Dick Spring
Ceist:1 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on Wednesday, 5 June 1991.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Discussions with Social Partners.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the action he proposes to take, within the framework of the Central Review Committee of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, to assure the social partners in general and the trade unions in particular that the aspects of the programme relating to employment creation will be vigorously pursued, especially in the light of recent statements by senior trade union personnel; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has satisfied himself with the progress achieved to date in establishing area-based companies to combat unemployment; the reasons for the delay in finalising the arrangements including the composition of the boards of directors and staffing resources; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Dick Spring
Ceist:4 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if comments made by senior trade union personnel to the effect that the Government are sleep-walking where the issue of unemployment is concerned have been brought to his attention; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach is he will outline the matters discussed at his meeting with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 5 June 1991; if, arising from the meeting, any new measures are planned to deal with the unemployment crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Alan Shatter
Ceist:6 Mr. Shatter asked the Taoiseach the matters which were discussed by him in the various meetings that took place with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Alan Shatter
Ceist:7 Mr. Shatter asked the Taoiseach the initiatives which the Government propose taking to tackle the growing numbers unemployed following his meetings with the ICTU, FUE and IFA last week.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he now proposes to establish an employment committee of the Oireachtas following his recent meeting with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Austin Deasy
Ceist:9 Mr. Deasy asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the general thrust of the talks he had with the farming organisations recently; and if he intends to raise their concerns at the forthcoming EC Heads of States meeting.
John Bruton
Ceist:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the number of extra jobs the Government expect will be created through the recently announced (a) special employment task force (b) marketing initiative (c) review of industrial policy and (d) the action to be taken through State-sponsored bodies.
Alan Shatter
Ceist:12 Mr. Shatter asked the Taoiseach the number of persons unemployed in Dublin as at 31 May 1990 and 1991; and the initiatives, if any, the Government intend taking to reduce the level of unemployment in Dublin.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 12 together.
But not No. 11.
If that is the Deputy's desire.
It is a separate question.
On 5 June, accompanied by the Ministers for Finance, Industry and Commerce, Labour and Tourism, Transport and Communications, I met representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to discuss economic and social developments in the context of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. On 6 June, the Minister for Agriculture and Food and myself met the presidents and representatives of the IFA, ICMSA, ICOS and Macra na Feirme in the context of the programme to discuss developments affecting the farm industry. On the same date, accompanied by the Ministers for Finance, Industry and Commerce and Labour, I met representatives of the CII, FIE and the CIF to discuss economic and social developments in the context of the programme. Copies of the joint statements which issued after these meetings have been placed in the Oireachtas Library.
The meeting with the ICTU reviewed the progress made generally in implementing commitments under the programme and discussed the employment and unemployment situation. I announced a series of measures which would help in that regard including: (a) a new Community Employment Development Programme in the 12 pilot areas under the Area-Based Response to Unemployment; (b) an increased intake of 2,500 into social employment schemes this year; (c) an increase by 1,000 a year in the number of apprenticeships; (d) the establishment of crèche facilities for working parents and the necessary training of staff in the 12 pilot areas under the Area-Based Response to Unemployment with a view to the initiation of a national system; (e) a new marketing initiative in tourism; (f) a review of industrial policy; (g) new International Financial Services Centre projects and services; and (h) the exploration by commercial State-sponsored bodies of the potential for new jobs.
The ICTU and the Government reiterated their commitment to the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and their determination to ensure that it was not undermined in any way. It was agreed that a special Task Force on Employment of senior executives from the public and private sectors be established under the Central Review Committee to monitor the job situation under the programme and to explore all possibilities for new job creation. I propose to meet the chairmen and chief executives of commercial State bodies very shortly.
At the meeting with the farming bodies the position arising from the recent EC price decision was reviewed and the potential threat from the forthcoming CAP reform proposals discussed. It was agreed that proposals put forward by the farming bodies to alleviate the position in relation to farm incomes would be discussed further by them with the Minister for Agriculture and Food. It was also agreed that when the CAP reform proposals are received from the European Commission they would be discussed between the Minister and the farming bodies and that a further meeting under the programme would take place with the Minister and myself to discuss the appropriate response to the Commission's reform proposals. I avail, of course, of every opportunity of emphasising to my colleagues in the European Council the vital and unique importance of the farm industry to our economy.
At the meeting with the employer organisations the position in relation to employment and unemployment was reviewed. They stressed that in their view there were now positive indications of recovery in the economy and in employment.
The Task Force on Employment, which will be chaired by the secretary of the Department of the Taoiseach, will comprise the secretaries of the Departments of Finance, Labour and Industry and Commerce, the chief executives of Aer Rianta, the ESB, Telecom Éireann, IDA and CTT, senior business executives from the CII, FIE, CIF and ICOS and representatives of the ICTU. The first meeting of the task force will take place on Monday next, 17 June.
In relation to the Area-Based Response to Unemployment, six local companies — Coolock-Darndale, southwest Wexford, west Waterford, southwest Kerry, Cork north city and Finglas — have been established on an interim basis pending finalisation of the necessary statutory procedures and meetings of these companies have taken place. A seventh company, Dundalk, has met informally and its first formal meeting is scheduled for 19 June. In Ballymun and Dublin inner city some nominations are awaited and meetings will be fixed when these are received. In the remaining areas — Tallaght, Limerick city and north Mayo — consultations are still on-going with the local communities. Staff appointments, which will be funded by the Central Review Committee, are a matter for the local companies. To assist the local companies, the Central Review Committee co-ordinating team arranged for the placing of advertisements for managers in each of the selected areas. The local companies will make their selections from the applications received.
The number of persons unemployed in Dublin as at 31 May 1990, was 70,307 and as at 31 May 1991 was 78,694. The Area-Based Response Programme includes five of the long term unemployment black-spot areas in Dublin.
It is not possible at this stage to estimate the number of extra jobs that will be created from the various initiatives. The Government particularly welcome the fall of 4,500 in the May live register figures which confirms the downward trend already evident in April when, but for the temporary addition to the live registrar because of the ESB strike and the Waterford Crystal short-time working, the live register would have declined also by 4,500.
All of the social partners have reaffirmed their full commitment to the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which ensures the maintenance of a low-inflation competitive economy as the basis for an increase in economic growth and employment as the international trading climate continues to improve.
May I ask the Taoiseach, having regard to the discussions he has outlined in some detail and bearing in mind the crisis in unemployment on the one hand and the fact that the Government's budgetary figures are now seriously adrift, if he proposes in response to these new factors to introduce a supplementary budget this year?
No, I do not accept the statement by the Deputy that the budget figures are adrift, and there are no plans at this stage for anything of the nature suggested by the Deputy.
In view of the paucity of the measures described by the Taoiseach, and which, by his own admission and that of many other people, will not produce any significant increase in jobs, does the Taoiseach not concede that the Government projections in relation to the budget of January this year do not relate to what the figures and likely to be and that some change in Government finances is now necessary if employment is to be created?
First of all, I do not accept the Deputy's statement in regard to paucity of measures. The measures we have outlined are comprehensive and are so regarded by the social partners. With the measures already in place they will make an impact on the employment and unemployment situation. The Deputy will recall that the IDA target for this year is 20,000 jobs, and quite recently the IDA have confirmed that they are still optimistic about achieving that target. With the comprehensive approach of the Government every possible effort will be made to tackle unemployment by the provision of jobs, primarily in the private sector. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress, by its operations, will result in the recruitment of a considerable number of personnel to the public sector, though the Deputy knows full well that it is not our philosophy to create jobs in the public sector for the sake of creating jobs. I accept that it does seem that the unemployment figures this year will be higher than those on which the unemployment payments were based at budget time, but it is much too early yet to say whether that will cause an overrun on the budget because there are may other factors to be taken into account in the total budgetary arithmetic.
Precisely what additional jobs will be undertaken by the task force?
I am glad to deal with that question. My main objective for the task force will be to concentrate on the elimination of impediments to job creation, new projects and developments generally. I am sure the Deputy will have heard me say on a number of occasions recently that inherent in our system are a number of inbuilt impediments to development and job creating projects. Those impediments go right across the board. One I have mentioned is that Government Departments, in pursuance of their own particular briefs, are sometimes not conscious of the need to facilitate development where possible. In many other areas there are specific inhibitions to development, impediments that either delay or totally obstruct development projects. I want the team, which will be a very expert team with a comprehensive range of knowledge and experience, to consider that particular aspect in depth.
I hope that the Department of Finance agree with that.
Could the Taoiseach explain the way in which the measures he has announced amount to anything more than scratching the surface? How do a hoped-for 2,500 part-time jobs under the social employment scheme, 1,000 apprenticeships, or an untried development and community development project, constitute any solution to the dimensions of the unemployment crisis? At what point will the Government cease to consider the level of unemployment as a problem and consider it to be a crisis for which real measures will have to be taken?
Deputy Rabbitte, I am asking for brevity. There are a number of questions from other Deputies——
The Government are taking real measures —"positive steps", to use the Deputy's phrase. There is the programme itself, which has a battery of policies directed to unemployment and the creation of employment. I remind the Deputy that under the previous programme, the Programme for National Recovery— about which he was not very enthusiastic at the time — the Government did create 70,000 extra new jobs.
Rubbish.
There were 70,000 new jobs created in the private sector.
Those are false claims.
Please allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.
With the favourable conditions, there is no reason that we should not do the same again.
It does not add up.
Primarily, the duty of the Government——
Unemployment was lower then than it is now.
Question Time has been quite orderly until now.
You are trying to silence your backbenchers.
I ask Deputy Jim Mitchell to desist from making further interruptions.
The primary task of the Government in a free enterprise economy is to create the conditions. I believe the Government have done that; in fact, the trade unions agree that the Government have created the proper economic environment — low inflation rates, comparatively low interest rates and a favourable balance of payments — under which the private sector can perform and produce jobs. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, particularly because of the recession in the UK and the United States and the uncertainty created by the Gulf War in the earlier part of this year, the private sector has not yet this year produced the volume of jobs that we would wish. However, in conversations with me, they indicated they are confident there will be an upturn in job creation, which is already evident from their order books and other indicators.
May I ask a further question, a Cheann Comhairle?
It will have to be a very brief question, Deputy Rabbitte.
Would the Taoiseach agree that more task forces and more reviews of industrial performance are the last things we need? I pursued the publication of the second triennial report of industrial performance for one year; it was finally published a year too late. No effective action has been taken on it. We have a plethora of detailed analyses of industrial performance, virtually all of which concluded by giving the same range of options: we are not getting value for money in terms of industrial policy, we need to develop an indigenous sector; that is where the Government should act, rather than wait for yet another review.
The Government are not waiting for another review. These measures announced are for now, they are to be implemented immediately. I do not completely disagree with the Deputy about the value of reviews of one kind or another, but they do have their function, particularly when they are good, analytical reviews. The Deputy referred to indigenous industry. The examination that the Minister for Industry and Commerce now proposes to carry out will be directed specifically at indigenous industry, it will not be another Telesis. It will examine indigenous industry to see why that is not developing, growing and providing the jobs we need.
A Cheann Comhairle——
Can I ask a question——
I call Deputy Shatter. I intend no discourtesy to the Leader of the main Opposition party, Deputy John Bruton, but as the Chair said earlier, I feel he considers he has an obligation to call Deputies in the order in which their questions appear on the Order Paper. If Deputy Shatter gives way to his leader, I should be happy to call Deputy Bruton.
I should not like to press that on the Deputy.
Unemployment stood at 215,000 in May 1990 but now stands at 260,000 if one takes into account those on pre-retirement schemes and credits, would the Taoiseach not agree that that is a disastrous performance and that there is a very real jobs crisis? Would he not also agree that a recycling of the contents in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress in the announcement he made after meeting the ICTU last week, does not address the problem and that major new initiatives are required to tackle what is a growing crisis that will otherwise inevitably result in an unemployment level of 300,000?
No, I do not agree. It is easy to make such sweeping type of generalisation criticisms, but the Government have to deal with reality. The matter has been discussed in detail in constructive dialogue with the social partners, particularly with congress, who are just as concerned about unemployment as Deputy Shatter is or as the Government are.
They are much more concerned than the Government.
The Government have discussed the problem with employers and with farmers. That is the way to conduct business. The position has to be analysed in a co-operative way with the social partners and between us we decide what can be done to alleviate the problem. That is what has been done and what the Government are doing. I do not like to speculate on such matters, but I am prepared to say that the Deputy's estimate of 300,000 unemployed by the end of the year is widely off the mark.
Will the Taoiseach stand by that?
I believe that in the months immediately ahead we will see a downward trend.
Having met the ICTU, is the Taoiseach not aware that they still express serious concern about the unemployment crisis? Does he know that he has been likened by a number of congress members to Rip van Winkle, sleep-walking through an unemployment crisis that he does not recognise? The most recent statistics available from the Confederation of Irish Industry show that job advertisements in the national newspapers were down by 26 per cent in May 1991 compared with 1990, which indicated that we are into a growing recession and into a growing jobs crisis and that things are getting worse, not better. Would the Taoiseach accept that that is the case?
I cannot accept that is the case. I do not accept that because I have just had in-depth discussions with the employers and their message was the opposite, that all indicators available to them indicate that since May, things are improving.
Deputies
Rubbish.
That is what they are telling me.
Order. I want to call Deputy Deasy next.
I will give way to Deputy Bruton, but I will come in after him.
In view of the fact that a quarter of a million people are registered unemployed and 136,000 have left Ireland, unable to find jobs here, since Deputy Haughey became Taoiseach, does the Taoiseach still adhere to his amazing statement yesterday that he does not accept there is a crisis in jobs?
I do not regard it as a crisis. A crisis would indicate that our economy was collapsing. In fact, our economy is growing. It is one of the faster growing economies in the industrialised world. We are concerned with the specific problem of the creation of jobs and the Government are responding positively and constructively to that problem. I would remind Deputy Bruton of something he said about this matter in this House on 30 April 1985.
I want to hear what you said.
Deputy Bruton said in 1985 that if people in Cork wanted more jobs, the place to find them was not in Leinster House, Merrion Street, or Kildare Street and that he would repeat as many times as necessary that the problem would not be solved by the IDA, the Government or by fatuous motions in the House.
Whose fatuous motion was it?
(Interruptions.)
Could I ask the Taoiseach——
Now we know what the task force have been doing. That was very good research, Taoiseach. That is job creation for you.
(Interruptions.)
Will Deputies allow Deputy Bruton to intervene.
Would the Taoiseach agree that many members of the public are beginning to liken his refusal to recognise that we have a jobs crisis to the equally out of touch statement he made in 1989 when he said in the middle of the election campaign that he had only discovered there was a health crisis? Would he not agree that in this and in many other respects he is out of touch with reality? Would the Taoiseach further tell me if, as he now accepts, the average figure of 228,000 unemployed in the budgetary assumptions is to be exceeded, what is the Government's current budgetary assumption for the average level of unemployment for the year? Furthermore, in regard to a statement about the removal of impediments to employment, would the Taoiseach not agree that each of the last four budgets introduced by his Government have actually increased the impediments to employment through deepening the poverty trap faced by many families with children where the breadwinner either wishes to go to work or to increase his take-home pay?
The questioning is overlong and tending to debate.
The questions are very precise. I hope I will get equally precise answers.
It is not possible at this stage to say what will be the final average figures for unemployment for the year. Indications are that there may be an over-run. It will be the Government's job to ensure that such overrun is compensated for.
Out of the proceedings of Irish Life.
Deputy Bruton has misquoted me, of course, on the question of the health services but I am not misquoting the Deputy when he said on 30 April 1985——
You cannot quote at Question Time.
(Interruptions.)
Are you going to remind him that he cannot quote, a Cheann Comhairle?
Deputy Bruton said: "The recession, the vary rapid growth in the labour force"——
(Interruptions.)
——"and the fact that there are far more people seeking jobs for the first time than there are retiring ... but unfortunately there is nothing we can do about it." I want to know if that is still Deputy Bruton's philosophy and, if so, why is he going through the hypocritical procedure of asking me those questions?
I wish to intervene in relation to a matter raised by Deputy Barry. The Chair has no control over the Taoiseach's replies or Minister's replies, but it has been traditional in this House, as Deputy Barry would know, that the Chair has control over Deputies' supplementaries.
So, we can be censored but they cannot.
A Deputy
That is outrageous.
(Interruptions.)
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Fine Gael Party have tabled eight specific proposals in this House as to what can be done to remove impediments to employment? If the Taoiseach is interested in quotations, would he care to place on the public record the text of his famous television broadcast of 1979, where he recognised the existence of a financial crisis which he then proceeded to ignore for two years as Taoiseach, thereby laying the foundation of all the employment, social and financial problems this country has had since that date? Would he agree that that failure of will on his part represented the worst example of political weakness shown by any political leader in this country since the war?
(Interruptions.)
The Government recognise that the circumstances of the early part of this year have contributed to rising unemployment. I have analysed the extent of the present problem and how it came about. The Government have responded to that situation in a positive and constructive way and have discussed it in detail with those concerned. We have brought forward a number of additional measures to deal with the situation, measures which will have an effect on the unemployment problem in the months ahead.
I am calling Deputy Deasy whose Question No. 9 refers, for a final brief relevant question and I am then proceeding with other questions.
I have not had an opportunity to ask supplementaries although I had a question on the Order Paper.
I have indicated your question, Deputy.
I question the Chair's statement that Ministers and the Taoiseach can give quotations but that ordinary Members cannot. That is outrageous.
Deputy Deasy, I have quoted what has been the standing practice in this House.
I never heard of it before.
That has been the practice adopted by me and all my predecessors in this Chair. If the Deputy wants to change Standing Orders of this House he should do so, but my function is to administer them as they are.
On a point of order——
It is blatant favouritism.
Order. I will not entertain a point of order when the Chair is on his feet dealing with disorder.
(Interruptions.)
This has been the traditional practice.
I have not the vanity to produce a book of my speeches anyway, which one Member of the House did.
(Interruptions.)
The second part of Question No. 9 asked the Taoiseach if he will raise the problem confronting Irish farmers at the forthcoming meeting of heads of State of the EC.
It is not possible at this stage to say what will be the precise agenda of that Council meeting, but I can assure the Deputy that I do not neglect any opportunity to direct the attention of my colleagues on the European Council to the paramount importance of agriculture to the Irish economy——
When did the Taoiseach realise that?
——and the need for measures to help the development of that industry and to protect its interests.
Will the Taoiseach make sure that that item is included on the agenda for that meeting? Will he give the Heads of State due notice that if the reform of the CAP is as devastating as it seems at present, he will seek a derogation for Irish farmers from those measures?
It is much too early to make any statements of that kind. In our discussions with the farmers we concentrated on the forthcoming reform proposals for the CAP and we worked out our strategy, namely, that as soon as we get these proposals they will be discussed in the first instance by the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the farmers and then we will have a comprehensive discussion under the programme between myself, the Minister and the farmers to see what our appropriate response to those proposals will be. The Deputy can be assured that all of us — the Government and the farmers — are just as alert to the situation as he is. We are just as anxious to protect Irish farmers and Irish agriculture in regard to these proposals and we will do that.
The Taoiseach has not shown it.
In regard to these proposals——
The Deputies will resume their seats.
What about the agenda?
As the Deputy knows from his experience, it is the Presidency who decides the agenda.
I would ask the Taoiseach to ensure it is on the agenda.
Question No. 11 in the name of Deputy Jim Mitchell has been postponed and I am now calling Ceist a 13.
On a point of order——
I will allow Deputy Shatter to make a point of order.
As you correctly said, a Cheann Comhairle, I had three questions down. I should like to raise a brief supplementary question in relation to No. 12.
I allowed you quite some latitude, that is not a point of order.
I have a right to ask a supplementary question. It is unreasonable not to allow me to do so.
Deputy Shatter will now resume his seat.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Shatter, I ask you for the second time to resume your seat. If Deputy Shatter or his colleagues wish to debate unemployment there are procedures for that purpose in this House.
I do not want to——
Deputy Shatter may put down a motion, raise it on the Adjournment or in some other way but he may not debate it now.
I want to raise an issue of great importance.
For the last time, Deputy Shatter, resume your seat.
This is most unreasonable.