Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

Last October, the Labour Party tabled a Private Members' motion calling for action on tackling the jobs crisis. Back then the problem was obvious. We had an extra 100,000 people on the dole in the previous 12 months. The solution was obvious. We needed an urgent response from the Government, such as a jobs plan, a training plan, an income plan, and a completely new approach to the needs of the unemployed. The truth is we did not get any plan.

The budget, the smart economy document, social partnership talks, the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis and the Green Party national conference have all come and gone and still there is no announcement of a jobs plan. The October budget focussed on cutting back supports for the unemployed rather than reinforcing them. The draft framework for a pact for stabilisation, social solidarity and economic renewal, stated, "We will convene a jobs and skills summit in March 2009 to devise innovative approaches to the maintenance of employment, the creation of new employment and early and active engagement with those losing their jobs." Where is that? It has not happened. Crazy as it is, it is still the policy of the Government that one must be long-term unemployed before one is eligible for key supports. How can a welfare system that promotes dependency ever hope to succeed?

In the meantime, the dole queues have grown longer. A total of 44 social welfare offices have recorded a doubling of their live register number in the past 12 months. The numbers signing on at a dozen welfare offices have trebled since the last general election. The processing times for jobseeker claims have also grown longer. The average wait per social welfare office for jobseeker's allowance claims is now six weeks, while 17 social welfare offices have a waiting time of two months or longer. The waiting times for self-employed people are particularly long.

Pressure of numbers has led to the awful sight of long queues of newly unemployed people stretching down the main streets of our towns in the cold and rain. There are very practical steps that could be taken on this specific issue. One step is to schedule appointments so that queuing time is minimised. Another is to have sufficient indoor waiting accommodation either in the social welfare office itself or closeby. People are entitled to be treated with dignity by the State. Another practical step is to provide better supports and to insist on better returns from the social welfare branch offices. At branch offices, which are run on a contract basis by private individuals, the local branch manager determines staffing levels. Therefore, while there have been some extra personnel processing claims in local offices, it is not clear how many, if any, extra staff have been employed by branch managers.

In 2008, branch managers were allocated €9 million between them to deal with claims on behalf of the Department and we are entitled to ask where is that money going when the processing times are so dreadful. Of the 17 social welfare offices that have processing times of more than two months, 15 of these are branch offices. Either the Minister is not supporting branch offices enough, or the branch managers are not employing enough staff. There has to be a serious question mark over whether this system is working and whether there is sufficient flexibility at times of high demand. Wherever the fault lies, it is the responsibility of the Minister to ensure every jobseeker can expect to have his or her claim dealt with speedily at his or her local office, no matter who is running it.

This motion is about urging the Government to get up off its backside and confront this problem. There are several areas where urgent action is needed. For a start, it is time to reform the back-to-work supports, such as the back to education allowance and the back-to-work enterprise allowance. These supports were established to tackle long-term unemployment, which consists of people who have been out of work for a year or more. In the case of the back to education allowance, the usual waiting period for an applicant applying for a third level course is one year, although it can be even longer depending on when a course begins. For the back-to-work enterprise allowance, the usual waiting period is two years. These rules need to be changed. The welfare system should be about preventing long-term unemployment rather than promoting it. It should be possible for those who have been made unemployed to avail of these schemes within three or four months of losing their jobs.

People who have received statutory redundancy are already permitted to avail of these schemes immediately. Therefore, the principle is already accepted. However, we know that many people do not receive statutory redundancy in this day and age. What is the argument for precluding those people from access to these allowances? The enterprise allowance would be revenue neutral if the business lasted five years and would pay itself back sooner than that, if the business resulted in the recruitment of additional staff.

Last year, the Labour Party brought forward its idea of an earn-and-learn scheme. The idea is that where a person is on a short-term working contract, he or she would be enabled to take up a training or education place for the days in which he or she was not employed. Job retention schemes along similar lines are operating successfully in the Netherlands, and we could adopt those as a model.

In addition, it can be difficult for people who want to keep occupied while unemployed to conform to the current eligibility rules for jobseeker's benefit. One employer contacted me last week to complain that a former employee, a jobseeker who he let go because of falling revenue, contacted him asking if he could work for free for two hours, three days a week. He was still available for other work and actively seeking it. He just did not want to be idle. When they inquired with the local social welfare office about this, they were laughed at. Obviously, we could not have a scenario in which a job was being replaced, but at the same time, our welfare system should place a value on people keeping occupied while they are looking for work. Very soon we could have 400,000 people doing nothing, because that is what the current rules require them to do.

The suggestion that appeared in yesterday's Irish Independent to recruit teacher apprentices is worth considering for unemployed graduates. Graduates gain work experience in their own field and are paid €20,000, which is the cost of each job that is lost to the economy. It is an idea that could work across all sections of the Government and with all professions. For example, it could be applied to accountants taken on by the Revenue Commissioners, architects and planners in local authorities, occupational therapists and other therapists in day centres and many grades in the health services.

Another pro-jobs initiative would promote the use of career breaks and flexible working arrangements. Not since 1980 have we had such a surge in births. There have been 72,300 births in the 12 months to last April, while 165,000 have joined the dole queues in the past year. That presents a scenario in which many people do not have enough work, while many others have too much. Career breaks are rarely offered to employees outside the public service. A scheme should be introduced that provides incentives to employers to offer career breaks or flexible working arrangements, while providing employees with a legal entitlement to their jobs back and security on other issues when that leave ends. For example, employees do not qualify for social insurance credits if they take career breaks, and that could be tackled. In recent months some employers have chosen this option, most notably the Irish Examiner.

The choice to take time out, that many young parents and other carers would like to make, is not an option for many and has little legal protection for those who have that choice. Promoting and delivering on such a scheme would make more room in the workforce, reduce unemployment and provide flexibility to families and carers when they need it.

The Government should also reform community employment. There is a great opportunity to match several sets of needs by expanding the number of community employment places. One in three of those on the live register is a former construction worker or from that general sector. Within that cohort, there are several thousand workers who are over 50 years of age and have general trade and handyman skills. There is a significant demand among this group to find fulfilling employment in the social economy sector. At the same time, there is no State scheme of assistance for senior citizens who cannot manage minor repair jobs to their homes. Not everyone can rely on family members. Very often these jobs are funded by a community welfare officer and the additional cost to the State of expanding community employment is not substantial.

The needs of early school leavers must also be addressed. In particular, we should not allow the situation where the first act of a school leaver is to sign on the dole. There should be an entitlement for every school leaver to a place in employment or training. Financial support should be contingent on meaningful participation in such courses.

As part of any such measure, the Government must lift the cap on post leaving certificate courses using a portion of the funds set aside for the 51,000 training places for newly unemployed people. At present there is a total cap of 30,000 on post leaving certificate course numbers. The City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee stated that there is a significant demand for places with 3,000 students enrolled over and above the numbers of places for which there is funding. The cost of providing extra places is marginal as most of the infrastructure and services already exist. Similarly, the cap of 5,000 on the vocational training opportunities scheme should be lifted.

There are many other areas that deserve Government attention. The national development plan must be dissected again, audited for the number of jobs it can create, and re-prioritised on that basis. The Government should ensure that local employment services are extended throughout the country as I still hear of people turned away for financial assistance on the basis of their address. Every unemployed person should also be guaranteed access to the services of a career coach with appropriate human resource training. The Government must also review the criteria it uses to judge projects it funds through public procurement procedures. We must give the greatest weighting possible to recruiting unemployed people and local labour. Finally, start-up grants for new business are not sufficiently geared towards modern businesses and should be reformed accordingly.

The point of the motion is that there is more to Government than simply balancing the books. The Government has been obsessed with balancing the books in recent months and has completely neglected the jobs crisis affecting tens of thousands of citizens. The 200,000 people that have joined the live register since the last general election are stuck in a system that was designed for a different era and it is time to change that system.

If the Government is serious about taking up ideas from the Opposition and dealing with our problems in a non-partisan way, it will listen tonight. It is not possible to solve the budgetary crisis without solving the jobs crisis. The Government should give us a national plan now and let us get on with getting people back to work.

See this speech in context