Vol. 553 No. 6
1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the outcome of the quarterly meeting of the social partners under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness on 29 April 2002; when the next meeting is due to take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13122/02]
2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his views on whether there should be a new national agreement when the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness concludes; if there have to date been preliminary discussions with the social partners on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13123/02]
3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the discussions he has had with the community and voluntary sector to address the concerns that led to the withdrawal of 26 organisations from the plenary meeting under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness on 29 April 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13124/02]
4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13136/02]
5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13146/02]
6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13147/02]
7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent activities of the National Implementation Body; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13148/02]
8 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13428/02]
9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the studies currently being carried out by the National Economic and Social Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13434/02]
10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent activities of the National Economic and Social Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14401/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 10, inclusive, together.
The most recent plenary meeting on the overall implementation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness took place on 29 April. The two main items on the agenda were public service modernisation, including better regulation, and waste management. The meeting reviewed the progress to date of the strategic management initiative, including the findings of an independent evaluation of the SMI, and the current consultation process on foot of the publication of Towards Better Regulation, which was concerned with improving our regulatory framework procedures. The policy framework developed to deliver a waste management infrastructure was also considered.
I understand that the community platform withdrew from the meeting as a protest against certain decisions taken by the Government. While I appreciate the sincerity of those concerned, I regard it as inappropriate to use such meetings as a forum for a public protest. I am taking into consideration the operational nature of the plenary meetings and the established relationships between the participants. As with all PPF plenary meetings, a detailed progress report was produced, with each Department setting out the progress being made under each action point in the PPF. My own Department exercises the main co-ordinating role for overall implementation of the programme as well as supporting a range of cross-departmental issues such as public service modernisation, infrastructure delivery, social inclusion and the information society. The progress report, copies of which have been lodged in the Oireachtas Library, records the continuing good progress in implementing the ambitious economic, social and structural agenda set out in the programme.
The next plenary meeting is scheduled to take place on Thursday, 25 July 2002 and will focus on social inclusion in the context of the PPF. I will be attending this meeting with the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for Finance, in accordance with established practice. This formal meeting complements the meetings I hold with representatives of the social partners on a regular basis.
My Department chairs the National Implementation Body which was established under the adjustments to the terms of the PPF in December 2000. This body continues to meet as necessary to consider, in particular, the potential implications of any ongoing disputes of special national importance. It also provides opportunities for informal discussion of the broader issues relating to the social partnership process from the employer and trade union perspectives. Deputy Quinn has asked for my views as to whether there should be a new national agreement when the PPF expires. I indicated in reply to a similar question in this House on 24 April that I believe there should be a new agreement. My views have not changed and the Government's programme explicitly states that we will seek to negotiate a new partnership agreement to follow the PPF.
As I have said many times before, I believe that the series of agreements we have had since 1987 have played a very significant role in the radical transformation of this country's economic and social fortunes in the recent past. It was by working together in a planned and disciplined way that we succeeded in reducing the national debt, embedding a pro-enterprise approach in our culture and society, generating enormous numbers of new jobs and raising living standards generally. The issues confronting us today, whether in terms of competitiveness, social cohesion or environmental sustainability, are no less complex and challenging and require a similar collective response. We have a choice. We can choose between planning and working together for success, as we have in the recent past, or pursuing sectional interests as we did in the pre-social partnership era. History signposts very clearly which is the best way to go.
There are undoubtedly concerns on all sides which will need to be addressed if we are to have a new agreement. A strong dose of realism will be needed by everybody: Government, employers, trade unions, the farming sector and the community and voluntary sector. The focus should be on meeting those concerns, checked against reality, and on getting the right agreement, not on the principle of an agreement or on seeking an agreement for its own sake or at any cost. If we act together in a disciplined way in the national interest – because the national interest is all of our interests – we can achieve a consensus on the way forward and we as a society can continue to develop and move forward.
In anticipation of possible negotiations between the Government and the social partners in the autumn of 2002, work is under way in the National Economic and Social Council on the development of a medium-term strategic analysis which will provide the necessary intellectual and policy framework for such negotiations. As did the five previous strategy reports, it will set out the council's view on strategic policy approaches for the coming years, based on a review of developments in the Irish economy and society. The council is planning to finalise a report on the first phase of its deliberations for publication in July. In addition, the council is undertaking the following reports: The Management of Public Expenditure; Taxation and Welfare; and Regional Development in a Cross-Border Context: A Case Study of the North West.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. I think he would agree with me that both his party and mine have been intimately involved in the process of social partnership since its inception. Does he agree with me, as the former Minister for Finance who ensured that the social partners – particularly the third community and voluntary pillar – were included in the process, that their walking out of the plenary session on 29 April, representing 26 national organisations, is unprecedented and that the reasons for their walk-out should be carefully and properly analysed?
The Taoiseach spoke of the desirability of working together in social partnership. Does he not agree that a prerequisite for ensuring harmonious working relationships among partners is proper consultation? Does he accept, therefore, the validity of the criticism from those 26 groups that they had not been properly consulted about legislation regarding disability – which has now been so discredited that the Taoiseach himself sacked the Minister responsible for its introduction – and public order legislation, which played to certain populist fears across the country, and that they were justified in walking out as they did? Accordingly, what action does the Taoiseach propose to take to restore the harmonious working relationship that will be the foundation upon which a new programme of social partnership can be constructed, now that the era of a trade-off between tax cuts and moderate wage increases is no longer with us?
The groups cited four reasons for their actions: the Disability Bill, Traveller accommodation, restructuring of community employment schemes and the deportation of asylum seekers with Irish-born children. I agree with Deputy Quinn that we must address those issues as best we can and try to work on the concerns of the community and voluntary pillar or any of the pillars. A consultation process on the Disability Bill was launched some months ago whose purpose is to provide an opportunity for the parties to make their views known and for further consideration of the issues raised in relation to the Bill and for amendments to be made to the Bill. An expert consultation team was appointed in April and is meeting on an ongoing basis. It is considering the issues involved and the proposals received from disability groups and is expected to meet with the interested parties over the coming months. It hopes to conclude its work as soon as it gets through that.
With regard to the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government met with representatives of Travellers' organisations in May and reported on their views.
On community employment schemes, a meeting was held with officials of my Department, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and representatives of the social partners on the issues involved and contact is ongoing in this area.
On the issue of asylum seekers with Irish-born children, the issue is before the courts. It would be inappropriate to comment pending the outcome of proceedings. However, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has met the social partners and the various community and voluntary groups on asylum and immigration issues and will continue to do so.
I confirm to the Deputy that we will do all we can to try to deal with the issues of concern and address them as best we can.
I compliment the Taoiseach for replying in advance of my posing the question. The news management of his media communications unit must be complimented. I did not refer to community employment schemes but the Taoiseach gave me the pro forma reply in advance.
Does the Taoiseach know what is happening throughout the country with community employment schemes? Does he realise a great national lie is being perpetrated on vulnerable communities who were told in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness that community employment employees would be maintained at a level of 28,000, that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and leader of the party with whom he leads in coalition Government has committed herself—
Could we have a question, please? I would prefer if the Deputy did not go on.
I have tabled three questions. I am an orderly person. My question was anticipated. The Taoiseach answered a question I did not ask.
I will allow a question on the supplementary reply.
I have tabled three questions and the Taoiseach answered one I did not ask. I am rephrasing it so that he might go off note and answer it himself.
Does the Taoiseach know what is going on? Does he realise a lie is being perpetrated on the vulnerable communities who depend on community employment? There was an undertaking in the previous programme of social partnership, the PPF, that employment levels would be maintained at 28,000. The target from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Department of the Taoiseach's partner in Government, is for 25,000. Lies are being told daily to participants, supervisors and groups—
The Deputy should withdraw the word "lies". It is unparliamentary.
No, I will not. I do not accuse any Member of telling lies. I am in order in saying that lies are being told to vulnerable citizens by people who are torn between the written commitments of social partnership in the PPF and the reality of the situation.
Does the Taoiseach know what is happening? What has he said to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in respect of her betrayal of the commitments he entered into in the PPF? If he does not raise those questions with her, what prospect of success does he have for a future social partnership agreement given that the current one is being unilaterally disregarded and betrayed?
I wish to clarify for the Deputy, in case he thought I was very good at reading his mind, that my reply was to a question he tabled asking why 26 organisations under the community and voluntary sector walked out of a meeting under the PPF on 29 April. My reply referred to the position regarding community employment schemes which was cited by them as one of their four stated reasons for walking out. I referred back to that to give a complete reply.
The previous Government decided in July 1999 to restructure the community employment scheme and it was indicated that participation levels were to be reduced to reflect the significant reduction in the numbers of long-term unemployed. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, her officials and FÁS began to shift the emphasis away from work experience programmes to training where there is a greater level of progression to employment. That was at a stage when there were jobs available in certain sectors and it was almost impossible, which it still is to a certain degree, to hire people for them although there were still people on employment schemes. The effort was directed towards getting them jobs rather than their being on community employment schemes.
The PPF contains a commitment to reduce overall place numbers to 28,000 by 2003 through re-allocation of the funding equivalent of 5,000 places to the social economy together with a reduction of 4,500 places required by the decision of July 1999. Mainstreaming school services, which is under way, and the proposed mainstreaming of other essential services, including those in the health and environment sectors, will further reduce the numbers employed in the programme. This has been confirmed by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in detail on several occasions in the context of discussions with representatives of the social partners on the PPF standing committee on the labour market – it is an issue which arises continually – and in responses by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment on Question Time under her area of responsibility. Under mainstreaming, the appropriate level of CE funding will transfer to the Departments with functional responsibility for the service in question. This is the direction being taken.
There were 30,809 participants in the scheme at the beginning of this year. It is anticipated that the participation rate at the end of the year will be in the region of 24,000 to 25,000 depending on the rate of inflow to and outflow from the scheme. The phased reduction in numbers is part of a strategic shift in policy in favour of greater investment in training and other supports—
Strategic betrayal.
—into the social economy and the high supports process. It is hoped that is the way the scheme will go in future.
Does the Taoiseach accept that it will be damaging to the partnership process if the Government, without talking to the social partners, breaks a commitment to retain the community employment programme at the level of 28,000 places? Regardless of his reply, does the Taoiseach accept it is bad for partnership to break that agreement and not to talk to the partners before doing so? Does he agree that, apart from many public amenities which depend on community employment schemes, some of which are threatened with being left in abeyance or unfinished, community employment schemes support many essential services, such as meals on wheels, which will not benefit from the employment figures to which the Taoiseach referred?
On existing and, I hope, new partnership arrangements, does the Taoiseach agree there is a need for a new programme to support the essential services which depend on community employment schemes and not to downgrade the schemes before such a programme is put in place?
Will the Taoiseach tell us or provide a list of the remaining commitments under the PPF which the Government has yet to honour and if these will be contained in the forthcoming budget or if the Government has taken a unilateral decision not to honour them?
In the context of the Taoiseach's reply to my question yesterday on the summit in Johannesburg and in the context of the social partnership process, does he agree that it is time the environmental non-governmental organisations became part of the partnership process in the round and were not compartmentalised where they must do a separate job in a separate area? Does he agree that it is time to make them part of the partnership process?
The Deputy is going on at length. He is making a speech. He has asked a number of questions and I call on the Taoiseach to reply.
I would like to get in again, but the Ceann Comhairle sometimes denies that, so I must take my chances.
On the first issue, the structures of the PPF are designed so that people can continually raise issues. This matter is raised and dealt within the PPF standing committee on the labour market and it is right that it should be dealt with in that forum.
To which issue does the Taoiseach refer?
CE schemes.
He did not talk to the partners.
I said that it has been confirmed by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in detail on a number of occasions in the context of discussions with representatives of the social partners on the PPF standing committee on the labour market and in responses by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. They are endeavouring to move away from social employment schemes to training programmes from which people can get work. The real purpose of the community employment schemes is that people work in them for a while before getting a real job. They were never meant to be permanent jobs.
The Taoiseach is breaking a commitment.
I have had a long association with this matter, as Deputy Quinn did before me with the social employment scheme.
Where will people over 55 get a job?
The reintegration and training rate under these schemes means that even the over 60s were picking up jobs on the training schemes.
"Were" is the operative word.
I accept there are many beneficial schemes and that many of them, including meals on wheels, should have priority.
The beloved market would never serve it.
I am as guilty as any other Member of making representations on behalf of people to whom it makes little difference whether or not they are on some schemes but there are many others which are important and should get priority.
Such as?
Such as what?
Deputy Allen will have an opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
The Deputy need just go through the list of them in any constituency in the country and he will find them. They are the ones set up 15 years ago.
Is the Taoiseach saying that—
They were set up 15 years ago to do a job and have not got around to doing it yet. Over 30,000 people have benefited. Flowing from the reports that were carried out, the Tánaiste is of a mind that it is better to grant aid some of the areas where they can use their resources to best effect. This is not easily done with all schemes but it is working well in the educational sphere despite the reservations.
In response to Deputy Sargent's question about the Johannesburg Summit; within the social partnership process we hope to be able to ensure at a local and European local level that we represent the views of Government and the social partners.
There are no environmentalist voices.
I would prefer if the Taoiseach did not answer questions which are asked by way of interruption.
There is no question.
In relation to the PPF, there is an ongoing checklist which is always included in the report so it can be seen what items are outstanding. It is widely accepted by all, even the social partners who walked out on the basis of four issues, that the level of achievement and completion of what has been done is extremely high. That ongoing list is issued with each quarterly report and is laid before the House.
Will the remaining commitment to the PPF be honoured?
The intention is that it will be.
Perhaps we should ask the person in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery his views on social partnership.
Does the Taoiseach accept that a spiral of wages chasing prices could be disastrous for this economy?
The Taoiseach will be aware of comments made last week by a senior SIPTU official who called for progressive, incremental industrial stoppage leading to week long stoppages if employers refuse to negotiate a new national agreement. Does he accept that these comments from a senior official are a further indication of the deteriorating relationship between the trade union movement and the employers and that they do not help to create an atmosphere conducive to negotiations?
During the lifetime of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, which will soon reach its conclusion, additional pay increases had to be negotiated because of the impact of high inflation which is eroding the benefits to employees of the original package. In view of the persistently high inflation rate and the leaked Forfás report indicating that Ireland is the second most expensive country in the euro zone, what impact do the Taoiseach and the Government feel these cost of living increases will have on any future negotiations for a partnership agreement?
A wages chasing prices spiral would be damaging to the economy, eroding take home pay and other benefits workers have. However, in spite of inflation, the current increases in real take home pay in the PPF are considerably greater than the original figures anticipated. This has been the case in four of the five agreements. Just one of them was not to the benefit of the worker and increases fell but the other four have done remarkably well.
Inflationary pressures are damaging to the economy and we know from experience that inflation can be corrosive to living standards and cause an unfair impact on the people's living standards. For that reason, I welcome the comments of the General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Mr. David Begg, this morning in which he firmly rejected a wage-price spiral as in any way being a satisfactory response to inflationary pressures. He is following on what has been the policy of the ICTU for 20 years on this issue. It was adopted in the early 1980s and has been reiterated it many times. I am glad it has been reiterated today.
We need to look to the source of any tendency for inflation to continue significantly above the European average and deal with inflationary pressures to the best of our ability because they have implications for a variety of markets and sectors. In reply to Deputy Kenny's question, the difficulty is that if the spiral of wages and inflation rise what suffers most is competitiveness which affects market share and exports and leads to unemployment. That cycle exists in any economy and so is a concern of employers in any agreement re-negotiation. The problem for employers was not wage rates or that there was an argument about what was in the agreement. The problem was that the evidence indicated that we went far higher than the levels set out in the PPF. That was creating a problem for employers which is why there were negative comments from employer organisations which, in turn, led to responses by trade unions.
Whatever else has been said by either side, I take comfort from the fact that the social partners have been careful to acknowledge the very significant role played by our system – the social partnership agreements – in transforming the economy and the social situation. No group has signalled its intention to recommend against entering discussions. I have said to employers and trade unions that they should be careful in their own language and not get themselves into a position where they do not see the benefits. Notwithstanding what happened on 14 December 2000 when there had to be re-negotiation of the PPF, the kind of agreement I seek is one in which inflationary pressures, wage spiralling and competitiveness and fairness to workers and employers are addressed – one which sticks, not one that leads to pressures. The re-negotiation of the PPF was based on the fact that the economy had grown by 10% that year, inflation rose and was beginning to erode take-home pay. However, that was corrected in succeeding years.
The Taoiseach has just blamed workers for inflation and I put it to him that that is completely false.
I did not.
I listened carefully to the Taoiseach who has called for a new programme of partnership between Government, employers and unions. Does he not agree that the evidence shows that the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness has been used as a one-sided weapon to hold down the wages of ordinary workers while allowing the fruits of speculation, rents and prices to rise uncontrolled at these people's expense? In view of his call for a new programme, is he aware that today's leaked report shows that it is precisely the services upon which working people depend – such as those provided by doctors, dentists, pharmacists, those on offer in restaurants and pubs and those provided by local authorities such as refuse collection, in respect of which the infamous bin tax is charged – which have been rising massively?
Does the Taoiseach agree that many employers, certain developers and house builders and retailers and service providers are not implementing social partnership but rather are engaged in social robbery? The evidence points to the fact that they are soaking working people for super profits. I do not know how the Taoiseach can deny that fact.
A question, please, Deputy.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that the experience of the past five years – evidenced by rises in house prices, etc. – shows that inflation is the result of blatant greed by a minority and is not the result of wage demands on the part of workers who are perfectly justified in making such demands in order to compensate for the price rises to which I refer?
As I stated in quite a lengthy reply, it is not in the interests of either workers or employers to have prices, inflation or wages spiralling higher because everybody will lose out. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which is the voice of organised labour in this country, supports that belief and is aware that it is by creating enough wealth and benefits that we can not only pay workers but also create hundreds of thousands of extra jobs. It is also the case that we need to promote the private sector, which creates some resources and ensures that these are shared out.
I give Deputy Higgins full marks for consistency because he used to say the same things when we had almost 20% unemployment, massive emigration and when no one was making a profit. I could never accuse him—
They were making profits, they were just investing them in Ansbacher accounts.
A few people obviously did so. We will find out who they are next week.
The Taoiseach did nothing to stop rents rising or—
Deputy Higgins must allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
I believe it is fair for me to ask Deputy Higgins which way he would like it. Is it not better that workers and employers are co-operating with each other, generating enormous amounts of wealth for themselves, improving their standards of living, the type of housing in which they live and the facilities they operate, generating approximately 800,000 jobs over the period in which social partnership has held sway, bringing in new foreign direct investment and ensuring that many issues on the social agenda which would not have been dealt with have been addressed? Would he prefer it if these people, as was the case 20 years ago, merely shouted at each other? Even the Deputy will agree that it is far better to deal with matters in the social partnership framework. It is for that reason I know that he is even more anxious that we should put in place another programme in order that we can continue to improve the lot of the less well-off in society.
So the bosses can continue to profiteer.
The Minister for Finance has admitted that some increases in taxation may be necessary if Government budgetary targets are to be met. Has the Taoiseach decided what pro posals he intends to bring to any partnership negotiations to allow for the fact that there is no scope for tax concessions?
Those matters will be dealt with as budget time approaches. The process of preparing the budget has only just commenced. When the figures for the first half of the year are published next week and, more importantly, those for the first nine months of the year appear in October, the issues to which the Deputy refers can be considered. However, there is no doubt that the revenues which were growing so strongly in recent years have slowed down dramatically. This means that there are fewer resources available and, consequently, there will not be the same opportunity in the next programme to continue the process, to which Deputy Quinn referred earlier, of restraining wages while providing considerable tax benefits. I do not believe any of the social partners are as much concerned with the latter now because they are more interested in the improvement of services. As far as I am aware, they are close to reaching a consensus on that matter.
I wish to return to some of the Taoiseach's earlier replies and ask him to clarify his position. Is he saying that people working in community employment schemes do not occupy real jobs if they work for non-profit organisations such as day-care centres or bodies which provide meals on wheels? If, as it appears, the Taoiseach believes that the wonderful market economy we possess is so robust and compassionate, does he expect it to provide the meals on wheels services these people provide if, as is the Tánaiste's declared intention, they are removed from CE schemes? Where in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness is the clause that allows the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste or nameless officials in various Departments to unilaterally tear up a commitment to maintain the level of employment in community employment schemes at the rate of 28,000? If that clause does not exist, how does the Taoiseach expect to construct a new agreement if he is unilaterally destroying or reneging on the commitments in the current agreement?
I will reply to the Deputy's last question first. There is no such clause. That is why, under the committee on the labour market, the Tánaiste has been dealing with this issue in conjunction with the social partners. There have to be negotiations for anything to happen and that is why there has been communication on this issue. That communication is ongoing.
In reply to the Deputy's first question, I was not talking about the individual schemes, I was referring to the people involved. The concept that a person on a social employment scheme has a job for life is not realistic. People want to be employed, but at as good a rate of pay and with as high a degree of permanency as they can obtain. They do not want to be in a job which will last six or 12 months or perhaps, if they are fortunate, three years. That is not real employment. Our efforts have been aimed at trying to encourage people into training courses which offer them an opportunity to obtain a real job. The Tánaiste would rather give grants to many of these organisations to allow them to employ people on a more permanent basis.
She will not give them grants.
Money is being given to the Department of Education and Science to create almost 5,000 positions.
Is the Taoiseach aware of what has happened there?
I am a realist. Deputy Quinn and I are aware that the position has changed dramatically and that many services which would have been provided on a voluntary basis when we entered the House would have collapsed were it not for the existence of the schemes.
That is the real point.
We are now moving away from concentrating on the individuals and considering the nature of the schemes. In many instances it would probably be better if these organisations were given grants. There is no need for them to change each year. What usually occurs on a scheme is that an appropriate person is employed and remains on it for one or two years before being obliged to move on. In respect of a number of them, which are quite clearly social schemes and of clear importance to the community, I believe there could be another way of operating.
But no such way exists.
There is no enormous benefit for young people who gain entry on to community employment schemes. When one considers the various schemes, it is easy to identify those which have an ongoing social value. These schemes must be protected, one way or the other. Many of the other schemes have merely appeared over the years and I do not believe they do much service to the people who gain entry on to them.
We will communicate those views to the relevant people.
The people to whom I refer would be far better off if they were encouraged to enter training courses which would provide them with the opportunity to obtain more permanent work.
As matters stand, there will continue to be an enormously high number of social employment schemes. In addition, certain schemes will now become the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science and other bodies. I do not see the position changing very much.
Does the Taoiseach realise that the difference in the cost of having somebody on a community employment scheme and paying them the dole is approximately €28 per week? Does the Taoiseach realise that the role of the community employment schemes has evolved from a work programme to a programme of support for voluntary organisations? Services are collapsing because of the actions of the Tánaiste. As an act of goodwill prior to his meeting with the social partners in July to discuss social exclusion, will the Taoiseach freeze the cuts which are severely impacting on the activities and work of so many community organisations providing services such as meals on wheels, services for those dependent on drugs and services for refugees and asylum seekers who depend on CE schemes as a means of coming into contact with and learning the English language? Does he accept that the difference between the cost of a person on a community employment scheme and a person on the dole is about €20 and that the negative impact of these misguided cuts by the Tánaiste at the behest of IBEC is anti-social?
In fairness to IBEC, it is not here to answer the Deputy's questions and I do not believe it has a view on cutting social employment schemes. There will still be about 25,000 places in the social employment schemes in the—
They are ring-fenced in health and education.
I ask the Deputy to keep quiet, please.
About 5,000 have been ringfenced in education.
How many more will be ringfenced?
That is a matter to be discussed in the standing committee on the labour market, which effectively controls the location of these schemes. The monitoring committees, which have been operating for many years, control where these schemes go. As it is in their hands and not the hands of FÁS, the monitoring committees will control where the cuts will be.
The concentration of cuts will be in other areas.
At the time of the highest ever unemployment in this country, when there were almost 400,000 people on the live register, we had the same number of people – 10,500 – on these schemes for years. We now have almost no long-term unemployment and there are still almost 30,000 on the schemes. I accept that the areas they work on have been extended and that a number of these are very useful, but others are not useful. We have to keep the useful schemes in areas where they are of value.
There is an alternative.
I entirely agree with Deputy Allen. Does the Taoiseach accept that the value of the principle of a guaranteed basic income is very clearly demonstrated by the essential services provided by the community employment schemes? Unfortunately, people on these schemes do not benefit from the increased employment levels to which he just referred and are now being left high and dry. Does he agree that there is a need for a new programme of support – not just grants – similar to the CE schemes which recognises these schemes as jobs and supports the essential services which are being denied badly needed support and are so well appreciated by so many people?
The Taoiseach did not answer my original question. He stated that sustainability is a major challenge for us all. Will he live up to that statement by making sure that the partners in the next round of partnership talks will include the environmental NGO pillar? Will he ensure this group is not compartmentalised given that we need to talk about a whole range of sustainability issues?
The Deputy is making a statement.
When will the NESC publish its strategy document? Will it be in advance of the new partnership discussions as happened many times in the past? Will the new partnership negotiations begin before the next budget and, if not, when?
Before the Taoiseach replies, we will take a brief supplementary question from Deputy Finian McGrath.
In relation to the PPF, in particular the word "fairness", does the Taoiseach believe it is fair to spend €1.1 billion on third level education while projects, such as the Northside Partnership which is attempting to keep 240 disadvantaged young people in third level education, are now under severe pressure for funding? Will he use his power and authority to assist these students?
The environmental NGOs are in the sustainability corps with the—
Separate from the partners.
Yes, but they are with the State agencies and Departments.
In a separate group.
Yes, but a very useful one—
Usefully separate.
—because it contains people who deal with the issues with which they deal.
If they wish to join the other corps, there is a process outlined for extending it. It is a matter for them to do this, although it would mean moving away from the bodies they work with. They would probably find it more beneficial to stay where they are.
I hope the negotiations will start in the autumn, October or thereabouts. There are different finish times for the agreement, extending from the autumn right through to the middle of next year. I understand it will be the autumn before discussions start. As I said, the NESC report, which, as with all the other agreements, will set out the strategy for opening those discussions, should be ready in draft form in July and in final form probably towards the end of September. This should link into the discussions.
I am aware of the good work the Northside Partnership does. It could be argued that it is probably the best partnership in the country. It has done outstanding work. As I am not conscious of its current difficulties, I suggest the Deputy raises the matter with the relevant Minister. The partnership does good work and certainly deserves support.
