Batt O'Keeffe
Ceist:1 Mr. B. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach if he intends to bring together the social partners to negotiate a national social partnership arrangement. [18376/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Partnership Process.
Social partnership is a process which has helped achieve a considerable measure of consensus and industrial peace. The Programme for Competitiveness and Work runs until the end of 1996.
It is my hope that we will negotiate a new national programme. Any new national programme which would begin in January 1997, would span a critical period for Ireland and could greatly assist in continuing the process of improving our competitiveness. In that context, I would also expect that mechanisms for extending a "partnership approach" to the level of the individual enterprise will be a significant feature of discussions on any new programme.
I will continue my frequent informal meetings with the social partners over the remaining year of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and intend opening formal discussions in relation to a possible new programme in the latter part of 1996.
Does the Taoiseach intend publishing a mid-term review of what has happened and has yet to happen under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, as was done in the past?
I understand a review of progress under the programme is taking place and I expect it will be published in the normal way.
There is not a normal way. In the past mid-term reviews were published, but since we have passed the mid-term on this occasion, will the Taoiseach give a date as to when such a review might be published? The three previous programmes were based on a comprehensive report published by the ESRI. What examination of the issues relevant to the next programme has the Taoiseach commissioned in the past few months?
I understand it was the National Economic and Social Council that carried out the review. It has already commenced work that will set the scene for negotiations for a new programme to commence on 1 January 1997.
As I do not have the relevant information with me, I am unable to give the Deputy a date on which a mid-term review will be carried out. However, I understand work in that area is being undertaken.
Does the Taoiseach agree that under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, public sector pay increased at between two and three times the rate of inflation? Does he agree that on the next occasion the social partners are convened to put in place a national wage agreement, the level of take-home pay should be the priority and that it is unacceptable that public sector pay should increase at twice the rate of the average industrial wage?
Various matters, unconnected with the Programme for Competitiveness and Work or its predecessor, contributed to the movement of pay levels. It would be wrong to assume that social partnerships is the primary reason for such a development. Most of this happened prior to my accession to office and, therefore, I am not in a position to give the Deputy the information he would like to have. However, I agree with his view that we should focus on take-home pay because that is what people have to spend at the end of each week or month. It is a consideration which affects public and private sector employees and the self-employed equally. It is also important, in the negotiation of any new programme, to strike a balance between the need to maintain good quality public services on which we must concentrate and the need to have people working in those services in a state of good morale and with a sense that their work is appreciated. It is important to everybody, be they in the private or public sector, that such services should be available.
As well as personal taxation to which I am glad he has referred, does the Taoiseach accept that the cost of PRSI to the employer would also be central to the negotiation of any new agreement?
We should consider all the factors which affect long-term decision-making about employment levels, but it is important to make the point that employers, in deciding to add to their workforce, do not consider the cost to them only in the year in which they employ the person concerned. They consider the likely cost implications in the long-term, during the career of that person in their employment. It is important, therefore, to establish a tax and social welfare regime which is favourable towards employment. One is best able to achieve this in the context of social partnership as it provides a measure of stability which enables long-term planning to take place. The Government must over time make the employment of additional personnel more attractive in fiscal terms. In the past Governments of all persuasions endeavoured to introduce short-term measures which offered attractive incentives for six months to one year to increase employment, but such measures do not produce the necessary long-term effects. One must consider this matter with a long-term perspective.
Have the terms of the public sector embargo been agreed by the Government under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work or will they be discussed with the social partners in the near future?
I am not sure what the basis for the Deputy's question is, but the Government wishes to move its programme forward in regard to public expenditure, taxation and all relevant matters of that nature in a spirit of social partnership. We would wish to discuss our approach with the social partners in the fullest way possible.
The source of my information is reports in the national newspapers today. Will the terms of the public sector embargo agreed by the Government be made known to the House?
I do not wish to reflect on any newspaper, but the Deputy would need to have a more authoritative source for any assumptions he might wish to make about what the Government will do.
Were the reports inaccurate?
It would not be my place to comment on newspaper stories on a day to day basis.
If my information is inaccurate, will the Taoiseach confirm that the Government has agreed to impose a public sector embargo or is it just a matter of gossip?
It would be better if the Deputy allowed the Government to announce its decisions in the normal way rather than ask me to make extempore comments in response to questions. The Government will make any announcements that it has to make in due course.
Is the Government considering any proposal to impose a public sector embargo?
We are getting down to specific questions now.
The Deputy will appreciate that any matters being considered by the Government are covered by the Supreme Court's judgment relating to decisions taken by the Deputy's party when in Government because it did not want to answer some embarrassing questions. I have nothing to be embarrassed about in this area.
The Taoiseach has the worst record when it comes to answering questions.
I am looking forward to the announcement of the relevant decisions of the Government in this area, but I will not become engaged, despite any pre-Christmas invitations from the Deputy, in speculating about Government decisions.
Just the Taoiseach's handlers.
So there are no proposals?
When they are taken they will be announced.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the Cabinet confidentiality ruling to which he has referred can be invoked with malice and ignored with impunity, that what is wrong here is that we are reading in the Irish Independent, not for the first time, of a solo run by a Labour Party Minister and that instead of slapping the car into reverse when travelling at 30 miles per hour we need less of the gear crunching economics from the Minister for Finance. Deputy Quinn, and more strategic planning in the way in which public sector pay and numbers are determined?
Much extraneous matter is being injected into this question.
The Taoiseach has been a late convert to the principle of social partnership although this is welcome. After three runs of social partnership does he agree that there is a need for a sharper focus on employment and taxation which ought to be the main issues in the negotiation of any new programme? Will he confirm in the House rather than through the pages of a national newspaper that a public service embargo is to be introduced?
That is a separate matter.
It would be best to draw the Deputy's attention to the full reply I gave in response to the question from Deputy Kitt in which I dealt with the matter of employment in some detail.
Does the Taoiseach remember the time when he hated the principle of social partnership?
That should be the principal focus in any social partnership approach. It is clear that the main social problem facing this country is the lack of employment although there has been tremendous growth in the past year.
That is a fairy story.
I agree with Deputy Kitt that the matter should be addressed and it will. I have answered the second part of Deputy O'Rourke's question already.