Michael Noonan
Question:1 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1136/02]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
Michael Noonan
Question:2 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1137/02]
Michael Noonan
Question:3 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent activities of the National Implementation Body; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1138/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the areas of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness for which his Department has responsibility for implementation or monitoring; the progress made to date regarding the implementation of those areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1463/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach when the next quarterly meeting of the social partners under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness will be held; the likely agenda for the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1467/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:6 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent meetings with the social partners concerning the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3119/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; when the next scheduled meeting of the social partners under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness is to be held; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3431/02]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the next meeting of the participants in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness will take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3662/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, together.
The most recent plenary meeting on the overall implementation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness took place yesterday. The main items on the agenda were budget 2002 and the current economic outlook, health care and lifelong learning.
The Department of Finance made a comprehensive presentation on budget 2002 and the current economic outlook. The presentation outlined the measures taken by the Government in budget 2002 in terms of investment in infrastructure, public services and social inclusion, as well as the tax measures contained in the budget. It also covered the continuing uncertainties around the timing of the international recovery and identified the key competitiveness challenges in the period going forward, including continuing cost-price inflation and the possibility of a sharp rise of the euro against the US dollar and the pound sterling. The presentation pointed up that while the projected rates of economic growth are lower than those we have experienced in the recent past, they will be more sustainable and considerably higher than most of our EU counterparts.
On lifelong learning, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment gave a presentation on progress to date by the task force on lifelong learning in developing a strategic framework in this area. The report of the task force is currently being finalised with a view to consideration at a meeting scheduled for 27 February and it is expected to be published in the near future. The Department of Education and Science covered the significant progress which has been made in the area of adult education, as well as new developments planned for 2002. These include the major expansion in part-time options under the back to education initiative, the very successful "Read Write Now" television series and the establishment of the National Adult Learning Council.
The Department of Health and Children gave a presentation on the new health strategy which the Government launched in November last and which is designed to achieve better health for everyone, fair access, responsive and appropriate care and high performance in the delivery of health care There was a very positive reaction to the new strategy, including in particular the special focus on primary care. As with all PPF plenary meetings, a detailed progress report was produced for this meeting, setting out for each Department, including my own, the progress being made under each action point in the PPF. This seventh report, copies of which have been lodged in the Oireachtas Library, records the continuing good progress in implementing the ambitious economic, social and structural agenda set out in the programme.
The next plenary meeting is scheduled to take place on Monday, 29 April 2002, the agenda for which has yet to be finalised.
On meetings between myself and the social partners, I meet representatives of individual social partner organisations on a regular basis, in addition to the annual attendance of the Taoiseach and other Ministers at the PPF plenary meeting in July, in accordance with established practice.
On the areas of the PPF which are my specific responsibility, my Department exercises the main co-ordinating role for overall implementation of the programme as well as supporting a range of cross-departmental issues, such as public service modernisation, infrastructure delivery, social inclusion and the information society. In addition, my Department chairs the National Implementation Body which was established under the adjustments to the terms of the PPF in December 2000. This body continues to meet as necessary to consider, in particular, the potential implications of ongoing disputes of special national importance.
Was the ASTI dispute raised at yesterday's meeting of the social partners? Deputies are aware that the ASTI rejected the Government's offer of increased rates of pay for substitution and supervision and insurance difficulties mean that schools may have to shut in March. Joint managerial bodies and organisations representing vocational education committees have asked the Government to put contingency plans in place. Were such plans discussed yesterday? Will plans be made? What does the Government intend to do to ensure that secondary schools remain open until April and the examination season?
The ASTI dispute was not discussed at yesterday's meeting, although it will be discussed shortly by officials from the National Implementation Body. All three unions representing teachers have considered the substitution and supervision offer. While members of the INTO accepted the offer following a ballot, TUI members voted by a narrow margin not to accept it and the ASTI decided to reject the offer and to withdraw from supervision and substitution duties, with effect from 4 March. It has been made clear that the core terms of the offer will not be improved and pension issues cannot be considered if trade unions continue to insist that the work is voluntary. The Minister for Education and Science has stated that alternative arrangements will be put in place to ensure that students and parents are not disadvantaged. Money will be made available to schools to recruit suitable and appropriate personnel to carry out supervision duties. School managers have agreed to make every effort to ensure that schools will not close. Discussions about contingency plans are ongoing and it is expected that guidelines will be issued shortly. Grants can be paid to schools at short notice.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that the economy was discussed at yesterday's meeting? While I share his modest optimism as regards economic growth, it is clear that a serious fiscal problem is emerging. The Taoiseach is aware that Government figures, which do not provide for benchmarking, the implementation of the health strategy or any future pay round, project a deficit of about €4 billion in 2003 and about €5 billion in 2004. I presume the Exchequer figures for January, which show that public expenditure is continuing at 22% or 23% and that revenue continues to decrease, were discussed at yesterday's meeting. What is the Taoiseach's plan? Does he intend to lead us into a crisis similar to that of the 1980s, when there was a large divergence between public expenditure and tax revenue?
Economic and budgetary policies were discussed and debated yesterday. The main points put to yesterday's meeting were that economic growth for last year will probably end up at about 5.2% and that it will be about 3.5% this year. The international economy remains weak and there is a slowdown in most major economies. I referred in my reply to the differing views regarding the uncertainty about the international recovery. There is not much point going through those views as it depends on who one reads or listens to.
The main elements of the economic context of the budget were discussed yesterday as were the budgetary prospects. The Deputy is aware of the Government's view that this year will be tight and that we have to continue our tight fiscal and monetary policies to ensure that we do not drift back into borrowing. However, in spite of this situation there are significant expenditure increases where needed. The gross voted capital expenditure for this year is up 12%. Almost €1 billion is being spent on roads, almost €500 million is being spent on public enterprise and public transport, about €1 billion on housing and about €600 million on education.
Yesterday the officials outlined to the social partnership process that gross current expenditure for this year is up about 14% to €26 billion. There has been a 15% increase in health and a 13% increase in education. Therefore, while it has been a tighter year, there is significant capacity within public expenditure for Departments and agencies to continue to run their services, schemes and programmes. However, there is not much leeway for new programmes and schemes. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, made this clear on budget day and on numerous occasions since.
I do not believe the Taoiseach is being fully frank with the House. As a former Minister for Finance he is aware of the emerging situation. He stated that the Government does not wish the Exchequer to engage in borrowing. However, it is clear from the figures published on budget day that the borrowing requirement will be €4 billion next year and more than €5 billion the year after, with no provision made for benchmarking, another pay round or the health strategy.
I put it to the Taoiseach that expenditure growth of more than 20% is unsustainable in the context of economic growth rates of 3.8%, 4.5% or 5%. That is not possible. The Taoiseach is misleading the country if he pretends there is no emerging fiscal crisis. He took part in this discussion yesterday and I know that those who were around the table are concerned about this issue. How is this situation to be addressed? What is the plan? Is the plan to waltz as far as the election and pretend that everything is grand, and to bring the public into the Taoiseach's confidence only when the election is over?
The budgetary prospects for 2002 to 2004 were set out. Lest I be accused of not giving the figures, the forecasts for the general Government balance as a percentage of GDP for 2001 is for a surplus of 1.7%, the forecast for 2002 is for a surplus of 0.7%, the forecast for 2003 is for a deficit of 0.5% and a deficit of 0.6% in 2004. The forecasts for the Exchequer balance as a percentage of GNP is for a surplus of 0.7% in 2001, a 0.2% surplus in 2002, a deficit of 2.7% in 2003 and a deficit of 3.1% in 2004. The end of year forecasts for debt to GDP ratio are 35.8% for last year, 33.7% for this year, 33.8% for 2003 and 34.4% for 2004. Those are the published figures so there is nothing extraordinary about them.
The economic outlook for the three years is for GNP growth of 3.5% this year, 4.8% next year and 4.5% in 2004, employment gains of 1.4%, 1.6% and 1.5%, an inflation rate of 4.2%, 2.8% and 2.3% and unemployment rates of 4.7%, 4.6% and 4.5%. These figures are in the public domain and are based on an economic growth that is less than the actual growth that has occurred in recent years. We are in a tighter position internationally and must be more prudent, but our growth rates are higher than the European Union and our fiscal position will be tighter. The Minister for Finance has made it clear that going by his figures we should not need any further expenditure this year. We have made it absolutely clear that we cannot have that.
I agree with one of Deputy Noonan's points. Increases of this kind in public expenditure are high. They are high because the economy is developing, because we have a large working population and because we need social inclusion measures. We have to manage the economy through a more difficult period, although it is ridiculous to speak of growth of 4% to 5% as a "difficult period". However, since growth has been at a rate of 8.5% for a few years, people have become accustomed to that. These are the exact figures and they are all in the public domain. Clearly we must manage ourselves through the period that is ahead.
Will the Taoiseach stick by all those figures he read out, particularly the predictions for the deficits, against the background of the decline in Government finances demonstrated by the January Exchequer figures?
Deputy Noonan has been in the area of finance for a number of years and would know more about these things. I am sticking to the Department of Finance figures rather than making up my own.
They are budgetary figures. What about the January figures?
The Government is working with these budget day figures and will continue to work with them for the remainder of its lifetime.
Or until the end of the first quarter.
I do not wish to comment on the January Exchequer figures. The House will agree that commenting on one month's figures, to which we never used to give any consideration, would not be good practice. I would consider quarterly figures but not monthly figures.
Today, a former member of the Taoiseach's parliamentary party returned to jail for the third time. I remind the Taoiseach that the House, this time last year almost to the day, passed a motion from the Labour Party calling for the establishment of a code of conduct for Members. That was referred to the relevant committee, the Committee on Members' Interests of Dáil Éireann, and the draft prepared by the Labour Party was modified and changed because we had not suggested that our draft was a final one but rather one for consideration. That committee made a number of changes and in November last the draft code of conduct was referred to the Department of the Taoiseach, which has responsibility for its formalisation and conclusion before it is presented again to the House. In the light of the disregard that has been brought on this House by the actions of one Member, and the widespread public—
I cannot see the relevance of this comment.
In the Taoiseach's reply to my question, and to a number of questions on this topic last year, he indicated that his Department, under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and the programme for social partnership, has responsibility for Oireachtas reform. This measure relates to Oireachtas reform. I wonder, in the light of the widespread disregard the actions of Deputy Lawlor have brought on all of us, and the necessity for the formulation of a code of conduct, if the Taoiseach could tell me where lies this code of conduct now and when it will be introduced.
A Cheann Comhairle, in the interests of being helpful to you and of order in the House I will reply to the supplementary question, but it has as much to do with these questions as I have to do with being premier of Australia. The committee met last week to discuss the code of practice and I understand it made some progress.
I have no difficulty wrapping it up, but there were legal issues in front of the committee last week that it wants to tie down. I am in agreement with finishing the code of practice.
To help the House and the Taoiseach who seems to be unaware of what he said last year in regard to a question—
On a point of order, I remember what I said last year and it has nothing to do with these questions. I was asked a question that was out of order, but will answer it anyway with regard to where stands the code of practice. Last week it was in front of a committee of the House for the reason that we had legal difficulties and I understand some progress was made. I do not know if it concluded it, but for my part I have no problem completing the code of practice.
The Taoiseach mentioned social inclusion to which I want to return in the context of the PPF. Is he aware from last Thursday's CSO figures for 1999 that the disposable income of a person in the southern and eastern regions is 4.1% above the State average? This corresponds very badly with the figure for the Border, midlands and west region which is 11.5% below the State average. Is this acceptable to the Taoiseach given that the gap is growing? Does it indicate that the social inclusion measures of the PPF are not being fully implemented? Given the Taoiseach's interest in social inclusion that he expressed to Deputy Noonan, where lies his strategy in regard to the matter?
In relation to the make-up of the social partners, does the Taoiseach believe it was a mistake not to have included environmental experts or NGOs, given the many issues of waste, water and air quality, food safety, habitat loss and so forth which are impacting and the further impact by the economic activity which is disregarding these key factors for economic success?
As the Deputy has rightly said, social inclusion is an area in which I am very interested. Much progress has been made in the social inclusion provisions under the PPF. These include: the social welfare and income tax pro visions of the last budget and all recent budgets; the publication of the national health strategy; the review of the national anti-poverty strategy which is almost completed; the consultations with the social partners which were completed yesterday; the benchmarking indexation committee which has completed its work; the target investment programmes for both rural and urban communities through the CLÁR and Rapid programmes which are under way.
The point the Deputy made is precisely the one argued so strongly by me that the country be regionalised. By having a number of regions, disadvantaged regions such as the BMW region would have fiscal and direct foreign investment advantages over others. This has borne fruit with the figures for last year which showed that while employment was declining in the the BMW region, it did better than the southern and eastern regions.
The sum of €5.7 million has been allocated to the national anti-racism campaign. There is a consultation process for the development of the national plan for women while the action plans on homelessness have been completed in almost all of the major centres and most of the county councils. The national drugs strategy was launched last year into which all of these are feeding. Social housing provisions are being put in place. There is a White Paper on supporting voluntary activity. The Disability Authority is in place, there is a disabilities Bill, carer's benefit, teaching posts—
(Interruptions.)
Please allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.
Yesterday it was acknowledged, and warmly welcomed, at the meeting on the PPF, from the reports I received, that the distributional income effects of the last budget were four times greater for those at the bottom of the scale. While there are other issues which still have to be addressed in the context of NAPS, it is quite clear, as I am sure Deputy Sargent was about to point out, that the level of consistent poverty has more than halved in recent years.
The gap still widened.
I know the Deputy has made that point. He also asked me about two years ago if I would look at the indicators more broadly than in terms of GNP and GDP and I agreed that that was a fair point. That exercise is now almost completed and I hope a report will be published in the next week or so.
Will it take account of the views of the social partners?
I believe it will be in line with what the Deputy has been arguing for some time and with which I agreed. It will look at a broader set of economic indicators, including quality of life and environmental issues.
Will the Taoiseach inform the House as to the current position of the legislation in his Department to place on a statutory basis the Centre for National Partnership and integrate with the NESF and the NESC?
I appreciate the Deputy's persistent reminders. The legislation is now completed and will be with the Government, if not next week, the following week. In the meantime, the bodies concerned will continue to work on the present basis, which does not give rise to any problems for them. However, we do want to place them on a statutory basis for the future.
In the course of the Taoiseach's recent meeting with the social partners was the preliminary draft of the strategy statement that will be discussed next autumn referred to by the social partners? This is the document the NESC will be preparing as the basis for moving forward into a future social partnership agreement.
I do not think there has been any comprehensive discussion on it yet. As the Deputy will be aware, people are just beginning to give some thought to that process, but there has been no comprehensive discussion at this stage.
I asked the Taoiseach if it was acceptable to him that the CSO figures showed a widening gap and he did not say that it was not. He just said there were things being done. I would still like to ask him if it is acceptable and if he will answer my question in relation to the membership of the social partners to which he refers. He spoke of sustainability indicators which it would be very welcome to see, rather than just discussing them. It would also be welcome to see the membership of the social partners, including groups such as environmental experts who could make an input at the stage of planning rather than monitoring economic activity in order that it would become sustainable.
Any of the social partners can use experts. A number of them have their own experts as members or consultants. The NESC and NESF, the drivers of many of the policy initiatives and the papers used in the social partnership process, have used expert environmentalists, sociologists and others in the last 14 years. Such experts participate in producing the documents which form the basis for policy.
At yesterday's meeting was there any discussion on expected job losses in the first half of this year? Was the Taoiseach given any estimate of job losses? Will he comment on their sectoral breakdown?
In the presentations yesterday there was an up-to-date report on redundancies and job losses and increases in employment which, thankfully, have also occurred. Most job losses last year occurred in ICT and related companies and the tourism sector while the increases took place in financial services and pharmaceuticals.
The downturn began over six or seven months ago. Thankfully, the figures are remaining quite stable, but nobody likes to see people losing their jobs. A number of sectors are coping well with the difficulties that have arisen.
The relevant State agencies are predicting significant job losses, particularly among those working for American companies which have invested here. Does the Taoiseach have in his possession a projected figure for such job losses for the first half of the year or the year as a whole?
That prediction is not correct because the figures for this year show an overall gain in employment, which will mean that 400,000 additional people will have obtained jobs here in recent years. While there will be job losses in some areas, the overall figures show we are on target for an increase in employment this year.
While acknowledging that the current social partnership arrangements have worked relatively well in the context of developing our economy, does the Taoiseach accept that there is a perception abroad that it will be necessary to put in place new arrangements for the future? What discussions are taking place to try to formulate such arrangements? Does the Taoiseach agree that Members of the Dáil and Seanad should be involved in order that they can have an input into whatever format might be used in the future?
To answer the Deputy's last question first, Oireachtas Members are involved in the NESF and I hope their level of attendance continues to be as good as it has been to date. The NESF challenges new policy initiatives and monitors issues of interest. There is a process in place which should be used by Oireachtas Members, perhaps to a fuller extent than is currently the case.
I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed by the Deputy in his first question. Each of the social partnership agreements, from the original Programme for National Recovery 15 years ago through the PCW, Partnership 2000 and the PPF, has marked an evolutionary step in the process. The debate between trade unions, employers, small business interests and farmers is not whether such agreements should be reached – we have moved beyond that stage – but the form they should take. The context in which partnership agreements are reached changes with every three or four year period. It is not a question of whether there should be partnership between the Government of the day and the various social partners, but rather one of identifying the priorities or benchmarks that should be applied.
Circumstances have changed completely since the introduction 15 years ago of the first agreement – which dealt solely with pay – to the current agreement which is quite comprehensive in nature. The social partners now work across a range of areas in a close way. When one considers the origins of this process and its current and future status it becomes evident that Ireland has developed a more sophisticated system than any of the countries from which it sought ideas 15 years ago. It would be good for the country for the process to continue to evolve in the future.
With regard to the Taoiseach's earlier reply to Deputy Noonan on the question of jobs, I put it to him that he is being unduly optimistic. His optimism is without foundation, particularly in the light of statements by the heads of State agencies, particularly the chief executive of IDA Ireland, Mr. Sean Dorgan. The latter indicated that we can expect a significant rise in unemployment. I put it to the Taoiseach that no one shares his optimism.
In the context of yesterday's meeting, did the Taoiseach consider any reform of the industrial relations framework, with particular reference to the redundancy Acts? Does he accept that reform in this area is necessary because existing redundancy legislation is both outdated and unfair, particularly in the light of the circumstances of increased unemployment and the manner in which the redundancy Acts impinge on families?
On the last question, that is an issue the social partners have discussed. The Tánaiste is on record as saying she supports it.
On the other issue, it is not based on anything other than the figures I quoted. I know it is inconvenient when I quote the facts rather than making up the figures. Unemployment stands at 4.7%, 4.6%, 4.5%. In real terms there is an increase in employment. Even with the tighter regime we brought in last year on work permits, the figures from Irish employers indicate that there are still 1,000 applications a week for work permits to bring people here, whom they cannot get, and long-term unemployment is now fractionally under 1.2%. Those are the facts.
Last month was the sixth month in a row in which there was an increase.
There are more people working in the economy. There have been job losses and redundancies. I do not deny that. However, the overall position is that more people are in employment and, even given the tough regime the Tánaiste brought in last year to ensure that our people would have the first choice of jobs – which I totally support – there are more than 1,000 applications a week from Irish employers for work permits for people from outside the country, even though they are being vetted much more strictly.
I agree with the Taoiseach's overall description, but judging from that reply and from a reply the Taoiseach gave earlier, while employment will increase in absolute terms next year, so will the rate of unemployment relative to that for this year. There has been something of the order of 20,000 jobs lost since October last. In the context of the meeting that took place yesterday and any more plans this Government may have before the general election, is it considered that there is now a need to enhance the training provision for workers who become redundant in a range of industries whose technological base is migrating out of this economy to other countries with lower labour costs? The Taoiseach knows the litany of job losses throughout the country among those workers who have the discipline, experience and tradition of working in an industrial context. Will they receive, at a point closest to them, the training, up-skilling and other supports, including enhanced social welfare payments combined perhaps with enhanced redundancy payments, to enable them to acquire the skills in respect of which Irish employers are applying for work permits for people from outside the country as we speak? Could the Taoiseach outline precisely what concrete plans if any the Government has to deal with that issue?
That is an issue. A number of measures have been discussed at length both inside and outside the social partnership process. The Lifelong Learning Task Force, which was established by the Tánaiste in conjunction with the Department of Education and Science, is developing a strategic framework for lifelong learning to identify the key implementation issues the Deputy has identified. The first of those measures is the creation of a national training fund to ring fence a source of funding to undertake this task. The expert group on future skill needs has taken a very pro-active approach to identifying existing and future skill shortages and developing the means to address them. This has given rise to substantial increases in both University and FÁS training places for the ICT industry.
Substantial progress has been made in tackling the supply constraint for off-the-job training for apprentices. FÁS is now providing approximately 8,000 phase 2 places. The enterprise led training initiative Skillnets shortly finishes its three year programme, having trained more than 12,000 people. In addition, the White Paper on adult learning contains an enormous number of recommendations, 70 or 80, geared to do exactly what the Deputy suggested, that is, to make sure that people in our existing work force who have not had adequate education are given an opportunity to receive that education and to get the necessary skills and training. In other cases, where people have been and are being made redundant, they can have an opportunity to get up-skilling. Those measures are in place.