David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Secretary General and his team. There is no doubt that there has been good news on the jobs front in recent times. That the live register figures have dropped from 15.1% at their peak in 2012 to 12.8% is good news. However, it appears there is too much of a focus on the percentages. It seems to be a case of "never mind the quality, feel the width", which seems to permeate through the review of the Action Plan for Jobs, which does not deal with the many concerns of people and businesses about the economy and the labour market. For example, the report does not focus on the impact of emigration to a great extent. It does not look at the rise in the casualisation of labour and the number of part-time jobs. The figures show that more part-time jobs have been created than full-time jobs in recent years. A decrease in weekly earnings also features in yearly reviews from the ESRI and Government figures. The use of zero hour contracts and the issue of youth unemployment do not feature heavily in the Action Plan for Jobs and, as far as I can see, there is no real focus, either in the Secretary General's presentation or in the report, on long-term unemployment and regional disparities, which the previous speaker mentioned. In fact, some of the actions included in the original Action Plan for Jobs in this regard have been dropped.

The report on the Action Plan for Jobs refers to competitiveness and labour costs, but it does not deal with energy costs, upward-only rent reviews, an issue raised by members of the committee on several occasions, telecommunications, legal and insurance costs. There is much box-ticking in this respect. These big issues are almost like herds of elephants in the room and not being dealt with. There is a focus on quantity but not quality.

The issue of upward-only rent reviews featured in the original Action Plan for Jobs, but it was dropped in the review. What was the reason for this? Also in regard to regional disparities, the target set for IDA Ireland by the Government in the original Action Plan for Jobs was that 50% of all IDA Ireland jobs should be created outside Cork and Dublin. It has not reached this target.

Yet, rather than the agency, the Government or the Department being held to account for the target, it was dropped from the review of Action Plan for Jobs. It is still in the original plan but it was dropped in the review. Why was that? Was it dropped at the behest of IDA Ireland? I have had several discussions with the chief executive of the IDA who has his own view on regional development and meeting regional targets. Was it because the Department or the Minister took the view that dropping it because targets were not being reached was the correct thing to do? Was there some other reason for it?

I raised the issue of box ticking. Let us consider some examples of box ticking. We had a focus on Microfinance Ireland and the credit guarantee scheme. Again, it is reported in the review of Action Plan for Jobs as part of the 90% implementation that these were set up. However, we know they are not working to the satisfaction of the business community. There is a low or poor take-up of those funds. Although they are set up, the question is whether they are working. Moreover, the succeed in Ireland initiative was established but it has not reached its targets. It is well and good to tick boxes and declare that these things have been set up and are in place but we must examine their performance as well. If they are not performing, are they really of any use to us?

Reference was made to legislation from the Department. The Minister conceded on the floor of the Dáil last week that some of the priorities set out by the Department, including the workplace relations Bill and legislation on collective bargaining, have not been met. We were promised these as far back as 2012 and we were told they were imminent and a priority, yet we are still waiting for the legislation to come through. There is frustration from all Members that some of this legislation, which is important and relates to reform, has not come through.

Those are some of my general concerns. My final comment relates to the scrutiny of EU legislation. The Department officials may be aware that the committee went on a trip to Brussels recently, which was very productive. We went to learn about how the EU does its business, how to improve our effectiveness and the relationship between the institutions of the EU and their contact with the Department and our work in the Houses. Does the Department have any advice or view on how we can improve the relationship between those institutions and our work? One of the issues that came up on the trip related to White Papers. The suggestion is that when White Papers are printed, committees should be more involved at that stage. What is the Department's view generally on the committee's work on scrutinising EU directives and legislation?