I am glad of the opportunity to resume my contribution to the debate. It is some time now since the opening speech by the Minister for Finance and people have had time to reflect on the measures and to develop objective views on them.
I will refer to employment measures which will continue to be taken in the Department in order to benefit employment. Because unemployment is so serious it demands intense Government attention and innovation linked to freedom of market forces. This budget provides such a mix. The Minister for Finance responded positively with a range of measures which had been sought particularly by small businesses who saw the need to relax some areas so that they could pursue their businesses in an unfettered way and consolidate and expand employment.
A programme for jobs is the clear strategy in the current talks between the Government and the social partners. The policies and programmes outlined in the budget have given a boost to those talks. The budget contains measures which free up business and clear many irksome taxation and bureaucratic burdens from small businesses. When I travelled the country last year I was constantly reminded of the need to have simplified forms in clear language, particularly to address revenue regulations. This is a simple measure which will greatly benefit business.
I have had many inquiries with regard to soft loans. I hope the arrangements to provide such loans can be quickly implemented. These measures help to free up business and I hope employers and employees will build on the new realism emerging in the workplace.
There should be greater openness, honest dialogue and sharing of information between the social partners at individual plant level. There is no place in the modern work environment for a "them and us" mentality. This type of local social partnership means that each group associated with it carries rights and responsibilities which will have to be openly addressed and we must work together at business level. I am convinced that this kind of genuine work partnership can lead to greater motivation, productivity and responsibility. There are already excellent experiences in this country to show that this type of realism can have results in job retention and creation. At the moment there is much dialogue between the social partners as to how they will eventually work out new arrangements for another Programme for Economic and Social Progress. There is need for openness and honesty of dialogue between employers and employees in that context. Such dialogue can only be regarded as progressive for both sides.
If workers are interested in their jobs, are motivated and committed to the essential mission statement of the firm, that commitment is enhanced by the more information they have. Throughout the country where such measures have been used they have proved to be of enormous benefit. This leads to workers having a psychological stake in the business in which they are involved and they are no longer seen as cogs in a wheel but rather important components in an important process. I cannot stress strongly enough that this type of involvement carries rights and responsibilities for both sides. I urge the social partners involved in dialogue at plant and national level to address openly the duties and responsibilities involved in that process.
The ICTU in their programme for dialogue clearly outlined how they wished to see it develop and how they want to be involved in changes and technology, in work practices and in developing openness in firms. Without dialogue hurried decisions about which workers have no knowledge will continue to be implemented.
The House might feel that I am talking about the pending EC directive, but I am interpreting it in a local way. Genuine work partnership can lead to greater motivation, productivity and responsibility. I have seen the beneficial effect of such interaction.
I am considering a measure to update the 1977 Worker Protection Act. An EU directive of 1992 to be implemented this year lays down general guidelines in this direction. I want to use the review in conjunction with the social partners to bring about a climate of job retention rather than job reduction. In the context of that review there are changes under the directive to the Worker Participation Act. Lest some Members of the House should say that we are imposing bureaucratic burdens on business, as was said two weeks ago on the Committee Stage of a simple information Bill about workers' wages and conditions of employment, this is not an irksome burden. It is a measure which has already been implemented in the UK.
I am always amazed that despite their trumpeting about opting out of the social charter legislation, and the Prime Minister, Mr. John Major's, constant reiteration that people should come to the UK because jobs are so much cheaper and better and so on, I find when I am in Europe on social affairs business, that the UK have already implemented a directive towards which we are working. In many cases they had made it more embracing than envisaged by the terms of the directive. Somehow or other they seem to be able to bring about a volte face when required and to say they do not have any such legislation relating to the social chapter. People seem to be swallowing this, but I avail of every opportunity to point out that they have implemented social legislation ahead of many other countries which have a fine record in this area. It is odd then that they stand up in the House of Commons and declare that they are anti-regulations and are going to make bonfires of directives while on the other hand they are busy implementing them.
I am considering a measure to update the 1977 Worker Protection Act. An EU directive of 1992 lays down general guidelines. In consultations with the social partners one must have regard, for reasons outlined in the directive, to measures other than redundancies such as retraining, redeployment and retention, albeit in other capacities. When this measure is brought before the House Members will have an opportunity to amend it.
It should be said that the route to redundancy is often too easily taken. It seems firms have recourse to this first when they find themselves in trouble. This has bred a culture where we are no longer shocked when major redundancies are announced. Perhaps we are shocked for a while but not for long. I intend to link the review of the worker protection legislation into the operation of the competitiveness and employment protection unit which has been established in the Department of Enterprise and Employment.
Last week Deputy John Bruton bemoaned the fact that this EU directive and measures contained in the Programme for Government concerning the competitiveness and employment protection unit had not been fully implemented. I hope when I introduce these measures in the House that he, along with his party spokesperson in this area, will show interest and enthusiasm and accept them.
The competitiveness and employment protection unit was established some months ago in the Department. It has had reasonable, albeit modest success. Various firms have put forward ideas and have sought expert advice. I am particularly pleased that this unit is in operation because this was one of the ideas I put forward from my office in the dialogue between Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party which led to the establishment of a partnership Government. I had thought about this matter during the year I was Minister of State with responsibility for trade and marketing.
This unit is not presented by the Department of Enterprise and Employment as a saviour of lame ducks. People want to put us into a corner and say that this is the case. The unit will, however, anticipate business difficulties, helping viable firms to change and modernise in order to convert these difficulties into challenges and opportunities. The personnel in this unit working with the State agencies will then be able to pursue a robust pro-active policy, not passively waiting for the news of redundancies to be announced but identifying in advance firm by firm, sector by sector, where there are likely to be potential business hazards. I always had difficulty in accepting the IDA's early warning system which patently did not work. One received a notice each week when redundancies were notified. In effect, late warnings were given.