Tom Kitt
Question:1 Mr. T. Kitt asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his proposed meeting with the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed on 28 May 1996. [9491/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Negotiations on National Programme.
Bertie Ahern
Question:2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach when the Programme for Competitiveness and Work expires. [9612/96]
Mary Harney
Question:3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed regarding representation on the Central Review Committee of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. [9627/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.
I will meet the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, the INOU, on 28 May 1996 to discuss its application to be involved in any negotiations on a programme which might follow the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. I feel that my making a statement at this stage regarding a meeting which has not yet taken place would undermine the purpose of the meeting which is to allow me to hear, at first hand, what the INOU has to say.
Social partnership extends far beyond the membership of the Central Review Committee. It operates through three bodies, the Central Review Committee, CRC, the National Economic and Social Council, NESC and the National Economic and Social Forum, NESF. Because I want the social partnership process to be as inclusive as possible, I have sought the formal inputs from NESC and NESF in developing a framework for any new national programme. These will take the form of detailed reports prepared with the full involvement of all NESC and NESF members.
Both the NESC and the NESF are broadly based bodies and I would like to point out that the Government took the opportunity when reappointing the NESC last year to include representatives of the INOU. The INOU was, of course, already a member of the NESF. It is, in these ways, included in the social partnership process. Furthermore, over the preceding three programmes, a large number of other organisations which are not represented on the CRC, the NESC or the NESF have made an input to those programmes through meetings with and submissions to my Department.
I intend to ensure that in the preparation of any new programme, mechanisms will be developed to allow for a contribution in particular in areas of direct relevance to their members from a wider number of groups than at present.
The Programme for Competitiveness and Work runs until the end of 1996. However, the associated pay agreement as it applies to the public service continues until 30 June 1997. Preparations for a new national programme which would begin in January 1997 are already under way.
I will be continuing to meet informally the social partners over the remaining year of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work as the need arises and I would intend that formal discussions in relation to a possible new programme would open in the latter part of 1996.
Has the Government worked out a framework for the various reports? Is it the Government's intention to try to negotiate a national programme to succeed the Programme for Competitiveness and Work?
The answer to both questions is in the affirmative.
Will the Taoiseach outline when the various reports he has mentioned will be ready?
I understand the NESC report is at an advanced stage but I cannot tell the Deputy when exactly it will be ready as that is a matter for the council. Most of the social partners who are members of the NESC have been involved in the preparation of the report and I know it will be ready in very good time for consideration when we commence formal discussions on a possible replacement for the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed wants to meet him with a view to convincing him of the need to have it involved as a full partner in the social partnership and in the Central Review Committee? Further, can the Taoiseach give me any good reason that organisation, whose sole focus is on employment and which represents solely the concerns of unemployed people, should not be involved as a full partner in the social partnership?
I have indicated already in my reply to the original questions from Deputies Tom Kitt, Bertie Ahern and Harney that I am aware of the purpose of the meeting which the INOU is having with me on 28 May. I would prefer to hear at first hand the views of the INOU before making any public comment on it. I outlined in my reply, which the Deputy heard, the ways in which the INOU, through its membership of the NESC and the NESF, is already involved in a very meaningful way in the social partnership process.
Will the Taoiseach accept that the Government's greatest failure is that it is not addressing the needs of the long-term unemployed. This constitutes a crisis and the needs of the unemployed could be addressed by the inclusion of their representatives at the negotiating table. Today I attended a meeting of the NESF, a worthy body and the Government is cosily sidelining the issue of long-term unemployment by handing it over to that body for consideration. Will the Taoiseach accept that a more hands-on approach is necessary and he should give a commitment that representatives of the long-term unemployed will be at the table to negotiate the new agreement?
As I outlined to the Deputy, the unemployed, through the INOU, are represented in the preparatory work on a new programme being prepared by the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum. In that way they are involved in a detailed and consultative way in policy-making generally. Not only do senior representatives of all other social parties attend the National Economic and Social Council, but senior decision makers in the public service attend and are members. Through meetings of the NESC the unemployed, as represented by the INOU, have a detailed and a constant input into Government policy-making at the highest level.
The Government in this year's budget showed great commitment to meeting the need for employment opportunities for the long-term unemployed. It recognises that the longer people are unemployed the more difficult it becomes for them to get an interview. We recognise that a period in unemployment is almost equivalent to the reverse of a period in training or education because the longer the period of unemployment, the less the chance of gaining employment. Similarly the longer a period in training, the greater are the chances of employment. There is almost an inverse relationship between training and the duration of long-term unemployment. That is why in this year's budget the Government introduced a number of measures targeted solely at the long-term unemployed to give them extra assistance to put them on as near as possible an equal footing with other job seekers so that their position would be improved.
What about their new programme?
We recognise, as will anybody who has studied this matter, that the problem of long-term unemployment is not susceptible to short-term solutions. There is a definite sense of purpose on the part of the Government in the measures introduced in this year's budget. They represent the most comprehensive range of measures to tackle long-term unemployment introduced by any Government in the history of the State. I am looking forward to displaying a similar and enhanced commitment to dealing with the problem of long-term unemployment in next year's budget.
Is the Taoiseach looking forward to the budget the following year?
The Taoiseach said he does not want to put his views on the record before he meets the INOU, but they are on the record of this House. He said he does not favour that group being made a full partner. Has he changed his view on that? Is there any reason to treat that organisation different from, for example, Macra Na Feirme?
The Deputy must be commended for the skill with which she rephrased her question, but her query is essentially the same as that put twice today, in the form of the question tabled and then by way of her first supplementary.
The Taoiseach has not answered either.
She has reframed the question a third time.
To get an answer.
As I will be meeting representatives of the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, it would be appropriate to hear their views before conveying any view to any other party, including Dáil Éireann, about what I might or might not say at such a meeting. It would be open to the suggestion that I were devaluing such a meeting if I were to announce a fixed position on what those representatives propose to say to me before I hear their points of view.
Is the Taoiseach aware that not one of the long-term unemployed has found work as a result of the measures, which may well be admirable, he outlined?
That is not true.
It is. I have a parliamentary reply to that effect.
As the Deputy is aware, the back-to-work allowance is operating effectively and was improved and enhanced in the budget.
What about the job start?
The Deputy, and others, should not advocate simplistic approaches to this matter when they are well aware that long-term unemployment is a difficult problem that has been a feature of social life here for a number of years.
The Taoiseach had all the simple answers when he was in Opposition.
No Government has shown a greater commitment to dealing with the problem of long-term unemployment to the best of its ability and within the limits of its resources than this Government.
What about the results?
Not one of the long-term unemployed has found work as a result of those measures.
Almost half the time available to us for dealing with questions to the Taoiseach has been exhausted.
On a point of order, if the Taoiseach is five or six minutes late for Question Time, that is not my fault. I have asked only one supplementary.
I was not six minutes late.
He was five minutes late.
This is not a point of order.
The Taoiseach stated that the Civil Service agreement will run to June 1997. Following a meeting with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions last week he made a statement to the effect that the outstanding issues will be resolved in the context of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. Will he outline to the House how the outstanding difficulties involving the Army, the teachers, the nurses and the civil servants will be resolved within the terms of that agreement?
The Deputy is raising separate matters.
The matter in question is currently under discussion with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions with a view to finding an appropriate resolution to it. The terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work are clear in regard to the maintenance of industrial peace and the obligation upon all those benefiting under the agreement to abide by the industrial peace clauses of that programme. That commitment to the maintenance of industrial peace for the duration of the programme is one of the fundamentals of the social partnership approach. In that context the Government and the trade union movement generally, as represented by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, are working together with a view to finding a reasonable resolution of the problems under the terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
In the past ten years money was available to solve such disputes. Will the Taoiseach state the figure available to resolve the outstanding disputes?
No. That matter is currently under discussion between the Government and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. We are not thinking in the terms referred to by the Deputy. The way he framed his question does not highlight our approach to the matter. A different approach was adopted in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work to that adopted in previous agreements of that kind. The Deputy may recall that the approach to which he referred of money for particular purposes, was not adopted under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and, therefore, the Deputy's question does not arise. The provision under this year's Programme for Competitiveness and Work was different. It was a recognition that in response to agreements to change procedures, which would deliver increased efficiency and reduce costs in the public service, provision could be made for what were known as productivity-related pay increases. In the context of that provision under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, which also includes a commitment not to have recourse to industrial action, and as a result of the meeting I and other members of the Government had with congress last week, efforts are being made to resolve the outstanding difficulties.