Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Feb 1992

Vol. 416 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - Jobs Forum: Motion.

Mr. J. Bruton

I move:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to establish a Jobs Forum — representative of all parties and of the social partners — to deal with the employment crisis and, in particular, to

(a) prepare and publish a report, based on demographic data and projections on the prospects for employment and unemployment in Ireland over the next twenty years,

(b) receive, study and comment upon reports from the Government on the preparation and implementation of its plans to avail of the EC Structural Funds,

(c) receive, study and comment upon reports from the Government on education and training, employment legislation, systems of salary and wage determination, social insurance, the housing market, fiscal and regulatory burdens on small businesses, aspects of the social welfare code which inhibit part-time or short term working, and on all other regulations and policies which are considered by the Forum to influence the creation of new jobs,

(d) receive, study and comment upon reports from the Government on the programmed reduction of those business costs in Ireland which are greater than those obtaining in competitor nations in Europe, encompassing electricity, telecommunications, postal, transport, professional and service costs amongst others,

(e) receive, study and comment upon reports from the Government on the implementation of a programme of personal and corporate tax reform designed to make it attractive for a higher proportion of Ireland's young and talented workforce to remain at work here rather than emigrate and for employers to create job opportunities,

(f) receive, study and comment upon reports from the Government on the implementation of its programme to improve the structural efficiency of the main productive sectors of the economy, and to develop a cost-competitive transport and communications infrastructure which would reduce the cost handicaps deriving from Ireland's geographic position,

(g) monitor progress in the work of the task force recently set up to implement the Culliton report and of the Government's other task force on employment,

(h) based on the above studies, to seek to reach agreement on a comprehensive programme of structural reform of Irish society, designed to achieve both a higher long term level of economic growth, and a higher level of employment for any given level of economic activity, and

(i) to set and monitor a critical path for the implementation by Government of the programme referred to in paragraph (h) above and to establish criteria for the measurement of the results of this programme.

With the permission of the House, I wish to share my time with Deputies Therese Ahearn and Deenihan.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. J. Bruton

I hope to take about 20 minutes and the other Deputies may divide the remainder of the time.

Unemployment has now reached such crisis levels in Ireland that its seriousness transcends the normal cut and thrust of party politics in the House. There must be no place in politics in modern Ireland for the exploitation of the human misery, the humiliation or the long term poverty that is the result of being unemployed in Ireland in 1992. As far as politics are concerned, the time has come to do something about the problem rather than just talk about it. That is why Fine Gael are proposing a Jobs Forum in the very particular form of the motion before the House.

The purpose of the Jobs Forum is simple; it is to initiate a radical programme for the relief of Ireland's chronic unemployment problem. In so doing, we also hope to change Irish political life. We want long term thinking — thinking that goes beyond the life of one Government or, indeed, of one Dáil — to resume its proper place in Irish political life. It is short term thinking, thinking only of the next election, dictated by the needs of electoral politics or bureaucratic gamesmanship between one Government agency and another, that has prevented us from either foreseeing the jobs crisis or tackling it.

We should remember that our present jobs crisis was foreseeable 15 years ago. Fifteen years ago anybody who looked at the numbers in our schools or the number of families returning to live in this country, by a simple calculation, could have worked out that we would face an unemployment crisis of the kind we now face. The problem was foreseeable and it was foreseen yet, with 15 years' notice, we did nothing about it. Why was there no action? Because there was no forum in which politicians and policy makers could look beyond the next election at a problem of the kind that was building up before our eyes. Tonight, in the motion before the House, Fine Gael propose to establish such a forum.

There is one aspect of the terms of reference of the forum I wish to stress particularly. Paragraph (i) requires the forum to set and monitor a critical path for the implementation of their recommendations. In the past we had plenty of recommendations about jobs from task forces of various kinds and many of them have never been implemented. The time has come to start implementing recommendations through political action, and the requirement in the terms of reference of this forum is not just that the body should make recommendations but that it should also continue in being, regardless of which party are in Government at any given time, to oversee their implementation. That is what distinguishes the approach in this motion from any previous approach aimed at tackling the jobs crisis. Let there be no more reports, no more committees and no more task forces. We want politicians of all parties to take action to deal with the jobs crisis.

Fine Gael have no inflexible demands about the composition of the Jobs Forum. Our original proposal in June 1991 was for a Dáil select committee of 12 Members including the leaders of the political parties plus eight representatives of the social partners selected from the NESC; this would include representatives of the trade union movement, farmers, industry, etc. If the social partners are to be involved — and I believe they should be — then it is essential that in addition to those already represented on the NESC, the unemployed themselves must be directly represented, through the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed and perhaps other representation also. That is the approach I favour.

There is an alternative. We could go for the more simple approach adopted in the New Ireland Forum. The New Ireland Forum was set up between 1983 and 1987 by the Fine Gael-Labour Government to reach a consensus on an equally intractable problem — some might say even more intractable — that is, relations between this part of the island and Northern Ireland. That forum, which, apart from its impartial chairman, was composed exclusively of Members of this House, reached an unprecedented all-party consensus on an approach to the problem of Northern Ireland. The Anglo-Irish Agreement was born directly out of the work of the New Ireland Forum. The Anglo-Irish Agreement and the New Ireland Forum were a triumph of political maturity over narrow party gain. All parties in this House at the moment are now committed to the operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, due in no small part to the experience gained by Members in teasing out the problem in the New Ireland Forum.

Now Fine Gael seek in this House a similar consensus to launch an onslaught on the crippling effects of unemployment in Irish life, the poverty, the misery and the emptiness that result from 250,000 of our people not being able to find meaningful work.

Fine Gael seeks to inflict no undeserved wounds on the present Government, a Government which is now presiding over the worst jobless figures in Ireland's history. Instead, we seek to initiate an all-party crusade against the problem which none of us, let it be admitted, can solve on our own.

Ireland's recent record on employment is pitiful. Worse still, independent economists estimate that the prospects for the decade ahead are even worse. The NESC Report on Emigration, No. 90, predicts that in 1991 and 1992 the number reaching retirement age will be 50,000 fewer than the number reaching school leaving age, in other words, if we were to keep unemployment at 1990 levels we would have to create 50,000 extra jobs. We have not done that and, inevitably, the unemployment figure has risen; and that trend will continue. It is a trend that continued through the 1980s but we were able to export the problem through emigration.

The emigration safety value is no longer there. I believe that in the next two years there will be no net emigration from this country. The recession in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom is such that there are no jobs there for Irish emigrants. Indeed, even if the recession in those countries were to end, it is estimated by most economists that it will take at least 18 months after the end of the recession for there to be any improvement in the employment situation in those countries. That is the way the economy works.

Mr. Farrelly

The Minister has accepted that.

Mr. J. Bruton

Despite our huge level of unemployment, we have people coming back to Ireland. Unemployed emigrants are returning to join those who are already unemployed here. I predict that if present trends continue we will have between 350,000 and 500,000 people unemployed by the end of the century. The only way to avoid that is through a resumption of emigration. That is not something that a proud nation can contemplate with equanimity. It is time to look at the national complacency about emigration. Some say that emigration is caused by unemployment. I see it as the other way round. In a sense, emigration causes unemployment. The people who emigrate and who will emigrate are often the brightest and most dynamic of their generation, the people who come first, second or third in schools and in university. These are the people who we would normally reply upon to create jobs here. If they emigrate they take their skills and job creation potential to another country. Resumed emigration will reduce our long term job creation potential, even though it may initially relieve the unemployment symptoms by making some jobs available in the short term. Modern theories of economic growth put much more emphasis on the importance of human capital, of skills and ideas of dedicated people then on financial capital and machinery, which was the traditional way of looking at economic growth. At the moment Ireland is importing financial capital, at a huge cost to the taxpayer, through the IDA. At the same time we are carelessly exporting our human capital free of charge through emigration. If emigration resumes that will start happening again.

We have a more fundamental problem than the recent growth in unemployment which has been brought about by the population increase and the recent pause in emigration. Even in times of economic growth our performance on employment creation has been abysmal. In the 1987 to 1991 period Irish GNP rose by one-quarter, a good performance, yet at the same time employment only grew by 5 per cent, an increase of one-fifth the amount of increase in income. We are not able to convert income into jobs. There is something radically wrong with our economy in that regard. Indeed, the forecast for the future is no better. The recent ESRI projections for the period 1991 to 1996 forecast that there will be a 3.7 per cent growth in the economy up to 1996 but only a 1 per cent increase in employment. The increase in national employment will only be one quarter of the increase in national income. This shows a fundamental structural fault in our economy so far as job creation is concerned.

The Fine Gael Party reject any qualified or short term solution to our employment problems. There are no such solutions available. The disastrous experiments of the past, particularly in the period from 1977 to 1981, must never be repeated because those disastrous experiments are in no small measure the cause of our present crisis. No Government can afford to attempt to solve the employment problems simply by creating more jobs in the public service, to take people off the dole queues on a temporary basis. Likewise, artificial tax havens such as those in the Custom House Docks or in Shannon offer no long term answer to the deep rooted structural problems of the rest of our economy in terms of creating jobs. We want to put the whole economy right, not just bits of it centred around the Custom House Docks or a particular airport. The problems of our economy exist everywhere and must be solved everywhere and not just in individual areas where some politician can claim local credit for extending a tax relief zone.

Past efforts at creating new State agencies to solve the problem, such as the National Development Corporation in which I was involved, and the Youth Employment Agency in which the Government of which I was a member were involved, have had only limited success. I do not see new State agencies as a solution either. FÁS courses and SES schemes, the approach of the Government, may give short term assistance to the unemployed but they offer no long term solution. The practice of chipping away at the periphery of the problem in response to immediate political pressures must end tonight in this House. I hope that through the establishment of this jobs forum we will start to move the debate on unemployment to the level of long term solutions and away from short term efforts to treat the symptoms of the uderlying malaise. That is why we are proposing this jobs forum. We seek a united front of all political parties and the social partners to resolve the comprehensive bias against jobs in our economic structure. We in Fine Gael are prepared to approach the establishment of this forum with open minds and without a preconceived agenda. As far as we are concerned, no institution will be sacrosanct in the pursuit of extra employment.

We must be prepared to consider radical changes in our tax regime, not only in personal taxation but in corporation tax. The poor performance of the 10 per cent corporation tax regime which the Government unwisely have decided to extend to the year 2010 and multinational companies generally must also be examined. It is ironic that in a country with so few jobs the only commodity which is taxed more heavily than employment is cigarettes. We tax job creation at 56 per cent and profits in manufacturing at only 10 per cent. There are other things which are entirely exempt from tax. Is it any wonder that we have so much unemployment? We have made decisions in the structure of our tax system which led to a bias against employment creation. It is time that was changed. No Government on their own, with only a year or two to run, would have the courage to change it. Therefore, a forum at which politicians of all parties will be present would enable a consensus to emerge in which fundamental changes may take place, rather than the type of tinkering which has tended to characterise policy making in this area in the past. We must examine the whole regulatory atmosphere created by employment legislation and its possible disincentive effect on some potential employers, those who do not have big industrial relations departments to advise them on how to manage the law. We must ask why small companies are so reluctant to take on staff. Why will small employers do almost anything, borrow money, instal machinery and so on, to meet extra demand rather than take on extra staff? We must ask what is stopping them, and change it.

We must also re-examine our educational system which lays such a heavy emphasis on written exams which promote an attitude of conformism, of working for somebody else, rather than creating something, and perhaps give more marks to work such as projects undertaken by students, where people develop the sort of skills that help them afterwards to work for somebody else or to set up their own business. Because of the dominance of written exams our educational system is dependency creating.

We must also alter the thrust of social welfare policy to reduce its present emphasis on the maintenance of people in inactivity and increase the emphasis on taking up opportunities for work, whether it be part-time or full-time work, whether it be paid or unpaid work. The social welfare system should be biased in favour of activity rather than in favour of dependency as is the present system. To change the system will be difficult and unpopular and that is why no one party operating in the partisan attitude of this House, particularly within 18 months of an election, will attempt all that should be attempted. That is why a forum is a good idea. It enables politicians whether in office or out of office to look beyond the next election and recognise that we in this House, and the system of pluralist democracy this House represents, will only survive if minimal social conditions are maintained. We cannot afford to have 500,000 people unemployed by the end of the century. I would question the viability of our present democratic system in unemployment reached that level. Let nobody say that we are taking a naive stance in opposition in offering a jobs forum and offering the Government an opportunity of not being criticised as the Opposition would normally criticise a Government because of their failure in the area of unemployment.

We have no interest in making short term political capital at the expense of this Government over the employment issue if the result of so doing is not solving the unemployment problem. Nobody in this House, with the possible exception of people with very extreme opinions, has anything to gain from the continuance of this problem. We must solve it and solve it together.

We must rationalise means tests so that nobody will lose out, as some do, by taking up a job or by working harder. We must face up to the increasing unemployment consequences of the flight from the land. We must find new forms of agriculture, new farm-based enterprises and new uses of modern communications systems that are now available to prevent an increasing number of present farm family members from leaving the land and joining the already crowded dole queues in the towns. A job saved in rural Ireland is just as good as a job created in urban Ireland. Rural development has an important role to play in the solution of our unemployment problem, in the heart of Dublin and in any other urban area.

The Fine Gael Party in the past and in this debate have given the lead on the jobs issues. As the main Opposition Party we are determined as far as is possible and reasonable to play a non-partisian role to assist the nation as a whole in ridding itself of this destructive scourge. The acceptance by the Government of our proposal will enable all politicians and the social partners together to confront this issue head on. We as a party relish the challenge. We are confident that our ideas will more than match the ideas put forward by any other party in this House. If there is to be competition, as there rightly should be between political parties, let it be in terms of which party can come forward with the most constructive ideas to solve this problem rather than which party is best at negative criticism. For the past six to eight months we have had an absolute feast of negative criticism. The histrionic and rhetorical skills of some Members were lauded to the skies because of their ability for negative criticism. Negative criticism will not create a single job. In my view what we want are politicians who recognise that in politics it is the ability to put forward a constructive idea and the ability to recognise the good in somebody else's idea that marks one out as a politician worthy of support. I hope that my part in taking this unusual step of offering the Government, whose term has only 18 months to run and who face an election in the near future, the opportunity of bringing their opponents in to help them solve the unemployment problem will be seen as the means of lifting the problem out of the traditional negative thinking in this House.

I hope the Government will agree — and they have indicated already that they will come back to this in two weeks time — to the creation of a jobs forum. If they agree I am very open to discussions about the terms of reference, the resources, the duration, the chairmanship and composition of the forum, but I hope the matter will be discussed and that we do not have the situation where the Government go off and discuss it with the social partners or indeed with the other party in Government and tell the rest of us that is how it will be and ask us whether we wish to join or not. If this forum is to be successful the basis on which it is to be established must be agreed between those who are to participate in it. I hope that will be the case and indeed I believe it will be at this point.

Mr. Farrelly

After last week that is the way it will have to be.

Mr. J. Bruton

The only requirement is that the forum will be a body that gets results. It is important, therefore, that there be discussions in advance and that the terms of reference be carefully drawn up so that we do not have a body that emphasises discussion and disagreement but one that emphasises discussion leading to decisions and their implementation. If we as politicians can approach the problem in this way I believe we can avoid what will otherwise be the greatest social disaster of the century facing the Irish people.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

We have 276,700 unemployed; what an appalling waste of human resources; what a miserable record for any Government or indeed any country, but how much greater is this problem when one realises that the present unemployment register does not include people who have emigrated rather than join the dole queues or mark time in unsatisfactory jobs. It does not include also women or older men who are so discouraged by the bleak employment prospects that they have decided to stay at home. It does not include workers who are eager to work longer hours and get better wages but who are forced to work part-time or short-time. None of these is included, yet 276,700 as the figure is, is not a true indication of the extent of the unemployment problem.

In the face of such a crisis, the question we pose tonight is whether the Government, the Opposition parties and everybody else concerned can at last consider it such an urgent need that we can collectively decide that a new approach is necessary. The reality is that if we are really serious about tackling the problem of unemployment we must work together and unite in our efforts for this national cause. To do anything less would be not only inadequate and disgraceful but nothing short of a national tragedy.

I am proud to say that it was the leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy John Bruton, who has at last succeeded in moving the major issue of unemployment to the centre of the political stage. While the Government, unfortunately, allowed themselves to be overshadowed by personal and party issues, Fine Gael continued nevertheless in their efforts to focus the national attention on the unemployed. Deputy John Bruton made several approaches to establish a national jobs forum but as a result of the lack of courage or perhaps of political maturity, all such approaches were, sadly, turned down. As a result, no united structure now exists to collectively examine or explore, to plan or propose solutions to cope with this major social and economic crisis.

The motion before us tonight is yet again an attempt by this party to establish a jobs forum and to convince those in Government and everybody else in this House of the potential of this proposal. I would like to say at this stage that I welcome the support of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions for the concept of a jobs forum. I acknowledge their forthright and positive approach and I hope their example will be followed in this House.

We are faced with a very serious crisis, a crisis so grave and so urgent that I believe the main policy thrust of any Irish Government for the foreseeable future must be realistic job creation. With more than 250,000 people out of work, it is obviously ridiculous for anybody to suggest that the unemployment problem can be solved overnight, but we must always remember that it will not be solved at all unless radical changes and fresh initiatives are made in the area of employment creation.

The bottom line is that employers must be rewarded for creating jobs and it must pay people to work. Employers must be recognised as the most important element in any policy for employment. At present they work in an extremely hostile environment to such an extent that they are almost penalised for creating a job. The other side of the coin is that it must pay people to work. The possibility that somebody can be better off by remaining unemployed than by taking a job is offensive. It would appear to reward those who do not work and to penalise taxpayers. The combined effects of the operation of the social welfare and taxation system and of local authority and health board regulations can mean that a person taking a job results in the standard of living of that family being reduced.

The unemployed father of a family who takes a relatively low paid job may find that, with bewildering haste, his local authority rent is increased, he is liable for income tax and his medical card is withdrawn. In these circumstances he actually cannot afford to work. This is a real problem. His willingness and desire to work are destroyed because of the penalties attached to taking a job. This is ridiculous and cannot be allowed to continue. We must take urgent steps to shift the balance to favour those who work.

Another important feature of our unemployment problem lies in how well our educated young people are equipped for work. The large number of young people in our population should be our strength. By educating them we can ensure that they will not be unemployed in the new Europe and so we can open up opportunities of personal freedom for them. The likelihood that a university graduate will be unemployed is very low, but the likelihood of unemployment is very high among young people who leave school without an intermediate certificate or a junior certificate. The proportion of our young people in full-time education and training still lags behind the proportions in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark. The cost of maintaining a person in second level education is well below the cost of paying unemployment benefit.

Those on unemployment benefit will rightly say that no number of improvements in social welfare can fully compensate them for the judgment that society has passed on them, namely, that they have no contribution to make that can be valued enough to deserve remuneration. Unemployed people want a decent job. They want to earn an income in a way which respects their freedom and dignity. They want to work, to be part of our economy and to provide for their families. They want to live, not just exist. Life without a job all too frequently is really not life at all.

Why did this great problem so suddenly come upon us? For too long our unemployment levels increased and expanded and the issue was either dealt with ineffectively or was overshadowed by other issues. During the late seventies and early eighties the rise of the national debt shifted the focus of attention away from unemployment to the control of the national finances. This became a passion, a total commitment, blinding people to other changes in our economy. Substantial progress could be made in reducing unemployment by achieving higher rates of participation in second level education and in training programmes for certified qualifications. Ireland is totally out of step with advanced European economies in having a very high level of unemployment and a low level of overall participation in education and training for young people in their early teens. By increasing the participation level in education and training it will be possible to reduce substantially the number of people unemployed.

How long can the 276,000 people who are without work remain patient? How long can they cope with the utter despair and desperation that unemployment causes? For how much longer will they control their anger and frustration at the lack of attention to their plight? The nature and the scale of unemployment point to a failure in our solidarity as a people. Far too frequently the pursuit of individual and sectional gain has taken precedence over working towards the wider goals of developing the economic resources of this island for the benefit of all our citizens. Irish unemployment is an appalling waste of human energy and of talents in this island where resources, industry, the environment and social and community services need further development.

Unemployment has singled out the weakest and most defenceless for its worst ravages. While many people have felt the chill wind of joblessness, perhaps through tensions in the workplace and anxiety about jobs for their children in the future, only those who are really without a job know the desperation, isolation and despair of unemployment. Those of us who are in full employment are ignorant of the realities of day-to-day life under this burden. No one can teach us as much about the importance of a job in our society as those who have lived for a long time without one. We must listen carefully to their experiences and act on their behalf. We must set aside our political divisions and utilise the combined talents and resources of all sides of this House and of everybody throughout the country. The first step in the interests of the unemployed is to support the Fine Gael motion for the setting up of an all-party forum.

Mr. Deenihan

I compliment Deputy Bruton on introducing this very important motion. The dramatic increase in the numbers on the dole is depressing and worrying for any politician. Every day in our constituencies we see the people whose lives have been wrecked because they cannot find work. While unemployment at 40 years or 20 years is no different in terms of its impact on the individual, the statistics can never tell the true story.

At the end of January 1992 there were 78,842 young people under the age of 25 out of work. This means 28.5 per cent of the unemployed are under 25. These figures are rising all the time. There are now 13,700 more people under the age of 25 unemployed than this time last year. As a nation what are we doing about it?

It is obviously now politically acceptable that generations of young Irish people will never have the privilege of working in their own country. It could be said in respect of many of our young people that they have a bright future behind them. The Government no longer have the answers that were trotted out up to this. The emigrant boat is no longer the solution and in some circles the fact that our people are returning to their country of birth is begrudged as causing problems and costing money.

What is the Government's response to the jobs crises? Let us judge them by their actions. The famous scheme the EC have funded appears to be doing the rounds again. At least this time it seems it will get off the ground. The Culliton report is gathering dust already. No doubt it will be taken off the shelf and ceremoniously dusted down when the famous committee of civil servants prepare to examine its recommendations. All previous attempts to introduce a jobs forum have been rejected out of hand because, we were told, it would produce nothing new and would be just another talking shop.

How do the country's young people react to this? Where do the Government stand on the question of creating or providing jobs or opportunities for the country's youth? The message is as bleak as standing in line to collect a dole payment. For a start, they are to cut back on the Teamwork allocation in 1992. Teamwork is a scheme whereby voluntary organisations such as youth groups can provide one year's training and employment for those between the ages of 17 and 24 who are unemployed and they are paid £63 per week. In the main this scheme, while it does not provide permanent and pensionable employment, will give a young person the experience that is so vital even to be considered for a job. The funding will be drastically reduced this year. Youth organisations, such as the National Youth Council of Ireland, reckon that a cut of £1.8 million here will deprive 440 young people of a chance of working and contributing to their localities.

The reduction in the Teamwork budget is regrettable in itself and should be reversed. Indeed, it signifies also a careless, regrettable, attitude to young people and their futures. There appears to be a cynical attitude prevailing that once the British economy improves emigration will recommence, thus taking the heat off feeble-minded Governments. From all available evidence the Government might as well be "waiting for Godot" since if there is to be a 1 per cent increase in our growth rate the United Kingdom economy would need to grow by at least 4 per cent. I predict that will not happen today, tomorrow or the day after. In the meantime there is no strategy to improve the quality of life of our young jobless people.

How many people will leave school or college this year? How many will complete FÁS courses apart from those returning from the United States and the United Kingdom? While there are no easy answers to these problems it is not difficult to attempt to find solutions. The Government continue to justify their gross failure by pointing to an international economic downturn. They are scared to admit they have run out of ideas. Why do they not look to those who have ideas, on those who want to outline their ideas on how jobs can be created?

The motion tabled by our party leader this evening offers the Government a forum that would draw on the expertise of all Members of this House along with that of the social partners. It is what our young people seek and is something that would remove their cynicism.

Minister for Finance (Mr. B. Ahern)

I seek your permission, Sir, to share my time with Deputies Cullimore and Lawlor.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. B. Ahern

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"Notes

—that over 18,000 new jobs were created in 1991 in manufacturing and international services industry despite the severe international recession,

—the Government's commitment to pro-jobs tax reform in the Programme for Government, acted upon so decisively in the 1992 budget,

—the Government's commitment to pursuing a strong and responsible fiscal position which will reduce the debt to GNP ratio towards 100 per cent next year,

—the Government's commitment to improving the competitiveness of the Irish economy, and

—the Government's determination to speedily implement the recommendations of the Industrial Policy Review Group,

Recognises

—that the demographic reality of Irish society means that a serious problem of unemployment is likely to persist in the short to medium term,

—that unemployment is the major cause of social deprivation in our society, and

—that there is a need to ensure that all possible measures to tackle the problems associated with unemployment are examined as a matter of urgency,

Resolves

—to await the positive proposals which the Taoiseach informed the House on 19 February, 1992 he was considering for an appropriate structure which would enable new ideas and proposals to be identified and implemented with wide political support and which it is his intention to bring forward within the next two weeks."

The objective underlying Deputy John Bruton's motion is shared by the Government. Let me say at the outset that I see the fundamental purpose of the motion in the name of the Leader of Fine Gael as the enhancement of employment growth in Ireland. In this the Deputy mirrors the concern of the Government to ensure that no stone is left unturned in seeking out strategies which could strengthen the pace of job-creation in this country.

Make no mistake about it. The first priority of Government policy today, as it has been throughout the period of this Administration, is to maximise sustainable job creation here thereby, minimising unemployment and involuntary emigration. As this Government view matters, few concerns — perhaps those only of liberty and of life itself — can or should rank higher than that of generating sustainable jobs.

Indeed I want to thank Deputy Bruton for making his points in a fair, non-political manner. I take it that anything he has said has been in the best interests of achieving a lasting solution to the problem. Likewise my comments will be made in a constructive manner. Where I may differ from Deputy Bruton on certain points that will be on the basis of endeavouring to achieve a consensus on moving in the best possible direction. Here we might remember the Taoiseach's remarks of 19 February. I should say also that in this debate the Government are anxious that final conclusions be drawn from points made by the leader of the main Opposition party, the Labour Party and other Members who may contribute. In addition we are anxious to take account of what already prevails.

For example much work went into the preparation of the Industrial Policy Review Group, otherwise known as the Culliton Committee, who produced an excellent report. There has now been established the committee under Mr. Paddy Moriarty which deals not alone with the public sector but with the private sector also. Then there is the Cabinet employment committee chaired by the Taoiseach examining not only the recommendations of the Culliton report and/or proposals from the Moriarty Committee but other matters also. There is the Task Force on Employment who put forward views to Government from time to time. Then there is the Central Review Committee implementing the provisions of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, examining this issue and what the task force are doing.

In addition, there is the Green Paper on Education which the Taoiseach said earlier today would be presented shortly and a White Paper on Manpower policy about which my colleague, the Minister for Labour, will speak. All of these elements must be taken into account, ascertaining how they will fit into a workable structure.

I might say to Deputy John Bruton that when I occupied a different position I would have to agree he was constructive and argued consistently on these issues. He has argued consistently and with merit that there are a number of structures within Government to deal with the matter, that the social partners have devised a number of structures but on the floor of this House or within the various political parties there is no such structure.

What will be important in this debate and in the discussions in which the Government will engage with the Central Review Committee later this week is how we should move to retain what is there, what is useful, while endeavouring to establish a forum of this House which is what I hope this debate and later discussions will lead to. I think Deputy Bruton and I would agree that is the issue that needs to be addressed.

Mr. J. Bruton

I would agree with that.

Mr. B. Ahern

Thousands of our present workforce, together with thousands more coming of age to join them, deserve the opportunity to make a future for themselves and their families here. Their future depends on our ability to create lasting jobs, the kind which derive their continuity from serving willing markets. Preparing and positioning the economy to deliver such jobs to the maximum extent possible has been the driving force determining the thrust of Government policy and it will remain so. Indeed, it must remain so, if we, as a society, are serious about achieving the employment growth our developing population needs.

The task of searching out the means to ensure maximum employment growth is one which must be shared. It is not, and should not be seen to be, the "responsibility" of any one group in our society. While Government have a clear leadership role, we must all honestly accept some key realities. Government is not the sole repository of all ideas which might better harness our country's growth potential. This is a task of such importance that no one's potential contribution must be overlooked. All, and in particular other leadership groups in our society, whether among the trade unions, business, farming or other interest groups, have a role to play.

Among diverse groups, ideas about the optimum means towards maximum employment will differ. Yet surely the way forward must lie along a road of consensus about key ideas and strategies, to which all will subscribe, will adopt wholeheartedly, and, through unity of purpose and harmony of action, will be made to produce the added employment growth we need.

Government actions alone can scarcely ensure employment growth itself, let alone growth commensurate with the country's needs. Such actions never occur in a vaccum. They are intended to shape the course society might best take, in pursuit of their objectives. In this instance, they are aimed at creating the conditions within which total national effort, including that of all sectors of the economy, can move forward on jobs. They are aimed at pointing out, facilitating and encouraging the sorts of actions, throughout the economy, considered most likely to underpin progress on viable employment. But they need to be complemented, and built upon, by all sections of the economy if they are to achieve success.

That brings me to the substance of the motion before us, its underlying aims being wholly laudable, hopefully leading to the establishment of a successful jobs forum to which there are many ingredients. Therefore, we must decide in the course of this debate and over the next few weeks before the Taoiseach arrives at a final conclusion, precisely the format of that forum. In my view, at a minimum any successful forum must draw on ideas and insights representing all sectors. Indeed Deputy Bruton's proposals may seem to envisage what I might term a "talking shop" to "receive, study and comment on" a series of views, proposals, studies or plans emanating from Government sources. There is missing a concept of innovation, of generating strategies, of calling on the many other elements in society which undoubtedly have something to offer in the search for a better employment future. I contend any such forum must develop ideas and proposals within the framework of a broad, consistent, macroeconomic strategy appropriately structured to underpin jobs growth. I see little evidence in the motion before the House of a view on or acceptance of such a constraint.

Mr. J. Bruton

That is taken as read.

Mr. B. Ahern

In fairness to Deputy Bruton I must say I assume he would never advocate anything other than a sensible, growth-supportive evaluation of public finances, which point he made fairly this evening.

Any such forum must seek also the widest possible public consensus on proposals and strategies it might be in mind to advocate. I think the Deputy did have that in mind where his motion speaks of "seeking to reach agreement on a comprehensive programme of structural reform". But one must ask: how widely? It would not appear to me to be sufficient simply to seek agreement within any forum to proposals for change. As I have suggested already, I believe consensus must be forthcoming on a much broader front if fundamental changes are to be implemented and advanced wholeheartedly by society rather than considered and proposed by what might be perceived, however wrongly, as a group with a narrower focus.

The forum must also be positioned to bring forward proposals which, while based on a solid strategic approach, do not involve an unduly long gestation period. The nation will not thank any of us in this House if, in its perception, another "talking shop" were to be established. It would be unfortunate if this House were to approve an approach which, whatever its other merits, seemed so structured as to be unlikely to provide useful results — in the form of actionable proposals — within an acceptably short time frame. I see the Deputy's proposals, in this respect, as inadequate. His motion appears to envisage awaiting a long series of Government reports, a process of studying those, a process of drawing out proposals based on them, and a process of seeking out group consensus, all set in the context of "a comprehensive programme of structural reform". But when might those who are unemployed hope for some alleviation of their unenviable situation as a consequence?

We debated this matter here a number of months ago and different proposals were put forward. I saw much merit in many of the points put forward by Deputy Quinn. As this is a short debate we cannot go back over the process of analysing a problem, which all of us know precisely what it is, not only today, not only for next year but right through this decade. We know exactly the number of people for whom we have to create jobs, approximately 23,000 per year. We know the demographics beyond the year 2000 and I think we know what the economy can achieve in terms of jobs. We have seen the good years and the bad years. We have to identify the mechanism we are missing in our present links and see how we can face up to the realities of a very difficult future. We have to look at the prospects in other countries for emigrants; it is unlikely that many of our people will be able to go abroad. I will not argue with Deputy Bruton about the wrongs and rights of the Financial Services Centre. It so happens, before I came here, I attended a function to launch a company in the Financial Services Centre. There are now almost 3,000 people employed in the centre, many of whom are graduates, but I do not want to get into that argument. When we know what we have to achieve we can create a consensus in a meaningful way, where we can sit down and try to structure that progress.

If we are to have a forum — I make this point in a non-political way — to represent the Members of this House, members of the Culliton Group, the Paddy Moriarty Committee who are implementing the Culliton report, if it duplicates the work of the central review committee, does the job of the task force, and if we are to analyse all those reports, I respectfully suggest that we would get lost in paper and reports. That is precisely what has been done incorrectly for many years. What we need is a much smaller group — however we develop it — that can work with all the other groups and can meet them when they need to and try to develop a strategy. If we have 50 people sitting down to try to analyse a problem which has been written about in at least 90 reports in the last 15 years we will achieve nothing.

In saying this, I am not calling into question the idea of monitoring progress. The prodding of a predetermined time-scale or calendar is a useful incentive to getting things done. Monitoring is much more useful where, as in the case of the industrial policy review group reports and proposals to be attended to are not worked out in detail, and instead are directed to strategy without seeking to dot the i's.

The key purpose which any new grouping must serve is to develop both workable and valuable proposals and the consensus in society that will see them being acted upon. That is what the central point of this debate or any forum or committee, or whatever arises from it, must be. I do not see it as the end-game, however, for a successful forum aimed at enhancing employment prospects, that it should produce broad statements of policy thrust only. There are scores of those. The real advance to be secured by establishing some new forum — whatever we may call it — is to move forward from the "broad statement" about "necessary policy thrusts" to identification of specifics to give flesh to such statements, to gain wide recognition of the merits of those strategies and policies in an employment context, and to generate support for their implementation even among those who may see themselves as "losers" in the shorter run from steps to be taken.

Let us be frank. We live in a society where there are multiple, and frequently conflicting, objectives. There will be honest disagreement about what formulate are likely to best contribute to meeting employment goals, because views about the prospects of various approaches will differ. There will, also, be disagreement based on other considerations. In particular in the area of structural reform, it seems unlikely that progress could be based on measures which will gain the ready support of all. Few structural reforms — as anyone who has ever sought to prepare a reform in taxation will know — throw up many winners.

Ireland is a small open economy. It is, in fact, one of the most open economies in Europe. This means that, ultimately, our economic growth and associated employment performance is vitally dependent on securing growing exports while, at the same time, preserving or enhancing our share of the domestic market. How well we do on both fronts will reflect our competitiveness in the international arena. This is not just a matter of labour costs, although these are of crucial importance. Success is also a function of the overall environment in which business has to operate, including the cost of services provided in the sheltered sectors of the economy; and, of course, is a function of the many other factors which differentiate the more acceptable good or service from the less acceptable. What time remains for me?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I did not understand that you had indicated any time. The Minister would have to conclude at 8.10 p.m.

Mr. B. Ahern

That is my full time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. B. Ahern

I have only a few minutes then as I wish to give five minutes to each of my two colleagues.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In that case three minutes remains for the Minister.

Mr. B. Ahern

In a debate such as this it is not necessary for me to put all aspects of what I have said on the record as my colleague, the Minister for Labour, and other members of my party will be speaking in this debate. We have an opportunity, through whatever final discussions the Government will engage in to move forward in this debate towards a committee, a forum, a group or whatever, to make progress.

Notwithstanding progress to date, the Government are keenly aware that a major problem of employment creation faces our country over the medium term if we are to afford the opportunity of work to our growing labour force. That problem demands that we bring all energies to bear on the task of securing more rapid, sustainable employment growth and, where necessary, reorder our priorities to ensure that employment has the place it deserves, at the top of national priorities.

Success in achieving still more rapid employment growth demands that no stone be left unturned. Giving a deeper political dimension to the search for strategies and measures likely to help may be one appropriate step. Developing more specific solutions with an eye to securing, at the same time, the most widespead public support for those solutions may be another.

As the Taoiseach has already informed the House, proposals for an appropriate structure to further this aim, in which we all share, are under consideration. The intention is to bring the Government's proposals in this respect forward within the next couple of weeks as outlined in amendment No. 1. This is not to criticise the work done by the leader of the main Opposition party but to take into account what has been said today and in the previous debate, and to try to get a workable group with all the other excellent groups, who are trying to improve our present difficult unemployment position.

Mr. Cullimore

I welcome the Taoiseach's announcement that he will bring forward an appropriate structure which will enable new ideas and proposals to be identified and implemented with wide political support. The unemployment problem can only be addressed properly by economic development which includes much more than industry. The solution must include the development of our tourism industry, agriculture, agri-tourism, growth in the service base and improvements in our training schemes.

There is not doubt that unemployment is the single greatest social problem that this country has to contend with. Our labour force is growing. I commend the Government for initiating two schemes, a new employment subsidy scheme and a new in-company training scheme. This marks a most important and significant new development with clear long term viability.

The employment subsidy scheme will cater for up to 15,000 additional employees and will be open to a wide range of employers. Under the in-company training scheme training will be provided for up to 10,000 people. The Government's commitment to both schemes is a further indication of the thrust of the budget, to confront the problems of rising unemployment and speed up new employment opportunities. I have evidence of the success of those initiatives. It has come to my notice that in my own constituency of Wexford a sizeable number of small firms are positively investigating the possibility of expanding their workforces. The initiatives will give them the encouragement they need to advance their position and create further employment in a county which finds itself with the second highest unemployment rate in the country.

I note that considerable and significant improvements have taken place in the manufacturing sector in the Wexford district in regard to jobs. Between 1987 and 1991 manufacturing employment increased to 5,333, a significant rise of 13.4 per cent. I recognise and commend the work done by the Industrial Development authority and the positive role they are playing in enhancing the employment prospects of our county. I have no doubt that the 143 small business companies in County Wexford, and other such firms throughout the country, found heartening and encouraging reading in this year's budget.

I would also like to commend the Industrial Development Authority for their commitment of £15,000 per annum for five years to the Wexford Enterprise Centre resulting in the creation of 73 jobs in 23 projects. While I welcome and appreciate the work and money committed to such projects, the time is now right for the Industrial Development Authority to locate a factory on their Rosslare site.

In welcoming the initiatives introduced by the Minister I suggest that the Government should and could complement these measures by seeking to implement the recommendations of the task force on employment: increasing access to higher education which would have very positive side effects; reviving the imposition of stamp duty on new houses, allowing an exemption on new houses with a floor area of up to 140 square metres; greater emphasis on a higher proportion of residential development under the urban renewal scheme.

Some of the recommendations of the industrial policy review group must be implemented without delay. The review group suggested that agencies currently in charge of industrial promotion should be reformed into two wings, the first of which would concentrate solely on attracting overseas investment while the second would be responsible for developing Irish owned firms. They also recommended greater concentration in encouraging local initiative through a regional support structure and called for a major overhaul of the FÁS structure with a clear split between training for the unemployed and those at work. The review group identified the food industry as a growth area and recommended that more finance be spent on promoting the national green image as a way of penetrating European markets.

I urge the Opposition parties to wait until the Taoiseach, as promised, appoints the appropriate structure to enable us deal with these ideas and implement the proposals which are badly needed to create jobs here.

Mr. Lawlor

Like all other Members, I welcome the fact that we are attempting to make progress on the floor of the House in regard to the unemployment problem in a co-ordinated way. We recognise the generous approach and attitude adopted by Deputy Bruton in suggesting a jobs forum and the positive response by the Government. In his remarks the Minister addressed some comments at the organisations already in place to monitor the position and make recommendations. Fresh off the press we have the Culliton report. The Government took a speedy decision to appoint a task force to monitor the implementation of the recommendations contained in that report. I hope the task force will ensure that the recommendations are implemented quickly by Government Departments, State agencies and, where necessary, the private sector.

A jobs forum would have the potential to come up with suggestions and pragmatic ideas. More important, they would have the capacity, on an all-party basis, to provide a forum for people within the economy who feel they have a contribution to make. There are impediments in the way of progress at present. Apart from the task force set up to monito the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Culliton report, there is a task force on unemployment which is chaired by a senior official of the Taoiseach's Department, a Cabinet subcommittee and the co-ordinating committee under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to monitor the position and make recommendations on how we can create jobs.

The Government in their amendment point to the fact that 18,000 jobs have been created in a calendar year while they are also well aware that 25,000 young people come onto the jobs market annually. This is on top of the 270,000 who are unemployed. The task facing us therefore is frightening and a source of concern. Given the slow-down in the rate of emigration and the economic downturn in the United States and the United Kingdom we are staring at some horrendous figures. If we are to make a major impact on job creation we will have to co-ordinate our efforts which I hope will be the outcome of this debate.

The review group on industrial policy, set-up following the decision of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to ask a steering committee to draw up a report — they reported on time — have made some positive recommendations. However, it is worrying that the various State bodies referred to in the report are jumping to attention immediately. The Industrial Development Authority in particular stated they are implementing most of what is contained in the report but I find this difficult to understand and see no evidence of it.

A major recommendation in relation to job creation, which should be acted upon decisively, is that the Industrial Development Authority be divided in two with one section focusing on the need to attract overseas industry and the other concentrating on home industries. There is no doubt that many small indigenous industries feel they have not received the full support and attention, at top level, of the Industrial Development Authority unlike the international high flying industries. While it is necessary at attract American and Japanese companies who have excellent potential, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Telesis report strongly recommended that emphasis be placed on indigenous industry. The Culliton report, many years later, suggests something similar which leads one to believe that, as a result of the emerging consensus from this House, at worst we will get a very able group which will allow views, ideas and suggestions to be put forward by organisations as to what can be done to cut away much of the red tape and pigeon hole management which exists among many State and other agencies.

I welcome the debate and I hope that the appropriate structures will be brought forward quickly so that everybody will play a positive and decisive role.

Mr. Quinn

I should like to give ten minutes of my time to Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan. He will speak tomorrow evening.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Quinn

I should also like to move amendment No. 2 in my name.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are already discussing a motion and an amendment to it. You may discuss the spirit and letter of your amendment but you will not formally move it.

Mr. Quinn

On behalf of the Labour Party, I want to acknowledge the Taoiseach's commitment in principle — and indeed that of the Government — to the establishment of a forum which will focus on unemployment in a structured way and which will also have the necessary resources to carry out an urgent investigation of what must be done in a similar manner to that of the New Ireland Forum.

We believe that unemployment must be politicised. By that I do not mean that the political parties should vulgarise themselves by treating unemployment as a party political issue. We must recognise that unemployed people have become demoralised, demotivated and increasingly desperate by the depoliticisation of their plight and the complete failure of the country to respond with constructive measures to help them to return to work.

Unlike some political parties — and in particular some economic commentators from the free market school of economics — we have never accepted the principle that there is an acceptable level of unemployment. A humane, caring and vibrant society must enshrine in its value system the principle of full employment, not as an aspiration but as an objective. Reluctantly, in looking initially at the Fine Gael motion before the House we believe that it is like the curate's egg — good in parts. Indeed the national organisation for the unemployed, in a statement issued today, said:

Fine Gael's Dáil motion, which apparently has the support of the Government, appears to offer just the same half-hearted response. If it is passed as it stands it will waste a golden opportunity. Worse, by using the Forum name in this way, it would become harder to establish the real institution which would offer hope. We call on the Taoiseach to recognise the true value of the forum idea and adopt it in a full and vigorous way because, bluntly, half a forum will be worse than none.

I should, in fairness, say that Deputy Bruton in his contribution has gone some way to clarify the attitude of the Fine Gael Party in relation to including representatives of the unemployed in whatever body emerges.

As far as we are concerned, the fundamental omissions in the Fine Gael motion are the exclusion of any reference to the rights of organisations which represent or seek to defend the interests of unemployed people and those living in poverty or social deprivation to be represented, as of right, in the forum. Secondly, and it comes as no surprise, the Fine Gael motion, in so far as I understand it, and the Government's intention, are to establish a jobs or an employment forum. The nomenclature here is not a matter of mere semantics, it is political. Unless the forum refers specifically to unemployment, their terms of reference and focus will more than likely be on employment creation and will not primarily concentrate on analysis and strategies to reduce unemployment. I want to emphasise this point to the two Ministers present: we have not yet properly addressed the question of managing the labour market in full and dealing with what the Minister for Finance — formerly the Minister for Labour — referred to in his own contribution, the demographic nature of the labour market between now and the end of this century.

It is simply not sufficient to set up a group or another committee which will talk about employment creation. We must look at our labour market and the unemployed, particularly the long term unemployed, and bring forward new measures and methods of intervention which will deal with it. Whatever body emerges in a fortnight's time as a result of the Taoiseach's announcement, if it does not concentrate on that and is simply another variation of a task force or a committee, the Labour Party will not be impressed and will consider it a worthless exercise. To put it bluntly, the Labour Party will not lend their name — never mind their goodwill — to an exercise which in any sense is one of political expediency. I do not believe that is the intention or the motivation of the Taoiseach or indeed the Leader of the Fine Gael Party and I, therefore, ask the Taoiseach and Fine Gael to accept our amendment to include representatives of the unemployed as of right in recognition that such organisations have a valuable contribution to make because they represent the voiceless in our society. Indeed it is a constituency that our President, Mary Robinson, in her campaign for the presidency took upon herself to try to give a voice to during the course of that campaign. It is right that the Oireachtas political parties should play the leading role in a forum on unemployment and employment, which the Labour Party propose.

In the 1989 general election the Labour Party published a policy document which proposed emergency and radical measures to meet the unemployment crisis. Appropriately, it was entitled Jobs and Justice. We spelt out the necessity of changing the way our labour market institutions operate to the detriment of employment through excessive use of voluntary redundancy in profitable enterprises and the need for the unemployed to secure, as a right, a proportion of the normal vacancies which arise in the labour market. Specifically, we indicated that redundancies were wiping out the employment effects of new jobs being created and that vast sums were being spent by major companies on redundancy when redeployment and part-time work should have been available as an alternative to redundancy.

We also put forward a programme to eliminate long term unemployment by involving the Government and the social partners directly in supporting a complete revamping of the employment incentive scheme which would have placed 20,000 unemployed persons in work each year. We proposed that 25 per cent of vacancies arising in the public and private sector should be allocated to those who were 12 months or more out of work. We did not — and we do not— expect employers to carry the cost of such a far-reaching intervention on behalf of the unemployed. We proposed that the subsidy to employers should be doubled in the first year from £60 to £120 per week which, in today's terms, would amount to £132 per week. In the second and third years, payment would be slightly less but not less than £100 per week.

In that document we also identified the structural weakness in over-dependence on overseas industry as a source of retained value added in the Irish economy. The IDA's own data demonstrated that in 1987, while overseas industry sales amounted to £7,580 million, the value added in terms of wages and materials bought in the Irish economy was just under half that, at £3,032 million. By contrast, sales of Irish-owned industry, while lower at £6,966 million, resulted in the sum of £5,601 million in retained value added here, which explains, in a very neat form, the discrepancy between apparent economic growth and very low levels of employment creation. The difference, in reality, amounts to approximately 50,000 jobs in direct manufacturing and another 50,000 jobs indirectly generated from the effect of expenditure in our economy.

I am glad to note that the Culliton report, particularly the supporting consultancy reports, have identified this value-added gap as requiring complete reorientation in our industrial policy. It is of great satisfaction to my party that the Culliton report has vindicated the views which we put forward since the publication of the Telesis report as far back as 1981 and indeed the views expressed by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in their own seminal document, Confronting the Jobs Crisis.

We have made some progress since the days when the howling hyenas and high priests of the new right were identifying Government intervention and expenditure as the core problem of our poor economic performance and the root cause of unemployment. However, the Government — and to some extent the Fine Gael Party — are still partial prisoners of policies which are increasingly being recognised, not only on the left but even by orthodox economic commentators, as a discredited ideology and a bankrupt economic programme.

I welcome signs of discomfort on the Fianna Fáil benches with the tail of Thatcherism which was recently served up to us in the budget. I also welcome the impending demise of the hypnotic trance in which the climatologists have held the Government for a number of years. This would be an indication to the unemployed in particular and also to the Irish electorate that climatology was to be officially discarded and placed with other forms of necromancy and more exotic forms of astrology.

Mr. Lawlor

Very good.

Mr. B. Ahern

Very nice.

Mr. Quinn

We have been so preoccupied with getting the climate right that we have missed the wood for the trees. In fact, that whole obsession with getting the climate right is simply a branch of voodoo economics which hopefully we will be able to get rid of for ever and a day.

If the forum is to succeed I should like the Taoiseach and the Government to take into consideration the views expressed by the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed who are the representatives of the unemployed. No other organisation has that role. Too many structures have been set up to deal with unemployment without involving the unemployed in finding solutions. A lack of representation means such initiatives soon lose the confidence of people and lack the urgency or drive to tackle the root causes of our crisis.

The body so created should have an independent chairperson, and should not be the nominee of the Government per se. The forum must be chaired by an independent and respected person who will ensure full participation by all parties and ensure that bureaucratic barriers are not put in the way of progress. The Labour Party believe that the forum's session should be held in public and they must engage the interests and concerns of all the people. Seeking solutions to our unemployment problem is not a matter of expertise only but must also involve the education and development of a national vision of better full employment in Ireland.

Submissions should be taken from all interested bodies. No one group or sector has all the answers to our problems. This is painfully obvious. All group, small or large, must be allowed to present their case and make their proposals. Each submission and idea must be rigorously analysed in a way which can be widely understood. Many job creation proposals have hidden impacts on certain groups or sectors. These must be detailed so that a frank assessment can be made of the potential gains and losses. The establishment of clear long term priorities regarding policy to address unemployment will ultimately be the test of the forum success. We have endless analyses in our society of what is wrong; we need now to win broad agreement about what we must do and how it can be done.

The forum must be adequately resourced to carry out their job. In particular, the INOU should receive technical assistance to allow them to participate on an equal footing with other groups. This assistance would allow them to engage the expertise necessary to play a full role in technical discussions and consult with member groups on a detailed and more regular basis. I should like to acknowledge in particular the contribution the INOU have made over the past number of years. No solution to the problem of unemployment as distinct from the problem of job creation, can realistically be aspired to if the INOU are not fully and properly represented. This will require the provision of addition necessary resources to enable them to do their job.

There is another angle to this, that is, the European angle. One crucial task for the preparatory phase of the forum will be to work out the most productive role for the EC in the forum process. Four areas of involvement come to mind: financial support for the forum process; playing a role in questioning the Irish Government on the job impact of the allocation of Structural Fund moneys; questioning the limitations placed on the spending of Structural and Cohesion Fund moneys and how they can be changed in order to allow more employment-generating investment and the development of an EC supported, active industrial development policy throughout the Community.

I wish now to refer to Northern Ireland and the forum. The national forum on the unemployed must look in a sensitive way at approaches through which greater cohesion between the economies and policies of Northern Ireland and the Republic can lead to employment growth in both parts of the island. In talking about these areas we have to take into account the position of minority groups and their difficulties with unemployment. Several groups, such as travellers and the disabled, suffer specific additional disadvantages in seeking employment. It is essential that the interests of these groups are adequately recognised in the forum's deliberations. In any case, forum membership should be made up of equal numbers of men and women.

Since the 1991 budget, the Labour Party have emphasised the necessity for the Government to focus on policy instruments which meet the crisis of a growth in the registered unemployed by the end of this year. We believe that the focus must be on radical initiatives which offer the unemployed the prospect of paid work as an alternative to permanent enforced idleness. The direct costs of unemployment can be measured. However, the indirect but consequent costs in financial and human terms for those forced to remain removed from the world of work threaten to undermine our society and destroy its social fabric. Unemployment is not simply a story of jobs destroyed; it is one of devastation in terms of the strains placed on family life and isolation from the working population.

We have had policies designed to assist the unemployed secure training or temporary work. All such policies were conceived without the expectation of the unprecedented level of unemployment which we have now reached. Forecasts by the ESRI in their latest medium-term economic review project a continuing rise in the level of unemployment to 1996. The forecasts of the Henley Centre for the United Kingdom economy project rising unemployment in the years 1992-94. The position of labour markets in the US, Canada and Australia are forecast to deteriorate. Reference was made earlier to this. This means Ireland faces the prospect of unemployment, as registered on the live register, remaining above 300,000 until 1995 at least. The composition of the unemployed and unemployment has begun to change with a sharp rise in the number of those aged under 25 and a continuing growth in the number of those on the live register for 12 months or more.

There are many other things which perhaps should be said at the time the forum is established. I want to say very clearly to the Government and the Ministers present that we will not be fobbed off by some kind of inadequately resourced committee, group or body who have as their primary focus employment creation and who refer repeatedly to what has already been achieved, as is contained in the Government's amendment tonight. The problem is not job creation; the problem is unemployment. The problem is not the mismatch between growth in the economy on the one hand and growth in jobs on the other. Because of its size and scale, projected to be 300,000 by 1995 and stabilising at that level, the problem is twofold: it is about job creation and managing the problems of those people who are unemployed.

The Labour Party do not accept the view that getting the climate right, getting more growth into the economy or removing restrictions here, there and elsewhere will be sufficient, as the Culliton report says, to deal with the problem. There are two problems. The Culliton report and the economy deal with the problem of employment creation in real terms. However, there is a second residual problem, that is, people who are unemployed at present and who face the prospect indefinitely of remaining unemployed. The Labour Party hold a different view to that in the Fine Gael motion and the less adequate Government response which focus on those who are at work or likely to get work unaided by activities from the Government, with little or no focus on those who are unemployed at present and who are destined to remain unemployed for the foreseeable future.

This is a new Administration. The Taoiseach and the Government have indicated that they will put forward proposals within a fortnight as to how they intend dealing with this matter. I want to say very clearly to the Ministers present that, unless there is a serious response in terms of generosity of composition, control, representation on that body and their terms of reference, and unless adequate resources are made available the response from the Government will be a totally inadequate vehicle to deal with the problem. I make that point as constructively as possible. A constructive debate has taken place in the House this evening. I am putting down a very firm marker that we are not just dealing with job creation but with the structural problems of long term unemployment on a scale this society has never previously experienced, which is projected to continue for a very long time and which threatens the basic stability of society. We cannot wait for the tide to lift the boats.

Debate adjourned.