asked the Minister for the Public Service the amendments being made to semi-State commercial bodies under the terms of the Government's White Paper on the public service.
16.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - White Paper on Public Service.
13.
asked the Minister for the Public Service if it is intended to introduce legislation to limit the levels of wage and salary increases that can be granted by semi-State companies; if he has had any discussions with the trade unions or the management of semi-State companies on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 16 together.
As indicated in my reply to Question No. 34 on 12 November 1985, the Government, among their White Paper decisions, intend to extend to all commercial State-sponsored bodies the statutory requirement, which already applies to some, whereby the boards of such bodies are required to have regard to Government or nationally agreed guidelines or Government policy on remuneration and conditions of employment, and to comply with any directives on these which may be issued. In this way, it is intended to standardise and give a statutory underpinning to the responsibilities in these matters which the commercial State-sponsored bodies are expected to discharge in conformity with Government policy. The residual control concept is already well established and since 1976 has been extended to individual commercial State bodies as legislative opportunity presented itself, and the matter of discussions does not arise.
For the purpose of negotiation and progress, what is the Minister's and the Department's interpretation of it having regard to Government proposals? The Minister will be well aware of the concern of the majority of the groups of unions in the semi-State sector that the process of pay determination, collective bargaining and negotiation that has been there for many decades could be under threat if a certain interpretation is put on the White Paper's proposals. Can the Minister clarify in what way he wants the Government to have regard to present action and to the flexibility which exists and has existed for several years in the commercial State-sponsored bodies?
The legislative provision will extend a statutory underpinning to all the commercial State-sponsored bodies. That provision applies to some at present but it will merely apply to them in statutory form a responsibility which they have always had and have always been expected to discharge by successive Governments in relation to Government policy. There is absolutely nothing new in that except that it is being put on a statutory basis. There is an obligation upon the Government to ensure that their policy on public sector pay and conditions is carried out and that a properly co-ordinated approach is adopted throughout the public sector.
Perhaps it was the way the White Paper was presented, because it was put in as one of the sections at the end and seemed to be something new. It has been interpreted — not by me — by the groups of unions which cover all the major unions in the State as being something new. Is the Minister saying now that whatever arrangements always existed hold as far as negotiating was concerned in the semi-State bodies, and that there is no further involvement by the Department of the Public Service or the Government than what has been there hitherto?
The semi-State bodies have always been expected to adhere to general Government policy and guidelines on pay and conditions. That is a reasonable attitude for successive Governments to have adopted. In the case of these companies the Government, are, after all, the shareholder acting only on behalf of the general public and it is reasonable for the Government as shareholder in the public interest to ensure that Government policy and guidelines in relation to these matters are adhered to by State-sponsored bodies, otherwise we would have chaos. That policy has always been expected of the State-sponsored bodies.
Some bodies have had legislation appropriate to them enacted since the 1976 Gas Act, the first time this provision was put in legislative form. This provision of residual control has been included, for instance, in relation to the INPC in 1979, to Údarás na Gaeltachta in 1979, to Irish Steel in 1982 and to Fóir Teoranta in 1983. I hope the House will appreciate that that policy has been implemented progressively since 1976 by successive Governments.
It is necessary to ask another supplementary. I have a vast amount of correspondence giving different interpretations to this. Will the Minister tell the House that this new arrangement under the section on implementation in the White Paper, which seems to imply that the Government and the Department of the Public Service seek in some way to have control and to use that control in a way that has not been used up to now in the matter of pay negotiations and conditions in the commercial State-sponsored bodies, is not a changed procedure and that house agreements, union agreements and negotiations which have gone on for decades in a certain manner will be continued and not interfered with? Is the Minister putting a new interpretation on what has already been done? He has not clarified the issue and appears to be evading my question.
There is no question of evasion. It will, of course, be the intention of the Government that normal negotiations, arrangements, settlements and house agreements referred to will continue under the collective bargaining system to be operated within each of the State bodies. However, there is, and always has been, an obligation on the management of those bodies as employers to act in conformity with general Government policy. What we now intend to do in one piece of composite legislation is to place that obligation legally upon all those managements, an obligation that has been placed upon a number of managements, some of which I have referred to, over the last ten years. It is an obligation that even while it was not in statutory form in relation to a number of the bodies, particularly the older bodies, it was always accepted by the Department under whose aegis they operated and by the Government of the day.
Will the Minister accept that conformity in the area of semi-State bodies could differ in the nature of their business? Will be agree that settlements and agreements reached at local level may suit the Government and certainly suit the progress of the semi-State body more so than a circular which would say that £X is a fixed sum for all State bodies? The State bodies are different by their nature and their services and commercial involvement is different. To put them under one set piece of legislation which officials will interpret as meaning that they are bound by it will not be workable. It is not used in that form at the moment. Will the Minister agree with that statement?
I am not sure that I do, in some of its implications. If that was the approach to be adopted on all sides it might make the position different but there are a variety of analogues and relativities which are pursued very often in the processing of claims made on behalf of certain groups in different State bodies on the basis that they are in an analogous State employment. From that point of view an attitude is often adopted which implies that there ought to be a uniformity of approach from the point of view of those negotiating on behalf of the labour force. Equally there is a necessity from the point of view of the official offers which can be made by management to ensure that those offers are not in conflict with Government policy. The Deputy, in the course of his questions, implied that from time to time there might be settlements which would be satisfactory to the Government. If there were they would be in accordance with Government policy.
They may be higher.