Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992

Vol. 418 No. 4

Joint Committee on Employment: Motion.

Minister for Labour (Mr. Cowen)

I move:

(1) That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas (which shall be called the Joint Committee on Employment) consisting of 15 members of Dáil Éireann and 4 members of Seanad Éireann (none of whom shall be a member of the Government or Minister of State), be appointed

(a) to examine and make recommendations on all aspects of economic and social policy which have a bearing on employment creation and which can contribute to alleviating unemployment and

(b) to consider and make recommendations on any other issues or subjects which the Joint Committee considers relevant to its task

and report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas at least three times a year.

(2) That the Joint Committee shall have power to appoint subcommittees (which may consist of members of the Oireachtas who are not members of the Joint Committee) and to delegate any matter comprehended by paragraph (1) to a subcommittee.

(3) That the Joint Committee shall have power to nominate persons who are representatives from interested bodies to assist each subcommittee in its deliberations.

(4) That the Joint Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance, the Joint Committee shall have the power to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist it or any of its subcommittees in their consideration of any matters comprehended by paragraph (1).

(5) That, where a matter which has been delegated to a subcommittee under paragraph (2) is to be considered at a meeting of the Joint Committee, members of that subcommittee shall be notified of such meeting and shall be allowed to attend and take part in the proceedings thereof without having a right to vote; and persons nominated under paragraph (3) may be invited to attend such meetings to assist the Joint Committee in its deliberations.

(6) That provision be made for the appointment of substitutes to act for members of the Joint Committee (and members of subcommittees who are members of the Oireachtas) who are unable to attend particular meetings.

(7) That the Joint Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members to be Chairman, who shall have only one vote; and shall appoint from among the members of each subcommittee a member of the Oireachtas to be the Chairman of that subcommittee.

(8) That all questions in the Joint Committee shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting and in the event of there being an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative.

(9) That every report which the Joint Committee proposes to make shall, on adoption by the Joint Committee, be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith, whereupon the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report, together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

(10) That the quorum of the Joint Committee shall be four, of whom at least one shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and one a member of Seanad Éireann, and that the quorum of each subcommittee shall be three.

The Government have put unemployment at the top of their agenda and their economic and social policies have been geared accordingly. The establishment of the joint committee now offers the Government and Opposition the opportunity to adopt a consensus approach to a problem which, to a greater or lesser degree, has dogged policy makers for decades. The joint committee gives the Oireachtas the opportunity of contributing to the job creation process. In addition, the committee through its sub-committees will be able to avail of the experience, advice and energy of parties and individuals interested in the question of employment and unemployment.

Our employment performance compares unfavourably with those of our EC partners. Between 1980 and 1991 Ireland's unemployment rate rose from 7.3 per cent to 20 per cent. Most of this took place in a surge between 1980 and 1984 and was attributed to the prevailing level of real interest rates, UK demand shocks, and increased participation in the labour force. The economy was affected by adverse factors which were roughly evenly split between those affecting labour supply and labour demand.

The rise in unemployment during the past year is attributable to the global recession and the related occurrence of a dramatic decline in the numbers emigrating. During the 1980s emigration started to increase after a decade during which the upward trend had been reversed. In the three years April 1987 to April 1990 average net emigration was 35,000 persons per year. The countries to which Irish people traditionally emigrate, Britain and the United States, were experiencing expansion of their labour markets, making them attractive destinations for Irish people seeking jobs. After peaking in 1989-90 emigration has declined sharply until in 1990-91 it amounted to only 1,000 in net terms. The Irish demographic situation is such that the labour force has the potential to grow by between 2 and 2.5 per cent a year.

Last Friday's unemployment figures were the highest ever recorded by the live register. At present, one in five of all persons who would like to work are for one reason or another unable to find a job. If this continues unchecked the cost to the State in terms of hardship, social exclusion and wasted human potential, drained financial resources and weakened future growth prospects will be immeasurable. These figures add an increased urgency — if any were needed — for us all to act together in the interests of increased employment.

Rising unemployment is not unique to Ireland: it is, unfortunately, part of a global trend. Since the beginning of 1991 unemployment has risen by over 2 million in the USA. Australia, Canada, Finland and the UK have all witnessed similar percentage increases in unemployment to that recorded here. From a situation where many governments believed two years ago that they had solved the unemployment problem, unemployment has resumed its place at the top of governments' agendas. In addition, many of these countries are not experiencing the same growth in the labour force or the phenomenon of returning emigrants as Ireland.

The Irish economy has performed very well over the past four years and is continuing to do so, despite the protracted worldwide recession.

In starting its task, the committee can look to the following achievements of recent years: GNP growth has averaged over 4 per cent a year (7.5 per cent in 1990); we have maintained one of the lowest inflation rates in Europe; we have a stable exchange rate; and rates of personal taxation have been significantly reduced, particularly for the lower paid, and the Exchequer returns for the first quarter of 1992 show a rise of nine per cent in revenue receipts compared with the same period last year.

The OECD have forecast that growth in Irish GNP will be of the order of 2.5 per cent in 1992 and 3.3 per cent in 1993. This compares favourably with growth predictions for other OECD countries.

I have mentioned these achievements to point out that the economic foundation for the work of this committee has already been laid. It is vital that we hold our nerve and do not allow ourselves to be pushed into panic action for the sake of political expediency or just to be seen to be "doing something". This view is supported by the ESRI and OECD. Last year the ESRI stated:

It is very difficult to discover measures which could ameliorate the unemployment problem in the short term without exacerbating it in the longer-term ... To increase the budget deficit further in an attempt to combat unemployment arising from international economic trends would be foolhardy and could jeopardise the economic strategy on which sustained employment growth depends.

The OECD, in their 1991 commentary, concurred:

Persistence with the considerable policy efforts already embarked upon provides the best chance for the continuation of the impressive economic performance achieved over the past three years.

But we cannot be happy with merely saying that our employment performance is no worse than other countries; giving a list of the measures taken by Government; or referring to progress on many domestic economic — but non-employment — measures. This is essentially the reason for setting up the joint committee. As I have said, the committee provides for the Oireachtas an opportunity to contribute in a structured way to the job creation debate.

The joint committee has my wholehearted support. Under the Constitution the Government and Ministers are responsible to the Oireachtas and it would not be the intention of Ministers to participate in the role of the joint committee. The Dáil reforms proposed by Deputy Bruton adopted a similar position in relation to the appearance of Ministers. The committee will start their work with a number of advantages. They will have: a basis in the broad agreement reached between all parties following hard but constructive preparatory work: a sound economic basis — I have already referred to this — a number of recent reports on the employment situation; the work and output of a number of committees and task forces interested in employment; the capacity to adopt a broad-based approach to the employment problem transcending institutionals divisions of responsibility and work; and the good will of all our people.

The release of the Culliton report together with the various submissions to that group has given us an analytical and prescriptive basis to approach the employment problem. This report, together with the reports of the National Economic and Social Council, particularly Strategy for the Nineties, will provide background material for the committee's deliberations.

The Culliton report contained recommendations under a number of headings: taxation; infrastructure; education; technology; industry-support; and the food industry. Culliton was also critical of the lack of an enterprise culture in Ireland. The development of such a culture and the inculcation of the positive attitudes towards more business starts and expansion will be an important task for the committee.

The Tansey Roche report for Culliton on industrial training in Ireland contains a number of recommendations which we will need to consider. These include: the role of the education system in producing modern, high-level skills support competitiveness; training of those at work: and the role of FÁS.

There exists a number of committees and institutions to deal with different aspects of the employment issue. The central review committee with responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress have devoted a considerable amount of their work to the question of how to increase employment and reduce unemployment. The Task Force on Employment are representative of employers' organisations, trade unions, individual employers and official agencies and were 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. These include: commercial State bodies producing components and products to supply the demand of the multinational companies in Ireland; third-level institutions creating additional places; that courses provided by the private third-level institutions be recognised as appropriate, for the higher education grants in order to improve access and the new job training scheme.

There now exists a Government committee comprising the Taoiseach, the Ministers for Industry and Commerce, Finance and the Environment and myself to follow up on the recommendations of the Culliton Group. This committee of the Government are supported by a committee of Departmental secretaries and others.

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 have concentrated on the employment problem.

The joint committee will have to build on the advice and recommendations available from previous consultancy and research work and existing institutions. They will have to develop an "employment strategy" incorporating relevant elements from the reports of the Industrial Policy Review Committee, the Task Force on employment, the NESC and the work of various Departments. This would recognise the inter-dependence of different policy initiatives in the employment generation process and would achieve greater cohesion, consistency and co-ordination among them in order to achieve maximum employment growth. The effects on employment of the tax system, industrial incentives, social welfare payments, education and training and other policies will have to be looked at. We must avoid any conflict between policies. All policies and programmes must support our job creation effort.

The committee must ensure that Ireland's record on employment generation is as good as the past EC standards. While the employment level increased by 40,000 since 1987 and a further 6,000 net new jobs are forecast for this year this growth is not enough to accommodate the numbers of people out of work and those entering the labour market.

We must attempt to identify those conditions specific to Ireland which adversely affect the Irish labour market. We must reach a consensus on those features of the Irish economy which differ from other more successful economies and adversely affect our capacity to generate jobs. In addition, the committee will have to take account of future radical changes in the labour market, including: increased global competition; the accelerating pace of the application and diffusion of new technologies; the further replacement of manufacturing by services; the increased liberalisation of trade, capital and labour coinciding with the completion of the Single European Market; increased attraction of the EC free movement of labour provisions for our young, well-educated labour force; increased demand by foreign employers for such labour; and the shift in economic equilibrium caused by the recent developments in Central and Eastern Europe.

It would be unrealistic to expect a sudden flow of jobs sufficient to resolve the unemployment problem. In that respect, I recently negotiated with the EC the terms of two schemes with a target take-up of 25,000 which should help relieve some of the pressures on the unemployed.

The employment subsidy scheme is now fully operational. To date, there have been approximately 1,400 jobs approved and 210 employees have been recruited. In brief terms, an employer will receive a subsidy of £54 a week in respect of each additional worker taken on above a base level of last November if the worker has been two months minimum on the live register. Payments will be made in arrears.

The job training scheme launched in March, 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 last number of years. Under the scheme, trainees will receive the appropriate FÁS training allowance and the firms will recoup 75 per cent of that expenditure. The scheme represents a major improvement in our training arrangements, one on which we will build in the future.

The transfer of EC Structural Funds has significantly contributed to the development of our economy. The development of our human resources aided by these funds has been a central element in our national development programme since the mid-sixties. Over the period, the quality of the Irish workforce has improved.

Following Maastricht, the Government are looking for a doubling of the Structural Funds in the five-year period after 1993 as a contribution to cohesion in living standards throughout the European Community. This doubling should include the allocation of additional financial resources for training. An increase in the level and quality of training could have a significant impact on the unemployment rate in Ireland. All the evidence suggests that the better trained get jobs.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasise the importance of the committee and wish the chairman and his committee well in their work. The issues involved are difficult and complex. If unemployment was easy to solve we would have solved it by now given the amount of time, effort and energy devoted to the problem. No doubt the issues will give rise to debates and discussions. It is my hope that this debate will be constructive and that whatever recommendations we arrive at will add significantly to the prospects of Ireland's future generations. I can assure committee members that their submissions and recommendations will be taken seriously by Government.

I look forward to commenting on their reports when they are laid before the House. Since we indulged in considerable preparatory work for the establishment of this committee I hope we can now proceed, affording Members of both Houses an opportunity of contributing positively to what is the biggest social problem of our time.

Mr. Flanagan

May I seek approval of the House to share my time with Deputies John Bruton and T. Ahearn?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed. Agreed.

Mr. Flanagan

First, I should move amendment No. 1 in my name and that the Leader of the Opposition, which proposes the deletion of the words which appear in brackets, in lines six and seven of the motion before the House, that is:

In paragraph (1), to delete "(none of whom shall be a member of the Government or Minister of State)".

It is particularly regrettable that the Government are proceeding to set up an employment committee without endeavouring to reach all-party agreement on the matter. In February of this year the Fine Gael Party drafted detailed terms of reference which were rejected in their entirety by the Government. The terms of reference proposed by the Government today do not meet any of Fine Gael's requirements. Throughout recent weeks negotiations have taken place between the Government and Opposition on amended terms of reference. It is most disappointing that none of the Fine Gael proposals was considered favourably by the Government.

In that respect let me remind the House of our six requirements for a meaningful, workable committee. The first was the attendance at and full participation by Ministers, particularly those holding an economic brief; second, a forum with permanent representation on the part of the social partners and the unemployed, not merely representation at sub-committee level; third, an adequate and sufficient budget for such independent consultancy as may arise from time to time; fourth, the chairmanship of the forum to be independent of Government; fifth, that proceedings be broadcast and witnesses empowered to speak under privilege; sixth, reporting by the Government directly to the forum on the Government's own progress on jobs. In the course of our deliberations Fine Gael were prepared to considerbly reduce our demands in the hope of reaching the often quoted consensus of the Taoiseach.

The reality of a third of a million of our people on the dole, rising by the day, must warrant a greater response than the establishment of a mere Oireachtas Joint Committee. At all times, Fine Gael were anxious to reach agreement on the matter. In an effort to achieve consensus five of our original six demands, to which I have referred, were dropped. The requirement that Fine Gael believe is of fundamental and paramount importance is that dealing with ministerial involvement in the proceedings of the committee. For example, active participation in and regular attendance by Cabinet Ministers constitutes a means of focusing the attention of the committee firmly on the road to action rather than merely indulging in talk.

A new approach to employment, as envisaged by the concept of the forum, should cast party political prejudice aside, thereby rising above party politics. Had the Taoiseach any real interest in achieving the full support and backing of the social partners and the unemployed alike he would have engaged in meaningful consultations in advance of the establishment of this committee rather than reacting, as he did, by a rush of blood to the head on the eve of his party's Ard-Fheis. The extent of the jobs crisis needs to be brought home to everybody, with everybody being involved in its solution. The forum-type approach envisaged by Fine Gael must have the support of all interest groups within the community and be sufficiently dynamic to generate immediate action.

Anything worth doing is worth doing properly and suggestions by the Government in recent days that they would see how the committee operate for three or four months and then change the terms of reference as they go along is insulting to the hundreds of thousands of people on the dole queues. Under the proposal before us, the committee will be totally under the control of the Government with an inbuilt majority and the perk of the chairmanship will be given to a party loyalist. Surely this does not constitute a fresh approach to tackling the jobs crisis. In the context of the present Oireachtas committee system we must not ignore the fact that the entire agenda of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies was dictated during the Greencore controversy by the Fianna Fáil chairman.

The fact that the committee being proposed in the motion before us will not have the power to invite Ministers to appear before them will render them impotent in many ways and mean they will lack any real authority. While the subcommittee structure has the merit of at least providing an ear to the unemployed and the social partners it does not compensate for the necessity for Ministers to answer directly to the committee about what they are doing in regard to job creation. Under our system of parliamentary democracy, Ministers are the people who have the power. They are the people who can initiate the type of action necessary to create a climate for greater employment opportunities. A committee without ministerial involvement would be seriously handicapped.

The proposal before us for the setting up of an Oireachtas joint committee is much less than what Fine Gael believe is necessary to make a meaningful contribution to this national crisis. It is sad that Cabinet Ministers from both Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats will boycott this committee presumably on the basis that attendance is regarded as a gross intrusion in the duties and functions of Government, a shallow excuse to avoid responsibility. Since the Taoiseach took office some weeks ago he has offered no direction on a course of action which might provide hope, particularly for young people. The most radical proposal todate is the one outlined by the Minister for Labour this afternoon to open FÁS offices abroad and thereby encourage participation by Irish people in the greater European jobs market.

The original proposal put forward by Fine Gael would, if accepted, harness the expertise of all the social partners, other interested parties and the unemployed by inviting them to sit around the same table at the same time. This would at least allow for the opportunity of achieving a common purpose towards addressing the unemployment problem. It is regrettable that this concept is being rejected. A mere backbench committee will not allay the level of despair throughout society about the problem of unemployment. Neither will it halt the ever increasing numbers of people joining the dole queues.

We in this House must not be blind to our failure over the past number of years to deal with this problem. In a final effort to resolve the impasse in reaching all-party consensus on a jobs committee and in the hope that agreement can be reached, I again repeat the Fine Gael proposal that Ministers be allowed to attend the committee on three occasions during the course of their deliberations. It is surely in the interests of everybody that there is some level of ministerial involvement in this committee. Such involvement would not only be useful to the committee but would also be of benefit to the Ministers themselves. It would not in any way dilute the role and function of the Executive vis-à-vis the Legislature. I urge the House to accept the proposal put forward by Fine Gael. If the Government fail to do this we will have no alternative but to oppose the motion before us. If the Government do not see fit to accept our amendment a great opportunity to reach consensus will have been lost.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

Like my colleague, I regret the decision of the Government to go ahead with the establishment of a jobs committee without having reached consensus. Fine Gael have made brave efforts in regard to the establishment of this committee. We proposed the setting up of a jobs forum because unemployment had reached crisis level and we considered the problem so serious that action was needed, action which would result in something being done about the problem instead of continuing to talk about it. Fine Gael are deeply disappointed that the Government are still insisting that we talk about the problem through their proposal today to establish a jobs committee without the involvement or participation of the key people who can help resolve this major problem, that is, Ministers. I wish to stress that for the past 12 months Fine Gael have been proposing the establishment of an all-party forum to tackle the major problem of unemployment. If our proposal had been accepted 12 months ago perhaps some solutions would have been put in place by now. The fact that our proposal is once again being rejected and dismissed here today means we cannot even hope to see any solution to this grave problem within the next 12 months.

Fine Gael believe that the participation of Ministers in any forum or committee which deals with so urgent and serious a problem as unemployment is vital. I cannot understand the determination of the Taoiseach to keep his Ministers at arms length from this all-party committee who will deal with the unemployment problem. This raises a serious question in regard to the Government's commitment to solve the problem of unemployment and the depth of their willingness to tackle the problem. If the Taoiseach does not see fit for his Cabinet Ministers to be involved in a jobs forum, despite what the Minister for Labour said in the first line of his speech today, the Government do not regard unemployment as a priority. It is appalling to think that people who have time to tour around the country unveiling plaques and cutting ribbons do not have time to participate in a forum charged with the greatest responsibility of our time — finding a solution to the unemployment crisis.

Fine Gael, under the leadership of Deputy John Bruton, were the first party to identify unemployment as the most serious issue facing this country. No effort was spared by our party Leader in impressing on the Government that this crisis was facing us straight in the face and that it needed urgent attention. Every single element of our proposal for a jobs forum, as outlined by Deputy Flanagan, was turned down by the Government. In view of the seriousness of the problem, we conceded, co-operated and said at all stages that we were not inflexible. We co-operated as far as possible. In many cases, perhaps we even ignored our best judgment. However, this party cannot concede on the issue of ministerial involvement in this committee because we honestly believe that without such participation this committee will not make any real progress and no long term solutions will be found.

The issue of unemployment cannot be adequately addressed by an all-party jobs committee. The issue is such that extraordinary measures are needed to investigate it, tackle it and put forward proposals which will have a long term effect in reducing unemployment. Unfortunately the Government have decided to treat this extraordinary problem with a very ordinary solution. The proposals put forward by them here today, will mean that sadly, the poverty, misery, and emptiness which have resulted from an unemployment level of approximately 280,000 will continue. It is incredible that the Government, presiding over the worst unemployment figures in our history, are determined to oppose and undermine what we consider to be a realistic and fair proposal to deal with unemployment. We wanted all-party co-operation, a crusade made up of all parties, to tackle this urgent problem. Unfortunately, the Government have missed a golden opportunity to do this.

The country is crying out for leadership in tackling the problem of unemployment. We tried desperately to offer that leadership. We did this in a spirit of co-operation, flexibility and of accommodating the views of all the other parties. Unfortunately, that approach has been dismissed and turned down by the Government. This is a sad day for the country. It is sad that we have not been given the opportunity to have an input into the setting up of a realistic jobs forum which could find long term solutions to a very serious problem. I believe that it will take time for the Government to realise their mistake. While the Government may have time, sadly those on the unemployment register do not. Fine Gael were fair and put forward a good proposal which unfortunately for reasons unknown to us and which we cannot understand has been rejected.

Mr. J. Bruton

It is tragic that the Government are proceeding to set up this committee without the customary agreement of all parties. When my party were in Government for five years, I did not act on any attempt to set up a new committee until there was agreement from the then, Opposition, the Fianna Fáil Party.

This is the first time in my memory that a Government party proceeded to establish a committee without having first got the agreement of the main Opposition party in relation to the terms of reference. It is doubly tragic in regard to the very serious issue of unemployment. The House does not need to be reminded that every year 25,000 more people leave school than the number of people reaching retirement age. Taken over a ten-year period we could have an extra 250,000 people unemployed by the end of this century unless there is a major change in the way our society operates in so far as employment is concerned.

Our social structure is profoundly anti-employment; for example, 50 per cent of our savings are gone into pension funds, not to risk investments where jobs would be created. They are being diverted to areas which create very little employment. Our tax structure does not encourage equity investment in enterprises which will create jobs; our tax structure does not encourage people to provide employment. I quoted this statistic many times but it bears repeating: the cost to an employer who wants to take on somebody extra is 57p in the £ in tax over and above what he will pay the employee simply for the privilege of taking him on. Nothing one would buy in a shop is taxed as highly, with the sole exception of cigarettes. Our tax system is profoundly anti-employment.

I do not believe agreement can be reached on changes in the tax system, all of which, obviously, would be extremely unpopular because the money would have to be raised in some other way. It is not possible for this side of the House to reach agreement with the Government side about the difficult decisions which might have to be made to change the tax system to make it more pro-employment because, as I said, the money would have to be raised from somewhere else, if we are merely dealing with Government back benchers who do not have any authority. It was to reach a consensus in the House on difficult issues that we wanted a committee of this kind. However, you cannot reach agreement if the people on the other side are not those who have responsibility. The Government are essentially saying that they will not appoint anybody with responsibility to this committee, they will appoint people who do not have any responsibility within the structure of the Government parties for anything, people who need some form of consolation will be put on this committee. We cannot be expected to reach agreement with people who do not have any power. For that reason, we wanted — in our view it is essential — to have Ministers on this committee. The Government said that there was not a precedent for appointing Ministers but we have never faced an employment crisis of this magnitude before. We needed unprecedented action if we were to show urgency in this House in regard to unemployment. What we intended to do needed to be unprecedented. However, the Government are wrong in relation to precedents because there are precedents for Ministers being involved in committees previously. The informal committee on the Constitution and the informal committee on inter-Irish relations are two examples. The latter committee, during the 1973-77 period had three Ministers from the then Coalition Government on it. Anyway, precedents should not matter, this problem is so severe that Ministers should have been prepared to take part.

The absence of Ministers on the committee will mean that they will waste a lot of time. For example, the committee will start doing a report on a particular subject and officials present will probably not be sure of the Minister's view on a certain topic. The committee will then prepare recommendations on something and when the report is finalised and brought into this House it will be discovered that the Minister is not even interested in the ideas. If, as Fine Gael proposed, the Minister was brought in at the beginning when the committee were commencing a report on training, there could be a discussion between them and the Minister. He could be asked his opinions and the committee could then produce a draft report to which the Minister could give his reaction. The committee could then finalise the report in the light of the Minister's reactions. This procedure would save a great deal of time and much better recommendations would emerge because they would have been based on a knowledge of what the Minister was prepared to accept and on an understanding of the practical problems which the Minister might see. The Government do not seem to believe that the Members of this House are intelligent enough, constructive enough or concerned enough about the unemployment problem to warrant Ministers coming before them and talking constructively in a proper atmosphere about how best to proceed. The Ministers want to stay a hundred miles away from the committee until a report is eventually presented in this House and perhaps they will then comment on it. However, by then six months will probably have been wasted.

The reports of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities are never discussed in this House. They gather dust as they are not even read. There are other examples of similar reports, in which Ministers were not involved in drawing up, gathering dust. Nobody pays any attention to the reports of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Semi-State Bodies, they are just presented and that is the end of them. If, on the other hand, the Ministers involved participated in preparing those reports — as we propose in this case — there would be a much more meaningful dialogue between Parliament and the Executive and a much greater meeting of minds between the Government and the Opposition. There would be a continuity of policy even if a Government changed because there would be a mutual understanding between Government Ministers on one side and the Opposition Front Bench on the other. I hope nobody seriously expects that an Opposition party would put their Front Bench members on to a committee if the Government Front Bench did not think it was worthwhile taking part. It does not make sense.

We made a proposal today to break the deadlock, we said that it would not be a case of Ministers having to appear before the committee every week. We said they would just have to come in at the beginning of the preparation of the report, at the draft stage and then at the final stage. As a last ditch effort we made this modest proposal to try to reach agreement but it was rejected out of hand. It was said that there would not be any ministerial presence on the committee. That is the attitude of the Government. We have reached a very sorry stage in this Dáil, for the first time in the histroy of the House a Government are proceeding in this fashion, simply ignoring the main Opposition party's views on a matter of this kind.

I assure the House that Fine Gael will not take part in this committee because it is not a serious one. The Government, by deciding that Ministers will not take part in any way in the deliberations of the committee, are showing clearly that they do not themselves regard this committee as serious. Fine Gael, however, will campaign on the jobs issue quite independently of this committee. We have already had all the consultants who prepared reports for the Culliton committee before our Front Bench to present their reports over a two-day session. We are arranging for our Front Bench to visit every unemployment centre in the country over the next two months to talk directly to those who are unemployed and to those helping them, so that we can bring forward our own ideas. We have our own proposals. The Government may proceed with this time wasting committee if they wish but I assure them that they will not deter the Fine Gael Party from carrying out their responsibilities in this matter. We will ensure that the unemployed have a proper voice in this House and will soon have a proper voice in Government when the parties opposite — who do not consider ministerial participation in a committee on unemployment to be important enough for them — have been put where they belong, on the Opposition benches.

Mr. Taylor

The Labour Party will support this motion because we see it as a potentially useful way of building and maintaining a consensus around agreed strategies to address the crisis of unemployment. The Labour Party have worked hard to bring this committee about and to make it as representative as possible. It would be objectively acknowledged that our input to the development of the terms of reference and the structures of the committee has been considerable. We did that for only one reason, we do not believe that the crisis of unemployment can be effectively addressed unless there is a wide degree of consensus across the community about strategy which, in this context, may well include sacrifice or, at the very least, a recognition that those of us who are employed have a responsibility to those without work or without hope of work.

We do not see this committee as a forum for recrimination or point-scoring. We do not see it as a place where people will be called to account. There are many other ways the Government can be tackled and criticised for their lack of performance on the issue of unemployment. I assure the House that because the Labour Party are prepared to work constructively on the proposed committee, does not mean we are prepared to allow the Government off the hook on the question of their failures. The key word is consensus.

There is a spirit throughout the community that we can address and resolve our problems. That spirit has never been tapped into; the dynamism, the ideas and the energy have never been effectively mobilised around the issue of unemployment. There is an opportunity now for politicians, working side by side with the social partners and with groups who are intimately involved with the crisis of unemployment, to begin to mobilise that spirit.

I deeply regret that the Fine Gael Party have decided to hold themselves aloof from what is being attempted here and, frankly, I fail to understand that decision. When we are close to having 300,000 people unemployed, it seems to the Labour Party that every possible avenue and opportunity must be availed of to try to address this problem in some way. Every forum and opportunity must be availed of by any responsible party here. It will look awfully strange that when there is a proposal to set up a jobs committee to give people the opportunity to come together and talk about the problem, either with or without Ministers, the Fine Gael Party say—

Mrs. T. Ahearn

Talk.

Mr. Taylor

——"no, we will visit the unemployment centres, we will not participate but remain outside it all as there is nothing we can usefully say there."

I do not object to Ministers being present; indeed, I would welcome their presence and, perhaps, would wish they be present. However, that is different to saying that because the Ministers will not be attending for whatever reason, we should wash our hands of the whole affair. We have things to say to that committee. We have ideas on how employment could be created and how the issue of employment has gone drastically wrong here down the years.

Our views differ radically from those of both Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats and, indeed, Fine Gael. We regard it as essential that our views be presented to the committee, reported on to this House by that committee and responded to in this House by the Minister responsible. The Leader of the main Opposition Party, Deputy Bruton, said that proposals may be put forward which the Minister has no interest in. I do not care whether he is interested or not but it is our responsibility in the Labour Party to put forward our policies and ideas on employment creation, to state our views on the need for an interventionist policy by the State, and its agencies, on the creation of employment. The Minister may not be interested, indeed no Fianna Fáil Minister, Fine Gael Minister and, certainly, no Minister from the Progressive Democrats showed an interest in that. That is not the point; we are obliged to put forward our theories and suggestions and have them discussed by the committee members. We will argue our corner as to why that aspect of employment creation is so important. Its neglect was one, if not the major reason for the appalling fix we are in.

The Minister may say he is not interested, but we will insist that that point is made in a report to the House and we will argue the point again and again in this House. Perhaps we will be able to persuade some Members and achieve something; we intend to try. If we do not succeed in having our policies implemented, at least we, unlike the Fine Gael Party, will be able to say that it was not for the want of trying. We intend to give it our all. If our suggestions are not taken up by the Government they carry the responsibility, just as they carry the responsibility for the present appalling situation.

In opening this debate the Minister said that "Australia, Canada, Finland and the UK all witnessed similar percentage increases in unemployment to that recorded here". That is of no interest. Their percentage rate of unemployment is a paltry fraction of our rate of unemployment.

They bear no resemblance to our figure. What comfort is it that unemployment has risen in those countries from 5 per cent to 7 per cent or from 2 per cent to 4 per cent when the rate of unemployment here is 21 per cent. It is not good enough that the Minister said in his speech that the committee can look to the following achievements of recent years: GNP growth has averaged over 4 per cent a year; we have a stable Exchange rate; rates of personal taxation have been significantly reduced and that the Exchequer returns for the first quarter of 1992 show a rise of 9 per cent in revenue recipts compared with the same period last year.

What good is that to the 300,000 who are unemployed? Why does the Minister give all these examples when they are not producing a result? Why set forth this list as though it meant something in reality? What good is a stable exchange rate to a person who is unemployed and has no prospect of employment for himself and his family? Does he care about GNP growth rate or even revenue returns? To that person they mean nothing. They will only mean something if they produce the jobs the unemployed and their families are waiting for. If they produce jobs we are in business and are doing something worthwhile.

The Minister quoted the following from the ESRI report:

To increase the budget deficit further in an attempt to combat unemployment arising from international economic trends would be fool-hardy....

Are we putting the blame for our position on international economic trends? That is not the case; they may account for some element but international economic trends affect Britain, the US, France and Italy and not just Ireland. Why are we so honoured that our unemployment rate is 21 per cent which is more than double the average in the EC? Why are we so special that we have the honour of having more than 21 per cent of the workforce unemployed? International trends affect all countries, not just Ireland. There must be something radically wrong. Something different is causing our problems and I suggest it is the utter over-reliance on private enterprise and our neglect to pay attention to State agencies, semi-State agencies, Government companies and intervention in the economy to create employment.

That is the Labour Party position and we will be advocating it as strongly as we can in the committee whether Ministers attend or not. When the report is debated in the House we will tell the Minister precisely the same thing. To tackle this problem it is essential that we first recognise there is a crisis. The most recent figure is 279,200 unemployed and to that must be added a further 11,000 people excluded from the live register because they are on special pre-retirement schemes. That means that the real number of unemployed, ignoring emigration completely, is over 290,000. In other words the recent prediction of the Minister for Finance that unemployment was heading towards 300,000 is coming true even more rapidly than might have been expected. What does it all mean?

Mr. J. Mitchell

It means we shall have a back bench committee.

Mr. Taylor

It means we must avail of every opportunity to try to do something about it. With respect to Deputy Mitchell, the Fine Gael policy of standing aside — let the other person do it, we will stand outside and look and criticise——

Mr. J. Mitchell

That is discreditable.

Mr. Taylor

——instead of getting in there and trying to do something about it. Maybe it will be successful, maybe they will not listen, maybe nothing will be produced but at least——

Mr. J. Mitchell

We proposed an all-party forum, not a back bench committee, which is a waste of time.

Mr. Taylor

It would be an all-party forum if Fine Gael got in there.

Mr. J. Mitchell

It is not a forum; we wanted a forum like the Northern Ireland forum. That was what we proposed.

Mr. Taylor

I know——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Taylor, if you try to out-shout a Deputy who is out of order by shouting, it is making it more difficult for the Chair and everybody else. As there have been three contributions for Deputy Mitchell's party——

Mr. J. Mitchell

We did not mention the Labour Party once.

An Cheann Comhairle

The three contributions were in order and were made without interruption. I would ask Deputy Mitchell to allow the same sympathy to Deputy Taylor.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I fully intend to.

Mr. Taylor

As you rightly said, and three Fine Gael contributors were not interrupted on one occasion. I am sorry if Deputy Mitchell is embarrased but he should just listen to what is being said.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I am not in the least embarrassed.

Mr. Taylor

I was referring to the position that arises from this appalling increase in unemployment, which means that the budget, announced in this House less than six weeks ago, is already seriously off target. By the end of the year I predict that an extra £40 million to £50 million will have to be found for unemployment-related payments. I want to warn here and now that the Labour Party will resist any effort to find that money on the backs of the under-privileged. That has been the way of this Government in the past and it has never been acceptable.

There is a human dimension to unemployment which has never been fully grasped by the political system; there is a cause and effect relationship between unemployment and poverty, between unemployment and crime, between unemployment and health costs, between unemployment and family breakdown. There is a cause and effect relationship between poor education and unemployment. In other words, unemployment ought to represent a core issue for the political system because it is at the core of so many other problems of inequality and disadvantage. No matter what way you put it, unemployment represents failure; it represents a failure of the political system since our independence. It is long past the time that the political system as a whole should recognise that failure and resolve that there will be no more failure on these issues.

As will be known, the committee being established today will operate through three subcommittees. The first subcommittee, about which I want to say a brief word, is on job creation. It will be our aim and hope that that subcommittee will be active in promoting a national consensus. The way to create jobs in Ireland is through creating markets for Irish products of the highest excellence delivered on time to the customer. That will mean changing attitudes. It is not a coincidence that economic studies in the past have found that Ireland is at the top of the league when it comes to giving out grants, hand-outs and incentives but it is near the bottom when it comes to quality, reliability, marketing skills, research and development. We have seen reports, articles and analyses on the giving of grants to create jobs, all of which suggest a dramatic, drastic and appalling failure over the years. I hope this committee and its constituent subcommittees will examine that history with a great degree of intensity, analyse where we went so badly wrong over past decades with those policies, and devise some new ways of using the available money to introduce intervention directly by the Government into the job creation market. There is plenty of money available but it is being thrown away. Millions of pounds is being wasted on foreign firms year in year out that created 200 jobs for two years, closed down and left 50 jobs. The number of jobs left in these firms is a pittance and is pathetic compared to the amount of money invested.

The private enterprise class in this country, unfortunately, have never lived up to expectations and have never created the quality of employment we need. We do have world beaters in that class when it comes to speculation and manipulation but, unfortunately, we lag behind the rest when it comes to the kind of management and entrepreneurial skills that are fundamentally important in turning wealth into work and jobs.

I hope the committee will also concentrate its efforts on building a consensus around the notion that the most successful economies in Europe are those in which working people have a high degree of influence and a high degree of participation in the success of their enterprises. There will be those who will argue that the way towards job creation is through lower rates of pay and more flexible approaches to employment. We do not want — and do not believe it is in Ireland's interest — to press for an economy built on low pay, part-time and casual work and low motivation. The economies we are competing with in Europe — and will be competing with in the future — are mostly economies which value participation and that should be the goal of our endeavours too.

We in the Labour Party believe that the time has come to seriously address a whole range of choices available for people who are without work. For example, it is surely a ludicrous anomaly with 300,000 people out of work that a person on unemployment assistance cannot afford to take the risk of doing a second or third level full-time course in education in case they lose their only means of subsistence.

In overall terms we believe the subcommittee on unemployment must set out priorities; it must single out those groups who are most in need of policy change — long term unemployed and young people — and it must highlight the need for specific policies which would prioritise them. This, too, will call for a change in attitudes as well as Government policies. Solidarity with people who are long term unemployed requires us to look long and hard at issues such as excessive overtime, excessive use of voluntary redundancy, working hours and so on. We will be submitting ideas in those areas to the subcommittee as part of our overall approach. We do not intend to abandon the needs of those who are without work. For that reason I pledge, on behalf of the Labour Party, the utmost co-operation in these committees in the work they will do. We want to see these committees succeed. Even more than that, the 300,000 people out there in our community and their representatives need to see this committee succeed.

Mr. Rabbitte

May I say at the outset that I want to share some of my time with Deputy Garland.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Rabbitte

The proposal before the House today is, I must concede to Fine Gael, dramatically different from the concept of a jobs forum which my colleagues and myself initiated during the 1977 general election and which has subsequently come to be supported by the other Opposition parties. However, having regard to the sheer scale of the crisis that confronts us, I think it is very difficult for us to seek to justify — as politicians elected to this House — abandoning the mechanism now being put in place to seek to address our greatest social and economic problem. When the idea was mooted, short of the proposal which is before us today, there was general agreement on the need for a national body, established with adeqate resources, that would be, and would be seen to be, capable of tackling the jobs crisis.

While it will be important to maintain the supremacy of the Oireachtas, the main interest groups involved should be included in the jobs forum as originally mooted. The reason for this is that vested interests have to be overcome and the best way to do this is to have each of them included in the major decision-making body. Anyone who has studied the Culliton report in detail or carried out an examination of the problems that he has avoided — the more thorny issues — will recognise that these vested interests need to be overcome if we are to make any progress. Therefore, it was the intention that the jobs forum would include a number of Deputies from each party, a representative from each of the main interest groups represented on the NESC and, specifically, from the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed.

It was modelled on the concept of the New Ireland Forum and was to have an independent chairman of outstanding calibre, with a manifest commitment and zeal to making the forum work. That is a particularly critical dimension of the proposal before us. I do not know who the Government propose should take the chair but to a large extent the success or otherwise of this committee will be determined by the time devoted and back-up provided to the chairman in guiding the committee.

The Fine Gael Party in particular have drawn attention to its defects, including the question of the attendance of Ministers. Before today I have said in the House that the attendance of Ministers would provide a boost for the committee. Notwithstanding these defects I do not think we in this House have any choice but to seek to make the committee work. That is the decision taken by my party. We have taken this decision because it is our conviction that it is only by a massive diversion of the nation's resources, financial, human, organisational and institutional, away from their current uses towards a concentrated and single-minded effort to create Irish-based industrial structures that we will be capable of establishing secure and stable foreign markets for our goods and passing the benefits to be gained on to the population at large in the form of jobs and a comfortable standard of living for all.

Accordingly, the committee hold out the hope that agreement will be found on a strong political mandate for radical action to tackle the unemployment crisis. It is clear from the Culliton report that unless we radically change direction — it should be said going on past performance that no Government have changed direction — and this new departure in relation to industrial and economic policy is underpinned by a mandate from parties in this House, this is not likely to happen. The nub of the hope that the committee hold out for the unemployed is that there is a possibility — I would put it no stronger than that — that we in this House, will agree on a plan of action designed to make a serious impact on the scale of the unemployment problem. It seems that there is now such a prospect and if the Government get such a political mandate from the House there will be no excuse for not implementing whatever strategies are agreed to by the committee.

The Committee could be used to mobilise public support for a set of strategies designed to tackle the unemployment crisis. We have allowed the problem to get worse during the past decade because officially they were incapable of taking the recommendations of the Telesis report on board. The Minister will say that ten years later many of the recommendations of the Telesis report have been implemented and that is true — many of them have been implemented belatedly — but the fact that it has taken us the best part of a decade to implement some of the recommendations of the Telesis report forms part of the explanation why our unemployment problem is getting worse.

This raises the critical issue of implementation. Even though we have had the benefit of a number of outstanding reports in recent years our ability in relation to the implementation of the recommendations, especially those which had earned a broad measure of consensus, has been poor. I am not entirely satisfied, and I would like the Minister to address this point, that there is a mechanism to ensure, if conclusions can be reached reasonably speedily by the all-party committee, that they will be acted upon and implemented without undue delay by the Government because this has impeded us in the past.

I should say also when one talks about the need for consensus and argues that there is a prospect of agreement between the parties in this House and that this does not mean that our analysis of the unemployment problem is shared across the board. For example, I have the most serious difficulty with the analysis that suggests that the scale of our unemployment problem is due to demographic forces; that market conditions, which are characterised by high outflows and low inflows, have led to a situation where until the end of this century we must live with the fact that there is a population bulge and that because of this, no matter what any Government do, the unemployment problem is going to get worse or at best stand still. While I do not accept that analysis I accept that it is shared by many of the parties in this House and by many of the pundits and commentators outside it, but it is too convenient and it ignores the critical question of competitiveness in the economy. We are fooling ourselves if we conclude that our unemployment problem is due solely to the peculiar demographic structure in society during this decade.

We have a fundamental underlying competitiveness problem in the economy and that is one of the questions that I would like to see the committee examine. This is something that we have tended to overlook and we have convinced ourselves in preparation for Single Market conditions that industry has shaken itself, slimmed down and is preparing to exploit the opportunities that will be made available. I do not think that that is the case nor do I accept that we have a high growth economy. What we have is a high growth enclave in the form of the modern IDA attracted sector. There is no doubt about that and it seems to be performing exceptionally well but the performance of the indigenous sector is still way below par. This has to be taken on board by any committee who seek to address seriously the scale of the unemployment problem.

In tackling this question of competiveness we will have to go for a radical shake up of our education and training policies. The existing education system pays too little attention to this aspect of investment in training and to the necessity to develop a bank of skills for the future. We are reluctant to accept that we are now part of a modern economy although at least we are trying to turn into one. We need to look at the focus of FÁS.

FÁS must be examined because currently it distracts from the need to invest in an upgrading of skills of those actually in employment. Too much of the focus is on make believe schemes for the unemployed and too little on the upgrading of skills of those in the workforce thus leading to a problem in retaining jobs. While we are talking about tackling the unemployment crisis we are still losing jobs and that is because of the skills deficit in this economy.

Whereas I am arguing and committing my party to making this all-party committee work, I sincerely hope that is also the disposition of the Government, that we are not merely setting up a committee that will take us from here to the date of the next general election to be used to score party political points. The problem is far too serious for that. If the Government commit the resources and are determined to seek a mandate for such a national plan as I have described, that will be forthcoming from the other parties who have indicated their willingness to participate.

I would want to put on the agenda of an all-party committee a number of analyses which will differ from the conventional analyses in this House. I have referred to the question of investment in training and the fundamentally important question of competitiveness. I have, on a number of other occasions, dealt at length with the need to restructure and refocus industrial policy and the enormous sums of money which we have devoted over the last 25 years to industrial development and to the creation of tax shelters which in the last year, for example, cost us more than £1,400 million.

I have here a table from a paper presented recently to the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland by a trade union colleague of mine, economist, Paul Sweeney, dealing with the scale of tax expenditures over the last decade. With your permission, I would like to have that included in the Official Report. It is as follows:

Tax Expenditures

	1980/81	1981/82	1982/83	1983/84	1984/85	1985/86	1986/87	1987/88	1988/89	1989/90	1990/91
	£m.	£m.	£m.	£m.	£m.	£m.	£m.	£m.	£m.	£m.	£m.
Export Sales Relief	93	106	96	301	194	423	378	729	770	813	—
Shannon Relief	10	10	11	22	40	57	29	116	110	n/a	—
10% Manufacturing Tax Rate	n/a	Nil	92	90	96	111	124	131	147	296	489
Section 84 Lending	5	13	63	58	69	77	64	95	112	128	140
Accelerated Capital Allowances and Tax Based Leasing	66	74	57	95	96	110	105	103	251	115	n/a
Reduced Rate of Corporation Tax for small firms	6	7	8	8	7	8	9	9	10	11	—
Business Expansion Scheme	—	—	—	—	1	2	3	6	14	41	31
Co-operatives Tax Relief	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	7	8	10	10
	180	210	327	547	503	788	712	1,196	1,422	1,414+	n/a

This table shows, for example, the expenditure of £1.4 billion in various shelters and reliefs over 1989-90 alone, totalling £7.3 billion over the decade. Last Sunday the Sunday Tribune took up this particular paper and dealt with some of the facts in it. I know the Minister will be advised by his departmental colleagues that the net contribution would obviously have been a great deal less than that because some companies were attracted here who would not otherwise be here, and I accept the validity of that argument. Nonetheless we are expending an enormous amount of money and we are not getting value for that money in terms of jobs created.

In conclusion, let me refer with regret to the apparent imminent closure or disbandment of the Irish Productivity Centre. Speaking for my own party, if we were to seek advice in terms of additional back up for the work of this all-party committee, one such institution that I would go to is the Irish Productivity Centre. That organisation has a long and creditable record over the last 30 years in providing various services to small business development, to various organisations, and fostering better relationships at work. In all its activity it enjoys a unique mandate from the social partners, the FIE and the ICTU. In addition, it embraced in recent years the challenge of Europe, winning numerous assignments against tough competition and, indeed, has been retained by the European Commission itself in an advisory capacity. It is ironic that the success of the Irish Productivity Centre has led indirectly to a need now for some restructuring.

With the changing skills, knowledge and attitudes now needed to serve its substantial client base, the centre has to face up to change and renewal, and my understanding is that both the workforce and the management are prepared to do precisely that. The IPC grant aid was reduced last year from £721,000 in 1991 to £500,000 in 1992, a reduction of over 30 per cent, and that deficit is in no small way contributed to by the fact that there are outstanding wages due to the workers there which they are not seeking to claim. Yet it seems it is being used as an excuse to wind up the centre. It is regrettable that it should be allowed to close since partnership is the cornerstone of what we are seeking to do here and the raison d'etre of the Irish Productivity Centre. I would appeal to the Minister to use his good offices to intervene at this late stage to ensure that the liqidator is not sent in and that the Irish Productivity Centre is not wound up.

Mr. Garland

I want to thank Deputy Rabbitte for facilitating me. I will not delay the House too long.

I would like first to point to the terms of reference of this committee which clearly are to examine and make recommendations on all aspects of economic and social policy which have a bearing on employment creation and which contribute to alleviating unemployment. If I thought for a minute that this committee would, in fact, do this I would be in favour of it. Unfortunately, I have to oppose the setting up of yet another committee to deal with this problem when it must be obvious to everyone what the real solutions are.

If this committee is set up it will go over old ground again and come up with the tired solutions that have clearly failed in the past and are likely to do so in the future. There will be a lot of talk about further integration in the EC, about Maastricht and all that kind of thing. It is absolute nonsense.

The reality is — and it has to be faced — that the Luddites were right. The dispossessed factory employees of the 19th century who smashed machines were absolutely right; that has to be said. Technology has killed jobs; advanced technology has killed jobs. A study in Germany recently established beyond doubt that the more money one invests in industry the more unemployment there is; the more money the IDA invest in jobs the fewer jobs we have. Does no one connect them? Will anyone refer to the headlines in the Dublin Tribune last Sunday week which stated that the jobs creation scandal has cost the taxpayer £4.58 billion? It has cost us £0.5 million to create 7,000 jobs in the last ten years.

The solution is so blindingly obvious that people refuse to face it. The solution is two tier and is the policy of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas. First, jobs must be shared around: we must reduce working hours, job share, introduce early retirement and career breaks. These are areas we must approach. It is a radical solution which will create an immense upheaval but that is the way it will have to be.

Another thing we would like to see which would facilitate the first objective is a basic income for all that would enable people to work as well as draw the dole, it would also enable people to grow vegetables in their gardens instead of having to buy them in the supermarket. Did you ever see such rubbish over the weekend when the social welfare inspectors in the west were going around to see if people were growing vegetables in their front gardens? Have we really come to this? Is this to be the way forward? What we are saying to the unemployed is that we will pay them provided they do nothing. That is the message the people are getting. They may not even grow vegetables in their gardens. It is so ludicrous it is beyond understanding.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Dempsey)

I hope the Green Party proposals for a 20 hour week is to apply to Deputies and Ministers of State as well. I would go along with that. I apologise to Deputies who have spoken for the absence of the Minister, Deputy Cowen, who has to attend the Government meeting. The Minister asked me to convey his apologies to those Deputies who have contributed.

I thank speakers for their contributions. I acknowledge the efforts made by the Whips with whom I dealt in the course of the negotiations on this committee.

I am glad that the proposals before the House for an Oireachtas joint committee on employment have received so much support in the House and outside it. Deputy Ahearn in the course of her speech regretted that the Government were going ahead without consensus. The Government also regret that we could not get consensus but in that regard we have been trying for almost the past four weeks. We have been very reasonable and have leaned over backwards to try to get Fine Gael to agree to the proposals.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

That is not true.

Mr. Dempsey

They have not been able to treat the matter as seriously as I would have liked them to treat it.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

Not true.

Mr. Dempsey

The proposals before us deserve that support because unemployment is so grave an issue that any proposals which give a prospect of finding new ways and measures to increase employment should be supported. We are facing the highest unemployment level we have ever known and that fact should encourage us all to co-operate constructively to try to reduce that appalling situation.

The proposals deserve support also because the Government have made a generous and sincere effort to accommodate their original proposals to the views of other parties. The amendments made include fuller participation by the social partners in the work of the committee, a system of subcommittees with specific terms of reference and financial assistance to the participating parties to enable them to undertake necessary research.

That covers the point made by Deputy Rabbitte in relation to his party wanting to submit different analyses of the problem. The financial assistance to his party and to the other parties will help to put forward those ideas.

All these amendments to the original proposals have resulted in a structure, unique in terms of such committees and show clearly the desire of the Government to enable the committee to function effectively and efficiently in accordance with views expressed by Opposition parties; and those outside the Houses.

There is one amendment to the original proposals which, however, the Government could not accept. Fine Gael proposed that Ministers should attend the committee. It is quite clear that what is involved in that proposal is to make Ministers responsible and answerable to the committee for unemployment. Instead of the committee developing their own ideas and proposals for employment, the Fine Gael proposal is to have Ministers up before the committee to account to them for what they are doing or not doing. The answer of the Government to that native proposal is that Ministers are fully responsible to the Dáil for what they do or do not do. There is, therefore, no question of Ministers shirking their responsibilities. All reports and recommendations of the committee will be fully considered by the Government and the relevant Ministers will respond to the House as regards the feasibility and implementation of any such reports and recommendations.

Deputy Bruton in the course of his remarks seemed not to be aware of this, when he said that the report would be gathering dust. That is not what is proposed here. It is proposed that the reports will be published, will come before the House and will be responded to by the Government. The Government will have to give specific commitments here in the House on measures they wish to take to implement the recommendations.

In accordance with the Constitution Ministers are answerable to the House not to a committee. We have said this time and again but I emphasise that they will respond fully to the House in response to any proposals the committee make. This is not only the constitutional position. It is also the practice and the precedent in these matters. Reference has been made to attendance by Ministers at committees dealing with specific Bills. That is clearly not relevant since it is a proper function of a Minister who is sponsoring a Bill to discuss that Bill with a committee formed expressly for that purpose in order to facilitate the work of the House. Reference has been made to committees established in 1967 and 1973 with Ministerial membership, to consider the Constitution and Northern Ireland respectively. Deputy Bruton referred to these, but they were informal committees set up by the political parties and were not committees of the House set up by motion of the House.

The Leader of the Opposition has cited his attendance as Minister for Industry and Commerce, at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Small Businesses in 1984-1985. The record shows clearly that he was strongly advised that he should not attend but should deal with the matter when it came before the House. He agreed with that advice. He did, however, on one later occasion meet the chairman and members of the committee in early 1985, in response to an invitation to an informal meeting, to discuss the status of the committee's reports. This is no precedent for the suggestion that Ministers should attend regularly meetings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Employment to account for their work in combating unemployment.

Failure by Fine Gael to support this motion will be seen by all impartial observers as Fine Gael running away from the concept of a jobs forum which would involve political parties. The Government regret that Fine Gael could not agree to the proposals now before the House. I would urge them to accept that the proposed committee cannot but make a worthwhile contribution to solving the grim unemployment we face.

I would ask them to give the committee a try, and to participate fully in it. I am not inflexible in this matter and neither are the Government. Fine Gael would do well to send the right message to the unemployed by becoming involved in this committee. By saying "no" to the committee Fine Gael are saying "no" to the unemployed.

If they do not support this motion, one must question their sincerity in putting forward their original proposals last year. One may be forgiven for thinking that it was put forward as a cynical party political ploy to be seen to be offering to assist the unemployment problem in the expectation that their offer would not be accepted by the Government. Now that it has been accepted in generous measure by the Government and the other parties, they should not be seen to distance themselves from it so as to avoid having to disclose whether or not they have any worthwhile proposals to make about creating employment.

Mr. Flanagan

You are twisting the facts, Minister.

Mr. Dempsey

Many efforts are being made to solve this problem. The Government have taken the following specific actions directed at creating employment:— They have set up the Task Force on Employment combining the views of the social partners, Government Departments and the commercial State companies. The Culliton report is being implemented by a committee of Ministers, chaired by the Taoiseach and a task force mainly composed of departmental secretaries, to make proposals to the ministerial committee. There are new EC-assisted employment and training schemes for 25,000 persons on the live register. There is a task force on tourism. Twelve area-based companies have been set up throughout the country under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. There is an EC funded study being organised by the NESC into the connection between economic growth and employment. The macro-economic policy pursued by the Government has created the conditions of low inflation and cost competitiveness which are the only basis on which our economy and employment can grow. Dramatic tax reform is already far advanced to encourage enterprise which is the motive power which will create greater employment. All these measures have been taken by the Government in trying to tackle unemployment. What are lacking are the insights and ideas of Members of the House, whether in Government or Opposition parties, who could contribute to solving the enormous unemployment problem.

The Government think that it is most important to give this opportunity to Members of the House to contribute their ideas and proposals on how to increase employment. I can promise that the Government will carefully consider all proposals that the committee make and will fully implement every proposal which is feasible and practicable. The relevant Ministers will come before the House, and will respond to each and every proposal the committee make. That is ministerial involvement. I had hoped that the prolonged negotiations which have taken place in regard to this Committee would now bear fruit in all parties agreeing today to establish and participate in the committee. The decision taken by Fine Gael will be a great disappointment and discouragement to the unemployed who look to this House in hope and expectation that we can combine, across party divides, to identify measures which can alleviate the deprivation the unemployed suffer in our society.

Fine Gael talk about being serious regarding these proposals. The initial proposals I put to Fine Gael were rejected through the media within hours. The revised proposals I put forward were again rejected through the media within an hour. At the third attempt I requested the parties to outline the difficulties and suggest proposals to overcome those difficulties. I got six demands from Fine Gael within 20 minutes of putting that forward. The latest proposal by Fine Gael concerning ministerial involvement arrived yesterday morning. There is no question that the Government are serious about this. The question mark is certainly over Fine Gael.

Mr. Flanagan

The Minister even lost the letters.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 39.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, Richard.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lee, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael.
• (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Boyland.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Motion put and declared carried.