asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development whether the subject of a 5 per cent pay guideline to follow the expiry of the present national wage agreement was discussed at his recent meeting with the Employers' Confederation; if any alignment of views was reached on this matter; and if any indication was given to the employers that tax reduction and job investment proposals are contingent on the implementation of 5 per cent pay guidelines.

5.

asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development if the Government's taxation reduction and job investment proposals depend on a 5 per cent pay policy being adhered to after the expiration of the present national wage agreement; if he has communicated this view to the trade unions and employers; and with what result.

With the permission of the Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together.

At the recent meetings between the Taoiseach and other Government Ministers and representatives from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Irish Employers' Confederation the issue of the Government's proposals in the areas of pay, tax reliefs, social insurance contributions and employment creation was raised. The Taoiseach emphasised at both meetings that the proposals are part of the same overall package. They are all linked and, therefore, if any were to be settled at a figure other than 5 per cent, the Government would naturally have to consider the adverse effects which such a settlement could produce and to decide upon the consequential action needed to ensure the progress towards the Government's announced targets for reducing unemployment and inflation was not impaired.

While the discussions with congress concentrated on the prospects for the creation of employment and the reduction of unemployment in 1978, the confederation put forward several proposals relating to components of the package. The Government representatives undertook to carefully consider the confederation's views on these matters.

The Minister has indicated that the view was communicated to both sides explaining the contingent nature of the Government's undertakings, contingent on the 5 per cent pay guidelines being adhered to, and could the Minister now indicate what was the result of this communication of this view of the Government to both sides? Depending on the reply of both sides to this communication from the Government, what consequential action is indicated? The Minister indicates consequential action will be necessary if this is not adhered to.

In the event of a new pay agreement producing a figure higher than 5 per cent?

Yes.

Obviously the nature of that action will be determined when the details of the agreement are known.

The Minister explained that the views of the Government in this whole area have been communicated to the employers and the unions. Is the Minister in possession of any reaction from either side to the communication of these views?

In the context of pay discussions, at that juncture there was no indication on the part of the Government to anticipate the outcome of any such talks. I should point out that at that stage it was not clear, for instance, whether the union side would agree to enter negotiations or talks for a new agreement. They have still to ballot on the matter. It would be the Government's position, therefore, to set out simply the economic circumstances as we saw them, the nature of the action required from all sections of the community and then try to indicate some of the consequences, positive on the one hand and negative on the other, of various rates of pay increases and leave the parties then to go away and commence negotiations. If we were to begin by attempting to communicate the nature of the reaction surely we would be guilty of the very act of which we were accused a few minutes ago, namely, trying in effect to hold some particular weapon over the heads of the parties at the table.

The point of these preliminary meetings with the social partners is to communicate the Government's views on the general economic situation and also ascertain what the reaction is and what the prospect of success is for the Government's view in free acceptance on the part of both employers and unions. What I am puzzled about in the Minister's reply is that the Minister does not appear to be in a position to communicate the nature of the reaction, which presumably is all-important, from either employers or unions to the Government's proposals.

I do not think it would be proper for me to communicate what various people felt might or might not emerge from such talks. That would not be particularly helpful.

A Cheann Comhairle, is there a new procedure whereby a Minister can answer a question and then pass on to the next question before I can ask a supplementary? Is this a new procedure?

I am not aware of any change. I think the Minister's answer to the Deputy was that the information he was seeking by way of supplementary question would arise on another question.

Would the Ceann Comhairle not agree the questions could have been taken together if the Minister thought they were relevant?

I have no control whatever over the manner in which a Minister takes questions.

The Minister, with your permission, asks that questions be taken together. It is always with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle. Would the Ceann Comhairle not agree on that?

That is a formality as a matter of courtesy.

A Minister always asks the permission of the Ceann Comhairle to take questions together. Arising from his reply to one question, may I ask the Minister what percentage level of unemployment the Government regard as being acceptable?

I was about to deal with that. I was hoping the Deputy would allow me to deal with it when we come to a later question.

I should like the Minister to deal with it now. What level of unemployment is now acceptable to the Government?

Basically, nil or as close to nil as one can get, but one accepts that in practice there is always some minimum level of what we might call sectional unemployment in any society at any time.

Does the Minister agree that 5 per cent is now being accepted——

Not by the Government.

It has been stated by the NESC.

They gave an indication of what they thought might come to be accepted by the community. It is not a Government figure.

In reply to an earlier supplementary the Minister said that a 5 per cent increase would give approximately £4 per week. How then does the figure £8 to £10 arise? Is he aware that to achieve £8 to £10 a person would require a minimum of £1,200 tax free allowance? Is that the Government's intention?

I made it clear there would be more than one tax reduction from which the majority of workers would benefit. I do not accept what the Deputy has said.

What are those tax reductions in addition to the abolition of rates, which the Minister must know do not apply to workers who are not householders.

Most workers, I believe, live in houses and most of the houses, I believe, were rated. To that extent they will benefit, whether they own them or not. If the Deputy is particularly interested in that aspect I am sure we could arrange to have some specimen table prepared for him.

We will not have a debate on it now.

Would the Minister agree to have such matters brought before the House for the purposes of a debate?

Would the Minister define what precisely he means by a 5 per cent guideline, in view of his repeated statements about a 5 per cent pay increase—an £8 to £10 money increase and an overall 10 per cent increase in earnings? There is a great element of confusion at the moment in regard to those terms. Would he elaborate on what precisely is meant by a 5 per cent guideline?

I thought the 5 per cent guideline was unambiguous —that would be the size on average of the pay increase which should take place under a new agreement for 1978.

Would that not be radically different from the effect of what the Minister said earlier when we were assured it would yield a 10 per cent increase in earnings? It is either one or the other—there is a big difference between 5 per cent and 10 per cent. As the Minister well knows, for the public service it is a difference of between £80 million and £40 million.

All parties in the House wish these talks success. The Minister appeared to indicate that tables would be produced for the information of the House. Will the Minister agree that if statements from the Government side have been made on the desirability of a 5 per cent increase with tax reductions, leading to an income's increase of £8 to £10 per week, the fullest information should be made available to the negotiators and to the House and to the country? Would that not have been helpful, if in the first place one accepted the wisdom of Government Ministers stating what are desirable figures? Since these statements have been made, it would help the talks——

This is a long statement. We have now spent half an hour dealing with three questions. It is not possible. Ceist a sé.

6.