Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Wednesday, 8 May 1996

Estimates 1996.

Vote No. 34: Enterprise and Employment.

I welcome the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Richard Bruton, the Minister of State at that Department, Deputy Rabbitte and their officials.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to present the Estimate for my Department and I hope this session will be useful in clarifying Members' queries. The layout of the Estimate this year is more logical and easier to follow than it has been in the past and I hope it makes it more accessible.

The keynote this year is the strong employment performance we have enjoyed. The labour force survey for the 12 months to April 1995 shows that we achieved an increase in employment of 4 per cent. This represents 50,000 net additional jobs outside of agriculture and 49,000 jobs overall. It was a phenomenal achievement and was well in excess of the 1.6 per cent growth in the labour force. This allowed us to reduce unemployment numbers, as measured by the labour force survey, by 26,000. The expectation is that in 1996 rapid growth in employment will be maintained and we should see good results on the employment front when the labour force survey figures are published in October for the 12 months to April.

Even with the good employment performance unemployment remains unacceptably high and there is the serious problem of long-term unemployment, as measured by the live register, with all its imperfections. This suggests that half of all those who are registered as unemployed are long-term unemployed. They face severe difficulties entering the labour force, some of which are related to poor educational qualifications. There is statistical evidence that the probability of the long-term unemployed being employed lessens as the duration of unemployment increases. That is why the Government has placed particular emphasis on introducing special measures to tackle long-term unemployment. It is clearly committed to doing more in this area.

In the budget we announced a number of specific proposals which will have a considerable impact and the Department is in the process of implementing them. They are action oriented and will complement the strategy paper for the labour market, Growing and Sharing our Employment, which we published last month. This is the first formal such paper. It sets out a policy framework to increase employment and the employment intensity of our growth and to bring back into the mainstream of the labour market those who are currently excluded.

It is comprehensive and broad in its approach, covering all aspects of the labour market from taxation and PRSI to wage setting and social welfare. It also covers the important topic of active labour market interventions and deals with broad approaches to improving the operation of the labour market, such as the reduction of the tax wedge, particularly in respect of the low paid, awareness of the dual aspect of PRSI in providing social insurance and in effecting competitiveness, and moderation in wage setting in order to promote competitiveness and employment. The advent of economic and monetary union is also considered and we must be conscious of this when looking at labour market strategy for the future. The key focus of the strategy paper is to develop our labour market in such a way that the position of those excluded or at the margins will be improved.

There are specific proposals with regard to employers and the focus is on tackling the tax wedge as a prime way of promoting employment. There is particular focus on the low paid because it is in this sector that we face the greatest competitive pressures. For the job seeker, the strategic approach is one of improving the gain from working and tackling disincentives to take up work. The paper openly recognises the low cash incentive to work for persons at entry level to the labour market and for those with lower skills.

It proposes a number of ways to enable people take up low skill employment while receiving real financial gain. These include the introduction of transitional supports, such as the retention of social welfare supports for a period, as in the case of medical cards which was provided for in this year's budget, and a more radical proposal for a pilot programme of income supplement for persons who are currently excluded from family income supplement because they do not have dependent children.

The paper makes a number of specific recommendations as part of its affirmative action plan which have been implemented in part or in full in this year's budget. I refer specifically to initiatives which most Deputies will know about at this stage and which are close to being implemented. There is the jobstart recruitment subsidy of £80 a week which is targeted at those who have been unemployed for three years or more and which will come into effect from 1 June. There is the work place programme of job trials for a period of up to five weeks, which has a target of 5,000 participants. The programme is designed to give people valuable work experience and to deal with a catch 22 which has always existed, that is the difficulty of gaining access to employment without work experience. The strategy paper provides for a youth progression programme for 18 and 19 year olds who will register with FÁS and the LES after 26 weeks on the live register, when they will be offered intensive counselling and places on FÁS programmes where appropriate. This is designed to prevent the potential entry into long-term unemployment of those who leave school with poor qualifications.

The paper examines the potential of temporary work for offering a foothold back into the active labour market and proposes that we investigate further a support scheme to facilitate temporary work opportunities. A working party has been established by the Government to do this.

This is the first of four strategy papers which we will produce this year. The others will be on enterprise, services and human resources development. Together, these will form a proper, comprehensive employment policy. It is important for a Department dealing with enterprise and employment to have such a comprehensive statement of strategy.

Deputies will be aware that the IDA had an exceptionally good year in 1995. Job creation reached an all time high, with 11,500 jobs being created by IDA assisted companies. Over 10,000 of these were new first time jobs, the others were recoveries of jobs previously lost. With 4,950 job losses during 1995, the net employment impact was an increase of 6,550, which was a 29 per cent increase on the 1994 performance record. This is the largest increase in 21 years and brings the total direct employment in IDA backed companies to 89,000. An additional 2,500 jobs were created in contract and part time categories in 1995, bringing total employment in these categories to 11,000.

Some 114 new investment projects were negotiated during 1995; 57 of these were green field projects and a similar number were expansions. In addition, 97 projects were secured for the IFSC.

The IDA has set a three year rolling jobs target for 1996-98 for the creation of 31,000 new first time jobs, a 22 per cent increase on the previous three year period. In the same period, the IDA expects the net increase in employment to be 20,000. Up to April 1996, a number of greenfield projects were announced by the IDA and these, taken with a number of substantial expansion projects approved or in the pipeline from companies already established in Ireland, should create in the region of 15,000 jobs. The good performance is continuing this year.

Similarly, 1995 was a strong year for the indigenous sector. Significant progress was made by Forbairt towards meeting its targets. Sales are estimated to have increased by at least 5 per cent, bringing the total to more than £11.5 billion. This is an increase of £700 million. As a result of this growth in sales, there has been a gross increase of almost 11,000 jobs in these companies, or a net increase of 2,146 jobs. This significant improvement is the best in 15 years.

Shannon Development promotes the growth of the Shannon free zone, the National Technological Park and indigenous industry throughout the Shannon region and 1,800 new jobs were guaranteed in the area in 1995. The aim of Shannon Development is that a total of 1,300 new jobs will be created in the Shannon free zone and indigenous industry in the Shannon region in 1996. During 1996 the aviation sector will be targeted in the US to capitalise on the expected recovery in that area. New areas in the international services sector, such as mail order and direct marketing, will also be actively promoted.

Regarding Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte's area of science and technology, the agenda for research and development in this country over the next few years has been set by the report of the Science, Technology and Innovation Advisory Council, STIAC, which was published in 1995. This report is recognised as the most fundamental and wide ranging review of science, technology and innovation policy ever attempted in this country. It concluded that innovation based on the application of science and technology is now the mainspring of international economic competitiveness and pointed out that manufacturing employment increased between 1970 and 1989 in countries, such as Japan and the US, where technology was successfully applied.

Moreover, contrary to the general trend, employment in knowledge based industry increased by over 20 per cent in the OECD since 1970. STIAC reported that, at present, Ireland is not well positioned in respect of these new technological and market dynamics. The report made 160 recommendations aimed at improving our national system of science, technology and innovation. The Government has allocated additional funding of £4 million this year to begin the process of implementing the STIAC recommendations.

The objective of the county enterprise initiative is to develop an entrepreneurial culture at local level with the intention of generating the maximum number of viable businesses and sustainable jobs. From their establishment in 1993 to the end of 1995, 4,339 projects, worth more than £36 million in grants, were approved by the boards. These projects are expected to create over 6,600 full-time and almost 1,500 part-time jobs. By the end of last year, over £18 million in grants had been drawn down and according to figures supplied by the boards, 4,663 full-time and just over 1,000 part-time jobs had been created. I am pleased to point out that the boards became fully operational as autonomous local development bodies at the beginning of this year. In practice, this means the boards are no longer required to submit projects approved by them to my Department for confirmation.

The importance of the small business sector has been recognised by the EU in the small business operational programme, which I launched last September and which will provide over £50 million in State, EU and private sector funding for small business over the next five years. The access to finance scheme, involving essentially subsidised long-term loans to small businesses, is the principal measure of the operational programme. The scheme is designed to respond to the shortage of affordable medium to long-term fixed rate finance which has been regarded as one of the main inhibiting factors. It applies to the manufacturing, food, tourism and, for the first time, services sectors. Tourism will take 25 per cent of the funds. The scheme involves a total fund of £208 million

Other measures in the operational programme are aimed at improving access to public and other markets for small business. For example, there are major purchasing opportunities for small business in public sector contracting. The measures also include a special programme of actions for the services sector. Technology is opening up many new opportunities in that sector and Ireland must be well positioned to exploit them. Other programmes involve developing practical research and guides for small business and providing pilot projects to meet the training needs of small business.

I am pleased the Government has endorsed my proposal that the level of participation on community employment schemes be maintained at 40,000 for 1996. I am also pleased it has approved my proposals for better targeting of the programme at long-term unemployed people for whom community employment was originally designed. The new eligibility criteria are important and necessary, given the limited availability of resources and taking into account the popularity of the programme among the unemployed. The increase in the Exchequer allocation for community employment is a result of the programme being totally funded by my Department this year. Last year the Vote of the Department of the Taoiseach carried part of the programme.

Considerable progress has been made on the start up phase of the local employment service within the last six months or so. It is already bearing fruit in terms of an increased level of cooperation which developed during the start-up phase. The LES is concentrated in the country's worst unemployment blackspots. The focus is now firmly on getting the service fully operational in the 14 areas to maximum efficiency and effectiveness. The lessons learned in these areas will be fully evaluated before its further extension.

I appreciate the work being carried out by the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed and I am pleased to provide it with a grant towards administrative costs and its costs in hosting the twelfth annual conference of the European Network of the Unemployed.

I also wish to dispel the notion that, just because the LES is not nationwide, nothing is being done about unemployment in non LES areas. Many groups at community level throughout the country are playing their part in the fight against unemployment. In addition, the FÁS employment service has been reinvigorated and actively supports and funds many of these groups and centres for the unemployed which are very effective at local level.

The European Social Fund contributes significantly to the objectives of sustaining jobs, tackling unemployment and combating social exclusion in Ireland. My Department is the national authority for the social fund and on average receipts exceed £275 million per annum. The majority of European Social Fund aid is channelled through large national programmes, such as the operational programmes for human resources development and industrial development, both of which are administered by my Department.

Over the period 1994-99, the Community support framework, the European Social Fund, will account for over £1.6 billion, or 35 per cent of total Structural Fund transfers to Ireland. Up to 75 per cent of the total cost of approved programmes can be assisted from the social fund. The balance of the cost is provided primarily by the Exchequer. Provision is made in a number of my Department's subheads for Exchequer co-financing of programmes supported by the social fund which are delivered by agencies under the aegis of my Department.

Good industrial relations are vital to the economic and social well being of the country. Ireland has been fortunate to have enjoyed a relatively stable and good industrial relations climate in recent times. One of the primary accepted indicators of the prevailing industrial relations climate is the number of days lost through industrial action. While the figure for 1995 was up on the record low of 1994, the favourable trend has continued in the first quarter of 1996.

This good industrial relations climate can be attributed to a number of factors. It is fitting, on the occasion of the celebration of the Labour Court's golden anniversary, that I pay wholesome tribute to it for the part it has played in fostering this climate. I am delighted that £50,000 is included in the Estimates to assist the Labour Court in celebrating its 50th anniversary. I am certain that it is due in no small measure to the experience and expertise of the court and the Labour Relations Commission that industrial strife is not frequent in Ireland.

One of the major phenomena in the industrial relations scene in recent years has been the era of national programmes, the foundation on which we as a country furthered our economic and social success. The committee will be aware that the current Programme for Competitiveness and Work expires at the end of this year. Speculation abounds regarding the possibility of agreement being reached on a successor to the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. As Minister for Enterprise and Employment, it is my view that a new agreement would help us to continue to build on the economic and social progress that has already been achieved. As I said before, however, the Government will not enter a new pact blindly or at any price. One of the key aspirations of any new deal must be the shared objective of promoting employment.

Many of the problems which have beset the Companies Registration Office in the past are being tackled this year. Plans are being put in place for the relocation of the CRO to more appropriate accommodation, thereby facilitating an increase in the number of staff assigned to the office. In addition, a tender will be issued shortly requesting proposals for a major upgrade to the CRO computer system to facilitate greater efficiency in the office.

CROlink was established recently to facilitate better communication with customers of the Companies Office and its senior management. The terms of reference of the CROlink are to form a reasonably structured forum for constructive liaison and dialogue between the Companies Registration Office and its various customers with a view to advising as appropriate on the best provision of public service by the office. When all nominating bodies have furnished their nominees CROlink will become operational. This forum is a first for my Department.

Proposals to provide for the amendment of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1990, in relation to examinership and the removal of the statutory audit requirement for companies whose turnover is under £100,000 and meet the thresholds for a small company under the Companies Acts are under consideration within my Department.

The separation of the Irish Stock Exchange from the International Stock Exchange of the United Kingdom in December 1995 gave rise to the need for an Irish take-over panel to oversee take-over activity here. In order to avoid any uncertainty in the area of take-overs arising from the separation of the exchanges, my Department prepared a draft take-over Bill which is currently with the parliamentary draftsman. When it has been finalised, I will seek Government approval to publish it. Pending enactment of the legislation, an interim take-over panel is in place.

The modernisation and reorganisation of the Legal Metrology Service has been under way since 1992. It will be completed this year with the enactment of the Metrology Bill, 1996. The primary objective of the programme is to update facilities and to unify the existing fragmented service, including the personnel, into a single technically competent body under the operational control of the National Metrology Laboratory, Forbairt.

On the issue of health and safety, during 1995 the Health and Safety Authority developed new legislative proposals including the bringing into effect in June of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Signs) Regulations, 1995, and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations, 1995, which continue the process of transposing the individual directives made under the new framework directive.

The authority also continued to devote a large part of its resources to informing, advising and educating employers and workers on the proper management of occupational safety and health issues and promoting the message that an accident free workplace is entirely consistent with best business practice. Legislative priorities for the authority in 1996 are the implementation of EU directives on safety in the fishing and mineral extracting industries.

With regard to worker protection legislation, while I am conscious of the need to eliminate any undue burdens on employers which may impede their competitiveness and capacity to provide employment, standards that are legally established to safeguard the interests of workers must be maintained in certain occupations which are vulnerable to exploitation. In that respect, I am satisfied that the joint labour committee system, together with the system of registered employment agreements, is the way in which the question of statutory minimum wages can best be addressed. A new joint labour committee has been established for the catering industry in Dublin which is in the process of drawing up proposals to resolve the problems of low pay and poor conditions in this sector. I expect that legislation will be passed this year which will implement a EU directive on the organisation of working time. The legislation will deal with the provision of minimum daily, weekly and annual rest periods, maximum working time and duration of work. I also anticipate that legislation will be enacted to give effect to the EU Directive on transnational information and consultation of workers in large multinational trans-EU corporations. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, is dealing with that area.

My Department has adopted a new mission statement, that of promoting employment. We intend to do so by encouraging enterprise, ensuring competitiveness, securing an educated and skilled workforce, tackling exclusion from the labour market, promoting a fair and efficient employment regulatory environment and implementing an effective business regulatory system. I have arranged for all Members of the Oireachtas to get a copy of the Department's new strategy document incorporating our mission, objectives and structures.

I call on Deputy Kitt to make the opening statement for the Fianna Fáil Party.

I welcome the Minister, the Ministers of State and their officials and thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. The only new measure we have heard today is the mission statement. The Minister can make as many such statements as he wishes but the reality is that his policies have not worked and this can be proved by looking at the monthly unemployment figures. The latest figures show that the schemes which the Minister tried to introduce have failed. I am concerned when the Minister refers to the labour force survey because it presents a better picture.

I accept that the Government has pursued strong fiscal policies. The growth rate continues to be in the right direction and inflation and interest rates are very impressive. I support the Government's efforts to maintain the kind of policy we pursued when in Government. However, the sad reality is that the Minister and his Department are not delivering on the jobs front, which is of extreme concern to us.

The Minister has presented a wide ranging report on the various aspects of his Department. Is he satisfied that combining the area of enterprise with that of employment is working? I look forward to an honest reply to this. The previous Government tried to bring them together as an experiment but it has not worked. For example, with regard to the IDA and inward investment, there is a great need to promote this aspect of enterprise within the Department. At the same time, there is a huge amount of work to be done in the area of industrial relations. A crisis is developing in the social partnership, and I welcome the Minister's statement on this. In addition, there is the labour affairs agenda, including a number of EU directives such as the one on working time and the question of consultation with workers. If one takes this agenda and attempts to line it up with the need to promote enterprise to get investment, I admit, as a Minister who participated in the previous Government, that the experiment has not worked.

The social affairs agenda within the EU is clear and definite. We should be closely involved in it. It is now time to separate the enterprise and employment elements within the Minister's Department. Having restructured the Department this would be a major headache, but in the interest of the unemployed, proper labour relations and the need to develop the social affairs area it is necessary to proceed on this basis. In the UK, the Conservatives separated trade and industry from education and employment. The view is widely held, not only in the Oireachtas but also in the trade union movement, which has a major role to play, that these two areas should be separated.

There is considerable confusion about who does what within the Department. The Minister is doing a good job and responds to questions as openly as possible.

The Packard Electric plant is in the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte's constituency. There was a major labour relations problem there yet the Minister of State with responsibility for science and technology was dealing with it. Was that because it is in his constituency? Task forces and committees have been set up to deal with serious labour affairs issues. Many people are concerned about who has responsibility for what in the various Departments.

The community employment scheme is a good one. Over 40,000 people participate in the scheme at present and I wonder if sufficient funds have been provided for it. I am concerned about the jobstart scheme. When will it be launched? The National Economic and Social Forum, through its chairperson, Ms Maureen Gaffney, expressed concerns about possible abuses of that scheme in that it might be seen to provide employers with a means of paying cheap wages and it could have adverse effects on employees. The Minister should address that point. The Work-Place scheme allows for five weeks experience. I cannot see how five weeks would be of any use to a person who might have been unemployed for over three years.

The local employment service is in a state of disarray. A number of partnerships are involved in the scheme, some of which have submitted plans and there are co-ordinators for each area. However, the scheme is bogged down in administration and the Department is being blamed. We may talk about inclusiveness, involvement and a bottom-up approach but there must be specific targets for all those involved, from the Department to local co-ordinators, in providing jobs at all levels. Fianna Fáil advanced this scheme when in Government as an obvious means of dealing with the problem of unemployment by giving people advice on a one to one basis. The funds provided are not adequate and this view is shared by the National Economic and Social Forum.

It is not to late to consider separating the area of enterprise from the labour affairs agenda. We have excellent people who can deal with both areas. There is a danger of unrest in the labour market. There is a high level of unemployment and the social partnership approach is encountering problems. Questions are being raised as to its success. People are demanding lower taxes and low paid workers are going on strike in their hundreds. The matter needs careful attention and our labour relations mechanisms are being stretched to the limit, as is evident from the Estimates. Particular attention needs to be given to the unemployed and the best way to do that is to separate the functions of the Department.

I support social partnership and the INOU should be part of any new agreement. It should be invited to participate in any negotiations.

I cannot accept the Deputy's contention that the merger of the old Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Labour is not working. One cannot separate the labour and the enterprise agendas as if they were not part of a coherent whole. It is success in enterprise that creates employment. The idea that human resource development, the traditional training agenda of the Department of Labour, would in some way be taken away from the enterprise agenda is totally at variance with current thinking. Those examining how Irish industry can create competitiveness will look primarily at the human resource area as it is the key to competitiveness.

The dilemma or friction the Deputy envisages does not arise. There are always differences in a Department as large as mine and one has to work at reconciling them. However, we must all work to the central aim that society regards employment as its key priority. That requires the integration of the traditional labour side with the traditional industry and commerce side.

The Culliton report considered certain of the Department's regulatory dimensions were not part of its core and there may be case for examining whether all the elements of the Department are part of its core. In creating employment one cannot pigeon hole industrial relations, labour law and training as if they were not at the heart of creating successful enterprises.

As there is no speaker from the Progressive Democrat Party or the Independent group, we will deal with subheads A to J. I ask Members to refrain from commenting on other subheads.

I welcome the Minister and his staff. Subhead D covers State agencies concerned with job creation. Such agencies are the biggest employers. The proliferation of job creation agencies is alarming and people seeking grant aid and support spend more time finding out which agency is more appropriate to their business. There are about 40 county enterprise boards, the IDA, Forfás, Forbairt, the ICC, FÁS, Leader organisations and others. I appeal to the Minister to carry out a study. I generally do not agree with studies because this country is probably top of the league in establishing commissions and agencies to carry out investigations but this matter must be examined. There must be some co-ordination or fewer agencies. There is too much duplication and confusion and that is not in the best interests of the entrepreneur. It is easy for the Minister to boast about the success of the IDA at a time when the world economy is buoyant. However, we will need jobs when there is less buoyancy and we will see the success of the agencies in that regard in future years.

We must look at the semi-skilled and unskilled workforce who suffer most in our economy. We have failed hopelessly to address that problem. The unemployment figures are alarming and there has been no major change in them. We tend to create employment schemes and projects but we want good, sustainable jobs. The prospects for the economy have never been as good. We have the lowest inflation and lowest interest rates for many years yet we have failed to make progress in that area. That is an embarrassment.

I do not wish to be critical of the Government but it, the IDA and other agencies, make announcements about jobs to be created in certain areas. For example, it may be announced that 300 new jobs are to be created over three years. The company might start with 30 or 50 jobs but, before reaching the target of 300, it leaves the country. That is happening. We need to have something definite and not create confusion which is upsetting. For that reason, I ask the Minister to be more specific when making announcements about job creation. In the past we have seen too much hype about the number of jobs that will be created by a company but the target is never reached. That is annoying for the communities concerned.

I wish to deal with advance factories and IDA support. There is a 30 per cent increase in funds for the IDA in the Estimates. Does the Minister see any possible means of ensuring that specific areas receive their share of this funding? Deputies from the Border region have had numerous discussions with the IDA in the course of which they have been told that it has great difficulty placing jobs outside major city areas where there are better access points and road facilities. I would have hoped for additional funds for the Border region. If IDA funding was allocated on a per capita or per county basis the addition to cross-Border funds might be sufficient to create extra jobs. As Deputy O'Hanlon has said on numerous occasions, few factories have been located in the Border region over the years and there is a problem in that regard.

I do not disagree with Deputy O'Keeffe's remarks about the difficulties we have with the proliferation of agencies. However, that proliferation did not start with this Minister taking office; it was there for some time. The Minister is trying to improve matters with the establishment of one stop shops but more work must be done to deal with the problem and to ensure that we get the best possible service from all the agencies involved.

I have heard my two colleagues speaking on behalf of their constituents and it would be remiss of me, as an urban Deputy representing Dublin, if I did not make a deliberate attempt to secure resources for my consitutency from the Minister.

We often hear about the IDA creating marvellous projects throughout the country. It bothers me to hear about the great benefits being brought to parts of the country outside the capital city. I see in the Estimate that there is a 6 per cent increase for administrative and general expenses, a 30 per cent increase in grants to industry and other grants for building operations. Why does Dublin fare so badly when IDA funds are disbursed? People in Dublin are frustrated at the success stories in rural Ireland, courtesy of the IDA, while many of them are unemployed, particularly long-term unemployed, and suffer the dangerous disintegration of communities and the resultant growth in crime and drug abuse and the problems that go with that.

Is the Minister satisfied that the IDA has a mandate to target urban unemployment blackspots, particularly in Dublin? I applaud the IDA on its increased allocation of funding. Where will urban, working class communities and unemployment blackspots benefit as I would like to distribute leaflets carrying the good news?

Subhead C refers to county enterprise development. I assure Deputy Byrne that his constituency colleague will beat him to the drop when it comes to distributing leaflets. The Department of Enterprise and Employment deals with county enterprise development. The Minister of State, Deputy Gay Mitchell, whom I questioned about this matter in the Dáil, has responsibility in the EU context for local development. There are Leader schemes throughout the country and the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, has responsibility for the western region while Deputy Mitchell is responsible for the rest of the country.

I would be happier if this Minister had full responsibility and co-ordinated these schemes, many of which exist because we are trying to avail of EU funds for local projects. There is confusion about who is doing what and what scheme people should apply for. This was evident in our discussions with the National Economic and Social Forum. There should be a one stop shop and the Department should co-ordinate the schemes. If that were done, it would be of great service to the unemployed. We have asked for specific targeting. The Government is losing its effect in this area by not bringing these schemes together. If they were co-ordinated there would be a greater delivery of service.

The expenses for the forthcoming EU Presidency are estimated at £710,000. How can that amount of money be spent in a six month period? Does this indicate that the Government is looking at glorious times ahead when Ireland takes over the EU Presidency? I do not like excessive spending. Will the Minister alleviate my fears in this regard? This seems to be a trend in every Department. It is alarming to see such a figure.

The Deputy did not say anything when Charlie Haughey was in power.

When Charlie Haughey was in charge the country made real progress.

Another important figure is the £500,000 being spent on consultancy services. I would like a breakdown of that figure. Is it promoting the Government or the Department? It is a 31 per cent increase on last year's figure. Why is there no breakdown of incidental expenses? They would usually be less but in this case the figure is £410,000 up on last year's amount and there is no breakdown of it either.

I referred to the proliferation of agencies. Are there new spending guidelines for county enterprise boards? In the past, if they did not spend all their budget, the remainder could be brought forward to the next year. I understand this change will be to their disadvantage. They may have projects under review, the terms of which might not be written down, They now must make an application on each occasion whereas, in the past, the moneys were left as allocated. I would welcome clarification in this area.

It is surprising that, at a time when our small export businesses are experiencing real difficulties and find it hard to compete as a result of the strength of the punt vis-�-vis sterling, greater financial support has not been made available to them. The shelves of many of our multiple stores are full of British goods and it is not in the best interests of our small manufacturing industry or industry generally that such support has not been made available.

Fianna Fáil is the only party that put the issue to the forefront and explained it to the people. We came to the rescue of small business when in Government by giving them a subsidy. It is necessary to continue this assistance, particularly for our food and confectionery industries. These are intensive employment sectors and should be protected.

I refer Members to the accompanying explanatory document, provided by the Minister's office at my request, which gives a detailed explanation and breakdown of the subject matter under subheads A to J. However, by coincidence consultancy services under subhead A7 is not explained other than giving a global figure. Deputy O'Keeffe referred to items under subheads A1 to A9 and D1 to D3, Deputy Crawford and Deputy Byrne also referred to items under that heading and Deputy Kitt referred to subhead G. Perhaps the Minister would like to reply to the questions asked. Many of the statements were by way of political comment which are not relevant to the work of this committee.

Several Deputies raised the issue of too many agencies in the job creation field. Deputies will be familiar with the reason IDA Ireland and Forbairt were separated. It was to give a clear focus to Forbairt on the indigenous sector and to IDA Ireland on the external sector.

Deputies' main criticisms appear to focus on the existence of the country enterprise boards and the Leader operations. The county enterprise board preceded my arrival to this Department. It was promoted by the previous Government. I would get rid of it if I thought it was wrong but it is still at a formative stage. It is in response to a belief that the agencies were not attuned to the needs of small scale local enterprise. Its brief is essentially to deal with businesses with fewer than ten employees. It has to add value; it is not sufficient and would not be doing its job if it was only a local office that dolled out grants.

It has not developed in that way. Many county enterprise boards are superb in developing plans and building on the strengths of their areas. They are examining such issues as having experienced business people provide a mentor service, gathering local purchasing opportunities from existing firms and promoting innovative training for small business, for example, the PLATO programme which has been taken on in Cork. The omens are good; county enterprise boards are doing good work and are adding value as was intended. Of course, we will review them when they have been in operation for a reasonable period to ensure we are getting value for money.

Deputy Crawford recognised that considerable effort is being made to try to deal with customers' possible confusion as to whether county enterprise boards, Leader programmes or Forbairt is the right place to go for grant aid or whatever. There is a freefone number that gives access to that information. Many county enterprise boards and Leader programmes have worked together and have one high street location. Under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach, a county strategy team has been put in place which brings together the key agents in these local bodies.

As a country, we must make a choice. We speak frequently of being an excessively centralised State and that we want to free up local enterprise and initiative. When we have a thousand flowers blooming, we cannot demand to co-ordinate and centralise them in one Department. There is a conflict there. While we must deal with duplication, these bodies are of great value. They are still at an early stage but there are positive omens.

Deputy O'Keeffe rightly pointed to developing the training agenda. That is why the Department is putting a lot of work into human resources development, particularly focusing on the semi-skilled and unskilled. It is the extent to which we upgrade our skills that we remain competitive. I could go into detail but suffice to say that much is being done in that area.

I would take issue with the figure for job failures. The Deputy is giving currency to a popular belief that many foreign companies come here and leave within a short space of time. That is not borne out by the figures. The foreign sector has been strong and constant. For example, there has never been a single failure in 20 years of promoting overseas industry in the pharmaceuticals sector — that is the major sector. The electronics sector, of course, is one where business can inevitably fail. However, we are expanding rapidly in that area. I do not think it is true to say that when job targets are announced they fail to be met. If job targets are announced, the grants are related to them so there is a claw back if companies fail to meet the targets they set.

Deputy Crawford mentioned a problem in the Border region. A considerable amount of work is being done and there are proposals to develop a bank of sites in several towns in Border areas. We will develop and announce proposals in that area over time. A budget of £18 million is available for building and there is recognition that the Border region needs particular attention.

The Deputy will also be aware that the Government has made changes to the BES which allows more favourable tax arrangements for speculative private development. That gives another option to local business people to come together to develop sites. I accept Deputy Crawford's point about a one stop shop.

Deputy Byrne asked whether Dublin was losing out. It is not. Dublin gets a fair crack of the whip. There have been some significant projects in the last 18 months, such as Hewlett Packard, Intel, Zylex and UPS, which is in Tallaght. It is difficult to get major industry to locate in the inner city and that is a problem, but the Deputy will be aware of the task force which has been set up to examine the dockland as a resource in the inner city. We cannot direct companies to set up in a particular area. To a large degree, companies choose where they want to locate. With its infrastructure, port and other advantages, Dublin is attracting significant investment, particularly recently in the tele-service area. Dublin has a greater concentration of language skills and is doing well in that area.

Deputy Kitt raised the issue of coordination, with which I have dealt. Deputy O'Keeffe asked for a consultancy breakdown. Last year, the major consultancy item related to Irish Steel. It was the single largest item and accounted for £250,000 of the £380,000. The other major study is on our overseeing role in the insurance area.

In the coming year, the major areas of expenditure will be the company law review group, £60,000; a study on the insurance sector related to reducing the cost of insurance; and a study on FÁS and the maximum impact of our training spend. There will be some spending on Irish Steel in 1996 and on the continuing consultancy study on our role in supervising insurance. None of this spending is devoted to PR about which the Deputy was concerned. From a ministerial perspective, there is no PR and the Department spent £800 last year in that area.

What about promoting the Minister in the Department?

Deputy Rabbitte does that.

The Department's press office handles any publicity.

Is there a departmental contribution to the press office?

The press office is manned by a full-time public servant.

I accept that, but does the Department contribute to the press office?

It is the Department's press office. A full-time employee of the Department deals with public relations.

Under which heading is that?

It is under subhead A1, the administrative overhead. It is not shown separately. It is not a large or graciously appointed office by any means.

It has increased by 23 per cent.

The EU budget relates mainly to the six months preparation for and the six months holding of the Presidency. In total, 35 conferences or councils will be hosted in Ireland under various headings which are part and parcel of executing our responsibilities under the Presidency.

Deputy O'Keeffe raised the currency issue. On the occasion he referred to, interest rates were are 36 per cent and the Government was effectively defending a currency value which was not tenable at the time. The pressures were enormous. The EU permitted some market development aid but it indicated clearly that it was not something which it would continue to provide.

The Government's approach to the issue of maintaining the currency policy which is a trade weighted stability within the ERM is that we must use measures such as company repositioning and reducing the cost of employers' PRSI and not special measures which, in any event, would not be permitted under EU rules.

County enterprise boards operate within a budget. They must live within an approved allocation which they receive each quarter. We have clear rules which do not permit them to carry forward indefinitely approvals which they did not draw down. It has been clear to them from the start that they must prioritise their work. They cannot approve everything and hope that some of it will be drawn down.

There is no reference to EU Presidency expenses in the Estimate for the Department of the Marine. Is the Department of Enterprise and Employment out of line with other Departments? Coming from a Department with responsibility for employment, does the Minister think it appropriate to spend £710,000, which is a huge amount of money on conferences? I am concerned that it might send the wrong message to the unemployed, who would be anxious that money be spent on providing jobs rather than on conferences.

Presumably, the Government and the Department will grasp the nettle in regard to employment and internationalise the issue. For example, other Departments are dealing with the international question of drug trafficking. Does the Minister envisage many of these meetings putting the question of unemployment, the resulting marginalisation and job creation on the political agenda of other European countries as well as Ireland? Will the Minister comment on using the six month period to bring forward a profile of Ireland's efforts and to impress on our partners this State's continuing need for substantial EU resources for training and retraining of workers?

The short answer is yes. The theme of employment will not only be at the heart of the Government's approach but the issue will arise in the Intergovernmental Conference. It will also arise in a report on unemployment which the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, will deal with in the Social Council and which will go on to the European Council. We will deal with issues of key importance to employment in other areas such as the small and medium enterprise area, which will be a priority for us, and areas to do with the competitiveness of Europe in maintaining and improving its employment performance.

I cannot speak for the Department of the Marine as I do not know its arrangements but on the industry council, for example, I will handle the shipbuilding area. There may be some overlaps. The Department of the Marine does not have a specific council. it is a shared council with the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. We, on the other hand, have a large number of councils — the consumer affairs, research and industry councils and the social affairs council which we share with other Departments. Our Department is very much a part of it and we are obliged to service the working groups which will meet in Dublin.

Are there any questions or comments on subheads K1 to M3?

This area deals with training and labour force development. I do not want to be too parochial but recently there was a substantial cutback in FÁS community schemes in my area. We were told this was as a result of a promise given in the Dublin West by election and the moneys had to be transferred from south Cork where schemes were envisaged for places such as Bally-cotton, Carrigtohill, and Cloyne. A total of 20 people were to be employed in FÁS schemes there. This is not acceptable and I would be very concerned if it happened on a national scale. A person in high authority said this change had taken place. I accept there might have been a panic reaction on the part of the Government after that result——

It was before the result.

I would like to see those schemes put back in their rightful place in rural areas. There has been great juggling and shifting of schemes. Is that because there is a cutback in funds or have other changes taken place? I would like the Minister to be upfront about this because there is a great deal of confusion even among members of his party and the other parties of the rainbow coalition. Democrat Left expressed concern in my area about this. Will the Minister clarify the position?

In my opening remarks I referred to the local employment service, to which my colleague, Deputy O'Rourke, has referred many times. This scheme is in disarray. The National Economic and Social Forum said in its statement yesterday that this area should be vigorously tackled. The scheme seems to be bogged down in administration and the people who require the service are not getting it. The Minister has allowed in the Estimate for a substantially increased allocation. He should address the issue of targeting.

I also referred earlier to the jobstart scheme. When will that be launched? Is the Minister concerned, as the National Economic and Social Forum is, about the possibility of abuse under the scheme where employees could be paid low wages? The five weeks work experience under the work place scheme is inadequate, especially for the long-term unemployed. How many people are on the community employment scheme? Is the Minister providing adequate finance for that scheme, which is very popular?

A grant is provided in the Estimate for the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed. We agree with that but does the Minister support that organisation's involvement in a new national agreement? The Taoiseach is meeting the organisation later this month. It is important for the Minister to publicly state his 100 per cent support of its involvement in a new agreement.

Deputy O'Rourke could not be with us earlier due to a prior engagement. She is Fianna Fáil's spokesperson on employment and enterprise and is very welcome.

Thank you. I sent word that I would be delayed and I apologise to the Minister and to you. I know I was very ably represented. In regard to subheads K.1 to M.3, will the Minister give me details on the 40 per cent increase for training for the unemployed? I hope it is a better success than the strategy document which has been issued. I understand the 133 per cent increase under subhead K.4 is the transfer from the Department of the Taoiseach to the Department of Enterprise and Employment. I suppose that is all right between brothers and I am glad it has been sorted out.

In regard to the £1 million provided under subhead K.6 for job start, it is my understanding that no one has been taken on to that scheme yet, despite the fact it was introduced in early February. Why has nothing happened in the past three months in that regard? At the end of 1995, £2 million of the £6 million special funding for local employment schemes was unspent. The Minister was like Scrooge and went home for Christmas with the £2 million unspent. That was a grave disservice to the long-term unemployed. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, and the Minister made a great deal of noise at the time of the budget about this great new job start programme, the LES and various other measures for the long-term unemployed. However, three months later, no money has been spent and there are no initiatives.

I do not know whether to describe the Minister as being like Danny Kaye or Alice in Wonderland. It is extraordinary for the Minister to state: "this is the way things are because I say so". He claims to have substantially reduced unemployment but that is not true. How can the Minister say that when last Friday's unemployment figures showed that gains made in March were completed negated in April? I am not making it up, it was well reported. I cannot accept it if the Minister twists and gives other figures. If there are to be two sets of figures they must be related.

We have constantly expressed these points. People tell me that some of the 14 areas where the employment service is supposedly in place, it has a paltry effect. How many of the 14 rigorously conduct their business in the area partnerships? I believe that feuding in some areas has meant that local employment services have not been delivered to the long-term unemployed.

I congratulate Maureen Gaffney and her colleagues on their report. I praised the then Fianna Fáil/Labour Government that set up the forum which, I freely admit as at the instigation of Labour. When they dared to tell the truth as they saw it instead of just providing comfort to the Government everybody got huffy-puffy and said it was not so, but it is. The forum is made up of a large number of people drawn from disparate areas of life. They have a clear cut view of the present situation.

It will be two years in June since they asked for local employment services to be set up countrywide, yet we are no nearer to doing that. The Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, and I attended a forum meeting at which much concern and aggression was expressed. This is because people know that their suggestions to the Government are not acted upon.

Giving guidance to unemployed people is the only way forward, as I always said when I was in the Department of Enterprise and Employment. However, all the worthy people around the table with the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, would be aghast because intervention was a dirty word that one did not talk about. Market forces ruled the roost and people were suppossed to suddenly find employment in the shake out.

There are currently 6,000 more people unemployed than when we left office. Patently, no matter how the Minister portrays it that is not a success. No matter what recourse he has to never-never land, things are not as he says they are just because he says so. They are worse on the unemployment front than they were. The Minister may go back to the labour force survey but I am comparing like with like. When we left office we were talking about the live register, so I am now talking about those figures.

There is need for targets in reducing long-term unemployment figures. Such a policy would have been frowned on before but it will come to that. We need a Minister for Enterprise and Employment instead of a plethora of Ministers and half-Ministers running around the country deciding they have something to do with employment. The plethora of Ministers, agencies and activists involved is diluting the force of the thrust that should be directed towards the long-term unemployed.

This matter is a scandal. My earlier questions were related to the Minister, but now I am talking about all political parties. In a fundamental way we are all failing those who have put their trust in us. It is beside the point whether they voted for us or not, they are citizens and as such are entitled to serious consideration both by those in Government and in Opposition.

Once a month the unemployment figures are published and if they are bad everyone expresses surprise. If they are good figures, however, the Government says its policies are working but that is not so because no intense effort has been directed towards making them work.

I said on radio yesterday that politicians whether they are in Government or in Opposition get a comfortable feeling.

Many of these points have already been made in the opening address on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party by Deputy Kitt, and also by Deputy O'Keeffe.

Are we dealing with K1 to M3?

I am entitled to address L1 which concerns local employment services dealing with the long-term unemployed. Is that what LES is about?

You could say that indirectly, but I made the point that what you are now saying is repetitive because your colleagues have already contributed.

While I am sure Deputy Kitt was effective, as a Member of the Committee I am entitled to speak to L1.

The Deputy is entitled to speak within the time constraints.

That is another matter. If the Chair had mentioned a time constraint I would have accepted it.

I am asking the Deputy to conclude because this is not a debate on Second Stage, nor is it a speech on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. That has already been made. The Deputy should confine herself to questions on this section.

I am dealing with L1 which is meant to be solely concerned with the long-term unemployed. If the Government is considering admitting the INOU to the forthcoming talks, they should not be held in an anteroom or vestibule. I have given a commitment on that, as has my party leader. I heard some talk of a twin-track process which would not be suitable.

On M1, support structures for employment initiatives have been increased by 67 per cent? If that is for employment it is good. What is the employment community initiative?

I represent my party leader, Deputy Harney, who is unavailable for this afternoon's session. Under subhead K6, the grant for jobstart, £1 million has been provided. The Minister said this programme was designed to deal with 5,000 places with an annual value of £4,160 each which amounts to over £20 million. This means we are providing for less than 3 weeks funding for this project in 1996 or, if this only deals with the last quarter, there is provision for 1,000 rather than 5,000 people to be paid £80 per week. In these circumstances I ask the Minister to state at what stage of preparation is the job-start programme, when, on a month by month basis, he envisages there will be an uptake of £1 million and what number of people his Department envisages will be on the programmes in September, October, November and December, so that we can see whether £1 million is an illusory amount thought up to appear substantial for the purposes of the budget or whether there is a planned, phased recruitment to job-start during this year. I have a grave suspicion that the £1 million figure was reached because anything else would look ludicrously small and it does not relate to anything except optics. In particular, if October to December are the three months during which people are employed on the programme, funding is only available for 1,000 people for that period. What happened at budget time and since is propagandist political dishonesty to exaggerate the importance of the programme.

On subhead L2, I echo Deputy O'Rourke's point on the INOU. This organisation is just as entitled as any other group to be heard at the table where any new national deal is thrashed out. The social partners have failed to come up with solutions and there is no excuse for not having fresh thinking, especially from the INOU. Although the organisation is not fully on my wavelength, its material on tax reform has been much more realistic than the guff we have heard from many of the social partners who have full negotiating rights. The INOU should be given full status as a social partner because it represents, or purports to represent, the 283,000 people who are on the live register and deserve recognition. If that does not happen, giving INOU £66,000 will drip feed it on the political dependency culture without giving adequate recognition to the issues it was founded to meet. I am deeply concerned that it should be given State money while at the same time being excluded from full negotiating status. My party believes in involving the INOU in any collective negotiations which take place, because the primary consideration——

Deputy McDowell does not believe in collective negotiation. He would cut this £66,000?

No, this money has nothing to do with collective negotiation. If there are to be collective negotiations they should be between those who are seeking employment rather than those seeking to increase the cost of existing employment.

I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Bruton and the two Ministers of State at his Department, Deputies Fitzgerald and Rabbitte, for the many important initiatives they have brought forward in the last few years. Under subheads K1 to M3, funding for FÁS is the predominant part of the budget. Backbenchers from different parties had extensive briefings from FÁS about its work. Is there not a case for directing this large budget more extensively at areas of mass unemployment, specifically the blackspots in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and other cities? There should be a more cohesive and determined attempt to target resources where the need is greatest.

Representations have been made to us that it would be opportune at this time to have a consumers' body for FÁS services. FÁS touches us all, in that practically everyone has looked at advertisements in the local office at some point. The National Youth Council has advocated a FÁS users' council. Would the Minister be prepared to fund that within the current budget?

On subhead L2, it is extraordinary to see a former senior Fianna Fáil Minister shed crocodile tears about the INOU. Deputy O'Rourke had three opportunities under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the Programme for National Recovery to have the INOU and other bodies representing the unemployed present at the social partnership negotiations but she did not do so. The Progressive Democrat Party stand for a free-for-all and no more national agreements. Not alone would it not have the INOU at national talks, they would not even take place. The £66,000 would be one of the items Deputy McDowell would cut under his famous “tax and spend” document, along with £2,000 million in other cuts. The fewer crocodile tears we see at this point the better. As has been made clear at this committee and the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs, the Labour Party favours the presence of the INOU, on behalf of the unemployed——

Tell the Taoiseach that.

What about the RPT?

—— at negotiations on the current national agreement. Both committees also received representations from senior citizens, people who have given great service to the State for up to 50 years but have no effective input into national negotiations. I urge the Minister to allow retired workers' bodies and trade unions to get involved on their behalf.

That is indicative of the nonsense——

We believe comprehensive national partnership agreements are the way forward in advanced democracies.

You would remove subsidies.

We do not want to be like New Zealand. On subhead M2, are there difficulties filling quotas or coping with the vast number of people who found community employment to be a valuable initiative?

Deputies Broughan, O'Rourke, Kitt and O'Keeffe referred to items 1 to 6; Deputy O'Rourke referred to subhead L1; Deputies McDowell and Kitt referred to subhead L2; Deputies Broughan and O'Rourke referred to subhead M1; and Deputy O'Rourke referred to subhead M2. I call on Deputy Leonard before the Minister replies.

The Minister mentioned inward investment and its success in terms of providing 11,500 jobs but only a couple of hundred of those were located in the Border region. While this Minister and others have spent much time talking about inward investment, the Washington conference, the Philadelphia conference and so on, they are not providing jobs. We were promised so much in an area which was deprived for many years during the Troubles. EU officials asked that programmes be refocused to ensure the best possible use would be made of available funding.

I submitted a parliamentary question a few months ago relating to employment in the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan. We lost 420 jobs at a time when people were talking about increased employment. There are fewer foreign industries in Cavan-Monaghan than in other regions — the ratio is 1:20. Yesterday an IDA official commented on statements made on Canadian investment at a county council meeting. Out of 24 Canadian firms operating here, 18 are in Leinster, five in Munster and one in Connacht. None are located in the Border region. We must have fair play.

An important proposal in the health field was made to our county enterprise partnership board yesterday. There were two proposals for private nursing homes each of which would have provided approximately 20 jobs. They sought assistance of £50,000 which we could not provide as we only have £90,000 for a three month period. If we had provided it we would have run out of money. It is an area which I would like the Minister to examine. There is need for private nursing home accommodation. At present two-thirds of those looking for such accommodation go to the North. We will not be able to provide jobs unless we have factory sites and these are scarce.

I am amazed at some speakers who are critical of the Minister. He is doing a good job. As regards subhead L1, local employment service, there has been an increase of 338 per cent from £1.371 million last year to £6 million this year. No Opposition speaker complimented the Minister on this outstanding achievement which is a step in the right direction. Listening to Opposition speakers, one would think that money flows like manna from heaven. When they were in office, they did little to alleviate unemployment. I congratulate the Minister on his initiative and foresight in getting such a remarkable increase under this subhead.

There have been no cuts in community employment and no political promises have been made. It is run on objective criteria by FÁS. However, it is in such demand that, inevitably, some projects are displaced because other worthwhile ones are waiting in the wings. We are committed to and will fund 40,000 projects.

Contrary to what Deputies suggested, we are bringing forward by one month the start up date for jobstart. Preparations were made more quickly than expected. Procedures have been agreed with Congress and IBEC which will ensure it is not exploited. I can allay fears on that front. It will be fully funded in relation to places taken up and we will press for a rapid take up. We will have to build it up slowly and there will not be a sudden inflow of 5,000 people on day one. We would expect 1,200 to 1,500 to be in place by the end of the year. That is the reason for the budgetary projection. It will have a slow rather than a very rapid build. I assure Members we are fully prepared and are bringing it forward by one month. We are determined to use it because it is an effective way of including people whose chances of placement without such a scheme would be extremely low. It will start on 1 June and we will fund the take up.

The present level of community employment is 39,800. Several Members raised issues in relation to the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.Deputy McDowell criticised the social partnership. If we look at the experience pre-1987, post-1987 and at employment performance across a range of indicators, the social partnership has delivered to this economy. In that period 150,000 net extra jobs were created compared to the previous one in which there was a decline of 70,000. People need to be realistic.

The social partnership has delivered our prime objective on employment. It has also worked in that while people have settled for lower headline rates, their take home pay has increased more rapidly. The data shows that real take home pay increased in the period post 1987 whereas prior to that date it declined consistently. That is a product of the stability which has been purchased. There is lower inflation and the ability to make room for tax reform. The criticism suggesting that the social partners have failed to address problems is way off the mark.

The INOU has an important perspective to add and the Government will have appropriate consultations with it as the Taoiseach has already indicated.

As full partners.

That has yet to be considered but the Taoiseach made it clear that it will be involved as appropriate. It contributes to the NESF and the NESC which are being consulted in advance and it will have other opportunities to put its point of view. The Taoiseach has made that clear.

I recognise there is a problem regarding long-term unemployment. Its growth has been arrested, but that is all that has been achieved to date. The background against which long-term unemployment will be effectively tackled must be strong employment growth and the Government is delivering that.

Why have the numbers increased?

The boat and the train stopped.

The Deputy is also critical of the labour market strategy set out by the Government. However, this strategy puts it up to us as a community. Our objectives are employment growth, an increase in employment intensity and to bring in those who have been excluded. This is the agenda which must be followed, but I do not pretend it will be a quick fix. People who criticise the speed of the establishment of the LES believe that there is quick solution to this problem. However, we must get LES working effectively. It has taken time to build because it involves local decisions on priority and local co-ordination of service. It is in a position to be up and running in 11 areas this month, while the plans of the remaining three are not yet finalised and agreed. It will make an impact, but it will be a slow process because it involves people with accumulated disadvantage. We are trying to turn that around. The Government has a number of policy vehicles, including the workplace and jobstart schemes.

Regarding the workplace scheme, Deputy Kitt suggested that five weeks is too short for long-term unemployed people. However, it is not intended for the long-term unemployed but for people who have reached a point where they are ready for employment. It is not designed as a long-term scheme which employers would have a chance to abuse. It is short term and will give people who are ready for employment a chance to be assessed.

I take Deputy Broughan's point about the need for greater targeting. The reason the LES is concentrated in the blackspots is precisely to respond to that agenda. We must ensure an impact is made in those areas before the scheme is further extended. This is the priority. I accept there is a good case for considering a users' council in relation to FÁS. It has already introduced a complaints procedure and the remit of the Ombudsman is being extended to include FÁS. However, the idea of a users' council is worthy of consideration.

Deputy Leonard raised issues related to the discussion earlier. I dealt with those when Deputy Crawford was present but I accept the Deputy's point that the Border counties need particular attention, especially in relation to available space. We are working on that. Private nursing homes are not excluded from country enterprise boards. However, given their scale and nature as a property based investment, many enterprise boards do not regard them as a priority.

What about training for employment?

I asked why FÁS schemes were terminated.

They are not terminated.

In my local area.

FÁS allocates a certain number to each region and to my knowledge the allocation to the Deputy's region is exactly as it was. FÁS tries to accommodate new projects and inevitably some people are squeezed out. Equally, some people do not want to abide by the rules which effectively state that there must be a turnover of people. They cannot remain on programmes long-term.

My point was not parochial. I repeated what was said regarding the result of the Dublin west by-election, that they had to be transferred from Cork to Dublin.

It was done before.

It was after the event and I ask the Minister to be specific.

I will be categorical.

The Minister has responsibility for FÁS. I already received a negative response to a parliamentary question and I ask the Minister to respond to the issue now. It is more embarrassing for the Minister that this is being said.

There was no political——

We are not debating the pros and cons of statements made about the Dublin West or Donegal by-elections. We are discussing the Estimates.

Deputy O'Keeffe should have no regrets about the result in Dublin West.

If a Deputy has a question about a specific locality in relation to FÁS, they should take the matter up with the regional director of FÁS. We will move on to the final section and debate subheads N to Y, industrial relations, commercial regulations, health and safety and other services.

I asked the Minister about training for employment.

I will come back to that point.

There is an 11 per cent increase in the Labour Relations Commission's grant for administration and general expenses. Will the Minister comment on the general state of unrest among low paid workers? We have raised in the House and elsewhere the problems caused by the CPSU dispute. The Labour Relations Commission is dealing with many of these issues. There are implications for the commission in terms of staffing and its involvement in many of these problems.

I am concerned that the Government is taking its eye off the ball because there is growing tension and unrest in the public sector. A sizeable number of low paid workers are involved and the taxation system is central to their concerns. This relates to the point earlier about social partnership and the need for Governments to take account of workers' take home pay. There is growing unrest in the public sector and I am aware of many problems, such as that in An Post where a dreadful management decision was taken to employ outside workers. This had repercussions for up to 500 workers and led to a full-time strike in An Post. My colleague, Deputy Cowen, raised the position in agriculture.

There is growing concern in that sector and the Labour Relations Commission will be hugely stretched. What is the Government's attitude to this matter? It must be involved in trying to resolve these outstanding issues. I could mention the Irish Productivity Centre and other matters but I will focus on this area because it is the most important.

Regarding subheads S and T, is the Minister satisfied that the office of the Director of Consumer Affairs is adequately funded and staffed to deal with the commencement of the Consumer Credit Act? Are any difficulties being encountered at present in staffing the office? Is a dispute delaying the allocation of staff resources to the office? Will the Minister outline the up to date state of affairs in relation to the additional resources which the office was promised to deal with the policing of that statute?

Regarding subhead T, will the Minister explain how his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, made a decision in respect of a new group of accountants which is now approved auditors under the Companies Act? Is it true that the accountants group now recognised under the Act as a result of the Minister of State's action does not have its own office but rather a serviced one with just one secretarial employee and no means of organising continual professional assessment of practices? Will the Minister state why it was decided, in view of the nature of the body of accountants in question, to grant them status as recognised auditors under the Companies Act, having regard to the extensive obligations placed on auditors by European and Irish law and to the specific responsibility of professional bodies to ensure that high standards are maintained in their profession?

I wish to question the Minister on company registration, the development of commercial regulations and take-overs. There is much confusion in the media regarding the take-over of Jet by Statoil. The Minister appeared to have difficulties making a decision. Statoil is a large State owned company in Norway which has done much business in this country. Is there a danger that the lack of decision making on this take-over will have an effect on other similar companies coming into the country in the service area? Will the Minister state the up-to-date position?

With regard to the Director of Consumer Affairs, will there be enough resources for the successful dissemination of information and implementation of the Act, especially with regard to the queries put by Deputies Richard Bruton and Rabbitte when in Opposition?

I echo the concerns regarding the grant of approval, given to a specific body, allowing it to be an audit body for the purposes of company audits. Did it arrive on the Minister's desk or was it only presented to the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Rabbitte? It is not that I would be elitist about matters, but there is a need for professional standards. It is important that we be clear on this as company audits and what companies are or are not doing sometimes give rise to fierce Dáil debates.

The objective is to have trade union amalgamations., However, I am not sure if we have had a sufficient number of amalgamations to warrant the amount of money provided. Will the Minister comment on this?

Subhead Y and the irritatingly high level of unemployment has already been referred to by Deputy O'Rourke. What is the position on labour force surveys? There was a 7 per cent increase for 1996. I understood we were to have twice yearly or quarterly surveys. The public is surprised at the size of the live register, especially when prominent economists in Sunday newspapers, who may be supporters of the Progressive Democrat Party, advise that the labour force survey is the accurate measure of unemployment because it does not measure social welfare grants. Standing at less than 200,000, it represents a truer figure in this area. Will the increase in funding enable us to track real unemployment accurately and enable us to make accurate policy so that mistaken views will not be expressed in the media and elsewhere?

On a point of order, if Deputy Broughan is suggesting that More McDowell is a Progressive Democrat economist his political intelligence is very poor.

I was not thinking of any specific economist. Subhead U, dealing with health and safety, provides for a modest increase this year. Is the Minister perturbed by the increasing numbers of the workforce who are on short term contracts or do not have any contracts ? While we were all proud to be involved in drawing up the relevant legislation, there are many companies which have effectively disregarded it. This does not apply merely to areas where there are dangerous working conditions. Workers have very little protection in many areas of the economy.

The Dublin City Enterprise Board report was presented at a local authority meeting I attended earlier. The most striking aspect of it is that our local authority, which represents one seventh of the entire population, received £500,000 out of £25 million or 2 per cent of the money available for enterprise. Will the Minister, as a senior northside Dublin Minister, give Dubliners a fair allocation of enterprise expenditure? We are getting a raw deal and are very angry about it.

A number of small employers are unable to recruit staff because people do not want to give up their social welfare benefits. Over the past few months three employers in the wood and textile industries raised this issue with me. A couple of weeks ago I met a woman whose business collapsed a few years ago. She has just revived it and is finding it difficult to recruit staff. A timber industry in my constituency advertised for staff in the newspapers but nobody replied to it.

With regard to the recent report on health and safety, there continues to be a high number of accidents at the workplace, despite the efforts of employers and others. That is a matter of serious concern.

Deputy Kitt referred to subhead N; Deputies McDowell and O'Rourke referred to subhead S; Deputies McDowell and O'Keeffe referred to subhead T; Deputy Leonard referred to subhead U and Deputy Broughan to subhead Y. I call on the Minister to reply and conclude the debate.

The LRC will be a very important element and we are allocating 11 per cent additional funds to it. By any objective assessment of industrial unrest, we are at a historic low — 1994 was the lowest, 1995 was higher mainly due to the Dunnes Stores dispute and 1996 shows a good trend. We are enjoying a period of good industrial relations.

The state of industrial relations in 1996 will probably be the worst ever.

This is in terms of days lost. On the issue of the CPSU dispute, the Taoiseach is today meeting with the Congress of Trade Unions to discuss matters. The Programme for Competitiveness and Work is in place and it includes an industrial peace clause. We are concerned about issues relating to low paid employment. Our labour market paper underlined the problems to which Deputy Leonard referred, including the fact that in some cases the rewards for work are not sufficient. The Government has already taken action in this area, for example, the first £80 is exempt from PRSI. However, further measures are needed.

Deputies McDowell and O'Rourke referred to the Director of Consumer Affairs. We will implement the Consumer Credit Act on schedule. Additional staff will be appointed to the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs and there will also be technical support from the Central Bank. There is a problem in allocating staff but we are working to resolve that issue and have agreed a staffing level.

As regards the recognition of an accountants group, I will come back to Deputies on that issue as I do not have the information to hand.

May we take it that the Minister had no involvement in this matter?

I asked the Minister if it had come to his desk.

It would not come to my desk because the function was delegated to the Minister of State.

It is an amazing decision.

As regards Statoil and Jet, I acted in accordance with the legislation on mergers and take-overs. I referred this proposed merger to the Competition Authority, which recommended that it should not go ahead and I accepted its recommendation. That decision is on appeal by the companies involved. They are acting in accordance with existing law and I do not see it having any implications for inward investment. We abide by the law in this country.

The most recent trade union amalgamation was in 1994 between IDATU and Mandate. There were no mergers in 1995 but a number of mergers are under discussion at present. Some of the funds allocated in the Estimate were paid in respect of earlier mergers. It is difficult to predict a pattern but the provision is included for mergers that might take place.

It is becoming a game.

The outturn last year was small at £38,000.

What was that spent on if there were no amalgamations?

That referred to the previous year's amalgamations.

Deputy Broughan referred to the labour force survey and the live register. Deputy O'Rourke raised this matter with the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach. We are considering proposals for a quarterly labour force survey which would allow us to track more accurately the relationship between the two. Work on establishing the relationship between the live register and the labour force survey is ongoing. The labour force survey is the acknowledged international way of measuring unemployment. The live register is affected by rules on claims. While it is a valid reflection of people who are claiming social welfare — some may be working part-time and some may not — a number of issues must be considered. It is a less reliable indicator of trends because of the effect of changes in rules. The Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, will deal with health and safety issues and contracts.

Deputy Broughan raised the issue of county enterprise boards. As regards funding, instead of allocating so much per board, we are looking at need, capability and performance as a way of deciding allocations.

Two questions were asked about the Health and Safety Authority. Deputy Broughan inquired about the status of people working on contract. The Health and Safety Act, 1989, applies to all employees and self-employed people. The nature of the employment contract is irrelevant.

There was a high number of accidents and deaths last year. Most occurred in fishing which involves mainly self-employed people. People on fishing boats have a legal obligation to have a safety statement and to follow it. The second highest figure last year was in farming and included the deaths of children on farms. This year the Health and Safety Authority set up a number of task forces to focus on accident blackspots. One was set up in the fishing area and involves all interests there, one in the farming area which includes farming women because families are involved, and one in the construction area. These focus on the areas where practice is worst. So far this year there have been two accidents involving bin lorries which reversed over people. Two young people got into building sites following social functions and were killed when they fell off scaffolding.

There are many causes of accidents. The key to accident prevention is safety, awareness and accepting responsibility in each company and enterprise. If problems are identified and a safety plan is drawn up and implemented, most accidents can be avoided. Every effort is being made through an education policy, coupled with 13,000 inspections this year, to ensure we have a good safety policy. Everyone, including workers, self-employed people and employers, must accept responsibility.

That is the most sensible thing I have heard all day.

I thank my colleagues and the Opposition spokespersons for their co-operation and contributions to this interesting debate. I thank the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, and all the officials from the Department of Enterprise and Employment for their patience. I also thank the convenor and the staff of the House. We meet again on Wednesday at 2.30 p.m. to discuss the Estimates of the Department of the Marine and on Thursday at 2.45 p.m. to discuss Committee Stage of the Metrology Bill, 1996.

The Select Committee adjourned at 5 p.m.

Top
Share