John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)

I welcome any initiative, however small, that will relieve the present horrendous position in which more than 400,000 people are unemployed. Even as matters stand, unemployment is destroying the social fabric of society and testing people's well-being to extremes. Moreover, in this context one should not forget that many more than 400,000 people will experience some form of poverty or deprivation or will suffer in some way because when one includes the families and children of those who are unemployed, up to 700,000 people are affected.

This afternoon, I tabled a priority question to the Minister for Social Protection pertaining to unemployment and social welfare benefits. It sought a guarantee that they would not be cut or interfered with, because that would drive people further into poverty, and that the Government would stick by the agreement its predecessor stated would alleviate poverty by 2016. Although I did not receive a straightforward answer, I agreed with one part of the Minister's reply to the effect that by creating employment with reasonable wages, poverty could be alleviated and spending in the economy could be generated. Were this to be done, the economy could be helped to grow twofold by reducing unemployment and poverty and not being obliged to pay out huge amounts of money on social welfare, while introducing spending into the economy.

I accept that the Government has been dealt a fairly bad hand by its predecessor, but it is unfortunate that I cannot discern initiatives that would alleviate unemployment. This goes back to the old Fianna Fáil way of providing courses and training schemes for the unemployed, who do not want courses and training schemes. Electricians, fitters, engineers and plumbers are being sent on courses to be retrained but for what? Where will they get work? They want jobs for which they are qualified. Were one to trawl through the 430,000 people who are unemployed, one will find many whose families have paid for them to go through university. However, such people now are being put on training schemes or courses to help them to re-educate themselves to get themselves employed. Years ago, FÁS used to teach people how to use the telephone and how to present themselves for interview. It was, and still is, pathetic. The facts speak for themselves. For instance, although only 20% of FÁS trainees have managed to get some form of work in the past five years, the comparable figure in Scotland is 48%. Yet, Members are aware that FÁS splashed out €643,000 in junkets over the past four years. Consequently, putting people on training courses will not fool anyone.

In common with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and many bodies, I accept that every million euros invested in infrastructure such as broadband, water conservation, home insulation and so on can create jobs. This is the direction we must take. We must opt to create sustainable, rather than part-time jobs. For example, an ISME survey found that one third of small to medium-sized businesses expect to shed jobs within the next 12 months owing to economic uncertainty, lack of finance and increasing cost to business. Moreover, more than 1,000 small businesses have been deemed to be insolvent since January 2010, resulting in significant job losses nationwide. It also has been revealed that 50% of businesses were refused credit by the banks to keep their business solvent within the past 12 months. One can ask any small business for the solution. Two of my friends, who employed seven people, closed their business in Waterford two weeks ago and they will point to rates and rent. They were paying €38,000 in rent per annum before paying rates or staff. They were obliged to let go seven staff and it will cost the Exchequer approximately €140,000 per year, or €20,000 per year each, to take those seven people out of employment and to put them in receipt of social welfare. If one thinks outside the box, small initiatives like forcing down the cost of rent or of rates come to mind. While there is an associated loss in revenue, there is a long-term gain because of the number of people who would not be placed on the live register. I do not understand who wrote the Minister's speeches or who came up with the jargon in the document I have to hand, but the mathematics appear simple. Although I am not a mathematician, if it costs the Government at least €20,000 between payments and statutory redundancy to put someone on the live register, why can it not come up with a few thousand euros to keep that person in work?

See this speech in context