asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development if the national understanding is open to renegotiation and if he will make a statement on the matter.
13.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - National Understanding.
12.
asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development if clarification of the national understanding referred to by the Taoiseach in the Dáil will be the subject of further meetings between Government Ministers and trade union leaders.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 13 together.
The proposed national understanding represents the outcome of detailed and comprehensive discussions between Government, employer and trade union representatives, and arose from the Taoiseach's call for a fresh approach to the many economic and social issues confronting the community at the present time.
As the Deputy is aware, the proposals have been rejected by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The reasons for rejection are diverse and appear in some respects to reflect conflicting interests among member unions. The rejection is disappointing since the terms of the proposed understanding were designed to strike a fair balance among the differing interests involved and can only be regarded as generous given the more difficult economic climate which is emerging since these proposals were formulated.
The Taoiseach will meet representatives of the trade union and employer organisations to discuss the situation arising from the rejection of these proposals.
This question was originally put down to the Taoiseach prior to the meeting yesterday and was transferred to the present Minister, but it is still relevant and perhaps even more relevant now. Would the Minister agree that every effort should be made to seek to salvage certain positive factors of the national understanding? He referred to different groups having different approaches to it, but to salvage these positive features of the national understanding, perhaps the Government would need to indicate whether flexibility or clarification will be their objective at the forthcoming meeting. I sought a description from the Taoiseach originally of flexibility——
A question, Deputy.
——because it would be tragic from the national interest point of view if, because of disagreement on certain features of the national understanding, the entire package was to go. That is why I seek this information from the Minister.
I recognise the importance of the matters to which the Deputy refers and, with your indulgence, a Cheann Comhairle, I would like a little latitude in answering this question. The matter was apparently so important yesterday that the acting leader of the Fine Gael Party felt he had to signal his desire to raise it today and, having signalled it and having raised it again this morning, I notice a conspicuous absence of interest not only in this matter but in the other matters which were the subject of questions by Deputies on that side of the House.
Returning to the point raised by Deputy O'Leary, there is, of course, a desire on the part of the Government that there should be an orderly and peaceful approach to resolving the many complex and important economic issues which are before the country at present. However, I do not see that it would be realistic or sensible to imply that further progress in this area could take the form of separate interest groups being placed in a position where they could select those elements of the proposed understanding which suited themselves but were free to reject the balance of the proposals. The proposals contained in the national understanding were indeed a comprehensive set of proposals which emerged as a result of a very prolonged series of discussions and were designed to try to reconcile the conflicting interests and aspirations of different groups. As is normal in a healthy democratic process, the outcome was a set of proposals where each party made some concessions in order to secure the understanding and support of the other parties. Therefore, we now find ourselves in the situation where there is not going to be subscription to the overall set of proposals. I do not feel that it would be appropriate to envisage that all of the proposals in the understanding could be implemented. In particular I would not wish it to be felt that there could be a unilateral implementation of selected components of those proposals.
I accept that one could not have wholesale revision of points that have been negotiated over such a long period. Does the Minister hold out any prospect of improvement on the tax aspect of the package as improvement in that area might gain acceptance for the other points?
With respect, I think the Deputy is approaching this issue in the wrong way. He is appearing to suggest that the Government should now unilaterally signal its willingness to alter some specific element in the proposal without any indication from the other parties that they have even the slightest willingness to proceed with such a revision.
Assuming that there in interest——
I do not see that there is the basis at present for assuming anything. We must proceed on the facts of the situation. The facts of the situation are that a series of proposals emerged as a result of prolonged and complex discussions. Those proposals represented a balancing of conflicting interests, I repeat, conflicting interests. In a healthy democracy it is totally unrealistic for any group to imagine that they can unilaterally select elements of a comprehensive set of proposals which seek to take account of other members of the community and then assert their entitlement to those elements which favour their own individual situation. To do so would be an unwise approach to adopt.
I recognise the Deputy's concern in the matter; indeed, I should like to digress to thank the other parties in the House for their support for the general approach. We all recognise that it is in the interests of the community at large and, of course, we all represent the community at large and the diverse interests within that community. Having recognised their support for it, I should say that we would be unwise to proceed further on the basis that the best remedy to yesterday's rejection by the trade union movement is to have one party—in this instance, at the Deputy's suggestion, the Government—make a unilateral improvement. I do not see any purpose in that type of approach. What is needed is to convey to people that some of their decisions and behaviour demonstrates a lack of patriotism, a lack of social concern for the weak and under-privileged groups in our community and a lack of economic reality. All parties in this House should use their energies and efforts to improve the situation and to remedy the lack of awareness of the factual circumstances of our present situation.