It is, I would suggest, a sad occasion when we find the Government of the day, whichever Government, are found to be in breach of the National Pay Agreement. The implications of such a finding I would suggest are quite serious for the future of national pay agreements in general.
We on this side of the House have clearly established that the steps which the Government are now taking to reduce the consumer price index should have been taken a considerable time ago, and we urged them to do so. In particular, they should have been taken in the January budget. However, given the fact that they were not then taken and that the Government announced the steps only in June, it seems quite clear that the correct course for the Government at that time was to have negotiated the precise terms that they sought to have incorported in an amendment of the national agreement so that there would have been no doubt in anybody's mind as to what was involved either on the part of the Government or on the part of the Employer-Labour Conference in the new terms or adjusted terms to be negotiated in the national pay agreement.
We said at the time of the June budget that the whole concept of the budget was based on a gamble. That gamble appears to have gone wrong. It is not in anybody's interest that it should go wrong. Indeed, given the situation as it is now, we on this side of the House have indicated our belief that the national interest requires a renegotiation of the national agreement, that this is vitally important to the future of this country. We have indicated our support for the Government's efforts in that direction in the terms indicated by the Leader of this party when speaking on the budget.
It is, however, becoming increasingly difficult for the Opposition to give the support which a responsible Opposition will give in a matter of such vital national importance when we are faced with such inept handling of the whole problem involved: inept in the sense that the negotiations did not take place when they should have, inept in the sense that the Minister for Finance announced various measures to reduce the consumer price index and then threatened to withdraw them if certain things were not done, and inept in the sense of his announcement on the crucial part of the Government's package—the matter which has now been found to be in breach of the national pay agreement. On 26th June, in the course of the budget statement as reported in the Dáil Official Report at columns 1950 and 1951 the Minister for Finance said:
It would, in the Government's view, heighten social tensions and cause serious inequity if particular groups were to get special extra increases at a time when workers generally are being asked to accept restraint. Furthermore, as we know, some firms have already indicated that they may not be able to pay even the standard increases of the 1975 agreement.
The plain facts are that, in our present circumstances, any group can secure special increases only at the expense of others and that those most secure in their jobs are in the best position to press sectional claims. The Government consider it crucial as part of the fight to slow inflation and protect jobs, that any modification of the standard increases of the 1975 National Agreement should be accompanied by an embargo on special increases. This will, no doubt, be covered in the forthcoming Employer-Labour Conference discussions and it is the Government's earnest hope that, in the national interest, the parties will be able to reach quick agreement on this provision.
The Minister then went on to announce an embargo on special increases, that announcement being the subject of the submission to and adjudication by the adjudication committee of the Employer-Labour Conference.
I would suggest that the ineptitude with which the Government have handled this whole matter has made an already very difficult situation much worse, and that the ineptitude of which many of us on this side of the House are aware in regard to many other problems is quite clear to the general public in regard to this matter because everybody can see for himself or herself how the Government failed to secure what they considered, according to the Minister for Finance, to be crucial before making the announcements that they made and how, in the course of the announcements made, the Minister breached the national agreement. I want to suggest that the statement which we have just heard to-day is an equal example of the ineptitude with which this Government are approaching all of our economic problems. I say that because it seems to me —I am putting it as mildly as I can— to be less than encouraging to have the Minister for Finance make a statement as he did now which does not indicate clearly one way or the other what lines the Government are taking.
The Minister did me the courtesy of giving me a copy of the statement beforehand and I read it a number of times. I must confess that I am not at all clear as to what the Minister was intending to convey. I think, on analysing two paragraphs in it, that what the Minister is saying is that no matter what the adjudication committee of the Employer-Labour Conference says, the Government regard it as essential to carry on with the line they took on budget day and to continue the embargo on special increases. I think that that is what the Minister is saying but it is not at all clear. It may be that the Minister wants to be in a position to argue that he is not saying that and that he is saying the other thing, depending on what is going to happen. It may be that the Government in their consideration of this situation were unable themselves to reach agreement and therefore that this is meant to be a kind of a holding statement. Whatever the reason for it I want to suggest that the time has passed when we can afford this kind of blurring of the edges. This is a time for leadership. This is a time for the Government to make up their minds as to where they are going and where they want the people to go behind them, not for the Minister to be coming in here and reading out a statement which the Government say is crucial and leaving people in the position that they do not know what line the Government are taking. In my view it would be far better if the Government made no statement than one that says nothing.
Either the Government should have said here: "We accept the finding of the adjudication committee and we will abide by it. We hope that negotiations will produce a situation where what we want will be done but in the meantime we are going to accept the arrangements in the national wage agreement." Or they should have said: "The country cannot afford to accept this and therefore we are going to do so and so." The Government did not say either. I would suggest that that statement is worse than useless and is, as I said earlier, a further indication of the ineptitude with which the Government are handling or mishandling the very serious problems that are involved in this area.
It is sad that the Government should be indicated for a breach of the national wage agreement but it is far worse that we should now find ourselves in the position where the Government having breached the agreement, not having achieved what they set out to achieve, are in grave danger of losing the benefits which could accrue to all our people if the whole programme that the Minister announced on budget day were implemented and finding themselves in this position that they are not able to give the country a clear lead which, above all else, is what is needed. We have not got that from the Minister. It may be difficult for him or his colleagues ever to catch up on that again. In so far as it may be possible could I urge the Minister and his colleagues who are here as fast as possible—by that I mean tonight or tomorrow at the latest—to come out with a clear-cut indication as to what line the Government are taking and what line they want the people to take on this? That is what the country needs now.
