asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Executive Council of the ICTU; and if he discussed with them the growing dissatisfaction with the Programme for National Recovery.
2.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Discussions with ICTU.
1.
asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the matters discussed with representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions at the meeting on 24 November 1989 to consider the future of the Programme for National Recovery; if any decisions were reached at the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
3.
asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 24 November, 1989; if the possibility of a second phase of the programme was covered; if any possible changes to the terms of the programme were discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together. I met representatives of the Executive Council of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 24 November, with my colleagues the Ministers for Finance, Industry and Commerce and Labour, to discuss and review progress under the Programme for National Recovery.
As the joint Government/ICTU statement issued after the meeting made clear, the success of the programme in correcting the severe and unsustainable imbalances in the public finances, in returning growth to the economy and in reversing the disastrous trends in unemployment and employment were fully recognised. We agreed to consider measures and actions which would, within the programme, intensify the progress being made particularly as regards jobs, tax reform, living standards and social equity. That is the purpose of the ongoing review and monitoring provisions of the programme.
These and the other matters dealt with at the meeting are covered in the joint statement, copies of which are available in the Oireachtas Library.
I am calling Deputy Pat Rabbitte who has a question tabled on the subject matter.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. May I ask him if he concurs with the views of the Minister for Labour that the contribution of the leading private companies to job creation has been a major disappointment, whether the recent statement by the Secretary of his Department congratulating the same private companies for their contribution reflects the Taoiseach's view and if he disputes the recent statement of the Minister for Labour.
I think there is general agreement that one of the problems we face is to translate the very satisfactory rate of economic growth, which we are now achieving, into jobs. Our efforts are directed to that end. For that purpose the Deputy will probably have noticed that I met the chief executives of the principal semi-State bodies yesterday to discuss with them how they could contribute to creating more employment within their spheres of activity. The position is that there has been a considerable turn around in the provision of employment in the private sector. As the Deputy knows the ESRI, for instance, have indicated that their estimate is that 11,000 extra jobs will be created this year and 19,000 next year. We would all agree that there is considerable scope for improvement in the private sector in the area of job creation.
I welcome the comments concerning the public sector but my question related to the performance of the private sector. May I ask the Taoiseach specifically if he is in agreement with the request put forward by Congress that there should now be a major review of industrial policy with a view to ensuring that the major private companies in particular make a more substantial contribution to job creation?
Yes, I would certainly support any possible examination of the private sector that would help us to translate economic growth into more jobs. Of course, in that connection we must always keep in mind that private sector enterprises have to be competitive and profitable and to some extent there is a conflict between the application of more technology, automation and so on and the provision of extra jobs. The dilemma really is to find a way in which private enterprise corporations can become increasingly efficient and competitive and at the same time endeavour to contribute to the provision of extra employment.
In view of what the Taoiseach has just said can he give the House an assurance that the question of the privatisation of a very successful and competitive State company, the Great Southern Hotels, was not discussed at the meeting with ICTU or that they have not given their agreement to such a privatisation in view of less than 100 per cent responsibility of the private sector towards the maintenance and the creation of jobs?
The Deputy is now coming to deal with a particular case.
Any decision in regard to GSR hotels will be announced in due course.
May I ask the Taoiseach, in the light of the clear failure of the private sector to produce the kind of jobs they had been expected to produce, because of some of the factors to which the Taoiseach referred, if the question of the privatisation of the Great Southern Hotels was raised at these two meetings?
That seems to be a separate matter in any event.
It was not raised. One of the areas in which the private sector is producing jobs is the hotel and catering industry and in the tourist trade generally.
May I ask the Taoiseach two questions?
One at a time.
As you wish. First, may I ask the Taoiseach if he would agree with the statement made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions prior to the meeting with him that at the current rate of job creation 200,000 people will still be unemployed by 1992? Second, may I ask him if his statement, made just a few moments ago, that private sector companies must be profitable applies also to semi-State companies and if he will state whether the agreements he entered into with the State companies yesterday in regard to job creation by them are subject to the companies in question continuing on that basis to remain profitable?
In regard to the first question, I would be much more optimistic than the statement which the Deputy made implies.
The Congress of Trade Unions made the statement.
I do not think that is exactly the position of the Congress of Trade Unions.
I have the statement here.
The real position is that Congress and Government — and indeed the social partners generally — are working together to try to ensure that the level of economic growth, which we are happily achieving at the moment, is translated as widey as possible into more jobs. Of course, the chief executives of the State companies understand that they must be not just profitable but efficient as well. In fact, we agreed between us that one of the best contributions they can make to the economy is to provide a cheaper and more efficient service for the rest of the economy. That also applies to their own operations——
Then the Taoiseach will sell them off.
As I said, they are conscious of that and are working assiduously to that end. Subject to that we accept that it is possible for them — either through extensions of their core business or through branching out into totally separate enterprises — to provide more employment.
If, as the Taoiseach says, he is more optimistic than the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in regard to the level of unemployment in 1992 in that he believes it will be fewer than the figure of 200,000 suggested by the Congress of Trade Unions, will he please state his view as to the likely level of unemployment in 1992 on the basis of the current rate of job creation? Will he assure the House that his meeting with the semi-State bodies yesterday does not constitute political interference with the commercial management of those bodies in the interests of the taxpayer and those currently employed therein?
Only the Deputy, with the sort of convoluted mind he has, could possibly level that sort of criticism against me. I would have thought he would have been all in favour of a good, helpful, constructive meeting between myself and the chief executives of State bodies with a view to promoting economic development and job creation.
Indeed I am.
A final question, please, from Deputy Rabbitte.
The Taoiseach has a very poor record in this area.
It is a far better record than that of the Deputy and he is very foolish to talk about records.
The Taoiseach can stand over his record, I do not have to change my mind.
He can stay on his horse.
The record in the Taoiseach's case is not one of which he can be proud.
In reply to my first question concerning a major review of industrial policy, does the Taoiseach's answer mean that such a review has already commenced or is about to commence?
It is underway.
Having regard to the scale of the unemployment problem, will the Taoiseach accept that the Programme for National Recovery is an inadequate response to the jobs crisis? Will he——
We cannot debate this matter today as I also want to deal with other questions.
The Programme for National Recovery is the most successful programme for economic development ever put forward in this country.
Ask the people in Tallaght about it.
We succeeded in achieving national consensus with the social partners——
Next question, please.
Will the Taoiseach indicate when——
Please, Deputy Rabbitte, I have called the next question. You must resume your seat.
We did not get a reply to my question.
Please, Deputy Rabbitte, you must resume your seat.
Will the Taoiseach indicate when the industrial strategy——
The Deputy is here.
Deputy De Rossa, I did not call you.
I will remind the Taoiseach of that in January when I hope to meet him in the European Parliament.
Deputy De Rossa, please resume your seat. The Taoiseach may not answer the question.