asked the Taoiseach the number of meetings of the Review and Monitoring Committee of the Programme for National Recovery, which have been held since the programme was agreed; the matters considered by the committee; if it is intended to give Dáil Éireann an opportunity to review the workings of the programme as it was approved by Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions Oral Answers. - Central Review Committee Meetings.
1.
Since its establishment in December last, the Central Review Committee, provided for under Section VII of the Programme for National Recovery, met on eight occasions. A further meeting is taking place this evening.
The purpose of the committee, as set out in the programme, is "to review and monitor the progress in implementing the programme and, in particular, the achievement of the targets and objectives of the programme". The committee has continued in its meetings to note progress on each of the specific measures contained in the programme and it has dealt in detail with specific items of concern to particular members of the committee.
A detailed joint Government-ICTU statement on the progress made under the Programme for National Recovery in realising the specific objectives for job creation and details of the major strategy developments under which jobs are being provided in the various sectors was issued and copies made available to the Oireachtas Library on 27 May last. A statement on further developments in achieving the job targets of the programme was issued by the Government on 7 October 1988 in connection with the end-September live register figures and copies of this statement are also available in the Oireachtas Library.
There are numerous occasions such as Adjournment debates and the debate on the Estimates when the progress of the Programme for National Recovery can be discussed by the House.
In view of the very serious figures that have been issued with regard to redundancies which have occurred during the past eight months, may I ask the Tánaiste whether he can seriously claim that the target of 20,000 manufacturing jobs in the programme is being met? Can he indicate whether the question of defining what exactly is meant by 20,000 extra manufacturing jobs has been raised at committee level?
The Deputy is raising a specific matter worthy of a separate question.
The Tánaiste gave specific information and I am questioning——
The question was a general one.
I emphasised that all the documentation in connection with the various reviews that have taken place is available in the Library and we are, of course, in constant communication with Congress. One of the outstanding achievements of the Government, if I may say so, has been the development of this co-operation and the confidence this has generated both at home and abroad in investment possibilities in this country. The single greatest achievement of the Government has been the national understanding and its continued progress.
Obviously the Tánaiste is not going to answer the question I put to him about the 20,000 extra manufacturing jobs.
The Ceann Comhairle answered that.
No, the Tánaiste indicated in his reply that the committee——
Deputy De Rossa, this must not lead to argument.
I was asking a question about the 20,000 extra manufacturing jobs.
If there are specific matters arising out of the programme the Deputy should put down questions.
May I ask the Tánaiste if the eight meetings he mentioned were of the full committee or simply of particular groups or sections of the social partners? Would he not agree that because the programme covered a very wide range of social and economic issues, was a major agreement and was debated and approved by this House, it would be in order for the House now to review progress under this programme?
This can be mooted by the joint committee of the Government and ICTU at the next meeting and what Deputy De Rossa has said can be brought to the attention of that meeting. I might say that Congress are having a full meeting with President Delors on the occasion of his visit here on Friday so that the utmost co-operation is maintained between Congress and the Government and between the Government, Congress and the European Commission. Excellent progress has been made along these lines. That is the way it is. We hope to keep it that way, enhance the contribution and ensure that a national understanding of this kind, which has been established, will become an integral part of the State's whole economic and social planning in the future.
Might I ask that the Tánaiste give the House information as to how many of the meetings to which he referred were with all of the social partners and how many were with individual social partners; how many were with the social partners meeting together and how many were with individual social partners? He was asked that question rather specifically.
That was not contained in the question but I can get the information for Deputies Higgins and De Rossa and furnish it in writing to them.
The Minister seems intent on dodging the specific issues I have raised. May I ask him specifically if the question of disadvantaged people in our society was raised by any of the social partners at any of those meetings? I refer specifically to education and health where it is clear that many thousands of people are being disadvantaged as a result of the policies being pursued by this Government. Would the Minister say whether that matter was dealt with at any of those meetings?
The Deputy can take it that the national understanding is a broad conceptual approach between all the social partners and the Government and that matters such as health and education and social developments in that and other areas are taken into account in developing and enhancing what is a national understanding, not just a wage agreement or an incomes understanding but a much wider understanding, including the elements mentioned by Deputy De Rossa.