Deputy Ned O'Keeffe was in possession. He has some ten minutes remaining and I understand he may be sharing time.
Private Members' Business. - Employment Policies: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy O'Rourke on 20 June 1995:
"That Dáil Éireann, in view of
— the fact that the underlying trend in unemployment has worsened since this Government came to office, with the adjusted total in May higher now than it was last January,
— the fact that the rate of long term unemployment is the highest in the OECD and that over half the unemployed are now long term unemployed.
— the fact that the Central Bank has upped its unemployment forcast for 1995 by 7,000 and that independent stockbrokers have said the Government will fail by a big margin to achieve its modest unemployment targets for this year,
— the fact that there have been unprecedented major closures of industries throughout the country recently and that these crises will further add to the jobless total, and
— the complete lack of planning for the County Enterprise Boards,
condemns the Government and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment for failing to honour their commitment to make unemployment a priority and for failing to tackle unemployment in any significant way and calls on the Government to develop a coherent employment policy aimed at the maintenance and creation of employment as well as giving priority to measures to tackle long term unemployment."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, having regard to
— the Government's determination to promote additional employment, reward work and reduce taxation;
— the very positive projected growth in output of 6¼ per cent and in non-agricultural employment of 37,000 in 1995;
— the notable success of enterprise development agencies at both national and local levels; — the growing success of the back to work allowance scheme;
— the reduction in notified redundancy figures of 25 per cent in the first five months of this year;
— the initiation of a local employment service to target long term unemployment; and
— the Government's commitment to maintaining an average of 40,000 people on the community employment programme,
has full confidence in the employment policies being developed and implemented by the Government and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment."
—Minister for Enterprise and Employment.
This is the most important motion to come before the House——
On a point of order, is it appropriate for me to ask whether the reference to sharing time related to me, given my conversation with the Fianna Fáil Whip earlier? Am I correct in saying I have five minutes available to me?
The Chair does not wish to become involved in the matter except to say that the approval of the House would seem to be forthcoming that time will be shared between the two Deputies concerned.
This is the most important motion to come before the House since this Government was formed. Little or no action has been taken since its formation. Our economy is possibly on the eve of bankruptcy due to our handling of the national finances. People are concerned about what is happening and we may see an increase in unemployment because of the Government's inaction.
The UK market imports 35 per cent of Irish goods including textiles, timber and foodstuffs. We must be parochial and look after our constituencies. In my constituency, 60 to 70 jobs have been put at risk because of the Government's failure to provide some type of support fund for companies exporting to the UK who are suffering because of the change in the value of our currency vis-à-vis sterling.
The Deputy's party was in power for eight years.
This problem arose some years ago and Fianna Fáil came to the rescue of many companies by setting up a market development fund. That fund saved many companies exporting to the British market. If this Government wants to save jobs it must recognise the importance of the UK market to our economy.
I am sure this appeal will fall on deaf ears, as did many others. We hear about growth in the economy but we do not hear about the projected rise in inflation. It is predicted by Mr. McQuaid, a reputable stockbroker who deals in Government gilts that by the end of this year inflation will rise to 3 per cent because of this Government's mismanagement of the economy. He stated that inflation would run at over 3 per cent by the end of the year. Riada Stockbrokers made a similar statement. That is the trend in this economy and it is the frightening scenario facing foreign investors wanting to invest here.
The problems at Irish Steel have been there for so long it is frustrating to talk about them. I am sure the Government is only waiting for the doors of this House to close so that it can close the doors of Irish Steel, as happened with many industries in the Cork region including the Ford Company, Dunlop, Verolme Cork Dockyard, etc.
A Deputy
Deputy O'Keeffe promised us 350 jobs in the dockyard.
History is repeating itself. This Government is not interested in employment, particularly in the Cork area.
In recent weeks, Ministers have made announcements in Clonmel and other areas in regard to technology. The work on those industries had already been done before this Government came to power and it is merely engaging in cosmetic exercises now. It is trying to play to the public because of the by-election but I know where its future will lie following the by-election.
Much has been said about unemployment but we have had nothing but crocodile tears from the Government on this issue. It talks about a third banking force which will take an additional 600 to 700 people off the live register. The creation of a third banking force will not solve the problem of unemployment. It is merely an ideological aspiration of the Labour Party. There is no future for a third banking force in our society. It will not decrease the cost of borrowing to taxpayers by even 1 per cent but it will create further inefficiency in the financial market.
I sympathise with the people in the Trustee Savings Bank who are not interested in participating in a third banking force. Borrowers and investors have identified with the Trustee Savings Bank since its inception when it was known as the "Shilling Bank". I am aware of the views of the staff of the Trustee Savings Bank and they are not in favour of the creation of a third banking force which will result in increased unemployment. If that is the type of policy this Government wants to pursue, it disturbs me and I am sure it disturbs the electorate. I have no doubt the Government intends to sell the liquid assets of the Trustee Savings Bank to an Australian bank. The Trustee Savings Bank has served the economy and the Irish people well. Such a move will threaten the jobs of the 700 to 800 people working in the Trustee Saving Bank.
I ask the Minister with responsibility for employment — or unemployment — to respond to my comments on the banking sector. How does she propose to rationalise the bank without the loss of jobs? They are the questions I am being asked and I would like the Minister to give me a response to them.
Teastaíonn uaim tagairt a dhéanamh do chúrsaí Postaíochta ar bhealach atá beagainín difiriúil ó méid atá ráite ag an Teachta Ó Cuív.
There is not enough time available to me go into all of the aspects of the problems associated with unemployment. One aspect, however, has not been mentioned and it relates to the more informal economy. I attended a function today to celebrate the first birthday of The Big Issue. An exhibition was held in the multimedia centre in Ormond Quay. The producers of The Big Issue were interested in measures that would help the long term unemployed get back into the formal economy and, in so doing, retain wealth in local areas. They were not interested in hearing meaningless economic jargon, but in opportunities to exchange skills and to work in what is becoming known as a local exchange trading system.
The Sunday Business Post carried a feature on that system which is working well in areas severely affected by unemployment where people have the skills, and the time but not the money. That system is proving to be a real alternative to the jargon and the false promises made by a succession of Governments. People find they not only manage to keep wealth in the area by having tokens but they can exchange them for skills. The skills are as diverse as those found in the formal economy. They include also caring jobs that are not paid for in the formal economy such as caring for the young, the old, the sick and jobs that people do voluntarily.
I ask the Government to take on board the potential of measures offered by the LETS system. Job creation initiatives need to be increased but should not entirely overshadow other measures that people in the long term unemployed bracket come up with and which help them to get back into the formal economy without the assistance of State agencies.
In the conventional sense a great deal can be achieved through employment creation in horticulture, energy conservation, renewable energy and other areas that I am keen to see developed but these should not be the only measures. Other measures should be adopted such as a guaranteed basic income, of which the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, is very well aware from the informal discussions we had. This should be taken on board by Government and perhaps she will do something about it.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Mulvihill, Kemmy and Lynch.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This motion deals with a very serious matter. I find it difficult to agree to motions tabled by Fianna Fáil in Private Members' time. As a party, Fianna Fáil found it difficult to believe it was in Opposition for three months but six months later Fianna Fáil is finding it difficult to believe it was ever in Government. On reading this motion one would wonder whether Deputies O'Rourke, Tom Kitt and Ned O'Keeffe were ever members of a party that was in control of the economy since February 1987. In their eight years in Government all of these problems had to be faced and most of them are as serious as they were eight years ago. We do not need lessons in history from Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, and his colleagues, because his party was in office and failed. We are left to pick up the pieces.
The confused economic policies being enunciated by Members on the Opposition benches show clearly how difficult they are finding their time in Opposition. I hope they will have a long time to get used to it. On the one hand Deputy Ned O'Keeffe calls for further control of public expenditure but he then lists all the matters at constituency and national level that require further funding. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot scream for additional public expenditure on pet projects and at the same time demand the Government prunes public expenditure. The Government is making a genuine and firm bid to keep the economy in trim and ensure the twin evils of unemployment and high taxation are dealt with in a constructive fashion. Much progress has been made in those two areas in the 1995 budget and I look forward to further progress being made in the budgets of 1996 and 1997. I concede readily that any country with 300,000 people unemployed officially or in job schemes which are not equivalent to full time employment would have to keep unemployment at the top of its priorities.
Most Members would remember that a former Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, said that if unemployment reached 100,000, his party should leave office. At that time it would have been unbelievable to have 100,000 people unemployed here. Things have changed so much in the interim that if unemployment could be reduced to 200,000 it would be seen as a move in the right direction. The grave problem remains and must be tackled.
Our rate of long term unemployment is the highest in the OECD I am happy the Government is pursuing a strategy to attack the problem of long term unemployment. Last night Members referred to the difficulties that the long term unemployed are in. We have to look at the root cause of the problem. Education and training play a vital role for people who are unemployed for more than 12 months. An untrained person who is unemployed cannot get experience and if he applies for a job, his application is not considered credible. Every possible State agency must gear itself to addressing the problems faced by these people. Unemployment is a huge problem for the State but long term unemployment is a cancer on society and for those who must endure nothing but dole queues week in week out over many years. It creates social as well as economic difficulties and I hope this Government keeps the plight of the long term unemployed at the top of its agenda when preparing policies.
While I welcome community employment schemes, I think they need to be redefined and changed so that they are more than a beacon of hope for those who have been unemployed for a number of years. The conditions of entry, the duration and the monetary reward for participating in community employment schemes need to be reviewed. At a time when so many are unemployed and when, simultaneously, we have many community and social problems needing attention, we need to marry the work that needs to be done with those who are available and willing to do it. I look forward to the Government making progress in that regard.
The shadow of unemployment has hung over this country for far too long. At present 16 per cent of the workforce is unemployed. This is, to say the least, a distressing statistic for the Labour Party and one which we are committed to rectifying.
Job creation is the cornerstone of the Labour Party's economic philosophy. Since Labour entered Government in 1992 unemployment has fallen steadily as a result of Government intervention and accelerated economic growth. Last year employment grew by 30,000, and it is expected that this year employment growth will again exceed 30,000. However, Labour believes that it is wrong to rely totally on the market to create jobs. Market forces, on their own, even with a favourable economic environment, are not sufficient to solve unemployment. Intervention by the State in the marketplace is essential if we are to confront the economic issues of job creation.
An example of this attitude in practice is the introduction by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, during his time at the Department of Enterprise and Employment of a strategic plan designed to give people the opportunity to obtain employment. A further example of this Government's commitment to the eradication of unemployment is its acceptance of the central recommendation of the recent interim report of the Task Force on Long-term Unemployment which called on the Government to put in place a local employment service to meet the needs of the long term unemployed.
If Fianna Fáil had been as committed as the Labour Party now is to tackling unemployment while it was in Government, perhaps the task that the Government faces might be that bit easier. Let me remind Fianna Fáil that in the five and a half years it spent in Government as a single party or with the Progressive Democrats, unemployment increased by 36,675, hardly an indication of a concrete commitment to the creation of employment.
I would also like to remind Fianna Fáil that in June 1990, when the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Reynolds, sold Verolme Dockyard, which is in my constituency of east Cork, to a Dutch company he promised that the yard would employ 450 people by 1996. Fianna Fáil never delivered on this promise and, to date, not one of these 450 jobs promised by Fianna Fáil has been created — Fianna Fáil handed over a major asset for little or no return. During the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats coalition, planning permission to build a chemical factory in the village of Killa, County Cork, was turned down by the then Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Harney, to Merrill Dow on the strength of protests by a certain section of the local community. Merrill Dow has since set up this chemical factory in Italy creating employment for 300 to 400 people.
The Government's commitment to Irish Steel is also an illustration of its commitment to maintaining employment. This commitment will be proven in the not too distant future when a partner will be decided by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment. The Labour Party has always been committed to the continued survival of Irish Steel and has proven this over the years. The party insisted that the company be protected by the State until it became a viable concern, which it now seems to be. The jobs in Irish Steel are now secure in the long term, and this is due in no small way to the Labour Party and the Government. Irish Steel is now a leading example, not only to semi-State companies but to companies in the private sector, of what can be done when there is commitment to the survival of a company. I also commend the commitment of the workers and management in Irish Steel to the survival of the plant.
I sincerely hope that the Minister for Enterprise and Employment will accept the recommendations of the task force set up by the Minister, Deputy Quinn, when he was in that Department. I am sure that this task force will enhance the job prospects in areas such as Cobh, Midleton and Youghal and the east Cork area as a whole.
The Labour Party will continue to ensure that job creation remains the core of this Government's activity. We accept that unemployment is a social fact here. We do not, however, accept that it cannot be overcome, and the Labour Party is committed to ensuring that it will be overcome.
This important debate deserves to be taken seriously. I enjoy a bit of knock-about humour but Deputy O'Keeffe's performance tonight did nothing for the unemployed. Sound and fury in tackling one's opponent is all very well, and it often passes for politics here, but what was the policy, where was the beef? There was no policy evident in the Deputy's contribution. He came in here as an important speaker for his party to contribute something, attacked all around him with a blunderbuss of scattershot but said nothing positive or constructive that the unemployed would want to hear about finding a job. Even one good idea towards finding an answer to unemployment would have been a good contribution to the debate. The reality is that there is no panacea, no simple formula for creating jobs. It is a most difficult policy area for us as a small marginalised country on the edge of Europe. It is very difficult for us even to survive in the fast lane we are in, but we owe it to ourselves as a nation and especially to our unemployed to find a way forward and to use whatever intelligence and resources we have in answering those problems. Deputy O'Keeffe offered no answer and no solution in what he said tonight.
I intended to refer to a very important document which was published one year ago today by the National Economic and Social Forum. Unfortunately it is now gathering dust. Ms Maureen Gaffney was the chairperson and the title was "Ending Long-term Unemployment". It would pay anybody in this House to read that document because it is full of good and sensible ideas. I had ticked off a number of points I wished to make about it but I will put those aside because of the time factor. Instead I will make some points that, perhaps, should have been made earlier.
Too often in the past, unemployed people have been stigmatised and marginalised in our society, and we do not understand that if we have been Members for a long time. After six to 12 months' unemployment self-esteem and self-confidence vanish. People are often shabbily dressed and pushed into the margins in housing and social status. It is very hard then to build up morale, verve and flair to tackle unemployment. If one is in the swim, if one has a goose, one gets a goose; if one has no goose it is quite difficult. Anybody who has been unemployed knows that very well. We, as an Oireachtas should understand that and tailor our policies to overcome it. People should be brought in from the margins of life and made to feel part and parcel of society in a meaningful way.
I understand tomorrow is the birthday of "The Big Issue". I intend to go to the Mansion House to help to cut the cake. That is an example of what can be done. Even though it is a very small thing, I commend what they have done at a time when newspapers are going out of circulation and magazines are drying up. It is a sprightly magazine which shows what the unemployed can do to help inform public opinion at a time when many journalists, young and not so young, some with no track record, slavishly follow a certain line and pontificate about things about which they know little or nothing. We also have born again radicals who preach to the Labour Party about what should be done while their own records look more like a rake's progress in politics than anything else, but that does not stop them telling us what we should and should not do. I support the unemployed people who are involved with "The Big Issue". I intend to launch a Limerick issue of it next month when they come down to sell their paper there.
Apart from that, we must do more in the area of food processing. We cannot go on exporting cattle on the hoof. A balance must be found between selling cattle on the hoof and processing meat in our factories to create employment at home.
The question of training must be examined. The budget of FÁS, training in the community, doing something for the community in the community must be examined in a clear way. Not only vocational courses should be provided in vocational education committees, regional technical colleges and FÁS training centres, local history courses would bring people back to studying. It is difficult for someone who left school 20 years ago to study for six hours. Courses should be made more relevant to people's lives. People have a right to education. For too long adult education has been the cinderella of the system and there is no reason for not addressing that area. Many musicians are unemployed at a time of changing musical tastes. The talents of unemployed musicians, poets and artists could be used by the community. There is no reason for the federation of musicians not to support the idea of a group of people playing music at different centres for the unemployed on civic occasions and paying them accordingly.
I thank Deputies for allowing me share time. Deputy Kemmy is a genuine and concerned voice for the unemployed and the poor. I find it difficult to address this motion following the gruelling time we have had in Cork recently.
Many of my friends are unemployed and I was unemployed for a time. I know what it is like to live within tight budgetary constraints. Unemployed people are not "the unemployed" as if they were somehow different from us. They are people who do not have a job. Many of them live in the hope of getting a job. Unemployed people are stigmatised and marginalised. Deputy Kemmy said "that if one has a goose one gets a goose" and that is correct. One is far more likely to get a job if one is already employed. One suffers comments such as, "that shower would not work even if they were offered a job for two hours a week", "they are all defrauding the system" and "they do not care". None of my friends or those I know who are unemployed fit into those categories. It is offensive to use this group of people as a political football.
There is not any one solution to unemployment and unless we are all determined to create a climate of employment we will not solve the problem. It is up to society to ensure everybody receives their just share of what society has to offer financially, socially or environmentally.
Unemployed people do not wish to be categorised or used by politicians who they feel have failed them. Whether or not we believe it, all politicians are classed as being the same and this debate illustrates why that is so. It is because of the insensitive way we treat people and how they live their lives. We fail to recognise that when we speak about a group of people we are talking about mothers, fathers, children, their homes and their way of life.
The amnesia which Fianna Fáil suffers will pass. When that party was in Government between 1992 and 1994 unemployment fell by 11,000. During the first six months of this Government the number fell by 11,200. I do not understand that party's concern at present. We will not be thanked for treating unemployed people as a political football and I do not intend to do so. We must protect existing jobs and encourage and invite others to create employment opportunities. No one, no matter how arrogant, brassnecked or self-righteous, can stand over the unemployment figure. To claim a Government can solve the problem in six months is unfair and untrue.
We think the problem is caused by social ills, so we throw money at that area yet the problem continues to grow. Perhaps we should divert funds into the economic area. The motion states that Ireland has the highest unemployment rate of all the OECD countries but it omits the statement by the OECD that unemployment in Ireland will fall from 14.8 per cent to 13.6 per cent. We must not quote selectively.
If we keep inflation and interest rates down.
Community employment schemes are the backbone of the majority of communities where there is a high level of unemployment.
The Deputy can thank us for them. Deputy O'Rourke saved those schemes.
We maintained the number at last year's level. On taking office, we found an estimate for these schemes which would have given 26,000 places, not 40,000.
Only the Deputy would believe that.
The caretaker Government's estimate would have given 26,000 places.
Those were the headless chickens.
No one believes the Deputy.
Yet Deputies opposite continue to try to make political gain out of people who are in no position to fight back.
No one believes the Deputy.
It is appalling to use people who live in a continuous crisis——
What about Sunbeam?
Deputy O'Keeffe must desist from interrupting.
It is appalling that Members should try to use these people as a political football. If the Government had been in office for 18 months I would be more tolerant of this motion.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Dan Wallace and Batt O'Keeffe.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I support this motion on the serious issue of unemployment and I wish to give a few examples of the situation in my constituency of south Kerry. In response to a parliamentary question tabled by me yesterday the Taoiseach said that last December there were 3,223 unemployed in south Kerry while the figure for May was 2,573. This excludes the Kenmare-Sneem area where there is an extraordinarily high level of unemployment. I was surprised to learn that the figure for the Kenmare-Sneem area is included in the figure for Tralee. In the Killarney area 1,326 people were registered as unemployed in May as against 1,214 in May 1994.
The figure for May was calculated long before the decision was taken to close the Pretty Polly factory in Killarney. This factory was closed with the full knowledge and consent of the Minister for Enterprise and Employment. The closure of this factory has been a massive blow to Killarney, the 152 employees, the business community and the local economy generally. The way the closure was announced was a matter of great concern. It was made by a Dublin based firm of public relations consultants late in the afternoon last Thursday week when the Dáil had adjourned. There was no opportunity to have the matter debated in the highest public arena in the land, Dáil Éireann.
Many observers take the view that because of its heavy investment in tourism and its success in attracting visitors there is no need for industrial employment in Killarney. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the same applies to the Kenmare-Sneem area of south Kerry. The season is getting longer and the shoulder periods are better than they were five or six years ago — these improvements are due mainly to the priority given to the industry by the last Government — with the result that many people employed in the industry commence work at Easter but they are back on the dole by the following October. The impact of the tourism industry on employment in the Killarney area can be seen from the figures supplied to me yesterday in response to a parliamentary question. The Minister stated that last December there were 1,733 people on the unemployment register whereas in May the figure was 1,326, a decrease of 400. A fair percentage of these people took up employment in the construction sector.
The unemployment situation in Killarney, the Kenmare-Sneem area and in other towns throughout my constituency is very serious. Yesterday I tabled a question to the Minister for Enterprise and Employment asking him if he would set up a special task force for Killarney so as to resolve the serious unemployment problem in the area. I am bitterly disappointed at his rejection of my suggestion, at his statement that it was not necessary to establish a special task force and that the agencies which failed to provide additional employment in the past year will work closer together so as to maximise job opportunities. I am firmly convinced that a special task force should be set up to resolve the unemployment problem in Killarney.
The unemployed include well educated young people with a great knowledge of technology. The experience of the Pretty Polly employees should be availed of by those agencies in their efforts to maximise job opportunities and attract a major industry into the area. The special task force I proposed could assist voluntary organisations such as the UDC, SIPTU, the Chamber of Commerce. Killarney Resource Group, the Killarney Jobs Creation Forum and others who are doing their best to attract industry into the area but which do not have adequate finance to travel abroad or adequate expertise to canvass industrialists.
I am very disappointed that nothing has been done to attract industry into the area since the Minister's predecessor received a deputation from Killarney UDC approximately one year ago and gave an assurance that Killarney would be placed at the top of the list. Since then industrialists have come and gone, and the failure of the IDA to fill a 25,000 square foot advance factory in the industrial estate in Ballyspillane must be questioned. What role does the Minister and his Department play in determining the final destination of industries set up here?
Given the way she lectured us about the need to adopt a responsible attitude, I wonder if Deputy Lynch has had a bionic change in the past six months.
Unemployment is one of the few issues on which practically everyone is in agreement. We have all stressed the critical need to create and secure new jobs and to protect existing employment to the greatest possible extent. The dramatic breakthrough in Northern Ireland last year has ensured that effectively tackling unemployment is now at the top of the national agenda. We are continually told by Government spokesmen that this issue is being given top priority at Cabinet. Given that responsibility for dealing with the matter rests fairly and squarely with the Government one would like to believe it is at last beginning to develop cohesive and effective policies for job protection and creation.
However, when one looks for tangible evidence of the Government's success in this area one is almost reduced to despair. There is increasing evidence that the Cabinet does not have any coherent policy or strategy for dealing with companies in crises. In recent months there has been a succession of company closures and serious disputes. It is very easy to give examples of these — the Sunbeam factory in Cork, the Pretty Polly factory in Killarney, Packard in Tallaght and the Irish Press group.
It would be unfair to lay the blame for all these problems at the door of the Government. Factors such as changes in the marketplace and internal management and financial problems can pose a danger for the largest of companies from time to time. It serves little purpose, therefore, to immediately place responsibility for industrial problems at the door of the Government. However, it is both fair and proper to critically evaluate its response to such crises. If recent examples are anything to go by, then the present Administration seems to be in total chaos.
I wish to refer to the closure of the Sunbeam factory in Cork. Since last Christmas my colleagues and I repeatedly asked the Minister to respond rapidly and effectively to protect the jobs in this factory. Following a number of false starts last week we were relieved to hear that at least 100 jobs would be saved. We were willing to give credit to the Minister for responding to the problem. However, a few days later we were told that only 50 jobs would be initially provided in the new enterprise. This raises a simple but vital question: have the lines of communication in the Minister's Department completely broken down or is the unemployment problem in the north side of Cork city of little or no interest to him?
Having observed its response to a succession of industrial crises over the past six months, it is difficult to avoid reaching the conclusion that the Cabinet is totally paralysed in terms of developing and implementing industrial policy. The enormous policy differences between Fine Gael and Democratic Left are leading to stalemate on a wide range of issues. One has only to look at the fiasco in regard to the third banking force to see evidence of this. We have been hearing for months of a total stand off by the rainbow partners on this extremely important matter. The country cannot afford a Government which is continually at sixes and sevens on industrial policy. I have no wish to indulge in political point scoring on this matter as too many families and individuals are suffering grievously from unemployment.
Politicians have a responsibility to develop comprehensive policies to ensure that the tide of unemployment is rolled back once and for all. If the Government wishes to retain the slightest degree of credibility on unemployment it must act immediately to limit the enormous damage already done by its expensive disintegrated policies to date. All available State resources must be used to fight unemployment.
I regret Deputy Lynch has left the Chamber. I recall what she said a short time ago in Opposition about the lack of employment and I marvel at how easily she sits in Government. On occasions she can be pro-Government and when it suits her and her colleagues they can stand back and oppose once more.
Let us look at the recipe for community schemes dished out by Deputy Lynch this evening. If that is the way to tackle unemployment it leaves much to be desired and we cannot look to the Government with confidence to produce the necessary policies to ensure inward investment or indigenous growth. She asked people to rely on community schemes as a means of sustainable employment within society. Democratic Left talks about the marginalised and yet when it had an opportunity to look after them it gave them an increase of only 2.5 per cent. When the people received their increases this week they knew exactly the value of 20p.
Since the Government came into office it has gone from crisis to crisis. I could instance Packard, Sunbeam and the Irish Press. I will avail of this opportunity to refer to the difference in treatment meted out in certain parts of the country. If jobs are about to be lost in a Minister's constituency, Ministers will be seen strutting in front of Leinster House, looking for every camera and microphone they can find and they will travel abroad in an effort to do something. Let us look at what happened in sharp contrast in Cork in the case of Sunbeam. For an Adjournment Debate two Ministers preferred to sup with Prince Charles than to present themselves here to deal with an extremely important employment issue in the Cork area. The Minister told us he had found a maximum of 100 jobs but when we got down to the nitty-gritty the following week he told us there would be only 50 jobs. The people of Cork are very annoyed at the treatment meted out to them by the Government. They see no future in terms of the confidence or the investment to be generated by the Government to combat the serious unemployment problems in Cork——
Especially in the north side.
——particularly in the north side. The south side could do with some investment. Unfortunately Cork is now denuded of the one Minister we had at Cabinet level.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy has only a short time, please allow him to continue without interruption.
It is typical of Deputy Lynch to say we buried him. A man sows the seeds of his own destiny.
We are blamed for everything.
If the former Minister did something inappropriate, he took the honourable course. He should be congratulated for that.
Not like Fianna Fáil for the last seven years.
That does not get away from the fact that Deputy Lynch and others in this House——
(Interruptions.)
——have very little influence in terms of trying to get investment into the Cork area. It is ridiculous.
I did not think the Deputy would recognise it.
Deputy Lynch is welcome to join the Opposition benches; we would be glad to have her.
The Deputy in possession without interruption from any side of the House.
Deputy Lynch thinks we are in Government.
Deputy Lynch is suffering a crisis of identity because sometimes she thinks she is in Government and other times that she is in Opposition. We find it difficult on occasion to understand where she is coming from. The Government must give a commitment to the Cork area which has been starved of investment and is now denuded of a senior Minister. We are in dire need of investment. Will the Minister listen carefully to what is being said from the Cork area? Will the Minister relay to the Cabinet that nothing is happening in the Cork area and that the Government will be held responsible if nothing is done to eradicate the scourge of unemployment there?
I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this very important debate because the high level of unemployment in society is destroying this country, its potential, its communities and its families. If we take the numbers on the live register, those on community employment schemes and those in the pre or early retirement category effectively we have 350,000 people unemployed.
Before I give some of my views on how we might tackle unemployment I wish to correct something which was said earlier by Deputy Mulvihill. Deputy Mulvihill seems to think that Ministers decide who gets planning permission. He said that when I was a Minister of State in the 1989-92 Government I refused planning permission to Merrill Dow in east Cork. Planning permission is a matter for the local authority in the first instance and, on appeal, a matter for An Bord Pleanála. Deputy Mulvihill's party took credit for the establishment of An Bord Pleanála in the mid seventies. It is true that I opposed the location of Merrill Dow and I did so at an early stage, unlike recent Ministers, because it was not in the interests of the environment and because the location was opposed by the food sector, the farming community and the tourism sector in east Cork. It was not a question of not being able to have Merrill Dow but to have it in an appropriate location.
As the Culliton report said it is in the interests of the economy to strive for the highest possible environmental standards because those sectors of our economy that have the potential to grow and to create jobs in food, agriculture and tourism are extremely dependent on a clean green environment. It is important when deciding on the location for an industry that has potential, if not properly run, to cause major problems for the environment, to handle the matter in a sensitive and appropriate way. We can have jobs and a clean environment. It is not a question of either or. Deputy Mulvihill should acknowledge that and ask his candidate in Wicklow what he thought of the stand I took on that occasion.
Deputy Mulvihill also took credit for saving Irish Steel. To the best of my knowledge Bishop Magee and the taxpayers will be responsible if Irish Steel is to be saved. We must recognise that taxpayers will inject £50 million or £156,000 per job into Irish Steel when the question of its viability and the viability of the steel industry in general is in doubt. The problem of Irish Steel is by no means solved. The European Commission has not yet had its say on it. Deputy Mulvihill needs to put the record straight on these matters.
There is much debate and much concern among workers about casual work. While casual and part-time work suits some employees most people want full-time regular employment. If we are to be honest about casual work, we must realise it is happening because of excessive levels of taxation on work, the amount of bureaucracy and red tape and some labour legislation.
I know of a retail sector employer in a midland town who recently had good reason to know that five of his employees were involved in a major theft. He was certain of it but under our labour legislation he could not do anything about it unless he established a provable case. He had to install expensive surveillance equipment and hire a private detective. When the gardaí were brought in and the matter went to the District Court all five employees either pleaded guilty or were found guilty of the major theft. Not being happy with that, one of the employees appealed the case under a rights tribunal. The rights tribunal despite the fact that the employee had been convicted of theft in our courts, found in favour of the employee that appropriate procedures were not followed when the employee was being dismissed although it made a nil award. Not happy with this, the employee decided to appeal to the courts. After much advice the employer decided he could not afford to go down the road of litigation and had to settle. Many others have had the same experience.
Employers find that they are not operating in an employment friendly country. We have 150,000 small owner-manager companies. These have the potential to solve our unemployment crisis but only if incentives are provided to encourage them to expand and employ others. For example, under labour legislation every employee has the right to be paid in cash. This is not realistic in 1995 when almost everyone has a bank account, there are high crime levels and major thefts of money in transit.
On the question of taxation, a single person taking home £172 per week pays £5,000 per annum to the State in tax and PRSI. That penal level of taxation is anti-work and destroying the country. A single person also pays 57 per cent of their marginal earnings in tax and PRSI. Is that sensible in a country with such a high level of unemployment? We tax work as if it were a luxury. This is something we are trying to stop. A married man with four children earning £8,000 per annum would lose a couple of hundred pounds if he were to receive an increase of £7,000 bringing his salary to £15,000. This does not make any sense.
When I raise the issue of tax reform I am often asked where the money will come from. It has been forecast that during the next three years the economy will grow by 6 to 6.5 per cent per annum. This means that the Government will gain an extra £1 billion in revenue. If this were used to reduce the burden of taxation on work we could slash income tax by about 25 per cent.
Reference has been made to Packard Electric. Out of a total wage bill of £15 million in 1994 workers paid £5.5 million in tax and PRSI. If this plant were located in Newry in Northern Ireland the company would save almost £1 million per year in payroll costs. In the context of the peace process, this economy, in which employee costs are 20 per cent higher, is not competitive. Unless we do something about this we will not be able to encourage labour intensive industries to locate here and will lose out to Northern Ireland in terms of inward investment.
I recently met an employer in a prestigious haulage company which employs almost 100 people in Dublin in the services sector. Because of the licence requirements the typical employee is in his twenties or thirties, married with a number of children. Despite the fact that the basic wage is £230 per week plus expenses of £8 per day — £40 per week — and there are opportunities for overtime, he has found it impossible to recruit employees. While people are prepared to work part-time or take up employment if some of their wages are paid under the counter or if they are employed in the black economy, this employer is not prepared to engage in that practice. He is not unique; I have been told similar stories by many other people. Our tax and welfare systems do not offer sufficient incentives to encourage people to take up employment.
The Minister of State believes that people are better off unemployed than in jobs for which they are not paid high wages. A basic wage of £230 per week plus expenses of £40 is a reasonable income given the competition our companies have to meet in the global economy. If we fail to make it worthwhile for people to take up jobs this country is doomed to further disaster. There is no point in saying that the fundamentals of the economy — high growth rates, low inflation and interest rates — are right if we are not going to tackle the problem which is destroying the economy. The real economy is not successful.
Reference has been made to the Dunnes Stores dispute about which Members on all sides are concerned. Great hardship is being experienced by workers and their families and also by suppliers, many of whom may have to close down. This also applies to many of the businesses in those shopping centres where Dunnes Stores is the anchor tenant. I appeal to management to come to the table as no dispute can be resolved unless there is negotiation and discussion. Yesterday the Minister of State said she had made contact with Margaret Heffernan's office. I hope she will respond in a positive way. Dunnes Stores owes it to its consumers and workers to be reasonable. It has an enviable record in meeting consumer needs. It will be a great pity if it fails to respond quickly in a positive way to resolve this dispute.
Under section 67 of the 1946 Industrial Relations Act the Labour Court has the power to examine the matter and make a recommendation. It is well respected as an independent body. The industrial relations mechanisms and apparatus are highly regarded. I hope the Labour Court will use its power to make a recommendation. This could have the effect of bringing the parties to the dispute closer together. To judge from the advertisement in the newspapers today there is little separating them. MANDATE has adopted a reasonable attitude.
Under the 1991 legislation the workers may also ask the Labour Court to intervene. Even if the other side fails to come to the table the court is free to make a recommendation. It would be a good thing if the Labour Court and the industrial relations apparatus which are respected were used to bring the dispute to a speedy conclusion.
Dunnes Stores must realise that if its customers move to other stores they may not return quickly. During the next few days consumers will make choices and it may not be easy to win them back. People should forget about their pride, stop burying their heads in the sand and, in the interests of everyone concerned, come to the table. If they fail to do so we should use the apparatus at our disposal.
Labour Government throughout the world, particularly in New Zealand, see the reform of taxation as a major way of encouraging job creation and restoring incentives to encourage both employers and entrepreneurs. We need to do that in this economy. For every ten people at work there are 22 dependants. Of the ten people at work eight are in the private wealth creating sector. They have to support 24 others. This gives a ratio of 1:3. In Denmark, for example, the ratio is 1:1. This is one of the reasons taxation is so high and it is necessary to do something imaginative and radical as a matter of urgency. We need to change our attitude to enterprise and employment.
It must be understood that while Government do not create employment they have the capacity to destroy it, to stifle enterprise and initiative, prevent job creation, increase bureaucracy and red tape. I have questioned the Minister for Enterprise and Employment closely. To every question he has either given no answer or indicated that a task force, committee or interdepartmental group has been established to carry out a review. That is not what we need; we know what the problem is. What we require is courageous and effective action and decisive decision making if we are to overcome the obstacles in the economy which prevent us from giving so many people the opportunity to participate in the development of the country.
Listening to the last speaker it would be easy to forget that Deputy Harney's party was in power for three years and that when my party entered Government at the start of 1993 we inherited the tax system bequeathed to us by the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats regime. During the period when Deputy O'Malley was Minister for Industry and Commerce the total number of unemployed increased. Since the Labour Party entered office the total number at work has increased by 54,000 to the end of last year. It is forecast that the number at work will rise by a further 31,000 this year. In the same period the total number unemployed has decreased by 20,000. We have focused in particular on the low paid. By reducing taxation and providing money for benefits such as children's allowance we will help to create employment.
A number of pro-work budgets have focused on the low paid. Employers' PRSI was reduced in two successive budgets. We reduced employees' PRSI, which contributes to the tax wedge. The marginal relief rate was reduced from 48 to 40 per cent, benefiting workers just above the tax exemption thresholds. We increased the tax exemption thresholds and extended family income supplement for people in low paid employment. By next September child benefit will have increased by 44 per cent since the Labour Party went into Government. That payment, made regardless of whether the parent is working, is a very important part of the strategy to eliminate the unemployment trap in which people with limited earning power find themselves.
A couple of years ago 44 per cent of people with four or more children were out of work. It is important to focus on the difficulties facing families with children and to provide a method of child support, regardless of the work status of parents. Since we came to office considerable funds have been provided for child benefit.
We have a very healthy economy, with a forecasted growth rate of 5 to 6 per cent to the end of the century. However, we still have a huge unemployment problem, about which we are all concerned. In trying to find solutions to that problem it is important not to play politics with it. I established the National Economic and Social Forum, bringing together politicians of all parties with the traditional social partners and the unemployed to devise a strategy to tackle unemployment, particularly long term unemployment. General macro-economic policy has improved the growth rate of the economy as a whole. Without special strategies to tackle long term unemployment the long term unemployed may stay permanently outside the workforce. It is particularly important to devise a strategy to bring these people back into the system.
In drawing up the National Development Plan I made a special effort to devote substantial sums of money to a programme of economic development for unemployment blackspots. The pilot partnership scheme which applied initially to 12 areas was extended to 33 areas, the worst unemployment blackspots in the country. The programme was aimed at building economic potential based on a partnership with the local community.
The report of the National Economic and Social Forum on long term unemployment identified two important elements: first, the establishment of a local employment service that will utilise existing resources in training and placing long term unemployed people, assess their economic strength, rebuild their economic potential and give them an opportunity to go back into the workforce through a programme modelled on the Contact Point initiative in Coolock and the jobs centre project in Ballymun, by ensuring that long term unemployed people have access to a fair share of vacancies in the open market. As recommended in the report, the local employment service is being established.
The second element involves the development of job opportunities in the non-market economy for the long term unemployed. The task force is due to report next October and we will act on that report as speedily as we acted on the first report.
Usually when we come to this stage of a debate, particularly on employment which is the most fundamental issue facing the economy, we have the opportunity to outline the salient, constructive and important points made by the Minister of the day, in this case Deputy Richard Bruton. While we may not agree on all matters there should be substantial points of agreement. However, having studied the Minister's contribution it is difficult to find any policy of substance.
Between Deputy O'Rourke's interruptions.
The Minister upheld what this Government considers one of its pillars, transparency. His speech was so transparent it was difficult to find anything of substance in it. That surprised me because having served with Deputy Bruton on a number of committees over the years I always found him full of ideas and committed to implementing many of them.
I saw through the motion put down by Fianna Fáil.
Since he became responsible for the Department of Enterprise and Employment I have been surprised at the Minister's lack of initiative, but there are reasons for that and I will deal with some of them.
The Minister concentrated his speech on statistics — I always take a jaundiced view of the use of statistical facts selectively taken out of context to underpin one's contribution. He does not initiate policy in his Department, as was clear from his speech which lacked authority and was full of statistical revelations but no substance.
Economic growth has been sustained in recent years. There has been an increase in employment and a corresponding reduction in unemployment. This year more than ever there was an opportunity to maximise employment growth, but six months into the term of this Government that has been its most glaring failure. We are not even achieving minimum employment growth. Predictions — which the Minister did not dispute in his speech — that unemployment in the current year will be substantially out of kilter with Government projections are being realised. The conservative estimate is in the region of 7,000 people, which will put great pressure on the Government.
I suggest to the Minister — I hope he takes this in the best sense because I understand his position in terms of sharing power with two other political parties, particularly as their persuasion is of the left — that he is clearly answerable to his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte. He seems incapable of making decisions and taking action without having to answer to Deputy Rabbitte. Knowing the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and having seen him perform over the years, it is clear he is not implementing the policy decisions that would be implemented if he was in an unfettered position. That is the great tragedy of this Government. I would have thought that he, more than anybody else in the Fine Gael Party, recognising that his party lacks authority in Government, would use his skills in the Department to establish an identity for the party. However, he has abjectly failed in that regard.
There is no decisive leadership in the Department of Enterprise and Employment. That is evident in respect of a range of issues in which the Government was involved in recent months. Many Government Deputies suggested there was no single simple solution to reducing the numbers unemployed. I agree but that seems to be the only excuse offered by Government speakers. They did not say the Government has many opportunities to reduce the numbers unemployed and to create growth. In that regard it is not doing its job.
I wonder if the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Bruton, was absent for the preparation of the 1995 budget. There is no evidence in the 1995 fiscal policy put forward by the Government that employment creation was anywhere near the top of its agenda. Where was the Minister when that budget was being prepared?
I wish to put two points to him in that regard. On public expenditure, the Minister is aware that if a public expenditure growth policy is pursued, it is not possible to create jobs because the Government is restricted in its ability to reduce taxation on employees and employers. Not alone did the Government do that in its targets, but it has practically run amuck since, in setting a ceiling of 6 per cent, which is now approaching 11 per cent. Where was the Minister when that budget was being prepared or did he allow such a policy to be implemented by the Minister for Finance and the Government to the detriment of a real attack on reducing unemployment? There was no evidence in the budget that the unemployment problem is a Government priority.
The Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Bruton, was one of the principal speakers in the National Economic and Social Forum on the importance of the service sector industry. We know, and do not have to repeat, that the greatest prospect for growth in job creation is in the services sector. One of the key conclusions on that sector — I want to refresh the Minister's memory on the report published on the services sector — was the fact that the services sector is, and will continue to be, the principal contributor to net employment creation. That means that it should be better targeted if the scale and nature of this country's unemployment problem, particularly in regard to the long term unemployed is to be more decisively addressed.
One area that was the subject of considerable debate during those discussions was corporation tax as it applied to the services sector. What did the Government do? It took 2 per cent off the gross figure of 40 per cent and made no effort to reduce corporation tax on the small and medium sized enterprise to sustain and encourage them to grow and to give them more funds to plough into job creation. It favoured the large institutions. The banks benefited most from the Government's largesse. It is extraordinary that such an approach was adopted by Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Bruton. We know that large institutions are shedding jobs as modern technology drives their businesses and reduces the need for employees. We are achieving growth in small and medium sized enterprises.
The report on the services sector states that a selective and lower tax regime for certain designated labour intensive services is essential. The Minister, his Department and the Department of Finance ignored those recommendations of which the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, has spoken so laudably here and elsewhere. She mentioned the local employment service sometime ago, but like all Government initiatives it seems to be at the planning stage. We cannot get anything off the ground. We are waiting for one item after another to be dealt with, but the Minister for Enterprise and Employment has not taken a hard policy decision to deliver on them. We had examples of that this evening.
The way the report of the Competition Authority was dealt with by the Minister who is present was deplorable. I wonder if he read the legislation on competition here or the EU general competition legislation. If he had, he would know that under that legislation he has the opportunity to put forward arguments which can allow for a dominant position to be maintained in the market where the preservation of jobs is at stake and the consumers' interests may be better served by allowing such a position to continue. I am not coming down in favour of one or the other, but the Minister has failed in this regard by not publishing the full report of the Competition Authority.
I accept that it alone may not necessarily have been able to solve the difficulties in the Irish Press group, but it would have contributed to a more enlightened debate on the issue. His approach in dealing with the Irish Press was deplorable. The Minister has failed the workers and in terms of the Irish Press titles, a considerable number of people. He stood back and hid behind the Competition Authority's report as if to pretend to all and sundry that his hands were tied behind his back when he had, and still has, many options to deal with the dispute. He wants others to deal with it and present a fait accompli to him before he enters the fray rather than being the leader of his Department on industrial policy, job creation, unemployment reduction and ensuring that industries with real capacity are sustained. The Minister has not addressed any of those areas.
We have put forward matters of substance. The ideas are contained in so many reports that they could fill this Chamber and we have enunciated many of them. The Minister is a policy maker and is in charge. He has enunciated ideas and policy suggestions month after month in this House, but he has failed to bring forward one concrete proposal that will be effective. Where he has had an opportunity to do, he has allowed others to have their way thereby reducing his influence in Government and his ability to significantly reduce the numbers unemployed.
I wish to refer to the dispute in the Dunnes Stores group. Again, we have had an indication that the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, is primarily responsible. She, along with the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, and the Government, have failed to publish their proposals on Sunday trading. We are in the middle of a major strike that has had serious repercussions not only for Dunnes Stores employees, but for many suppliers whose jobs depend on Dunnes Stores?
It is extraordinary that the Department is paralysed and unable to adopt a leadership role on that issue. The Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, may smile, but the answers to these questions rest with her and her colleague but are not being given. The Minister is trapped in that Department, answerable to his colleagues on the left and driven by ideology. The epitaph of this Government and the Minister of State when she leaves office will read, "I was there but was unable to do anything because the ideology of my colleagues of the left persuasion was more important than reducing unemployment and creating real employment".
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 52.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Callely, Ivor.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick West).
- Ó Cuív, Eamon.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.