It is clear that this Government's success in negotiating a Programme for National Recovery with employers, unions and some farmers and the action it is taking through reductions in public expenditure in order to stabilise the national finances has left the Opposition spokesmen in something of a dilemma.
They could not face up to the question of whether to bring the social partners into their confidence. They were fainthearted about trying to get the maximum consensus possible in support of the steps necessary to deal with grave national problems. For Fianna Fáil securing the widest and possible support for remedial action to get us out of serious economic and social difficulties is a matter of political philosophy. Consensus is never given in modern life. It has to be worked at. It takes political courage to pursue stringent financial policies, exercised in the national interest in the medium and long term.
In facing up to the grave financial problems of this country, we decided as a matter of principle that it was better to bring the social partners along with us as far as possible. As everybody knows, the Coalition Government turned their backs on such an approach. They spurned the idea of consulting the social partners and far from facing up to the increasingly serious financial crisis, they simply added to the problems. Consulting the social partners does not mean that we jettisoned the Government's responsibility to govern or that we have abandoned the capacity to take the hard decisions. The publication of the Book of Estimates for 1988 bears this out. The fact that Government action to reduce public expenditure involves doing what many Opposition spokesmen and virtually all economic pundits had been advocating has left both groups searching frantically for some basis on which to criticise the Programme for National Recovery and the reductions in proposed expenditure. The results of their frantic search are surprising to say the least. The total of the cuts is acceptable, they say, but the individual cuts which go to make this total are open to question.
The expenditure allocations for 1988 reflect our commitment to distributing the burden evenly across all sectors, while conserving resources to ensure that the weaker sections are protected to the greatest possible extent. We have protected some services from any appreciable reduction and have agreed to maintain the overall value of social welfare benefits. Our commitment to working with the social partners is no hollow exercise. In agreement with the trade union movement, the Government have ensured that the interests of the low paid and of those on social welfare are given priority in the Programme for National Recovery and are protected to the greatest possible extent in the Estimates.
The Opposition — and some economic experts — have homed in on the pay increases for the public service over the next three years or so. Feeling they have a soft target in public servants, they say the increases proposed are excessive or that there should have been no increases at all for these groups.
Do they think they could win general approval for immediate action to tackle our serious economic and social problems by leaving pay determination to a market free-for-all? Would they hope to secure industrial peace by imposing a pay freeze? They would have left the weaker sections of the workforce without any protection for their standard of living. They would not have been thanked either by the many middle income earners who, with little clout to win themselves special pay terms in a free for all, would be forced to face greatly reduced living standards.
I find this attitude most difficult to understand. Anybody who has a notion of industrial relations and the pay determination process can recognise a realistic pay settlement when he sees one. The pay increase is reasonable and worthwhile for both sides. The stability it gives is invaluable for the Government and the private sector in planning for the medium term. It would be hard to justify a pay freeze of up to three or four years for public servants and for public servants only, as is implied in some Opposition criticisms.
Reductions in public expenditure require some rationalisation and reduction in numbers and this would be so regardless of whether any pay increases were negotiated for public servants. We simply cannot continue to employ more people than we can afford to pay. A pay pause of six months after the expiry of the current pay agreements in the public sector will apply. The Estimates were framed on the basis that no further general increases would apply in 1987 and this position will now be realised when the current agreement expires. The programme puts a limit of 2.5 per cent on pay increases throughout the economy for the next three years. Indeed, unless the Opposition are advocating a total suspension of conciliation, arbitration and the Labour Court for public servants, it is hard to see what they are about.
The programme contains pay agreements aimed at achieving long term stability in an environment of low inflation. By providing a framework for pay agreements over the next three years the possibility of industrial conflict is lessened. Employers will be able to predict cost increases due to pay in the medium term and plan accordingly. It is also important for all concerned in the public service that pay increases are clearly set out. A three year pay agreement removes one element of uncertainty in stabilising the national debt.
The Government as employer have given a clear lead in the area of pay. An agreement now exists in respect of the private sector. The Government have consistently made the case that pay moderation is vital if we, a small trading nation, are to remain competitive in world markets. Pay moderation is also central to our efforts to compete for employment-creating investment.
No collective agreement, however well-intentioned, can provide a total guarantee of industrial peace. However, the maturity and awareness of economic reality which have been so evident during discussions on the Programme for National Recovery gives me cause for optimism that the incidence of industrial disputes can be minimised. This same clear-sighted, pragmatic approach should contribute much to reducing tension in difficult situations. It should also make the resolution of disputes much easier, when they do occur.
The Government do not underestimate the seriousness of the problems which face us. Confronting these problems will require hard work and tough decisions on all sides. In recent years the average number of strikes and days lost from industrial action have declined. The commitment to co-operation on all sides has been underlined and strengthened in the process of drawing up the Programme for National Recovery. With increased co-operation, I am confident that the number of strikes and days lost will continue to decline. This can only improve the environment for job creation.
It is a tribute to the maturity of the leaders of the trade unions, the employers and the farmers that a broad-ranging agreement has been hammered out through these discussions. The social partners realised that a narrow defence of sectional interests could provide no basis for national recovery and that what was demanded was that everyone work together to achieve economic growth.
There are those on the opposite side of the House who said it could not be done, whether because of their fatalism or their contempt for working on the basis of consensus. They believed that the social partners lacked the sense of responsibility necessary to translate the principles agreed in the NESC report into a workable agreement.
It is a major achievement for all concerned to have concluded the Programme for National Recovery in a few months in a very difficult economic environment. The seriousness of the economic problems facing the country meant that there was little room for manoeuvre. Nonetheless a programme has been concluded. It is simply outrageous to imply that the Government have succeeded over the course of six months in manipulating the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Federated Union of Employers, the Confederation of Irish Industry, the Construction Industry Federation, the Irish Farmers Association, Macra na Feirme and the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society. Those who make this kind of charge should cop on to themselves.
It is my earnest hope, and the hope of the Government, that this programme will be formally ratified by the national bodies representing the various social partners. I believe that the programme will in fact be ratified, because the Irish people, be they farmers, trade unionists, employers, self-employed or unemployed, realise that it is only by working together that we can make progress in overcoming the problems we face.
It is fair to say that once the programme is ratified the real work will begin. The programme itself provides a framework and lists a range of activities and further work to be undertaken with a view to achieving economic growth. The programme also sets down the basic principles that should govern our efforts. Progress is envisaged in four broad areas: creation of a fiscal exchange rate and monetary climate conducive to economic growth; movement towards greater equity and fairness in the tax system; diminishing or removing social inequities in our society and the intensification of practical measures to generate increased job opportunities on a sectoral basis.
The negotiation of the national programme has shown that with the right will, progress can be made in difficult areas. I hope that the social partners will approach the proposed discussions on industrial relations reform in the same constructive manner as they showed in the talks on achieving a national consensus. Action in this area is long overdue.
Over the years there has been much discussion of industrial relations reform with little progress being made. I am heartened by the commitment of the social partners, as expressed in the programme, to the conclusion of discussions with me as soon as possible. I hope that we can now move forward and take action in an area where useful changes and reform can be achieved.
The Programme for National Recovery gives special prominence to the European Community dimension. This reflects the wholehearted public endorsement which our membership of the Community was given a few months ago in the referendum on the ratification of the Single European Act. The programme specially welcomes the proposals of the Commission known as the Delors Plan. The Delors Plan contains proposals for a range of measures which are designed to implement the provisions of the Single European Act relating to economic and social cohesion within the Community. These are of major importance for this country. The intention is that the narrowing of the gap between the standards of different Community regions will be achieved in particular through the structural funds.
The plan proposes a concentration of the structural funds — the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the FEOGA Guidance Fund — on those regions whose gross domestic product is less than 75 per cent of the Community average. Ireland as a whole falls within this definition and will, therefore, be one of the regions entitled to benefit.
I feel that the impending re-organisation of our training and manpower services under FÁS — the new body which will take over and integrate the functions of AnCO, the Youth Employment Agency and the National Manpower Service — will undoubtedly help us to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the Delors Plan. In particular, the proposal to increase the rate of ESF assistance will enable us to expand and develop our programmes without further demands on scarce national resources.
In the reformed Social Fund, special priority will be given also to helping the long term unemployed and young persons looking for their first job. These are categories which accord very closely with Irish national priorities.
The Government have decided to move towards a programme basis for application for assistance from the funds. As the Taoiseach indicated on Tuesday, this new approach will represent a learning experience. We will have to work out with the Commission how best to apply it in our circumstances. Although a lot of hard negotiating lies ahead, I am confident that the Government's efforts in the reform of the structural funds will yield results which will be to this country's benefit in future years.
The programme outlines a significant legislative programme in my own area of responsibility as Minister for Labour and details some of the activities which I will be pursuing in the coming months. It provides a framework for pursuing consultations with the social partners on the realistic medium term strategy which underlines both the programme itself and the 1988 Book of Estimates.
The whole notion of an integrated or programme-based approach to problems is a novel development in our public administration practice. Too often the design and implementation of public policies has been restricted by the jealously guarded boundaries of particular administrative bodies. This is understandable. Working within the limits of what exists can often be the quickest way to respond; interdepartmental committees do not always guarantee a fast track for decisionmaking and agencies can very often be forced to act on their own by virtue of the system of Vote accounting.
Nevertheless, many of the problems with which Government now deal are so complex that we must not merely unite the public agencies but also co-ordinate their activities with those of relevant private bodies. This is what building a consensus is all about—and it is a paramount principle in many areas of my Department's work. The area of safety and health at work is a case in point. It is high time we set about launching a unified effort embracing the whole complex of activities and bodies which impinge on the safety, health and welfare of people at work. I am not just speaking of my Department, the legislation and the inspection of work places. I am including the activity of industrial bodies, trade unions, insurance companies and all those with an interest in general health protection or the protection of the environment. A test of the new safety and health authority to be established under the forthcoming safety, health and welfare at work legislation will be the extent to which it can create alliances with groups which have common interests.
The success of the measures taken initially in the 1987 budget and further developed in the Programme for National Recovery and the Book of Estimates, especially those directed to tackling unemployment, will ultimately depend on the understanding and support of the community as a whole, on the responsiveness of the administrative machinery, and especially on the efforts of employers and trade unions at local level.
The only complete and satisfactory solution to unemployment is the creation of jobs. It is clear that new jobs will not materialise unless all the resources of the community are mobilised in a positive and co-ordinated way harnessing the talents, skills, creativity and energy in our community. We know the full scale of the problem. The programme does not begin with starry-eyed aspirations. It opens with a clinical analysis of the extent of the difficulties which have to be confronted. These difficulties are such that they must be tackled now, in the short term, with concerted efforts by all interests. The programme sees these efforts to achieve our full economic and social potential being directed to the better utilisation of our human and natural resources.
Our labour market policies will be directed to achieving higher rates of job creation as distinct from simply preserving existing employment. The programme has identified in some detail where the opportunities for job creation are to be found. We will be monitoring sector by sector performance under the job targets which have been outlined in the programme. In the interests of achieving greater social equity every effort will be made to enhance the job prospects of the unemployed and socially disadvantaged so as to prevent their total exclusion from participating in economic activity.
The problem of widespread unemployment continues to afflict our society. Although registered unemployment has continued to rise over the past year, there are now some positive indications that the rate of increase is at least beginning to stabilise. One encouraging sign in the unemployment statistics over the past year has been the fact that the level of youth unemployment has started to fall.
We now have better information than ever before on the situation of young people in the labour market, and on the characteristics of young people who are likely to encounter protracted unemployment. In particular, we know that young people with the lowest levels of education are most likely to fare badly on the labour market. So far, we have already made headway through the social guarantee programme by setting up systems and procedures to identify and track each and every young person who has left the school system and is eligible for participation in a manpower programme; by making efforts to retain potential early school leavers within the education system through programme interventions like vocational preparation and training programme; and by developing programmes whose assessment procedures, curricula and programme methodology have been shaped to reflect the particular needs of the disadvantaged young persons.
I take this opportunity to underline my commitment to the social guarantee process. It represents the most important step which we have taken so far to reduce inequalities in the youth labour market. The significant improvements already made in identifying vulnerable categories and providing specially tailored services point the way forward for FÁS. The social guarantee is a model of how the resources of the education training and Manpower agencies can be harnessed to address the needs of the least qualified young people and to improve their ability to compete for the jobs that are available.
I am working jointly with the Minister for Education to identify the elements of an action programme to break the cycle of low educational attainment leading to a high risk of unemployment. The vocational preparation and training programmes are examples of a more responsive education system. We are seeking to target these courses more directly to those who would otherwise leave the education system with few or no qualifications. The importance which the Government and the social partners attach to this aspect of the achievement of social equity through fostering the participation of the disadvantaged is reflected in the Programme for National Recovery. We need to broaden the range of occupations covered in the VPT courses and to avoid a concentration of boys and girls on courses which reinforce traditional sex roles. The full range of facilities available through FÁS, ACOT, CERT and VPT to those who do not complete second level education will need to be looked at in a comprehensive way to see how to make the best use of resources.
I have no wish to see the enthusiasm of those engaged in tracking eligible school leavers dampened by an excessive burden of recording or reporting information. My preference is for a system which combines the efficiency and enthusiasm of the present managers of the guarantee with a minimum of bureaucracy. While the introduction of Jobsearch put pressure on the resources available for the social guarantee for part of 1987, I am satisfied that the guarantee will not be downgraded in status. Neither would I want to see flexibility sacrificed in favour of an unduly rigid procedure.
Over 39,000 persons were engaged on various employment and training programmes at the end of last month. The provision of funding for these schemes is a heavy burden on the Exchequer, even with assistance available from the European Social Fund. My priority has been to ensure that as many people as possible can benefit from the opportunities which we are able to make available. Despite the restraint on public expenditure, the volume of activity and the level of participants on the employment and training programmes featured in the 1988 Estimates will be maintained at their 1987 levels.
In the case of the social employment scheme, the additional resources provided in the 1987 budget and the part it has to play in the nationwide Jobsearch programme show that it is regarded as an effective means of assisting unemployed workers to regain a foothold in the labour market.
I would like to take this opportunity to detail to the House some of the tangible benefits which SES projects have brought not only to the participants involved but to local communities throughout the length and breadth of the country.
In the environmental area, the social employment scheme has been used by local authorities and local development bodies to promote the position of tourism in the Irish economy and to explore its potential for job creation.
Take, for example, the local environmental projects sponsored by the Kinsale Chamber of Tourism and the Sneem Development Association. Kinsale Chamber of Tourism put 19 persons to work on a project which was instrumental in the town's success in the 1986 Tidy Towns competition. The Sneem Development Co-Op also attribute their success in the 1987 Tidy Towns Competition to the social employment scheme. Their scheme was approved for 16 workers and the work involved the care of the village greens, church and sports grounds and landscaping and tree planting around the town.
Wexford County Council also availed of SES to develop the Irish Heritage Park in Ferrycarrig, County Wexford. The council employed 20 workers to carry out landscaping and construction work. The park portrays life and events in Ireland through the ages.
Since the opening of the park in June, 1987, over 40,000 people have visited the park. Bord Fáilte have contributed £80,000 towards the reception-visitor centre at the park and hope in the long term to locate a tourist office there permanently.
The achievement of social equity and the protection of the disadvantaged are cornerstones of the Programme for National Recovery. The mobilisation of local community groups to take responsibility at local level for employment and training projects is part and parcel of the great, unified effort called for in the NESC report and the programme.
The voluntary sector has effectively used community-based employment schemes to assist in providing a wide range of back-up services to disadvantaged groups at local level. This has proved very useful at a time when the limited resources of more formalised social services are stretched so thinly.
The Cuan Mhuire Rehabilitation Centre in Limerick, for instance, has sponsored an SES project employing 20 people to perform the daily tasks which contribute to the running of a large residential facility for the rehabilitation of people suffering from alcohol related problems. Efforts are made to find employment for those currently undergoing rehabilitation treatment at the centre.
In Dublin, an SES project is carrying out amenity improvements in Coolock to the gardens and grounds of a residential property used as homes for the handicapped. Ten participants are renovating these houses. The social employment scheme is also making an immense contribution in a wide range of heritage projects. These include renovation work for the National Museum in Daingean. The SES has been used to get skilled craftsmen to undertake restoration work there. In Kilbeggan, another project has helped to realise the full community/amenity potential of Locke's Distillery. The distillery building has been repaired, partly reconstructed and modified and is now an industrial and archaeological museum. Craft shops set up with SES assistance have provided an opportunity for local craftsmen skilled in glass cutting, pottery, embroidery, etching, weaving, and ceramic arts to use facilities at cheap rents. The project employs 14 participants.
I have only cited a few examples but they show how employment schemes are a means of contributing both to better employment prospects and to the welfare of the community.
The gravity of the unemployment situation is heightened by the realisation that the achievement of the ambitious targets in the Programme for National Recovery will not be sufficient to absorb the great majority of those who would like to have a conventional job. In order to ensure the economic and social health of our society in the years to come we need not just the highest possible rate of job creating growth but also the development of new forms of employment and a strengthening of the social fabric by providing as many citizens as possible with an active role in society both as a means of income and self-identity.
It is the duty of Government to see that burdens and gains are equitably shared with particular reference to those at the end of the jobs queue and in greatest need. Special measures are obviously necessary to provide for the needs of the unemployed and those whose jobs are most at risk.
Developing preventive strategies will require nothing less than a recognition that all the instruments and resources of the State should contribute to ensuring that vulnerable groups are not excluded from economic and social opportunities. The significance of the Programme for National Recovery is that it recognises the links between economic performance, job creation, social equity and cohesion. Just as important, the programme is built on the co-operation between employers, Government and trade unions without which social solidarity cannot be achieved.
