Vol. 364 No. 11
asked the Minister for the Public Service the current position of negotiations regarding the public service pay agreement; the unions that have indicated that they are not accepting the proposals made by the Government; the number of public servants represented by these unions; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
27.
asked the Minister for the Public Service if he will outline to the House the latest position regarding the 25th pay round in the Civil Service; the number of unions that have so far accepted the terms offered in January last; and the Government's position of the request by some unions to separate the round increases from outstanding special arbitration awards.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 and 27 together.
I take it that both Deputies are referring to the draft proposals which emerged in January last. These followed a protracted series of discussions between my predecessor, Deputy John Boland, and (i) the Civil Service unions recognised for the purposes of the conciliation and arbitration schemes and (ii) the staff side of the local authority and health services conciliation and arbitration scheme. Details of the package as as follows:
(i) 25th Round Agreement
The overall length of the proposed agreement is 18 months with a pay pause of four months from 1 January 1986. The proposed general pay round consists of a 3 per cent increase on 1 May 1986, 2 per cent on 1 January 1987 and a further 2 per cent on 1 May 1987, giving a cumulative increase of 7.16 per cent.
(ii) Special Pay Increases
(a) Existing findings on special increases will be implemented in three phases over the period from 1 December 1986 to 1 July 1988; (b) Other cases may be implemented in three phases over the period from 1 December 1987 to 1 July 1989.
(iii) Superannuation Lump Sums
In the case of existing adjudication findings, superannuation lump sums would be paid as if the findings had been implemented on the dates recommended.
The following is a summary of the current position:
(1) Civil Service: Higher Panel (3,000 approx.)
The package of proposals was put to the staff panel on 20 January last and was taken away by them for further consideration. To date no formal response has been received from the higher scheme staff panel.
(2) Civil Service General Staff Panel: (27,000 approx.)
At a meeting of the general council on Wednesday, 19 March the official side in response to a claim from the Civil Service Executive Union offered this package to them and they took it away for consideration by their members in the normal way. It was made clear that this offer is available to all the individual Civil Service unions comprising the staff side of the council.
(3) Local Authority and Health Services: (35,000 approx.)
The package of proposals was put to the staff panel under the local authority and health services C & A scheme on 17 January. No formal response has been received to date.
With regard to the possible separation of general increases from outstanding arbitration awards, the Government's position is that there can be no question of dismantling the package and dealing with any of its component parts in isolation. Throughout the negotiations which led to the package, the Government's main priority was, quite simply, cost. It was clear to my predecessor that a concessionary stance on the 25th round terms would necessarily entail a restrictive line on special increases and vice versa. The negotiations took place in an attempt to arrive at a “mix”, relating to the 25th round, special increases and other pay issues, a mix which would be as generous as circumstances permit and would be designed to satisfy, in so far as it was possible to do so, as many as possible of the priorities and concerns of the two sides. It was in that context that the eventual package emerged, involving the general increase of 7 per cent and the phasing in of specials.
The negotiations with the two groups I mentioned earlier concluded on 20 January. The Government then went ahead and made provision for the additional cost in 1986, £68 million, in the budget of 29 January, giving a revised Exchequer pay and pensions bill of £2,652 million. In doing this, however, the Government clearly recognised that their ability to pay was being stretched to the limit and that there could be no question of adding further to the strain on their finances.
Since then the position of the Government finances has become even more difficult. On the other hand, the package on offer is now much more attractive for the staff because of the major change in the outlook for inflation over the period of the proposed agreement. Inflation is now projected to fall substantially this year and virtually to disappear next year. When account is taken of the carry-over increase of 1.5 per cent this year which arises from the effects of the 24th round increase in the public service, it will be seen that the package on offer will mean a significant real increase in living standards for all public servants both this year and next.
Despite these projected falls, the Government stand by the terms of their offer. As I have already indicated, Government policy in this entire area is dictated by cost factors. As I have also said, the Government have provided the additional money in 1986 to apply the terms of the package throughout the public service. A promise to pay which was not realistically backed up with ability to pay would be fraudulent and worthless. The package on offer is a very fair one and, in the circumstances, I call on the unions to reconsider their position and put these proposals to their members for final resolution.
Could the Minister confirm that since the offer was made has he, to date, received no formal response from anyone?
That is not exactly the case. I apologise for the extensive reply and I can understand Deputy Mac Giolla seeking clarification. Yesterday one of the unions on the Civil Service panel took the proposals away and will put them to the members in the ordinary way.
The Minister, therefore, has not received a formal response. Would the Minister clarify that the union who were given the same offer yesterday are the Civil Service Executive Union who represent 4,500 members, not 25,000 or 27,000 members?
Yes. The Civil Service General Staff Panel consists of a number of unions. The total membership involved is 27,000. The specific union, the Civil Service Executive Union, have approximately 4,000 members.
That is the union who received this offer yesterday and whom the Minister is expecting to respond within the next couple of days. It is the Civil Service Executive Union representing 4,500 members. Is that correct?
The offer has been made to all the unions.
On 25 January.
The Civil Service Executive Union have decided to take away the offer and put it to their members in the normal way for consideration.
Will the Minister confirm that no major union has accepted the Government's offer for the 25th round? Is the Minister saying that the Government will not consider paying the 25th round increase and dealing separately with outstanding special arbitration onwards? Is that clearly the position?
The answer to the first part of the question is "yes". No union has specifically accepted the 25th round proposals as negotiated on 25 January and outlined in my reply. Deputy Ahern suggests that one could separate the 25th round from the specials and other minor matters. Experience has been that the cost of some specials can be very substantial and significant and have a quite disproportionate impact on the overall cost of pay in the public service. For that reason it was decided to get an integrated and comprehensive package linking those elements together. The overall size of the general round — 7.16 per cent over 18 months — was in part influenced by the deal being offered in relation to the specials. I referred in my reply to getting the right mix between the two. It is not possible and it is not the Government's intention to separate this pay offer so that the general round could be considered by unions and the specials considered in isolation.
Is that position non-negotiable?
Since October last the Government have gone through considerable discussion and negotiation with various unions. We would have preferred to deal on a broad base with one general group. We have at all times attempted to negotiate an integrated, comprehensive package with only one limiting factor, namely cost. We have put on the table, honestly and openly, the best possible offer which is available to the public service which we know we can pay and will stand up in terms of the Book of Estimates before the House. To do anything otherwise might in the short run enable some kind of agreement to be reached but it would be totally fraudulent and misleading to the House. The offer cannot be improved. I have to hand the statement issued today in relation to the mid-February consumer price index. The rate of inflation is 4.6 per cent but it will come down to just under 3 per cent. The offer has actually improved between 20 January and now.
Nobody has accepted that.
The position has drifted on since 14 August and it is time to get down to the bottom line. I take it the Minister is stating that the 25th round offer of 7.16 per cent over 18 months is non-negotiable and that he is rejecting the argument put forward by some of the unions that it should be taken separately from outstanding special arbitration awards. The Minister's predecessor stated last August that there would be no increase in 1986 but now the Government are talking about 7 per cent, although the inflation rate had dropped. What is the Government's latest thinking? I do not want to be discourteous to the Minister who has been newly appointed to this office but the Department of the Public Service have changed their view on at least five occasions since last August. Is the 7 per cent negotiable?
Let me clarify the word "negotiable". The package was negotiated by my predecessor on behalf of the Government, working to a Government brief cleared at Cabinet, with the various union representatives in the three main panels. Substantial, detailed and long negotiations took place between both sides and the package described in my reply emerged. It was taken away for further consideration and our understanding was that it would be put to members in the normal way. That has not been the case with a number of unions but one of the unions has now decided to do so, some weeks after 20 January.
There have been some suggestions that this Government are trying to divide and conquer or act in some way as an exploitative employer of thousands of employees in the public service who give constructive and marvellous service to the nation. We have one constraint only, that is, the ability of the taxpayer to pay. There is no other factor, no reluctance or impediment. We have put on the table an offer which on 20 January was the best possible offer that could be made. That offer has actually improved since then, having regard to the projected rate of inflation and the fact that the cost of living will be falling, while the rate of inflation will be zero or minus zero.
Between 14 August and 20 January the Government moved from zero to 7 per cent. Two months later the offer is still 7 per cent. Is that figure negotiable?
Since the Deputy is looking for a curt reply, the answer is that it is not negotiable.
