Mary Flaherty
Ceist:1 Miss Flaherty asked the Taoiseach whether he intends to take any initiatives to implement the recently published proposals of the Confederation of Irish Industry to tackle the jobs crisis.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Job Creation.
Jim Higgins
Ceist:2 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the terms of reference of the special employment task force to be established under the Central Review Committee; when the task force will first meet; and whether their reports will be published.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
They are not related.
It is the Taoiseach's prerogative; Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The Task Force on Employment have been given terms of reference to explore possibilities for job creation and to identify any factors in the economy which inhibit employment. The task force first met on 17 June and have also met on 24 June and 1 and 8 July.
The task force will report to the Central Revenue Committee of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. They made their first report on the supply of products and components to multinationals on 24 June. Publication of the reports of the task force is a matter for the Central Review Committee.
The recently published proposals of the Confederation of Irish Industry on recommended actions to increase employment are under consideration by the task force.
In view of the latest unemployment figures, would the Taoiseach agree that there is a jobs crisis?
I do not think the semantics matter very much, but rather the reality of the level of unemployment and the decisive action which the Government are taking to deal with it.
Other than forming committees and groups to examine what action the Government might take, would the Taoiseach indicate the action the Government have taken during the past three months, and the action they will take during the month of July, to tackle the growing jobs crisis given that there are now 263,000 people unemployed between the live register and those who were arbitrarily taken off it last year and who now come under the headings of tax credits and benefits? Would the Taoiseach indicate whether the Government, as a temporary measure, would be willing to take on board immediately a particular recommendation of the Confederation of Irish Industry that they should exempt from PRSI any new employees taken between July and December of this year in order to provide an incentive to employers to create additional jobs and delimit the expense for employers creating such jobs?
The Deputy is injecting new matter into this question.
It arises specifically from Question No. 1.
I have dealt with this subject, as you are aware, a Cheann Comhairle, at great length during recent days. With regard to the matter mentioned by the Deputy, I would like to point out that, of course, it would have a major cost element from the point of view of the Exchequer and the budget. However, it will be examined, as I said, in the first instance by the task force to see what results we might expect and then, of course, it will have to be considered because of its budgetary implications. I would remind the Deputy that proposals of that kind have been tried before. We have had a number of similar initiatives in relation to employers taking extra employees off the live register. We will have to bear our experience of those schemes in mind.
Would the Taoiseach tell the House——
Deputy Higgins whose Question No. 2 refers is offering. I call Deputy Higgins.
Would the Taoiseach tell the House——
Order, I called Deputy Higgins who indicated to me by hand that he wished to address the House.
Would the Taoiseach accept that calling into action another task force at this stage, who have met four times during a short period, amounts to an admission that Government policy on jobs has failed utterly, that the Programme for National Recovery failed, that the five month old Programme for Economic and Social Progress is doomed and that the Industrial Development Authority policy on job creation is failing in that they are attracting torso industries, whose head and feet are located elsewhere, and they can leave at short notice? Would he also accept that we are being fed on a diet of clichés about going for growth and that the safety valve of emigration is camouflaging our economic ineptitude in creating jobs?
Deputies are tending to debate this question which is not in order.
It is not a question but rather an irresponsible statement. The Programme for National Recovery was a success recognised domestically and internationally. Under that programme we created 70,000 extra jobs in the nonagricultural sector. The present situation in regard to the unemployment figures is quite clearly, and this is provable, a result of population movements, migration and emigration, and not because of any decline in employment. In fact, the present position is, as I have pointed out time and again in this House, that the increase in the number of unemployed is primarily due to the cessation of emigration. Both programmes contain a number of measures to increase employment. It is quite irresponsible to suggest that the Government are wasting their time in setting up a high powered, expert, skilled and experienced task force to help and advise them in this regard.
It is too late.
Would the Taoiseach confirm that one of the objectives of Government policy between 1987 and 1990 was to encourage emigration? Would the Taoiseach agree that the large numbers who emigrated during those years camouflaged the Government's failure to create the net number of jobs needed for our young people coming onto the jobs market? Would the Taoiseach indicate whether the Government have abdicated——
These are speeches.
——their responsibility in the area of employment policy to this task force and if the Government intend to take any initiatives, of any nature, on their own deliberations?
It is totally absurd to suggest that the Government encourage emigration. All this Government's policies and programmes are directed towards providing viable employment at home in order to end emigration. As a matter of fact, whether the Deputy likes it or not, emigration has ended and the Government have policies which I have explained in detail in the House from time to time.
The jobless figures have shot through the roof.
The Deputy's criticisms are irresponsible and destructive. I would like him, for a change, to put forward some constructive proposals.
We did some weeks ago and the Taoiseach ignored them.
Deputy Rabbitte, Deputy Garland and Deputy O'Sullivan are offering. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
The Taoiseach has indicated that the decline in the employment situation is due to returning emigrants——
I said there was no decline in the employment situation.
——the deterioration in the number on the live register is due to returning emigrants. Is the Taoiseach saying that our economic planning is conditional on emigration continuing at a level of between 30,000 and 40,000 per annum and that, in the absence of an opportunity to dump our surplus people on other economies, we can look forward to a drastic unemployment situation? In respect of the——
Let us have brevity, please. I am bringing these questions to finality.
It is a good question.
In respect of the task force, would the Taoiseach indicate some of the impediments in the way of job creation given that he said it is the purpose of the task force to eliminate——
The Deputy has made his point, and made it definitely.
I would have thought that this is more of the theory that if only we can get the climate right the jobs will come.
These are speeches.
Surely we have got the climate as right as possible over the last three or four years, but no jobs have been created.
Please, Deputy Rabbitte; I must again dissuade Members from the notion that they may debate this matter now. They may not.
Deputies are using Question Time to try to spread doom and gloom and create a completely negative atmosphere about the economy. The Irish economy is in very good shape and is quite capable when international circumstances improve of providing an increasing number of jobs. That is our target. The whole purpose of the two programmes is to create the sort of economy that can grow and develop and provide jobs. It happens that in this year, because of a downturn in the international economy, we are undergoing adverse circumstances. I would point out that the adverse circumstances we are encountering are being experienced all over Europe and other countries to a far greater extent than here. I cannot see why Deputy Rabbitte, among others, should criticise the positive initiative we are taking in setting up a task force of experienced industrialists and commercial people to look at the position and see why we have not succeeded in transferring economic growth into employment. That is a legitimate economic question. We have been getting average growth of 4.5 per cent and we want to know why we have not succeeded as yet in turning that growth into more employment than we have been generating. The task force can help us to examine that.
I accept that, but it is an inadequate response.
I know from my own anecdotal experience that such things as planning and local objections hold up projects and developments from time to time. I want to look into those and other factors to see why indigenous industry in particular is not providing the jobs we want.
Perhaps the special task force will come up with a very simple answer. The Taoiseach must know that the days of the 40 or 39-hour week are over. I hope the task force will recommend at least looking into the possibility of a 32-hour week. That would explain why we have had economic growth and job losses at the same time.
I am intrigued to find an environmental Deputy advocating growth or development but if he is asking me how I can promote it surely he must be interested in achieving it.
Not so.
We had relatively low employment when we had a 50-hour week. It may be part of the answer but it is not the full answer.
Deputy Garland is trying to get at the political roots of the problem.
Will the Taoiseach agree that unemployment and employment are central Cabinet responsibilities and that the setting up by the Government of a task force to advise them on how to do things which they should have done during four years in office is an admission of failure? What level will unemployment have to reach before the Taoiseach will regard his policies as having failed?
Deputy Bruton has been for some time doing his best to talk down the Irish economy, to be negative and destructive about it. Instead of offering some encouragement to the Government on the steps we are taking, he concentrates day after day on this negative, destructive approach. It may be good politics but it is not in the best interests of the people.
Fine Gael are the only party to have tabled policies on unemployment in this House. My concern is to remove the Taoiseach, not to talk down this country. That is my job since he is not doing his job.
In view of the fact that it has been Government policy since 1987 to place the onus of job creation on the private sector and that they have not responded, has the Taoiseach any intention of State intervention in job creation? I am at a loss to understand the attitude of the Fine Gael Party, bearing in mind that between 1987 and 1989 by virtue of the Tallaght strategy they were instrumental in job losses. They contributed in no small way to job losses.
The Deputy's party voted for the programme that is contributing to the current problem.
Were it not for Fine Gael the Government would not have been able to pursue the policy which led to massive job losses.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy has nothing to offer.
The Labour Party showed themselves to be afraid of responsibility in Government and in Opposition.