Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I accept that.

We are opposed to this section generally because the philosophy behind it seems to be that if one cuts young people's social welfare sufficiently, one will force them out to work and into training places, which are available in abundance for them. The problem is depicted as a lack of ambition among the young and not a lack of opportunity and that there are plenty of jobs, plenty of training places, etc., and that if one squeezes people sufficiently, all those lazy people will stop sitting in front of flat screen televisions seven nights per week and avail of the opportunities there.

The difficulty with that philosophy is that there are different estimates of how many training places, education places, etc., we are short but there is consensus on one thing, that is, we are short of training and education places and that there are not nearly enough such places for everybody who wants to avail of one. If somebody genuinely cannot get a training or an education place and is under 26 years of age and in receipt of jobseeker's allowance, cutting that allowance will not create any extra employment. How will it create extra employment if the training or education place is not there?

In regard to employment, there are 32 applicants for every job vacancy. If one cuts somebody's dole, or jobseeker's allowance, and he or she gets on his or her bike, as advised by Norman Tebbit many years ago, and eventually manages to get a job, what about the other 31? If there are genuinely no jobs for people, how will cutting their social welfare create those jobs?

It also seems to have escaped the Government's attention that many, among the army of young unemployed, are highly qualified people - graduates, people with honours degrees, masters degrees, doctorates and professional qualifications. They do not need any further training or education; they need a job. If, with the best will in the world, they cannot get a job, which should not surprise anybody, how will cutting their social welfare create more jobs and tackle the unemployment crisis?

The only way I see it working is that if social welfare for those for whom training places are not available and for whom a job is not available - educated people, in particular, who do not need further training and education - is cut sufficiently, they will be encouraged to emigrate. That will make the unemployment figures look better, which seems to be the thinking behind this proposal. If it is otherwise, I would like to hear the Government's justification for it.

See this speech in context