asked the Minister for Finance if in view of the fact that (a) his Department in letter dated 29th June, 1970, clarified amended proposals for a pension scheme for unestablished State employees with effect from 1st January, 1970 (supplementing the earlier proposals referred to in a reply to Dáil Question No. 46 of 28th April, 1970), (b) by letter dated 1st July, 1970, the ICTU informed the Labour Court that the unions had agreed to accept his proposals in principle subject to clarification and drafting amendments and requested that a token estimate for £10 should be laid before Dáil Éireann before the summer recess and (c) in the meantime his Department have declined to furnish the ICTU negotiating committee with the draft of the scheme as accepted by the trade unions, he will state when it is proposed to finalise the agreed scheme.
Ceisteanna — Questions Oral Answers. - Unestablished State Employees.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions was not the only group involved in negotiations for a pension scheme for unestablished staff. Consultations had also to take place with staff representatives under the scheme of conciliation and arbitration for the Civil Service with a view to achieving a common scheme of benefits. It was learned only this month that the terms proposed were acceptable. Nevertheless, drafting of the scheme is almost completed and it will be sent to the unions for consideration in the near future. I propose in the present session to introduce an additional Estimate to enable payments to be made. The scheme will, of course, apply to retirements as from 1st January, 1970.
Is the Minister aware that his Parliamentary Secretary just before Question Time was telling me that, in fact, discussions were taking place at the present time with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions about this matter? Is he not aware that although the Irish Congress of Trade Unions indicated that they were prepared to accept the broad outline of the scheme as early as July last it was impossible to get anything from the Department until now? Have we reached the stage when, in trade union negotiations, it is necessary to put questions down in the House in order to get information on any matter being discussed with Government Departments?
It is quite clear the Deputy chooses to ignore the information I have given him and, even though I should not repeat, I will repeat it now. There were others involved besides the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and it was necessary to have negotiations with them too with a view to achieving a common rate of benefits. Acceptance in that case was indicated only quite recently. In the meantime the drafting of the scheme was proceeded with.
Would the Minister oblige me by telling me what other interests were involved in this?
I have already told the Deputy.
Would the Minister repeat it?
Representatives of the staff under the scheme of conciliation and arbitration, the staff side of the Civil Service General Council.
Would the Minister not agree that most of these were, in fact, represented by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions?
No.
In fact, what he is saying is that, because of a small group, who are not members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, his Department chose to ignore the Irish Congress of Trade Unions since last July.
What I have said is correct. Even though I should not repeat, perhaps in the circumstances I ought to repeat: there were others involved in a separate scheme and it was necessary to co-ordinate these schemes. This was done. In the meantime time was not lost because the drafting of the scheme was proceeded with.
The Minister did not even attempt to write a letter to Congress.
I cannot make it any clearer.
There is nothing to make clear and the Minister knows it.