Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

I am grateful for the Minister's remarks and I wish to make two brief points. In the context of her remarks about the troika and about the insistence and efficiencies, I suggest she would have a friend in court in the IMF, rather than perhaps among the ECB. The IMF was seen as the big bogeyman and when its officials came to this country there was all sorts of analyses suggesting they would be the people who would dismantle the Irish economy. In fact the emphasis in recent years, as the Minister will know, has been very much on the social dimension to ensure economies would not be dismantled and that there is a need to have a more balanced approach. It seems the Minister would have a friend in court in that the IMF would accept that there is a social dimension in this regard whereas the hard-nosed bankers of the ECB and the Commission, which does not seem to have any heart, would probably be against it.

My second point relates to a sector the Minister raised in the context of the CE schemes. The highest percentage of the unemployed, in the context of figures that the Minister mentioned, since 2008 and the bank crash has been in the construction sector. The figures are 37% to 40% or something of that nature. It is very high. The Construction Industry Federation, headed by Tom Parlon, stated recently that there is a very real concern that the skills and expertise that had been available to the Irish economy during the boom time could be lost because some people were moving to other areas if they can find opportunities, as the Minister said correctly, and many construction workers have emigrated to England to take up work generated by the Olympic Games. There is a building boom in several of the states in Australia. As a result, there is concern about the expertise available here having regard to the tiny green shoots that are beginning to appear. I do not believe we will ever get to the point where there will be a need for the type of building that occurred in the past but nearly all the multinational companies that have announced significant increases in jobs in recent months have stated they will extend their existing buildings, build new headquarters, etc. There are some positives in that regard and we must try to grasp them when we see them. The private sector has flatlined and will remain flatlined until the 18,000 or 19,000 vacant houses are filled, which could take years. I am merely repeating the point, without labouring it, that in the review I hope this aspect affecting mainly those worked in the construction sector will be considered. I am sure Senator Mullins and perhaps and even Senator Moloney and Senator Moran, who comes from an urban area, would agree that a large cohort of those who were employed in construction sector, either unskilled or semi-skilled, are invariably the people who will seek to participate in CE schemes and, aligned with the remarks the Minister made about local authorities providing more CE place, those people would be ideally placed to enhance their local environments because of the skill they have, even at an unskilled or semi-skilled level, and that would keep them here. I am sure my colleagues would agree that even though the money participants get is not a great amount, this country is their home, as it is ours, and it is where we live. The last thing people want to do is to consider emigrating. In terms of there being anything that could hold them here and retain them in their local communities, the real value of the CE schemes could be in a macro-economic context rather than considering a scheme to be just another scheme in isolation.

My final point is one that might bring a smile to the Minister's face in that we had a discussion on this last week. The Minister mentioned internships and there is a cohort of people who cannot avail of them, my son being one of them. He is unemployed and attending a FÁS course - please God he will be able to continue to be upskilled in the computer area - and was offered an internship in the broadcasting area. It seems he is following in my footsteps. He could not take it because he is living at home and because of our income he is debarred from signing on. The only way he can be considered for the internship is if he moves out of the house and has a separate address. The Minister said there are inflexibilities built into the entire social welfare code that she was attempting to address. I am not for one moment suggesting she will pluck this one out of the air and say she will do something about this, but I am grateful for her reassurance about addressing this area. I have said it before and will say it again, the Minister is the right person in the right job right now. I have no doubt whatsoever that she is examining the culture that has grown up over the years that has created these inflexibilities and I hope that she will in time be able to address them. There are people who are willing to work who are not a burden on the State, like my son and many others, who, given the opportunity, would make a useful contribution to society.