That gets us back to the draft report on youth employment. Could I now assume that we formally adopt paragraphs 1 to 14?
Paragraphs 1 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
PARAGRAPH 15.
Youth Employment.
Given that we have amended the minutes—we have focussed on paragraph 17 but not formally agreed the earlier paragraphs—I would suggest a minor amendment to paragraph 15, which is the beginning of the views of the Joint Committee; it starts on page 7. Indeed, I took the liberty of circulating what would be the new page 7 which incorporated this amendment. As it stands paragraph 15 says :
Its request for detailed proposals would seem to indicate the Council's acceptance of the principle of aid along the lines outlined in the Commission's communication of 20th October 1977. The Joint Committee regards the Community's commitment to the principle of aid for wage subsidies to promote employment as a most important development which it warmly welcomes. However, it considers that the initial budgetary appropriations proposed are inadequate.
I would like to suggest that we formulate the next sentence more appropriately. The original text says :
While national measures are costing about 350 million European units of account annually, it is unlikely that the expected payment of 40 million EUA from the European Social Fund for 1979 will prove of more than marginal benefit.
I was going to suggest that it is not the actual payment from the Fund but the amount available which is the main point of criticism. The amount paid out depends on the degree to which the projects come from the member states.
Is it normal not to pay for a year?
Yes, but that is not the proper criterion. I was suggesting a different sentence :
When it is recalled that Member States are already spending 350 million EUA annually the proposed Community contribution, welcome though it may be, is hardly likely to solve the problem.
That is getting to the point the Joint Committee wants to make—that the allocation made of 110 million units of account proposed by the Commission is not, in its view, sufficient. It is the overall allocation and not the speed with which the actual payment is made that the Committee want to comment on. I propose that amendment, although it is not really an amendment in principle, but it improves the point we are trying to make about the overall adequacy of the Commission's proposals.
I second it.
Is it agreed?
Amendment agreed.
Paragraph 15, as amended, agreed to.
PARAGRAPH 16.
My objective in getting this report passed as soon as possible is to have it discussed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, because it warrants that kind of debate. I am in the weak position of not having an alternative text to propose and consequently my remarks can easily be hurled back at me. They are very interesting but they would be much more useful if they were on paper. What I find very weak in the Commission's document of 10 April and to a certain extent in the sub-committee's draft report is the lack of a complete analysis as to why youth unemployment has come about—it is not just demographic factors alone. Secondly I would query whether throwing money at the problem in the way we are proposing whether at national or EEC level, or increasing the fund of money available for wage subsidies is likely to have the kind of impact we all desire. These are observations rather than amendments or suggestions.
Those are observations you will probably get an opportunity of expressing in another place.
To a very considerable extent this Committee can only function on the basis of looking at the proposals and at their implications for Ireland. It is for Deputies and Senators in the Houses to query the fundamental basis of the proposals, otherwise the Committee will never get through its reports.
I accept that.
Can I take it that paragraph 16 is accepted and we will get on to paragraph 17?
Paragraph 16 agreed to.
PARAGRAPH 17.
There were some differences of opinion about paragraph 17. I propose to put the question that paragraph 17 stand part of the report even though that is not my personal opinion that it should. Procedurally I must put it that way. If we cannot get it agreed, we will have to have a vote.
I must put the question: " That paragraph 17 stand part of the Report."
Is it necessary for somebody to second the Chairman's proposal?
No, it is not.
As I could not, unfortunately, attend these meetings because of other commitments, would it be possible to explain briefly what the problem is?
Yes. Deputy Woods was one of the people who found some difficulty and fault with this paragraph. I personally disliked the paragraph for a different reason. More than midway down it says that :
While there can be no question of abandoning this system of capital grants . . .
We were talking about our own capital grants here
. . . the Joint Committee considers that the matter should be examined to see of some of the resources so employed might in future be more properly diverted to direct subsidisation of labour, possibly supplemented, perhaps, by a tax structure favouring firms giving high employment. It seems to the Joint Committee that such an examination should be undertaken as a matter of urgency, particularly in view of the likelihood of aid being made available from Community resources.
The point I was making was that we were trying to do or what we should be anxious to do is to get new money, not propose that what we were using ourselves here and should be used in a differrent way. I think we have all the power we need to use this money in Ireland in whatever way we decide. Perhaps, there is a risk in even suggesting altering or deviating at all from existing procedures in relation to the scheme. On many occasions dealing with Brussels I found there were schemes here that I would like to have changed here, but we were afraid to attempt that in case they would insist on having them abolished altogether.
We have a protocol covering the tax exemption on exports and we have capital grants. If we start changing this around, we might find ourselves in trouble in regard to the use of our own moneys. That was my fear and for that reason I felt it unwise to make a report along these lines. We could leave it out of the report, without weakening the report. However, Senator Robinson has other views.
This paragraph probably represents the nearest that the Members of the sub-committee felt they could come to solve the points Deputy Quinn raised. If one looks at the stark reality of the position, one will see that Ireland not only has a higher general unemployment rate but also has a strikingly higher youth unemployment rate than other countries. Therefore it is necessary for us not only to look at the Commission's proposals, whether they are based on correct or adequate assumptions, but we must also look at our own attempts to tackle our unemployment problems. I think it is a very valid reflection in paragraph 17 that we may have relied too heavily on capital grants supplemented by favourable tax laws to create employment. These have provided incentives to industry but have not necessarily been an incentive to increasing employment. The European Community have obviously changed their policy approach in this area and are now prepared to consider the possibility of the subsidisation of wages—here it is the subsidisation of wages of under 25 year olds. That is something we should look into. It is a valid comment by the Joint Committee in looking at the Community proposals generally and how they affect Ireland, how they may be implemented here, how we should respond to these types of proposals, and to say that this report and the examination by the European Community raise the question of whether our own approach to grants to aid industry are too capital-intensive and not sufficiently concerned about employment creation and employment expansion. This would tie in with some reports, like Dr. Brendan Walsh's report on unemployment which raised the issues of the high cost of employing people and the disincentives to employment. This is put very explicitly in paragraph 17 because it raises an issue to which both Houses of the Oireachtas should address themselves. I would certainly be strongly in favour of it remaining in the report, but I accept the Chairman's view that the way to deal with this is to have a vote on it, if necessary.
One of the reasons why I hold this view is that we are not really considering the position at home. We are considering proposals from the Commission. We are looking for new moneys from them and I would be afraid that the concentration might be diverted from new moneys from them to a different way for spending our own money here. That is the danger I sse in that paragraph as it stands.
We are talking about unemployment and we cannot close our eyes to the fect that the situation here is dramatically worse than in other European countries about which they are rightly complaining. We cannot look too narrowly at the Community proposals. We have to look at the type of incentives that exist here and at our own efforts to combat unemployment and to provide incentives for expanding employment both in the public and private sector.
I do not think there is any question of our being against incentives to expand employment or even direct subsidies of the kind the EEC are now coming up with—a small amount only £72 million for next year. One very important thing is that existing employment will be protected and this country is very much under-capitalised when it comes to employment. Any question of withdrawing capital supports seems to me to be a retrograde step and in the long run the viability of any company employing people is a function of the market place and the market place will sort out the companies very quickly if they are not productive and that means under-capitalised. I certainly do not like to see this in the report at all.
But the market place does not necessarily have as a priority the employment of people.
We lost 73,000 people to unemployment because industry had not adapted fully and properly. That was because of under-capitalisation and people producing at costs which were higher than those they had to compete with in the market place. This country is under-capitalised and has been for years, even since the time of the full employment report when the NIEC existed. To see the thing set up in this way as one or the other seems to be a false statement——
That is not what paragraph 17 says.
Even raising it and suggesting that an examination be made with the implications that in future it would be more properly diverted——
Could I ask Deputy O'Keeffe if his query has been answered or whether we have explained sufficiently what the argument in this paragraph is about.
I see the problem. On the one hand, one wants to retain the existing incentives to industry and, on the other hand, the point raised by Senator Robinson is that one wants to try to encourage as far as possible moneys for labour intensive industry. Your point appears to be that there are dangers in accepting the very sound point raised by Senator Robinson because it might have the effect of diverting funds from the other side.
It could put the existing scheme in jeopardy.
And give people an excuse for looking at things——
Yes. It might be drawing attention to something we do not want to lose and that we might possibly lose as a result of drawing attention to. In any case, I think that Senator Robinson can certainly air her views on this and she will have an early opportunity to do so in the Seanad.
Chairman, are we saying that what is here is going to stand as emanating from the Committee?
I have to put the question on the paragraph that way to the Committee but personally I do not believe that the paragraph should stand. We had decided to vote until Deputy O'Keeffe raised the query. He did not understand what the argument was about so I am trying to explain it. Could we now proceed and vote on this?
We have paragraph 17 as in the original draft. We have the amendment moved in the name of Michael Woods which has been accepted. I would have a further addendum which, if we are going to deal with paragraph 17, I would like to move now prior to any vote being taken or else, if I can move it subsequent to dealing with this paragraph I will do so.
We will deal with this first. The question is : " That paragraph 17 stand part of the Report".
Question put.
The Joint Committee divided : Tá, 3; Níl, 5.
|
Tá: Deputy Quinn and Senators Hussey and Robinson. |
Níl: Deputies Clinton, Daly, Flanagan, Noonan, O'Keeffe and Woods and Senators Harney and Mulcahy. |
Question declared lost.
Deputy Quinn is proposing that we insert a new paragraph.
Deputy Woods' amendment which we adopted at our previous meeting becomes the new paragraph 17. I have to draft something which would follow from Deputy Wood's amendment. My amendment is :
The Joint Committee further believes that an extension of the role of the State sector with particular regard to productive enterprises is essential in order to increase opportunities for secure long-term employment. The State sector has a capacity to develop productive labour-intensive industries in a way denied to the private sector and the Joint Committee believes that this capacity should be both recognised and developed by direct assistance from the Community.
I think we should have had notice of this amendment. I think it cannot be accepted that it can be moved at the meeting without prior notice. I personally would have no objection to it but I think we cannot operate this way. We have to give notice.
I fully appreciate that.
Unless the Deputy considers it very important——
I think it is very important——
In view of the deletion of paragraph 17 I think I would welcome the possibility of that being included.
Could we hear it again?
The Joint Committee believes that an extension of the role of the State sector with particular regard to productive enterprises is essential in order to increase opportunities for secure long-term employment. The State sector has a capacity to develop productive labour-intensive industries in a way denied to the private sector and the Joint Committee believes that this capacity should be both recognised and developed by direct assistance from the Community.
Does any Member wish to comment on this?
I would prefer to get notice of that amendment. We should certainly get notice of any amendments.
Does Deputy Quinn envisage that such enterprises would be economically viable or that they would continue to require State support after being set up?
Not necessarily. The concentration is on productive enterprises. They would be as viable as many private firms which get massive subsidies directly and indirectly through tax incentives, tax write-offs, direct grants or Fóir Teoranta support so they would be maintaining the same level of viability in a macro-economic sense that many private firms maintain today.
I think if I allow this amendment to be moved without notice we may be creating a precedent that we would regret. I will simply put it to the meeting. Do they wish me to take this without notice? If they do, I will take it on this occasion but I think it is a bad precedent and in future we should have notice because, without notice, it is very difficult to give reasonable consideration to a matter of this kind.
I accept that.
It is clear that the overall feeling of the meeting is against taking it now. Senator Robinson has an amendment.
Paragraphs 18 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
Paragraph 24.
This is a new paragraph in substitution for paragraph 24. It arises really from an anticipation that paragraph 17 might not be agreed to by the Joint Committee and it is a proposal to change the way in which we ask for a debate on this report. I think we are all agreed that we do want to see a debate in both Houses and we welcome the fact that the Seanad has adopted an order so that any request by us for a debate there will automatically result in a debate. I move:
Before paragraph 24 to insert a new paragraph as follows:
The Joint Committee believes that the Commission's proposals for Community aid to subsidise wages are of particular importance to Ireland.
May I interrupt for a moment? We have just made a decision that we do not accept amendments without notice and I find myself in the position that the Joint Committee have just refused to consider an amendment without notice and now we have another amendment of which we did not get notice. It is hardly fair to reject one and accept another.
Obviously Senator Robinson gave more notice than I did. It was obviously handed in to the Joint Committee or indicated to the Secretariat earlier than mine.
It was prepared in anticipation of paragraph 17 not surviving.
Could I ask you, Senator Robinson, to whom did you communicate this?
To the Clerk. I could not of course ask for it to be circulated until paragraph 17 had been dealt with.
I will decide now to take this amendment but in future we will have to get reasonable notice.
Do you not think that that ruling is rather unfair—accepting Senator Robinson's amendment, which we have just seen this instant, and rejecting another because we did not have adequate notice of it?
Except that it was handed to the Clerk before this meeting and he mentioned it to me before the meeting began.
It may have been a strategic error on my part but I was hoping that paragraph 17 would have been accepted in which case I would not have moved this, but this is to some extent making what I think should be an acceptable comment on the importance of it. It says :
The Joint Committee believes that the Commission's proposals for Community aid to subsidise wages are of particular importance to Ireland where the problem of youth employment is not merely more acute but it is also likely to be more enduring than in the rest of the Community. In its view it would be appropriate for the Houses to review in the light of the Commission's proposals the various measures being taken in this country at present to increase employment opportunities. Accordingly it recommends that both Houses be given an early opportunity of debating the matter and of expressing their views on the Commission proposals.
It emphasises the reasons why we want the debate and I think it conveys, what I have gathered from the views I have heard around the table, that there is no dissent from that.
May I just draw attention to the fact that the decision not to take the previous amendment need not necessarily be a precedent? Each one should be taken on its merits. I would have liked to have had time to reflect on the other amendment because I think it has more wide ranging effects. Otherwise I might have taken a different view.
We should decide some kind of procedure.
I would think so too, a number of days' notice normally——
I would think that would make our position inflexible. I would have thought that, if Members of the Joint Committee had a typed copy of the amendment when the matter was being considered, that would be sufficient. It is very difficult for Members, who have many calls on their time and attention, to ensure that they have submitted written amendments several days beforehand.
I would not say several days, but I think we should have a minimum of two days. It is not fair to confront people with something like this at a meeting.
But that is precisely the way we were confronted with Deputy Woods' amendment. I am talking about the procedure and it would seem to me, if we are going to be confronted with amendments which have major implications, we are going to delay the work of the Sub-Committees considerably if we seek a week's notice. It would mean in effect that an amendment would have to be submitted within, say, 10 days.
No!
To have it stencilled so that Members could read it. To take up Senator Mulcahy's point, to analyse the wide implications of any particular amendment one would need at least a couple of days. Add to that the time required by the Secretariat to process it.
Senator Ryan
This will not happen very often. Normally the Joint Committee will meet once a month only so anybody who wants to bring forward an amendment for a meeting of the Joint Committee should do so at least two days beforehand.
That would not necessarily result in the amendment being circulated prior to the meeting.
I think it is extremely reasonable to require two days notice. In fact I do not know any other body who would accept two days as being long enough.
The only point other than that would be the one raised by Senator Mulcahy—that there may well be amendments which have arisen here previously which, like the one I submitted, were circulated prior to the meeting as well. That is that there may be unanimous agreement on particular suggestions and, if there is an amendment on which the Joint Committee can readily agree, I do not think it should necessarily be held back. It is a matter for the Joint Committee to decide on the day, perhaps. I would accept two days notice being normally required.
I suggest that we decide on two days notice subject to the overriding discretion of the Chairman.
That is in fact the position under Standing Orders. I understand that I have total discretion but I do not want to be unreasonable about it. I think it is entirely reasonable to require two days notice. Perhaps it is also reasonable that, if some matter is raised, particularly if it does not happen too often, and the Joint Committee are unanimous about it, we could accept it.
If someone brought it to you directly beforehand you could make up your own mind.
I have decided that we take this amendment and put in on the table for consideration. Senator Robinson has explained her reasons for proposing this amendment which you have before you. Is this paragraph agreed?
Just one question. Is it necessary to bind into the report a recommendation that the report be debated in the House? There are other reports. Is there a danger here that members would wish to write into every report a paragraph stating that they should be debated in the Houses? Would it not make more sense to produce the report in the ordinary way ad rem and then decide which ones should be debated in the Houses? I do not understand why this should be built into the body of the report but I am still open to suggestions.
It was my understanding that that is, in fact, the way we intended to function if we got the agreement—to get time in the Seanad and the Dáil to debate such reports. That would arise from time to time and, if we get agreement here, it would be dealt with in this way. I do not know why Senator Robinson considers it necessary——
I think you are right, Chairman, this was the course we intended to adopt. I also think it is important because in, say, a year or two nobody will remember which particular reports were debated. If we incorporate in certain reports the fact that the Joint Committee had called for debates on them it signifies that those are the more important reports of the Joint Committee.
We have to make two decisions here. We are adopting a report and we are deciding to bring it to the Houses of the Oireachtas for debate. I think that may be a separate thing and not part of the report.
Is there not a way in which this Committee can indicate to the Houses of the Oireachtas the priority in which particular reports as distinct from many others should be debated? The previous Joint Committee adopted a great many reports, very few of which would have been considered as wide-ranging or as important as this one. Even this Committee has already dealt with a number of reports which, irrespective of what they were concerned with, would not have a high priority for a full-scale debate. We should, I think, evolve some system of signalling to the Members of the Houses our priority in this regard. Whatever formula is used, this particular report meets the requirement fairly well.
Senator Mulcahy has pointed out the danger of putting this kind of paragraph in every report. This is something we should not do because the new procedure of providing time for debates where the Joint Committee so requests is on trial in the Seanad and, if there is an attempt to bring every report before the Seanad for debate, the system will break down.
In fact, this is necessary following on what we requested. We must request a debate in the report.
Would it not be more appropriate to put that request at the end of the report? If the report is completed and, if at the end of the report, you then decide that this should be written in—that you would like to see this one discussed and brought to the attention of the Houses of the Oireachtas——
Yes, In fact it is there.
I know, accidentally at the moment.
Are we agreed then that this report be debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas? That is really the way to deal with this.
Agreed.
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph 24 deleted.
Paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 agreed to.
Appendix agreed to.
Draft report, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered: To report accordingly.