Mary Harney
Ceist:2 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the statement he made at the opening of negotiations on a successor to the Programme for Competitiveness and Work on Wednesday, 23 October 1996. [19855/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - New National Agreement.
Mary Harney
Ceist:3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the statement he made at the annual conference of the Irish Management Institute in Limerick on Friday, 18 October 1996. [19856/96]
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:4 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the opening discussions on the new national agreement which took place on 23 October 1996, and on the position he set out on behalf of the Government. [19860/96]
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:5 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the structures and participation in discussion towards a new national agreement. [19861/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, together.
The text of the speech I made at the opening of the discussions on a new national programme has been laid before both Houses. That statement dealt with the Government priorities for a new programme in the context of the world we will face in the years ahead. These were the themes I also addressed in my remarks to the IMI conference at a broader level.
I was pleased with the outcome of last Wednesday's process. Some 19 organisations — the widest ever forum of national organisations brought together to discuss economic and social policy — availed of the opportunity to set out their priorities for a new national programme. Organisations representing trade unions, employers, farmers, the business sector, the unemployed, the voluntary and community sectors, all made valuable and positive contributions.
It is clear that the participants support the objective of developing a new national programme and value the opportunity to participate in the discussions. It is now proposed to hold a series of bilateral and multilateral meetings with these organisations to continue the discussions on the structure and content of a new programme. The discussions will be based on the priorities set down by the Government and the other participating organisations and will draw on the NESF opinion on a new national programme and on the recently published NESC conclusions and recommendations.
Would the Taoiseach prefer to see tax cuts rather than nominal wage increases as a way of boosting employees' take-home pay?
As a general rule, the benefits of tax cuts are felt by everybody who is a taxpayer whereas the benefits of nominal increases in pay are confined to those who receive them. The more universal the benefit conferred the better, as a general proposition, but as I explained in my address to the social partners, there is a trade-off between the scope for tax reductions and the scope for maintaining or increasing public expenditure programmes to do such things as reducing hospital waiting lists, school class sizes and so forth. It is important that all the social partners should give their views on where the appropriate balance should be struck between these various and necessarily conflicting demands.
What percentage increase in public expenditure is the Taoiseach allowing for over the period of the programme?
The provision in regard to public expenditure increases over the next three years will be set out in the Book of Estimates when published. This year the Government will be producing Estimates of expenditure not just for next year but for a three year timeframe which will, broadly speaking, coincide with the likely period of a new programme, if there is one.
Does that mean that the level of wage increases will be provided for in the Estimates which will be published before the programme is concluded or will the level of wage increases be excluded? Will the Taoiseach agree it would be much more intelligent in all of these circumstances to simply guarantee that over the life of the agreement the real value of public sector pay will be maintained by the State, and to concentrate on achieving tax equity by applying the fruits of economic growth, in fiscal terms, to reducing the tax burden, especially of those at the lower end of the earnings scale?
The Deputy will appreciate that public expenditure has to be set in nominal rather than in real terms. If we were to set it in real terms there would be no certainty as to the level of expenditure in cash because there would not be any provision built in with regard to inflation.
How can Estimates be published without doing the deal?
The Deputy asked a very good question which deserves an uninterrupted answer.
I am simply asking the Taoiseach——
I know what the Deputy is asking and I am keen to answer his question. The Government will set out the public expenditure levels in global terms for three years. These will obviously have to contain assumptions about pay. We hope the agreement will be concluded early in which case it will be possible to include in those assumptions definite provisions in regard to agreed pay increases. If, however, the negotiations are not concluded it will be necessary to publish provisional figures and to make any adjustments that may be required subsequently if the agreement involves having to make either a lesser or a greater provision for pay. It would be preferable if we could agree on the pay levels first and then be in a position to publish our Estimates for the three years on the basis of well-founded assumptions about pay developments in the public sector.
The director general of IBEC said yesterday that public spending was now out of control given that it is running at more than three times the rate of inflation. Does the Taoiseach believe that comment will make it much more difficult to negotiate reasonable tax deductions as part of the national programme? Given that the Taoiseach has lost control of public spending, will it be much more difficult for him to reach agreement in the talks?
If my memory does not fail me, and I do not think it does in this instance, public expenditure was running at more than three times inflation when Deputy Brennan last sat at the Cabinet table, but that is obviously not well remembered either by him or by the general public. The Government had to make additional provisions this year in regard to BSE, both in terms of the cost of Border invigilation and compensation for producers, an issue I doubt Deputy Brennan would oppose. Also, the Government has made additional public expenditure provisions this year over and above budget to finance the anti-crime package, which again Deputy Brennan would be loath to be seen to oppose.
It is a tax and spend Government.
It is important to make the point that the public expenditure commitments in dealing with the problems of BSE and crime were necessary and well spent and represented responsible decision making by the Government. I do not agree with the person's remarks as quoted by the Deputy in that context.
The programmes agreed in the past ten years were economic programmes. They did not simply deal with pay and public expenditure but with the position on the national debt, the Exchequer borrowing requirement and our objectives in regard to economic growth and public expenditure. Will the same parameters be used in putting together the framework for operating this programme? My question No. 5 refers to this but the Taoiseach did not answer it in his reply. How will the NESC and the NESF reports be presented? They are not necessarily similar reports — the NESF is correctly focusing on the issue of long-term unemployment. How will that be built into the structure for dealing with the report? It is not clear from the various speeches made on the day of the launch to which, regrettably, I was not invited as an interested party, which Minister will be responsible for answering questions on the programme. In regard to the last three programmes a particular Minister was responsible for answering questions in this House covering various issues concerning the programme. For two of those programmes the Minister for Labour was responsible while the Minister for Finance had responsibility in regard to the other programme. If a Minister is not given responsibility in this regard, questions will have to be put down to the various Ministers. Will the Taoiseach tell the House who will take the lead position in Government for the programme?
The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is "yes". In so far as the second part of the Deputy's question is concerned, the two reports have been tabled for all the participants to examine as part of their consultative process. Meetings are currently taking place with the relevant social partners and obviously the contents of the NESF and the NESC reports will be part of the agenda for those discussions. To answer the third part of the Deputy's question, the responsibility for social partnership in general as an overall Government programme rests with me. As far as pay negotiations are concerned, the lead Minister is the Minister for Finance, and in regard to departmental responses to programme requirements, those will be the responsibility of the relevant Ministers.
At the opening of the programme talks, some confusion arose in regard to the Taoiseach's comments on gender equality. I do not understand it because I did not see the opening of the talks on television. Will the Taoiseach explain to the House what he said and the reason it raised such disquiet?
Great disquiet was not raised by what I said which I am happy to repeat for the benefit of the Deputy who may not have read the copy of my speech which has been circulated.
I do not get to read everything the Taoiseach sends out.
I understand that and I am anxious to assist the Deputy in completing her reading.
She is not a big fan of the Taoiseach.
I said gender equality requires continued advances for women but it also involves a major change in the job prospects and social role of men, an issue that has not yet been addressed in a serious way. This challenge is most acutely felt by those young men who do not have internationally mobile skills and for whom the traditional roles in society are now less open than they were for preceding generations. I am glad the Deputy has asked about this because there are two genders, male and female and the changes in our society affect both of them. It is important that we recognise that many difficulties are currently being faced by young men in society. For example, 75 per cent of drug abusers are young men; five times as many young men as young females are found to be offenders; and there is 50 per cent more unemployment among young men than among young women. I think it is also true that young women do better in examinations. Because their traditional role in society has involved constant change as they adapt to new challenges, they have less hierarchical and less fixed ideas about what they will do in their lives. They are more adaptable to the challenges of modern society.
Positive discrimination.
Unfortunately, the typical expectations which many young men have of life are ones which cannot be fulfilled. They do not have the flexibility or adaptability which many young women have acquired through the educational system and many of the things which have happened in their lives fit them well for the challenges of the future.
It is important we should recognise that the changes which are occurring in the world involve major changes for men, and young men in particular, in regard to their expectations of life. That was the point I was making and it has considerable social consequences for the future. It is something which ought to be addressed in a reasonable way. It is not a matter to be either the subject of dismissive comment or reacted to in a way which does not take account of the reality that the challenges of modern society are ones which certainly affect women but also affect men, particularly, men who have failed to take up sufficiently the opportunities which education has provided for them and who are less adapted to the challenges of the modern world.
Given that 11 people have held the Taoiseach's office and none of them has been female, that there is no woman county manager, no woman editor of a national newspaper, only one woman departmental secretary, only 12 per cent of those at senior management level in the public sector are women,——
And only two women in Cabinet.
—— and none of the Taoiseach's advisers are women, would he accept that we have a long way to go to achieve gender equality? Is the Taoiseach talking about positive discrimination in favour of men?
No. The problems we face in society are more complex that those which can be dealt with by regulations or quotas. Regulations and quotas are not necessarily the only ways of dealing with problems we face and I certainly would not wish to see that approach adopted.
I am glad to hear that.
Extra marks in the leaving certificate?
Will the Deputy allow me to answer? He interrupted my reply to his questions and now he is seeking to interrupt the reply to Deputy Harney's question.
I am sorry.
The position as described by Deputy Harney in regard to the absence of women in senior managerial positions, both in Government and private business, is certainly the case. That is an area where problems need to be remedied as far as women is concerned and this Government has shown itself, in appointing more women to State boards and applying a quota in regard to State board appointments, to be one which recognises——
Quotas.
——the need to bring more women to the fore in responsible decision-making positions. However, it is important to recognise also that problems are experienced not just by those who occupy or aspire to senior positions in society. There are problems faced by young men and women at other levels. It is important to bear in mind that there are 33,000 unemployed young men under the age of 25. That is a concern.
If one looks at the leaving certificate results, women are doing considerably better in virtually all subjects because they are probably working harder than young men and we need to find out why that is the case. Why are young men not adequately motivated to do as well as young women do in the education system?
They still are not doing better in the job stakes.
The aim must be to enhance performance by young men and bring them up to the level which is being achieved by women without in any way inhibiting the progress which women are making. These are issues of gender policy which need to be looked at because there are differences in the performances of men and women in society.
That is not to say that any of the policies which are there to support and enhance the role of women need to be changed; indeed, they need to be strengthened and improved. We also need to look at other problems in a total and holistic way which genuinely faces the problems as they exist rather than in some idealised version of the world.
This new programme will be absolutely wonderful if all those policies are put into effect.
It is very important that any new programme should cover the wide area of social policy. One of the reasons this Government and the previous Government put so much emphasis on, for example, the development of local partnerships, particularly in local areas of concentrated deprivation, is to recognise that these sorts of problems exist. There is a particular problem of young unemployed males who do not have the required qualifications and need extra assistance. I have been saying as I meet those involved in local partnerships that they need to look at these issues and advise the Government on how it can deal more effectively with them. I hope the process of social partnership, which is being launched in the current negotiations, will not be confined solely to issues of pay but will look at these wider social questions and, in a consensual way, seek solutions to them without in any way threatening any existing achievements. It must recognise there are many challenges which remain to be overcome.
Given that two thirds of all the new jobs are part-time, will the Taoiseach accept that they suit women more than men and that may be the reason, to use his words, young men are losing out?
The Deputy is quite correct. It is a problem because many of those part-time jobs are not particularly well paid.
They are done by women.
That is one of the reasons more of the additional jobs being created are going to women, but it is also the case that women probably choose better preparation for the sort of work available. A study undertaken in Europe indicates that 70 per cent of the new jobs in Europe over the next ten years are expected to go to women, not solely because of educational performance but because women have prepared themselves wisely for the areas where additional job creation is occurring in the financial services sector, the health care area and areas of that type. That is very much to their credit and they deserve to do well as a result, but it has consequences in regard to the education of young men.
We need to look at the education system as it prepares young men for the real world as distinct from some idealised world in which they imagined they could have lived had they graduated from school in the 1960s rather than in the 1990s or the next decade.
Do not pull us back when we are only getting there.
It is very important to debate these issues in a way that does not present this as a trade-off. The truth is there is no trade-off involved. It is important for everybody in Ireland to do better and it is important that we recognise this country's successes, particularly the successes which women have created through their efforts. Those who have not been so successful should seek to emanate them in a positive way. The debate should be a positive focus for a person rather than one which involves negativity or invidious comparison.
That is very interesting and I hope the programme focuses on these issues and helps real debate. However, I remind the Taoiseach that when he was making those remarks last week the Employment Equality Bill was before the House. It has now gone before a select committee. Some of the central equality issues which have been argued by people, whether male or female, for the past ten years have been excluded from that Bill and the crucial issue of the male comparator, which would have addressed many of the issues Deputy Harney raised, has been dropped from the Bill. If the Taoiseach feels as passionately about it as he is trying to portray here, he might get the Minister responsible to introduce an amendment to the Bill on Committee Stage and make something worthwhile of it. The present Bill is useless and it will achieve nothing.
The Taoiseach stated he would have the overall co-ordinating position for the negotiations and individual Ministers will deal with their sections. I respectfully suggest that system will not operate. If four to five Ministers are involved in negotiations with different groups — employers or farmers, for example — someone must make decisions for the Government and co-ordinate the process. I wish the Taoiseach the best of luck in attempting to do so but it is not his job to co-ordinate meetings which often last for long periods or take place at weekends. Will the Taoiseach give consideration to appointing a coordinator so that everyone will know who is responsible for driving the negotiations? Otherwise, the process will move in various directions.
I assure the Deputy the negotiations will be conducted in a focused and well managed way. The Government has made internal arrangements to ensure that regular meetings take place between everyone involved. Clear areas of responsibility have been conferred on individual Ministers and these are coordinated effectively by either the Minister for Finance or me, depending on the subject matter under consideration. The arrangements will work extremely well.
With regard to the first part of the Deputy's question, the reference was not to a male comparator but to a hypothetical one. Obviously, the hypothetical comparator has caused some difficulty in that area.
Why was it dropped?
I accept the Taoiseach referred to a real social problem involving the failure of young men to participate in the employment market on equal terms with young women. What special steps are proposed for the Government and the social partners to assist young males to participate with more success so that perhaps 50 per cent of jobs created in the next ten years will be obtained by males? To what steps did he refer when introducing this issue to the social partnership?
I refer Deputy McDowell to an article by the late Christina Murphy which appeared in The Irish Times last June. Ms Murphy drew attention to the considerable difference in leaving and junior certificate results, at higher and lower level, in virtually every subject. It is important that we seek to improve young men's academic performance. If people do not invest in their own education, and are not assisted in doing so, they will face subsequent difficulties in obtaining employment. There is a close link between achievement in examinations — be they junior or leaving certificate examinations — and subsequent achievements in the jobs market. The statistical tables the Minister for Education will publish in the near future clearly illustrate the difference in performance across the range of subjects. Young women perform substantially better in this regard. I could read lists of figures into the record or I will give them to the Deputy later.
What does the Taoiseach propose should be done?
I assure the Deputy my comments are validated by the facts. There must be an examination of how, in each individual school and region, educational performance can be improved in those groups — whether based on geographical or gender considerations — which are falling behind in academic performance. The most important action we can take is to discover what can be done to help these groups to improve. It is often too late to rectify these problems when people have left school. They must be tackled at an early stage in schools, which must identify the reasons for under-performance — be they based on social background, geography or gender.
That must be the end of questions to the Taoiseach for today. We now proceed to questions nominated for priority. Question No. 15 in the name of Deputy Michael Smith.