asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development if he intends to introduce statutory wage controls if the proposed limit of 5 per cent on wages is not accepted voluntarily by the trade unions.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Statutory Wage Controls.
1.
The pay rise of 5 per cent proposed in the Government's pre-election manifesto must be assessed in conjunction with the tax reliefs that are also proposed. Together these proposals would make for a substantial increase in workers' living standards. They would also have a favourable effect on the competitiveness of Irish industry and prepare the way for significant increases in employment. The manifesto proposals have been widely endorsed by the electorate and I do not think that any useful purpose is served by conjecture at this stage that they would not prove acceptable to the trade unions.
The Government will keep closely in touch with developments on the pay arrangements to succeed the expiry of the present national agreement and will take whatever action may be desirable to help secure a favourable outcome as envisaged.
I accept what the Minister has said but does he not feel at this stage that that impression was not necessarily given in the manifesto and that at the moment it is highly unlikely that 5 per cent will be acceptable to the trade union movement and that it is unreasonable to impose on the trade union movement the decision of last June?
I cannot accept the Deputy's suggestion that it is highly unlikely or unreasonable that a 5 per cent increase should be accepted. As I have indicated, it would provide for very substantial increases in the real take home pay of workers, much more substantial than anything experienced in recent years. As I have already said, it is premature to speculate.
Would the Minister agree that it would be helpful, in the context of the suggested 5 per cent settlement together with the tax reduction, if he and other Government spokesmen speaking on this matter—if it is regarded as wise that they should speak on this matter at this point in the negotiations—should indicate quite clearly how an increase of £8 to £10 per week would be received by the wage earners? There is confusion and misunderstanding on the issue. Should it not be, from the Government's point of view even, clarified and completely substantiated that increases of £8 to £10 per week would be in the offing if the Government's proposals found acceptance with the employers and unions in the Employer Labour Conference talks?
That is indeed so. I believe members of the Government have made such statements on a number of occasions. I would not rule out the possibility of many other statements, discussions or meetings as appropriate as the pay talks unfold. Again, at this juncture it is surely appropriate to enable the parties concerned to set about the arrangements for the pay agreement in their own way. It is no wish of the Government's to interfere to any extent with the process of collective bargaining.
Would the Minister accept that the statements made by Government spokesmen that £8 and £10 a week would be available to the wage earners and salary earners are not believed? It would be helpful from the Government's point of view if factual supporting material was advanced by Government spokesmen. They have made statements that £8 to £10 a week would be available. There is a lack of back-up supporting arguments that this in fact is the case.
We cannot have a debate.
I accept the Deputy's point that there might be some element of uncertainty in the public mind. The Government will certainly take appropriate steps to dispel that uncertainty.
Would the Minister not agree that expectations have been created among the work force for a minimum increase of £8 to £10? Would he guarantee the House that in seeking this £8 to £10 increase the Government will not introduce a statutory wage freeze?
I do not know who created the expectation of £8 to £10 a week increase as a minimum to workers. Certainly no spokesman on the Government side has done that. We have been at pains to point out that the combined effect of tax reductions and pay increases would lead to increased cash sums to the average industrial earnings in that range. The actual increase in cash terms for any worker, of course, depends on his individual circumstances, his individual pay rate, the tax bracket in which he finds himself and so forth. My understanding is that Government spokesmen on this matter have always indicated that there was a range of increases, as is typical in every national wage agreement.
(Cavan-Monaghan): If the Minister is in a position to do so will he break down the £8 to £10 a week?
Yes, certainly. For the average worker about £4 of it would accrue from the new pay rise. There would also be an increase from the effect of income tax cuts and from the effect of a reduction in rates, the abolition of rates on domestic dwellings——
(Interruptions.)
Would the Minister accept that this is the kernel of the argument, that the rates reduction will not apply in all cases? If he accepts that there is this variety of cash settlement to individual pay earners, the statement that £8 to £10 a week would be available should be corrected quite soon by Government spokesmen.
I do not accept that there has been anything misleading in any Government statement. The statement is carefully framed with a reference to average groups and average individuals and I stand over it.
One last supplementary. Deputy Barry Desmond.
Would the Minister accept that in the context of a 14 per cent increase in the cost of living this year and an increase in national output of some 6 per cent, that most of the parties to the Employer Labour Conference now accept that the 5 per cent he is talking about is in effect a starting point in these negotiations?
I do not. I have to point out that in so far as average earnings are concerned, quite apart from any fresh pay rise, if you take the Government's indication of a 5 per cent pay increase for next year and if you add to that the carry-over effect of this year's pay agreement and the normal element of drift which creeps into all pay rounds, including this year's, you arrive at a figure in excess of 10 per cent for the increase in earnings next year for industrial workers, somewhere in the range of 10 per cent to 12 per cent. That is not an insignificant figure. It is well in line with the sort of increases in earnings that have been talked about across the channel.
We are frequently subjected to that type of argument. Though I do not accept that comparison as particularly relevant, nonetheless to the extent that it does creep in, let us make it clear that increases in earnings for workers next year on average will be in double figures even with a fresh 5 per cent pay rise as suggested by the Government, so I do not accept, therefore, that it is in any way——
I want to point out clearly and definitely that we are not going to continue having a debate on this. The question relates to statutory wage control. It has been answered. Other questions are not in order and it is most inappropriate to have a discussion on this at this time.
On the specific question I put down may I ask if the Minister, in the interests of the success of these negotiations, for which we all wish, will at this stage assure the House he will not hang over those negotiations the threat of a statutory wage settlement.
I am not aware that any member of the Government has endeavoured to hold a threat of statutory controls over the pay talks.
With respect, it is hanging over the country when the Minister says the whole package is conditional.
That is not so.