When the forerunner of this Bill was introduced in this House about a year ago I, on behalf of my party, expressed support for it and went a bit further to say that it had about it an imagination that up to then had been non-existent with this Minister for Labour and, indeed, with his Government regarding the helping of people to be re-employed. Of course, my party and I support the meagre, miserable extension offered by this current Bill.
I cannot commend anybody for any imagination on this occasion. When the Bill was introduced a year ago we went to extremes and made pleas to the Minister to extend the scope of the Bill to cover industries not covered by that Bill. He ignored completely or almost completely the pleas we made to him and left out those areas where the highest unemployment was suffered in the intervening period. We asked him to have agriculture included. He did, I think, when it went to the Seanad. We asked him to have food processing entirely included. He did, at the tail end of last year, six months later. We asked him to include the building industry. He has made no move on that yet. We asked him to include the service industry, nor has he made any move there either.
To support what I am saying with regard to lack of imagination shown by the Minister on this occasion, I would say at this stage that it is tantamount to criminal negligence the way the Minister for Labour and his Government have neglected the unemployed and have continued to do so. He has given us the usual sort of propaganda in his Second Stage speech here that we know now it is just like beating empty drums and empty vessels. I will in the course of my remarks here set out to disprove some of the points and claims he is making, and compare them with what he said a year ago. The fundamental difficulty we are experiencing is that we have a Minister for Labour who not only is incompetent but, in addition, is showing a complete lack of interest, as, indeed, are his Government, in the field of employment generally.
To elaborate on the points I have made regarding the narrow format of the scheme, I take an answer which I got today to a query of mine on the total number of people employed under the premium employment programme, 1975. When that programme was introduced in this House the Minister said that the target of that programme was 10,000 jobs. I said to him that we needed no top limit, that we hope that 10,000 would be the minimum number of jobs created. To help to create them we suggested that the scope of the scheme be broadened to include industries where reasonable numbers may well be employed. The Minister, of course, in a typical manner despite utterances he may make otherwise, buried his head in the sand and said, of course, that £1.25 million had been provided in the Estimates and more would be provided if necessary. What did we spend? What has been spent after a year of that scheme? £656,000, approximately half, 50 per cent of what was provided in the Estimates last year. Worse than that, that is the gross expenditure of 50 per cent, but the net cost to the State is probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 to 25 per cent, because when one breaks down the £656,000 one will find that those people who were re-employed, both themselves and their employers, contributed to a social welfare stamp in the first instance. Many of them, I have no doubt, paid income tax. Therefore, you will find that the net cost to the State was an awful lot less, certainly less than half of the £656,000 spent on that scheme to date.
In addition to those gains and advantages for the State there was, of course, a very important aspect, a very important human factor, where the social or morale-restoring job provided for the person came into play or into consideration. We have been listening to the Minister earlier this evening, to the pleas of this Government and their reference to social welfare. If they can claim credit—and I put a very big "if" there—or if, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, they were heroes in that regard, they are the damned opposite with regard to their efforts on behalf of the unemployed. If we analyse, we have 5,185 jobs created out of the target of 10,000 jobs after a year, 12 whole months elapsing. That is half the target.
I want to come back to the points I made earlier, to the two extensions of the scheme. The Minister extended the food processing in December and he created by that extension 33 extra jobs. He extended agriculture around the time the Bill was introduced last year. He created 32 extra jobs. Those 65 jobs were very welcome. They were an extension to the scheme, but we should look at the other areas where he might have extended the scope of it and the other industries he might have included. We can examine the increase there has been in unemployment in what one could say is the intervening period, while not exactly, because the figures from the Central Statistics Office, although dated June, would, of course, refer to the period between mid-March last year and mid-March this year. During that period if we take the building industry—and remember the building industry is our second largest—not only does it react quickly to promptings and assistance but the many allied industries, the many industries closely connected with it also react if money is expended in the building industry.
I know the Minister in typical fashion will come back here to me this evening and he will say: "But we have provided money here by way of capital expenditure". This is necessary and has always been necessary but at a time of high unemployment we must use our imagination a little bit.
If this Minister has failed the country it is a heavy responsibility on his shoulders and posterity will not easily forget that to him. This Government's approach to all areas of employment has been a negative one. Until a positive, aggressive attitude is adopted by them there will be no worth-while improvement. There is no point in the Minister claiming in his speech credit for reductions that are far lower than should be the case at this time of seasonal improvement. We are talking about the best months of the year for employment. At this time of the year we must think of the prospects between now and next December and January.
In the course of his statement the Minister said:
However, with growing evidence that there is now a prospect of a recovery in the economy, there should be a greater incentive for employers to take on additional workers in the expectation that the level of demand both in the domestic and export markets will increase.
I should like to give further quotations from a speech made by the Minister when introducing this Bill last year and they will be ample evidence of how little we can depend on him for forecasting what is likely to happen. I should now like to quote from Volume 284, column 1062, of the Official Report where the Minister said:
This is an endeavour to bring us up to the period of general recovery which, it is generally anticipated, will occur in the spring or early summer of next year.
We have not seen that recovery in the spring or early summer; I wish to goodness we had. At column 503 of the same Volume of the Official Report the Minister said:
The real purpose of it——
"It" is the premium employment programme.
——is to aid the areas worst hit which are in manufacturing industry. It is our idea that it should be a programme that would be easy to administer and effective. It is only a temporary programme to take us through these months ahead to the summer of regrowth.
Just 12 months later we are introducing an extension to the premium employment programme, an extension that is absolutely inadequate in the unemployment climate we have.
The increase in the number of people unemployed in the building industry between March, 1975, and March of this year was 5,243. That industry was not included in the programme. Surely, if it was included we could have reduced that figure in some way with obvious benefits. We would have had a saving in the amount of money paid out in unemployment benefit to people involved in that industry. The service industries were not included.
I should like to refer to a few of the service industries. The increase in unemployment in the distributive trades was 1,101, but the Minister did not think it worth his while to include it. In "personal services" which includes hotels, clubs, restaurants and public houses the increase in the number unemployed was 1,017 but the Minister did not think it worth his while to try and reduce that figure. In transport and communication the figure was 1,013 and that was not included. The number unemployed in those industries is very high and this has meant that the Exchequer has had to pay out a huge amount under social welfare. The alternative would have meant that while we would have had a pay out by the Department of Labour we would have had a big saving in the Department of Social Welfare. That would have been in excess of any amount paid out under the premium employment programme by the Department of Labour. That is simple mathematics and it is hard to understand why the Minister has restricted the scheme so much, particularly in view of the fact that he provided £1¼ million last year and had a gross expenditure of half of it. There was an obvious overall saving for the Exchequer.
The size of the premium has been increased to £15 but it will only remain at that figure until 19th September. From September to January the gross pay out will only be in the region of £7.50. Where is the initiative being shown here? Where is the Minister showing any imagination, even though he is responsible for employment? There is no initiative or imagination being shown by him. We were told recently that up to the end of March £38½ million was paid out in unemployment benefit and £6¼ million was paid out in pay related benefit while unemployment assistance amounted to £42½ million. That makes a total of £87¼ million but that does not include redundancy payments or the morale shattering aspect suffered by people during periods of unemployment. The Minister has the audacity to tell us that his Department had spent a miserable £600 on this scheme to date. The Exchequer, therefore, saved substantially.
I would ask the Minister why he will not sensibly extend the scope of this scheme to cover industries where new jobs might be created. I fully realise the necessity for regulations to prevent abuses of the scheme. I raised questions a year ago regarding the four-week qualifying limit on the live register. Our real unemployment figures are not those as expressed by the Minister or the live register: the real figures for those seeking employment at present must be in the region of 180,000 people. This figure includes the 110,0000 unemployed, the 1975 school leavers who have failed to find employment and who are not as yet included in the live register, and this year's school leavers who are also on the employment market. There is no point in discussing hypothetical figures. A large number of school leavers have to be added to the live register.
I remember the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach trying to defend the live register. He said that it did not vary from the way it was prepared over the years. That may be so, but it is no defence for a situation that has caused frustration for many parents, particularly for parents whose 1975 school leavers failed to find employment and whose brothers and sisters will be joining the queue in 1976. There is no imagination or worth-while effort in this document. There is a small extension to a scheme that has already proved inadequate, that has not realised the target set for it by this Minister. Is it laziness, inexperience or lack of concern that is inspiring him to allow these things to happen? There must be some explanation. Unless this Minister realises that he has to grasp the evil of unemployment in a positive way there can be no future for our people.
The Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister and some other Government speakers have said that we have not put any positive proposals before the House for improving the unemployment situation. I have spelt them out on a number of occasions. I am not entitled to spell them out under this Bill but there are, even within the limitations of this Bill, areas for improving it. Two areas that come quickly to mind are the building industry and the service industry. I have given figures to substantiate the big increase in unemployment in those industries between March, 1975, and March, 1976.
This Bill reminds me of a leaking roof. The Minister is plugging the pinholes and leaving the large holes open. Surely the 65 jobs that were created in the two extensions made by the Minister could have been augmented by many hundreds if he had included the building and service industries a year ago. Why are we confining it to manufacturing industry? I realise the necessity to support manufacturing industry, but this Minister has made no effort to sustain or support ailing manufacturing industry. In his reply today the Minister said that, of the 5,185 jobs recreated under the premium employment programme, 2,022 of them belong to the textile industry. When we appealed for assistance for the textile industry the Government allowed many factories to close in my constituency and in many others. I am glad that 2,022 jobs have been recreated but I would venture to say that, had the Government and the Minister moved in time, many more jobs would have been saved in the textile industry. There is still an area of the textile industry—the blanket industry—that is suffering severely. Two Ministers have been appealed to for assistance but they have refused to budge. The blanket industry is going through tough times and is not in a position to avail of this scheme.
The Minister for Labour has been a total failure. His Government have criminally neglected the workers. We will support this small effort but it is inadequate. Are we trying to save another £600,000 on the Estimate in order to divert it somewhere else? Is the Minister genuine in saying that he would be very happy to look for extra money to increase the £1.25 million voted for his Department's Estimate for the current year if it is found to be inadequate? Can we be expected to have confidence in his prediction? The increase to £15 was announced with a fanfare of trumpets but there was little ballyhoo about the reduction to £7.50 which is to be affected in September, less than three months from now. One can only hope that more than the £1.25 million will be needed but I find it difficult to believe that this will be the case.
In a few months' time, too, we will be faced with the seasonal decline in employment. We are now almost at the peak of the season in respect of employment but the decline usually begins sometime after the August holidays. Therefore, a more extensive employment premium programme would be desirable at that time. Any criticism offered from this side of the House is intended to be constructive. We support any vehicle which the Minister may use in an effort to recreate jobs, but we have not heard yet from him either in this House or elsewhere a worth-while reason for excluding from this legislation the building industry and the service industry.
Last year he told us that this employment premium was serving two purposes: the creation of jobs and the assisting of manufacturing industry so as to tide them over a difficult period. There is no argument for excluding any industry in which jobs may be created because every job created as a result of this scheme represents a saving to the economy. It was suggested last year from speakers on this side of the House that the scheme could be extended to local government employees. If that point was valid last year it is more valid this year when most local councils are struggling to maintain their present volume of employment until the end of the year. Another reason for including local authorities would be that the scheme might create further jobs especially since there is so much necessary and productive work to be done. More important, though, is the wish of most Irish people to be at work rather than to be depending on the soul-destroying but so necessary social welfare payments.
I shall not delay the House further as there are other Deputies who wish to contribute. There is an urgency about this legislation. While supporting any measure that will help to put people back at work we deplore the incompetence of the Minister and his lack of interest in doing anything worth while in relation to employment. Indeed, he has not even continued the decent bit of imagination that I credited him with displaying a year ago.