asked the Minister for Labour if, in view of the final breakdown of the national pay talks, the Government will indicate to trade unions, employer bodies and the community the guidelines to which they expect the parties to adhere in the negotiation of new wage settlements.
Private Notice Question. - National Pay Talks.
This question was transferred from the Taoiseach to the Minister for Labour.
I appreciate the role of the Minister for Labour, having experienced the difficulties of that role in the past, but my question was specifically to the Taoiseach who has consistently run away from and avoided answering questions on these most important national issues.
It is a matter for the Government as to which Minister is to answer.
Might I add that what I have said is no reflection on Deputy Kavanagh, the Minister for Labour, for whom I have the highest regard.
I will now be reporting to the Government on the situation which arises in the light of the confirmation by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions at my meeting with them yesterday that their final position, as conveyed in the course of the national pay talks on 25 November, was not negotiable. The matter will now be given urgent consideration by the Government.
Surely this amounts to taking a very serious subject in an extremely lackadaisical and light manner. I should like to ask the Minister if I gather from his reply that up to now consideration has not been given by the Government to a possible final breakdown of these talks in spite of the fact that, as we all have known in the last few weeks, this was imminent? Is the Minister saying that the Government have not made any provision for this, that he has not reported to the Government and that the Government have not considered the new position or the change in a position that has existed for 12 years? Is the Minister saying that the Government had not given any consideration to that change?
During the course of my discussions on the subject the Government policy was always that we should achieve a moderate pay settlement which would achieve a competitive position for the country, maintain employment and, indeed, the expansion of employment here rather than to just simply achieve an agreement at any price.
Supporting what has been said by the Minister, I should like to point out to the House how responsible our approach was on this side through those negotiations and compare it with the irresponsibility of Members on the Government side when they were in Opposition a year or so ago. Taking those two things into consideration, I should like to ask the Minister when we can expect leadership and a statement from the Government on what is probably the most important national economic issue. Will the Minister for Labour, a sensible and experienced man, accept from me and agree with me that the main problem to achieving a pay settlement was the committee proposed in the Fine Gael document and the inflation created by the July budget?
No.
I know the Minister agrees that I am right. What are the Government's intentions? Have the Government considered the position of public sector employees for whom the national understanding expired some days ago? When will meetings take place and what guidelines are being laid down or strategy adopted in negotiating pay in the public sector?
The public service committee of ICTU have written to me asking for a meeting and I have replied that I am prepared to meet the public services unions to talk about the issue of pay in their section of the economy.
When will that meeting take place?
As soon as the public service committee are able to meet us, I am available.
Will the Minister have discussions with his Government colleagues before that on this issue?
I will.
I should like to ask the Minister what will be the position in the public sector area of employees of commercial State bodies. In which category will they appear? Will they be governed by the public sector negotiations or will their negotiations be part of the private sector negotiations?
I would be anxious to have the public sector and the public service treated as one unit and have discussions with them as a group.
The Minister has not answered my question. Does the Minister mean "public service" to include commercial State enterprises?
The public sector and the public service. I am including the civil service unions and the public sector unions as a group.
Is the Minister including those unions that represent employees of the commercial State bodies?
Yes.
I should like to ask the Minister if the approach to be adopted in respect of public service pay will be in line with the views expressed by the Taoiseach when answering questions in the House two weeks ago. Then the talks were at a rather sensitive stage and we did not press the matter, but it was indicated in the course of a Government statement at the time that the Government could contemplate a very slight departure from the norms suggested in the report of those who have become known as the Three Wise Men. May I take it therefore that either that policy still stands in respect of the public sector or, alternatively, that if there is to be any substantial movement away from it, the Minister will indicate the reasons for such movement?
This is another U-turn on the part of the Taoiseach.
As I have said, I will be reporting to the Government very shortly and the policy in this area will be discussed then. It is not possible obviously, to give the results of those discussions before they have taken place.
This matter must have been discussed by the Government since it was the subject of a Government statement. I am asking specifically whether there has been any change in Government policy since then or whether we may take it that the policy as enunciated at that time still stands.
I am not aware of any change in Government policy. I have said all along that our policy is the achievement of a moderate pay settlement that would take into account the competitive position of the country, employment maintenance and expansion.
Is the Minister aware that for more than a decade when the negotiations in respect of pay settlements have got under way a very positive contribution towards solutions was always made by the Government of the day who were prepared on all occasions in the past to offer something to the social partners from the Government side, a contribution that would facilitate a successful outcome? These inputs were known as the non-pay elements and in the past they have had a substantial influence in securing the successful outcome of pay agreements and national understandings. Can the Minister tell us whether on this occasion any such contribution was made by the Government or whether the Government indicated that they would be prepared to make some contribution on the non-pay element side if a successful outcome could thereby be achieved?
The Government policy as enunciated in our agreed document contained elements concerning the non-pay section and these elements represented a considerable contribution to the requirements of the ICTU. In my area I have had discussions with the unions and we achieved a measure of agreement on a number of iniatives that I will be taking in this House on what might be regarded as non-pay issues. I have already taken action on some aspects, for instance, the measure that I have brought before the Dáil today.
Either the Minister does not understand me or does not wish to understand me. Would he agree that on all previous occasions these negotiations took a certain form whereby in the first instance the social partners negotiated on pay, that separate from that the trade union side negotiated with the Government on non-pay elements and that this represented a substantial contribution to successful outcomes? Did such negotiations between the trade union side and the Government take place on this occasion as an integral part of the entire negotiations?
Meetings took place with the Congress and with the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and myself on Government policy. These included what would normally be regarded as the non-pay elements of the national understanding. These meetings took place on a few occasions and included references to employment, taxation and so on, items that were always part of the non-pay aspects of the agreements.
From the evasive way in which the Minister is replying am I right in assuming that the Government did not make the normal traditional type of contribution to the negotiations on this occasion and that, to that extent, they must be regarded as culpable in the final breakdown of the discussions?
That is not so. Very early opportunities were given to congress to discuss all aspects of the non-pay sector both with the Taoiseach and with the Ministers concerned.
Would the Minister agree that a most dangerous and serious situation has arisen and that a hiatus exists in this whole negotiation area, a hiatus of a type that has not existed for almost 12 years in regard to these negotiations? The indecisiveness and lack of leadership on the part of the Government in this whole area have been major contributory factors in this impasse.
Is the Deputy circulating a copy of his speech? I understood this was Question Time.
Would the Minister not agree also that every hour in which this hiatus exists is contributing further to greater difficulty in seeking reasonable and moderate pay settlements?
Since 5 October four specific attempts have been made to achieve agreement. In addition meetings took place regularly from that date until yesterday. I regret that agreement could not be reached at those meetings but it is totally wrong for the Deputy to say that a very reasonable approach was not adopted by the Government or that there was not an honest attempt on our part to achieve an agreement which would have maintained the policy I outlined in respect of achieving a settlement. I did not think there was any other initiative that could be taken when congress decided that their position was irreducible.
Would the Minister not agree that his greatest problem was that the vast majority of his Cabinet colleagues were not committed in any way to the achievement of a national understanding? Was this not evident from the document circulated by them and was this situation not the greatest problem for the Minister facing into these talks? To that extent I have sympathy with him. He was crucified because of the attitude taken by the majority of his Cabinet colleagues.
I would not agree.
I had hoped to get an answer to the Private Notice Question I tabled but I did not succeed on the grounds that the matter was not one of great urgency.
The Chair studied the Deputy's question and decided not to allow it on the grounds given. The Deputy may not question the ruling of the Chair on such a matter. I am calling the Taoiseach.
My question concerned the provision of a sum of money for people——
The Deputy may not proceed in this disorderly fashion.
Surely the matter concerned was one of great urgency,
The Deputy is being disorderly.
(Interruptions.)
Because of the unsatisfactory outcome of my Private Notice Question, I wish, with your permission, to raise it on the adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.