agriculture showed that he was not able to add properly. In their own speciality they have failed to be exact and have made many mistakes. Is it any wonder when they failed to give the correct projections in their speciality that they have failed badly in the areas about which they do not have much knowledge?

There is no doubt that the problems of taxation and unemployment are inextricably intertwined. According to the book on unreality the basic taxation problems which affect employees and employers will not be altered to any great degree until 1987, if the Government are still in power. It is my view that they will be packing their bags and polishing their boots very shortly. If we are to believe that document there will not be any attempt by the Government to reduce taxation because their commitment is not to increase taxation. That is not good enough in a country where the taxation increase last year was the highest in the European Community. We have the highest rate of indirect taxation and the second highest personal taxation rate in the EC. That militates against job creation. Workers do not have any incentive to continue working.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy some time ago got into a general economic debate.

Dr. McCarthy

It is relevant. I am trying to help the Minister because he and his colleagues, who think they have solved the problem, have left out a lot. With my colleagues I am trying to put them back on the right road. We will do everything possible to assist the Minister and his colleagues on that road. There is no incentive for employees to continue working because of the rate of taxation. On the other hand there is no incentive for employers to create jobs because of the tax structure. Let us be honest, no employer, native or foreign, expands his business purely for the purpose of creating jobs. Such people expand because they believe they will make a fair and reasonable profit. However, if they feel that the profit will be eaten into to a great extent by the Government's crazy taxation policy they will not expand their business. Therefore one of the major incentives to job creation is removed unless this job is tackled.

When speaking about the first part of the Bill the Minister stated:

The new scheme complements the special efforts which have already been made by this Government to improve social welfare incomes of the long term unemployed.

I am amazed at that because of our Private Members' motion. We have shown that the Minister will savagely reduce the incomes of many of those on long term unemployment benefits because of the way he is going to implement the EC directive. I will deal with this on another occasion and we will try to get the Minister to see the light.

In my view what the Minister said today is hypocrisy. What have the Government done for the long term unemployed? They have halved the food subsidies, which is affecting these families very badly and many children are hungry. For the first time ever the Government have refused to give these people the double payment at Christmas. I appeal to the Minister to change his mind even now, because it is not too late. Everybody needs something extra at Christmas, particularly children. Also for the first time the unemployed have been excluded from the free fuel scheme. This has been written specifically into the memorandum sent by the Department to the social welfare investigating officers. The Minister said that when the food subsidies were halved the family income supplement would make up for any loss which might result, but again the unemployed have been specifically excluded from claiming this supplement. What the Minister has said here today about helping the unemployed and those in receipt of long term social welfare benefits is wrong and misleading.

In the second part of the Bill, which deals with the abolition of the wet-time scheme, I would like to protest at the way this has been done. It has been done with unseemly haste and without any consultation with those involved in the construction industry. It is unjust to abolish this scheme without consultation. The inference that the unions were making great demands for the abolition of this scheme is not true, and it is misleading to pretend that there has been great clamour from the unions.

At a meeting with representatives of the joint industrial council of the construction industry on 26 October 1978, the then Minister for Social Welfare agreed to a suggestion by the trade unions, supported by the employers' representative, that a committee be set up to review the operations of the Insurance (Intermittent Unemployment) Act, or wet time scheme as it became more generally known, and to make representations regarding any amendments deemed necessary. A member of the staff of the Department of Social Welfare was made chairman of that committee. It is only right that I go into the reasons for the wet time scheme.

This scheme was introduced by the late Seán Lemass in 1942 to provide insurance against loss of wages due to inclement weather for manual workers in the building, civil engineering and painting trades and the scheme provided for in the Act was the first of its kind. When the scheme was introduced manual workers in the building trade were normally paid by the hour for the time worked and a full week's wages could only be earned when weather conditions allowed normal hours to be worked in full. The frequent rain which falls in all seasons in Ireland results in recurrent short periods of interruptions of work while interruptions are also caused by frost, snow and high winds. Unemployment benefits are not normally paid for such short spells. Before the Act was introduced in 1957 there was a prolonged strike of building workers in pursuance of increased wages. One of the points raised by them at that time was the interruption of their employment and their loss of wages because of inclement weather. It was for this reason that the scheme was introduced.

The wet time legislation originally applied to workers in the building trade only, and while the Act was initially confined to this trade provision was made for the extension of the scheme to the other trades by a subsequent ministerial order. The Act provided for the compulsory payment of weekly contributions in equal shares by manual workers in the building, civil engineering and painting trades and their employers. The Department did not have to fund it but they had to administer the fund.

Since 1943 the rates of weekly contributions have been amended on eight different occasions while the hourly rates of wet time benefit have been increased on nine occasions. Under statutory regulations, every insured person who is intermittently unemployed in any day is entitled to wet time benefit to be paid by his employer and the employer subsequently recoups that money from the Department of Social Welfare out of the fund.

The number of workers employed in the building, civil engineering and painting trades in 1982, according to the Central Statistics Office, was 40,306. The number of persons who benefit from the scheme annually has never been calculated as the amount of benefit payable is computed on the basis of hours lost rather than the amount payable in respect of individual workers. The number of employers who stamp wet-time books for their employees is approximately 5,000, the income of the fund in 1982 was £1,549,888 and repayment of benefit amounted to £1,573,312.

The wet-time scheme has ensured that workers in the building, civil engineering and painting trades who are intermittently unemployed due to stoppages of work are insured against loss of wages. By an agreement dated 1 June 1966 and subsequently amended on a number of occasions which was registered under section 28 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, with the Labour Court in the register of employment agreements the Construction Industry Federation and trade unions agreed that the working week would be 40 hours. The agreement also provided that a worker who kept himself available for work throughout the normal working hours of each working day of the week but who had been prevented from working due to inclement weather during any part of that week was entitled to payment of not less than 32 times the hourly rate applicable to him. This became known as the guaranteed week. By a further agreement, which became operative from 1 November 1980, the guaranteed week is now one of 40 hours.

The Minister, in proposing to abolish the wet-time scheme, is doing so on the basis that the guaranteed 40 hour week has effectively replaced the wet-time scheme. This is not so, the 40 hour guaranteed week is a top up on the wet time scheme. A worker is, in practice, guaranteed payment of 40 hours work weekly. Where a stoppage of work due to inclement weather occurs, the employer pays whatever wages are due to the workers for hours worked in the week in question, wet-time benefit due in respect of the loss of wages because of the stoppage of work in that week and the balance, if any, necessary to bring the total payment up to the equivalent of payment due for the guaranteed week of 40 hours. It is quite obvious that the guaranteed 40 hour week is a top up on the wet time scheme.

I hope that the Minister has not forgotten that wet-time scheme payments are a social welfare benefit and are not subject to taxation. If it is replaced directly by payments from a 40 hour guaranteed week, it would be subject to taxation because there would not be a social welfare element involved. Having regard to the fact that workers in the construction industry now receive payment for 40 hours work in the week regardless of stoppages due to unfavourable weather and to the definition in the Act of intermittent unemployment—

unemployment and consequent loss of wages due to stoppage of work which is unavoidable owing to inclement weather...

— the chairman on a number of occasions asked the representatives of both sides of the industry for their views as to the necessity for the scheme in present circumstances. The representatives on each occasion confirmed that they wished the scheme to continue. It is obvious, therefore, that there has not been a great clamour from the unions for its abolition.

The joint committee of unions and employers held their first meeting on 7 December 1978 and, in all, they held 14 meetings. The Minister might have given the impression the other day that the 14 meetings were concerned with details of whether the wet-time scheme should be abolished. This is not so as the early meetings were of an exploratory nature and a wide variety of aspects of the building industry were discussed. At the fourth meeting, held on 21 March 1979, Mr. Malone, acting chairman, requested both sides to furnish their proposals in writing and this was agreed. In a letter dated 11 May 1979 the trade union side conveyed five proposals relating to the wet-time scheme. Further proposals, generally from the employers, emanated from later meetings. At their meeting of 11 May 1981 there was agreement on a number of proposals but no conclusion had been reached on others. On one occasion when there seemed to be some demand from the unions, in a letter dated 10 July 1981 the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union informed the Minister of a number of resolutions which had been passed at their annual conference and requested a meeting to discuss them. One of the resolutions was:

That in view of the guaranteed week now operating in the Construction Industry, Conference calls on the Minister for Social Welfare to abolish the Insurance (Intermittent Unemployment) Act, 1942.

The requested meeting with the Minister did not take place until 17 November 1981. It was agreed at the meeting that it would be necessary to consult with other interested parties, namely other ICTU unions and employers, before any decisions could be made regarding the matter in question.

On 14 December 1981, the Department wrote to Messrs. Duffy, who represented the unions, and Reynolds, who represented the employers, asking them for their views regarding the resolution. Mr. Reynolds, in his reply, expressed the view that the appropriate venue for the ITGWU to raise their viewpoint would be the joint industrial council for the construction industry and suggested that the Minister might so advise the union. This was the council which had been originally set up at the behest of the Minister.

Mr. Reynolds's viewpoint was conveyed to Mr. Carroll, General President of the union by letter on 15 January 1982, copies of which were sent to Messrs. Duffy and Reynolds. Mr. Carroll in his reply dated 26 January 1982 stated that his union would arrange to have the matter discussed at the joint industrial council and would advise the Department of the outcome.

It was subsequently confirmed in a letter that the council did meet and at their monthly meeting on 18 May 1982, they confirmed that the conclusions reached by the review committee on the wet-time scheme represented the views of both sides of the joint industrial council. They stated that the status quo should be maintained. Subsequently, Mr. Carroll was asked whether this information represented the views of his union and on 15 June 1982 he replied as follows:

Thank you for your letter dated 28th May regarding the policy of this Union in relation to the Insurance (Intermittent Unemployment) Act, 1942.

As you are aware, developments have taken place at the National Joint Industrial Council on this matter and, indeed, our Union has contributed to an ongoing review of the operation of this legislation. We are satisfied with the views of the Trade Union Side of the N.J.I.C. on the matter and will continue to review the situation in conjunction with our representatives in the industry.

While we require changes in the present arrangements, we support the collective approach of the trade unions in the industry to the matter.

In other words, the ITGWU acceded to the decisions taken by the joint council representing employers and employees.

It is for this reason that I must protest at the manner of the abolition of this scheme. At least the normal courtesies should have been observed by the Minister and his Department with the joint industrial council before the decision was taken to abolish it in this hasty fashion. It is only right that they should have been consulted and given the opportunity to express their views and to reach a consensus, if possible. Instead of that, the Minister and his Department intend to abolish the scheme without consultation, which is a very dangerous thing to do. In the construction industry, relations have been very good. Many agreements have been reached very easily and accepted and honoured by both sides and the 40 hour guaranteed week has been accepted. The imposition of a decision such as this without consultation must be a matter of protest by Members on this side of the House on whose behalf I speak.

Mr. Kenny

I want to say a few words in relation to this Bill. Deputy McCarthy has spoken to the nation on more than one occasion and has lectured us here on the Building on Reality document produced by the Government. I listened to him last week and earlier this week calling for the resignation of this Minister and saying that his party would oppose this measure. I subsequently heard a member of one of the unions involved saying that that should not be the case. I have nothing personal against Deputy McCarthy, who represents his constituents as I do mine. Probably one of the most carefully costed documents that ever came into this House, so we are told, was the document produced by his party, termed The Way Forward. That went something like £700 million off the rails after seven months. So much for reality in that context.

In certain quarters of the Opposition Party in the last two to three months there has been a new swaggering arrogance with assumed hopes of taking over Government after impending elections. The electorate would want to get down to the reality of the costing of the documents produced by the Opposition in the last few weeks. The interpretation of the local government document is that there will be no charges for any of the services at present being charged for. The people should have these costings put before them and let them decide for themselves in terms of reality.

The Minister for Health and Social Welfare has been branded in certain places as some kind of gone wrong voodoo medicine man from the jungle who puts the kiss of death on everything he looks at. This is very unfair treatment of a Minister who has been, and is, facing the political realities of life head on. There is no point in dodging the issues. They must be faced up to. The people of this country must decide for themselves on the issues of the day. We are not the people that we were 50 years ago. We have not the same mentality as people had then. People today have pressures placed upon them which their fathers and ancestors did not have to bear.

The scheme introduced by the Minister has been extended and broadened by Deputy McCarthy who dealt with the national issues of unemployment, motivation, incentive, flair, opportunities and the creation of jobs. I agree with him wholeheartedly that unemployment certainly is one of the major social ills of our time. It is past time for this House to react on an issue such as unemployment. It is past time for the House to have more frequent debates on how this problem should be tackled and various measures structured and introduced to alleviate, to some degree or extent, the terrible burden created by unemployment.

The thrust of this Government certainly should be pumped into job creation. When people are employed their minds are working, their morale and confidence rise and this does a lot to help the national economy. A recent report from the United States indicated that in 15 to 20 years' time all manufactured goods will be made by 5 per cent of the population. One wonders where we are headed and new priorities must be considered on leisure time, health and environmental matters and the general use to which people will put their energies, talents and abilities. This type of report leads one to believe that we must become part of the technological era mentioned by Deputy McCarthy. That word has been grossly over-used, because everyone is a technologist in his or her own way. We all can communicate, make signs and do various things. The opportunities now available to many young people in this area are not understood, particularly by some Members in the House and those of older years simply because these opportunities were not available in their own time.

The scheme is a start to do something to give hope and relieve the frustration of many people who have been unemployed for over 12 months. I would like the scheme to be properly promoted initially, otherwise we could end up as they did in Britain some years ago under some of their employment schemes — with people of considerable talents and skills sweeping seaweed off the beaches and leaves off the footpaths. If properly structured, the scheme can be of benefit. Every public representative who is dealing with the problems of unemployment apparent in the eyes of those with whom they are dealing every week, as is the case with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, can understand the frustration and depression which can set in when people are faced with the reality of unemployment for a period of 12 months or longer. The confidence and boost to the personal morale got from using their abilities and talents in a job in doing something for themselves, their environment and their country must be witnessed to be understood. Those who avail of jobs and can see the benefits accruing therefrom take on a new lease of life.

I understand that a full-scale debate will be introduced by the Minister for Labour in relation to the various types of schemes which can be promoted. I do not propose to go into that matter in great detail now. However, if these schemes are to be structured in the regional offices of the National Manpower Service, those offices should be given every facility at Government level to choose the proper people for the proper jobs and ensure that the numbers registered as unemployed are catered for. Without the computerisation of the National Manpower Service, the names of many people, after being entered in the log-books as eligible and available for work in the National Manpower Service offices, are never heard of. This scheme should be properly promoted by the Department and the people who will introduce it should be given every assistance to enable them to do their job in an efficient manner. The kind of schemes which are promoted and the various sponsors of the schemes are all important. If the scheme takes off properly in the beginning it could do a lot to solve unemployment. The Government expect 10,000 jobs to be created but it could result in many more jobs.

Deputy McCarthy referred to the number of people who are unemployed and he made great play of the figure of 217,000. That figure will probably rise. It is not properly understood or appreciated that in order to halt the ever-spiralling increase in unemployment the Government must provide incentives and opportunities for the income generating sections to provide 23,000 new jobs per year. That is a job which has never been properly tackled or equalled in the past. It poses an all-time challenge to the Government. This is a start to tackle the problem on the outer fringes.

As regards the 217,000 people who are unemployed, there are people who are unable to work, people who do not wish to work, and people who are prepared to take up any kind of employment in order to relieve themselves of the boredom and frustration that unemployment leads to. Emigration has been in the news recently. Deputy Kelly has often mentioned it in terms of the skilled personnel who leave the country for a period of years in order to gain experience. That is happening whether we like it or not. Many doctors, technicians and skilled people go abroad in order to gain experience. It now takes only one hour to travel to Brussels and five hours to travel to the US. I come from the west and it would be unreal to deny that the traditional emigration we have had is not taking place to a certain extent. Some of my neighbours have gone back to Britain to look for work for the winter period and some of them have gone so far as to be gainfully employed on the Falkland Islands for the British Government.

We must look at the kind of people who are unemployed. The public perception of what goes on in employment exchanges leaves a lot to be desired. Within the number of 217,000 who are unemployed there are people who are not supposed to be working but who are drawing a considerable amount of money from the State coffers. It is difficult to blame them the way the system operates. If by signing your name you can get money for nothing there are few people who will not do so. The structure of the system needs to be looked at. Many people who are unemployed say they would much prefer to work. The number of unemployed is probably fewer than that which is stated on the register. It is the responsibility of the Government of the day to create opportunities and incentives for these people so that they can see for themselves that by being gainfully employed they are doing something for their families, their environment and the economy.

Often people have asked me what I am doing as a public representative for their son or daughter. There is a certain warped sense of national thinking when we consider that £300 million was spent in retail outlets in the North and yet people ask that question. Recently I came across people who were singing Republican songs in a certain place and it was obvious that two or three people involved had been to the North with their families the previous weekend to purchase goods and equipment. It is ironic for people to castigate the State when their actions in purchasing goods in the North are to the detriment of the economy.

In many cases people who get grants from the Government or the IDA and who are successful are deemed to be the pampered recipients of State grants out of an endless fund. If their enterprise fails they are treated with derision, contempt and an "I told you so" attitude. People must understand that by investing their money and time and that by using the opportunities and incentives created by the State they can make a better life for themselves.

In the context of assessments, the Minister mentioned that insurance for occupational injuries will be covered and that is as it should be. Those who are medical card holders will have a contribution levied on them. I had a question down for written reply this week in relation to means testing of people who are recipients of unemployment assistance and medical cards. There appears to be a difference in the type of assessment made by officers in the health board and those in the Department. We all know of cases where people have had their medical cards withdrawn but are still eligible for unemployment assistance and also of cases where people were deemed not to be eligible for unemployment assistance but were allowed to retain their medical cards.

The scheme appears to be very attractive for single people in that a married person with a family with the rates that exist at present could draw more money by being unemployed. I hope the Department in promoting the scheme project the benefits of the scheme in such a way that the unemployed will understand it and want to participate in it. In relation to caretakers and secretaries in schools, will the scheme cater for them? For example, a caretaker might be employed on a full time five day week basis in one school. Could two people now be employed doing two and a half days work each with half the pay and paying normal tax? The scheme should cater for this. I realise that there may be difficulties with unions and that it would need to be handled with delicacy and understanding.

Calls for the abolition of the wet-time insurance scheme have been made over the years.

I wish the Minister well in his endeavours to promote the Bill and I trust that it will result in generally taking several thousands of people off the unemployed register by giving them something to do in decent schemes so that they will improve not alone their own feelings about work and their lifestyles but also their environment and that this will result in benefit for the community.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Tunney)

Deputy McCreevy.

Proinsias De Rossa

I was waiting to get into this debate long before Deputy McCreevy came into the House.

Acting Chairman

It does not work that way, as the Deputy knows.

Proinsias De Rossa

Why not?

Acting Chairman

The Chair does not have to explain the position where the debate moves from one side of the House to the other.

Mr. McCreevy

I must welcome any measure introduced by the Government which will do anything to relieve unemployment and in that regard I welcome the Bill, but I would like to say a few brief words about it and emphasise the following points. For many years I have thought that the system of unemployment exchanges, the National Manpower Service, AnCO etc. should be dovetailed together in what I would term a national hire agency. We have in all our constituencies unemployment offices, National Manpower Service officers and so on. People sign on at unemployment exchanges and draw their social assistance there or they register with the NMS where they are given a list of jobs and recommendation to various employers. The NMS operate schemes such as the employment incentive scheme.

I would suggest that when a person becomes unemployed he should go to one office in his county or wherever and sign on with the Department of Social Welfare to draw his or her benefit and at the same time in the same building he should register with the NMS. I do not know whether it would be possible under existing regulations, and perhaps new legislation would be necessary for this, but every employer in that area should be in continual contact with the NMS. Whereas people have the right to work or not to work as they see fit, it should be the right of the State to decide that if they do not want to work then the State does not have to pay this kind of assistance.

There have been and always will be a certain number of unemployed people who are drawing benefit and playing the system and perhaps would not take a job at any price, but in the past couple of years I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of unemployed people really want to work, to have a job. We should consider a dovetailing of the system. I know employers in my constituency who have telephoned the NMS looking for ten or so workers. The agency would sent them a list of perhaps 20 or 30 people in that area who would be suitable for the job. In that area of high unemployment at present very few of those people would turn up and the few who turn up would say that for the wages given it would not be worth their while to work and those people continue to sign on at the Department of Social Welfare. If the system could be dovetailed then, say, the NMS could be in contact with the employer willing to employ the people they would sent out and he could then tell the social welfare officer that a person would not take the job offered. I am talking about people who have general operative skills. The present system should not be allowed to continue. I ask the Minister to consider adopting the type of system I have suggested.

The Bill before us in two parts, one regarding the wet-time scheme and the other concerning new social welfare legislation which provides that a person would be able to work for two and a half days per week and earn £70 but he would be disqualified for the rest of the week from drawing unemployment assistance. The Bill sets out the various regulations which must be met, but that is the gist of it. It will not take an unemployed Einstein to work out whether he will be better off working two and a half days and getting £70 or staying at home. Under the present social welfare legislation only single people would benefit if they took up work under those conditions. Anything that will get people back to work is to be welcomed, but this is another of the schemes that for years we have been bringing into this House. The youth employment scheme and the employment incentive scheme have been attempts by successive Governments to do something about unemployment, but we have all failed to generate sustainable employment. That is the test facing us. Politicians are blamed for nearly everything but they cannot be blamed for every single thing that happens in the country. Our duty is to relieve this scourge and to have sustainable employment, but it is the job of Government to provide the framework necessary to create employment. We can have all the schemes we want. This scheme will transfer a little bit out of the Social Welfare allocation to the Department of Labour allocation, but the overall picture is one of continuous rising unemployment.

How is this scheme to be operated? In my constituency in this year Kildare County Council have had to put some of their workers on a two weeks on, two weeks off basis. I presume this scheme is to be on non-profit making work, so we can presume that it will be on work undertaken normally by local authorities. I hope that the Minister is right when he says that about 10,000 people will avail of the scheme, but I doubt that. However, say 10,000 people wish to avail of this scheme and be employed by local authorities. We are going to give them two and a half days work with a local authority and other employees of the local authority will be let go because we have not enough finance to keep them going. This does not make sense, but that is what will happen.

On the one hand one arm of the Department of the Environment — in this case let us say Kildare County Council — will be letting workers go, next year probably, for a few months of the year and on the other hand under another State scheme they will be taking unemployed people on for two and a half days each week to do the same job. That does not add up. A single unemployed person, whom this proposed scheme would attract, would realise that by working two and a half days per week he will get the £70 but he will be debarred from unemployment assistance. In present day Ireland with the black economy flourishing due to our taxation system, he will realise also if he has a tittle of wit that if he is getting basic unemployment assistance, he can make up to £70 in any event. Therefore, he is not going to avail of this scheme.

I say to the Minister that, if people do not want to work, they do not want to work. We can say that this scheme is good and that we will try to operate it as best we can. Why not put the NMS and the unemployment exchange in the one area together? If we want to get people to avail of this scheme and make them do local authority work, we are not prepared to say so because we do not want to upset anyone who might not be too keen on that. All the time we are ducking the hard decision. I believe the Minister is doing his best here, but will it really work? Why do we not do something like what I suggest if we are serious about the effects of long term unemployment?

When one is unemployed for a certain period or, say, takes a break, whether because of illness or some other reason from his profession, it becomes extremely difficult to return to the routine of getting up early and working through a full day. Unfortunately this scheme is to apply only to people who are unemployed for a year; but those who are most anxious to obtain work are the ones who are told that the concern in which they are employed is to go out of business within days. These are the people who will scour the country seeking other types of work. But if they should be unemployed for six months or a year they may not be as anxious to obtain work as they were on first hearing that they were to be rendered unemployed. This would be true especially of people who did not have very big commitments and who perhaps might get by doing a few nixers. If we are to have a scheme of this kind why should it not apply to people faced with the prospect of becoming unemployed immediately?

However, I wish the Minister well with the scheme, though I consider it to be impracticable. It represents merely another of those sops that we continue to throw out to the unemployed trying to give the impression that we as legislators can wave a magic wand and create jobs. All we are doing here is transferring money from the Department of Labour to the Department of Social Welfare. We must be seen to be doing something so we draw up this kind of scheme.

On the second aspect of the Bill, I must agree with the Minister that the wet-time arrangements are long out of date. Since the building industry has a guaranteed working week as it were, the wet-time fund is of no benefit to anyone other than in the sense of subsidising some employers who because of inclement weather experience periods of short time working and, consequently, are able to retrieve some of the money. The cost of the scheme must have been enormous. Employers that I know of have had so much work with the scheme, affixing stamps and so on, though they employ only five or six people, that one wonders what amount of work the social welfare people must have to do in dealing with the scheme on a countrywide basis. Therefore, I can see the benefit of abolishing the scheme.

Perhaps the Minister should have made the announcement in consultation with the trade unions and with the employer representatives but I have always contended that the job of Government is to govern, to make decisions. While recognising the logic of abolishing the scheme there are a few questions I should like to put to the Minister. He tells us that the fund has almost run out and that there is no provision for the Exchequer to top it up other than by way of a loan. What I consider to be the reason for the depletion of the fund is not spelled out. The only moneys that should be taken from the fund would relate to claims on it in respect of short time working as a result of bad weather. But there has been very little bad weather in 1984. Therefore, the only reason I can think of for the depletion of the fund are the masses of people who are unemployed in the construction industry. Consequently all the contributions that would come from those people if they were employed are being lost to the fund. For the past couple of years there must have been a considerable reduction in the level of the contributions.

Regardless of what view people may have as to how the engine of economic growth should be started, it is an accepted economic fact in this country, as in others, that an injection of funds to the building industry is the prime giver of life to the economy. The point I wish to emphasise is that the depletion of the fund must be the result of the decline in the numbers of people engaged in the building industry. While I welcome the abolition of the wet-time scheme to the extent that it has long since served its usefulness and while I appreciate that the Minister, like everyone else here, is anxious to do something about the unemployment problem, I do not think that the other aspect of the Bill will be successful in that respect.

Proinsias De Rossa

It is regrettable that this legislation is being brought in at such short notice and that Deputies are being given little time to give adequate or detailed consideration to it. While on the face of it the Minister's argument that the abolition of wet time is long overdue he will accept that often the implications of the various Bills coming before us only come to light after detailed consideration and sometimes only after they become law.

I have been informed that this is a particularly inappropriate time to introduce this Bill as the unions and employers are in the process of wage negotiations. The trade unions fear that the abolition of the wet-time scheme will strengthen the hands of construction industry employers in the wage negotiations. They will claim that they will have to bear the cost of hours lose due to wet time, now that they can no longer claim compensation from the State, and that for that reason they cannot meet the wage claims being made by the trade union movement. Obviously since the Bill is now before us the damage has been done and it cannot be undone. It appears that this Bill was introduced without the interests involved in the wet-time scheme being consulted. While discussions have been going on for some time with the trade unions and employers about the scheme, no notice was given about its imminent abolition.

I have no objection in principle to the abolition of the scheme. Where employers and employees agree as to wages and working conditions there is no problem. However, unfortunately there has been a trend in the construction industry towards the development of the black economy and no effort has been made to ensure that agreements made between trade unions and employers in the construction industry should apply to all workers in the construction industry. Many reputable firms involved in large projects employ sub-contractors who do not employ trade union employees and do not pay trade union wages or give trade union conditions. Two of these projects have been brought to my notice, one a hospital in Cavan and the other in James's Street hospital. The people employed by these subcontractors will lose out as a result of the loss of the wet-time scheme because their employers do not abide by trade union agreements.

In relation to Government contracts it is now arguable that the trade union clause which was included in all the contracts up to about 18 months ago should be restored. This was a mechanism that ensured that all the labourers employed on contracts for local authorities or Government Departments would comply with the high standards insisted upon by the trade unions. That clause is no longer in Government or local authority contracts with the result that working conditions in many projects have deteriorated. In fact some people who are not registered in the Construction Industry Federation pension scheme are getting Government contracts. All these things are related to the conditions of work for construction workers. While on the face of it the abolition of the wet-time scheme is sensible and straightforward, there are other related matters which affect the conditions of workers which are not dealt with in this Bill and which will in effect lead to a deterioration in working conditions for those employed in the construction industry. As a minimum demand for the abolition of the wet-time scheme workers in the construction industry who are guaranteed a 40-hour week, should be given statutory protection so that all employees would be protected regardless of whether or not their employers allowed them to join trade unions.

In a submission made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in November 1983 they pointed out that there was an increasing frequency in the employment of "lumpers" as a means of obtaining cheap labour to the exclusion of genuine workers who wanted to work within the terms of the agreement. The vast majority of unemployed people are people who cannot find work but there is obviously a tendency in the construction industry to abuse unemployed people by insisting that if they want to be taken on they must continue to draw unemployment benefit and be happy with a wage lower than the trade union rate. For many people who are anxious to work, the temptation to do that is very strong. The abuse of the system is being forced on the unemployed by unscrupulous subcontractors who do not want to have anything to do with trade unions or with making PRSI and PAYE contributions.

It is unfortunate that Deputies would come into this House and imply that the vast majority, or a significant number, of the unemployed are simply people who do not want to work. There is an attitude of mind, which I call the "workhouse attitude", among some Deputies — Deputy Kenny came very close to it in his contribution — which implies that a person who is unemployed should be near poverty level before he is entitled to any benefit, that he must prove himself incapable of work or at such a level of deprivation that he cannot keep body and soul together without a few shillings before he is entitled to social benefits. Tied in with that is the attitude that the benefits people get must never go beyond keeping them on or just above the poverty level. The attitude is that to do so would encourage laziness and idleness, that to do otherwise would only encourage the lower orders not to take up all the employment that is available out there for them, that they should pull up their socks and go out and look for it.

These attitudes only encourage the belief that this House has no answers to the unemployment problem. Deputy Kenny said it is not the responsibility of this House to deal with unemployment or to create jobs, that it is the responsibility of the individual to create his own work. That is a total anachronism in the 20th century when there are such complex technology and organisation. To imagine that people can generate sufficient income through their own efforts these days is ridiculous. It is only through the development of agencies and the marshalling of the resources of the State by the State that adequate employment for everybody can be provided. Dependence on private enterprise in the past 60 years has been fruitless and it is pointless to have Deputies here telling us that it is the answer to unemployment.

The Bill is laying the ground for the social employment scheme. I agree somewhat with Deputy McCreevy who said that the scheme will simply transfer resources from one Department to another or from one hand to another. On the one hand the Government call for a reduction in pay and personnel in the public service or are putting pressure on those in the public service who are not serving a useful purpose to get out. At the same time they create all of these schemes, training under AnCO and various projects under the Youth Employment Agency and others, all of them aimed at taking people from the unemployment register and saying to them: "There you are, there is a bit of work for you and you will get a few bob for it. Then we will be happy".

I want to make the point strongly that many of the services of local authorities in Dublin and throughout the country have been cut back drastically, with workers on a three-day week or on a week-on week-off or a week-on—two weeks off rota, yet this social employment scheme will be used to get work done which the local authorities should be doing if they were provided with the necessary resources.

I can give a specific example of that in my constituency. The Department of the Environment provided funds to the corporation to initiate the environmental work scheme. Very useful work was done under it but that was work which the maintenance department of the corporation normally should be doing if the resources were provided. An estate in my constituency was built in the early seventies but the builders thought that walls were not needed so garden walls were not provided around any of the houses. When the corporation had a few bob they attempted to provide the walls but they ran out of money and the environmental work scheme was initiated and the walls were then built under that scheme. It does not make sense for the Government to be cutting back on local authorities, preventing them from employing their full quota of tradesmen and labourers, and then coming up with this flashy scheme of giving £70 a week to people for working two-and-a-half days a week. The Minister today claimed that this will take 10,000 of the unemployment register.

As far as I am concerned this is a con job. It is nothing more or less than a confidence trick. They pretend to be doing something about unemployment when all they are doing is making the pretence that they are providing employment. The scheme raises a number of questions. If the manager of an employment exchange decides when an individual, man or woman, young or old, comes in to collect his or her unemployment assistance that there is a suitable job available under this scheme, because the £70 is less than that person would be getting in benefit, and if that person refuses to take up that "job", will the person be taken off the unemployment register and will he or she be refused unemployment assistance? Apparently a person must accept whatever work is available at whatever wage is offered regardless of whether it is lower than the money he or she already receives.

It is not a matter of people living in luxury on unemployment assistance but of people trying to raise families and trying to maintain the best possible standard of living on the money available to them. If a man with two children and a wife getting £72 per week unemployment assistance, is asked to take one of these social employment scheme jobs at £70 per week minus 3 per cent PRSI and employment levy deduction, will the exchange manager be entitled to take that man off unemployment assistance because he refuses to accept the job for the good reason that his income on which to keep his wife and family would be reduced? That is an important point which has to be dealt with in the scheme.

I could not exist on £72 a week and I would not expect anyone else to try to exist on £72 a week. No one should be expected to live on less than £72 a week. Will a person have an option to refuse one of these jobs on the basis that it would mean a fall in his living standards if he were to accept it?

There is the whole area of the Youth Employment Agency and AnCO. In the plan Building on Reality there is talk about creating a whole plethora of agencies, all with the intention of giving the impression that something is being done about unemployment. This scheme is another attempt to give that impression. When I first read the document Building on Reality, it struck me that one of the effects of the scheme would be a growth in the black economy. Assuming people accept £70 a week less deductions, and work two-and-a-half days, the Minister says they can earn whatever they like but they will not get unemployment benefit or any other benefit. The tendency will be to move into the black economy. I wonder what controls, if any, the Minister proposes to prevent a growth in the black economy as a result of this scheme. That is an important area of concern.

There is nothing wrong in principle with the abolition of the wet-time scheme, but the way it was introduced is regrettable. I was told it has done damage to wage negotiations between the unions and the construction industry. Whatever I say about the other scheme, it will be introduced. I do not see it as a solution to the unemployment problem. I do not believe for a moment that the Minister can be all that happy with it. It is an excuse for not doing anything realistic about creating sustainable long term jobs for the thousands who need them.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá ar an mBille seo. I have a few words to say on this Bill. That is why I am here in the House listening with a keen ear to the views being expressed by Deputies from all sides of the House on the provisions of the Bill and the Minister's efforts to put certain people to work who are now in receipt of unemployment assistance.

I wish the Minister well in all his efforts to provide work. This Bill gives the House an opportunity to consider the problem of the provision of employment for almost 250,000 people who are on the unemployment registers. Where are we heading in relation to this grave problem? Many people may say it is not the duty of the State to provide work. I do not agree with that. Man has a God-given right to employment. Nobody has the right to deny man the fulfilment of his purpose in life by depriving him of useful and profitable work. Man without work is not man. It takes work to develop man, whether his hands, or his intellect, or his brain. The State has an obligation to help man to develop his intellect and to give him suitable training to enable him to engage in employment for which he should be in receipt of a proper wage to enable him to marry and bring up his family in accordance with the full terms of Christian decency.

Man is entitled to work because without work, man loses his sense of dignity. A sense of dignity can never be measured in pounds, shillings and pence, in francs, in marks, in dollars, or in any currency. Our people are losing their sense of dignity. In many instances our people have lost their sense of dignity. Have they lost it for all time? Many would not disagree with that theory. It is the responsibility of a Government keenly concerned about restoring the dignity of man to create employment for him. If that is not the duty of the Government, what is their responsibility? What is the responsibility of the local authorities and all the organisations which were established to create employment for which man will be paid?

I often feel that men in public life are becoming so far removed from the realities that they are advising man to provide his own form of employment without considering how he is to be paid for creating his own form of employment. The economy can create employment. We get out of the economy only what we put into it. If we put nothing into it, nothing comes out of it. So it is with the creation of employment.

There is reference in this Bill to the abolition of wet-time for 40,000 building workers. I do not dispute that. I do not find fault with the Minister for it, despite the fact that there should have been wider consultations with the trade union authorities and other interested parties. The creation of employment is of vital importance. Under the provisions of this Bill if various forms of activity are to be assessed by the Department of Labour I hope the Minister for Social Welfare, or the Minister for Labour, will tell us what will be the nature or form of such activities. I might respectfully suggest many forms of useful activity. For example, when one visits various parts of the United Kingdom one sees there the conservation of buildings of architectural design and interest and the work carried out on them by unemployed persons. Much valuable and useful work has been done in that respect. Likewise there is the example of the marvellous work undertaken by the Scottish Trust in relation to the conservation of very old houses as a result of schemes having been implemented, such as this one, although it must be said that more research and detailed planning was undertaken in advance. Such work is done in the various localities with a great sense of pride and joy. I hope as a result of the passage of this Bill that some such schemes will be devised by the Department of Labour, ensuring that they are implemented here.

I have never accepted the theory accepted by many Members of this House that there is no solution to our unemployment problem because that amounts to despair, the waving of the white flag, surrendering all of the ideals of the men who established this State. I shall never accept that the State has not a duty to provide employment for its citizens. Neither do I accept for one moment the theory that there is no money available in order to engage in the various forms of activity leading to the creation of such employment. Nor will I accept the theory, when this Bill has been passed, that there is not a variety of schemes under which people will be paid £70 a week for two-and-a-half days' work.

We have our priorities very wrong in this country. When I see that there is no money readily available to provide profitable work for tens of thousands of unemployed people, in order to provide useful work for themselves and their communities, while there is being expended £544 million, for example, last year on security at the Border I ask myself if we have got our priorities in order. If Mrs. Thatcher wants to keep the Border there she should be made pay for it. There is no reason Irish tax-payers should be asked to put their hands into their pockets and cough up £544 million to safeguard the Border while there obtains a means test restricting old age pensioners from eligibility for the full benefits of the old age pension.

There was a plea recently in that regard by a prominent churchman calling for the abolition of such means test. But we were told by the Minister for Social Welfare that such a proposal was impractical, that it could not be put into operation that there was no money available to do so. Which would amount to a greater investment for the Irish taxpayer — the protection of our Border for Mrs. Thatcher or looking after our aged and the provision of employment for young people who do not yet know what work is? We must get our priorities in order here, but it will take courage to do so. Our first duty should be to our people, looking after the sick and the aged, the disabled, those who cannot provide for themselves and, above all, giving hope, security and the prospect of a future to those people now so disillusioned, writing, indeed crawling to Manpower in the hope of getting a job.

A Bill of this kind may be advantageous but it merely scratches the surface of the problem. We must ask ourselves what will happen next year, the year after and henceforth in relation to job creation. Are we limping from crisis to crisis rather than seriously tackling the problem of the provision of work for our young people, for those who do not want to be in the dole queues? I want to assure all Members of this House that it is not the wish of any young man or woman to line up to receive charity by way of unemployment assistance or benefit. It lowers the dignity of the person having to queue up outside these awful labour exchanges where in most cases shame and necessity abound. They must line up in these queues to keep body and soul together. This is totally humiliating. It lowers the standard and dignity of man and deprives him of a right guaranteed in the past in this country: the right to work and to independence in his own country. One must remember that one cannot be independent without work.

My opinion on this has not changed over the years. It is the duty and responsibility of the State to ensure that work is provided for its citizens and particularly for its young people, who today are in despair. I do not know what the passage of this Bill will mean to young people. They may say it is a step in the right direction, but more is now needed. Massive strides are needed in order to solve this problem. If this unemployment problem is not grasped seriously within the next two or three years, we shall face a serious threat to democracy as we know it today. How many times have I and many other Members made speeches within and outside this House in relation to this serious threat posed to democracy? When a person is deprived of his dignity, when despair sets in and is allowed continue, with no prospects or hope for the future, that in itself leads to a threat to democracy. It should be remembered that we are now dealing with better educated young unemployed persons, people who will not accept the standards accepted in the past when educational skills were not as readily available. That is where this country faces grave danger. Perhaps civil servants and ministerial advisers in the Departments of Labour and Social Welfare cannot see that. Perhaps Ministers are now becoming so remote from the public that they do not see it either. But there are many Members in rural areas today, and likewise in our towns and cities, who have a close connection with the electorate and who are conscious of the trend developing among young unemployed people that they must get money by any means, that they must sustain the standards that prevailed here in the fifties and sixties.

While the provisions of this Bill may constitute a step in the right direction by providing work for a shorter period for people recommended by Manpower and who have signed on for unemployment assistance, I respectfully suggest that it may not constitute the whole solution. At least its passage will, I hope, enable some people to be removed from the live register for two-and-a-half days per week and to earn £70. I hope it will not be regarded as coming from Parliament that one is expected to live on £70 per week because that figure is mentioned in the legislation. I will be sorry for those who have to work two-and-a-half days for the £70 and will not be able to seek employment elsewhere for the remainder of the week to boost their pay to a figure that will enable the family to keep body and soul together.

Debate adjourned.