When the debate adjourned Deputy Quinn was in possession and intended to share his time with Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan. Deputy O'Sullivan has ten minutes remaining.
Private Members' Business. - Jobs Forum: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy J. Bruton on Tuesday, 25 February 1992:
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 20 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.
Debate resumed on 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."
—(Minister for Finance.)
Deputy John Bruton in moving the motion last night said Fine Gael had no inflexible demands in relation to the composition of the Jobs Forum. I welcome that approach. What is equally important is that the same openness should apply in regard to its terms of reference. May I take it that the Deputy will honour the commitment given when he said that Fine Gael were prepared to approach the Forum with open minds and no preconceived agenda? He said that no institutions would be sacrosanct in the pursuit of employment aims and also that it was not his intention to inflict undeserved wounds on this Government for presiding over the worst jobless figures in the history of the State. That poses what I consider to be the most important question in the whole debate: who is responsible for job creation? Are the Government or the private sector responsible?
Deputy John Bruton rightly said that between the years of 1987 and 1991 Irish GNP increased by 25 per cent, yet during that period employment increased by only 5 per cent. Do Members not accept that that record is not good enough to create wealth and that there has to be a fair distribution of the fruits of growth? That was not in evidence during that period. There was substantial growth in GNP but the jobs did not come on stream.
Deputies Bruton and Ahearn referred to the present social welfare code as a potential disincentive to employment and suggested the rationalisation of means testing so that no one would lose out by taking a job. Any proposal of that nature would inflict further suffering on the poorer section of our population.
What is needed most here is the introduction of statutory minimum wage legislation. Such legislation is already in force in some European countries and in the United States. I am glad that the Minister for Finance is in the House. I regret very much that in his capacity as Minister for Labour he resisted the introduction of minimum wage legislation. That would be one positive way to get us out of the poverty trap.
There has been a growth in the number of people who are in part-time employment. They are being exploited, by the major supermarket chains in particular. Such exploitation is now organised on a grand scale. People can be employed part time for the greater part of their working lives. That is a problem that will have to be tackled by any forum that is set up. I hope that in the openness envisaged by Deputy Bruton some consideration will be given to that abuse.
In addition, there should be an increased tax free allowance for the lower paid. The notion that means-testing of social welfare benefits will reduce the jobless figures does not stand up to close examination if one considers the current jobless figure of 276,000 and compares it with the figure used by the Minister for Finance of 18,000 jobs created last year. For every one who refuses employment on the basis that a loss of social welfare payment would be suffered there must be at least 20 qualified people waiting in line for a job. It is a fallacy to suggest that part of the problem is that people offered employment will not accept it on the basis that they will suffer a loss of social welfare. That is an area the forum should examine. I do consider there is little relationship between the number of refusals and the number of jobs on offer.
In Deputy Bruton's reply to the debate I should like him to indicate whether he intends to pursue the eight-point programme he announced on 21 May 1991. Whilst I agree with the thrust of his programme, I have serious reservations about the fifth point which proposes to dispense with unfair dismissals legislation in certain cases. Granted, the Deputy did include the proviso that that would be by agreement with the unions. That is something I would not favour. Whilst I am not trying to pre-empt any decision to be taken in the discussion, I feel the unfair dismissals legislation is fundamental labour legislation which offers the greatest protection to workers.
Whilst it is everyone's business to help to defeat unemployment, I do not feel the existing workforce should be asked to shoulder an unfair share of the burden.
I wish to address my remarks to some gentlemen in the business community who for a considerable time have been writing the political agenda as well as the economic and social priorities of our society. One of the leading industrialists said, without the slighest shame, in a "Today Tonight" programme that unemployment would not come down. Worse, he said that he as a businessman had no responsibility whatever in that matter. I am not suggesting that those views were representative of the entire business community in Ireland — far from it — but they were representative of an extremely powerful businessman who had great influence on the Government and the commercial life here. At the moment several inquiries are in progress and I do not wish to mention his name or to quote him; it would be unfair to do so. Nonetheless, his remarks were indicative of the attitude of the business community, that they have no responsibility in that regard. The paradox is that through State grants and tax incentives the State is spending £800 million per annum to support those business activities. That did not strike the individual to whom I have referred, or some of the so-called "golden circle", as being extremely odd. They receive vast sums of money in support from the State yet they consider they are not obliged in any way to take responsibility for job creation.
At a recent James Larkin commemoration Mr. Cockburn, a British-born citizen who has lived in Ireland for many years and is now a journalist in the United States, was invited to lecture. He pinpointed one of the problems with multinational companies as being that many of them go for the cheap labour market. Cork people experienced that move in the closures of Ford and Dunlop. Ford moved out of Cork because they could have their cars produced more cheaply in Spain. Dunlop moved to the Far East, where they could get both raw materials and cheap labour. For how long can we hope to move the lines of production to the cheap labour market and hope to maintain our markets on this side of the world? That will not go on indefinitely. There is ample evidence that there is now a concerted effort on the part of multinational companies in particular to go to the cheap labour market to the detriment of the Western World. They cannot on the one hand complain about the loss of markets and the loss of profits and then seek to avail of cheap labour. Fortunately, the more socially responsible members of the business community are changing their attitude in this regard and feel they have some obligation. I welcome the endorsement by the employer organisations of the forum on unemployment. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the trade union movement are at last realising that they have a definite role in job creation. The growth of centres for the unemployed making various courses available in language and office procedures is a definite contribution to tackling the problem of the unemployed, but it is only an initial step.
Deputy Bruton in his opening remarks said that he was open to suggestion. As confirmation of that I would ask him to take on board the Labour Party amendment on this issue. There is a willingness on the part of my party to participate. We see our amendment as a very positive step in that regard and we hope that Deputy Bruton will see his way to taking it on board, getting us off to a firm start. There are many areas that have to be addressed.
The Deputy has a half a minute to conclude.
No later than today I received a letter from a colleague of mine in SIPTU regarding a plight of people in part-time employment. There is wholesale exploitation in this area. A jobs forum will have to address first the problems of those who are unemployed and then of those in employment who are being exploited. Exploitation is taking place in an organised fashion throughout the country.
The present surge in unemployment is partly the outcome of the success of the economic policies pursued in the 1960s and early 1970s. During that period the trend in emigration was reversed whereby more people were coming into the country than were leaving. The children of the families who returned to the country at that time have now entered the labour market. To accommodate this exceptional increase in the labour force would require unprecedented levels of economic growth and job creation. The present increase in unemployment represents, in effect, the shortfall between the growth in jobs and the growth in the labour force.
How long is this situation likely to last? The ESRI in their "Scenario 2000" envisage the rise in the numbers of Irish people of working age increasing from 68 per cent of the population in 1988 to 71 per cent by 1996. After that pressure will tend to ease so that a more rapid decline in unemployment levels can be expected at that stage. The age profile of the population and of the labour force will also change over that period. Instead of this higher proportion being under 30 years, fewer young people will be entering the labour market. This means that more stable population and labour force patterns will be in place in keeping with current trends in Europe.
The question is what are we doing about it? What are the Government's policies to respond to these developments? The first priority is to maintain a sound, competitive economy for stimulating growth and expanding employment. In approaching this task we must not lose sight of what has been achieved in recent years. GNP growth has averaged over 4 per cent a year and reached 7.5 per cent in 1990 compared with a negative growth rate for the mid-1980s. We have achieved one of the lowest inflation rates in Europe and rates of personal taxation have been significantly reduced, particularly for the lower paid. We have a stable exchange rate. Exchequer expenditure has been brought under control and a satisfactory industrial relations climate has prevailed, together with moderate pay increases. In addition, significant gains in competitiveness have meant that we have increased our market share in terms of exports despite the prolonged global recession.
The Central Bank's winter bulletin acknowledged that:
the overall performance of the economy would have been worse but for the positive effect of the competitiveness gains which have been achieved over recent years. This has to be contrasted with the experience of the mid-80s when there was negative growth, a stagnant economy, decline in output and fewer people at work due to a high level of borrowing, high public expenditure, high taxation and declining demand. Since 1987 we have succeeded in stimulating growth; we have more people at work even though there are more people looking for work.
There can be no complacency in that regard. While Deputy O'Sullivan can criticise the number of people who have been put back to work since Fianna Fáil returned to office in 1987, he supported policies in the mid-eighties which ensured that fewer people were at work when the administration which he supported came to an end.
Was the Deputy around the place when it all started?
I was indeed, longer than the Deputy.
Against that background there can be no compromise on the economic strategy based on social consensus. This Government's approach is based on a consultative philosophy of participation by the social partners. Progress is monitored by all the parties through the Central Review Committee.
Adherence to the agreed strategy is all the more essential with the decline in world trade. Unless we maintain and improve our competitiveness during the current global recession we shall not be able to exploit and capitalise on the opportunities presented by the increased demand when the recession ends. If we can learn anything from past mistakes that is one of the major lessons we have to learn.
We all recognise the complexity of the employment creation process. It involves employers deciding to meet market demands for products and services and it also involves decisions by employers on how the goods and services are to be produced. Such decisions are affected by international conditions, economic policy in this country, industrial relations, wage rates and many other factors.
There exists a number of committees and institutions to deal with the employment issue as it stands. The Central Review Committee, which has responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, have devoted a considerable amount of their work to looking at elements of the programme dealing specifically with increased employment and reduced unemployment.
The Task Force on Employment are representative of employers organisations, trade unions, individual employers and official agencies and was set up a year ago. The task force have made a series of recommendations to Government on specific actions that could be taken to increase employment levels or reduce unemployment levels. Those are being considered as a matter of urgency. There now exists a Government committee comprising the Taoiseach, the Ministers for Industry and Commerce, Finance, the Environment and myself to follow up on the recommendations of the Industrial Policy Review Group. There is an expert committee monitoring the implementation of the Culliton report also. This committee of the Government is supported by a Committee of Departmental Secretaries and others. Until recently we also had the Sectoral Development Committee. Much of the work of the National Economic and Social Council which is representative of agricultural interests, industry, employers, the construction industry, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the National Youth Council, has concentrated on the employment problem.
All of these bodies have representatives of the ICTU, the FIE and many other interested parties. There is no shortage of advisory bodies on which any concerned organisation may have their say. Do we need another? As Deputy Bruton stated last evening, the problems associated with job creation and unemployment will not disappear by appointing another body. There is no "quick-fix" solution. At the end of the day sustainable, viable employment must be found in medium term and long term employment strategies that are soundly based and capable of generating the growth and wealth which will improve the standard of living and quality of life for all sectors of the community, and will increase job opportunities for all.
The Government accept that people who wish to participate in finding a solution to this problem, which will confront us over the medium term, should be accommodated in an appropriate institutional structure. The Taoiseach will announce his proposals in this respect in a few weeks. We live in a parliamentary democracy. Every Deputy has a mandate to represent any sector of the community. Based on this principle of consultation and consensus, differences of opinion and the rights of interest groups to be heard must be accommodated. In giving expression to this principle parliamentarians have the primary role instead of so-called or, in many cases, self-appointed unrepresentative "experts".
Deputy Ruairí Quinn made a point last night which should be addressed. He suggests that whatever body might be established as a result of this debate shouold deal not only with strategies for long term job creation but also address the prospect of the numbers who may not find work in the period ahead. I agree with him. The Culliton report recommended that FÁS should recognise the sharp distinction between the support activities for the unemployed and "industry relevant" training. Social training is needed to help people who have been unemployed for some time. In my view training must be directed at integrating them into the workforce and to provide, in a flexible way, the opportunities to allow people to regain their motivation and, in some cases, their self-esteem and to develop and update their skills.
This will involve a closer interface between the education and training bodies. I intend to consider action in this direction as a matter of urgency in the context of the Green Paper on education to be published shortly and the White Paper on manpower policy which I hope to present some time in June or July. In this way my objective is to stimulate more mobility in the labour market between those who are unemployed and those who are at work. If one looks at the statistics available in my Department one sees that there is a surprising amount of mobility in the labour force at present, although we have to admit there is a hard core of people who find they are unable to get on any of the schemes or avail of opportunities to improve the skills that are provided under the aegis of my Department.
Of course, we cannot be complacent. What can be done immediately in the interim, given the demographic realities we have to face? I am glad to say that on Monday last I finalised the details of the job training scheme with Commissioner Papandreou, who is responsible for the Community Social Affairs portfolio. A new departure for the two schemes — the job training scheme and the employment subsidy scheme — is that the aid rate from the Commission will be 75 per cent instead of 65 per cent, which has been the norm up to now. In addition, in relation to the job training scheme, the Commission has agreed to our proposals that employer funding could be used to match and draw down ESF funds, thus obviating the need for Exchequer funds. This concession was achieved from the Commission following strong arguments from us in relation to the difficult budgetary situation we are facing.
The employment subsidy scheme, which I intend to launch early next week, is already operational and FÁS are receiving applications to participate from employers. In very brief terms, an employer will receive a subsidy of £54 per week in respect of each additional worker taken on above a base level of last November, if that worker has been on the live register for two months. Payments will be made in arrears, as the scheme is specifically designed to encourage employers to take on people who are on the live register.
The job training scheme represents a major breakthrough in support for training by employers. FÁS studies indicate that well over half of Irish employees receive no training of any sort in a year. Figures for training by Irish employers show that only 20 per cent of trainees receive formal off-the-job training each year. In addition there has been little increase in the amount of employee training in Ireland over the past number of years. This is a matter which has to be addressed if we intend to update and improve the skills base in the Irish economy.
The job training scheme will involve both directed training and work-place training. Directed training is a planned and directed programme which is insulated from immediate operational pressures and will in all likelihood be carried out in FÁS training centres. Work-place training is training under normal operational job pressures on the factory floor, with commercial or other pressures applying, but planned and structured to afford the opportunity to further practise skills and competencies so as to give trainees the opportunity to reach experienced worker standards. That is a new departure and a new component in our training programme which I hope will become a long term feature of our training methods in the future. The training therefore, must be both structured and supervised. It will be based on a plan agreed between FÁS and the employers before training starts. Employers will be paid 75 per cent of the normal FÁS training allowance. This scheme represents, I believe, a major improvement in our training arrangements and one on which we will build in the future. Based on initial figures in the Department of Labour in its first month of operation, we are very hopeful that the job subsidy scheme can take as many as 12,000 people off the live register this year. By going down the country and ensuring that FÁS are actively involved in publicising this at public meetings throughout the country, and encouraging employers, I intend to ensure that people will see the merits of this scheme, because it offers a great opportunity to Irish employers. We have heard a great deal about overseas industry but we are giving Irish industry the opportunity to put their shoulder to the wheel in order to deal with what is the major problem facing the country at present.
The success of the two schemes depends on the take-up by employers. We have put the funds from the Community in place and the initiative now, as I have said, rests with employers. The problem of unemployment is one which affects all society, not just Government, and all of us must play our part in trying to solve it. I therefore appeal in the strongest terms to employers to avail of both the employment subsidy scheme and the job training scheme to the greatest extent possible. It is in their interest to do so.
I cannot over-emphasise the importance of the contribution made by the European Social Fund to training and retraining in this country. Without such assistance we would not have been able to provide what I believe to be the sophisticated facilities and quality of training which obtains in Ireland at present. In the years to come, the European Social Fund is likely to have an even greater impact on our system of training and even on aspects of our education system.
It is my intention to bring forward a well thought out proposal which will involve our national training authority getting involved in the European labour market. It is quite clear that we are not creating the number of jobs we need in our economy and, indeed, must provide if we are to deal with the unemployment problem. Too often and for far too long the political system has kept its head stuck in the ground, ostrich-like, and has been afraid to look at the job opportunities available in the European Community. I believe that our young people in particular are as entitled as anyone else in the member states to be in a position to take on board the opportunities that exist in the European labour market. There is good reason to believe that there are prospects for getting European funding for our national placement authority, FÁS, becoming involved in the manpower agencies in Europe. Our young people should have the option to work in Europe. We are putting our head in the sand if on the one hand we talk about an integrated Europe but are not prepared to look out for the job opportunities that may be available to our people in Europe. We are being inconsistent and illogical. When Monet and the others set up the European Community their idea was to create the free movement of capital, services and labour.
We have demographic problems which means that we are not providing the level of jobs required to deal with the unemployment problem. No Government of any political colour could provide an immediate solution to that problem. That is open honest politics and it is about time that everybody in this House faces up to that fact. As Minister for Labour I will ensure that whatever alternatives or opportunities are available, either in this country or in Europe, the people who seek job opportunities will be given some options and that we will be fighting for those jobs in the same way as every other member state is fighting for jobs for their people.
Acting Chairman
Is Deputy Mac Giolla offering?
Yes.
It was already agreed that I should speak.
Acting Chairman
Is the Minister for Labour now indicating that he is sharing his time with Deputy O'Malley? He did not indicate that at the beginning.
I apologise, Sir.
Acting Chairman
As the Minister is sharing his time, the ten minutes remaining is allocated to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Let no one be in any doubt that the task facing us as a nation in endeavouring to meet the challenge of providing jobs for the unprecedented numbers of people who are seeking work in this country is an enormous one. The enormity of the problem means that there are no instant or short term solutions. When we look at factors such as the demographic pressures for the remainder of this decade, it is clear that a fundamental change is necessary in our traditional approach to the problem. There will be some 58,000 entrants to the labour force each year during the nineties, representing a net increase of over 25,000 per annum. The great irony is that if for a moment one puts to one side the current high unemployment levels, the fact is that the Irish economy has put in a very creditable performance in 1991. This happened despite economic disimprovement and rising alarm in some of our major export markets.
Last year our economic growth was relatively good compared to the OECD average. Other OECD countries have severe problems. Yet our exports increased — a considerable achievement at a time of economic recession internationally. The overall public finances outturn for the year was very close to the budget estimates for last year.
International trade is critical to Irish economic development. Exports account for over 60 per cent of our gross domestic product. For this reason one would expect Ireland to be hit particularly badly by adverse trading circumstances, such as world trade growth falling to 3 per cent in 1991 compared with 5 per cent in 1990, coupled with marginal output growth in the total OECD area and a fall of 2 per cent in UK output. Yet in that same period exports of manufactured goods from Ireland increased by an estimated 8 per cent in volume terms. This export performance was not confined, as many critics regularly carp, to the branch plants of multinational firms.
On a point of order, is the Minister distributing copies of his speech?
It will be available shortly. It was in fact widely spread across the manufacturing sector. On the home front, our economic growth in 1991 was twice the OECD average; and the ESRI expect a modest but broadly based recovery in output for 1992.
There have been some impressive successes for our economy therefore. The credit for much of this must go to the Irish people generally, as they have taken a view that moderate policies to restore and maintain the competitiveness of our economic activity are fundamental for our ability to trade and prosper. Since 1987, therefore, there have been impressive gains in non-agricultural employment, especially in services employment. This was a notable achievement for Ireland. In previous international recessions, job shedding was a significant problem here. The more competitive edge of recent years has enabled us to hold steady this time. Yet we cannot be content with our record as regards increasing the numbers at work, not only to meet the demands of new entrants to the workforce each year, but to make serious inroads into the live register, now standing at over 276,000 and in particular the needs of the long term unemployed.
It was because of my concerns with the effectiveness of industrial and job creation policy that I set up, last June, the Industrial Policy Review Group, also known as the Culliton Group. Their report has met with a strong endorsement on all sides in this House and outside. The Government have responded with equal determination to see that the report and its radical agenda for change are implemented. We set up a task force on the implementation of the Culliton report to get speedy action on the wide range of recommendations coming from them. What is different, innovative and challenging about the Culliton report is that it takes such a comprehensive approach and goes well beyond what might be traditionally regarded as coming within the remit of industrial policy. It addresses a wide range of deep seated obstacles to growth in our economy and underlines the need for changes, not only in our industrial support systems but also in our job training, education, energy, transport and other fields.
There has been a general view that the Culliton group was right: that it is now time for a broad and extensive change in the ways in which all these key issues impact on industrial policy. Nor does the Culliton report overlook the vital importance of our taxation policy as a vehicle for encouraging economic growth and job creation. One particular quote from the review puts it succinctly:
In no other single area does the Government have at its disposal the tools to make as far reaching and effective a reform to support an enterprise economy as in taxation.
This was the view of successful industrialists. We would ignore it at our peril. The Progressive Democrats, and indeed the whole Government, fully endorse those sentiments and the recent budget gave evidence of our determination to act in this key area. Now the Culliton report will not become just another report in an endless series; it will be acted upon. It is, in my view, the best prescription for long term sustainable growth, development and job creation. But, as Culliton itself makes clear, there are no quick fixes, no easy solutions and further significant progress on the jobs front will be slow.
My emphasis so far has been on the need for change and to bring about the reforms in our systems that will put more people to work. We have to recognise, however, that no matter how successful this Government or any Government are in addressing the unemployment crisis by creating jobs through industrial policy reform, tax changes, securing more overseas investment, etc., serious long term unemployment will remain a feature of Irish life for the foreseeable future. In view of this, and being determined to effectively address the sense of alienation and hopelessness felt by the unemployed and their families and to ensure that they are accorded meaningful participation in society, I am anxious that the initiative to be taken by the Government in this area is one that primarily addresses the needs of the unemployed.
Among the useful contributions which the forthcoming forum should address are the following: (1) to carry out a detailed analysis of the labour market, covering its composition, participation rates, and forecasting the trends for the next decade; (2) to carry out a detailed analysis of those on the live register, including such issues as skill levels, age, duration unemployed, work experience, socio-economic factors, and to more accurately assess the real level of unemployment; (3) to examine measures that could increase the overall level of employment, including an assessment of working time initiatives such as job sharing, part-time work, reduced working hours in lieu of wage increases, and limits on overtime; (4) to look at what changes are needed in the Social Welfare system to facilitate unemployed persons to take up casual employment; (5) to examine measures that could be adopted to involve the long term unemployed in projects, like the social employment schemes; (6) to examine the scope for involving the unemployed more fully in the educational system and vocational training so as to build their personal development and skill levels ranging from basic literacy to specific vocational skills; and (7) to examine the interaction of the social welfare and other support services with the income tax system in order to identify the extent of both the unemployment and poverty traps and to examine measures that could be adopted to alleviate both.
I also believe a major challenge which this initiative or forum must address is to enable the unemployed themselves, through unemployment action groups and the like, to present their own views and proposals. That is essential if their rightful frustration and sense of alienation is to be effectively addressed.
We have many initiatives and proposals to be implemented to improve the jobs market. They include the Culliton report obviously, the Task Force on Employment, the central Review Committee of Programme for Economic and Social Progress. That is why this new initiative must focus primarily on the plight and the needs of the unemployed themselves.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Rabbitte and Kenny. I congratulate Deputy Bruton on introducing this motion, which will at least help to concentrate our minds on the issue. However, when we read the motion it does not seem to be very helpful. It involves sitting for months preparing reports on a whole series of areas. Paragraph (h) of Deputy Bruton's motion reads:
(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...
That is supposed to be the significant paragraph. I cannot make head or tail of it. For example, how one reaches agreement on a comprehensive programme of structural reform of Irish society which will create jobs in some way or other is not specified. I was most disappointed at the Minister's contribution when he came up with the old canard that you cannot get jobs here at home; you never will get jobs here at home, so head for Europe. Indeed, the Fianna Fáil amendment does not appear to be much better.
I would like to know what are the demographic realities of Irish society which mean that the serious problem of unemployment is likely to persist. I do not understand. Are there too many children born, too few people dying? Or is it that people are not emigrating in sufficient numbers? It has to be one of those three. The demographic realities are comprised in the numbers of our people, our resources and how we are going to put them all to work. That is all.
I am glad the Labour Party are prepared to use those terrible words which have been an anathema in recent years, "full employment". Everybody tells us now there is no such thing, never again will we have full employment that this is not on and that people will have to learn to live without jobs. There was a fellow called Paddy Wally who featured on a radio programme on eight consecutive Saturdays a couple of years ago. He informed us that people should not be looking for jobs, that people should learn how to use their leisure time and such nonsense. No other country in Europe, if not worldwide, engages in that line of despair. Of course, there can be full employment if one organises one's society and uses one's resources properly.
There are a whole lot of causes advanced for our present levels of unemployment, such as the necessity for tax reform, social welfare reform, technological developments and so on. These are all advanced as causes of job losses. The most highly developed country in the world, technologically, is Japan where there is no problem. They have full employment. Therefore it will clearly be seen that these are not the real causes.
Are the Government serious — and I wonder whether Fine Gael are serious since they adopt the same ideological line — in contending that it is not the responsibility of Government to create jobs? We have heard this thrown out time and time again from those benches, that it is not the responsibility of Government to create jobs. I say it is the major responsibility of Government and, indeed, of Members on all sides of the House. We must remember that if people do not have the right to work they do not even have the right to live. Therefore, it is a major responsibility of Government to ensure that everybody is put to work and to get rid of these ideological hangups to the effect that we must stay out of it, leave it to the market, leave it to anybody else but not to us. That is a total cop-out of Government; they contend they are not to blame, when of course they are to blame. Indeed, all of us in this House are to blame and are blamed. That is why people have such little regard for politics and politicians. We are all seen to be responsible — Government, Opposition, the lot. Yet nobody comes up with any solutions, identifying what is wrong and why we have been in this position consistently over so many years.
The Workers' Party believe that the main cause is our failure to industrialise on the basis of our resources. We have said that for years. Telesis said it some ten years ago. The recent Culliton report said the same thing; it referred to indigenous industries and resources, the basis on which jobs can be created here.
There is now the ridiculous circumstance in which a Finnish state company — of course, State companies are out the window here; there is a fierce ideological hang-up to the effect that they must be broken up, privatised or whatever — have now taken total control of our main lead and zinc wealth in Tara and Galmoy and have also taken a major stake in our other mineral development companies. This means they have taken total control of our basic mineral wealth for the purpose of providing jobs in their country. We export all our mineral wealth without creating any jobs or industrial development from it.
The Minister for Energy appears to be interested in breaking up the ESB. One of the first tasks to be undertaken by any jobs forum must be to get rid of that idea. Such ideological hand-ups are held by people who are paranoid about some companies doing a fantastic job, doing what they have been asked to do, which is to go out and expand into new areas and then everybody proceeds to hit them on the head and forestal them. The Minister for Energy says there are people in the private sector interested in purchasing ESB generating stations, expensive commodities, and are even prepared to build new electricity generating stations. I say to the Minister for Energy and to the Government that if there are such people they should be asked to put their money into building a smelter here to smelt our lead and zinc. This would form the basis of a huge industrial development with regard to parts for such commodities as washing machines, cars, or whatever, for export or otherwise.
If one thinks in those terms one is thinking of a whole new industrial development, not merely of 100 jobs here and there, but thousands of jobs and the spin-offs that would increase rapidly. But we do not think in those terms ever since we asked Rio Tinto Zinc to prepare a report for us and they said, "No, you could not have a smelter here, there are so many smelters in Europe with under-capacity in need of all your lead and zinc to keep them running at full capacity". In fact, we are exporting sufficient to keep two smelters going in Europe. Of course, we accept their statement and reply, "Your smelters must be maintained; take all our lead and zinc; we will not build a smelter here". That type of nonsense makes everybody sick.
When one is talking about jobs one must get down to basics and talk about where they can realistically be created. For example, some years ago the beef industry was targeted and people kicked up murder about live cattle being exported. I must say that this was mainly on the part of animal lovers who objected to the horrific conditions to which the animals were being subjected. It was decided to target the beef industry with a view to processing these cattle rather than exporting them live. I will ignore all of the scandals involved; that is another story. Fantastic progress was made in developing a processing sector within the beef industry. We must process our resources, of which we have such a wide range. For example, Coillte Teo, are doing an excellent job developing our timber industry but have failed to get the pulp mill they had been expecting. This means we export thousands of tonnes of wood chippings and wood, again to Finland, where they are put through their pulp mills. One can see the rolls of paper arriving here on the same ship that transports our wood and wood chippings to Finland because we do not have the requisite processing facilities.
A number of people have drawn to my attention the fact that when travelling through the State one sees the country white with sheep. Dairy and beef farmers who at one time would not have known one end of a sheep from the other now have them and receive the requisite subsidies, headage payments or whatever. All one ever hears in market reports deals with the price of lamb on the Paris market. Of course, there is no mutton any longer; it is now all lamb. Nobody appears to realise that these sheep grow wool. I have never heard a market report on the price of wool. I might add that the price of wool one month ago was almost exactly the same as it was in the sixties, just four shillings per pound. That is an absolute scandal. All this wool is baled and exported unprocessed. As far as I know it is uncleaned. A handful of people, I would estimate some six or seven, control these exports and make a damn good thing out of it. It is worth about £10 million to £15 million. They are not interested in putting that money back into the processing of the wool or any such project. It will clearly be seen that a wide range of our resources are being exported.
We live in an era in which leather goods have become more popular than ever, with everybody possessing leather coats and jackets. In fact we have more skins and hides than we know what to do with; they are all exported in their raw state as we have no tannery here. Our so-called entrepreneurs are interested only in making money for themselves and they do this by taking money from other people. They are not creating new wealth by property acquisitions. By various deals on the Stock Exchange they are accumulating large sums of money, but they are not interested in developing or creating wealth. The Government are not creating the right climate. They ought to know that after six or eight years, because people who make money will not invest it. They may buy a couple of horses, but nobody is building a smelter or anything decent such as a pulp mill for our timber or putting their money into an area where jobs can be created. If a jobs forum is set up it must deal with specifics and say where the jobs will be created.
First, I thank Deputy Mac Giolla for sharing his time with me. I welcome the fact that the Fine Gael Party have chosen this most important subject for Private Members' Business. In fact, my colleagues and I produced a policy document in February 1987 calling for the establishment of a jobs forum. We campaigned in the general election of that year on that particular issue. Unfortunately, it has taken five years for that to be realised in the House, although I have many reservations about the outline of the forum as suggested. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the amendment in the name of my colleagues and I, which reads:
In the second line, to delete the words "and of the social partners" and substitute ", and social partners and the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed"; and after line 3, to insert the following:
(a) to consider the economic and social problems faced by the unemployed and their dependants, to discuss the adequacy of income levels and support services for the unemployed, to examine the relationship between work and social welfare payments, and to make appropriate recommendations on these matters.
That amendment raises a number of issues which I would like to have more time to deal with, including in particular the interaction of the social welfare system with the taxation system and a number of issues raised by the Conference of Major Religious Superiors in their document. Also there is now in existence an organisation that represents the unemployed. For that reason, in view of the fact that the unemployed have most to gain from any success this debate may have, they ought to be formally involved in a structured way.
The burden on the economy arising from unemployment is horrendous. The cost in terms of extra social welfare and tax foregone is more than £2,000 million per annum, or the equivalent of 10 per cent of GNP. While the traditional line of economists has been that unemployment can only be dealt with when our fiscal affairs are in order, the evidence now is that the economy cannot be put back on a sound footing until we get more people off the dole queues and into productive employment. The economic cost is only part of the picture. Of even more significance is the human and social cost: the broken families, the lives destroyed, the talents wasted by the scourge of unemployment. Poverty, crime, vandalism and social alienation are all too common in communities demoralised by constant mass unemployment.
It is a shocking indictment of our society that in all the recent scandals involving the privatisation of State companies, which led to huge fees for select firms and massive profits for a handful of businessmen, not one additional job was claimed to have been created. If some of those at the top of Irish business channelled half the energy into job creation that they devote to feathering their own nests, we would be a far healthier society.
If Ireland is to put in place an industrial base capable of creating a sufficiency of employment opportunities for both the present and future generations, a radical new departure is required in national industrial policy. This will necessitate a massive diversion of the nation's resources — financial, human, organisational and institutional — away from their current uses and into a concentrated and single minded effort to create homebased industrial structures of establishing secure and stable foreign markets for Irish goods and of passing the benefits of these markets on to the Irish population at large in the form of jobs and a comfortable standard of living for all. Such a bold and imaginative new departure will require able and courageous political leadership with a breadth and length of vision which has hitherto been notably absent from the Irish scene.
In order to establish a national cross community concensus on the crisis situation which exists regarding unemployment in Ireland and on the need for a major innovation in the area of job creation, I am happy to support the convening of what I would prefer to see as a national forum on employment creation. The immediate purpose of this forum would be to hear evidence from the broadest possible range of interest groups concerning approaches to tackling employment creation. Its broader purpose would be to sharpen awareness throughout Irish society of the seriousness of the situation and to mobilise popular support behind the measures for industrial expansion which will be required.
In order to follow through on the deliberations of this national forum, I believe that one element of particular significance missing from the Fine Gael motion is an organisation to follow through on what ever proposals may come from that forum; thus there is the necessity for the establishment of a statutory national industrial development council. This could be charged with formulating a broad strategy for industrial development and identifying the measures required for implementing this strategy. The report of the national forum would form the initial agenda for the national industrial development council. The council would draw their membership, according to a formula to be agreed, from the Oireachtas, the public service, business interests, trade unions, the unemployed, environmental, consumer, social interests and so forth-in other words, all those with a legitimate interest in economic development and employment creation.
It is vital to the success of this strategy that, once agreement has been reached, all parties would take responsibility for securing full co-operation with and commitment to the objectives of the strategy within their respective constituencies. In their work the national industrial development council would be supported by their own professional secretariat, adequately funded, in order to ensure recruitment of personnel of the highest calibre. In addition, the national industrial development council would be advised by two key committees: first, a consultative committee made up of technicial experts from third level colleges, research institutes and the research departments of the social partner organisations; and, second, a local authorities committee whose function would be to advise the national industrial development council on the regional dimensions of its industrial development strategy.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle, can you indicate what time I have left?
Between yourself and Deputy Kenny you must finish by 8.9 p.m. so that there are approximately 11 minutes remaining.
From the analysis presented earlier in this document that I am outlining as an input to this forum, it is clear that if it is to hold out any prospect of seriously tackling the Irish unemployment crisis the national industrial development, council's strategy must, first, identify industrial sectors and sub-sectors with long term growth prospects and in which Ireland is capable of developing a comparative advantage in international markets. Second, it must identify or establish a core group of firms with a potential to exploit fully these potential advantages. Third, it must identify or establish firms or institutions capable of supplying essential inputs of products and services from within Ireland to the core group of exporting firms. Fourth, it must rationalise and co-ordinate the State's business support agencies with a high priority focus on the target sectors and companies. Fifth, it must create a supervisory co-ordinating planning body to establish specific objectives and targets and to oversee the pursuit of these objectives and targets. Sixth, it must restructure the semi-State sector, the public service and the political institutions of the State in order to create a new dynamism in support of the massive national effort required by the proposed industrial policy.
I suggest, in making that input, that action is required under three headings: industrial policy, which I have dealt with in passing, the democratisation of various institutions and the question of a living income.
It is obvious that our industrial policy is out-of-date and it is generally agreed on all sides of the House that we are getting poor value for money. An industrial policy therefore is required which will direct the development of large successful indigenous industry, allow small enterprise to flourish and provide guidelines as standards for businesses of all kinds. State intervention and assistance must be more selective than in the past, much more highly targeted and less wasteful. There must be an interventionist European Community industrial policy with convergence of the regions as a major target. Jobs must be brought to the people, not the other way around. European Community intervention is also needed to encourage European multi-nationals to co-operate with each other and to invest in other European Community countries, especially those on the periphery.
A good industrial policy is useless without the active involvement and commitment of people. Successful enterprises are ones in which a team of workers, operating more or less as equals, pull together to provide a really good product. Democratisation in the workplace requires greater flexibility in working hours, patterns of work and even types of work.
On the question of a living income, it seems there is a need for radical reform of the tax and social welfare systems with a view to their eventual integration. Such a move would remove the various poverty traps which result from the irrational interaction of several systems working at cross purposes, not just tax and social welfare but also the way in which PRSI is charged and entitlement to medical cards assessed.
Finally, the tax system should reflect new social and economic priorities, such as the encouragement of efficient job generating and environmentally acceptable industry and the discouragement of parasitic non-productive or environmentally damaging enterprises.
While we are having this debate on the macro-economic solutions to the crisis of unemployment I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that a receiver was sent in today to a modern electronics company in Clondalkin in my constituency called Atlantic Magnetics where 150 people have been put out of work despite the fact that the order books of that particular company are full and they are incapable of meeting demand. I will be dealing with that matter later on the Adjournment debate.
First, I would like to thank Deputy Mac Giolla for sharing his time with me. I am happy to support this motion in the name of Deputy John Bruton which calls on the Government to establish a national forum on jobs. There is a necessity to establish such a forum which would present politicians and the political system with a real challenge. Indeed, it is probably the nearest we will get to having a national Government. Each Irish person, be they at home or abroad, consistently questions the inability of politicians to create jobs or the environment in which sustainable jobs can be created.
This forum could turn out to be a farce and completely useless if it is not made quite clear to those who participate in it that they should not merely come up with ideas but rather implement ideas which are there in abundance. Umpteen reports have been produced at great cost during the past 15 years. These are stacked in offices throughout the land. If there was a quick fix or easy solution it would have been found and implemented long ago. It is only fair I should say that this forum should have the capacity to be a national political success or else it could turn out to be a farce.
I would like to think that the members of the forum would set about, as a matter of urgency, creating an environment where initiative and hard work will be rewarded and where people can vent their ideas without having to travel abroad. I also hope that the forum once established would not be hijacked by their members when it comes to announcing that jobs are to be provided or ideas that might lead to the creation of jobs. I recall an occasion prior to this Government being formed when the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, appeared on a platform with the then Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce and both announced that an industry was to be established in Longford. That is not what the forum should be about. They should address the inability of Government down the years to create the right environment.
We should be honest and own up to the fact that there is a huge black economy operating here. No one can blame able bodied people with skills for not sitting at home and using those skills. The Minister for Industry and Commerce refused to comment on this matter when a question was put to him in the Dáil prior to Christmas.
In his Budget Statement the Minister for Finance mentioned one of the training schemes that the Minister for Labour, whom I welcome to the House and congratulate on his appointment, would be implementing. Yet, after officials of FÁS had been brought to central locations for training in relation to that scheme fax messages were received in the Department of Labour from the Department of Finance to the effect that the scheme had not yet been cleared, that there were internal union difficulties and that they should not proceed. There is an old saying that one should not cackle until the egg is laid. I would like, therefore, to have this matter cleared up. If the Minister makes an announcement in the House he should be able to back it up.
I would now like to quote from the Official Report of 24 June 1986, Volume 368, column 1146 which states:
Young men who went to school with me can see no future in this country. They are not afraid to work, and enterprise is very much alive in young people. There is no need to take my word for it: Brian Patterson, Director General of the IMI, said that those who say that the spirit of enterprise is dead are wrong. Our young people are full of it, the black economy is driven by it and the enterprise allowance scheme has been swamped by it.
They are not my words, rather they were uttered by Deputy Cowen who is now Minister for Labour. Six years on, he is faced with the responsibility, in part, of having to grapple with the consequences. The statement he made at that time was quite accurate.
Finally, the bishops' conference in the west pointed to the clear need to establish a forum which would be active and deal, as a matter of urgency, with this problem. People are clutching at straws, communities are dying before our eyes and a sizeable proportion of the population are desperately hoping that not only will the Government provide some consolation but will create the right environment in which their sons and daughters, who have ideas, are willing to take the initiative and work hard, can be rewarded at home. I commend the motion to the House.
I call on Deputy Hillery who must conclude by 8.15 p.m.
The right to a decent chance to earn a living for oneself and one's family is one of the most fundamental in our society. On that there is general agreement. On the positive side, it must be said that the performance of the economy in recent years has, indeed, been remarkable. Inflation has been substantially reduced, the trade balance has been dramatically turned around while we have maintained a fixed exchange rate link with the mighty Deutsche Mark for more than five years now. My point, therefore, is that these achievements have been translated into real economic activity as well.
The period from 1988 to 1990 was one of exceptionally rapid growth for our economy, when private sector employment increased more rapidly than during any other period since the Second World War. Indeed, it was a commendable achievement for the economy to continue to record positive growth during 1991 and to hold employment at these higher levels in the face of the worst international economic recession since the thirties. However, given the sheer scale of the unemployment problem, clearly much more needs to be done. Low inflation and sound financial balances are not an end in themselves; they are only intermediate objectives of economic policy and are not substitutes for the jobs which are necessary for those who do not have them at present. Unless they are accompanied by strong and lasting economic growth, which will facilitate the creation of meaningful and sustainable jobs for all our citizens who wish to work, they add little to the welfare of overall society.
In searching for a solution to the employment problem a number of key issues need to be kept in the forefront. First, we should not underestimate the size of the problem confronting us. Secondly, we should recognise that there are no quick fix solutions and dispel the notion that Governments can create sizeable and lasting employment. Thirdly, recent rises in unemployment should not obscure the considerable achievement of employment creation in recent years; the policies of the last five years are the way forward but the foundations laid now urgently need to be built and expanded upon. The size of the problems is very large. In the absence of emigration — that is an assumption, of course — some 15,000 new entrants will flow into the labour force each year. We have to find employment not just for these new entrants but for those already unemployed. I have first hand knowledge of an accute unemployment problem in my own constituency, Dún Laoghaire, and the challenge facing us is enormous.
We have not in the past achieved the pace of job creation which seemed to be necessary in the short term for a sustained period, but we cannot be put off by the size of the task. Between 1988 and 1990, when international conditions were more favourable than they are now, net new jobs were emerging at the rate required in the immediate period ahead. If we did it once we can do it again, but let us not fall into the trap of the quick fix. The way forward is to build on the success of the economic policy which has been implemented since 1987. Much of the economic success in that period can be attributed to the partnership approach based on consensus between the Government and the social partners.
Because of the provisions of the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress Irish companies have been able to notch up substantial gains in competitiveness. In that context the consensus idea behind the Fine Gael motion is indeed praiseworthy. Having said that however, the structure which will emerge to address this most urgent problem of unemployment must not lead to another talking shop, that must be avoided at all costs. What is needed is a search for all possible further improvements which will aid the creation of jobs.
The Culliton report, a very important document in its own right, identified current training and education policy as being inadequate for the needs of a modern and growing economy. Another area offering scope for improvement is the process of intergrating the tax and social welfare codes and reducing the disincentives to job creation which remain in the system. In the past the gap between the cost to the employer of recruiting a worker was well in excess of the take-home pay of the employee. Progress has certainly been made in achieving a better balance between employment and capital incentives in industrial promotion, but more needs to be done.
We must proceed on a number of fronts at the same time. Any illusion that one single initiative will be sufficient to tackle a problem so large and intricate will be doomed to failure. A more comprehensive political dimension, as advocated — or certainly implied — in the Fine Gael motion to the search for strategies for job creation may well prove another important further step.
In relation to a forum or whatever it is called, the structure which will give expression to the need to formulate those strategies will be of fundamental importance and in that context I look forward to the Government's proposals in that regard.
I should like to congratulate Deputy Cowen on his elevation to the post of Minister for Labour. It is an extremely important position and one of the pivotal posts in tackling the problem with which we are dealing tonight. I will also miss him as a very valued member of the security and political committee of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body. However, I wish him well in his new job and I am well satisfied with his replacement.
We in Fine Gael thought last night, after the contribution of the Minister for Finance, that there would not be a vote tonight because the Government had accepted Fine Gael's proposals for a jobs forum. I wish to thank all the Members who contributed to the debate last night and tonight. There is a general recognition that this is one of the most important problems which must be faced by Members of this House. There is a large level of acceptance of the proposal which we put forward. We thought that there would be an all party attempt to see what could be done to prevent the present level of unemployment — at a record high of 276,000 — from escalating. We had hoped to devise and develop strategies to bring that unacceptable level down, because it is not good enough any more for Members of this House to bemoan the rise in unemployment figures. The unemployed have heard enough pious platitudes, they now want action.
The way to tackle the problem is to involve political parties, trade unions, employers and the agencies involved in training and industrial development in an effort to put in place the long term economic planning which will create sustainable jobs for our people in the future. Our approach, as Deputy Hillery said, must be multi-faceted; we must tackle training policies, education, industrial and Government policy. This requires all Members, as Deputy John Bruton said last night, to set aside the traditional adversarial model of political exchange which has existed for over 70 years and adopt in its place the kind of consensus approach which demonstrably worked in other countries — for example, the Netherlands and Sweden. It also worked on another occasion in this country in relation to the other important problem facing us, Northern Ireland.
Many commentators agree that structural factors contribute to the high rate of unemployment existing here, a rate twice that of most of our European colleagues. These structural factors include our taxation system. Real and significant reform in this area will require a broad consensus. The kind of piecemeal tinkering of the last few years will not achieve results. Radical reforms are required and they will need support from all parties in the Dáil and Seanad.
The Culliton report provides a good starting point for the identification of new strategies and policies for industry, although it is not the gospel. It has one glaring deficiency: there is no mention in it of what could be developed for rural areas and the tourism industry is not dealt with either. Having said that, there are many very good ideas in the report which should be looked at. The organisations dealing with industrial training development must critically assess their role and function. It is crucial to match the training provided with the potential job market. This means long term strategies and plans. It means a real examination of how money from the European Social Fund is being spent and the same applies to money from all the other funds in Europe. It also means reassessing the role of the IDA for the nineties.
Part of the role of the new forum will be to assess and examine all the State agencies which have been examined over the years to see if they are still functioning in accordance with their terms of reference. Sometimes we have a tendency to think that because a body exist, even if they were set up 20 years ago, they are doing a good job, without ever examining their role. Deputy Mac Giolla fell into that trap earlier tonight when he accused Minister Molloy of having an ideological interest in dismantling the ESB. The ESB have been in existence for 70 years and it is time they were re-examined. Equally, a charge might be levelled at Deputy Mac Giolla that he is caught in an ideological timewarp; he said that because the company are in existence they should remain there. I do not think there is any harm in examining all State agencies, including the ESB.
They are a progressive company and are creating jobs.
At whose expense?
An assessment of management, training, etc. in all these agencies should be undertaken. If possible, outsiders should be brought in to examine each agency and Government Department to see whether changes would be of any benefit to the community.
The recent survey of the experience of school leavers in 1990 demonstrates the enormity of the challenge facing us. During the past 12 months alone, youth unemployment increased by a massive 23,000 a rise of 40 per cent. If we do not understand and appreciate the implications of that, then we are not fit to be Members of this House. Thirty-two per cent, or one in three students who left school in June 1990 were unemployed 12 months later. Emigration has eased off, but we are not providing any work for those who are staying at home; these people have to join the dole queues. One of the saddest things I heard over the past two years was Government Ministers defending the rise in unemployment by saying that emigration was no longer available as a safety value. This clearly demonstrates the failure of the Government to tackle the unemployment crisis.
We still rely on factors such as emigration to alleviate the unemployment crisis. The recent census shows that 23 per cent or one in four school leavers have emigrated by the time they reach their early twenties. We cannot and must not condemn another generation to long term unemployment or emigration. The last number of years have shown a rise in cynicism and an increasing lack of confidence in our political process. I do not think any of us who hold clinics at the weekends or who come into contact with youth organisations or organisations who speak for the unemployed can be in any doubt about the low level of regard young people have for Members of this House, the institutions of State which are supposed to gear the economy of this country for their future, and politics in general. This is not a good thing. Other European countries are experiencing the same decline in support for political parties with, unfortunately, a rise in support for extremist groups.
As political leaders we must demonstrate that we can make this process work. We must show young people that the Members of this House are capable of providing them with a future in this country. We must all co-operate in doing this. The industrial climate is changing and we are facing a new era which some commentators call the third industrial revolution. The policies and practices which we have taken for granted for too long must be changed if we are to provide the necessary 25,000 new jobs every year.
One of the factors which has contributed to the success of the Japanese and the Germans is their innovative approach to industrial policy and their ability to accept change quickly. One of the characteristics shared by both these countries is the involvement and co-operation of the workforce in the decision making process. Indeed, in some instances decision making has been developed by the workers to ensure that they are informed and consulted in every aspect of planning for the future of their industries.
The completion of the internal market by the end of this year will present us with huge opportunities as well as huge challenges. Not alone will the European market of 320 million people be open to us, but our market will be open to other countries. We need to harness the resources of our entire community to provide employment for our people and enable them to participate fully in the development and progress of our society.
It is for these reasons that for the past twelve months Fine Gael have been proposing the establishment of an all-party jobs forum to tackle the major problem of unemployment. Indeed, it was Fine Gael who proposed the New Ireland Forum, which tackled on an all-party basis the other and perhaps more intractable problem facing this country. This forum, from which the Anglo-Irish Agreement flowed, has now been accepted by virtually everybody, perhaps belatedly by Fianna Fáil. If our proposal to establish a jobs forum had been accepted 12 months ago, as it is being accepted now, perhaps some solutions could have been put in place by now to help the unemployed.
As I said at the outset, after Minister Ahern's contribution last night Fine Gael hoped that no vote would be necessary on this motion. However, when Deputy Quinn asked the Taoiseach on the Order of Business this morning whether there would be consultations with the other political parties before the formation of the forum the Taoiseach replied:
As the Minister for Finance made clear yesterday evening, we are listening to the debate with interest and we will take into account the points being made. We will then proceed to decide on what we believe are the appropriate structures to involve all the various sectors in the discussions.
When pressed further by Deputy Quinn, the Taoiseach said:
We already have the proposals and the views of the Opposition parties. We had them even before the debate and we listened to see if there were any new ideas forthcoming.
I am afraid it is quite clear that there is not going to be any consultation with the Opposition parties before the forum are set up.
They know it all.
This is very regrettable and it destroys the spirit——
Nineteen eighty six all over again.
——which was evident in this House over the past two days about the recognition by all parties that this was a major problem which needed to be tackled on an all-party basis. I regret that this all-party approach to our unemployment problem could not be fully supported by the Government and that they have decided not to consult with the other political parties before the structures of the forum are set up. This is a retrograde step by the Government. I believe that the spirit which existed in the House last night has been destroyed. I hope that as a result of the vote tonight the Government will realise that all Members of the House — I am not singling out any party — are considerably concerned about the long term damage which will be caused to the political fabric of our society if we do not find a solution to the job crisis. I believe the jobs forum suggested by Fine Gael can make a contribution to solving this problem. However, this issue must be approached on an all-party basis and there must be all-party involvement in the setting up of the necessary structures.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Creed.
Question declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.