asked the Minister for Finance if any companies have been informed that they will be subject to sanctions such as the withholding of Government grants if they agree to wage settlements outside the Government's guidelines; and if it is the intention of the Government to apply such sanctions.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Wage Settlement Guidelines.
2.
The Government outlined their position on current pay negotiations in their statement of 10 March 1983. In that statement, they made it clear that while they respect the right and freedom of all parties to the pay negotiations to argue their case from the viewpoint of their own knowledge, experience and interests, the Government have the ultimate responsibility to take such steps as may be necessary to safeguard the national interest. The Government have not been obliged so far to determine the form such steps should take for any specific pay settlement but, where appropriate, have indicated that a sanction may have to be imposed.
Does the Minister fully realise the dangers of the attitude he is adopting in relation to agreements made under our free collective bargaining system and that, in effect, what he is proposing is likely to lead to anarchy in the industrial relations area?
I do not accept for a moment that the attitude which I and my Government are taking is one which could lead to anarchy in industrial relations. Our main concern must be to ensure, as far as we can, that we maintain and, if possible, improve our competitive capacity as against that of other countries. It is very clear that one of the factors which go into determining our competitive capacity is the rate of wage increase here. In the circumstances of the economy as it is at present it is a fact that we can be in danger of trading jobs for wages. It was with that in mind that the Government made the statement they did on 10 March last.
Is the Minister imposing a mandatory wage freeze on industry? Might I ask him also what is his definition of free collective bargaining? Is he now taking over the function of the Minister for Labour who is charged with responsibility in this area together with ICTU and the employer organisations?
It is not in any way the Government's intention to impose a mandatory wage freeze. The Government's statement of policy on 10 March last made it very clear that that is not what we intend to do. Secondly, there is no sense in which there is any doubt about the Government's definition of what constitutes free collective bargaining. It is a term which has been in use for quite a long time, the exact meaning of which is clearly understood by all concerned. I would have to point out that free collective bargaining does not take place in a vacuum. It is a procedure that must take place against the background of the economic circumstances of the time. It is that particular aspect of it to which the Government wish to draw attention at this point.
Finally, there is no question of my taking the place of the Minister for Labour or anybody else. The question on the Order Paper was put down to me and I have given an answer to the question. It has fairly wide economic relevance.
The question asked if the Minister proposed to adopt any sanctions against companies that went outside the guidelines the Government laid down. The Minister has not said whether or not he intends to impose sanctions on companies. He is reported in the papers earlier this week as having indicated already to some insurance companies that sanctions will be imposed against them by way of increasing the insurance levy. Does the Minister not understand that free collective bargaining is based on trust and voluntary agreement and that if a third party, such as the Government, interfere either before or after an agreement is made, that that can lead to anarchy in industrial relations?
I will read for the Deputy the final paragraph of the Government's statement of 10 March last:
The National Prices Commission have been asked, in accordance with established practice of giving them pay guidelines, not to take pay increases into account in recommending price increases pending the outcome of the negotiations. Similar considerations will apply in the case of Government contracts.
I have to say there is no innovation in that particular policy line. I fully accept the Deputy's contention that free collective bargaining is based on trust and voluntary agreement but I can only reiterate the point that it cannot take place in a vacuum. Whatever our approach, from whatever side we approach pay negotiations, we must have regard to the economic climate in which they are taking place. That is particularly important today, as at other times in the past, when we are in a very real sense in danger of having to trade jobs for income.
The intervention of a third party in negotiations is something to which the Deputy referred also. I would make the point that there are other third parties intervening in pay negotiations which will never get spoken about in this House. For example, they are the people in other countries who produce goods more competitively than we do. We can have wage negotiations until we are all happy or all blue in the face and, if they give a particular result, the third party, that is the external competitor, will intervene and we will find that while the pay negotiations may have arrived at a conclusion that people think is fair and reasonable, the result of it will be that we will not be able to compete and we will not have the jobs to which we can apply the agreed rates of pay.
It is important——
It could be very important but we could have a long debate on it and Question Time does not permit that.
The Minister has not answered the question put to him: does he intend to impose sanctions on companies which breach the Government's guidelines?
He did answer that by saying he had not yet made up his mind.