asked the Minister for Labour if, in view of the continued plight of school leavers seeking employment, he will now consider extending the scope of the premium employment programme to help them obtain employment.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Premium Employment Programme.
14.
The premium employment programme was introduced in order to encourage the re-employment in agriculture and in certain manufacturing industries of workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the current recession. The conditions applicable to eligibility were formulated to achieve this objective. It is not designed to help persons seeking their first employment. Indeed, if the programme were extended to school leavers it could worsen the prospect of securing re-employment of those whom the programme was designed to benefit.
The problem of school leavers is a separate one and has had to be tackled independently of the programme. On 16th October, 1975, I announced a series of pilot measures which if successful could be extended to help deal with youth employment and training. I have outlined these measures in my earlier reply to questions by Deputies Lemass, Faulkner and Moore.
In view of the disappointing measure of success which this scheme has achieved because of its confines, I should like to ask if the Minister has had any discussions with a view to extending this scheme. Is it likely that the scheme will be extended to cover other fields of activity?
We have had discussions with other services, and various categories—the meat processing industry was one—but the main thing is that more than 3,000 people have been put back into gainful employment since the inception of the scheme. We must bear in mind that some of the months of the operation of the scheme were holiday months, such as July and August, but the main obstacle to its wider use has lain in the reluctance of employers to take on extra workers at this time. There is a need for a greater confidence on the part of the business community that we have turned the corner in the present recession. They see ample sign in this, and in other economies, that that time has not yet arrived. That is the main reason why the scheme has not gained wider acceptance among employers but it has many months yet to run. At least 3,000 people have been brought back into gainful employment. I explained to the House, when introducing the scheme, that my objective was to bring back 10,000 people into gainful employment but for this we require the co-operation of employers. This, in turn, means that they must have the confidence to start taking on extra people.
Would the Minister not agree that the reason the figure of 10,000 has not been achieved six months after the scheme was introduced was that it did not cover the service industries? In view of that, would the Minister consider extending it to cover the service industries, as we requested when he introduced the scheme, the processing industries and the building industry?
The discussions are going on.
In other words, the Minister is going to extend the scheme as we suggested he should do when he introduced it?
Discussions are going on.
If school leavers are registered as unemployed, do they qualify?
Yes, if they were registered as unemployed.
Would the Minister consider extending the scope of the scheme to cover local authorities? Would the Minister consider, in order to provide employment for young people, recommending the discontinuance of replacing human beings by machines? It would be a help.
That is part of a big question. There is no doubt that we must have the most modern production methods because if we do not our goods will not be competitive. On the other hand, at a time of high unemployment it would seem to make good sense that we should bring as many people as possible back into extra work. That is the object of Government expenditure and our general economic policy at this time. It is part of a larger question whether we should make these serious choices suggested as between machinery investment and personnel investment. It is not quite as simple as being able to make one or the other.
Is the Minister satisfied that in some cases the switch has led to more efficiency? I am not because the human being comes into it all the time. The machines must give the answers they are fed with.
At what age do school leavers qualify for inclusion in the employment register?
There has been a lot of controversy about this. The PEP does not apply to people who have not been in gainful employment and who have not drawn benefits. There must be a certain period in which the person has drawn unemployment benefit. Recently, there was controversy on the part of people connected with youth work that young people should be capable of inclusion in the scheme but they are deliberately debarred under the terms of the scheme and cannot take part in the PEP.
The Minister indicated to Deputy Brennan that they could if they were registered.
If a person has been at work for a period he or she will qualify under the PEP. The problem of school leavers is that they have not been at work. I accept readily that they are not part of that scheme. It is not a scheme designed for people seeking first employment and we never said it was.
Is this not a scheme to promote employment?
It was designed to assist in the promotion of employment because there was loss of employment as a result of the present recession. It was designed to give financial encouragement to employers to reemploy people. It was not concerned with young people leaving school, a separate, serious question on which some progress is being made. It would be naïve to suggest that we could turn back unemployment in this country without general recovery in most of our major markets.
In regard to qualification for this premium payments scheme, I understand it is not necessary that people be re-employed by the same firm. If a new firm is set up, will employees of an old firm qualify?
Not after the date. They must have been operating on the date before we started the programme —the work force on the programme last June—but we have been negotiating with certain firms where, for one reason or another, we knew there had been genuine expansion. We have compromised on the initial work force figure. The Deputy will understand that the scheme was designed to bring back people to work who had been disemployed as a result of the recession.