Ruairí Quinn
Question:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the social partners on a possible replacement for Partnership 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15831/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Partnership 2000.
It is likely that formal negotiations with the social partners on a successor to Partnership 2000 will get under way in September or October. There has been a great deal of dis cussion already on matters which will have an important bearing on the orientation and content of a new agreement, in particular the consultations on the national development plan and the ongoing work of the NESC in devising a strategic framework to underpin the new agreement. I am confident that a successor to Partnership 2000 will be agreed, principally because all the participants accept the enormous contribution which social partnership has made to the turnaround in Ireland's economic fortunes in recent years.
Does the Taoiseach accept that partnerships which have worked to date have been vital for the regeneration of the Irish economy but it is time to reshape the style of partnership beyond a wage agreement, in order to offer a real redistribution in society to ensure those who have been excluded from the benefits can fully participate in the growing economic wealth? Will the Taoiseach assure the House that any new national agreement engaged in by the Government will be characterised by that approach?
I will give that assurance. However, it would be wrong not to challenge what Deputy Howlin said. With the exception of the Programme for National Recovery, the second Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the subsequent PCW and Partnership 2000 focused on a broader theme of social issues such as education, health and other areas. The next programme will also be modelled on this approach. The inclusion of these areas in the social model has resulted in their improvement and contributed resources, which may not have happened otherwise.
It is equally true that each programme has contributed something new. The last programme included the fourth pillar of the community and voluntary sector. In discussions regarding the next programme, people are looking at how the national development plan fits into the growth of the economy. Deputy Barrett mentioned community development and enterprise and these were features of all the partnership initiatives. These should be looked at and renewed. I have made it clear that the democratic agenda of elected representatives should form part of these programmes and is central to their success. I will ensure it is included in the next programme.
I welcome the Taoiseach's reply. To ensure the democratic component is paramount, as he indicated, will he agree to a debate on the framework in which the next partnership agreement will be discussed in advance of embarking on any detailed discussions so the negotiations will have the imprimatur of this House? This will ensure all the factors about which he spoke are fully taken into account.
Doing that in advance of discussions might not work.
It will not do any good afterwards.
Perhaps it may happen at some stage during the process. Discussions on pay productivity etc. have been ongoing since January. There havebeen extensive discussions with the social partners on the national development plan. The Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and I have just finished a round of detailed discussions with the social partners on that. Discussion on the other elements will commence in late September.
Does the Taoiseach accept that up to now the Oireachtas has been the least involved participant in these negotiations? That is a criticism of all previous Governments and not the current one which has not been involved in a partnership agreement yet. In the past an agreed deal has been presented to the Oireachtas by people who are not elected, who have rightly been involved. However, the involvement and input of the elected Members of the Oireachtas has been the least of all. Does the Taoiseach agree that is not desirable or acceptable?
It is a difficult matter to resolve. The Executive fulfils its role and those who negotiate on behalf of the four pillars put it to those who they represent and receive their mandate, which has happened as regards the past four programmes. The Dáil debates the programme, ratifies it and has voted on at least one occasion. I do not have any difficulty with the Dáil or an Oireachtas committee putting forward their views on the areas for discussion. However, negotiations can only take place between the social partners and the Government of the day.
Everyone would agree that one of the successful elements of previous partnerships was the trade-off in forfeiting pay increases through tax cuts. Does the Taoiseach think this has run its course or will it be an integral part of any new programme? Does he agree it is now widely acknowledged that what is really driving pressure on pay is the cost of housing and the proportion of net income taken up by this? Given that in the next decade we will need four extra houses for every ten which exist on the east coast, will the Taoiseach and his Government give leadership in making a major housing initiative part of any successor to Partnership 2000, to ensure uncompetitive pay pressures because of accommodation problems do not lead to a loss of competitiveness in the economy?
The central issue is that the country remains competitive. We have increased our competitiveness on the world league table in recent years, which is an important indicator of how a country is performing. A successful economy driven by the co-operation of social partners has contributed to the pressure on housing. We have built 15,000 to 18,000 houses every year for a number of years and this year we will build more than 50,000 houses, between social and private housing. We must continue that using the land use, serviced land and other initiatives.
In some cases the cost of housing is part of the reason for pay pressure. Other reasons include skills shortages as some employers in some sectors find it difficult to employ suitable people. All of these elements create pressures. We will be seeking pay restraint and moderation so the economy will continue to develop. The current policy with regard to pay restraint and moderation is why the economy is performing so well and why nearly 1.7 million people are working. There will be changes under the new programme, but it must reflect the development of the economy in the next three or four years.
As public service union leaders stated, an average couple, for instance a garda and a nurse, cannot afford a mortgage to buy a house in the Dublin area. This will drive pay pressures through the roof. Unless the Government brings forward and sustains a major initiative to deal with the infrastructural deficit and other direct housing initiatives, this will greatly undermine the competitiveness of the Irish economy. Does the Taoiseach accept that? Does he realise this question of accommodation is now a central economic issue for many people, particularly for those living along the east coast?
Deputy Yates can be assured that the whole thrust of the national development plan is to ensure we invest the resources which are necessary for the continued development of the economy. We must do that. The reason is that we are on the verge of the new millennium, at the position where all the reports thought we would be in 2010, 2012 or beyond. Our rate of development, prosperity and activity; the ending of emigration, with net inflows into the country; the enormous amount of investment in the Irish economy – 11.5 per cent last year – and growth rates which have effectively doubled in 12 years have put us where we are now. We must deal with that in a major infrastructural way. That is what the national plan seeks to do in the next five years.