This section provides that employment under the social employment scheme shall be insurable employment for occupational injury benefit purposes by the insertion of a new provision in section 38 of the Consolidation Act, 1981. The occupational injuries scheme which was introduced in 1967 was incorporated into the general social insurance system and, where practicable, the classes of insured persons insured for occupational injuries corresponded to those already insured for social insurance. However, certain additional employments were made insurable for occupational injury benefit. Some types of employment were excluded and these additions and exclusions are set out in section 38 of the 1981 Act.
Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill, 1984: Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
The Bill proposes the adoption of the social employment scheme. The scheme is extremely vague. There has been some small degree of detail in the document produced by the Government, Building on Reality, of the types of job opportunities that might be introduced but we should get more details of the scheme.
We are dealing with section 3 which provides that employment under the social employment scheme shall be insurable employment for occupational injury benefit purposes. Basically, that is all that is dealt with in section 3. The section amends, by the insertion of a new subsection, section 38 of the principal Act of 1981.
In a Committee Stage debate we go through the Bill section by section and contributions must be related to the section under consideration and that time.
What will be the amount of the net payment to an individual after the deductions of social welfare contributions? Will the people who participate in the scheme be liable for the 3 per cent employment levy and other levies?
People in the social employment scheme will be covered for occupational injuries benefit. The class J rate of contribution provides cover for occupational injury benefit only and it will be 3.4 per cent for the employer and nil for the employee, assuming that an employee holds a medical card. The rate normally amounts to 0.4 per cent for the employer and the 3 per cent for the employee. That 3 per cent comprises the 1 per cent health contribution, the 1 per cent youth employment contribution and the 1 per cent income levy. However, where an employee has a medical card — it can be assumed that many participants in the social employment scheme will be holders of medical cards — then the full 3.4 per cent contribution is paid by the employer.
May I take it that the employer will have to pay 3.4 per cent for each employee in the same way as employers generally pay it? The £70 per week will put the applicant over the rate for the medical card, because in the Western Health Board area the rate for a single man would probably be not more than £48 a week. As Deputy Pattison is Minister of State at the Departments of Health and Social Welfare, I ask him to amend the Bill so that no participant in this scheme will be deprived of a medical card for the duration of the scheme. If a young man or woman is deprived of health services as a result of participation in this scheme in the short term, earning £70 a week, he or she may find that he or she is worse off when the medical card is taken from them.
The Minister said most people participating in this scheme would have medical cards and would not be liable for the higher rate of contribution. We can take it that the young people will be deprived of a medical card when they come into the scheme unless the Minister amends this legislation or directs the health boards that participants under the scheme will not lose their medical benefits.
The employers' contribution of 3.4 per cent may not be a disincentive, but this money has to be provided. If Roscommon County Council took on a few hundred people, we would have a fairly healthy liability in the administrative area, and at this stage we do not have the funds to provide even 3.4 per cent of an individual's wage because many of our workers have been laid off over the past few years.
On a point of information, can the Minister tell us at what stage the Minister for Labour will be speaking? The Minister said yesterday that at some stage today the Minister for Labour would be coming into the House to give details of this scheme. As I said last night this discussion really centres around the information which will be given by the Minister for Labour.
I agree with my colleague, Deputy Calleary. Admittedly this Bill is being introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare but a number of sections come under the Department of Labour and the National Manpower Service. I did not contribute to the Second Stage debate because we had not heard the full details of the scheme from the Minister for Labour. Before we can proceed we should have at least an outline of how the scheme will function. It is very difficult to discuss a scheme on Committee Stage without having the details of that scheme.
Yesterday Deputy McCarthy supported the principle of this Bill which deals mainly with the labour market but so far we do not know how the scheme will operate. We are told it will be operated by the National Manpower Service. Section 3 gives very sketchy details about the social employment scheme, but anybody who knows anything about the National Manpower Service will know that they do not have the facilities to operate such a scheme. Only recently they got money to get modern equipment. I do not want anybody to think that I am critical of Mr. Hannon and his staff, because they do a fantastic job under unbelievable circumstances, but if they are to take responsibility for a major scheme which will take 10,000 people off the live register——
Perhaps the Deputy would relate his remarks to section 3 which deals with insurability.
In this case insurability covers people who are insured at present but who will be taken off because of a scheme about which I know little or nothing, except that it will take 10,000 people off the live register. There are not many sections in this Bill, which means that I will not have too many opportunities to ask this question. I want to know if the Minister for Labour is going to give details of this scheme. If he gives this information on the Adjournment Debate, that will not help us debate this Bill. I want to know how this scheme will operate, how Manpower will operate the scheme and what this scheme is all about.
It is easy to agree something in principle, but we cannot agree to legislation when we do not have the full details. I know that some weeks ago people were running around trying to put this legislation together and to decide which Department would be responsible. Would it be possible for the Minister of State to read sections of the Minister for Labour's script, which he probably has at this stage?
When is the Minister for Labour making his contribution?
I will deal with the matters already raised. First, Deputy Leyden was not correct when he said I was Minister of State at the Departments of Health and Social Welfare. I am Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare only.
But the Minister of State has a little input in the Department of Health. His counterpart in Health has a lot to do with social welfare for the Fine Gael Party.
Deputy Donnellan is Minister of State at the Departments of Health and Social Welfare. I hope that clarifies the position. The question of medical cards is for the health boards. Deputy Leyden was saying that it might be more attractive for some people not to avail of this scheme because they might be better off keeping their medical cards and social welfare benefits. I want to stress that the scheme is purely voluntary. In other words, it will be optional for people on unemployment assistance for the required period. Nobody will be coerced into a less favourable financial situation. Deputy Leyden also mentioned the extra cost to local authorities. I want to emphasise that the money to pay wages and PRSI contributions will be given by the Exchequer to the local authorities and the sponsors. No extra cost will arise for local authorities.
We are dealing with section 3 at present, and this prevents me from expanding further on many other points which have been raised. As Members are aware, this country holds the Presidency of the EC Council and the Minister for Labour is obliged to be in Brussels at present. That is an obligation which unfortunately prevents——
He has a Minister of State.
It was hoped that the Minister would have been available today——
Has he a lieutenant?
The scheme will be the subject of further discussion early in the new year.
I will defer to my senior colleagues, but I do not think we should be debating this Bill when we do not have the details of the scheme. The Minister said last night that 10,000 people will be employed on this scheme but we have no details concerning the jobs or what county councils will be affected. We do not know what kind of work is involved, who will be employed or what their prospects are when the 12 months are up. We are merely discussing the mechanical nature of the application of the scheme. It is putting the cart before the horse, and I object very strongly.
The Minister indicated that this is a voluntary scheme and that there would be no coercion to participate in it. I raised this point on Second Stage last night, and I should like the Minister to clarify what would happen to a person who is offered a job under one of the schemes but refuses it. Will he still remain eligible for unemployment assistance, or will he de denied it because he will be classed as not available for work?
The scheme is voluntary and there will be no coercion or discriminatory action taken against anyone who does not participate in it. The Minister went into detail regarding the scheme and its operation. I do not know what specific questions the Members opposite wish to have answered, as the contributions so far have been of a very general nature. However, if there are questions relating to the sections as we go through them I shall do my best to reply to them.
Are we to infer from what the Minister said that people employed under this scheme will be covered for occupational injuries only? If so, it would be a very serious disadvantage. People employed under this scheme should be entitled to full insurance cover. If that is not the case, people employed under the scheme may well lose out at a later stage as there will be a reluctance on the part of people who have fairly substantial employment contributions to get involved in it. Will the Minister extend cover to the full range of benefits?
Deputy Daly is wrong in his interpretation of the scheme——
I am asking the Minister to clarify it.
The position was explained yesterday and today. People employed under the scheme will be covered for occupational injury benefits and will receive credited contributions in the same way as they receive them if they are claiming unemployment or disability benefit. Their record will not be affected. Deputies will note that there is one necessary change in the calculation of one's insurance record. People involved in the scheme will get credited contributions and, if they get other employment for the rest of the week which is fully insurable, those paid contributions will be calculable for benefits as usual except that they will not be taken into account to re-qualify a person for unemployment benefit while they are participating in the scheme. In other words, when someone works on outside employment during the time they participate in the scheme they receive 13 paid contributions but they cannot go back on unemployment benefit until they are finished with the scheme. However, that is not a backward step. I emphasise that credited contributions will be allowed to everyone in the scheme in the same way as persons claiming unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance or submitting medical certificates and being paid disability benefit are allowed credited contributions. People in the social employment scheme will also receive credited contributions which will preserve their insurance records and they will be no worse off than if they were on unemployment assistance. They are not losing anything by participating in the scheme.
The Minister, in response to my question earlier, said that the Department would provide the 3.4 per cent for the employers. Where is that specifically spelled out in the Bill? It is very important to clarify this point, because it would mean a major change in employer-employee relationship. If anybody in this House wishes to employ somebody under the scheme would they be liable to pay the 3.4 per cent contribution or would this money be provided from the Exchequer? Local authorities and voluntary organisations may not have funds to provide this contribution although they would be willing to take people on if there was no charge. The 3.4 per cent is very important because it would make a major difference in the estimate.
I support my colleagues in their remarks about the non-availability of the Minister for Labour. When a commitment is given in this House the Ceann Comhairle should ensure that it is honoured by the Government. He has a duty to see that the Minister comes in in the course of the debate. He or the Minister of State should be here to outline to us the exact details of this scheme. We do not know where these 10,000 people will be employed. It is damaging the debate. There is little incentive for this side of the House to go into the nitty gritty of detail when we do not know the concept or philosophy behind the scheme.
The Minister was quick enough to go on Radio 1 to outline in a generalised way what he intends to do with all the staff and the picking of the right person for the right job, but he is not available to the House. The Dáil takes precedence over Europe, Irish Presidency or not. If the Minister's Bill is before this House, he owes his loyalty to this House, not to any other assembly.
If I may intervene at this point, it has been sought to involve the Chair in this matter. It is not a matter for the Chair, who has no control over whether a Minister is here or not. The present occupant of the Chair was in the Chair yesterday evening and believes that he heard the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, before concluding, qualifying his assurance about the Minister for Labour being here today and saying that it might not be possible for him to be here until tomorrow.
Tomorrow? That is the adjournment debate, is it not?
That is the Chair's recollection.
At the beginning of this week, when Fianna Fáil were asked to take urgently two Bills, one of our conditions, when I was approached by the Government Whip on Monday evening about the debate on the social employment scheme, was that we would get to see the details. We got that assurance. It is social welfare legislation, while section 3 technically deals with the PRSI arrangements for workers to be employed under the social employment scheme. How can we debate regulations under a scheme when we have not the details of the scheme? We agree with the principle of anything that helps to reduce unemployment, but we do not know who the employers will be. I know that the National Manpower Service cannot operate the system, because they have not the capacity to do so. That being so, will the local authorities be the employers? If a person works with the local authorities for three weeks and with the health boards for three weeks, how are his or her contributions going to be dealt with?
We got assurance from the Minister on Second Stage yesterday that this major new initiative would be brought into operation in the coming months and that his colleague, the Minister for Labour, would be giving an outline of the scheme in the House on the following day — today. I did not come into the House for the Second Stage debate, deciding to wait to hear what the Minister would say in the House today. How can I, as spokesman on Labour, debate a scheme of which I have no details? The purpose here, I am told, is to give amending legislation to the Department of Social Welfare to allow the scheme to operate. What scheme and what employer, and where is the Minister of State for Labour? This is absurd. This is rushing through important legislation — a major initiative, according to the Minister's speech — and we have no details. The next chance that I shall get to comment on this matter will probably be in the debate on the budget speech next March. It is very unfair, unreasonable and sharp practice to rush through a Bill under certain conditions and then totally renege on those conditions.
One of the major planks of the booklet, Building on Reality, was that 10,000 people were to be taken off the social register and given social type employment. This led to hope that something was going to be done about the unemployed. I repeat that we are talking about people getting a certain type of employment, but who are the people, where will they be working and what types of jobs will they be doing? What is the future outlook for them?
We would have to seriously consider, on this side of the House, continuing with the debate on this legislation. We are talking about shapes but not about the inside flesh of the scheme. I want to know more about it.
I agree with my colleagues. We have been very badly deluded in relation to this Bill. As my colleagues have said, the Minister absolutely assured us on Second Stage that the Minister for Labour would be giving an outline of the scheme on the following day and that, for that reason, he did not propose to go into any great detail on the scheme. He just mentioned aspects of the scheme.
We expected to get from the Minister for Labour today absolute details of this scheme, so that we could debate them and express our views. We have been very seriously led astray on this. I do not think that we can continue with this debate. We will not have another opportunity for debating this before the legislation is passed, unless the Minister for Labour can be produced to us.
Both the Minister, Deputy Quinn, and the Minister of State, Deputy Birmingham, are fulfilling Ireland's obligations in the Presidency of the EC. It is unreasonable to suggest that they should abandon those positions to be here, particularly when we benefit so much from the area of the Social Fund to which both Members are at present applying themselves.
But why rush through the Bill when they are not here?
On that point, we are told every day of the week that unemployment is a very urgent problem, with which I fully agree. We are told that the Government should do something very urgently. We are doing so, but the Opposition are asking why the rush.
We are not.
Do not pull that one on us.
The Deputies just cannot have it both ways. It would be a nice debating point that the schemes should be debated first. But then perhaps Members would be asking what the framework was on which these schemes would operate. They might say that we should not discuss the schemes until we see that legislative framework. What we are doing here is trying to get the legislative framework or foundation within which these schemes would operate. The exact details of the schemes are still being worked out.
That is the truth of it.
They will be finalised in their finer points and details within the next few days. Deputies will have plenty of opportunities early in the new year to debate the whole scheme in general. At that stage they will know the legislative framework. The social employment scheme is one of a number of special Government measures designed to cater for the specific needs of the longterm unemployed. Chapter 4 of the national plan, paragraphs 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 provides for the setting up of a social employment scheme. Because the majority of existing training in employment schemes cater for the under 25 age group, it was decided to confine participation in the social employment scheme to the over 25 age group, except in very exceptional circumstances like special skill requirements.
In order that progress may be made I will outline the principle features of the scheme. It will offer part time work on a two and a half day basis for one year. Participants will be paid £70 per half week. In addition, a contribution towards the cost of supervision and materials will be available. The gross cost of the scheme in any one year with a participation rate of 10,000 people will be £57 million. There will be a build up of participants under the scheme. The amount being sought for 1985 is £29.5 million. Projects will be submitted for consideration by the public sector and voluntary organisations. It is anticipated that local authorities will be the biggest sponsors of projects, but other areas such as tourism, educational and support services are also expected to provide projects under the scheme.
Projects submitted for consideration must be of a non-profit making character and be identifiable as a benefit to the community. In no circumstances will any project be eligible where it is clearly in substitution for existing employment. This condition will be applied vigorously so that existing workers will not lose their jobs or have their hours of work and consequently their pay reduced because their employers availed themselves of the scheme.
The scheme will be administered by the National Manpower Service of the Department of Labour. The details of the scheme are being finalised. That is just a general outline. It is not quite in order on this section, but in view of the questions which were asked I thought it would be appropriate and helpful to give that outline in order to make progress on the Bill.
That outline was helpful. However, I must correct the Minister of State. It is wrong of him to try to say that we are being unhelpful on this matter. On the contrary, this Bill appeared on Monday morning. We know that 17 per cent of the workforce is unemployed. It has gone up by 8 per cent in the last 12 months. We now have the highest unemployment level in Europe. We will co-operate with any provision to alleviate that position that the Government might bring in.
When we were told at the beginning of the week that this legislation was to be rushed through we said we would co-operate. We did that on the basis that we would have an opportunity to talk about this major new initiative. All we know about it is what the Minister of State has told us, and that basically was in the national plan.
I asked who would administer the scheme and was told it would be the National Manpower Service. I know the problems they have. I imagine the reason why the Minister for Labour is not here today is that there are no details of the scheme but what happened was that the Department of Social Welfare were asked some months ago how they would handle a scheme such as that outlined in the national plan. They worked out a scheme and that is what we are talking about today. This Bill is totally isolated from what we thought we would be taking under this legislation. We were further confused, so do not blame us. We were told yesterday that this major new initiative would be outlined by the Minister for Labour during the course of the passage of the Bill. The Government told us that. I have sympathy with the Minister of State who had to come in and try to handle what the Minister for Labour ran away from. I know that the Minister is in Brussels. We do not want him to come back, because the business of the nation is important, but surely he had a script. We would not mind waiting for a few minutes if the officials wish to get that script. The Minister of State could then read it. Where is it? It must be somewhere.
The Minister of State only told us what was in the national plan, but that is not new information. How seriously can we debate a new scheme if we do not have details of it? I am concerned about the long term unemployed, the hardship, deprivation and poverty that we have this Christmas. That is why I want to debate it. I do not want to be told I have no function in it. I was told in the House when I asked about it last October that we could debate it within a few weeks. The House adjourns tomorrow. When we come back, we will have the budget debate and then the Finance Bill and then a Social Welfare Bill to deal with other matters and other legislation. We are being treated extremely unfairly. Our Whip is now in the House. He knows the basis on which we agreed to take this legislation. We agreed to take the legislation relating to the Central Bank, which was dangerous legislation. It was rushed through in a few hours.
We do not know anything about this legislation. We do not have any details. What is the scheme? Who will run it? What categories will be involved? How many women will be covered in it? We want to know about the various social welfare schemes that would affect women but not men. We have been treated appallingly all this week. I am Opposition spokesman for Labour but I have nothing to contribute if the Minister of State has no more details.
On the last point Deputy Ahern mentioned, as far as the Chair is concerned this is the Social Welfare Bill being sponsored by the Minister for Social Welfare. It deals with a number of things. The Chair can only look at the Bill as it is before the House in deciding what is and what is not in order. In order to safeguard the Chair in the future about this, if a scheme was brought in on this Bill by the Department of Labour the Chair is anything but certain that a detailed — I emphasise the word "detailed"—discussion on such a scheme would be in order on this Bill.
I accept that, but would the Chair agree, as an experienced and very articulate legislator in Opposition, that when there is a Second Stage of a Bill and the main thrust of that Bill is about unemployment, it is only a technicality that is brought in under another Department? The scheme is about the long term unemployed and how to reduce the numbers on the register. It is to be operated by the National Manpower Service. We were told we would be given the details but now we find we are not being given any.
I purposely did not contribute on Second Stage so that I could come in when I heard what the Minister for Labour said about the scheme. I have the speech I intended to deliver yesterday with me but I gave way to my colleagues.
If it was not for the fact that the Minister for Health and Social Welfare said on a number of occasions yesterday that particulars of a scheme would be given today, I would have ruled the discussion that is taking place out of order long ago.
I would have spoken yesterday. All I say now is that if the Minister for Social Welfare asked one of his officials to get the script it could have been read in the House today by the Minister and I would have been quite happy.
I think Deputy Ahern has made a very reasonable request. It seems that the Government have put the cart before the horse. With due respect to the Department of Social Welfare, it seems that they have done their business, that they have looked at what effect this type of scheme will have for the Department and they have put this Bill before us. We had something similar in the maternity protection legislation. The Minister for Labour brought in the overall legislation and the Department of Social Welfare later told what effects that would have on the social welfare code. The Department of Social Welfare and the Minister of State who is here have done their job but they have put the cart before the horse. We are as anxious as the Minister is to see this done. We want to see that the framework is right and to look at the welfare provisions in the light of the overall scheme. Not only do we want to see that the framework is right but it would be important for the success of the scheme that people are attracted to it. If the voluntary bodies, local authorities and organisations are to be involved, it is important at this stage for them to know precisely what is involved for them and the effect it will have on them.
I note from what the Minister of State said recently that the cost will be in the region of £58 million. What appears to be going on here is a gimmick and a facesaver for the Government, a pretence that something is being done about unemployment. Everyone knows that in the Land Commission and in the forestry division people are losing jobs day by day because the Government will not provide even £1 million to keep them in employment. Deputy Leyden here a few days ago raised the abolition of the Land Commission and its effect on the people employed there. All of those people are being thrown out of work at a time when we are producing a face saving exercise, a public relations gimmick. This is because the money to maintain them in employment has not been provided. We cannot run away from this today. The Minister for Labour has responsibility to tell us details of what he proposes to do in this so that we can get some indication of the impact it will have on social welfare payments and of what discussion we can have on this Bill before us. This is just another Government exercise at whitewashing their total neglect to deal with issues that need to be faced.
I agree with Deputy Daly. People asked during the American Presidential elections, "Where is the meat?" It is not in this Bill.
A Deputy
Where is the beef?
It is in Libya.
Will Deputies please debate the matter before them.
You, Leas-Cheann Comhairle, were not here when we were discussing this with the Ceann Comhairle. We have not got the details and the Department of Social Welfare are doing their best to bring forward here a Bill which is totally unacceptable and it is not catering for the scheme. Can the Minister inform the House that the Department of Labour will bring forward legislation to provide for this arrangment in relation to taking on 10,000 people for schemes? That is important. Will the Minister of State say now that the Minister for Labour will bring before this House a detailed Bill which will allow our spokepersons and our party to discuss in detail the long term implications of this scheme?
The point made by Deputy Daly is relevant to the overall situation. This is merely a window-dressing operation. In reality, and "building on reality", the semi-State organisations and the state Departments, including the Land Commission, are shedding their employees. Now we have a Bill coming before the House saying we are going to create 10,000 jobs when the Land Commission are laying off men just before Christmas and making them redundant while those men could be kept on if money was provided for them to maintain their jobs. Some of those workers were earning not much more than £70 a week net, yet those men are being laid off by this Government who have the hypocrisy to come into this House to bring in a half measure, a window-dressing exercise, a whitewashing exercise to try to quell a growing revolution among the young unemployed. There is a feeling among the people that something must be done. They will take to the streets unless this Government do something, and just before Christmas the Government bring in a Bill under the Department of Social Welfare which has no basis in reality because it does not deal with schemes or the overall plan promised by the Government. As an Opposition party we face difficulty in dealing with social welfare legislation when we should be dealing with the job crisis. I put it to the Minister that if he would intercede with the Land Commission he would maintain many worthwhile jobs which would be fulltime and long term.
Bord Telecom Éireann propose to shed around 4,000 jobs in the next 12 months. How realistic is it then to talk about creating 10,000 short term jobs when we are shedding 4,000 long term, permanent jobs in the communications business? We are shedding them in the Land Commission, in Irish Shipping and in all other semi-State organisations. This Bill is unrealistic. We are concerned about employment. That is why we are here prepared to debate this issue. It is not fair of the Minister of State to say that in some way we are delaying this Bill.
Like Deputy Ahern, I came in here yesterday to speak on Second Stage of this Bill. I did not speak because I was assured twice in the course of the Minister's speech that the Minister or a Minister of State from the Department of Labour would be here today to give us details of the scheme. I am a member of a county council who want to employ people. Constituents of mine, men and women in County Westmeath, are awaiting details of these jobs. I would take a line slightly different from that taken by my colleagues and suggest that if we could hear the details of the scheme we might know who would get the jobs and what they would be doing. This is all a charade. I do not blame the Minister of State. He came in with his little bit of business to do. I do not know if he will get it done, but we are engaged in a charade. We are talking about something we know nothing about.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, before you occupied the Chair Deputy Ahern put a very reasonable suggestion to the Minister of State, Deputy Pattison, and asked if it was possible for him to get the script which the Minister for Labour might be reading here. Is it possible to have that script in the House so that the Minister could read it and at least could give us information which we require? Surely the Minister of State is in a position to reply to that. I did not hear him reply. If that understanding is reached we can continue to discuss the Bill, but to do so is impossible at present. I was the last speaker here last night, and the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Deputy Desmond, said that it was hoped that the Minister for Labour would be here today. It is unfair that the Minister of State present should say that we are trying to obstruct the process. That comment should be withdrawn. I am asking the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare to reply to Deputy Ahern's question. Is it possible to provide this document?
Again let me say that the social welfare aspects of the scheme must be settled before the scheme can come into operation, otherwise nobody would know what his or her position was in regard to PRSI arrangements and insurability under the Social Welfare Acts. Some Deputies have expressed concern about insurability and I have clarified the matter there, as it was necessary to clarify it before the final details of the scheme could be worked out.
In reply to Deputy Walsh, let me say that I have already explained the reasons why both the Minister for Labour and the Minister of State cannot be here today. It was hoped that if the Minister were available a token Estimate for his Department would be introduced on which he would speak. It was not the intention that the Minister would speak during the debate on the Bill since it is a Department of Social Welfare Bill. However, that has not been possible but it should be possible to have the social welfare aspect cleared out of the way. That is a prerequisite to the introduction of the schemes.
I have been in public life for a long time and during that time I have been asked continuously why the Government of the day do not take action to provide work for the unemployed. I am sure other Deputies have had the same experience. I have been asked why the State pay out so much money to be unemployed without being able to devise schemes to provide some work for them. I have never been able to answer that question.
But where are the schemes?
I am coming to that. It would be impossible under our social welfare legislation to do what everyone seems to want us to do and that is why we are amending some aspects of our social welfare law. This will remove some of the impediments in relation to the insurability of the kind of employment we have in mind and to the difficulties of people refusing to take up such employment. As the legislation stands, if people refuse to take up employment they can be disqualified from receiving benefit. Deputy De Rossa raised that point, too.
But where are the jobs?
A Deputy opposite said that we were putting the cart before the horse. The Deputy must appreciate the necessity in the first place for making these changes in our social welfare code.
We have the cart but no horse.
There would not be much point in talking about schemes that we could not implement and we could not implement anything in this line without first amending the social welfare code.
The respective Bills should have been introduced together. Let us provide the jobs first and then deal with the legislation.
We could hardly have two debates in progress in the House at the same time.
This is only a rushed job.
We are dealing with section 3 of the Bill which proposes to change certain aspects of the social welfare legislation in order to enable people to take up certain types of employment and to enable them to refuse employment if they so wish, something that is not possible for them under the existing code. We are proposing also to enable people to leave the employment of their own free will. Without these changes, the schemes could not come into operation.
Will the Minister please tell us what the schemes are?
This is social welfare legislation. I have pointed out in as much detail as possible the schemes that will be available.
The Minister read from the national plan. We read that months ago.
I emphasise again that there is no point talking about schemes if the necessary amending legislation is not enacted. I do not see why anyone should wish to block these changes in the social welfare code. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss the schemes when details of them are announced. Everyone's contribution will welcome.
I take the point that we are all here trying to create employment. What we are doing is a contribution in that direction. Nobody has claimed that in this way we are providing the answer to the unemployment problem but it is a positive effort. I am not aware of any alternative scheme being proposed. Again, I appeal to Members to allow us implement these necessary amendments to the social welfare code. It can be argued that the present code is in some ways preventing certain forms of employment in that schemes could be devised if the legislation were otherwise. We tell people who are unemployed that if they are to continue to obtain benefit they must not be employed even in a voluntary capacity, but we are trying to change that.
There appears not to be any great interest in the House in the legislation.
We have gone out of our way to accommodate the Government on this Bill because we realise the importance of any step that can be taken to create employment and in particular to take young people off the dole queues. Yesterday the Minister for Social Welfare expressed his gratitude to us for the way in which we had facilitated him in allowing the Bill to go through. The Minister talked about a major new initiative which would be brought into operation in the coming months by the Minister for Labour who would be giving an outline of the scheme in the House today. He went on to say that for that reason he did not propose to go into any great detail other than to mention aspects that were relevant to the proposals in this Bill.
We have been conned. Having tried to accommodate the Government in every way in the interests of the people who might get jobs as a result of the legislation, we had hoped to be given some details of the scheme. We have all read this document of unreality in which the scheme is referred to in very vague outline. That is all the Minister for State has been able to read to us today. What is contained in that document makes no sense. We need to have details of the scheme, details of the type of employment that will be available and so on. For instance, are the jobs concerned to be non-profit type jobs — in other words, basically community work? We consider that we have been badly deceived by the Government.
In so far as we have been able to do so we have discussed this Bill. We are not blocking it. We know practically nothing about the scheme the Government are referring to. If this Bill passes and is of benefit to social welfare recipients that is good, but we cannot discuss it further as we have not been given the details of the scheme. Last Monday we were asked to participate in social welfare legislation which had as its main thrust a new scheme which the Minister would outline during the course of the debate. I did not speak on the Second Stage of the Bill because I understood that the Minister would come in here today to outline the details of the scheme so that we could debate the various amendments that would be necessary in the social welfare code. We have done that so far as we can.
Neither the Minister for Labour nor the Minister of State is here to give us the details. At the start of the debate this morning I requested that if neither Minister could be here, if both had to be in Brussels doing the nation's business, the script which was meant to have been read by the Minister for Labour or his junior Minister could be read by the Minister of State in the Department of Social Welfare. That request was refused. Each time we made points and asked for details we were quoted the section of the national plan which we have known about since 3 October. This leads us to believe that the Government wish to pass a Bill in the event of a scheme coming forward and that the reason there is no Minister and no script is because the scheme has not yet been worked out. The Department of Social Welfare in isolation from the Department of Labour were asked what would it mean for social welfare legislation, if there was a scheme whereby people who were unemployed for over 12 months were to work two-and-a-half days a week and to put that into a Bill. They have done that exercise, but how can we go any further?
How can we debate legislation to implement a scheme when we do not know anything about the scheme other than that it will be run by the Department of Labour and secondly that it will be administered by the National Manpower Service? We know that the Manpower service have not the manpower or the resources to implement the scheme. All we know about the scheme is that it cannot be implemented and we are asked to debate it. We cannot do so. We are in a total vacuum and cannot go any further. This Bill will probably pass by default without our efforts. Either there is no scheme or the Government want to introduce it without debate in this House, by blocking our right to debate it.
When the national plan came out on 3 October we were told the big issue was that in a matter of weeks 10,000 people would be off the unemployment register. It would provide jobs in local authority areas through environmental work schemes and so on. That was in October, and we were told that we would have a chance to debate it within weeks. Today, three months later, we are told we will be able to debate it some time in the new year, when we know that the budget, the Finance Bill and the Social Welfare Bill will take up all the time of the next session.
We have been totally misled. We cooperated in relation to this legislation; we were treated shabbily and undemocratically. As far as we are concerned we have no further contribution to make to this debate. This Bill will pass by default, and I hope it does because the Department of Social Welfare obviously feel that it is necessary to comply with something they have in mind.
The Minister sent in here this morning has been totally misled. I saw the Minister looking around earlier to see if some of his colleagues would come in to help him, but not one Member of the Government has come in.
(Interruptions.)
One Minister came in and when he realised what happened he took off at speed. That is the way we have been dealt with. In future we will think twice before we come into this House to discuss imaginary legislation. When the details of the scheme come out perhaps time will be given to debate it, but until then we can play no further part in this debate.
We have literally fallen over backwards to accommodate the Government to allow this enabling Bill to go through. I am satisfied about the social welfare aspects of it. I sympathise with the Minister of State, Deputy Patterson, because he has been totally isolated by his colleagues. Two Departments are involved here. The Social Welfare Department have done their job in great detail but the Minister for Labour and his colleague totally failed us. We were conned into believing that we would get the details.
We would do anything to help the Government create jobs. We will do anything to help improve the employment situation, but we have been deceived and there is no purpose in us continuing. I am satisfied that the social welfare details have been given but the details which we were assured would be furnished by the Department of Labour have not been given. There is no representative from the Department of Labour to give the Minister a hand. I feel sorry for the Minister, but we will have to withdraw from the debate as we cannot discuss this any further.
This is a Social Welfare Bill and as such it is my responsibility as Minister of State to deal with it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister in response to a query on section 3 said——
Is section 3 agreed?
I understood it was passed.
Do you only want to refer to section 4?
Yes. The Minister in responding to the debate on section 3 referred to the disqualification of persons who would refuse employment under this section, in response to a query I raised. The Minister said that this Bill to amend the social welfare legislation would ensure that such persons were not disqualified. The only section of this Bill that might cover that is section 4. Could the Minister explain in what way this section prevents people from being disqualified for refusing to take on jobs of this nature?
Section 4 provides that participants in the SES shall be disqualified from receiving unemployment assistance for the remainder of the week during their participation in the scheme. This means that workers employed under the scheme will not be eligible to draw assistance for the remainder of any week. The £70 will be paid in lieu of assistance and the scheme is being funded on that basis. The worker concerned can take employment for the remainder of each week, if he or she can get it.
I understood that a person who would refuse a job under the scheme would be disqualified from unemployment benefit, but the Minister assured me that will not occur. He indicated that the Bill will prevent it from occurring. In sections 2, 3 and 4 I cannot see any provision which would do this, and there could not be a provision in the other sections because they only deal with wet time.
The essential point is that if a person does not wish to take a job he or she will not be knocked off unemployment asistance as a consequence. It is not in the Bill but it is a feature of the scheme.
I am afraid the Minister attempted to mislead the House earlier when he said the Bill would prevent the knocking off of people from unemployment assistance. If it is not provided for in the Bill, why has there been all this talk about the necessity to get the legislation through? The Minister must know that the managers of exchanges will be interpreting the law in relation to people's rights — they will not be interpreting what the Minister or I said in the House.
The scheme is voluntary — that is the whole point of it. No one will be forced to take a job and there will be no discrimination against a person who refuses one. Even when the job might suit a person he will not be knocked off unemployment benefit if he refuses it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
This relates to repayments of contributions paid into the Wet Time Fund by employers. What is the position there — will the Exchequer be at a loss as a result of repayments?
This section amends section 257 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981 and the amount of the wet time contributions are repayable by the Minister. Formal applications must be made for such repayments. At the moment there is no time limit for such repayments, but this Bill provides for a limit of three months following the abolition of the scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides for the making of an Exchequer grant to the Wet Time Fund in 1985 to cover the cost of any claims outstanding on the abolition of the scheme which cannot be met out of the Wet Time Fund. At present the Wet Time Fund is financed by way of equal contributions from employers and workers. However, the recession in the construction, engineering and painting trades in recent years has seriously affected the financial situation of the fund. It is estimated that the amount in the fund at the end of 1984 will be of the order of £20,000. This will not be sufficient to meet the cost of outstanding claims and therefore it will be necessary to meet this cost from the Department's Vote. It is not possible to say precisely what amount will be required, but it is proposed that a sum of £0.5 million should be provided for this purpose, any unexpended amount being repaid to the Exchequer at the end of the year. This section, therefore, amends section 269 of the 1981 Act by the insertion of two new subsections.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and passed.