Mary Harney
Question:1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings with representatives of the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed. [11003/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed.
Bertie Ahern
Question:2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 28 May 1996 with the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed. [11576/96]
Charlie McCreevy
Question:3 Mr. McCreevy asked the Taoiseach his views on the involvement of the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed in any forthcoming social partnership; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11590/96]
Liam Aylward
Question:64 Mr. Aylward asked the Taoiseach if he will favourably consider the request by the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed to have it included in any future national agreements. [11669/96]
Seán Haughey
Question:65 Mr. Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will support the call from the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed for its participation in the next national agreement in the interests of partnership; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11716/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 64 and 65 together.
I am pleased to be able to report that I had a very positive meeting with the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed — INOU — on 28 May 1996. I was happy to have this opportunity to exchange views at first hand with the INOU. In the course of our discussions, the INOU delegation outlined in detail its case for greater participation in the social partnership process. We discussed INOU participation in both the NESC and the NESF; and the importance of the INOU input into the reports being prepared by both of these bodies in respect of a new national programme. These reports will provide much of the economic and social context in which any new programme will be set and I indicated that I appreciated the specific contribution the INOU had made to the reports.
Among the other issues raised in our discussions were the progress that has been made in reducing unemployment, by some 51,000 since April 1993, and the very positive signal of the Government's commitment to the unemployed, especially to tackle the problem of long-term unemployment, which the wide range of measures included in the budget this year represent. I indicated my desire to augment those measures in the light of the experience gained in implementing the current initiatives. I also indicated my intention to give priority to employment issues during our forthcoming EU Presidency.
With some seven months to run before the end of the current programme, firm decisions about negotiating and monitoring arrangements for any new programme have not been made. I am very satisfied that the Central Review Committee system is working well and have indicated previously that I would be reluctant to expand the committee.
I agreed to consider the INOU's views and proposals in the context of preparations for a new national programme. In the meantime it would be useful for the INOU to have structured dialogue with the Government on matters of concern to it. I therefore proposed that regular meetings would take place between senior officials of my Department and the organisation to pursue issues of interest to the INOU. The INOU has welcomed this proposal, and the first such meeting will take place in the first week of July.
The Taoiseach said the INOU put forward a case for greater participation in any new programme that might succeed the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. Will he accept it is not greater participation that organisation wants but to be full members, to be treated as full partners? Will the Taoiseach say why, for example, five groups representing an agricultural perspective are full partners in that process while the INOU is still assigned to a role of consultation?
Those organisations were included mainly for historic reasons and have participated since the outset in programmes of this nature. They were included in the 1987 Central Review Committee arrangement which has been operated, without change, by successive Governments, including the Government of which the Deputy was a member.
When I became Taoiseach I was conscious of the need to reflect the changes which had occurred in the representative organisations for various segments of society, particularly the growth of an organisation representing specifically the unemployed in the form of the INOU. As a result I decided to do something which had never been done by a previous Government, that is to include a representative of the INOU on the National Economic and Social Council so that it could play a more effective role in the process. As a result of my meeting with it on 28 May I decided to take a further initiative and bring it more intimately into the process. I arranged with it a structured dialogue which involves bi-monthly meetings, the first of which will take place during the first week of July. I hope to have bi-monthly meetings with it on a continuous basis subsequently so that it will have an input at the highest level.
As I explained previously to the Deputy and others, I am reluctant to change the representative arrangement on the Central Review Committee for the simple reason that it has worked well in giving us national agreements and understandings and programmes for competitiveness and work. While one could argue from a theoretical standpoint that its representative character is not all that others might wish it to be, as the old adage, with which I am sure the Deputy is familiar, says "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I would be reluctant to start changing the compositions of the Central Review Committee at a time when we are trying to build on existing success and carry it forward into a new agreement. However, I recognise that there are some deficiencies in the arrangement and that is why I have taken steps to give a greater voice to the INOU in the preparation of the groundwork for the programme and in consultation at the highest political level.
When we began the process of centralised programmes of this kind almost ten years ago it was agreed they had a particular cycle and should be considered at the end of it. I am not arguing that the present arrangement should be changed but changes should be introduced for the next programme. Will the Taoiseach agree that while the employed have a voice at the table the unemployed have no direct voice at it? The Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed has not argued against ICTU, which traditionally has-stated it argues for the employed and unemployed. The unemployed were not strongly represented a number of years ago and there was much antagonism between the organisations on the second programme. However, this is no longer the case. Will the Taoiseach give the unemployed a voice in the framework process for a new programme?
I have answered that question in part in response to Deputy Harney and in my reply to the original question. I said that at this stage, with seven or eight months to run, we should not come to final decisions about the precise structures for monitoring a successor programme to the existing programme. I also said that I am willing to look at ways in which the monitoring arrangements conducted by the Central Review Committee principally could be improved. At the same time I have indicated a reluctance to change arrangements which have worked reasonably well in the past.
The Deputy has made a valid point about the employed being more represented than the unemployed, although I would point out that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions specifically operates centres for the unemployed and represents them in a very direct way through that activity. I would not wish to cast any reflection on that activity of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Obviously one of the benefits of trade unionism has been the promotion of unity rather than factionalisation of the interests of working people and those who wish to work but cannot do so through no fault of their own.
The structured dialogue I initiated with the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed should not be underestimated in terms of its importance. The official who will meet the INOU early in July as part of the structured dialogue is the same person who acts as chairperson of the Central Review Committee. Its views will be taken into account through that process.
When I asked the Taoiseach why five organisations represented the farming perspective he said that was for historic reasons and, as the old adages says, "if it ain't broke don't fix it". There is another adage which says, "we are here to make history, not to follow it". Historically, Fine Gael might not have gone into Government with Democratic Left but history changes, and it is right that it should. That being the case, it is not satisfactory that the only group which represents unemployed people — they have only been organised in recent years — should be treated differently from other organisations. Will the Taoiseach agree that if we are serious about unemployment being the priority of all parties then that organisation should be at the table and fully participate in the negotiations so that it does not have to deal with the process at arms length through a consultative process?
The whole basis for the concern of the unemployed is to influence the policies which will be implemented under an agreement. The drafting of those policies in so far as the social partners are concerned is primarily done by the National Economic and Social Council, the body which prepares the reports and priorities which form the policy basis of national understandings and programmes for competitiveness and work. While previous Government excluded the INOU from the National Economic and Social Council this Government included it. We have now gone further and offered them a structured dialogue, the first manifestation of which will be early in July. It would be better for all concerned to await evidence of how that works. Without speaking for it, I believe the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed was very happy with the approach taken by us and with the outcome of its meeting with me on 28 May. If the Deputy wishes, she should contact the organisation which will assure her of that.
I will check the position when I meet the organisation shortly. Does the Taoiseach, who has had meetings with it recently, believe that the INOU is sufficiently representative of the unemployed on a countrywide basis?
It is not a question of my personal opinions. We are dealing with arrangements for making sure we have a programme on a partnership basis which works and is satisfactory to all concerned. The arrangements I have put in place to enhance the role of the long-term unemployed and the unemployed generally in social partnership are very good and deserve the support of the House.
I might make the point that initially the long-term unemployed were not involved in any organisation. When I was in the Deputy's position I agitated successfully for the establishment of the National Economic and Social Forum which gave them and their representative body, the INOU, their very first input to social partnership. As Taoiseach I brought them on to the National Economic and Social Council and have offered them structured dialogue. Of course, I am willing to look at other ways in the future for improving that but my record is very good.
The Taoiseach omitted to add that in the intervening period he voted against social partnership and spoke against it whenever offered an opportunity. Is it the Taoiseach's view that the INOU is sufficiently representative of the unemployed nationally?
That is a repetition of a previous question——
I did not get an answer.
I have already indicated to Deputy Ahern but I will repeat what I said verbatim if I can recollect it. I said that my personal opinions or views are not at stake here. What is at stake is having a system of social partnership, involving a broadly representative arrangement which will ensure that all relevant people have an input to the policy content of social partnership and that the arrangements for monitoring that are as effective as possible. There is a need to increase the level of involvement of organisations like the INOU, representing as it does specifically those who are unemployed, in the policy-making process involved in social partnership. I am very glad that, in Opposition and as Taoiseach, I have been responsible for a very substantial increase in INOU involvement, something that is acknowledged by the INOU, who were very happy with the outcome of the meeting, as I said to Deputy Harney, and I intend to continue in that vein. I do not exclude further progress and changes in this area. However, I also indicated a reluctance to alter arrangements that have worked well in regard to the Central Review Committee, a reluctance I am willing to review in the light of experience.
I think the Taoiseach is confusing two things; they were very happy to meet him since they had been awaiting such a meeting for over a year.
They never met a previous Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach keeps telling us he is not like any previous Taoiseach.
They were very happy that I was the first Taoiseach who had met them. Indeed I am not so sure that Deputy Harney met them when she was in office but I did and I did something for them.
Will the Taoiseach confirm it is his view that the INOU is happy that it is not part of the social partnership and will not be at the negotiating table when a successor to the Programme for Competitiveness and Work is negotiated?
Deputy Harney should not endeavour to misquote me. I said they were very happy with their meeting with me and its outcome. Of course, they have desires in regard to further developments they would like to see. I said, in response to Deputy Bertie Ahern, that I do not exclude further development. In fact my record, as Taoiseach, will show that I have done more to bring the INOU into social partnership than any of my predecessors, particularly in view of the fact that none of my predecessors, including one for whom the Deputy voted religiously in the House, bothered to meet them.
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach is easily pleased.
The Deputy is perpetually displeased.
Only with the performance of the Government.
We have dwelt over long on these few questions. A final question from Deputy Ahern.
Has the Taoiseach sounded out the other social partners as to whether the INOU should be represented at the negotiating table in any new agreement?
I have engaged in discussions with the social partners about the possibility of changes in the Central Review Committee. I do detect a certain reluctance to change arrangements that are working reasonably well — that is my observation from my discussions with them — but if the Deputy wishes to contact the social partners individually, I am sure they would be better able to express their views on that matter themselves rather than have me speak on their behalf.