I wish to share my time with Deputy Tom Kitt.
Private Members' Business. - Employment Policies: Motion.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann, in view of
— the fact that the underlying trend in unemployment has worsened since this Government came to office, with the adjusted total in May higher now than it was last January,
— the fact that the rate of long term unemployment is the highest in the OECD and that over half the unemployed are now long term unemployed,
— the fact that the Central Bank has upped its unemployment forecast for 1995 by 7,000 and that independent stockbrokers have said the Government will fail by a big margin to achieve its modest unemployment targets for this year.
— the fact that there have been unprecedented major closures of industries throughout the country recently and that these crises will further add to the jobless total, and
— the complete lack of planning for the county enterprise boards.
condemns the Government and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment for failing to honour their commitment to make unemployment a priority and for failing to tackle unemployment in any significant way and calls on the Government to develop a coherent employment policy aimed at the maintenance and creation of employment as well as giving priority to measures to tackle long term unemployment.
I am glad to head my party team in this debate on an issue on which this Government said it would make major changes. It said we would see significant results on it and it would target all its objectives at a meaningful decrease in unemployment figures. There are noticeable, significant differences between achievements in the terms of office of Governments in which Fianna Fáil are involved and those of others, including Coalition governments, without our participation. When Fianna Fáil is in Government it appears to be in control of national issues, in particular the economy and other issues warranting extra attention.
It would appear this Government blames everybody else when something goes wrong as we witnessed in the controversy over the Office of the Attorney General. Somehow or other Fianna Fáil was blamed for the poor participation rate in the community employment programme, and our party was held responsible for the last budget and Estimates delivered by the present Minister for Finance. In the six weeks interval between the change over of power to the present Administration, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, appeared to have no responsibility for examining the allocation of funding despite the fact that on the day those Estimates were published I said the funds being allocated were inadequate and I was laughed at.
That underfunding clearly demonstrated the hollowness of the Government's commitment to reducing unemployment or making that its absolute priority. That commitment has not been honoured despite the Governments earlier claims. I will not engage in rhetoric without the requisite back-up figures. Like markets, one cannot fake statistics, however inadequate. Our unemployment figures clearly demonstrate that the underlying trend has worsened since this Government assumed office.
Of course, the Government has endeavoured to disguise that fact by repeatedly announcing the same new jobs, as happened recently. For example, in last week's debate on the Private Members' motion on the economy, in which the Minister for Finance participated, the gloss was also applied by the Minister and Ministers of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment. Ministers are seeking to conceal the problem by referring only to the live register figures whereas we all know the seasonally adjusted total represents the real employment position. When in Opposition the Minister present always insisted that the seasonally adjusted figure was the one that should be used, with which I agree. Indeed, the Minister for Finance, when in the Department of Enterprise and Employment, also sought to use the seasonally adjusted figure. The reason that figure is not now being used is that Ministers know the Government has not got to grips with the unemployment crisis and is endeavouring to hide that fact.
There is no doubt but that the position has worsened by the month since the beginning of this year, to the extent that the steady economic progress made last year has been lost. That was crucially reflected in the May unemployment figures, when the drop was negligible within he overall context of unemployment. The underlying trend shows that the unemployment figure in May was higher than that in January last when this Government took office. If, with economic growth of 5 per cent-plus this Government can achieve a tiny reduction only in unemployment, one must ask what will happen if growth diminishes. The Government has been fumbling about with the unemployment problem and has put forward no coherent strategy, leading to the Central Bank raising its unemployment forecast for 1995 by 7,000.
The warnings, including those of independent stockbrokers and economic forecasters, being issued are very disturbing emanating, as they do, against a background of closures, including The Irish Press group, Silver Lea, Pretty Polly, part of Sunbeam Wolsey and the 400-job layoffs at Packard Electric with effect from Friday next. These industrial crises have eroded the negligible reduction in the May unemployment total and will add significantly to that total in coming months.
Those factory closures emphasise the contradictions in the Government's industrial policy, the crisis within the textile sector in particular highlights those contradictions. Three months ago the future of the knitwear division of Sunbeam Wolsey was in jeopardy.
Before the crisis arose in its socks and underwear division, the knitwear factory had full order books but needed approximately £300,000 to tide it over a difficult stretch. That request was refused at the time by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, resulting in the knitwear plant closing in March with a loss of 108 jobs. Those jobs, with 75 others in the socks and underwear division, have been lost. The same applied in the case of the Silver Lea jeans factory in Athlone, which needed the smallest of breathing spaces in order to preserve 150 jobs. I did everything an Opposition Member could do, and more, but my pleas fell on arid ground. I am convinced that the Department of Enterprise and Employment has certain ideas about the textile industry.
I am further convinced that the ad hoc incoherent way its industrial policy is managed means that today one industry is chosen to be saved and tomorrow another industry equally deserving of aid is allowed to go to the wall. The Pretty Polly factory closed more than a week ago. This treatment of the clothing sector is in sharp contrast to Government action on Shannon Aerospace and Packard Electric, the Exchequer putting up £12 million to protect jobs at the troubled aircraft maintenance facility. Two Ministers made every effort to save jobs at Packard Electric. These interventions were welcome but have led to an air of confusion about the Government's industrial strategy and intervention policy.
In future, does the Government intend intervening in the case of every company experiencing problems and, if so, what will be the criteria when deciding when and where to intervene? For example, if the industry is located in a constituency represented by a Minister will that be the requisite muscle? How can the Government stand over its job preservation intervention at Shannon Aerospace — I agree with the preservation of jobs — and its planned job-shedding within the ESB and Telecom Éireann? How does that relate to the Government's failure to take a decision on the report of the Competition Authority in regard to the Irish Press? I thank the Minister for sending me a copy of his statement to be delivered this evening but I cannot understand its contents. The Minister continues to say that he cannot take a decision on the report of the Competition Authority, but that report was made available to him on 11 April last. A ministerial decision taken in time would have helped avert the crisis in the Irish Press.
The time has come for the Oireachtas to re-examine industrial policy and employment strategies. What is happening now, particularly in the semi-State companies, does not make any sense if the national commitment is to take action on unemployment.
I do not dispute the argument that change is necessary in some of the semi-State companies. They must be positioned for the future and work practices must be in line with procedures elsewhere. However, at a time of high unemployment, it does not make sense to wantonly destroy jobs in commercial semi-State companies. Under current plans it is proposed that, with the 3,000 jobs that are to go in the ESB, Telecom could shed up to 3,000 jobs and Aer Lingus, Bord na Móna and An Post will let go large numbers of workers. That is a total of approximately 15,000 jobs. There should be a public debate on the rationale of such job shedding. In the past 70 years, those companies have expanded and developed expertise and skills and they should be challenged to maintain and create new, self-sustaining employment. It is morally, socially and economically foolish to wantonly shed jobs if we maintain that we want to address the serious unemployment crisis and maximise employment.
The unemployment problem is primarily a medium term one and if demographic shifts and changes continue, jobs will be available in the next decade for those who want them, apart from the huge number of long term unemployed. We must debate our approach to public utilities and industrial policies. Privatisation is not the appropriate route to take. Wholesale privatisation, as evidenced in the UK, is not acceptable. We must look at strategic initiatives and alliances for our public sector enterprises so that they are strengthened and can continue to make a contribution to employment.
The Cabinet cannot ask a State company to get its costs into line and undertake massive job shedding when it is rushing in to prop up jobs in another enterprise. That is a mystery to me and I would like the Minister to offer an explanation. If this contradictory ad hoc policy of helping one firm but not another continues, the Government will spark industrial unrest that the economy cannot afford.
The greatest failure of this Government is its failure to tackle long term unemployment, which is shameful. Long term unemployment is our most serious problem. We have the highest rate in the OECD and people who have been out of work for more than one year make up over half the overall jobless total. That rate has risen from over 42.5 per cent of the total numbers unemployed in April 1991 to 50 per cent today and the future is bleak.
Already this year, the Government has shown that the CEP is not a particular priority. There was an embarrassing scramble for funds and there is an even more serious lack of commitment and lethargy on the part of the Government in relation to long term unemployment. The National Economic and Social Forum produced a worthwhile report. It advocated allocating £30 million towards dealing with this problem but only £6 million was provided for in the budget of which not one penny has been spent.
There is a great reluctance by the Government to begin an upgrade of the community employment programme. The previous Government updated the social employment scheme, provided for more meaningful training for longer durations and allowed for a wider use by voluntary sponsors of worthwhile projects. The Department of Enterprise and Employment should set about making that community employment more meaningful now that the numbers are guaranteed and training facilities increased.
There is much work to be done in the social economy in the areas of health, education and tourism. If it is done in a structured way, this work could give meaning to the lives of those who are long term unemployed without undermining the competitive basis of the economy. It is important, therefore, that resources for action on long term unemployment are given priority. There is a social obligation to shift resources towards initiatives to help the long term unemployed, market forces alone cannot be allowed to determine their future. There is a civic and social obligation on the Government and employers to play their part and a widespread recognition that only sustained, directed and monitored intervention will make inroads into this enormous statistic behind which lie thousands of blighted lives.
We often talk about long term unemployment but those of us who make statements on the problem are employed. We participate in radio programmes and discuss the problem as if it were one single statistic. Behind that statistic, however, is a man or woman with a family, friends, dignity and motivation — which has been long lost — missed opportunities and diminished self confidence. The people who talk about this problem, including Members of the House, economic commentators and those in the media, are in relatively comfortable employment. The action we are taking to address the problem is a mere drop in the ocean. In countries where the problem of unemployment is taken seriously it is constantly on the agenda of governments.
We must set regional targets for dealing with the problem of long term unemployment. That is done satisfactorily in Belgium, parts of Holland and Germany. Targets give one something to work towards. The rising boat will lift certain groups of people but it will not help the long term unemployed. Spirits are crushed when people wake up every morning knowing they have nothing to do. When Fianna Fáil is back in Government it will set realistic targets for reducing the number of long term unemployed. If we do not reach those targets, we will try even harder to achieve them because that is the only way the problem can be addressed. All fair minded people will accept that is the route to follow.
A number of other initiatives must be taken. We must obtain better unemployment statistics showing the gender, age, occupation, experience and level of training of people who are unemployed, in addition to the length of time they have been on the live register. When we were in Government, the then Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, and myself took the initiative — I do not know what happened to it — of collating statistics from Department of Social Welfare offices throughout the country to obtain more meaningful information on the unemployed. I am aware that the UK figures give a breakdown of the various headings to which I referred.
There is a sense of helplessness and hopelessness pervading the debate on unemployment. Targets must be set in dealing with the problem to establish firm and positive thinking on the issue. I have spoken previously about the county enterprise boards, the Leader programmes, back to work schemes, area partnership companies, initiatives by the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Enterprise and Employment, the Office of the Taoiseach, the Office of the Tánaiste, the NESC, the ESRI, Ministers with responsibility for rural development, the Central Bank, Forbairt, IDA Ireland and FÁS, all of which are engaged in the same task. However, the person going to one of these agencies for assistance does not know which door to open. The Minister told me last week about the 1850 telephone number which was designed to point people in the right direction. I wanted to call that number yesterday but it took 15 minutes to get it from the Department's information section. I have not seen the number advertised anywhere.
There are too many routes to enterprise and too much confusion. It is high time to simplify the routes to enterprise rather than cluttering them up with well intentioned but confusing programmes. Last week the Minister for Enterprise and Employment rushed to allocate moneys to county enterprise boards as the money they had been allocated in the budget had been used on projects already. The county enterprise boards have to be put on a proper footing.
I would like to see all memoranda for Government employment proofed — something I will insist upon if and when we get back to Government. When we were in Government we were well on the road with employment protection legislation but where is it now? The legislation on prompt payment would make a very real difference for small firms as it would give them cash in hand, enabling them to continue in business.
I am very concerned about IDA reporting structures and will be moving to have the Dáil committee system amended so that the IDA, Forbairt, FÁS and FORFÁS can give regular reports on their work to the House. At present they cannot appear and all we get are annual reports. It is important to get full information on the value taxpayers are getting for their investment in new plants. I would like to get a report on how many of the new jobs announced in the past 20 years were created and how many still exist. This reporting procedure for the IDA should also apply to FÁS and other State agencies.
Ministers of this Government do not answer parliamentary questions and even the most innocuous parliamentary question elicits the response, "this has nothing to do with me". What is most strange from a Government that sets out to be like a pane of glass is that the blinds are constantly drawn down on information that I am entitled to have on behalf of those whom I represent. Recently the Minister for Enterprise and Employment refused to give details on grant aid to companies, on job targets, job realisation and on the claw back if employment targets are not met. All the questions draw a blank refusal. Will we need more inquiries similar to the beef tribunal to get information?
The ILO recently published a report warning that Irish unemployment will remain the highest in the industrialised world at the end of the decade unless policies are developed. I am calling on the Government to set itself to this task and to honour its commitment to make employment a priority. It must develop a coherent employment strategy. It must report also on implementation of the Culliton report on industrial policy. When we were in Government we gave an up-to-date report each year on the implementation of the Culliton recommendations but I have not heard this year's report. I do not wish to castigate the Minister about this because he may have it in his back pocket and perhaps the Minister will inform us about it in his reply.
The Government must give priority to measures for the long term unemployed. If it is not willing to do so it should just step aside and let in others who are willing to meet the challenge.
I thank my colleague, Deputy O'Rourke, for sharing her time with me. I will take up the baton where she left off. Economic stability requires clear-cut decisive policies. Last week we in Fianna Fáil highlighted the problem in regard to public expenditure and this week we rightly identified the question of jobs which is central to Government's work. We must deal with the problems of unemployment and the national debt. It is vital people have confidence in the Government of the day. Sadly, in this Government there is nothing but confusion and chaos. For example, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, has adopted a macho approach to the semi-States but in spite of the PR management he is continuously pulled back by the dominant left-wing influence in this Government and we see major U turns. A classic example of the confusion of the Government is the "jobs for Leitrim" initiative. My colleagues rightly identified as disgraceful the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry's rush to announce the project, which was backed by my party in Government as an important project for the west. The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht jumped in to object and withdrew his objection shortly afterwards. I would describe that as an act of political madness which would not instill confidence in this Government.
The Government promised a third banking force but as far as I can see, it is back to the drawing board. We see the lack of cohesion on many ideological issues but it is cleverly camouflaged by the expertise of the programme managers.
Deputy O'Rourke asked about the Irish Press and raised again tonight the reason the Minister for Enterprise and Employment did not express at the right time a particular view on the Competition Authority report. We were told the Minister had no view, and the Government dithered again. We now have the Dunnes Stores strike, with implications for jobs not only of Dunnes workers but also of its suppliers. I am glad to see the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, is here. I was pleased to see his appeal in the media but today another Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, appeared. What concerns me is who is actually in charge of that area. This is a sincere question because there have to be clear demarcation lines when managing a Government. It is a peripheral issue but the Government should address it. What we have seen is a series of Government Ministers who are not prepared to take action on the very basic issue of the protection of part-time workers.
I reread with interest the programme, A Government of Renewal, and noted the reference on the need to protect part-time workers. Those words ring hollow when I see how this Government acts. I have a problem in identifying who to blame because more than one Minister is involved. The Government is letting the issue drift in the hope that it will be resolved. Deputy O'Rourke and I have been in close contact with all parties and are anxious to see the dispute resolved. We ask the Minister responsible to become more proactively involved and honour the commitment in the Programme for Government to ensure there is no exploitation of part-time workers and that they are protected. Should they be required to work on Sunday they should do so voluntarily and be paid accordingly.
Yesterday the Minister for Finance was rapped on the knuckles by his German counterpart on account of our national debt — another worrying aspect with regard to confidence in this Government. We are concerned about the muddled picture presented by this Government in the run up to our Presidency of the European Union. The intergovernmental conference next year will have to decide on many crucial issues which have huge implications for our country. We are asking the Government to set out a coherent policy. If things are getting too hot, the Government should do the honourable thing and step aside. There are huge EU funds coming to us now and we need to use them wisely. I am concerned that they are not being used properly because of the ideological confusion that exists on the Government side of this House.
I am convinced that enterprise alone can solve our unemployment problem. In speaking on this motion which condemns the Government and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment for failing to honour their commitments to make unemployment a priority I am acutely conscious of the fact that the Government does not directly create jobs. Job creation is a task for businessmen, large and small, indigenous and multinational, in the public and private sectors. These businesses produce the goods and services which are sold on home and export markets. It is the market which sustains the business, and the primary task of enterprise is to provide a product or service which is more attractive than that of competitors and so retain and expand the market base.
Irish industrial policy has for many years concentrated unduly on endeavouring to solve our economic development problems by attracting overseas enterprises. There have been many such examples in recent times. It can be claimed with some validity that the multinationals have made significant contributions to our industrialisation in terms of skills development and access for their products to international markets. It must be recognised, however, that no multinational will locate in a country unless it is to its advantage. In other words, a multinational must profit directly from international location.
The profit arises from using the indigenous resources of the host country in terms of skills and material inputs. It is valid to ask why a far greater emphasis is not placed on the development of the indigenous industry which, by definition, would give a far higher value in Ireland as the question of repatriation of profits would not arise. The Government needs to be wary of falling into the trap of self-delusion by believing that the economy is thriving with a high rate of growth led by booming export sales. I am sure that the very large number of unemployed people are less than impressed by these statistics. The reality is that over 17 per cent of the total of Irish merchandise exports represents profits repatriation by multinationals. This figure is currently well over £3,000 million per annum, and it should validly be deducted before arriving at the export figure. The statistics regarding the performance of multinationals in Ireland need to be corrected to reflect the contribution of these countries to indigenous added value, because that alone sustains jobs and living standards in the Irish economy. In case anyone thinks that Ireland is too small to sustain the development of large-scale indigenous companies, I emphasise that the top ten Irish subsidiaries of multinational companies in 1992-1993 employed just over 5,100 people here, whereas the top ten indigenous Irish companies in the same year employed more than 56,000 people.
In an article in The European dated 9-15 June 1995, the leading role which Luxembourg plays in the investment markets in western Europe is examined. This article traced the economic development of Luxembourg over the past 100 years from being an agricultural country through the stage of dependence on the heavy steel industry, to the position today where it is a world-class banking and fund management centre and an emerging player in the sale of cross-border insurance products. These developments have taken place in Luxembourg not by accident but through a national recognition and acceptance that they would have to find market niche activities in which to excel. The point was made forcefully in the article that Luxembourg is surrounded by powerful and rich neighbours with whom it would not be possible for a small nation to compete on a broad basis so that specialisation in a small number of areas is essential. The result of sound strategic economic planning and effective implementation of those plans is that Luxembourg enjoys the highest per capita income in the European Union, and it is worth noting that this is double the Irish per capita income. Luxembourg also enjoys the lowest level of unemployment in the European Union which, at around 2 per cent, is one fifth of the European average.
The concept of self-sustained economic development as practised by Luxembourg and other small successful economies formed part of the economic background to Fianna Fáil bringing together the social partners in 1987. I mentioned Luxembourg as an example we should follow. The Fianna Fáil approach of focusing on sectoral development was continued under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress in 1990-93, and Fianna Fáil in Government would have adopted a similar approach under the current Programme for Competitiveness and Work. I now call on the Government and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment to re-establish the sectoral development priorities for which the foundation was well laid by Fianna Fáil and, in doing so, to look at the lessons which can be learned from small successful economies such as Luxembourg within the European Union and Switzerland outside the EU.
The EU "information society" agenda which I pursued as Minister of State for European Affairs should be central to this debate. I am convinced that the EU Information Superhighway Initiative could provide thousands of new jobs here. Information business is mobile and transportable and dependent on brain power. We have high-tech university graduates and multilingual expertise, our costs are competitive and we are in a very strong position to carve out for ourselves thousands of value added jobs in information related industries. In regulating information and communications network at EU level, however, it is essential that we do not allow pure market criteria to dictate the pace and direction of change. A regulatory framework must aim to reach out to citizens and provide access to a wide range of services at affordable prices.
The French Government has a very progressive position on information and communications networks. They are committed to promoting the necessary investment so that access is available to all users with special account taken of peripheral regions, thus avoiding the creation of a two-tier information society. The professional working in Belmullet or Bohola should be on a level playing pitch with his or her counterpart in Brussels or Berlin. The information revolution has already begun and I hope this Government and Telecom Éireann will become centrally involved in shaping its future. Having attended the Communications Workers' Union Conference in Galway last month, I was very encouraged by the enlightened position being adopted by this union in regard to the challenges facing Telecom Éireann in the years ahead. The Irish Government should align itself with the French in promoting an efficient, effective and equitable network of telecommunications for the 21st century and by so doing provide access to employment opportunities for our highly skilled and educated young workforce.
The only viable long term way in which to develop a sustainable business base in the economy is through enterprise which, in turn, depends primarily on the skills, motivation and business acumen of individuals. During my response to the budget speech of the Minister for Finance I challenged him on the validity of his budget in respect of each of his three stated objectives which were to reward work, promote enterprise and strengthen social solidarity. Sadly, his answers were very disappointing. The message from Government has become even more anti-enterprise since I last spoke about the issue in the House. One of the major obstacles in the way of enterprise development at present is the anti-business culture which amounts almost to a criminalisation of those involved in business.
In regard to long term unemployment, not only has the Government failed in its commitment to make the problem of unemployment a priority, long term unemployment here is now at the highest level not only within the European Union but among all the OECD countries. Half of Ireland's unemployed are now classified as long term unemployed. One of the most effective ways in which to help the long term unemployed is through education and training, and I am convinced that much more can be done in this area. I call on the Government to look at the fundamental relationship between education and jobs.
When I spoke in March on the interim report of the Task Force on Long-Term Unemployment I suggested that some of the money devoted to finance the abolition of university fees for full-time students might have been used much more effectively to enhance the job prospects of early school leavers so that they will not become the long term unemployed of the future. I would have thought this approach would have appealed to a Government which includes the Labour Party and the Democratic Left, but I was mistaken. I remind the Government that according to the National Economic and Social Forum almost half the long term unemployed are currently without formal educational qualifications and fewer than one fifth of them have a leaving certificate or higher qualification. Unfortunately this situation looks set to continue for many years because each year nearly 20 per cent of all students who leave the education system have either no formal qualifications or very poor qualifications. The interim report of the Task Force on Long-Term Unemployment stated: "It is almost inevitable that a large percentage of these will become long term unemployed". More than three month ago I suggested to the Government that it was high time to address the problems of this group of disadvantaged school leavers rather than wait until they too become statistics in some future report.
Governments do not directly create employment, but the Government has a fundamental duty to provide national leadership, and this includes economic leadership. In the circumstances the need for economic leadership is paramount if Ireland is to solve the very serious problem of unemployment which has worsened significantly since this Government came into office. In providing such leadership the Government should be vigilant and ensure that legislation is not anti-business. The Government has not only failed to provide leadership but, through inappropriate legislation, has fuelled anti-business sentiment. The Government, as custodian of national statistics, should take steps to ensure that the figures upon which policy decisions are based reflect real, indigenous activities. The Government has failed to understand the relationship between education and jobs and continues to ignore the plight of more than half the long term unemployed who are without formal educational qualifications.
I call on the Minister and the Minister of State to accept our bona fides in raising the issue of jobs and the plight of the long term unemployed. He should try to present a coherent strategy and instil confidence into the public. If he cannot do so, we are ready and able to take his place when the time comes.
The Deputy will not be called upon for a while.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, having regard to the Government's determination to promote additional employment, reward work and reduce taxation: the very positive projected growth in output of 6¼ per cent and in non-agricultural employment of 37,000 in 1995; the notable success of enterprise development agencies at both national and local levels; the growing success of the back to work allowance scheme; the reduction in notified redundancy figures of 25 per cent in the first five months of this year; the initiation of a local employment service to target long term unemployment; and the Government's commitment to maintaining an average of 40,000 people on the community employment programme, has full confidence in the employment policies being developed and implemented by the Government and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment".
I propose to share my time with Deputy Boylan.
Sometimes I need to pinch myself to recall that Fianna Fáil was in power for the past eight years. When it complains of structural weaknesses in the economy such as long term unemployment it begs the question: "what did it do for the last eight years to tackle this problem?". This is a threadbare effort to use any grounds possible to discredit the Government. Anyone looking at the motion will see it is riddled with threadbare data. The people will see through it. I hope to demonstrate, even to the sceptics on the Opposition benches, the soundness of the Government's achievements and the good sense of the strategies we propose.
The key determinant in employment growth is the overall health of the economy. In recent years there has been significant growth in this economy but it is depressing that, over the last seven years despite having the highest growth in Europe, we have one of the worst employment performances. With 5 per cent growth in national income from 1987 we have not succeeded in creating more than 7,000 new jobs each year, less than one quarter of what we need to provide employment for the natural increase in the labour force. Things have changed and the outlook for the economy is buoyant. The estimates for growth this year are sound with an economic growth rate of 6 per cent forecast and 2.5 per cent growth in employment or an increase of 37,000 in non-agricultural employment. It looks as if this is set to continue in 1996.
Everyone recognises that the main target we must achieve is to create employment opportunities for our rapidly expanding labour force. It is a crucial issue. We must achieve high growth, low inflation and a highly competitive economic environment. I am encouraged by the Government's achievements since it came to power. The forecast for non-agricultural employment growth in 1995 is 37,000 — an increase of 31,000 in net employment in 1995. That is considerably above the natural increase in the labour force of 24,000 and is a significant achievement bearing in mind recent history.
Deputies look for hard facts to back up some of the Government's achievements. The building industry is a good example. It has been dear to the hearts of Fianna Fáil over the years. In the first four months this year we achieved 7 per cent growth in employment in that industry. Contrast that with the same period last year when employment there declined by 1 per cent. There is a significant change in employment performance since the Government came to office.
In the first five months of this year recorded redundancy figures are 25 per cent lower than in the same period last year. That is a reduction of 2,000 over the same period last year. It puts at nought the Fianna Fáil suggestion that there is a widespread spate of job losses. The facts speak for themselves. That is a credible performance. It is important that the Government maintain consistent macro-economic policies so that we can continue to enjoy real employment growth in the non-agricultural and private sectors. The Minister for Finance is to be complimented on the prudent measures he has taken to ensure that by managing public finances in a sensible and coherent way we make room for that growth in the coming years. We can achieve a sensible growth in public services but in a context where we share the fruits of growth, with tax reform, to promote expanded employment. If Fianna Fáil was honest and looked at its period in office, it would recognise that the facts speak for themselves. Between October 1992 and December 1994 unemployment fell by 11,000. Long-term unemployment during that period increased by 9,000.
It has risen further during the Government's six months in office.
As the Deputy is well aware, no figures were published since Fianna Fáil left office. The figures for long term unemployment were published last October before the previous Government left office.
They have increased and are increasing.
During the stewardship of Fianna Fáil when long term unemployment increased by 9,000 the community employment programme expanded by 30,000. Despite a Government programme using taxpayers' money to expand community employment by 30,000——
Blame everybody else but do not blame yourself.
——Fianna Fáil succeeded in seeing long term unemployment increase.
Order, please. The Minister, without interruption.
Listen now. The Deputy was not interrupted.
If people took an objective view of the facts and the performance of this Government and Fianna Fáil when in office——
How good the Minister is.
This Government was formed on 15 December. The unemployment figure at the end of December was 278,400.
Is the Minister talking about the seasonally adjusted figure?
Yes. The figure has declined to 275,000.
Why not take the figure at the end of January? The Minister is afraid.
We came to office in December.
The Minister is afraid. Every day the Minister is afraid to get up——
The Deputy must not interrupt.
As the Deputy well knows, we came to office in December. In the motion the Deputy asks about unemployment since we took office. She is not willing to face up to the facts.
The Minister is afraid to do anything.
The reduction in unemployment in the past six months has been achieved at a time when the Government did not have the opportunity to boost employment through community employment schemes.
The Minister is afraid to take decisions.
The Minister without interruption, please.
The Deputy is not too good at figures.
I am not suggesting that we should rest on our laurels or be satisfied with a reduction in unemployment on the scale achieved but people should be honest about the figures and not seek to distort them.
The Minister is a disgrace.
Order, please.
The Deputy suggested that the Central Bank revised its forecast for unemployment because of the failure of the Government——
It revised the figures downwards.
It revised its projections for unemployment——
Is the Minister blaming the Central Bank?
——because it did not expect the Government to be able to sustain the 40,000 people on the community employment scheme.
The scheme the Minister forgot about.
I am very pleased to tell the Deputy that the Government has wisely reversed the cutbacks imposed by the previous administration——
The Minister blames everyone but himself.
——and has sustained the level of activity on the community employment programme. This very helpful boost to employment has been recognised by the Central Bank.
Will it make another report?
The Member in possession must be allowed to proceed without interruption.
The Minister is being provocative.
Is there a precedent for this?
This is harassment.
The Minister without interruption from either side.
I wish to deal with the unemployment problem and the challenge it poses for us.
The Minister said there was no problem.
I did not say there was no problem. If the Deputy listened to what I am saying rather than continuously interrupt me——
The Deputy was never good at listening.
——we might make some progress in the debate. Unemployment is a problem of enormous proportions and the 270,000 people on the live register must be made a priority.
The Minister said it was not a priority.
Please, Deputy.
We have made significant progress in dealing with the problem this year. We have turned the tide in terms of employment in the building industry and have good vibrant employment in the economy. However, we must ensure that this good growth in the economy is turned into employment and reductions in unemployment.
What is the Minister doing about this?
I commend the Minister for Finance on the measures introduced in his year's budget to reduce the tax wedge which was an obstacle to turning growth into real employment on the ground. These measures have been widely welcomed by business, particularly by those in some of the more vulnerable sectors such as the clothing industry and other industries which rely on the traditional indigenous sectors. These measures include the increase from £9,000 to £12,000 in the annual income threshold below which the lower rate of employers' PRSI of 9 per cent applies and the exemption of the first £50 of income from employer's PRSI. They have helped to reduce the tax wedge and the costs of employing people by more than 3 per cent in many industries. As you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, will know, many traditional industries rely on profitability levels of less than 2 per cent of their turnover and this reduction in their wage bill has been of significant assistance in improving profitability and helping them to grow and develop.
What about Sunbeam, Petty Polly and Silverlea? The Minister is forgetting the facts.
I appeal to the Chair to ask the Deputy to allow me develop some train of thought.
Let us have no further interruptions, please. The Member in possession must be allowed to continue without interruption.
It is very important to meet the needs of industry. The Government has set the ambitious target of 20,000 gross new jobs in industry in the coming years, and I commend the IDA for the very significant and worthy progress it has made in meeting its target this year. As is well known, it is achieving one new greenfield project every week in manufacturing and international services.
And closing another.
All IDA regions are showing the benefits of this high level of new job creation. Already this year I have had the pleasure of announcing more than 40 new or expanded industrial projects.
The Minister has announced them three times.
Fair minded people will recognise the value of projects such as Hewlett-Packard, Seagate, SRAM, 3COM, INTEL, Corel and MADGE, to name just a few.
Of course we cannot rely on foreign industry to provide the answer to all our employment needs. It is critically important to avail of this opportunity to develop our indigenous firms. We must take a much more strategic view of the base of foreign industry and use it to develop linkages and opportunities for our smaller sub-supply and consumer industries. In this context Forbairt has set itself ambitious targets over the next five years and has made significant progress in this area. Although it created more than 9,000 jobs last year another 9,000 jobs were lost in indigenous industries. There was no net gain in employment in the indigenous sector last year and we are determined to try to reverse this trend. Ambitious targets have been set in the areas of linkages, research and development and innovation for small businesses, and the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, is developing very worthwhile programmes in this area. We have also set ambitious targets for industry in export growth and employment. These companies believe they will be able to expand employment and reverse the recent trent of sustained decline in employment levels.
We must do more to fund small business and help them to meet their funding requirements. Small business has always found it difficult to secure finance from banks, which in recent times have been more responsive and supportive of entrepreneurs and business generally. I also recognise the value of the small business loan fund which was developed by the former Minister, Deputy Séamus Brennan. I am glad to tell the House that I will shortly announce a much expanded low interest, long term loan scheme which will be of immense benefit to small business and which will also be open to service and smaller businesses. I am also glad to announce that a new seed and venture capital fund has ben put in place. This will be a very important vehicle through which to help smaller, risky ventures which have experienced enormous difficulty in developing.
The county enterprise boards are an important vehicle for the development of industry and enterprise on a bottom-up basis.
The Minister did not always think that.
I am glad to tell the House that the drawdowns and activities in this area are very healthy. During the first six months there has been a drawdown of £6 million in support of real employment projects. This is a huge increase on the figure for the same period last year.
The Deputies opposite seem to think that we are not addressing the needs of the long term unemployed. The Government is determined to implement the local employment service as recommended by the NESF and as endorsed by the task force on long term unemployment. There are 12 partnership areas and it is hoped to bring two additional non-partnership areas into the scheme this year. This programme is designed to produce tailor-made responses to the need of the long term unemployed instead of putting them on schemes at the end of which they revert to the live register. We want to see those who participate in training schemes or in second chance education progressing to a career path.
I am pleased we had the opportunity to reverse the cuts in the community employment scheme and have restored participation to 40,000 people. This had been a good scheme and had involved many people across the community in worthwhile projects. It has drawn 90 per cent of its participants from the long term unemployed and the balance from lone parents. We are developing the training component and this year we have development modules for all participants. We are stepping up the training of supervisors to ensure that the quality in that area is up to the desired standard.
I am pleased that the back to work allowance scheme, administered by my colleague the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, is making a valuable contribution to reducing unemployment and helping people to establish new business. As Deputy Kitt pointed out, it is important that we invest in our human resources. That is why the White Paper on training, on which I am working, is of critical importance. Anyone reviewing the industrial climate would clearly recognise that it is in the human resource area that competitive advantage will be built for the future. It is important that we review the effectiveness of the very substantial human resource budgets in place, and that is what I am doing.
Many of us will have been disappointed and disturbed at the results of the school leavers survey published last week where many of those who dropped out of school without completing any qualification are facing bleak futures in the labour market. This is an issue that has to be addressed not only in the context of our work in the training area but in the schools. It is disappointing that 3,500 young people are coming out of school with no qualification and facing such poor prospects in the labour market.
Part of our bottom-up approach to addressing employment needs is the local development programme. We have designated 35 disadvantaged areas under that programme which will embrace the partnership concept that has been so successful in areas such as Coolock, to mention just one, in the past two to three years.
I am pleased that we have a clear strategic approach and that the tackling of unemployment and, in particular, long term unemployment is at the top of our agenda. I recognise, like other Deputies, that tackling long term unemployment will not be an easy task but we are using our ingenuity to come up with new answers which I am confident will bear fruit in time.
I support the Minister's amendment to the Fianna Fáil motion. I would be amused were it not such a serious topic and an opportunity to discuss the issue. I cannot accept that the Fianna Fáil Party regards this as a serious issue, given their attitude to the House since their removal from Government to the Opposition Benches and, in particular, their antics, games and calling for quorums at every opportunity during the past ten days.
Watch for the results of the by-election.
This afternoon they gathered in the balcony like a group of school children wondering whether they should mitch from school for the day.
Where were the Deputy and the Minister?
This demeans the Opposition and demeans the House.
The debate is about unemployment.
The Deputy in possession please.
For that reason I do not think Fianna Fáil is serious about the motion but it provides an opportunity for discussion——
I do not accept that the Deputy is a serious politician either.
——and I support the Minister's amendment. At least there is confidence in the economy.
Not a bit.
I have felt that sense of confidence since the change of Government. The Taoiseach's honesty and that of the Government he leads——
Holy God, what is the Deputy talking about?
——has given an uplift to the economy. That is obvious to any person who is observing what is happening nationally. On my way to our native city of Dublin the cranes in the building sites are waving like flags in the sky.
They are coming down.
Deputy Boylan without interruption, please.
Every week there is a crane on a new building site or new development and that shows confidence.
Is the Taoiseach driving it?
When you move around the country you see many private developments taking place. If you inquire from your local authority office about planning permissions you will be told they are at an all-time record. The economy is beginning to pick up.
Thanks to Fianna Fáil.
I listened to Fianna Fáil and I did not interrupt. Please do not interrupt me as I have only a few minutes.
The Deputy is waffling.
I am concerned about the problem of long term unemployed. That is a separate issue from job creation for young people leaving school who will have more skills and be better educated. We are talking about a large number of people, perhaps in excess of 100,000 people, who have been unemployed for seven, eight or ten years. While I do not like pointing the finger we have got to face reality and look at their situation.
There are 135,000.
We have to look at their qualifications. Unfortunately, we will find that many left school at an early stage. They may have dropped out at junior cert level and may not have completed the leaving certificate. Their qualifications for any job are limited. For that reason we have to examine this issue separately from the other issues of ongoing job creation to try to get those people back into the workforce. The State can play a certain role. I support the various community schemes and the FÁS schemes which have a role but they are not the be-all and end-all of job creation for these people. They can play a role in developing skills. I have seen this happen in the restoration of old buildings; a skill which I thought had died out is being passed on. There is an opening for these skills but I am not sure whether those in the 35 to 55 age group can be brought back to class and training where skills can be taught to them or what role they can play in the modern employment enterprises such as computer skills and electronics. That may not be the role for them but we should not simply say there is not much we can do and forget about them. Many of those people are happily married and their families are growing up. We are talking about a second generation where the work ethic in the home would not be strong. That is serious. Where the father or the parents are out working it instills in the children a work ethic. Unfortunately, those other people, through no fault of their own, are in this situation.
The Deputy has one minute remaining.
I am probably entitled to injury time because the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, was interrupted. I feel so strongly about those people that I hope the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, will address that issue on its own.
The Deputy is afraid all the time.
There is a role for small industry in job creation. The day of the multinational setting up an industry with 300 to 1,000 jobs is fast disappearing.
On Sunday last my colleague, Deputy Brendan Smith and I — we work together for the good of the people of Cavan and there is very little bickering between us — jointly opened a trade fair in the little village of Ballyhaise. The items on display included woven baskets, home-made anoraks, small furniture, etc. I did not believe such excellent workmanship was being carried on within a ten mile radius of that village. The State must have a role in helping to market those products. The business is too small to develop out into the market. I see an opportunity for people in their own community to develop jobs and take a pride in that work which would further encourage job creation because success leads to success. I am sorry I do not have more time. This is a subject we should return to regularly for further discussion.
I would like that.
In contributing to this debate I will comment on the importance of employment. I will refer to what I regard as muddled thinking on how a small business can be assisted and highlight some of the areas where the adoption of a more enlightened approach to science and technology could lead to the creation and maintenance of further jobs. I will also refer to the county enterprise boards which the Government asked to play a pivotal role.
An adequate science and technology infrastructure is the most vital job creating force in a modern industrial economy because technology, although responsible for the loss of jobs in some sectors is responsible for almost all new jobs. The seriousness with which a country takes science and technology is a measure of how effective it is in job creation. I cite the United States, Japan, Germany and the rapidly growing economies of the Pacific rim countries, such as Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan, as examples. These lessons have obviously been lost on the Government.
Innovative and successful initiatives by previous Fianna Fáil led Governments in the science and technology area, such as the programmes in advanced technology are being slowly starved of funds as well as having their industrially based steering boards removed. The programmes are slowly withering on the vine of bureaucratic inaction starved of funds and the industrial guidance that made their work in previous years so relevant.
Dismantling these excellent and imaginative initiatives in the area of science and technology was further compounded by the appearance of the recent STIAC report on science and technology which was a damp squib. This was paraded before an unsuspecting public with great though cynical bombast. This report has been thoroughly discredited because of its failure to recognise that the greatest single job producing industry in the economy is information technology; computers, electronics and telecommunications. It is incredible that we are expected to take seriously a report that proposes no significant initiatives in this globally recognised high growth sector but focuses instead almost exclusively on the development of natural resource based industries whose job creation potential is limited. This anomaly is so glaring that it undermines the value of the report and clearly demonstrates that the Government has failed to grasp the significance of science and technology.
A further consequence of the Government's total lack of initiative, ideas and ambition is not only that a great opportunity has been missed with the production of such a lacklustre report. I reserve my worst condemnation for the almost criminally negligent running down of the programmes in advanced technology which showed so much promise up to now. One can only fervently hope that the damage inflicted to these programmes will not be irreversible by the time a responsible Government returns to office.
Great concern has been expressed about the way in which the economy is being managed. The function of Government is to collect taxes and spend the proceeds equitably to create the climate in which wealth and employment will be generated.
This year the Government hopes to raise almost £12 billion in revenue every penny of which will come from those currently employed and in receipt of pensions. Revenue will be raised by way of duty on small items such as boxes of matches and bottled water, stamp duty on homes, VAT, taxes associated with motoring not to mention PRSI, PAYE, the employment levy, the training levy and tax on profits.
As a nation we have shown great tolerance in paying taxes partly in the hope of a better future for our children and a caring society for ourselves as we grow old. The workforce is getting younger, the expectations of those leaving the education system are getting higher, the age of retirement is coming down, the life span of citizens is becoming longer and our population is expanding.
In the private sector employers and employees make provision out of current earnings for future pension requirements. In Government circles — as Tim Pat Coogan recently pointed out in referring to the Irish Press group management — there is a riverdance approach to the growing and already massive unfunded liability for pensions that the State will have to pay in this and future years. This might be fine if we had the resources to meet these future unfunded liabilities but with the workforce declining due to people joining later and leaving earlier taxes on those at work may not be sufficient to pay for those requiring education, social welfare, health care and pensions after a life in the public service. Just because it was a long time ago when remnants of the present Government cut pensions does not mean that this grim spectre will not face future Governments unless we plan ahead now.
Is the Government making the best use of the taxes it is raising from the workforce? The State's share of the economic cake is growing steadily and dangerously larger each year. The public service is increasing in size at a more rapid rate than the rest of the workforce and public service pay continues to accelerate at around three times the annual rate of inflation. Inflation is currently below 3 per cent. Nonetheless, a few months ago the Government planned to increase expenditure this year by 6 per cent. Few independent commentators think that the actual increase will be as low as 9 per cent.
The basic approach to controlling expenditure and creating employment is wrong. The Government is concerned that expenditure in 1995 and 1996 will be greater than target which on budget day we were told had been achieved in respect of the current year. No longer is there talk of the end of the century and the year 2010. That is what we should think of.
We have been promised cuts in public expenditure by curtailing employment in the public service. It is hard to know whether this is a by-election promise and its timing would suggest that worse is to come. In the silly season — August — I will pray for the people.
Five in a row.
Cutting back on employment in the public service would lead to a reduction in the number of jobs in that sector by at least 5 per cent per annum and, perhaps, considerably more. The principle of controlling and pruning expenditure is the correct one.
Controlling payroll expenditure, however, does not involve examining the question of new recruits only but all jobs.
Some Departments have existed since the establishment of the State. During the years new Departments and ministries have been created and programme managers, committee chairmen and so on have been appointed. Every year each Department applies for and obtains an increase. This involves making sure all large allocations are spent regardless of whether this is necessary since otherwise the full increase requested will not be granted. Asking for more than one needs and not coming up with any cost cutting suggestions would be dangerous. Each penny of Government expenditure and the work of every single Government employee should be examined with one thing in mind: is this expenditure or job necessary and could resources be used to better effect elsewhere? The less the State takes out of the economy the more opportunities there will be to create and maintain productive jobs.
The lack of employment opportunities creates a vacuum that is filled by criminals thus placing a greater burden on those at work and their families. The State can assist business by providing various grants, aid and other incentives and through its taxation policies. The biggest part the Government can play is in questioning State expenditure, cutting it where it must be cut, facing the hard choices and reallocating resources not within Departments but within the public sector not hesitating to invest more resources where a return can be foreseen.
During the course of a recent Adjournment debate I made positive and practical proposals as to how a small business could be assisted in creating more jobs. Allowing small business companies to retain more of their profits would lead to the creation of more employment in the sector with a double benefit to the Exchequer. As well as raising revenue by way of PAYE, PRSI, VAT and excise duties on items such as petrol and drink paid for by employees there would also be a saving in that, taking everything into account, the average unemployed person costs the State £3,800 per annum.
The reply I received, while polite and thoughtful, is indicative of the Government's muddled thinking on how to support the small business sector and create employment. I regard only one of the points raised as being of practical and immediate assistance and indicative of the Government's intent to take positive action promptly. In fairness to the Minister for Finance, this year he reduced one of the taxes on employment, employer's PRSI. I welcomed the Minister's proposal then and I call again for a further reduction in the 9 per cent PRSI rate by 1 per cent per annum for four years and a simultaneous increase in the threshold from £12,000 to £15,000.
Deputy O'Rourke referred to the textile industry. As a result of the uncompetitive environment in which it operates — employers' PRSI is 5 per cent in the UK as against 9 per cent here — that industry is in crisis. A special case must be made if it is to survive in the years ahead and create the necessary jobs.
Apart from the PRSI change it was proposed that there would be a concerted programme to help small business in the creation of enterprise and employment by strengthening the Competition (Amendment) Bill; empowering the courts to impose fines on those found to be engaged in unfair competition; the exemption of most mergers and take-overs from scrutiny in the review of the Competition (Amendment) Bill, which is currently under way; recognition of services as an area with enormous potential for employment creation — that is under consideration; recognition that 80 per cent of the service sector is made up of small businesses. If there is not a proper climate for investment there will be no hope for this sector. I ask the Minister to consider the innovative and progressive findings of the report of the Task Force on Small Businesses.
It was also proposed that an Oireachtas joint committee would be set up to examine and report on improving the operating environment for small business and services, with the final report due by March 1997. A commitment was made to introduce long overdue legislation to enforce prompt payment by public bodies. This is one matter that has caused major problems for small business. Last year provision was made in the budget for a once-off payment to health boards so that they would be in a position to make payments within 30 days. However, after short term relief, payments have again fallen overdue. I appeal to the Minister to consider the position of small traders and businesses who experience great difficulties in receiving payments on time.
It was proposed that information and advice on public service contracts should be provided to small business, and this matter is awaiting clearance from Brussels. A scheme was proposed for the provision of long term, low cost financing. It was agreed that reports of the Task Force on Small Business and Services would constitute a blueprint for the development of the small business sector. This would of necessity entail a multi-annual perspective.
An assurance was given that the Department of Enterprise and Employment and the industrial development agencies associated with it, including the county enterprise boards, would provide support and assistance in creating employment in the small business sector. A Chamber of Commerce of Ireland survey published in January of this year shows that many Irish businesses are dissatisfied with the level of support provided by the new county enterprise boards — 42 per cent of firms rated the county enterprise boards as unsatisfactory in terms of service. Forbairt, IDA Ireland, the Irish Trade Board and CERT as well as the Revenue Commissioners received high satisfaction ratings for service.
Excessive bureaucracy at central Government and lack of power at local level cause inefficiencies in the operation of county enterprise boards. Much can be done at local level, but the whole system of local authority funding must be improved. The 35 county enterprise boards were initially allocated £19.6 million for this year, an average of £560,000 per board. This is the first full year of operation of county enterprise boards and the funding is inadequate. Job approvals amount to 5,280, including 4,250 full-time jobs. This is very good value, particularly by comparison with the £81 million allocated to IDA Ireland and £50 million allocated to Forbairt. The enterprise boards were given a pivotal role in the promotion of small enterprises through an expanded range of initiatives. Their duties include the provision of a broad range of supports to foster the enterprise culture. In addition they must support, advise and encourage individual projects at the critical start-up stage, when major problems arise for small businesses and small industry generally.
In launching the county enterprise boards in October 1993 Deputy Noel Treacy and particularly Deputy Albert Reynolds recognised that skills, energy and enthusiasm at local level could be harnessed to create jobs. A sum of £150 million was envisaged for the scheme, of which £50 million would come from the public sector. In the short time since the boards have been set up they have been regarded as an engine of job creation. There have been hiccups and even some failures. There is a willingness to advance into unchartered waters and to take risks. I have no doubt that the structures set up in 1993, however forward-thinking then, may still be improved upon and streamlined. The boards need immediate funding to allow them to perform efficiently. The allocation of £19.6 million this year is a big reduction on the 150 million envisaged.
It is my understanding that the allocation to individual county boards and city area boards is being cut back and that they have been instructed not to approve any more projects. There is much confusion about this matter and I ask the Minister to clarify it. Is there a thinking in Government that county enterprise boards should be discontinued because of a lack of funding? Surely the boards could be streamlined at little or no cost. Certainly the funds required should be taken from another less deserving allocation. For example, the amount of money allocated to one boxing match in Cork, which was fully sold out, with television rights taken up by an international satellite broadcaster, would keep one enterprise board in operation for at least six months. I must admit that the 30 minutes of boxing was most enjoyable, but the lack of adequate funding to county enterprise boards is unacceptable.
The Minister referred to the money provided for the community employment scheme. Were it not for the efforts of the spokesperson on Enterprise and Employment, Deputy O'Rourke, 40,000 people would not have been employed on this scheme. It was the Government intention to reduce that figure by 7,000 to 33,000, saving the Exchequer a paltry £10 million. Communities in every constituency were concerned about this matter, as is evidenced in Wicklow, particularly south Wicklow. I am sure the Government will hear much more about this matter before the end of the week.
There is great confusion about public expenditure. This Government is on a rocky road to nowhere. This is the Government that is going to bankrupt the country. To the embarrassment of Deputy Bradford and members of the other Government parties who were present in Mallow yesterday, I stated that after five months in office this Government has wrecked the economy. Those views were expressed to me on the doorsteps in Wicklow on Saturday and Sunday. People were frustrated and asked what is happening in the area of taxation and public expenditure. I told them that the Government has lost the run of itself in managing the economy.
For periods of five and seven years we were on the opposite side of the House, we put the economy right and perfected matters under the leadership of the former Taoisigh, Charles Haughey and Deputy Reynolds. The Deputies opposite have wrecked the economy and frightened the people of Wicklow and elsewhere, but they will get their answers.
Debate adjourned.