Before the debate was adjourned I spoke about some of the innovations the Minister introduced in the budget. I mentioned the change he was bringing about in the free electricity scheme which will allow pensioners to carry over unused units from one billing period to another. This is a welcome move. I take this opportunity now to ask the Minister to modify this scheme a little more to review the living alone condition in certain well-defined circumstances. Everybody in the House is aware of cases where single sons or daughters, more often daughters, have given up work to care for an elderly parent who needs constant care and attention. In those circumstances the elderly person loses the free electricity allowance because he or she is not then living alone. A move to change this regulation would be welcomed by all sides of the House and would be an encouragement to people to look after their elderly relatives at home. I know there would be difficulties in doing this but certain conditions could apply, for example, a certain age could be specified or it could be a requirement to supply a medical certificate stating that the elderly person required constant care and attention. I am sure the Minister will take note of what has been said by a number of speakers and do something about that scheme.
I would like to compliment the Minister in general terms on his approach to suggestions made by his own backbenchers and by Deputies on the other side of the House. He has always shown a willingness to listen to suggestions and act on them where possible.
Because of the Minister's flexible attitude and his willingness to initiate schemes geared to the needs of those on social welfare, I would like now to urge him to take a look at the regulations in relation to unemployment assistance and the qualifications for such. Our unemployment figures now stand at approximately 235,000. Even the most optimistic forecasters concede that for the foreseeable future we will not be able to provide jobs for all of these people. I use the word "jobs" in this context rather than the word "work" because I have no doubt but that we could provide work for a considerable number of the people who are unemployed.
At the moment instead of allowing people to make a positive contribution to their community or to their own self-development we currently say to them that they are idle and must remain so, that the State will pay them for remaining idle and if they do anything other than remain idle the State will stop paying them. We tell them to go out and look for jobs in areas where every second person is unemployed. We also tell people who have reached the age of 55 and 60 years of age that they must be available for and seeking employment when we all know that the chances of people in that age group getting a reasonable job are practically nil. This approach has resulted in the talents of very many capable people being wasted. They have to sit at home and do nothing, contributing nothing to their own development or that of their communities. This is a terrible waste. In our culture a person's status in society is measured by the job he holds and the income he earns and a person's self-esteem depends largely on his status in society. Consequently a person who has no job has little or no status and therefore little or no self-esteem. It has been proved by successive studies that the longer a person is unemployed the lower his self-esteem becomes. Our present system reinforces this state of affairs by encouraging idleness and discouraging any attempts at self-development. We are punishing any show of initiative or effort to investigate means of becoming self employed.
There have been examples of groups of unemployed people who have sought to set up co-operatives, as in the case of one group in Cork, or a group in Dublin who set up a dramatic society, but who lost their entitlements to social welfare assistance because they were not available for work. I have personal experience of an individual who began to investigate what he felt might be a viable enterprise that he could set up for himself. He set up a meeting for himself on a day that he was due to sign. He went to the employment exchange to explain what was happening — this was about 18 months ago — and the rules were so rigid that when he did not sign on the proper day he was struck off the register for six weeks. That type of rigidity in the regulations, which existed in the past and is slowly changing because of the innovations of the Minister, is a major disincentive to everybody. Why do we not allow a person who has no job the right to use his God-given skills and talents while he waits for a job opportunity? Why should there be a period of enforced idleness when that time could be used productively for the individual or for the local community?
I feel very strongly that the social welfare system as it pertains to the unemployment assistance scheme should be more flexible. The Minister should be allowed to make regulations which would provide that those who find themselves without a job spend their time productively. I have no doubt that if the present Minister was given that opportunity by way of regulation under the social welfare system he would grasp it with both hands and would put even more measures in train which would dispel the sterile idea that a person on unemployment assistance should sit at home and do nothing.
As I have said, in the past two years the Minister has introduced schemes which show that he is more than willing to help people to help themselves. Other Deputies have mentioned the educational opportunities scheme and in this Bill there is the pre-retirement scheme. I commend the Minister for the tentative steps he is taking through these schemes. I realise that the reason he has not gone any further at this time is that he is literally hamstrung by the social welfare legislation. The principle behind the moves he has already made is a good one and should be extended. I strongly believe that the legislation, whether through this Bill or a future Bill, should be framed in such a way that power is given to the Minister to make regulations to introduce schemes like the ones he has already introduced, whether they be on a local or a national basis.
I might go a step further and suggest that we get rid of the whole concept of an unemployment allowance or, to put it another way, an allowance for unemployment. Why do we not adopt a more positive approach to those who are not fortunate enough to be able to get a job? We should get rid of all the negative connotations surrounding dole and unemployment assistance and adopt a more positive approach completely. That could possibly be done by scrapping the idea of unemployment assistance and by deciding to give people who have not a job or a source of income a living allowance which would enable them to participate productively in society, whether in the form of educational courses, community work or whatever. I would say as an aside that the educational opportunities scheme to which I referred earlier is an excellent scheme and one that should be developed and extended right across the country. That could be done by allowing people to pursue courses and, by regulation, allowing the Minister to designate courses, whether public courses in VECs or privately run courses. As long as the Minister felt they were suitable courses he should have the power by regulation to introduce them under the educational opportunities scheme. Any course which would help a person's self-development or help him to acquire new skills which might be more useful in securing a job should get the go-ahead from the Minister and he should be allowed to do that.
Why do we not allow people who are unfortunate enough not to have a job the freedom to work on a voluntary basis for a set period of time with local committees to help develop their own communities? The Minister has already introduced one such scheme on a limited scale. If schemes such as these were introduced, particularly for those who have been made redundant in their later years and who have little hope of full-time permanent employment they would be of benefit not only to the person involved but also to the community in which he lives. As I have said I recognise, as I think does all sides of the House, the Minister's commitment in this area and the moves he has made in the past two years. It is up to all of us in this House to support and encourage him to introduce more schemes such as this and to get rid of the stigma attached to a person who is unfortunate enough to lose his or her job and who is left feeling that he or she has nothing to contribute to society.
Provision is made in the Bill for measures which are directed towards the family. This budget, like the two previous budgets introduced by this Government, was introduced in a time of harsh economic circumstances. The Minister has managed in the past two years to find ways of directing the huge amounts of money being provided for social welfare to the areas that are most in need. One feature of the budget, and now confirmed in the social welfare legislation before us, has been its approach to providing measures which help the family at a time of grave economic crisis. Two years ago the Minister increased the social welfare budget. He increased it again last year and this year it has been increased even further. The measures introduced for the family in this budget alone cost £42 million. As everyone would concede, that has been done at a time of grave difficulties. That shows the commitment that the Minister and the Government have made in this area.