Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 May 1992

Vol. 419 No. 7

Estimates, 1992. - Vote 33: Labour (Revised Estimate).

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £157,474,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1992, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Labour, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain grants and grants-in-aid.

The central purposes of my Department are threefold: to promote better employment standards while protecting the basic rights of workers; to promote efficiency and fairness in the labour market and to help eliminate disadvantage; and to promote good industrial relations and to ensure that the skills our economy needs are available, thereby facilitating job creation and job maintenance.

To achieve these goals my Department have adopted the approach of separating the responsibilities for policy development from the responsibilities for their execution. In recent years my Department have set up three separate agencies — FÁS, the Health and Safety Authority and the Labour Relations Commission. FÁS take responsibility for day-to-day management of all manpower programmes. The Health and Safety Authority take responsibility for administration of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989 and for the implementation of its underlying principles. The primary role in developing industrial relations policy, administering the law and overseeing the collective bargaining structures in this country rests with my Department. In 1990, the most fundamental review of trade dispute law since 1906 came to fruition with the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act. Responsibility for day-to-day promotion of good industrial relations lies with the new Labour Relations Commission.

The Department's responsibility in promoting better employment standards while protecting the basic rights of workers is enhanced by the charter of fundamental social rights of workers which was adopted by Ireland and ten other member states of the European Community in 1989. The EC Commission action programme to implement the charter includes some twenty legally binding instruments as well as a range of other measures. In the last year, the Social Affairs Council have been giving consideration to the Commission's proposals relating to non-typical workers — such as part-time, temporary and agency workers — the organisation of working time, the protection of pregnant women at work and women who have recently given birth, and the provision of information to employees about their conditions of employment.

The Government fully recognise the need to develop the social dimension of Community policies. It is a vital complement to the emphasis on the economic dimension. We see social cohesion as an essential basis for the creation of the Single Market and for sustainable economic integration generally.

As always, an important aim is to ensure that specific community actions in this broad area are satisfactorily adjusted to Ireland's distinctive circumstances and needs, particularly our need to maintain and increase the numbers in viable employment.

At the most recent meeting of the Council for Social Affairs Ministers, which was held in Luxembourg on 30 April last, there was a lengthy discussion on the consideration of the proposed Directive on the Organisation of Working Time. Our approach to the working time directive is that it should be sufficiently flexible to take account of the many and varied patterns of work in modern industry and that it should avoid any adverse affects on employment and jobs.

In pursuit of this more flexible outcome, I argued for a longer reference period over which the 48-hour working week would be averaged. I am glad to say that I got an encouraging degree of support on this. When the Social Affairs Ministers meet again in June, I am optimistic that we can find a compromise which will suit all 12 member states.

At that Council we also considered two other Commission proposals for directives. The Council adopted a common position on a proposal for a directive concerning the health and safety of workers in extractive industries. This will now proceed to the European Parliament. The proposal for a new directive on collective redundancies was adopted by the Council on the basis of unanimity. I welcome the progress made in both of these instruments.

The Health and Safety Authority which was established under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989, is now two years in existence. During 1991 they continued to develop their role as the body charged with overall responsibility for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the new occupational safety and health system. This new system is a radical replacement for its precursor in that, under the 1989 legislation, protection was extended from approximately 20 per cent of the workforce in the "traditional sectors" such as manufacturing, industry, mining and construction, to include all places of work. The Health and Safety Authority are implementing a comprehensive three-year programme of work at present.

Significant progress was made during 1991 on a number of important European Community Occupational Safety and Health Directives. In that year seven further directives were transposed into Irish law.

1992 has been designated by the EC as European Year of Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work. The main objectives of the year are to raise awareness among workers and employers about hazards in the workplace and the appropriate ways of combating them. The Health and Safety Authority are co-ordinating a wide variety of activities and events for the year.

In addition to the toll in human suffering, the annual cost to this country of occupational accidents and diseases, including employers' liability insurance, social insurance and health service costs, is around £300 million. The various indirect costs which also arise including work days lost, lost production, loss of orders and so forth, are difficult to assess and quantify but, all told, these costs are an additional burden on our economy and competitiveness. Any savings which we could generate through reduced levels of accidents and ill-health at work, would be far better deployed towards creating badly needed jobs.

One of the most important issues in terms of economic performance and one over which we ourselves have control is the industrial relations environment. Nothing can be more damaging to investor confidence than the perception of unreliability and uncertainty which is generated by highly publicised incidents of industrial relations unrest. The consensus-based approach of both the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress has facilitated a significant improvement in industrial relations.

There can be little doubt that the pay agreements associated with both programmes have benefited all parties involved. They have provided workers with real increases in take-home pay and at the same time allowed employers to plan ahead with a considerable degree of certainty as to wage costs. With industrial relations and wage cost stability, firms have been able to concentrate on competing in their respective markets and this has contributed greatly to our good performance on the export front.

While our industrial relations climate has been very good in recent years there are signs of increasing levels of industrial unrest in some employments. The recent dispute in the four associated banks is, of course, the most obvious example.

The present postal dispute, could hardly have come at a worse time, a time when we should be preparing for the competitive challenges which are ahead. I regret that the talks with the Labour Relations Commission have not to date succeeded in reaching a settlement. As indicated, the Government are not prepared to subsidise a loss-making company and if An Post are to become profitable, changes must be made. I would therefore ask all the parties to make further efforts to see how this can be best achieved. My information is that progress was made at the talks at the Labour Relations Commission. The commission remain available to the parties.

The most recent dispute statistics available to me present evidence of the increasing level of strike activity. In the first three months of this year 52,000 days were lost due to industrial disputes compared with 10,000 and 25,000 respectivbely in the same reference period in 1991 and 1990. While this is an improvement on most years in the seventies and early eighties I am concerned that this trend should not continue as it would undermine the whole consensus approach adopted since 1987 and would, of course, be totally at odds with the objectives of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and its forerunner, the Programme for National Recovery. We have enjoyed a remarkable record over the past number of years in terms of strike activity and days lost and it would, to say the least, be unfortunate if that achievement were to be lost.

In this context, I am pleased to record that funds have been secured this year to enable the necessary staff to be appointed to the advisory service of the Labour Relations Commission. The commission have recently appointed a director of this service and are in the process of getting the service off the ground. I look forward to the successful operation of the advisory service. I am anxious that it should play a significant role in the industrial relations arena assisting both unions and managements in dealing with what may sometimes seem like intractable difficulties.

In their first year of operation the Labour Relations Commission have been very active and successful in the prevention and resolution of disputes. In 1991 over 1,800 disputes were handled by the conciliation service and a settlement rate of 86 per cent was achieved. This compares with an average settlement rate of about 60 per cent in preceding years. There has been a corresponding drop in the proportion of disputes being referred to the Labour Court for investigation.

While it is likely that claims under the local bargaining clause of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress will inevitably lead to some increase in the workload of the conciliation service, employers and unions should make every effort to reach settlements at local level without resort to third parties. This would be in keeping with the central principle underlying our approach to industrial relations, that of free collective bargaining between the parties whereby they work out their own solutions.

I have every confidence in the expertise and professionalism of the Commission, but there must be a realisation that their involvement cannot bring about magical solutions to industrial difficulties. At the end of the day it must be for the parties themselves to arrive at mutually acceptable solutions to their problems. In addition, too great a reliance on the State machinery will place very severe demands on the capacity of the machinery to respond quickly and could lead to unnecessary delays and frustration.

The code of practice on dispute procedures including procedures in essential services is the first code to be drawn up under the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. It provides a set of procedures which enables the issues involved in a dispute to be processed without the need for recourse to industrial action. The code has the advantage of providing comprehensive and reasonable procedures without being over-prescriptive and can be adapted for use in all employments. Its success ultimately depends on the commitment of unions and employers to making it work. My Department and the Labour Relations Commission have ensured that the code has been widely circulated and will continue to encourage and monitor the implementation of dispute procedures as provided for in the code.

The experience with the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress has demonstrated what can be achieved when all the main social partners come together and are involved in the drawing up of a range of agreed targets and objectives. The success of this approach, based on consensus rather than adversarial attitudes, sets a clear example as to what could be achieved by the adoption of participative arrangements at the level of the industrial enterprise. Indeed, there is evidence of a move away from the traditional adversarial style of industrial relations to a more consensus-based approach. This trend derives from a recognition that it is in everyone's interest that enterprises be developed to achieve their maximum potential.

Last June saw the launch of the FIE-ICTU joint declaration on employee involvement in the private sector, drawn up under the auspices of the Employer-Labour Conference. I welcome the clear commitment by the FIE and the ICTU in the declaration to the concept and practice of employee involvement. I believe that the provisions of the document should form the basis on which employee involvement in enterprises can be encouraged and developed.

Low pay has been highlighted as an issue which needs particular attention. The Government have been seeking to address it in ways which are in keeping with our system of pay determination. For example, the pay agreements associated with the Programme for Economic and Social Progress are weighted in favour of those on low pay, providing for minimum flat increases to be negotiated and agreed. There are other Government supports for those on low pay, including the family income supplement and, of course, the radical overhaul of the taxation system which is being progressively implemented and provides very positive evidence of the Government's intentions in this overall area.

Furthermore, the Joint Labour Committee, established last year for the retail, grocery and allied trades, greatly extends the scope of the system. It brings an additional estimated 25,000 workers under the protection of the system compared with 40,000 prior to its coming into existence. The committee recently submitted proposals to the Labour Court for setting minimum rates of pay and conditions of employment for the workers concerned. Once the court gives effect to these proposals by making an employment regulation order they will become legally binding on all the employers in the retail grocery sector to whom the order relates.

In the period 1989 to 1993 Ireland will have received over £1 billion from the European Social Fund. When matched by Exchequer funds this amounts to an investment of nearly £2 billion in co-financed training and employment programmes. These funds have been applied to the provision of training for a range of economic sectors — industry and services, tourism, training of foresters, farmers and fishermen, rural development and for the upgrading of the skills of the trainers themselves. We can anticipate a significantly increased allocation in the post-1993 period. The European Commission has indicated the possible extension of Structural Funds aid to new areas in the education and health sectors. In the forthcoming negotiations I will seek to ensure an outcome that takes the fullest account of our national priorities.

In the future, the skills differential which exists between Ireland and the most economically advanced member states of the Community will have to be bridged. This requires a fundamental change in the attitude of employers to the importance of training if trading competitiveness is to be achieved and maintained. Certification of standards achieved is an essential part of this process. I am pleased that a realisation of this fact is increasingly a part of our training activity.

The European Commission no longer contributes to spending on the social employment scheme. As a consequence, the Exchequer has this year to fully fund the social employment scheme at a total cost of almost £73 million. This scheme is exclusively aimed at those long term unemployed people over 25 years of age. It allows for part-time employment on improvement schemes which deliver amenity or environmental benefits to local communities throughout the country. Participation in the scheme should assist in the rehabilitation into working life of those who have suffered from long spells of unemployment and improve their chances of getting work. I know that this scheme is generally valued and does confer benefits.

I am anxious to have it reinstated for assistance from Social Fund post-1993. I will be making a very strong case with that objective in mind. It is clear that programmes such as the social employment scheme cannot be assessed exclusively by reference to economic criteria. Accordingly, my concern is to have a clearer view on the economic and social objectives of training and employment programmes to be assisted under the Community Support Framework for Ireland in the years 1994 to 1997.

Demographic considerations continue to render the employment problem more acute here in Ireland than elsewhere. However, the growth in unemployment throughout the world, even in the most industrialised countries, is now a growing cause of concern to all. As the House is aware, the All-Party Committee on Employment have just begun their work under the chairmanship of Deputy Brian Hillery. Their brief is to examine all aspects of the employment problem. It is my hope that the work of that committee will play a crucial role in formulating policies for the future which will allow us to address the problem of unemployment, the most serious problem we face as a nation.

I intend addressing the main policy issues relating to the labour market and manpower policy in a White Paper which will be published later this year — training, apprenticeships, European Social Fund intervention, certification, employment schemes and so on. In particular I intend to see that the recommendations of the Culliton report on the training of the employed are implemented. In particular, this will mean the establishment within FÁS of a separate division with special responsibility for training and employment.

The target of 15,000 persons being recruited from the live register for the employment subsidy scheme recently announced is ambitious. I am still optimistic that with the co-operation of the social partners the target is achievable. Up to last Friday, 8 May 1992, 2,482 jobs had been approved under the scheme.

In view of the current level of registered unemployment I might take this opportunity to strongly urge employers to take advantage of the subsidy of £54 per week for 52 weeks, giving a total of £2,808 under the scheme, and take on additional workers. I recently amended the conditions of the scheme to render it as attractive as possible to employers.

The job training scheme, which is also targeted at persons on the live register, is a scheme providing opportunities on employers premises for work-based training. Such a scheme is a departure from the practice to date of providing training for unemployed people in training centres. The scheme has tremendous potential but the potential can only be realised with the co-operation of employers and trade unions. I appeal again to the social partners to take advantage of the assistance available from the EC towards the training allowance costs of persons taken on under the scheme. I expect that the first recruits will be taken on in the next few weeks.

A well-trained workforce is a key element in the competitiveness of industry and business generally. This year's budget allocation for FÁS is £245.39 million and last year they had a total through-put of trainees amounting to 28,848. That figure does not include all those who were engaged in employment schemes.

In the past our training system has tended to be based on a British model. However, as we have widened our European horizons, other national models have come to our attention, including that of Germany and Switzerland. Whereas in Ireland we have 30 designated trades the German apprenticeship system covers almost 370 different trades. Furthermore, the German system is characterised by employer funding and the chamber of commerce administering the system. In the future I intend to take a closer look at the training systems which operate elsewhere in Europe with a view to considering their best features in an Irish context.

Arrangements for a revised apprenticeship system were agreed in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. Funding arrangements have now been agreed for a 0.25 per cent levy on employers. In particular, we must now widen the number of occupations covered by the apprenticeship system.

It is important for the future that certification of vocational qualifications be such that they will be recognised as representing attained skill levels both at home and abroad. Standard based training certification is an extremely important and urgent matter. I intend to give the matter priority. Our view is that we need a new authoritative independent national certification body. I intend to have consultations with the Minister for Education about this matter in the near future.

The tourism sector continues to offer strong potential for employment creation and income generation. The Government's job creation targets for the tourism industry are likely to be achieved, The industry now accounting for one in every fourteen jobs in Ireland. A recent study of the Irish tourism industry carried out by CERT has highlighted great diversity emerging in the make-up of the non-traditional areas of the hotel and catering industry.

Activity and cultural holidays in particular have shown rapid growth. CERT is actively involved in addressing the training needs of these newer sectors of the Irish tourism industry. In total CERT plan to train almost 9,000 people in 1992, thereby continuing the provision of skilled personnel for the industry as a whole.

Therefore, the picture overall is, one of steady progress in the various areas of my Department's work — in industrial relations, safety, training and employment schemes and labour legislation. As a nation employment creation remains our major challenge. It is my hope that the good relations this Government have maintained over many years with the social partners will continue to flourish and that we will take each other's interests into account in future negotiations on a wide range of matters.

The spirit of consensus which this Government have successfully built up should not be thrown away. Certainly it is my hope that it shall not be.

While the Minister's speech may have been an excellent historical account of the responsibilities and duties of the Department of Labour, I did not detect anything positive in it which would give hope to those people who depend on his Department and the Government to solve the unemployment problem. It is amazing that so little of the Minister's speech was devoted to the major crisis facing us today, that is, unemployment. We are discussing this Estimate today in the knowledge that approximately 281,000 people are unemployed. This is an appalling human tragedy; it is an extraordinary waste of human resources.

In spite of the Minister's best efforts to present a plausible account of the Government's stewardship and to give exaggerated hope with his new initiative, including his statement that the picture looks good, the reality is that one-third of the workforce are unemployed. Almost every family is affected by this nightmare. This is causing well grounded fears that the burden created by the number of people on social welfare will become so great that the few who are employed will be unable to bear the costs.

On budget day the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, said that unemployment was the single greatest problem with which we have to contend and that the Government were keenly aware of the needs posed by the continuing growth in the labour force. Today Minister Cowen stated that unemployment remains our greatest challenge. We are continually given assurances by the Government that they truly care about this problem. Yet nothing is actually being done to create employment or halt the unemployment spiral. The Government need to face up to the brutal fact that unemployment has risen steadily since they took office in 1987. In April 1987, 250,689 people were unemployed. Today, five years later, 30,000 people have been added to that statistic. If we add to this the 11,000 people who have taken early retirement we can see that the real change in the unemployment figure is 41,000 — almost 8,000 people per year have been added to the dole queues. This can only be judged as a dismal failure by the Government. They have failed not only to reverse the trend in unemployment but also to put on the brakes at any time as this great unemployment train has rushed relentlessly past the 280,000 mark. Is it any wonder that many people look back with a touch of nostalgia to the time when former Taoiseach, Mr. Jack Lynch, said that a Taoiseach's place was out of office if unemployment reached more than 100,000?

The saddest and cruelest aspect of today's debate is that we cannot even hope at this stage that things will have improved by the time we discuss the 1993 Estimates. This may be a harsh prediction but over the past few months I have not witnessed any fresh thinking, new approaches or dramatic ideas; all I have seen is a miserable rejection of any good sound job policies put forward by the Opposition. Last week, before the ink was hardly dry on the Fine Gael policy document Towards a Jobs Economy, a Government spokesman dismissed it with the same stubborness and determination with which our call for an all party jobs forum was thrown out. I am convinced that statement was issued by the Government before the document was even read. Unfortunately, this leads me to believe that the Government will not accept any contribution from the Fine Gael Party, whatever its merits. A Government who hastily dismiss out of hands proposals for tackling the unemployment crises as outlined in the Fine Gael policy document cannot be serious about solving the unemployment problem. This behaviour must be stopped immediately and attitudes must change — our people deserve far more.

We are reviewing in this debate a year of further missed opportunities; we are playing safe and judging issues. The only outstanding events which took place in the Department of Labour over the past 12 months were the three new ministerial appointments. However, in spite of this, the old ways have not been changed. There has been no change in policy, direction or attitude and, worst of all, no change in the worsening trend in unemployment.

In reviewing the Estimates for the Department of Labour it is most regrettable to note that there has been a massive 25 per cent reduction in the grant for our teamwork scheme. This very successful and worthy scheme offered valuable experience and training to its participants and provided massive support to inadequately resourced centres catering for the handicapped, disabled and underprivileged. The reduced Estimate will cause immeasurable hardship to the many centres throughout the country which provide care for people who need it. The people in charge and the people who work in the centres, people who take it upon themselves to carry out this valuable work, are dismayed and shocked at the trimming in the Estimate.

It is sinful and shameful that schools and day care centres which cater for the mentally and physically handicapped should be so understaffed, under financed and underresourced. The only assistance they received was through the teamwork scheme. This enabled moneys raised by voluntary associations to be directed to other much needed areas. The trainees on that scheme helped the staff to give these children the individual attention they needed. The real winners in this scheme are not the staff or the trainees; rather they are the children, who have benefited enormously. I have witnessed this in the three schools for the mentally handicapped in Cashel. I ask the Minister to review his decision to cutback on this scheme. A reduction of 25 per cent is not only unfair but is also unwise, mean and immoral. It will also hurt the most defenceless in our society. The Minister needs to give a caring and sympathetic response to these people. On behalf of all those who have benefited from and participated in the scheme I appeal to the Minister to reverse this decision and to allow teamwork to continue to operate at its original level in the knowledge that the money spent will not only be well spent but will be money deservedly spent.

One should always welcome expenditure under the Department of Labour. This is even more important at a time when we have such a high level of unemployment. I am concerned that so little is being delivered in return for the amount of money spent. The role of the Department of Labour in solving the unemployment problem is becoming more and more critical in those times of massive unemployment. However, no impact is being made on the unemployment figures. We cannot continue to accept training and employment schemes, good and all as they are, as a real substitute for work and job creation.

I wish to refer to the cost of unemployment. Almost every year a massive £700 million is spent on social welfare, over £200 million is spent on FÁS schemes and £135 million is spent by the IDA. What return have we seen for this money? All we have seen is more people on the dole queues. Having examined this massive expenditure and assessed the results, I believe we need to reinvestigate and radically rethink how we spend money in the unemployment area. We have to ask questions when money spent does not result in job creation and does not bring more people back to work. This is something that deservedly needs thorough investigation.

Since coming to office the Minister, Deputy Cowen, has launched two new schemes: the employment subsidy scheme and the job training scheme. While I welcome those schemes I have to ask the Minister whether they are merely replacing the old schemes. It is not good enough just to rename schemes and to change a few rules here and there. Since the announcement of these schemes teamwork and the social employment scheme have been cut back. Therefore, all I can assume is that the schemes announced by the Minister are replacing the old schemes. I would warn the Minister that changing names and changing titles will not fool those without a job. Their needs are so great and so urgent that they will not be codded by any trick. Schemes to remove people from the unemployment register must never be considered a replacement for the creation of long term employment. While I accept that these schemes have given those on long term unemployment a chance to return to work, a chance to experience once again what it is like to have a job, they must not be the final answer. They must merely be an interim solution to getting our people who are out of work for a number of years back into the working environment. We should let them see that it pays to take a job, but they must not be considered, as they have been for too long, the long term solution.

Jobs are needed and are being demanded. What has been so often promised has been rarely delivered. The demand is not for interim jobs but for long term jobs and for the preservation of existing jobs. It is regrettable that the Department of Labour have continued to concentrate too much on employment schemes aimed at taking people off the live register. Trying to keep the numbers unemployed at a reasonable level is just not good enough and does not serve the long term purpose. More resources and greater emphasis must be placed not only on job creation but on job preservation.

As I said earlier, we must question whether we are spending money wisely. Are our short term measures too expensive and are we having any impact on the unemployment crisis? We must scrutinise our training programmes. I welcome the Minister's statement today that he is prepared to designate one division of FÁS to training and education. I hope that will have the desired results. However, in doing so we must ask if we are training people for jobs that actually exist. At present training is going on in some areas where there are no vacancies and where there is an over-supply in the market. Yet we continue to spend funds on training in those areas. That is not sound economics.

We must ask also whether we are providing unnecessary, unproductive courses for people who could well afford to pay for them themselves. At a time of enormous unemployment we cannot afford to provide courses for such people but unfortunately, in some of our FÁS training centres there are people who have the finance to provide for their own training. For every such person we are denying another person a place. I hope that when the Minister sets up this division in FÁS he will undertake a thorough and complete examination of how we are training, what we are training for and who we are training. As I have pointed out, enormous amounts of money are being spent but the results are not satisfactory. A radical review of the activities of FÁS is urgently called for to ensure that we get value for the more than £220 million spent.

I would like to refer to discrimination against women in the workplace. As far back as July 1990 the Minister for Labour, Deputy Ahern, said during the Estimates debate that he was committed to the improvement of the status of women in employment. However, no action followed, with the result that two years later women still earn only 68 per cent of that earned by their male counterparts and promotion for women remains a rarity. The entire working environment continues to militate against women, with little or no child care facilities and few options of job sharing, career breaks and flexi-time. As a result, not only do women suffer but the economy suffers because many well abled women are forced from participation in the economy in that they have to choose to meet their domestic and parental responsibilities over pursuing a career.

Today's Estimates are proof of the lip service that continues to be paid towards equality in employment. The main agency charged with responsibility for promoting, monitoring and encouraging equality at work continue to survive on a shoestring. They do not have sufficient finance to employ a research officer. The agency cannot succeed in encouraging or promoting change in attitudes towards equality until the Minister allocates the required finance for them to carry out their work. There is an increase in the Estimates today for the Employment Equality Agency but an increase on what, one must ask. When your budget is totally insufficient, a meagre increase means nothing. You are still prevented from carrying out the work you are charged with undertaking.

I appeal to the Minister, because of the importance of the Employment Equality Agency, the nature of their work and the great task they have to undertake, which is to promote equality and to change attitudes, to provide the necessary resources. At present, I understand, that agency has one typist. How can a change in attitude towards equality be brought about in those circumstances? That confirms the Government's attitude towards the Employment Equality Agency. I am astounded at the amount of work that agency succeed in doing and the number of publications they succeed in producing on their shoestring budget. I can guarantee that those working in that agency are often forced to withhold courses because they do not have the resources to advertise them. It must be most frustrating not to be in a position to carry out the work they want to do.

The disastrous trend in unemployment must be faced. Otherwise, 300,000 people will be unemployed by the end of the year. Closer European economic integration will give unrestricted access to larger markets, a stable currency and financial support. However, we will have to decide whether we use these opportunities to create jobs. For too long Ireland has failed to perform to its potential. It is to our shame that we top the unemployment league in the EC and that we are the country with the poorest record of turning economic growth into jobs. My party believe that we can redress and reverse this dangerous trend. We never submit to the inevitability of unemployment. We are determined to make the creation of jobs our top political priority.

No-one can argue that present policies are failing. The Government have made no progress in tackling the unemployment crisis. They must, in the national interest, give serious consideration to the Fine Gael jobs policy launched last week. Our approach is based on putting initiatives back into people's hands, enabling them to establish clear areas of competitive advantage in the new Europe. We advocate a substantial change in the traditional approach.

I appeal to all Ministers to make the provision of jobs their top priority. They must reassess and re-examine their decision to back down on the jobs forum and to dismiss the Fine Gael jobs policy. If unemployment is a priority for the Government, let them prove it. My party will continue their campaign to find ways and means of turning this jobless economy into a working economy. Our commitment will continue to be to get our people back to work.

Today's debate on the Labour Estimate is the appropriate forum to discuss the crisis that has emerged in industrial relations and unemployment. The Coalition Government have shown themselves to be incapable of tackling the many deep-seated problems affecting our society. We are a society in crisis. Unemployment is spiralling out of control with nearly 300,000 people unemployed. The past year has seen a sinister change in the industrial relations climate. This is something that must be faced. It is a climate which is alien to this country. It may be appropriate in the post-Thatcherite era in England but definitely not in Irish society.

This Estimate debate gives an opportunity to analyse critically the performance of the Minister and of the Government on both these issues. On both counts they have failed dismally. The headline in the Irish Independent on 9 May summed up the crisis on the industrial relations front. It indicated that the number of days lost through disputes soared to more than 52,000 in the first three months of this year. This compares with 10,000 days lost in the same period last year and slightly more than 80,000 in the full year. I do not need a crystal ball to see that records will be broken in this quarter. I take no pleasure in making that prediction. This is not in the best interests of the country. A new get tough macho approach has emerged among employers, with the tacit seal of approval from the Government. It is no coincidence that this new approach has emerged since this Government has taken over. In this period we have seen the bank dispute, the port dispute and the dispute in An Post have had devastating effects on the economy. There is a need to clarify the pattern that is emerging in each of these disputes.

A dispute has closed the deep sea section of Dublin port. It is not in the national interest that this should be closed indefinitely, given that our economy relies on seaports for over 99 per cent in volume terms of overseas trade. Failure to improve facilities and port infrastructure could hinder the further expansion of trade with England, mainland Europe, North America, Japan and Australia. The expansion of Dublin Port, assisted by EC Structural Funds, is vital for our economy and to jobs in Dublin. The prolonged dispute, with up to 220 people redundant, could put at risk a capital investment of £9 million in Structural Funds. I am well aware of difficulties in the port over the years, particularly demarcation disputes. However, I am convinced through discussions with people on strike that there is an awareness on the part of unions and workers that negotiations must be held to resolve the dispute. I understand that a number of companies are seeking to set up there, but companies on their own are not enough. The people who will make them work are workers. I ask the Minister to get the parties together, through the Labour Relations Commission, to resolve this dispute. This dispute also has an effect of the job position in Dublin where unemployment has reached 32 per cent in the inner city. I appeal to the Minister to take action.

The current industrial dispute in An Post is having a devastasting effect on economic life, particularly around Dublin. I take issue with the type of tactics being used by management. At a time when every effort is being made by the two unions involved to bring about a negotiated settlement, 1,300 workers are suspended. Yesterday some 600 further employees were suspended. The first they heard of this was on local radio. In God's name, how can we resolve disputes by this sort of mechanism? It is time for the Minister to knock heads together and to demand that the disputes be resolved.

The resolution of this dispute has not been helped by the decision taken by management not to pay wages to nearly 2,600 employees, many of whom have been carrying out their normal duties. This management decision is scandalous, particularly as the employees in dispute were prepared to make up the salaries. The Government also have a role to play, particularly as a large majority of the staff enjoyed civil servant status prior to the vesting day of An Post. This condition was incorporated in the 1983 Act. The staff see things differently from the Minister. He should contact management to ensure that salaries are paid.

The Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, in her one-sided contribution in the Dáil on this dispute, stated that the dispute was mainly about overtime. The recent proposals for settlement made by the unions have clearly shown that phased reductions on overtime earnings, recommended by the tribunal, will be implemented. There is sufficient scope within the proposals made yesterday for a negotiated resolution of the dispute. I am asking that all suspended members of the two unions be reinstated, that payment of wages outstanding as a result of the dispute be made immediately and that negotiations begin immediately to resolve other areas of dispute. I ask the Minister, not-withstanding the attitude of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, to take a line on this. The dispute cannot be allowed to escalate.

The recent bank dispute saw the use once again of intimidation in industrial relations. We have seen intimidation of IBOA members pursuing a legitimate industrial dispute. This is deplorable and unacceptable, akin to things that happened in the thirties and forties. I thought we had got away from that. After I had made the allegations in the Dáil I received correspondence from the banks denying them, but from my contact with bank staff throughout the length and breadth of the country I know intimidation was rampant during the dispute. I hope we have all learned a lesson about the industrial relations climate in this country.

I will now refer briefly to the unemployment crisis. The appalling human crisis of unemployment will get worse as the year goes on. This will have disastrous consequences for the Estimates we are discussing as well as for the thousands of families affected throughout the length and breadth of the country and the many people who will have to emigrate. It is about time some of our major political parties began to realise that the unemployment crisis cannot be addressed as if it was a matter like a mere football match and was just a matter of scoring points and goals.

For years Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats have consistently argued that if Government created the climate, the jobs would follow. They geared their policies exclusively to those who already have jobs rather than to the whole community. It is only now they are beginning to admit that the policies have been a complete failure. Some of Fine Gael's recent utterances show signs of a death bed conversion to the need for a more interventionist approach and in their recent policy document on the subject they have called for the creation of a national risk capital agency with funding of £500 million. What they seem to have forgotten is that they agreed to such proposals in the past, particularly when they were in Government in 1982, but they then spent several years ensuring they never got off the ground.

A most proud people, and particularly the unemployed, will be impressed by what seems to be Fine Gael's passionate commitment to a jobs forum. However, they must be somewhat less impressed that Fine Gael have turned their backs on the nearest thing we will get to a jobs forum. The Labour Party campaigned for a long time to persuade the Government to intervene in the jobs crisis in a number of ways. We argued that the most important thing Government could do was to intervene and to start building a consensus around the issue so that unemployment became the first priority for the community. Building a consensus has always implied very firmly that the Government should build and expand on the social partnership model already in place so as to enable other forces in the community to contribute to finding solutions. That is why we have in the past called for a radical development and extension of the social partnership model, a detailed analyses of the problem and new approaches to solutions. The Labour Party put a great deal of work and effort into getting an all party committee on unemployment off the ground which is structured in a way that enables us to be inclusive of all the key players and with terms of reference that enable consensus for radical change to be developed.

Most objective commentators who have looked at the structure that has emerged following discussions between the Labour Party and the Government have recognised that the Labour Party have made a major input to the framing of these terms. I am a member of that committee and I intend to give it my best shot to ensure that we come up with new ideas and new levels of involvement. I am also very encouraged by the commitment of our chairman, Deputy Dr. Hillery, and I hope we will make progress.

Of course, the committee is not a perfect model. We have all made compromises to try to secure a basis for discussion that reflects the different objectives of the parties involved. We were aware that participating in this committee entails a degree of risk, particularly for an Opposition party whose instinct and role is to oppose proposals put forward by Government, to criticise instead of to initiate. We were prepared to take that risk. In my view this is the time to get stuck into the problem, put petty criticisms to one side and use all the other mechanisms available to us to influence policy. After all, this is the first time in the history of the State that agreement between the political parties leaves room and scope for the unemployed — this is very important — the voluntary agencies, the trade unions, the farmers, the social partners and the youth of this country. We will all have the opportunity to sit down together and make an input to Government policy. Let there be no mistake, if we in the committee and in the working sub-committees can develop a consensus around specific proposals and directions, it would be a very foolish Government indeed that would ignore that consensus.

The Labour Party would have preferred a different and more inclusive structure, just as we would have preferred more detailed terms of reference. But we have chosen to compromise for one reason only — the seriousness of the crisis with nearly 300,000 people unemployed — because without consensus and the Government and Opposition parties modifying their ideological positions the crisis would get worse. With consensus there is a real possibility that we can do some of the difficult things that need to be done. Against that background I appeal at this late stage to the Fine Gael Party through their Labour spokeswoman, Deputy T. Ahearn, to change their minds and become involved.

Why does the Deputy not appeal to the Minister——

As I said already, it is time to get stuck into the issues of unemployment, if for no other reason than to ensure that the cynicism and disillusionment with politicians and politics——

The Minister should get involved.

——that is rampant among the unemployed is dispelled once and for all.

The childish political game-playing with the questions on yesterday's Order Paper will only heighten that cynicism. Unemployment is at the heart of the poverty and despair that afflicts thousands of families. It is at the core of our mounting health bill because it contributes to cases of depression, stress, family violence, alcoholism, mental breakdown, desertion and a host of other conditions. It is for this reason that all political parties should make every effort to come up with solutions in the jobs forum that will give some hope to those who are unfortunately unemployed.

I now wish to refer briefly to those who have emigrated from this country. The principal mechanism through which the Irish Government provide support to the Irish voluntary bodies in Britain is the DÍON Committee. We are told that the aim of the Irish Government in providing funding is not to create a ghetto or a parallel welfare system for our emigrants but to develop and assist the voluntary bodies to reach persons at risk before they developed welfare dependency. In view of this I am utterly appalled that there has been no increase in the funding of the DÍON committee over the past number of years given the numbers of young people who have emigrated to England.

Such is the extent of change in recent years in British legislation in the areas of housing, social welfare, education and employment policies that it is very difficult for many of our young people, particularly those without skills and qualifications, to obtain housing and employment on entry to England. Many of our emigrants do not have the necessary £400 or £500 to secure a flat or bedsit accommodation. In this Estimate there is no increase under this heading. I appeal to the Minister to examine this. The sum of £5,000 is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the many emigrants who require different levels of assistance and support both before and after they emigrate. I should like to ask the Minister to respond to this difficulty and take on board the positive recommendations put forward by the Labour Party this morning. I look forward to his response at the conclusion of the debate.

In the time available to me I wish to focus primarily on the question of unemployment and jobs which the Minister described in his opening address as the most serious problem facing the nation. It is, indeed, the most serious problem facing our people. I should like to make some general comments about it. Clearly, nobody in this House under-estimates the scale of the problem, equally there is no quick fix. It would be wrong to pretend there is a ready overnight solution to our major unemployment problem.

The economic policies of the past five years provide the foundation for future improvements in tackling the unemployment problem and from these policies have flown low inflation, above average growth by international standards and growing exports and other key factors. In other words, the financial state of the country is in a healthy condition.

The Government have taken a range of initiatives in this regard. Among those are the Culliton report, the task force on employment and the new employment subsidy and training schemes which the Minister referred to in his speech, and which offer the prospect of 25,000 people being taken off the live register. In that context I would echo the appeal of the Minister for employer response and co-operation in that regard.

In general terms the financial state of the country is as good as any other economy. We are well placed for a pick-up in the international economy, particularly if that pick-up occurs in the economies of the UK and the US. If there is a half decent bounce of the ball in international trading conditions we could benefit and return to higher rates of economic growth in Ireland.

Deputy Ryan constructively and honestly captured the essence of the new Joint Committee on Employment. He underlined — and I agree with him — that no single initiative will do the job. This is a new forum which we hope will complement other initiatives in tackling the most serious problem facing the country. I wish to compliment him on his honesty as it is not easy for an Opposition party to adopt that approach. It is far more comfortable to continue to oppose in the traditional fashion in a Parliament like ours than to co-operate with the Government side which, in parliamentary terms, is seen to have the main responsibility in the area of job creation and tackling the unemployment problem. It is precisely because the scale of the problem affects all of us, every party here and every person, that co-operation has been forthcoming from the Labour Party and other parties. We will give it our best effort and add what we can by way of initiative to the efforts already made. In other words, as a joint committee with our sub-committees we want to make our contribution which we hope will halt the unemployment trend and reverse it.

We will have the important benefit of assistance from a range of social partners and other interest groups, for example, the National Youth Council, the unemployed, together with the trade unions, the employers and the farmers in addressing these problems. There will be much expertise between the committee and the sub-committees. Politicians here and in the Seanad are in touch daily with practical problems in relation to job creation and unemployment. We know all about it and we are acutely aware of it, we do have ideas and they need to be tapped. In that context I welcome the opportunity to hear what Opposition parties have to say in that forum in addressing the key national problem.

The new joint committee is a unique forum in that it brings together politicians from both sides of the divide to contribute their ideas and their talents to addressing the unemployment problem. The committee focuses exclusively for the first time on jobs. Without going into too much detail I should say there will be three sub-committees: first, a sub-committee on job creation to identify opportunities and barriers to creating jobs; second, a sub-committee on the unemployed — a number of initiatives are important in the training area; and, third, a sub-committee to deal with the EC response to our unemployment problem. As the Minister has indicated, substantial funds have been transferred to this country from Brussels.

In the few minutes remaining I should like to refer briefly to the directions we hope to take. I mentioned earlier that there may be barriers to job creation. As a committee we will be looking at the taxation and social welfare systems to see whether they are presenting roadblocks or disincentives to job creation. For example, is the taxation system driving people into the black economy? Another area we need to look at is the impressive economic growth here in recent years. What is disappointing is that the number of jobs has not matched that economic growth. The National Economic and Social Council, together with several other resources available to us on the Joint Committee on Employment, have undertaken a study to try to identify the root of this mismatch between substantial economic growth on the one hand and the disappointing level of jobs created on the other. We will all be pooling our ideas on unemployment.

While multinational companies play an important part in Irish life, providing 40 per cent of industrial employment, it is disappointing that the supply of components and other products to these companies are imported from abroad. It has been estimated that £1 billion worth of imports for the multinational companies operating here could actually be produced in Ireland. That is something we need to address in the Joint Committee. In fairness I should say the IDA are examining this problem through the linkage programme. I expect to hear from the IDA in that committee as to where they are at and where they are going in terms of developing these linkages. Needless to say, if we produce £1 billion worth of components here for supply to the multinationals already here that would create many urgently required jobs.

In conclusion I wish to refer to the relatively stable industrial relations environment we have had for many years but with pressure points now which are worrying to us all. At the end of the day direct negotiations — eyeball to eyeball contact — between unionised workers on the one hand and employers on the other are the essence of resolving problems. The State does have a role to play which is to provide dispute settling machinery to help both sides of industry to help themselves.

I know that from time to time Ministers are called on to intervene in disputes and they have a facilitating role. I want to make the point, nonetheless, that the Minister for Labour has no statutory function in relation to industrial disputes. What the Minister for Labour is responsible for, in an overall way, is labour law and the dispute settling machinery, such as the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. At the end of the day it is the quality, the knowledge, the attitudes and the skills on both the union side and management — because both are terribly important — that leads to good industrial relations.

In a democracy it would be unrealistic to think that all disputes are resolved between the parties themselves, although the great majority of them are. Hence the necessity to have third party machinery; the consensus approach to which the trade unions, the employers and the farmers made a major contribution through the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. If we could devolve that consensus and that level of co-operation through to the workplace we would certainly be going a long way. That must be one of our aims in that regard.

On a final note, participative arrangements, often initiated by management but also through legislation in the case of the semi-State bodies, are very much a step in the right direction. Employees nowadays have relatively high expectations. They expect to be treated as adults. Management need to to be honest, open, fair and consistent. At the end of the day it is the two parties facing one another who are the key to good industrial relations, supported where necessary by third party machinery provided by the State.

Let me start by taking up that point made by Deputy Hillery. I know that Deputy Hillery has spent a long time discussing this subject from the relative calm of University College, Dublin. As somebody who was involved in the eyeball to eyeball discussions that he spoke about, I must say that he is coming up with something of a rationalisation of the role of the Minister for Labour and the Department of Labour. The previous occupant of this post was oft praised in this House by Deputy Hillery for the success with which he intervened frequently in disputes. It seems that never in the history of our industrial relations has an interventionist policy been more necessary on the part of a Minister for Labour than at present. I am really not very impressed by the carefully worded opening address of the Minister or by Deputy Hillery's rationalisation of the role of the Department and the Minister as being to put the legislative framework in place and then to leave the resolution of disputes to the two parties. Of course they have a major and central role, but in no set of circumstances does a dispute that threatens the commercial health of the country allow the Minister to sit back and leave it to the Labour Relations Commission or any agency acting in his name. In the case of the postal dispute, it is time the Minister got down off his motorbike and got stuck into that dispute and helped towards its resolution.

From my point of view, the need for an active interventionist Department of Labour has never been more evident against a background of the highest unemployment figures ever recorded, redundancy figures for the first three months of this year that are the worst since the corresponding period in 1988 and a deteriorating industrial relations picture which has resulted in a five-fold increase in the number of days lost through disputes in the first three months of this year compared to the same period last year.

Unfortunately, the Government seem content to allow the industrial relations situation to worsen even further and are devoid of any ideas for dealing with the unemployment crisis. Nothing sums up the cynical approach of the Government to those on the live register better than the press conference held last week by the Minister for Labour to announce the new jobs training scheme. This was the fourth occasion on which this scheme was announced. Yet, on the Minister's own admission, not one single trainee has yet been taken on. It was originally announced by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, at a Cáirde Fáil dinner on 28 November last. It was reannounced by Deputy Haughey in the House on 17 December last. It was announced by the Minister for Finance yet again in the budget on 29 January so that the budget could have the appearance of saying something about the unemployed. It was announced yet again yesterday by Minister Cowen.

I suggest to the Minister that he should take the advice of his own people within the Department of Labour who have concluded that this scheme is a nonsense and, as presently structured, will not work. There is no point in fooling the unemployed——

That is not the advice I am getting from my Department.

Well, I believe it is. There is no point in fooling the unemployed and then fooling the Members of this House that this scheme has any particular potential. Six months after it was first announced not one person has been taken off the live register although we were told last December that the scheme would begin rolling on 1 January. Is it any wonder that the unemployed feel abandoned and demoralised when they see this sort of approach? How many more press conferences or announcements will they have to endure before the scheme actually begins?

The huge increase in the number of days lost through industrial disputes this year indicates an important change in the attitude of management to industrial relations. There is now a much more macho approach to industrial relations and, indeed, to public relations in both the private and the public sector where suspension and disciplinary action take the place of dialogue and negotiation. It is at its most evident in the current dispute in An Post but it was also seen in recent disputes in RTE, the banks and Dublin Cargo Handling. It is as if senior management believe that with the unemployment levels at record levels and the unions locked into the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, now is the ideal time to take on the unions and diminish their role and authority. Such an approach is likely to plunge the country into a long running period of industrial relations strife which will be in nobody's interests. The issues at the heart of the dispute in An Post are complex involving, as they do, not just the rights of postal workers but possible job opportunities for the unemployed and the future of the postal service.

The situation is further complicated by the continuing precarious position of An Post, but what is very clear is that the senior management of An Post have behaved grossly irresponsibly and have unilaterally provoked the current dispute. It is now three weeks since this happened, and while the reaction of the union has been relatively restrained, management have gone ahead with massive suspensions and penalisation of workers. Workers, without any notice, have been taken off the payroll and families given no pay last weekend.

Even in a more electronic age the potential commercial damage caused by a long running post dispute will be enormous. Orders lost may never be re-won. The international reputation of the country will be further damaged. The Government cannot remain on the sidelines and must take action. The Minister for Communications, who seems to have come under the spell of Mr. Hynes, is taking a totally partisan position in this House and, in those circumstances, the Minister for Labour must intervene.

The spokesperson for Fine Gael, Deputy Ahearn, quite properly devoted the latter part of her speech to the question of unemployment. The situation is tragic as it heads inexorably for 300,000. It would appear that the Minister for Labour is taking the attitude that this, no more than directly intervening in disputes, is really not his responsibility, that it is the responsibility of the other wing of the Coalition Government, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley.

The facts are that we need a comprehensive approach towards unemployment involving the Department of Labour. Listening to the monitor I heard Deputy Ryan deal with this subject. He seemed to be casting love eyes across the floor at Deputy Hillery from what I heard, and I hope his confidence is well placed because I also am a member of the all-party jobs committee and certainly it is the intention of my party to try to make it work. However, I think that any crowing about it is premature because we have a very long way to go before it is clear that we can come up with proposals that are capable of being, and likely to be, acted on expeditiously by the Government. It is far too early for those of us who are members of the committee to hold out the prospect of the unemployed that it is going to make a major contribution in resolving the unemployment crisis but I sincerely hope it will. As I said, it is the intention of my party to make a contribution to that effect.

I am surprised that there is no reference in the Minister's speech to the legislative work that he is committed to. For example, a specific commitment was given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to bring forward, by the end of 1991, an Employment Equality Bill. I am sorry to see that this has such a low priority with the Minister and the Department of Labour because the notion that the existing equality legislation has dealt with the problem satisfactorily is nonsense. Deputy Ahearn drew attention to the fact that women workers are still on 68 per cent of comparable male earnings. That is the situation.

As well as this, it pays no attention to the dynamic of the equality issue to energise the workforce and make a major contribution in resolving the unemployment problem. It seems that the attitude of the Department is that the unemployment problem is bad enough without encouraging the circumstances that would invite more women into the labour market to contend for scarce jobs. I do not think that is acceptable.

I do not want to go over what Deputy Ahearn had to say with regard to the Employment Equality Agency being starved of resources but that is the situation — it is not that the Employment Equality Agency have been canvassing us on that point. All of us know that that is the situation and the Minister should deal with it as a matter of urgency.

I note what the Minister had to say about low pay and that this is a priority in his programme for the coming year. I am very dubious, however, about the efficacy of the measures he proposes. I am very familiar with the joint labour committee mechanism and so on and I think that it has made only a moderate contribution. Until the Government face up to the question of introducing a national minimum wage we will never deal with the problem of low pay and the poverty traps caused.

I welcome the Minister's remarks on training and his commitment to implement the proposals of the Culliton report. This is a major issue in terms of our future prosperity and employment. The question of the skills differential as between this economy and other economies, to which he referred, is a major one and the focus and concentration of FÁS must be looked at again. We must put more emphasis on upgrading the employment skills of those in employment if we are to compete with other economies. I welcome the Minister's commitment in his speech and I would like to hear from him——

It seems that Deputy Rabbitte is not allowing me to catch his eye so I will have to interrupt him to advise him go bhfuil an t-am istigh.

Since I turned in my final remarks to praise the Minister he has locked me in eye contact and it was only for that reason——

As it is unusually long I must remind the Deputy that he is now two minutes into somebody else's time.

He is trying to put conditions to it.

Let me conclude by saying that I would like to see the Minister spell out precisely how he intends to tackle the question of the training deficit for those in employment along the lines I have suggested and along the lines endorsed by the Culliton report.

Let me avail of my first opportunity in public to warmly congratulate my very good friend, the Minister for Labour, Deputy Cowen, on his appointment. I think he has already shown that he is more than capable of dealing with this important portfolio and does not require any lecture from Deputy Rabbitte or anyone else on how he should handle his brief. In particular, he exercised tremendous diplomacy and showed tremendous negotiating skills in his performance in relation to the recent banks strike and deserves to be warmly congratulated for this. I wish him every success in this position and I know that he will be a resounding success, as he has been during the past few months. It is regrettable that Fine Gael have decided not to participate in the jobs forum.

It is not a jobs forum; it is a committee.

While the jobs forum will not be the panacea for every ill or difficulty in the country, it may help to resolve what is a very serious problem. As far as I am aware Fine Gael were first to moot the idea of a jobs forum but having achieved their objective they decided that they would not participate in the forum on the basis that Ministers would not be directly accountable to the committee or forum.

The Deputy is mixed up. It is a committee.

It is a well known fact that under the Constitution Ministers are only accountable to the Dáil. Therefore one becomes very cynical and watches with wry amusement the behaviour of the major Opposition party in refusing to join the forum.

The only reasonable conclusion that one can reach is that having mooted the idea of a jobs forum Fine Gael did not honestly believe that it would ever be set up but, having been set up, they then decided that it probably would not work and they did not want to shoulder any of the responsibility for the situation which might pertain once the forum began to do their work. In other words, having proposed that a jobs forum be set up in the first instance they subsequently displayed that they did not believe it would work.

It was rejected by the Government.

That kind of politics belongs to the Dark Ages and does not work. They have fooled nobody because everybody knows what the exact position is.

The Deputy does not seem to know whether it is a forum or a committee. He is very confused.

In this respect I would like to say that the other Opposition parties deserve credit for joining the jobs forum.

Deputy Ahearn will have to contain her emotions.

I am trying to clarify the matter for the Deputy.

She cannot interrupt Deputy O'Donoghue in this fashion.

The Deputy is confused about whether it is a forum or a committee. I thought it would be kind to point out to him that it is a committee and not a forum.

Sometimes I get confused but I can assure Deputy Ahearn——

The Deputy is confused now.

Deputy O'Donoghue, perhaps you would address the Chair and not invite Deputy Ahearn to interrupt. He would get a more sympathetic audience from the Chair.

I can understand his confusion.

Having said that and understanding the emotion and the embarrassment of Deputy Ahearn I would like to proceed by stating——

I am not embarrassed.

——that it is abundantly clear to everyone what the truth is, which is that Fine Gael did not want to shoulder the responsibility in case it did not work; in other words, the rest could shoulder the blame if it did not work.

That is not true. Why, then, did we propose it?

I am afraid, therefore, that the proposal in the first instance can be described as hypocritical. I warmly congratulate the other parties for agreeing to participate in the forum and I wish it every success.

The committee.

With regard to the position in relation to industrial relations — let me take the heat off Deputy Ahearn — the Minister has stated that he is concerned about the rising level of industrial unrest. This is perfectly true at a time when the country can ill afford it.

I, too, would like to address the present situation at An Post. If we are to call a spade a spade — and we should do so — how can we expect to create employment when a semi-State body are paying £21 million in overtime in the central sorting office in Sheriff Street in Dublin and when people will not allow others to take up temporary employment? I should say that I wish people the best of luck in trying to secure the best possible wage for their families but it is a known fact that the wage and overtime bill at An Post in some instances is 70 per cent higher than in the provinces. I do not think we can honestly attempt to resolve the unemployment problem if that situation is allowed to continue.

It is true, of course, that management in An Post have to shoulder some of the blame because when they decided to rationalise the service instead of addressing the problem at the central sorting office they decided to close down 550 sub-post offices around the country to save a few million pounds. It seems this approach is not in line with social equity; neither can it be condoned. I would strongly oppose their efforts because it seems when things start to go wrong in this country the vulnerable are hit while those at fault are left alone. That must not be allowed to continue.

An Post have failed miserably over the years to enter into the marketplace in this regard. They have failed to compete in a sensible way with commercial banks, they have failed to advertise some excellent savings schemes, to computerise and enter the modern age. An Post management are guilty of outdated practices but some unions in An Post want to preserve a very cosy practice at the expense of the nation and, indeed, their own employees in the provinces. This should not be allowed to continue and the matter must be dealt with head-on.

Unions members of An Post not employed in Sheriff Street should be extremely careful to ensure that their rights are safeguarded and that their position is protected. They must realise this and not allow themselves to be used by people who, in some instances, are receiving wages 70 per cent higher than theirs. They are preventing employees from getting temporary work and are — directly or indirectly — creating unemployment.

The Government have made reasonable efforts to tackle unemployment, it is a very serious problem and there is a downward trend in emigration. Of course any socially conscious Government have the responsibility to create as much employment as they possibly can. In this regard initiatives taken, particularly in rural areas, have begun to work. The Leader programme is an example. I also welcome the announcement by the Taoiseach two weeks ago regarding establishing 12 pilot projects around the country to tackle the problem of the long term unemployed. It means that an unemployed person who has a viable project can get unemployment assistance for one year and maintain his or her fringe benefits while trying to set up in business. It is a very welcome development and I sincerely hope it helps to resolve the problem. I am sure it will have some impact.

I again call on Fine Gael to come off the fence in relation to jobs and to come into the arena where decisions and proposals can be made and discussed.

Who is on the fence?

It is imperative that Fine Gael honour their obligations not just in relation to the unemployed but to all our people, not least their own voters and supporters.

They are a rarity.

I should like to remind Deputy O'Donoghue that his party did not accept the jobs forum and did not make any effort to put such a forum in place. We now have an Oireachtas Joint Committee on Employment which will be merely a talking shop. Of course they will produce reports — of which we have a multitude gathering dust in offices all over the country — but which will do nothing to solve unemployment.

Ministers are not answerable any more to the Dáil, we cannot get answers from them and our proposal in relation to the jobs forum would have been an opportunity for Ministers to answer pertinent questions in relation to unemployment. The Minister's speech does not offer any hope to the unemployed masses. The schemes announced are supposed to be the panacea for all our ills and will mean a major cut in unemployment at the end of the year. We are moving towards the dangerous figure of 300,000 people unemployed more quickly than we think.

I should like to refer to the level of youth unemployment which, at the end of April, amounted to more than 80,000 and which is increasing. Ireland now has over 28 per cent of youth unemployment which ranks among the highest in Europe and is totally unacceptable. The lack of jobs opportunities is having a devastating effect on the morale of our young people. The feedback I have received from several teachers throughout the country is that they are experiencing a total loss of motivation and lack of commitment in their schools because of the few opportunities for school leavers and the loss of hope in relation to getting a job.

The Minister mentioned training schemes. As I pointed out, the apprenticeship scheme is a disgrace, it is the most inequitable part of our system of education. No other part of our education system is as discriminatory as the apprenticeship scheme because parents and their children have to go around cap in hand, similar to the guild scheme in mediaeval times, on their knees to employers and, in some cases, even paying them to be sponsored. It is a disgrace and there is no reason for people who want to pursue a trade of their choice not being able to apply for a specific place and compete on a equal footing with everybody else. I know the Minister promised a new module and I hope it will be introduced in 1993, as promised. It must be fair and equitable because the present system has given rise to a great deal of frustration.

I should also like to refer to the employment subsidy scheme. I know the Minister has a target of 15,000 jobs for the scheme during this year. I am glad there has been a take-up to date but the Minister should ensure that this scheme is not used by unscrupulous employers as a cheap labour scheme. The jobs being created should not cause other people to lose jobs. This scheme — and the jobs training scheme which the Minister mentioned in his speech — should be carefully vetted. In relation to training schemes, each employer should produce a module to the workers, parents and indeed to FÁS in regard to the type of training which will be given. That is very important because the scheme has not been carefully thought out, it has been put in place without introducing a pilot programme beforehand. I fear it will be misused by a number of unscrupulous employers.

This year 1,000 jobs will be lost in social employment schemes. As it is we are running over quota and several good schemes, which will come up for renewal at the end of the year and will not be continued with a resultant loss of important services and jobs. It will also have an effect on several voluntary groups around the country. I referred to the teamwork scheme after Christmas when it was announced that it would be cut by £1.8 million.

I am glad that the Minister responded and I thank him for doing so. He has put £500,000 back into the scheme, a more than welcome measure, and I compliment him on doing that. Even so, more than 300 youth workers will lose their jobs this year. I draw attention to a very good scheme for young travellers operating in Tallaght which is organised by the Catholic Youth Council. More than 12 young travellers will have their employment terminated on 17 May because of a cut in funding for the scheme. That is a tragedy. I appeal to the Minister to consider the position of that very successful scheme, which has operated in an area that has huge social problems.

Youth unemployment should have a special focus. As a nation, we have to make a special response to that problem or else we will have on our hands major social problems. So many of our young people are now becoming disillusioned and alienated from the system because of a lack of employment opportunities. The Minister is a young man and I am sure he can relate to the needs and aspirations of young people. I appeal to him to make a special effort to deal with the problem of youth unemployment because from that unemployment stem many of our social problems, such as an increased level of crime, a lack of regard for law and order and under-age drinking. The kernel of the disillusionment and the lack of motivation among many youth is unemployment. I ask the Minister to make youth unemployment one of the main issues of focus for departmental policy in the coming year.

I compliment the Minister on the introduction of the two programmes he has brought in to date, the job training scheme and the employment subsidy scheme, which have targets of 10,000 and 15,000 jobs respectively. The on-the-job approach to training is especially welcome. There are many people in Galway who are also very pleased with the Minister's performance in some of the recent industrial disputes. I hope that he keeps up his good work in that respect.

The unemployment problem can be tackled successfully. I have no doubt about that. That must be done without incurring an increased cost to the Exchequer. I firmly believe that a more effective use of the present expenditure could significantly increase the number of people at work. I shall suggest three initiatives to the Minister today. These initiatives are not aimed only at the Minister but require combined action by various Government Departments. As one of the Members on the job forum, I shall pursue those initiatives, and others, further. It is important today to make some suggestions to the Minister for his consideration. The first suggested initiative is long term and the second and third initiatives are short term.

We must identify the traditional sectors of industry which have, perhaps, been hit hard but which also have the greatest potential for growth in jobs and in the economy generally. Those sectors are the food industry, the clothing and textile industry and the tourist industry. An investment and development programme for each sector for the next eight years to take us to the end of the century would give a significant return in jobs and economic growth. If I have time, I shall return to this first suggestion at the end of my contribution.

The second suggestion is a short term initiative that is now urgently required. While the two initiatives introduced already are welcome, as I have said, between them they still provide for only 25,000 new jobs. It is my view that at present the greatest inhibition to the creation of jobs in this country is bureaucracy. A radical approach is now required to move away from the present system of paying people to do nothing and charging employers much too much to employ people.

We must devise a programme whereby 100,000 people are taken off the dole and put to work. My suggestion is that the State should pay them the equivalent of their dole and the employer pay the remaining amount to bring those employed up to the average industrial wage. For illustration purposes we could take the case of a married man with two children who at present receives £107 per week unemployment assistance. The employer who gave him a job would add £82 to the amount already received, bringing that man's income up to the normal industrial take home pay. The man would then work for his dole instead of doing nothing or doing "nixers" and the employer would have an incentive to employ people whom at present he cannot afford. Employers would be subject to a quota based on the number at present employed and to an employment guarantee at the end of the programme period, which should be a maximum of three years.

It is only by the adoption of such a radical approach that we will make a serious dent in the large number of people unemployed. The approach is radical in that we have to move away from the present ethos that the Government pay people as long as there is a guarantee that they do nothing. That approach has not worked in the past and it is certainly not the way forward for the future. There is no question that employers both large and small would not be delighted at an opportunity for involvement in such a scheme. If anybody were to say to me that there is no point in continuing to pay a person the unemployment assistance of £107 per week received at present for the next three years because the State cannot afford to do that, I would respond with the honest statement that at the present state of play, irrespective of which party are in Government, the State will in any event have to continue to pay those 100,000 people concerned £107 per week for the next three years to remain unemployed. I put it to the Minister that this radical kind of approach is necessary. It is radical, it is new and it certainly goes against the status quo that has operated in this country in the past. The jobs forum will put forward proposals of this kind and I hope that the Government will respond positively to them.

The third suggested initiative I put to the Minister and to the Government in general is to take government from around the necks of the people. By that I mean that we must diminish the absolute power that is now held within one square mile of O'Connell Bridge in Dublin. I shall suggest a practical example whereby for the amount of expenditure already being incurred many more jobs could be created by the adoption of a regional approach to job creation.

To illustrate my suggestion I give the example of a county, for argument's sake, Galway county, which would be designated as a pilot project. An employment authority would be established in the county and the members of that authority would come from State agencies at present located in Galway. Those agencies are: the IDA, represented by Tom Hyland; Bord Fáilte, represented by Brian Flynn; the local authority, represented by Séamus Keating; the Department of Social Welfare, represented by Michael O'Kennedy; Teagasc, represented by Gerry Scully and FÁS, represented by Tony Barrett. If we were to take the amount of State money going into Galway this week through those various agencies and give those six representatives the flexibility to use that money — which they are now spending in any event — with the emphasis on creating jobs, I have no doubt that a flexible, local, regionalised approach would bring about many more jobs in the Galway area than are created at present from following the O'Connell Bridge approach.

I shall give the House two examples that I came across last week. There is a man in my own town of Gort whom the county council can afford to pay for only half a week to keep the streets of our town clean and tidy. When the council's budget runs out that man has to go back on the dole. As a consequence, he spends a certain number of weeks at home on the dole and for the rest of the year he spends only half a week doing the most important job that has to be done in Gort, that of keeping the place clean. It is completely ridiculous that such a position applies in this day and age. Commonsense has gone out the window and bureaucracy is there at its best.

I can give another example of a man for whom I filled up an application form last week. That man works for nine months each year, claims unemployment benefit for the other three as he cannot be employed for those three. He earns £109 a week for the nine months and gets £129 for the three months he is off. It is time we stopped this kind of charade.

Reference was made to a scheme the Minister announced six months ago and it was said that to date not one job had been created. From my experience in the Department of Education I could believe that that is true. It is not the Minister's fault or the fault of the civil servants. It is the fault of the structure under which they have to operate. Until there is fundamental change in the way we run our business we will not be able to tackle unemployment. Perhaps we will be able to talk about this in detail soon. My experience in the Department over the past five years has been that no matter how one tries or how good one's civil servants are — and they are the best — one will be beaten by the system. When one gets a file from the Department of Education it has to be signed by four civil servants none of whom can take a decision. We cannot run a country like that. The sooner politicians face up to the fact that we have to have fundamental reform of the Oireachtas the better. The reform that has taken place is welcome. We must also have fundamental reform of the public service. I emphasise that I am not talking about the people involved but the structures within which they have to operate. We must also have a fundamental reform of the electoral system. Until we do that we cannot hope to satisfactorily tackle unemployment. When we tackle those basics we will be able to deal with unemployment successfully. We are spending enough money to put people to work but we are not spending it effectively.

A debate on the Estimate for the Department of Labour must cover the huge number of people who are unemployed. Everyone has a genuine interest in trying to put forward suggestions to resolve the problem, regardless of political affiliations. I get intensely annoyed when I hear sanctimonious outbursts from the Government side of the House that Fine Gael should join what is now called the jobs forum. We had a motion before the House some weeks ago which was supported by the Opposition parties, calling for a jobs forum. The Government parties defeated that motion on the basis that the Government had their own proposals. They came forward with a proposal to establish a joint committee. Without disrespect to the joint committee I would like to explain to Members on the Government side of the House the difference between a forum and a joint committee, as they obviously do not yet know it. In the New Ireland Forum Members from both sides of the House participated to good effect. While the problem it set out to resolve have not yet been resolved, at least it had a lasting impact on the problem. That was because Ministers, and the Taoiseach went before the forum, made solid contributions and answered questions raised. They were willing to be questioned and to discuss the issues considered important for a forum. It was a serious issue of national importance.

The jobs crisis is also a serious issue, not one to be tossed around between a committee and a forum or a combination of both. If a forum was called for we should have established one. If it was thought necessary, in a serious attempt to solve unemployment, to bring the people who are supposed to have the best ideas together under the one roof to get their collective wisdom on how to tackle the problem, we should have set up a forum. I do not want to see any more crocodile tears shed by that side of the House or suggestions that we have a jobs forum because we have not. It is an insult to the people who are seeking work that it should be suggested that a serious attempt is being made to deal with the problem, when it is not. Instead of crocodile tears there should be more application to the job in hand. We should get some indication from the Government parties as to whether they are serious about solving the problem or whether they want to whitewash the issue or try to get people believe they are doing something about it.

When one compares the other European countries to ours and notes the low levels of unemployment in those countries, it should spur us on to come to grips with the real issue and ask ourselves how serious we are about tackling the problem. Up to 36 per cent of our population is in receipt of social welfare benefit of one kind or another, including pensions. We have an unacceptably high level of unemployment. Some people suggest that unemployed people are not really making an effort, but I do not accept that. The fact that there are 300,000 people seeking work at the same time should have impressed on the Government the seriousness of the problem but it has not. The jobs are not there.

I agree with Deputy Fahey that the system has gone awry. It was simple 25 or 30 years ago but it is now a convoluted system which makes it virtually impossible to get a job and for employers to provide jobs. The Minister has a responsibility. I hope he will, without waiting for the joint committee to report, deal with some of the points raised by the last speaker, and will simplify the system so that a person can be employed without disadvantaging the employer or himself. In some quarters people are losing out by going back to work. There should be a graduated system of benefits such as medical cards when a person returns to work, instead of a cut-off point.

People can become cynical about this problem. While I accept the Minister meant well, the proposal to locate FÁS training schemes abroad is tantamount to a proposal to export our unemployed people. We have always tried to improve our exports and we are now attempting to export our people because we are not in a position to provide jobs for them. I am particularly cynical about this proposal at a time when local authorities and voluntary groups who have made submissions to FÁS under the team work scheme and the SES have been told that sufficient funds are not available to allow the schemes proceed. They have been told in recent weeks there are not sufficient funds to allow that scheme be implemented. For example, Kildare County Council, Maynooth Community Council and the local Tidy Towns Committee were all told in recent weeks: "we are very sorry, but there are not sufficient funds to allow the scheme be implemented." It must be remembered that these people are considering a proposal to take some of our trainees out of the country where they will no longer be needed and to train them abroad. Admittedly, we know that it will be a system assisted from outside the country and so on——

The Deputy does not understand the proposal; it has nothing to do with trainees.

I would not suggest for one moment that the Minister does not understand anything. But if he cares to look a little closer to his own county border at Lullymore, where there are at present over 100 jobs on the blink——

I was there.

Then I can only say that the impact of the Minister's visit has not been felt to date.

Obviously, the Deputy did not hear about it.

To date, despite repeated requests on the part of the Minister's colleagues in Kildare County Council, and his colleagues here as well, there has been total disregard on the part of both the Department of Energy and the Minister's Department — and they should have an interest in the matter — to the extent that the people in Lullymore continue to inquire what is the Government attitude to that plant.

I should like to make one or two other points in relation to this Estimate. I appreciate that my time is running out, but it is running out also for our unemployed and for An Post because the electorate awaiting a service from them expect the Government at least to make some reference to the fact that there is at present a serious postal dispute. Indeed, people are posing the question: how much longer must we wait before there is a Government initiative taken vis-à-vis this postal dispute? While my time has expired, it is fast expiring in the case of those people awaiting that essential service and, I predict, even faster for the people on the far side of the House who failed to respond.

I must compliment the Minister on the manner in which he is facing up to our present unemployment problem. Indeed, he had been only the proverbial wet day in his Ministry when he established himself as an enthusiastic, competent and dynamic Minister for Labour. He has already forged for himself an ultra impressive track record. For example, there was his handling of the banks dispute — a dispute which had the potential to totally demolish the commercial life of the country — which brought well deserved praise from all quarters.

I requested the Minister recently to take an initiative vis-à-vis a serious set of circumstances which arose in my constituency when a firm called Wicklow Woods found themselves confronted with possible closure and the loss of 160 jobs. The Minister immediately intervened to such prompt and dynamic effect that a rescue package is already in place. I contend a job saved is as good as a job created and I thank the Minister for his intervention in that case from the bottom of my heart.

With the total support of the Taoiseach and his colleagues in Government, despite certain obduracy with which he was confronted, the Minister established the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Employment under the chairmanship of Deputy Brian Hillery. I wish Deputy Hillery and his colleagues success in their endeavours — he would appear to be in the vanguard of the work launched to tackle and correct our colossal unemployment problem. I wish both the Minister and Deputy Hillery every success in providing the appropriate leadership in this vital crusade.

I want now to highlight a particular malaise obtaining. I refer to the plethora of appeals, objections to and disagreements with ventures and projects geared to job creation. All of the efforts of the Minister for Labour, of Deputy Hillery and his committee and of all the good people involved in this unemployment purge will be set at nought if an air of responsibility cannot be brought to bear within this whole area of job creation. The negative, obdurate approach, so detrimental to job creation, must be abolished.

I might give a couple of examples to illustrate what I mean in that respect. For example, in my county of Wicklow there is a certain element who, under the guise of protecting the environment and in the interests of conservation, object to virtually every positive attempt to preserve and/or create employment. For example, one firm called Avondale Chemicals, a subsidiary of the multinational company, Schering Plough, want to extend their factory in my home town of Rathdrum. This involves a £50 million investment, some 360 jobs in the construction process and 100 permanent jobs thereafter. In the climate of our present difficulties that is like manna from heaven. The local authority, after careful consideration and having thoroughly examined the overall position, approved the necessary planning application. Stitched into that planning permission are stringent conditions, costing millions of pounds, to ensure that the environment will be protected and that there will be no detrimental effects from this venture in the overall area. But of course the inevitable happened — an appeal to An Bord Pleanála, when the whole venture may well be delayed for months, if not for years, such has been the track record of An Bord Pleanála.

I contend that this is sabotage, that the people who involve themselves in this are saboteurs of job creation. Indeed its wider implications are horrific, because we in Wicklow — but this applies nationwide — will be viewed as "no go" people, as people with an aversion to progress, to investment and indeed to investors. I appeal to these professional objectors to have a rethink. Many of them may well be decent, genuine people who are being carried along on a wave and who may well be genuinely interested in maintaining a clean, healthy environment. Perhaps the damage they are doing to the efforts to create jobs is inadvertent. I would appeal to them to have a rethink, to go back to the drawing board and endeavour to invoke that air of responsibility about which I spoke earlier with regard to appeals to An Bord Pleanála. When I talk to such people they endeavour to differentiate between an appeal and an objection; they engage in this type of ambiguous thinking. It must be recognised that an appeal to An Bord Pleanála constitutes an objection, a deterrent, an effort to frighten investors.

I appeal to this and other responsible Ministers to ensure that commonsense will prevail vis-à-vis An Bord Pleanála decisions. For example, if appeals to Bord Pleanála could be given priority and decisions expedited, it would at least alleviate some of the problems at present encountered. In so requesting I am not advocating interference with the due legal process of that board; nothing is further from my thoughts. But if job creation projects, such as the one I have just mentioned, could be given priority whenever appeals are lodged, treated expeditiously and a decision handed out quickly it would somewhat alleviate the overall position.

This is the first opportunity I have had to compliment the Minister on his appointment. Indeed, he had a baptism of fire, since from the very moment of appointment he experienced considerable difficulties. He has handled the unfortunate bank strike admirably. He intervened, though it was understood that it is not a Minister's job so to do. Nonetheless, bearing in mind the overall climate of industrial relations here, Ministerial intervention is sometimes necessary and is to be welcomed. I am sure all Members would call on the Minister today to do likewise in respect of the postal dispute. Although it is a very difficult dispute, the management now admit that the problems have been caused by decisions made by them in the past. For example, they offered voluntary redundancies to a large number of employees without putting in place an alternative system which would ensure a proper postal delivery service. As a result, their employees were forced to work overtime to ensure that the job was done properly. Employing casual workers to do this work is not the answer to the problem. I join with my colleague Deputy Ryan in asking the Minister to get both sides to sit down together to resolve the dispute.

As previous speakers said, the people working in the Department of Labour are among the best in any Department. I know from experience the commitment of these people, from the secretary down, to their job and their willingness to deal with the problems raised by public representatives from all constituencies. They were of great assistance in trying to resolve the Barlo dispute in Clonmel and in helping to bring that company back into production and profitability. Unfortunately Clonmel has a very high unemployment level. Companies such as Digital, the bacon industry and the food industry have suffered dramatically in recent years. No town in my constituency has managed to escape these problems.

Over the past number of days I and other Members of the Oireachtas from my area have been criticised by Fianna Fáil councillors for not having raised in this House the unemployment problem in Carrick-on-Suir. I would remind these councillors that responsibility for most of the unemployment crisis in this area lies with the Government because of their failure to address this problem.

Only the Deputy was criticised.

Carrick-on-Suir, Clonmel, Cahir, Cashel and Tipperary town — all have high levels of unemployment. Last Monday I counted a total of 14 industries and retail outlets for sale in Tipperary town. This will devastate the area and lead to poverty and disadvantage. As my colleague, Deputy Ryan, said, unemployment is at the heart of poverty and despair. Unemployment is also about institutionalised inequality. There is a cause and effect relationship between unemployment and the planning which was put into some of the devastated and alienated suburbs in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and other towns and villages. There is also a cause and effect relationship between unemployment and poor access to education. There is a link between unemployment, poverty and disadvantage which cannot be broken; they form part of a vicious circle of inequality.

Several statements issued by the Labour Party have referred to unemployment as a national powder keg, a time bomb of alienation which is threatening to explode in the community. Every day we ignore this crisis we are taking a major risk. I do not believe I am being alarmist or engaging in scare-mongering when I say that there will be an increase in the incidence of violence in towns and villages if some effort is not made to address this major problem. We also need to convince people that we are serious about what we are doing. This is why I believe all parties should be involved in any initiative to solve the unemployment crisis. Fine Gael should submit their policy document to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Employment as some of the proposals put forward by them might be worth pursuing.

There is little point in politicians and other expressing shock and horror in local provincial newspapers about poverty and the marginalisation in our society which can lead to outbreaks of violence and, at times, disturbances in the workplace if nothing is done to solve the unemployment problem. The insult of unemployment becomes an obscenity when the Government pretend that there is little or nothing which can be done to solve it. Even the creation of an environment which will ensure jobs are provided in the private sector has not succeeded in solving the problem. Like other speakers, I believe the new initiative announced by the Government in the budget will not solve this problem, as the private sector will have to top up the Government subsidy in order to create jobs. No private sector company are prepared to do that at present as they do not see any return in profits or, at times, any future for themselves. I hope there will be a change in emphasis by the Government in this area.

I wish to refer to the social employment scheme introduced by my colleague Deputy Ruairí Quinn when he was Minister. This scheme did not solve all the problems but it created an atmosphere which enable people to come off the dole queues and become involved in non-profit enterprises run by local authorities and communities. The Minister has indicated that he is reducing the number of participants in that scheme by 50 per cent. I regret this decision as county councils and community groups will not be able to carry on the work done by people on this scheme as they do not have the necessary finance.

As Deputy Ahearn said, schools for the physically and mentally handicapped will suffer as a result of the reduction in funding for the Teamwork scheme. The workshops run by the mentally handicapped will also suffer from the reduction in funding for retraining. The Minister for Labour, the Minister for Education or the Minister for Health will have to accept responsibility for ensuring that those workshops, which create sheltered employment for people who are handicapped and disabled, continue in existence. It will be a tragedy if these workshops are closed.

I am not saying that the unemployment crisis can be solved by waving a magic wand or that a solution can be found overnight. That would be a dishonest contention for anyone to make. Even the Government Deputies who have contributed to the debate have said that they do not think there is a magic solution to the problem. We need to work together to resolve the problem. If we can provide jobs for some of the 300,000 people who are unemployed at least people will see that we are making an effort to solve the problem. A previous Taoiseach said that an unemployment level of 100,000 was unacceptable. If this is so, an unemployment level of 300,000 must be most unacceptable to all of us. All parties in this House need to work together to convince the unemployed that we are committed to addressing the unemployment crisis.

The Deputy was the only person criticised on local radio for not doing anything to create jobs.

The record will show otherwise.

My contribution will be very brief so as to ensure that as many Deputies as possible will get an opportunity to contribute to this very important debate. I compliment the Minister for successfully intervening in the banks strike. As a rule I do not favour ministerial intervention in strikes, but obviously such action is necessary on occasion. I believe that at times strikes are prolonged in the hope of having ministerial involvement. This is totally and utterly wrong. This House has enacted all the necessary legislation to settle industrial disputes, and it should be used to the maximum extend by both sides in any dispute.

I have no doubt that the Minister and the legislators have learned something from the recent bank dispute. The consequences should be kept in mind in preparation for any future legislation on industrial disputes. I hope that any animosity that may exist between staff and management will cease and that every effort will be made to establish a good, healthy working environment in our banks. I say this in the interests of the economic development of this nation.

A new political response is now required. To that end it is important that we explore the fullest potential for working time initiatives, such as job sharing and part-time work. We are called by the jobs challenge to a renewed political commitment to ensure access to good jobs for our people. We should do so by strengthening our economy within the European Community. This requires the active and willing co-operation of all sectors of society. We need and shall value everybody's contribution — I would emphasise this — be it that of the person who is long term unemployed and undertakes a training programme, or that of the company board who search systematically for fresh investment opportunities in this country. The message must go out that we need everyone and each person must be facilitated in making the contribution of which he or she is capable.

As a member of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Employment set up recently, I intend to dedicate my efforts and energy to seeking out people, especially those who are considered specialists in their own profession, the unemployed, trade unions, youth organisations and the many people who are willing to make a contribution to the success of the work of this jobs forum. The forum should have the co-operation of all parties, and each Member of the House should throw his or her full weight behind their work. The task is great but I have no doubt that with the co-operation of everybody something good will come from it. The message must go out that everybody's contribution is needed and I hope that this will be one of the important aspects of the forum.

The committee have twin responsibilities, to explore every possible avenue of job creation, identifying obstacles to job growth which exist in our economy and to see how the huge numbers of unemployed can be assured of a meaningful role in society. The committee are determined to achieve these objectives and to ensure that positive results accrue.

As we move through the nineties we should be keen to make it a decade in which, with determination, ingenuity and generosity, we finally tackle the twin evils of unemployment and emigration that have been endemic here. It should be a decade in which we are not seen to sit back, accept the continuation of these problems and let the country be shaped from outside. We should do the shaping ourselves. Finally, as I expressed at our recent conference in Waterford, the approach by everybody should be togetherness, confidence, which is very important because nothing can be achieved without first building up confidence in our people, and finally a determination by everybody to succeed.

I thank Deputy Wyse in particular for his co-operation in allowing me some time to contribute to this very important debate. I have often been critical of his party in the past but I compliment him on his constructive approach today. I have often been critical of Deputy Fahey, from my own constituency, in the past about many matters, but his approach today was also constructive. Maybe now that he is released from his responsibilities as Minister he sees things differently. As Deputy Wyse has said, perhaps we should use the talents of all those people who have been recently released from their responsibilities. These people were very busy as Ministers but now that their responsibilities are not as great they have a vital contribution to make to improving the employment position. In Galway a body of retired people has been set up, people with much talent and experience to offer towards the creation of jobs. The last speaker from Fianna Fáil, Deputy Jacob, was very praiseworthy of the Minister for his intervention in the bank strike. I, too, compliment the Minister on his efforts in solving that strike and I appeal to him to use his undoubted talents to intervene in the post office strike. We will all support him in his efforts to do so.

Fine Gael take the jobs problem seriously and we are devoting a special session of our Ard-Fheis on Saturday morning to the jobs forum. Every constituency has been asked to consider one aspect of the creation of jobs and the results of their report will be considered. This is a very serious matter and I am glad that in this debate constructive suggestions have been put forward. There are 280,000 people unemployed throughout the country, 14,000 of whom are in County Galway. The single biggest factor concerning parents at present is the lack of job opportunities for their children. Every public representative will be aware that about 1,000 applications are received for every job advertised. Before I came into the House I received a call from a mother requesting me to make representations for her daughter in the hope that she would get a job in a butcher's shop which is due to open next week in Galway. This girl is 23 years of age and has never been employed. She is so desperate that she would take a job washing the floors of the butcher's shop.

Whenever clerk typist or clerical officer jobs are advertised by county councils and health boards about 1,000 applications are received. Even if people are successful they may have to go on a panel and wait for a job that may not be created in the coming year. This causes serious difficulty in the fabric of family life. Many children have never seen their parents working and this has a great effect on their mentality and on that of their families. Whatever can be done collectively to create jobs should be done.

We pay over £1 billion a year in unemployment assistance. There is no scarcity of work to be done. Perhaps we could use that £1 billion to pay people for work which needs to be done within communities. Every community could devise a project to create 20 or 30 jobs for one year. Instead of paying money in unemployment assistance we could pay people for meaningful work, giving them a little more than they would get in unemployment assistance. That would partly solve the problem. I am sorry I have not time to develop this subject further.

I thank Deputies who contributed and for their constructive approach. This is my first opportunity to bring forward an Estimate for the Department.

Deputy Deenihan said he did not see anything in my speech and could not associate with the philosophy of it. That is unfortunate because the whole tenor of the speech was about social partnership and the fact that we can only achieve progress and success through social partnership. Since 1987 when we institutionalised social partnership we have had considerable success. Of course the Opposition will criticise and say there should have been more success. It must be accepted that without social partnership the situation would be more serious.

Only Deputy Hillery adverted to the context within which job creation can be achieved. We must have low inflation and a competitive economy in order to create jobs. Jobs are not created in a vacuum. The macro-economic policies which the Government, and their predecessors, have pursued since 1987 are working to a great extent. Without positive macro-economic indicators like low inflation, growing exports, a stable exchange rate policy and stability within the EMS, we can achieve nothing. We cannot revert to the policies of the early and mid-eighties. Eighty thousand fewer people were at work in 1987 than in 1982. There are more people at work now than there were in 1987, but the rate at which we are creating jobs is not meeting the demands of the labour market. We have the youngest population in Europe and on average, 25,000 people come on the labour market each year. There will be an increase of 2 per cent in the labour market annually towards the end of this decade and a major effort must be made to deal with that.

The proposal to which Deputy Durkan referred does not in any way signal defeat on the jobs front. It is based on a realistic assessment and the realisation that within the European labour market there are opportunities for our people. If we are serious about European integration we must look to the European labour market opportunities in respect of those people who may wish to avail of them. That does not amount to a negative approach. Young people want to travel and experience other cultures and economies. We must facilitate them and put mechanisms in place through FÁS which can identify areas where they can get work commensurate with their qualifications. In the past voluntary and involuntary emigrants have not obtained the sort of jobs one would expect, based on their qualifications.

On a point of clarification——

There is a certain ambiguity and difficulty about interrupting the Minister on points of clarification. If that were accepted it could mean that the Minister would not make any contribution. There could be continuous interruptions. Perhaps we could agree to allow the Minister to proceed and Deputies might put questions to him within the last two minutes of his time. Otherwise there will be a series of interruptions.

My understanding was that we could interrupt on a point of clarification. It is more opportune to do so when the Minister is dealing with the matter in question.

That may be so, but if there is a succession of interruptions there will be no contribution from the Minister.

Maybe that is the whole idea.

We are feeling our way in relation to that.

We are wasting time.

We have heard about Dáil reform and this is supposed to be part of it. If it is to be knocked down at the first attempt we cannot take the Government statements about Dáil reform as sincere.

What is the point of clarification?

Regarding overseas initiatives, how many people have been placed in employment as a result?

Before we set up the mechanism there were 2,000 people in employment. Our hope is that there will be 10,000. We do not want it said that we have failed if the figure does not reach 10,000. We are simply providing opportunities for people which they may wish to take up.

How many have taken them up?

Many people have taken them up and more will do so. We have just signed an agreement with Holland and we are in discussions with Germany.

So there has been no placement.

We started this in the past week or two. The Deputy should not be argumentative and should accept the point.

We must distinguish between points of clarification and cross-examination. We cannot have both.

We will have a figure at the end of the year and then we can discuss it.

There would be no need for cross-examination if we had clarification. Lack of one leads to the other.

Is this our idea of Dáil reform? I will now deal with some points raised by Deputy Ryan. Of course ports are the life blood of the trading economy. They are to us what motorways are to our continental partners. They need improvement, investment and modernisation and they need new work practices. This issue was addressed in the Culliton report and the Government will address the issue of providing modern port management and infrastructure in that context, including the issues of control and ownership. Several highly publicised disputes have been mentioned. It is important to remember that these relate to structural problems, changes that are necessary for continued viability of the bodies involved. Everyone is afraid of change. It is not on pay issues that these disputes have arisen but rather the need to change and modernise and to gear up for the integrated market. That is most important. If everybody could keep their eye on that basic issue there would be some hope of resolving the disputes.

We realise that this is the core of the problem but can these difficult aspects not be resolved across the table? Why do we have to allow a dispute to continue for perhaps two months before we resolve it? The Minister must bring the parties together and resolve these disputes.

The machinery is available to both parties. There is some idea that ministerial intervention per se resolves a dispute. That is not correct.

Deputy Jacob said the opposite.

There must be a mutual disposition to deal with the issues in dispute and negotiate a solution to the core problem. There is no point in reaching a settlement which does not deal with the problem. It is in everybody's interest in terms of maintaining existing jobs and the continued viability of these agencies that we deal with these problems, difficult though they are. There is no easy route out of our difficulties. I understand the difficulties both sides have, but at the end of the day they must negotiate a settlement that resolves the core issues. The idea that intervention, ministerial or otherwise, will solve the problem is not very helpful. However, I know that it has not been suggested in an unhelpful way.

It is important that we keep our eye on the ball in regard to where the problems are and how they are to be resolved. The Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court have the expertise and far-reaching experience and they can assist people in resolving disputes. Last year the Labour Relations Commission dealt with 1,800 disputes and they had an 86 per cent success rate in resolving strikes. This shows that the system works.

Deputies have spoken about a crisis in industrial relations, but I think we should not overstate the position. Of course, this is an unwelcome trend. The highly publicised disputes have given rise to an increase in the figures, but we should remember that we are comparing our present figures with excellent figures during the period of industrial peace over the past few years. In the seventies and eighties we had serious problems. We should take what is positive and build on it. The commitment of the social partners to the process of social partnership is just as strong now as in the past despite the difficulties that arise now and again in relation to disputes.

The trouble is that it appeared the Minister took credit publicly for solving the bank dispute. That is what is misleading Deputies about the current postal dispute. If the Minister had not taken credit for solving the bank dispute it would not be expected that he would do something about the postal dispute.

It is important that I nail this matter on the head. If Deputies look at the statements I made on the bank dispute they will find that I probably made the shortest statement of all when it was eventually settled. There is no question of politicising disputes. Let me suggest to Deputy McCormack that there is no benefit for him, me or anybody else in seeking to politicise what is a trade dispute. If we maintain that professional basis, we have some possibility of settling it.

There was no point in Deputy Joe Jacob getting up and praising the Minister for resolving the dispute when it was not factual.

One should not make judgments on the basis of one example but I hope that whoever envisaged what are in the rules before us would have foreseen their application.

Vote put.
A division being demanded, the taking of the division was postponed until 6.45 p.m. on Tuesday next, 19 May 1992, in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day.

It is a pity we have to divide on this issue because it is very important that we should co-operate with the Minister and his Department.

Barr
Roinn