Vol. 402 No. 8
4 Mr. T. O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Labour if he will make a statement on the impending discussions he proposes to undertake with the social partners in connection with a programme for economic and social development; and in particular, if he will outline the principal items on the agenda for these discussions.
11 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Labour if he will outline his approach to the negotiations on a programme for economic and social development with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
16 Tomás Mac Giolla asked the Minister for Labour if, during the course of negotiations with employers and unions regarding a possible replacement for the current Programme for National Recovery, he intends to raise the possibility of creating extra public holidays; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
20 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Labour if, in relation to his recent comments (details supplied), he will outline whether the Government have rejected the possibility of a national agreement which would include a two-tier wage increase element; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
29 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Labour if he would envisage the present arrangement with the social partners for negotiating national economic and social programmes continuing on a permanent basis.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 11, 16, 20 and 29 together.
Negotiations on a programme for economic and social development between the Government and the social partners are at present under way. The aim of these negotiations is to produce an agreement which will ensure a continuation of the consensus based approach to the formulation of social and economic strategies which was so successful under the Programme for National Recovery. A new agreement would enable us to build on the achievements of the programme and ensure the attainment of further social and economic progress.
Meetings have been held with employers, trade unions, farmers and youth organisations and further meetings are planned. Discussions are broad ranging covering such issues as taxation, job creation, health, education, social welfare and pay and conditions of employment. Under pay and conditions, wage increases and public holidays are among a number of items listed for consideration.
In the context of ongoing discussions, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate at this stage as to what the outcome of the discussions might be or the form of any eventual agreement.
It is clear that any agreement will have provisions setting down macro-economic targets as well as covering employment, taxation and social services. The issues are well documented and discussed in detail in a recently published NESC Report. There will also be an agreement or agreements on pay and conditions of employment.
The achievements of the current Programme for National Recovery have been very substantial indeed, particularly in terms of macro-economic targets, taxation, employment, pay and social welfare benefits. I am on record as supporting a continuation of that approach and I believe this is now all the more critical in view of a worsening external environment in terms of the recession in the UK, the US economy, GATT, the competition for investment from Eastern Europe, the onset of the harmonisation of indirect taxation in the European Community and full economic and monetary union, not to speak of the crisis in the Middle East.
I am hopeful that as in the case of the Programme for National Recovery an agreement will result from the present talks which will contain elements which satisfy all the parties involved, while at the same time contributing to the national interest and continuing economic and social progress. It is clear that the future lies in rejecting conflict in favour of co-operation and consensus. It would be unfortunate to find that after several decades of attempts to achieve real economic and social progress we had not learned that lesson.
Is the Minister really serious in saying that the present programme has been successful in regard to job creation? It is now generally recognised it was a dismal failure in this area. Any achievements were made on the backs of those who could be categorised as the weaker sections in the community. Indeed, people are still waiting for hospital beds. In the coming programme, will measures be taken to take these things into account, particularly job creation and health, which were completely ignored in the current programme?
The Deputy has asked a number of questions. I accept that, in the early part of the last programme, job creation was not very successful and this also happened in other countries, particularly over the last 18 months. There has been substantial growth in the economy but that does not take away from the fact that there are over 200,000 people unemployed. The basis for discussions on the present programme is being broken down into four areas — tax reform, social services, job creation and pay and conditions. Job creation will have to be a substantial part of a new programme and — as was attempted in the last programme — it will be done on the basis of trying to identify the sectors and the means by which jobs can be created. Looking back over the three year programme it is clear that there will not be a growth in jobs to the same level as productivity growth but they are complementary, which has been pointed out by surveys done in the EC and the OECD. I hope this will continue and form a major part of any new agreement.
Will the Minister inform the House if he intends to take into account the proposals of the Conference of Major Religious Superiors? They submitted a document to every Member of the House pointing out that a basic income is the first item on the agenda as far as they are concerned. They also asked for major tax reform, a concerted job creation programme, an integrated approach to tackling rural poverty and a coherent approach to tackling emigration.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I must remind him that quotations at Question Time are not in order.
I am just referring to a submission from the Conference of Major Religious Superiors. Will they be part of the consensus to which the Minister referred?
Questions were asked last week as to who would be part of the groupings and certainly the submissions and policy statements of the Conference of Major Religious Superiors are being discussed in the various working groups. The points which they put forward — not just in this submission but over the last few years — will be taken into account.
Will there be agreement on the proposals before any programme is implemented?
If there is agreement on the proposals from the Conference of Major Religious Superiors, as there was the last time from the point of view of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, they must refer such agreement back to their affiliates. The same applies to the Federation of Irish Employers and before there is any final agreement their national executive must vote on it.
A final question from Deputy O'Sullivan.
Is it the Minister's intention to bring the proposals back to the Dáil for discussion before implementation?
That will be a matter for the Taoiseach but he answered that question in the House last week.
