asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the ICTU regarding the proposals for growth and economic recovery; and if any initiatives are planned following the talks.

10.

asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date in his discussions with the social partners on the development of an agreed programme for economic recovery; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

11.

asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the recent discussions he and some of his colleagues in Government had with the ICTU.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 10 and 11 together.

I met with the President, Mr. John Carroll, and the Executive Council of the ICTU on 15 April. I was accompanied at the meeting by the Ministers for Finance, Labour, Energy and Communications.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss with the Congress representatives their proposals for a national plan for growth and economic recovery. The discussions were positive and constructive.

I indicated to the ICTU representatives the Government's intention to bring forward a medium-term programme covering a period of three to five years. The programme will be based on the principles recommended by NESC in their recent report: A Strategy for Development. I outlined the principles of this programme and Congress agreed to enter into discussions with the Government on the elaboration of the programme.

I and my colleagues will be meeting ICTU again tomorrow to discuss the proposed programme further.

A series of meetings to discuss the programme have also been drawn up with the other social partners.

These meetings are consistent with the Programme for National Recovery which Fianna Fáil published before the last election and in which we made the commitment to examine in consultation with the social partners all the obstacles to higher employment and greater competitiveness, the way in which these should be tackled and the possible solutions.

Was the basis for the discussions that indicated by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement when he suggested that there would be no scope for increases in public service pay during this year, and did the Taoiseach get a response to that from the Congress delegation? Will the Taoiseach say whether or not this series of ad hoc discussions is the substitute for the forum which he in Opposition promised to create to discuss obstacles to growth and employment?

The meeting with congress was a preliminary meeting and consisted of an exchange of views. That meeting and the meeting tomorrow will deal with the elaboration of a medium term programme for economic recovery.

Even preliminary meetings have a set agenda. Did the question of public sector pay arise, or was it discussed by either the Government or Congress delegates and was a view given by the Government or by the delegation on the public service embargo?

No. The first meeting was of an exploratory and preliminary nature and confined itself to an outline by both sides of the requirements as we saw them and the need for a programme of economic recovery. It resulted in agreement to proceed with the necessary discussions to bring forward such a programme.

Is the Taoiseach aware that the combination of the pay freeze, the jobs embargo and the higher tax take from the PAYE sector is creating tensions with the consequent danger of confrontation? Does the Taoiseach intend that these areas will be the subject of discussion in order to ease the tensions, for instance tensions within the ESB where a strike is looming?

That is a different matter. In meeting the Congress on this occasion we were concerned with an elaboration of a strategy for development. Deputies in this House should be reassured that Congress and the Government both see the need for the formulation and implementation of a programme of economic recovery and are entering into fruitful and constructive discussions for that purpose.

In the course of his budget speech the Minister for Finance indicated that there was no scope for public pay increases this year other than the 2 per cent due under the 25th round. Will the Taoiseach confirm that that remains the Government's policy?

The situation as outlined by the Minister for Finance in the budget speech is Government policy. That would be a very natural thing for the Deputy to accept.

He did not seem to think so himself, in a television interview 24 hours later.

This Government has already given several clear statements of our determination to adhere to that strategy of the budget, and I am glad to reiterate that determination here this afternoon.

The Taoiseach said that both himself, his Ministers and the ICTU delegation looked at the outline of requirements that would be necessary for growth and economic recovery which may present itself in due course as a medium term programme. Will the Taoiseach now outline to the House the basis of the requirements needed which were dealt with at that meeting, which may result in job creation which, I presume, is the prime target of economic growth and recovery?

I can let the Deputy have a copy of the statement which I made to the Congress on that occasion but I would just indicate at this stage that I was really elaborating the principles outlined in the NESC report and that we saw those principles as being the guidelines for the elaboration of such a programme of economic recovery.

A Cheann Comhairle——

I am calling Deputy Mac Giolla. I want to move on from this question.

Was the Taoiseach saying in reply to my last supplementary that questions of pay, the jobs embargo and reform of the PAYE tax system will not be subjects for discussion at these talks?

All aspects of the economy will be dealt with in the course of the discussions but the work on which we are about to embark is the formulation of a programme of economic recovery. I am glad to confirm what Deputy Spring said in that connection, that the primary purpose of such a programme will of course be the provision of employment.

Arising out of the Taoiseach's earlier reply might I ask him to clarify whether the requirements of the situation from the point of view of the Government included — as he and his Ministers specified to the representative of Congress — a pay freeze, public service embargo and no further special pay increases? The Taoiseach actually mentioned the requirements of the situation. I wonder did he set those out in detail?

I think the Deputy is confusing two separate matters here. The Government's conduct of financial policy is a matter for the Government. Government policy in that regard has been clearly outlined in the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance and in subsequent statements of mine and of other Ministers. The purpose of these meetings with Congress and with the other Social partners will be to formulate a programme of economic recovery generally along the lines laid down by the NESC report.

Could the Taoiseach indicate a timetable, however tentative, for taking the matter on from here?

As the Deputy will be aware it is difficult to set time limits on a process of discussion of this kind because it will necessarily involve all the social partners. The best thing I can say to the Deputy is that work will begin immediately, discussion with the social partners will commence as soon as practicable and the work will be pushed ahead through the summer months.