Mary Harney
Question:5 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if the Government is planning a review of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work; his views on centralised wage bargaining; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1807/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Review of Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
Mary Harney
Question:6 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, he has to meet with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1808/95]
Bertie Ahern
Question:7 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if the Government is committed to the full implementation of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. [2036/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together.
I have held a series of useful meetings with all of the social partners since taking up office and in each case confirmed the Government's commitment to developing the spirit of social partnership with the aim of increasing employment and developing social equity. I reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the implementation of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. I recognise the role which centralised wage bargaining has played in securing moderate and competitive income development under the programme.
The central review committee will keep progress on the implementation of the programme under review and may make updated recommendations in the light of changing circumstances.
It seems as though we have a U-turn every week. Last week it was the programme managers and this week it is the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. Does the Taoiseach intend to allow the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed and the Council for the Status of Women to participate in the social partnership?
I support the participation of those bodies in the National Economic and Social Forum which has considerable input in many of the matters being dealt with in the development of social partnership. I would like to see them more closely involved, together with the self-employed and others, in the framing of the programme following the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and having an input to the deliberations of the National Economic and Social Council which will do some of the ground work for the next programme. This is a matter I will consider in some detail and would welcome views from all sides of the House. There are appropriate degrees of involvement by different organisations. Obviously the question of strict pay negotiations is a matter for employers and employees but there are other aspects of the programme where wider involvement would be appropriate and I would welcome views on that.
On 5 February the Taoiseach asked his predecessor if he would make provision for including the organisation which represented the unemployed. Will he ensure that the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, which is the only body in the State exclusively representing unemployed people will be included in the social partnership and involved in discussing the implementation of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work?
That body is already involved in the social partnership to some degree through the National Economic and Social Forum. However, I would like to see it involved to a greater extent. When the next agreement is being agreed in the latter part of 1996 I will look at how it might be involved. As I indicated earlier, I would welcome views on how best this can be done, in particular the views of that body. I have already discussed it with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and am willing to discuss it with others.
Deputy Ahern whose Question No. 7 refers.
I just want to say that I have——
I have called Deputy Ahern and he shall be heard.
The Taoiseach's party has been consistent in its attitude towards programmes. It had reservations about the Programme for National Recovery, it opposed the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and had trenchant views about the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. On 16 May the Taoiseach described it at the Ard Fheis as a complacent and cosy consensus which damaged jobs. He said Fine Gael had the courage to oppose the programme. Will he admit that his replies to two questions today represent a blatant U-turn once again? Will he give a commitment to continue to meet the social partners in the future? He was always against the idea of social partners and considered them to be outside the political system. Will he participate in the negotiation of another programme, something he stated he would never do if in Government?
The Deputy should be more thorough when reading my speeches if he wishes to quote from them.
I am not allowed to quote.
If you read it all it does not make any sense.
I would draw his attention to the remarks I made in the House on 19 February 1991 when I was standing where he is now. I said:
As the Fine Gael amendment to this motion says, we support the concept of social partnership. We believe that the pay terms in this programme are good and reasonable from the point of view of the commercial sector of our economy. The pay terms for the public service are also reasonable and the special pay increases which have been postponed must now be paid.
On the amendment Fine Gael tabled, which is reported at column 738 of the Official Report of 19 February, I indicated a number of areas where I had reservations about the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and Programme for Competitiveness and Work. I am glad to be in a position to do something about ensuring that those reservations can be taken into account when the next agreement is being negotiated towards the end of 1996.
I must tell the House——
I have a very brief question.
——that the time for dealing with the Taoiseach's questions is quite exhausted. I will allow a final question.
I have another question to ask.
Time does not permit.
I asked two of the questions.
The Deputy was permitted to put some questions. She cannot deny that.
I am not sure how the Taoiseach can quote a programme from 1991 which was not negotiated until 1993.
I was referring to the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
I asked about the Programme for Competitiveness and Work not the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. Will the Taoiseach participate in negotiations with the social partners on the next programme? He is on record as saying a number of times that he would not do so. Will he participate in the negotiation of a further programme at the end of 1996?
I will, and I am not on record as saying I would not do so.
I am not allowed to quote at Question Time.
The Taoiseach's inconsistency is consistent.
You are used to that.
I will facilitate Deputy Harney. She may ask a brief question.
May I take it that the Taoiseach no longer agrees that the Programme for Competitiveness and Work has no economic or social rationale, that it does not achieve equality of treatment between different groups of workers?
As the Deputy will see from the speech I made on 4 March 1994 I questioned some of the philosophies underlying the Programme for Competitiveness and Work——
This is a question of cant and recant.
——in regard to the principle adumbrated by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, that there should be equality of pay increases in all circumstances between the private and public sectors. I pointed out that it is questionable to apply to a company or sector where little or no profit is made the same level of pay increase as is paid in a company, firm or sector where huge profits are made. There are questions about applying the same pay norms in the public and private sector.
A memorable speech.
What about Packard? What did Democratic Left think about it?
These are issues which can be dealt with in the context of normal discussions between the social partners. I look forward to discussing the concerns I expressed then with the social partners in the run in to the negotiation of the next programme. I have always believed in the concept of social partnership but there is also room for argument about what is the appropriate content of any agreed programme. I make no apology for expressing my views in that context.
The Taoiseach had better be gone before that arises.
He has changed his philosophy again.
A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order.
I am sure the Deputy heard me, that any such point must be in strict accord with the procedures of this House.
To avoid future confusion in the Taoiseach's Question Time and, given the importance of the prime Minister taking responsibility for Northern Ireland, has he given any consideration to changing his name, by deed poll, to Richard Spring?
(Interruptions.)
What is the Deputy doing here?
We must now proceed to questions nominated for priority.