The Tanaiste, Ms Harney's, presentation of the Coalition Government's new policy on the long-term unemployed has drawn a predictably mixed response from the Opposition parties at Leinster House. In a society which has endured unacceptably-high levels of unemployment for generations, talk of putting people off the dole after six or twelve months is certain to generate political controversy. Yet it may have been the tone, rather than the content, of the Tanaiste's speech which caused greater upset. Encouraging and facilitating young people to participate in training and work-experience programmes has been part of the system for some years. But it represented a " carrot", rather than a "stick" approach to those in the 18 and 19 year-old age group. In threatening loss of benefit and a get-tough approach to those who refuse work, work experience or further education, Ms Harney undoubtedly appeals to a fairly widespread sentiment throughout the community at large.
There is no denying that abuse exists within the system - perhaps extensively - and that people who are not seriously seeking work are drawing the dole. It is also true that a labour shortage is beginning to develop within the economy because of its phenomenal growth rates. But the jobs that become available are not necessarily suitable for unskilled persons. And the levels of pay offered in the services sector are frequently unappealing. In that context, it was apt that Ms Harney should deliver her controversial message to the annual conference of the Small Firms Association (SFA).
With the Government under pressure because of its minimum wage proposals and unlikely to deliver the corporation tax cuts or the £50m for training support schemes sought by the SFA, the Tanaiste addressed the unemployment issue. Few could take issue with the timely aims she set out, whatever about the implementation mechanisms she seems to envisage.
A new strategy, linking the Department of Social Welfare and FAS training schemes would be introduced in September, she said, and initially, people under 25 years of age who do not co-operate would be put off the dole. The State had no obligation to support such people and it didn't make sense in a buoyant economy that so many people were on the live register. Ms Harney continued : "I believe it's wrong for the tax payers, it's wrong for the economy generally that so many people would refuse reasonable offers of work and training and still remain on the live register and collect the dole cheque. That is not acceptable." Other considerations apart, if the Tanaiste has evidence that many people refuse reasonable offers of work and training and still draw the dole, she should communicate it to her Ministerial colleague at Social Welfare, Mr Dermot Ahern. Earlier this month, that Department introduced a standardised code of practice that would automatically exclude such people from the live register. There is no doubt that the social welfare system, as it interacts with the process of job creation, can benefit from further reforms and restructuring. The number out of work is still far too high and new jobs and training schemes must be matched to available labour. But, if at all possible, people should be encouraged, rather than driven, in the direction that will benefit all sections of society. There will always be some who will not be able to respond. A caring society will recognise that reality and provide for it, while rightly striving to eliminate indolence and fraud.