asked the Taoiseach if he will clarify and justify the recent remarks on Irish workers made by him at Carlow Regional Technical College.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Taoiseach's Remarks about Workers.
7.
In my discussions with staff and students at the regional technical college in Carlow on 3 October I mentioned a number of areas where improvements are needed in order to provide better conditions for the creation of employment in this country. Absenteeism and redundancy payments were among the matters on which I made comment.
The thrust of my remarks about absenteeism was that absenteeism rates in Ireland are too high. In a situation where we are competing against other countries for scarce, mobile international investment it is essential that we aim to create conditions attractive to such investment. High absenteeism rates are a constraint to attracting such investment. Possibly more importantly, they are a constraint to achieving the higher levels of output growth in indigenous Irish industry which is a major objective of the Government's industrial policies. High absenteeism rates form a problem which we share with many other developed countries. Our objective, however, must be to do better than competitor countries in this and in other areas that effect our competitiveness. If Irish industry is to be competitive on home and world markets absenteeism must be reduced to the absolute minimum.
My remarks have been interpreted in some quarters as being an attack on Irish workers. This is, of course, a completely erroneous interpretation. The Government, on taking office, established a ministerial task force to examine how absenteeism could be reduced and came very firmly to the conclusion that the control of absenteeism is primarily a management responsibility best tackled at the level of the individual firm. I am sure the Deputy will agree with me on this point, which I have made repeatedly whenever I have had occasion to address this subject.
While the FUE, IMI and IPC provide consultancy services to firms to help them reduce absenteeism the take-up level of these services has been disappointing. The Government have now asked the IPC to take a lead role in designing a comprehensive programme to bring home to firms the importance of taking positive measures to control absenteeism and the elements that might be included in such a control programme.
In Carlow I also mentioned the fact that some workers welcome the opportunity which the closure of firms sometimes provides for generous redundancy payments. This clearly is a preserse and unintended outcome of our system of redundancy protection measures which should not be encouraged or condoned. The result of this position has been that workers, in a potential closure situation where generous redundancy settlements are available may in some instances opt for a closure involving such settlements rather than seek to take action which will maintain ongoing employment in the firm. My remarks were intended to point out the reservations shared by many people about such behaviour which is not in the interests of workers generally in a situation where employment opportunities fall far short of our requirements.
My remarks at Carlow were made with the intent of directing attention to factors which may be operating to deprive workers of greater employment opportunities.
Lest it goes by default in the House I should like to say that on this side of the House we reject completely the Taoiseach's intemperate attack on the quality of Irish workers and particularly his suggestion that they would prefer to take redundancy payments rather than retain their jobs.
They will never make the Deputy president of Congress now.
The Taoiseach has mentioned the mobility of international investment and I should like to ask him if he thinks he has done anything to help our case in attracting that mobile international investment by attacking the quality of Irish workers.
And now the Deputy should go and talk to Deputy Séamus Brennan.
I have answered that question and the Deputy should be perfectly clear on what I said. I did not attack Irish workers. When he refers to where the damage is being done to our interests in this matter of investment I should like to refer him to the remarks of Deputy Séamus Brennan on radio the other day, outrageous remarks — as a member of the Deputy's party I presume he was speaking for Fianna Fáil — which were seriously damaging to the interests of this country in terms of the flows of investment and flows of capital.
The Taoiseach should stick to his remarks, the remarks we are talking about. It was the Taoiseach who attacked Irish workers.
We must move now to questions nominated for priority.