asked the Minister for Labour if he now has any function in encouraging, seeking, or monitoring national wage negotiations or if that role has now been assigned to another Minister.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - National Wage Negotiations.
15.
Responsibility for wage developments and related issues are shared by a number of Ministers. I am, of course, particularly concerned with all developments which influence the course of industrial relations and employment. There has been no reassignment of functions as is suggested in the Deputy's question.
Will the Minister state why questions relating to wage agreements are normally referred to the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, as have all my questions in the recent past?
Previous Ministers for Labour have been involved in developments relating to national wage agreements, as have all the relevant Ministers. I can produce some evidence from 1976. As I pointed out in my reply, it is a shared responsibility between quite a number of Ministers. Understandably, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development would also have a role to play. On 5 July 1977, on the establishment of that new Department, the Taoiseach in the Dáil expounded on the functions envisaged for that Minister. Among other things the functions were to cover medium- and long-term economic and social policy and planning for the economy as a whole including sectoral and regional aspects, functions relating to public bodies and institutions with a role in economic planning and development and co-ordinating dialogue with the social partners. It is a shared responsibility of government. In our Government as compared with the previous Government it is very much a shared responsibility. There was an admission in this House by Deputy O'Leary some time ago that that did not apply in the case of the previous Government.
Dr. Fitzgerald
I note what has been said by the Minister about the co-ordinating function of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development and I am sure that is useful. When it comes to dealing with matters of this kind, is the Minister aware that the experience of governments has been that it is better to have one person concerned with labour matters and dealing with these matters rather than having a number of economic Ministers involved? In our experience the allocation of clear responsibility to the Minister for Labour contributed to the success of our efforts in 1976 in achieving a national wage round. Does not the Minister agree that it is a matter that is best handled by the Minister of his Department, which is the relevant one for this purpose?
As the Deputy was a member of the previous Government I should like to quote a point made at that time in a letter by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. They stated, "that further discussions can only be of value by the involvement of Ministers having direct responsibility in the areas covered by the Congress statement". Even then there was an acceptance by the previous Government of that shared responsibility.
The letter the Minister has quoted relates, from my memory, to the conduct of discussions of a tripartite nature that were proceeding at that time. As the Minister knows from the rest of the file, other Ministers whose areas were concerned were called into meetings but the principle was adhered to during the period of the previous Government that one member of the Cabinet had responsibility both for reporting to the Cabinet and for the management of liaison between the social partners in such matters as those relating to the national wage agreement.
We are getting into a debate. I am calling Question No. 16.
Will the Minister state if it is a fact that the primary responsibility for national wage negotiations, so far as the Government are concerned, has been transferred to the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, as seems the case? If the Minister is so unprepared to do anything about resolving the many industrial disputes, is there a case for having him in office? Should he not have been made redundant?
The Deputy is not in order.
Is it not true that the Minister is doing very little about anything and that he has no role in anything, according to himself?
Dr. Fitzgerald
He has abandoned his role to the other Minister.
I have called Question No.16.
16.
asked the Minister for Labour if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on March 9 and his reaction thereto.
I have noted that the Special Delegate Conference of ICTU, held on 9 March 1979 adopted the trade union policy proposals as set out in the Congress discussion document of February 1979 and also gave approval to discussions with the Government on a national development plan in accordance with trade union policy.
I welcome this development as I consider that discussions between the Government and both sides of industry on major issues of economic and social policy are desirable as an ongoing process and I would hope that, as a result of these discussions, an orderly approach to income development will be achieved.
I share the Minister's welcome of the document. Will the Minister state if the Government are prepared now in the proposed national development deal to include items such as taxation, social insurance——
That does not arise on the question. I have called question No. 17.
These items are in congress document.
It does not arise on the question. I have called Question No. 17.
These items are included in the congress document. I am asking the Minister if he would be disposed to have these matters included in a national development deal?
I have called the next question.