John Bruton
Ceist:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with representatives of ICTU on 28 November 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28381/00]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Pay Agreements.
John Bruton
Ceist:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with representatives of IBEC on 28 November 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28382/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions on 4 December 2000 in Government Buildings with the social partners. [29418/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach when the last quarterly meeting of the four pillars of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness was held; when the next meeting is planned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1757/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if the national implementation body, representing Government, IBEC and ICTU, established to ensure delivery of the stability and peace provisions of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and announced on 4 December 2000, has yet met; the specific role this group will play; the reason the community and voluntary pillar was not included in this group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1758/01]
John Bruton
Ceist:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement following his recent meeting with the leadership of the Irish Farmers' Association at its annual general meeting. [2099/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
In response to a request by ICTU to consider issues arising from inflationary pressures in the economy, a process of discussion was commenced on 17 October and was brought to a successful conclusion with an agreement on 4 December last, the text of which has been lodged in the Oireachtas Library. In summary, it provides for a 2% increase in basic pay with effect from 1 April 2001 and a lump sum equal to 1% of basic pay to be implemented on 1 April 2002.
These provisions are subject to a number of conditions, principally on the following lines: a commitment to full and ongoing co-operation with change and flexibility, a commitment to increasing productivity and employment, and an undertaking that the special increases will not be pursued through industrial action of any type.
A national implementation body representing Government, IBEC-CIF and ICTU will meet quarterly to ensure delivery of the stability and peace provisions of the PPF. The first meeting of the body took place yesterday, 29 January. Participation in the implementation body is based on those social partner organisations which concluded the 4 December agreement under the PPF, namely, the Government, IBEC-CIF and ICTU.
As the House will be aware, clause 7 of the PPF provides a mechanism to recognise difficulties which employers may have in meeting the pay terms of the PPF. The 4 December agreement confirms this by ensuring that particular regard must be had for a number of circumstances where competitiveness and employment are at risk, including employments in vulnerable sectors, employments where wage costs, within the terms of the PPF, have increased significantly, employments which are experiencing economic and commercial difficulties and-or those which may be adversely affected by changes in exchange rates, and employments where pay costs have increased significantly above those implied by the terms of the PPF.
On public service pay, the benchmarking body is due to report by 30 June 2002. Following receipt of the report, discussions about implementation will commence immediately between public service employers and the public services committee of ICTU. One quarter of any increase arising from the report will be implemented with effect from 1 December 2001 and the balance will be implemented on an agreed phased basis.
As I already indicated, the 4 December agreement is underpinned by a new understanding on industrial relations peace and its provisions should be viewed alongside the income related measures set out in the budget for 2001. The totality of measures involved will not only inject new stability into the partnership process but will also create the appropriate context for achieving the highly ambitious objectives in the non-pay areas of the PPF, especially with regard to tackling social disadvantage and capacity constraints.
Regarding PPF plenary meetings, the most recent meeting took place on Thursday last and the next meeting is scheduled for 26 April. Last Thursday's meeting focused on the themes of overall implementation of the PPF on which very significant progress has been made, as is evident from the latest progress report available in the Oireachtas Library; the macroeconomic outlook for this year, with particular regard to the post- budget context; and delivery of the infrastructural aspects of the national development plan on which good progress has been made.
Regarding my attendance at the AGM of the Irish Farmers' Association on 16 January, I placed particular emphasis in my address, which is available in the Oireachtas Library, on the measures being taken to restore consumer confidence in beef, arising from the BSE crisis.
Does the Taoiseach believe the comments of the European Commission as to the likely inflationary effects of the Government's budgetary policy were motivated by jealousy and that in response we should put on the green jersey?
As I stated outside the House, the Government always pays attention to the comments of international bodies or a distinguished person such as Pedro Solbes. In this case, while the Government does not share his views, it will listen to what he has to say. We have not yet received the full text of what he wishes to put to the ECOFIN Council, but I am aware of what he said from the preliminary report of his comments. I do not agree with him, but I have no doubt that his views will be debated at some length at the ECOFIN Council.
I do not want to be difficult, but the Taoiseach has not answered the question. Does he believe, as Government spokespeople are briefing, that the European Commission's views were motivated by jealousy and agree that we should put on the green jersey to resist the Commission's views?
I would not use either of those terms. What I have said is that 99.4 is not a suitable provision to use. I understand that it is the view of Pedro Solbes that the budgetary measures in the Irish economy have been – to use his own words, which he has used many times – excessively successful and that it might be good to lower the heat. This will happen in any event. It is projected that this year we will move from a figure of more than 10% to somewhere in the region of 7%. He also stated that we should cut our capital programme, but I do not share that view. This does not add up in an economy which has the highest surplus in the European Union, in which large resources are being placed in a fund to be used in 25 years and which has the second lowest debt in the European Union after Luxembourg which, effectively, has no debt. At the same time he ignores the fact that there are capacity constraints in areas such as electricity, gas, infrastructure and water management. It is his contention that we should cut public expenditure, but on his own assessment public expenditure here is still among the lowest in the European Union. I have no wish to become involved in a row, but if he was to follow his own logic, he should tell some of the other countries in which public expenditure is far higher, which have far lower surpluses and in which provision has not been made for pensions in the long-term, to get their act together. He is not doing that.
With regard to inflation, Deputy Bruton shares my view that price stability is extremely important. We must continue to contend and deal with price stability and take it seriously as a policy issue. However, that was not the basis of his concern. I assure Deputy Bruton that we will continue this year to work on the issue of price stability, which is fundamental to economic and fiscal policy.
I note the Taoiseach has disavowed the language used by both the Minister for Finance and the Tánaiste in their responses. I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach has used a more measured and carefully argued view in response to the Commission. His disavowal of what the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance said is significant.
Will the Taoiseach respond to the comments made by representatives of the voluntary and community pillar on the budget and its outcome? They felt abused and betrayed by its provisions. Did the meeting to which the Taoiseach refers discuss the threat from the community and voluntary pillar to withdraw its participation in the structure of social partnership because of that sense of betrayal?
The community and voluntary pillar representatives, whom I have met and am due to meet again, are concerned about the element of the programme to introduce progressively social inclusion measures with a total cost of £1.5 billion by 2003, to progress over the period towards a target of £100 per week in respect of the lowest rates of child welfare payments and to increase child benefits substantially towards £100 per month for the third and subsequent children. Their stated position is that more work should have been done on that. They acknowledge the successes but believe that not enough was done on those aspects.
The social welfare package in the budget was a record £850 million, two thirds of the target. The basic rates were increased by 10% while families with children received increases of up to 18%. The decision to address child care costs through the child benefit system provides a non-discriminatory support which has greatest relative benefit for poorest families. The social and voluntary pillar, I understand, wishes to have further dialogue not only within the PPF committee meetings but also directly with the Government. There is to be a meeting with me and the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs to ensure all aspects are covered.
While they acknowledge £850 million was an enormous figure to spend in one go, they are concerned that some aspects should have received more attention. It is not possible to do everything in one budget but I will listen to their views and explain our thinking and logic in the first of the three budgets.
Does the Taoiseach accept the charge made by some representatives of different organisations within that pillar that the effect of the budget, notwithstanding the enormous amounts of money which were allocated and were available in an unprecedented way to the Administration, is to widen the gap between rich and poor and to make inequality in society greater? Is that a fair charge?
I do not accept that charge and it was not made to me in those terms. I note from the Deputy's phrasing that he is not making it. The leadership of that pillar feels that the target of £100 per week in respect of the lowest rates of social welfare payments should get a higher regard than some other aspects. They would not argue necessarily about the money. They argued previously, for example, that they did not think the last budget was the one for the elderly and said as much. They argued that the elderly had done extremely well in the previous few years.
I do not want to get into the argument about whether the elderly or other categories are more in need of the resources. They have a point about the rates for people who reach £100; that is the one on which they focused and which we must discuss. The programme is a three year one and the above point is the one which was highlighted. We must work together under this programme and try to share the resources as fairly as possible. I would not contend that older people will not find work as easily as others or that they will be unable to find alternative means of earning income. I am aware that some people in this category cannot find such means but many others can and, indeed, have in recent years. That is why the number of long-term unemployed has reduced from 5.6% to 1.2%. There is a category of people whose members cannot find work and who, for one reason or another, are unlikely to do so even in good times. It was requested that particular focus be given to this issue and we will try to do that.
Having regard to the representations made by various groups within the social partnership structure, including IBEC and others, why has the Government chosen to reduce the top rate of income tax, which affects only one-third of working people, at a time when they could have significantly increased payments in real and percentage terms to people who depend on the State for their incomes? These people are now poorer in absolute terms than they were heretofore because the gap between rich and poor has been manifestly widened by this divisive budget.
There is more than one category in Irish society and resources were spread fairly and equally in the recent budget and in previous ones. The increases being provided by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs to the less well off in Irish society cannot in any sense be described as either divisive or unhelpful. They go a considerable way towards easing the difficulties and problems experienced by people dependent on the State. That is not to detract from the fact that those who represent this category of people believe the balance should be slightly different. If we had done things the other way around, I have no doubt the representatives of other groups in society, particularly the elderly, would have expressed a different view.
Did the Taoiseach discuss with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and IBEC the forecasts issued by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which were obtained by The Irish Times under the Freedom of Information Act, to the effect that some 336,000 additional immigrants will be required by 2006 if our economy is to continue to grow? The forecast states that if this trend continues, as many as one in eight people living in the Republic in 2010 will be an immigrant. Did the Taoiseach discuss this matter with ICTU and IBEC and did either party raise the need for a Minister to co-ordinate immigrant affairs?
I did not discuss that issue with either ICTU or IBEC, although I have seen a summary of the report. Deputy Mitchell will have noted that the report stated that 60% of the people classified as returning to this country are Irish. The forecast was based on last year's figures. Figures have increased and decreased over the past ten years and I do not believe we should switch our entire policy based on figures produced in a year in which the economy grew by 10%. If an average figure had been taken, it might have offered a more realistic picture but I do not believe the figures outlined in the forecast represent a correct assessment.
What does the Taoiseach mean by "switch our entire policy"?
I mean that we should not start to make changes to our immigration policy which would result in 336,000 people coming into the country over a five year period.
What policy is there to change?
We have an excellent and very successful immigration and employment policy—
Tell that to the Moldovans.
Putting people in chains.
—which has resulted in large numbers of people coming back to this country in recent years to fill the large number of job vacancies which resulted from the excellent management of the economy.
Where are the houses for them?
Order please. Members should wait until they are called by the Chair.
I think the Taoiseach will agree that given the forecast with which he has concurred, the immigrant population will reach 1:8, if it has not already done so. Will he agree, therefore, that we should be co-ordinating health, housing, social welfare and education issues across Departments to ensure racism and xenophobia does not take root? Has the Taoiseach considered or discussed with ICTU or IBEC the need for a Minister to co-ordinate these issues because of the forecasted growth in immigrants?
The social partners have not been involved in this and perhaps it is not for me to answer questions for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However, I wish to be helpful to the Deputy. We already have a Cabinet committee, which has been meeting for the past 18 months, with representatives of all the Ministries and the health boards, the housing authorities and the housing section of the Department of the Environment and Local Government, which is looking after reception, education and health facilities, with an enormous amount of resources and staff. The number working in the section has increased from eight people five years ago to more than 300 people currently. There are also people dealing with immigrants in individual agencies. The Deputy is correct in saying there are parts of this and perhaps other cities where the proportion is already heading for 10% and where local agencies, Departments and the education system are working well together to try to ensure the difficulties of racism and xenophobia do not arise.
Deputy Mitchell has raised this in the House on a number of occasions in the past few years and I think they are making an impact, particularly in the education system. The Deputy knows that it is not unusual to see seven or eight nationalities in schools, particularly in infant classes of many schools in the heart of the city. Although there is pressure, the education system is working well. There is more to be done, but I think Ireland is ahead in terms of what it is doing in immigration policy. We are providing extremely good accommodation, facilities and follow-up services. Perhaps they are not perfect, but they are much better than in many of the bigger countries in Europe.
Arising from what the Taoiseach has said and having regard to a very topical programme screened last night on RTE 1, which Minister is responsible for the £4.5 million anti-racism programme that has been announced a couple of times? When will we see it and who will co-ordinate it? This matter has been discussed on a number of occasion. Why after three years has the Government not matched the fine words with the moneys which were allocated?
It has not been discussed at social partnership level, though many other matters have. The programme is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. To the best of my knowledge it was announced and presented last year. Apart from that programme, through all the agencies, including the Eastern Regional Health Authority—
To clarify, the programme has been announced quite a few times, but it has not yet arrived. Where is it?
Not only has the Minister announced it, but has he not also provided moneys through grant aid to a number of organisations which have been working their own programmes? I attended at least one launch in the Chester Beatty Library last autumn, where the Afrikaaner movement had received grants. I thank him for the resources. I do not know where they got the money – I presume it is that programme but I will mention that to him. Through education and the health authorities, they and many officials are working extremely hard to help to integrate those who come into this country.
To go back to Deputy Mitchell's question, there is a difference in classification. Most of the people coming in on the jobs front are people who have working visas—
I do not care what the purpose is. My point is we need to integrate them.
—and there is not a problem with that.
Is the Taoiseach aware that refugees who found work have identified racism as the biggest single obstacle they face to being employed, ahead of lack of qualification or lack of verification of their qualifications? Will the Taoiseach agree that the best way the Government can combat racism is by example and that the Taoiseach and other Ministers should be seen much more often in the company of people who come from overseas, particularly those of a different heritage, and should be seen to be visiting all the centres on a regular basis which are welcoming and serving people from overseas? By being seen in the company of people who have come in from overseas, the Taoiseach would be sending out, by example, a positive message of welcome. The Government simply cannot stand aside from this and say it is a matter for the health boards, the churches, the people or whatever. The Government must show a visible, demonstrable personal lead in the way the Taoiseach interacts with members of the immigrant community in Ireland so that he shows by example, particularly as it is his constituency, a visible welcome so that the racism that is, unfortunately, all too evident on our streets is combated by leaders of public opinion and leaders of Government.
I certainly agree with that. I have attended so many functions that I am afraid it is no longer much of a media feature. That is perhaps why Deputy Bruton does not read about it any more. In recent days I have been in the Vincentian centre. Yesterday I was in the markets area in the school which probably has the highest proportion of immigrant children. I have been in a number of schools in Deputy Gay Mitchell's constituency. I have been in Ballyfermot and Tallaght. I have been at the Afrikaaner movement function. I spoke at the Nigerian Christmas function and I attended several others as well.
The Taoiseach was at every one except sodality.
That is good, Taoiseach.
I went to some of the sports functions—
It is good to know this. I welcome it.
—and went as far as refereeing the match last summer.
Well done. I hope the Taoiseach was fair.
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
In fairness to my colleagues, I think Deputy Bruton is right because in parts of the city I fear the position could get very difficult.
That is the problem.
There is no doubt that there is an over-concentration in some areas which can create difficulties, but there is a more complex reason, which we need not go into here, for that over-concentration. It is not altogether the fault of the local authorities, the health boards or the Government, but that is the way these things happen.
We have to advocate tolerance.
On the point about the Government and politicians taking the lead, that is important, but I emphasise again, although it is nothing to do with these questions, that it is extremely important to acknowledge that an enormous amount of work is going on. Who would have thought three years ago that there would be schools with six and seven nationalities, without any particular expertise or planning, and that those schools would be able to cope as they do? That is an enormous achievement and we should acknowledge it.
It is a great achievement. It is also happening in County Meath.
Yes, and in many other parts of the country. I saw it in Cork 12 months ago. However, I do not think it is happening in these areas to the same extent as it is in the heart of the city. It is working successfully but it is a new phenomenon and there is still much to do.
When I attended the movement's meeting at the Chester Beatty Library before Christmas it was indicated to me that coloured people who have been living here for 20 years still hear racist remarks. Unfortunately, the problem does not relate only to the more recent arrivals. The statistic for the number one difficulty is a fact and we have to continue to work on it. Sometimes they are students and medical professionals, while others are working in various services and are well qualified. Unfortunately they get the wrong end of the stick from a small minority.
In light of the Taoiseach's remarks, is he aware that many of the schools to which he referred are looking for special needs teachers and other additional resources to deal with the phenomenon he has described and that there is no mechanism for dealing with it on a satisfactory basis? Does he believe the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is the appropriate Department to co-ordinate an immigration and assimilation policy, bearing in mind the scale of the numbers who are here already and the likely numbers in the future?
With regard to the questions on the Order Paper on the national implementation body which is designed to ensure delivery of the stability and peace provisions in the revised agreement or PPF, will the Taoiseach outline what this body discussed when, as I understood him to say, it met yesterday for the first time? Will we see a period of industrial relations peace, particularly in the provision of public services such as transport?
On the question of education, it will be noted by the House that over the Christmas period the Minister for Education and Science gave extra resources for disadvantage across a range of schools. I am aware of the pressures and difficulties in some of these schools and they have been allowed to decrease their PTR. The reception integration agency which will soon be set up as well as the Cabinet group to which I referred will co-ordinate the services for refugees across all Departments.
The national implementation body will meet quarterly to ensure the stability and peace pro visions of the programme are maintained. It is inevitable that discussions and assessments of the IR climate at a macro level will arise from time to time due to various pressures and these will be dealt with by this body. It will not become involved in the resolution of specific disputes and will not encroach on either the Labour Court or the Labour Relations Commission. It hopes to provide a mechanism to monitor trends in the climate of industrial relations and what is happening to enable the social partners at national and regional level to identify the steps which might be taken to underpin the commitments to industrial peace and stability under the programme. It will act as an early warning system to support the arrangements to deal with the resolution of disputes. Like any body with such an agenda, it is unlikely to be successful all of the time but it will help to avoid many of the difficulties which arose, particularly in the fall of last year.
While I admire the Taoiseach's comprehensive reply to the various questions on this matter, will he explain to the House why thousands of young girls and boys had to emigrate to English hospitals to get nursing training over the past five to ten years while Far Eastern nurses are being employed in our hospitals to keep them going? Is the Taoiseach happy that he has sufficient training facilities for Irish—
Training facilities are a separate question.
This relates to the question on which the Taoiseach has laboured for the past half hour.
If the Deputy is brief and refers to training.
Why must thousands of young people, predominantly girls, emigrate to Great Britain for training when facilities are not available here and hundreds of trained nurses from the Far East have been recruited to take up positions?
There is a number of reasons. There are more places than ever in our nursing colleges. The reason people have difficulties getting into Ireland is that standards are higher. The entry standard is much higher here than in the United Kingdom. The Deputy is correct that many people who failed to gain entry to colleges in Ireland have no difficulty getting into senior positions. The reason we are bringing people into Ireland is that an enormous number of our own cadre leave, some for a short time.
There are 300 Irish nurses in one hospital in Melbourne and there is a large number of Irish nurses in Australia generally and in the United States. Some stay for 12 or 24 months. The reason people go away to gain qualifications is that, regrettably for them and for all of us, they do not reach the entry standard here. There are now more student places than ever but the course has also been lengthened. It is a degree course, which creates a difficulty for us.
Does the Taoiseach agree there is ample need for extra training facilities for nurses?
There is always room for more training facilities but the dilemma relates to the number being trained. The Deputy will have seen the same figures as I saw in the newspapers last November where 70% of those who qualified after three and four years from some training schools were on the next flight out of Ireland for one or two year programmes.
That is nothing new.
It is new. In my former existence a long time ago very few left the training school. All of them hoped to get a job in a hospital in Ireland, but it is now a freer and smaller world.
Will the Taoiseach clarify for the social partners whether reports that the Government is planning to do a U-turn on the changes to the PRSI ceiling are true?
No changes are proposed in respect of employers.
There will be no U-turn in the Finance Bill on this issue?
The rumour has not even got to me.
What if the rumour had got to the Taoiseach?
I would have said no because I met IBEC prior to Christmas and said no.
The Deputy is both a creator and conveyor of rumour.