Vol. 395 No. 7
1 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if any changes are planned in the Programme for National Recovery in light of the special delegate conference of the ICTU held on 8 February 1990 and the strong criticism of the programme expressed by many delegates; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The Government welcome the confirmation by ICTU at their special delegate conference of their continued agreement to the Programme for National Recovery. This decision was due to the fact that the majority of delegates considered that the programme had been honoured and implemented in full by the Government. The progress report published last week by the central review committee of the programme and placed in the Oireachtas Library gives full details of the progress made under the programme in implementing its objectives and commitments.
The Government hope that all social partners will participate in negotiations on a further programme. Since the current Programme for National Recovery is operative until the end of this year, discussions on a new programme will not commence until later this year.
The Programme for National Recovery enables the social partners to share in decision making and implementation in respect of national economic and social objectives. This is a new successful formula for national economic management which is better than anything we have ever tried before. It is now widely recognised that the economic and social progress made over the past three years has been due in large measure to the programme. The social partners who have contributed so much to the success of the programme should now have the opportunity in continued partnership with the Government to determine how the growing benefits of our expanding economy will be distributed.
I hope, therefore, that the negotiations in due course will lead to a new programme which will enable us successfully and in partnership to confront and overcome the many economic and social problems which still face us.
I thank the Taoiseach for his considered reply in an area that he regards as a cornerstone of his economic policy. Notwithstanding what the Taoiseach has said about a majority considering that the terms of the programme have been honoured, would the Taoiseach agree that equal concern was expressed by all at the special delegate conference concerning the failure of the agreement effectively to tackle unemployment? Would the Taoiseach say whether there are any new employment strategies contemplated by the Government arising from this unanimity on the part of the delegates in the unions?
I accept that there is disappointment in the trade union movement about employment but I would not agree with the term "failure" of the programme with regard to employment, because the programme has reached its employment targets, such as they are. The Government share with the trade union movement and the other social partners disappointment that the rate of economic growth we are achieving in the programme has not yet translated itself satisfactorily into employment creation. That is a subject which is engaging our attention and one which we will discuss with the social partners through the central review committee.
The Deputy may not have noticed that I mentioned in my budget speech that we have asked the Commission in Brussels, from their expertise, to give us the benefit of any advice or assistance they can offer in the process of translating economic growth into more employment. I agree that it is the central issue today in the economic area. Optimistically, perhaps, one could visualise a delay in economic growth translating itself into employment and that from now on we should increasingly get the benefits of the growth in the economy which is averaging 3 per cent or 3.5 per cent. I accept that it is something of concern to all of us.
(Limerick East): A Cheann Comhairle ——
There are a number of Deputies offering. I will call them if they will be brief. Deputy Rabbitte, please.
I welcome what has been the most frank statement coming from the Taoiseach on this critically important area. I presume the Taoiseach agrees with the figures advanced in the House yesterday by his Minister of State that some 13,500 redundancies were notified last year to the Department of Labour. Does the Taoiseach agree that that does not include people who would not be covered by the redundancy payments Acts and that that leaves a very minimal net improvement in the jobs situation? Would the Taoiseach also agree that workers who have been enduring wage restraint would expect some income restraint demonstrated by other sectors, and would expect a more reasonable translation of that wage moderation into job creation? When the Taoiseach refers to the fact that this matter is under scrutiny at the moment, I take it he is referring to the review of industrial policy that he mentioned in an answer to me in this House some time ago. Can the Taoiseach indicate when that review might be complete?
I asked for brevity. Clearly we cannot debate this matter today.
The review of industrial policy will be completed soon, although I cannot give the Deputy an exact date.
(Limerick East): Will the Taoiseach confirm that the Government have requested NESC to undertake certain research projects which will be drawn on to widen the scope of the negotiations on the next agreement with the social partners? Will the Taoiseach specify the area of policy being studied and give an assurance to the House that the research results will be made available to Members of the House at the same time as they are made available to the social partners?
Most of NESC's work and research are made public. I will be glad to see what can be done to keep the House fully informed, but, on the other hand, we have to have regard to the protocol of discussions with the social partners. I assure the Deputy that there will be no attempt to exclude the House from the fullest possible information.
(Limerick East): Will the Taoiseach confirm that the question of emigration in particular is now the subject of an in-depth study at the request of the Government and that the question of translating economic growth into jobs is another task that has been allocated to NESC in advance of the next agreement?
We all are studying these matters.
(Limerick East): Has the Taoiseach allocated the task to NESC?
NESC is generally engaged in——
(Limerick East): Has the Taoiseach specifically asked them, and have the social partners agreed——
Order, order.
(Limerick East): ——that this material should be made available in advance of the next round of negotiations?
The next round of negotiations has not started, so there is no agreement.
(Limerick East): Do not prevaricate, Taoiseach, in advance of negotiations——
Can we have a question from Deputy Spring?
In the course of the Taoiseach's response to Deputy Rabbitte he mentioned the next round of negotiations for a second programme for national recovery. I put it to the Taoiseach that the major concern of the large employers would seem to be rationalisation which in effect means jobs shedding. Will the Taoiseach ensure in the context of these negotiations that the Government will outline their policies in relation to job creation and try to convince large employers that job creation is far more important than their concern about rationalisation? Will the Taoiseach put the question of a minimum wage on the table in the context of these negotiations?
We are clearly widening the scope of this question.
It would be most unwise of me to attempt to start talking about the negotiations or discussions so far in advance of their commencement. As of now, I have expressed the hope that we will be able to enter into negotiations but even that has not yet been agreed with the social partners.
We on this side of the House also welcome the decision of Congress to continue the Programme for National Recovery. Will the Taoiseach join us in welcoming a further agreement lasting another three years or do the Government have a different view regarding the terms of the next agreement? Will the Taoiseach agree that the priority in the next agreement must be in relation to employment growth? Will he also agree that the achievement of the present agreement relates to stability rather than growth and that the achievement of the next agreement must be growth?
I would have to give the same sort of reply as I did to Deputy Spring. I do not want to be drawn into pre-empting discussions in advance on negotiations which have not even started. I do not agree with the Deputy that the last programme did not secure growth, it certainly did.
I mean growth in employment terms.
Well, it secured some improvement in employment and it achieved economic growth at an annual rate of 3.5 per cent.
Will the Taoiseach elaborate on whether the Government have a view as to the length of the term of a future agreement which they see as ideal? Is it one, two or three years?
That will have to be discussed with the social partners.
Have the Government an opening position?
Oh, yes.
What is the opening position?
The duration of the Government.
Ceist 2 a cur ar ceal.
