Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the progress of talks on a possible successor to Partnership 2000; when the talks will conclude; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1341/00]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Social Partnership.
John Bruton
Ceist:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has for women or men working in the home on an unpaid basis to be included as social partners in view of the fact that aspects of child care and taxation are to be discussed with the social partners in a formal way. [1431/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the action, if any, he will take on the finding of the National Economic and Social Council in its recent report, Opportunities, Challenges and Capacities for Choice, to the effect that Ireland does not have a transparent system in which the public, social partners and legislators can be aware of the choices being made and debate issues of allocation of resources in an informed way on a timely basis; and his views on the criticism. [1433/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with IBEC on 8 December 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1458/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with ICTU on 8 December 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1459/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:13 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the farming organisations on 8 December 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1460/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:14 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the social partners on 8 December 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1461/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:15 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will include the Women in the Home organisation in negotiations leading to a new national agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1462/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:16 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the arrangements, if any, he has made for the continued participation of representatives of the Irish Farmers Association in the talks to negotiate a successor agreement to Partnership 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1696/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:17 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the progress, since 15 December 1999, of the talks with the social partners to negotiate a successor agreement to Partnership 2000. [1712/00]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:18 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach the contacts, if any, he has had with the social partners since 16 December 1999. [1734/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:19 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will include the United Farmers Association in negotiations regarding any future national agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2491/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 19, inclusive, together.
I met each of the pillars in early December to hear, at first hand, their priorities and concerns, particularly in the context of the negotiations on a successor to Partnership 2000. The negotiations are proceeding intensively at present. While it would be inappropriate to go into detail at this stage, all sides are continuing to work hard to reach an agreement and it is my hope that we will be in a position to reach a successful conclusion soon. Given that possibility, it would not be feasible to seek to widen representation at this stage. However, all the major issues and concerns facing Irish society will feature in any new agreement and, therefore, it will be as inclusive as possible of all interests and perspectives.
The final NESC strategy indicates very clearly the potential breadth and depth of a new agreement and certainly the Government is committed to the strategy as the general underpinning framework. I might make the general point that the strategy represents a compromise view between all NESC members on a huge variety of issues and concerns. As such, I am somewhat reluctant to comment on any specific view. However, as a principle, the Government is positively disposed to making Irish society, including the policy and decision-making processes, as open and transparent as possible. Much progress has been made in recent years but, no doubt, there will always be scope for further improvement.
Regarding representation by the farming pillar, I can confirm that the Irish Farmers Association continues to play a full and active role. On participation by the United Farmers Association, I am satisfied that farming interests are adequately represented at present, but obviously I would not like to prejudge, at this stage, representation in the context of any future agreement.
I wish to ask a number of questions. If the Government accepted the NESC strategy prior to the formulation of the budget, why did the components of the taxation package contained in the budget fly so flagrantly in the face of that strategy? I accept that any replies the Taoiseach might give will be constricted by the ongoing negotiations. However, in view of the careful leaking, through Government sources, of a £1.5 billion tax package additional to the concessions announced so far in the serial budget which began its passage on 1 December, do I understand that the stability programme which commits the Government to three years of forward financing and expenditure, including current account expenditure, into the year 2002 will be subsequently revised with the authorities in Brussels? Will such a revision require an upward adjustment of what is the lowest level of current account expenditure of any OECD country, namely, 25% of GNP?
None of the Deputy's supplementary questions relates to those to which I replied initially and I do not propose to answer them. I already dealt with the issue of the NESC strategy. The fundamental principles of the NESC strategy have been used in my discussions with the social partners. The totality of the agreement – we cannot be sure when it will be finalised – will reflect those principles. Changing our representations to ECOFIN is a matter for the Minister for Finance.
I have a number of further questions to put to the Taoiseach.
They should be brief.
With respect, I have a number of questions to pose.
The time for questions to the Taoiseach is limited.
Thank you very much, a Cheann Comhairle. May I ask my questions?
Very briefly.
In view of the fact that the partnership agreement will lead to changes in the Finance Bill, specifically in respect of taxation measures which were announced in this Chamber on budget day, and given that the budget gives effect, overall, to expenditure programmes as required under economic and monetary union, is the Taoiseach aware that there might be implications in terms of changing the stability programme, including our commitment to a figure of 25% in respect of current expenditure in the next three years? Will there be any impact in this area?
The negotiations on the partnership agreement are proceeding to a conclusion. Any changes to legislation, programmes, the Book of Estimates etc. will be dealt with by the relevant Ministers at the proper time. However, I do not believe we should make assumptions about those changes at this stage.
One final question, a Cheann Comhairle.
This is the Deputy's third time to ask supplementary questions on this matter. I call Deputy John Bruton.
The Taoiseach has not answered my question.
The Chair has no control over that.
Will the stability programme, which is a treaty obligation and which arises on foot of the budget, be changed?
If it is relevant.
Does the Taoiseach know the answer to my question?
Obviously not. The Deputy should ask his question again. Will the Taoiseach reply to Question No. 9?
The answer to Question No. 9 is no, not at this stage of these negotiations, but if, as in the past, there are groups which believe they are not represented, they are entitled to put forward their views. However, the issues the group to which the question refers have raised have been comprehensively dealt with in the final package and deliberations on them accounted for a large part of the discussions.
Is it not the case that those who do unpaid work in the home are not represented directly by any organisation engaged in the partnership discussions? While they are not unique in that regard – many other organisations are not represented in the discussions – they are unique in the sense that the Government explicitly stated in its response to criticism of aspects of the budget that issues affecting spouses working in the home would be considered further by the social partners. In that regard, is there a requirement to make some special arrangement to consider the views of this group in the context of any agreement that is being reached? I pose this question in light of the fact that the Government went out of its way to find an escape route from the controversy surrounding the budget by stating that the social partners would consider the matter. It should be noted that those affected are not social partners.
It is always the case that some of the groups involved in the social partnership negotiations may not directly represent the views of a particular sector of society and it would be impossible to represent every sector. However, the trade union movement and those involved in the community and social pillar, such as the National Women's Council and others, have put forward a good case for the people to whom the Deputy refers. In this instance, because of debates and discussions about child care and related issues, such as people working in the home, these matters were addressed more comprehensively than heretofore. The agreement, which will be put to union members and society in general for consideration when the process is complete, will clearly reflect these views.
New groups have emerged during negotiations on every partnership agreement since 1987. We do not rule any of them out of our deliberations because that would be wrong.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree that, as a result of the talks between the Government, employers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, what is being recommended for low paid workers is an insult and adds to the injury of the low pay exploitation from which they already suffer? Does he believe it is fair that a worker who will be earning £4.40 per hour on 1 April will receive an increase of an additional 30p per hour by July 2001 as a result of national wage legislation? Almost 22p out of that 30p will be accounted for from the increase the employers have to give to all workers, approximately 5% or 6% per year, which will lead to an increase of 8p per hour or a miserable £3.12 per week on foot of the national minimum wage legislation. Is the Taoiseach ashamed of this treatment of low paid workers? Does he agree that an increase of approximately £500 per year provided for as a result of the negotiations to workers on low pay is sufficient when repayments on a mortgage for even the most modest house can amount to £1,000 per month?
The Deputy is making a statement.
(Dublin West): I am nearing a conclusion. There is a need to highlight in this Chamber the struggle of those who are hard pressed economically to survive. Does the Taoiseach believe that those on low pay can live comfortably in view of rising mortgages and landlords who can raise rents by any amount they see fit?
The Deputy should conclude his questions.
(Dublin West): Is the Taoiseach aware that the EU decency threshold is £8 per hour? Does he not agree a rate of £5 per hour tax free should be the minimum wage to give workers some chance of coping with the present situation? Apparently Deputy Bruton does not have enough time and wants to cut down on my time.
The Deputy's questions are long.
(Dublin West): If my questions are long I do not know how one would describe those from Deputy Bruton.
My questions are short.
The FIS is now calculated on a net income basis. There have been a number of changes for low paid workers and there will be more. I am glad we finally have a minimum wage. The Deputy presented the plight of those on low pay and all Members wish to see improvements in this area. However, 160,000 of these people are nowhere near £4.70 or £4.40 at this stage. One cannot start from the higher base because they are not at that figure, regardless of how low the figure is. We must continue to assist these people through the tax system, social partnership, the welfare system and the helpful changes to FIS. Things will not always be rosy in the garden but we have to continue to improve the circumstances of these people and this agreement will do so.
What impact will the agreement have on the rate of inflation, given that the Irish rate is twice the euro zone average and by far the highest of any member of the euro?
There are inflationary difficulties in the economy which we must monitor closely. We know the reason for some of the increase, but some of it is also related to public and private sector wages. The agreement will not change that position to any great extent and I would be more concerned by the lack of an agreement. Figures released today indicate what would happen if there was no centralised agreement. Agreements would have to be reached on a business by business, employer by employer and union by union basis, giving rise to far greater inflationary pressures. Price stability has been, is and must continue to be a key element of fiscal control. I regard the upward trend in inflation as very serious and it continues to be a concern.
Does the Taoiseach agree the economy shows signs of over-heating?
There are some such signs and I could give many examples. One could look at tender prices in many areas such as the construction industry. We have gone the full circle from a position where, five years ago, contractors were losing a substantial amount of money on contracts to stay in business. However, they are now lodging tender prices which seem excessive and, in some cases, they do not appear too concerned about whether they win the contract. This practice is driving up costs.
Members who are also members of local authorities have regularly raised with me the tender prices being received for public projects by all local authorities. This is a sign of over-heating in the economy and there are other such signs.
ICTU announced today that it proposes to consult its members before they are formally balloted on the agreement. In light of this I wish to ask a question which I would be barred from asking on the Order of Business. Does the Government propose to provide time for similar consultation for us mere mortals who are elected to this House and who might have to vote on some of the taxation provisions which form part of the agreement? If so, when might that consultation take place, if that question does not offend the Chair?
The arrangements that applied at the time of the last agreement, when Deputy Quinn was Minister for Finance, should apply in this case.
There has been a change.
One could not improve on Deputy Quinn's performance as Minister for Finance. He was far better than the current Minister, Deputy McCreevy.
The Taoiseach cleverly missed my point. There has been a change in that, for the first time, congress has decided to consult its members prior to a ballot. The Taoiseach was Minister for Finance on a previous occasion and I followed the precedent he established. Individual workers are the only people who will vote on this matter. Since there has been a change in the practice on their part, will there be a similar process of consultation in this House? In response to a previous question which was ruled in order by the Chair, will the Taoiseach allow Government time for discussion on this issue prior to a vote being taken?
There have been a number of agreements and I have been involved in debates on all of them in one way or another. The arrangements can be debated as per usual.
Will the Taoiseach outline what the agreement will mean for a constituent of mine who lives alone on £73 per week, or for another who is a widow with five children and who had to ask the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and shopkeepers to provide her with goods to get over the Christmas period? The system does not help such people. These are real people and I would be happy to give the Taoiseach their names and addresses. What will the agreement do for them?
The national agreement between the social partners is only one element of policy. The Social Welfare Bill will come before the House shortly and I am sure the Deputy would acknowledge the substantial increases which have been given in this area. The increases are never enough but the circumstances of people such as those mentioned by the Deputy have improved significantly, but they need to improve further. We need to follow up these increases in the years ahead as set out by the Minister, Deputy Ahern, who is implementing these increases.
I thank Deputy Bruton for tabling Question No. 9. Does the Taoiseach agree with the National Women's Council of Ireland which estimates that, at about £14 billion, unpaid work in the home constitutes our largest industry in monetary terms? If the Taoiseach is not going to include those who work in the home in the partnership talks, which is regrettable and bad for democracy in general, will he implement statistical measurement to ensure unpaid work in the home, and caring and community work, are valued? Does the recognition that people who work in the home are of value to society constitute part of the plan which will come from the new enlightenment?
Perhaps some of the Minister for Finance's proposals and amendments will give recognition to that.