asked the Minister for Justice the steps he proposes to take to protect wards of court who are prevented from receiving their maintenance payments due to the courts dispute.
Private Notice Questions. - Courts Dispute.
andMr. Bell asked the Minister for Justice the steps he proposes to take to intervene in the courts dispute, having regard to the imminent likelihood of a serious escalation of the dispute, which could cause widespread disruption throughout the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take the questions together. At the outset I would wish to place on record again my concern at the disruption of court business which the industrial action by clerical staff in the courts is causing, and I want to reiterate that every effort has been and will continue to be made by officials of my Department to prevent such disruption. The approach adopted by the management side since negotiations on matters commenced has been conciliatory and flexible and has been designed to negotiate away the differences between the two sides, so as to avoid industrial confrontation. Despite their best efforts, industrial action has taken place and has resulted in the disruption I have already mentioned, a matter which will, I am sure, be regretted by Members of all sides of the House.
I would like to assure the House that strenuous efforts to resolve the dispute are still under way, even as I speak, and I am not without hope that the dispute will be resolved before much time has elapsed.
There have been suggestions that I should intervene personally in the dispute. Such suggestions ignore the fact that I am personally involved through briefings of my officials who are engaged in the negotiations. They report to me on a daily basis and keep me fully informed at all times of the position and of any developments as they arise.
I am actively involved in seeking ways to resolve this dispute at the earliest possible date so that the functioning of our courts can return to normal.
A particularly distasteful effect of the industrial action is the disruption in the payments of income from investments to wards of court. I have instructed officials of my Department to contact the Civil and Public Services Union to see whether they will facilitate the resumption of normal payments to wards of courts as a humanitarian measure.
In thanking the Minister for his reply I wish to say that I find it quite unsatisfactory. He has not yet intervened in the dispute and at present the two sides involved have got themselves into a position where it will be quite difficult for either side to move. Since the Minister is unwilling to get involved is he willing to bring in a third party to mediate at this stage with a view to solving the problem as quickly as possible? Further, is he willing to ask the Department of Social Welfare to assist wards of court who are in a difficult position as a result of this dispute? Will he do so immediately so that they can get their money and continue to live a normal existence?
In response to the first part of the Deputy's question, I can assure the Deputy that I am personally actively involved in the efforts to find a solution to this problem. I suggest to the Deputy and all the other Deputies in the House that the floor of the House is not the best place to discuss industrial disputes and the solutions to them.
Deputies will understand that I am somewhat constrained in what I can say to the House. However, I assure the Members that everything that can be done is being done and I trust it will not be necessary to take the measures the Deputy suggested in relation to social welfare. Assuming we get the goodwill of the union — and I have no doubt we will — the situation in relation to wards of court should be solved.
I find myself in disagreement with the Minister in relation to where this dispute should be aired. The Minister must be aware that the court officers have been on strike since 14 October and that from this weekend there will be an escalation of the dispute involving 10,000 members of the Civil and Public Services Union. I appreciate the Minister stating he is concerned about this dispute but will he outline to the House what steps he intends taking to resolve it? Why did he or the Minister for Labour not involve the Labour Relations Commission and the machinery of the Department of Labour? It is over a month since this dispute started, people have been picketing the courts and disrupting litigation and other work in a major way. Will he now outline to the House exactly what steps are being taken to resolve this dispute?
As I have already said, I do not deny the Deputy his right and duty to raise the matter. However, the floor of this House is not the best place to discuss publicly the detailed negotiations and solutions to the dispute. I assure the Deputy that steps are being taken even at this moment in relation to its solution and I am very hopeful and optimistic that we will get a solution. The officials of my Department are available to meet the unions at all times and I trust — without going into further details at this stage — we will see an early solution.
Deputy Taylor has been offering for some time.
Has the Minister carried out any assessment of the appalling backlog of work which has already built up in the courts? Will he be taking any steps to provide additional sittings to try to cope with that backlog which otherwise will delay the administration of business for many months?
There has been an effect on the courts and obviously when the strike is over — which I hope will be very soon — the matter of backlog, etc., will have to be looked at.
Is the Minister aware that approximately three weeks ago when I raised this matter on the Adjournment his then Minister of State gave the exact same reply as the Minister did today? Is he aware that what is in dispute are 17 upgradings at an annual cost of approximately £7,000? Is he aware that, last Friday in his absence, the Minister of State at the Department of Tourism Transport and Communications moved a Supplementary Estimate of £224,000 to pay additional costs to barristers involved in criminal cases on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions? In view of the fact that we are talking about a small figure of £7,000 as against £224,000 for barristers' fees — and that these are low paid workers with no knock-on effect in terms of gradings in other areas of the public service — will the Minister please drag himself from his desk and intervene in this dispute to bring it to a resolution once and for all?
I am aware of the information given to the Deputy by the former Minister of State and by the Minister of State last Friday. I assure the Deputy that it is not a question of me being dragged from my desk; I am actively involved in this matter and I hope we will have a solution very rapidly.
The strike has being going on for 14 weeks.
I appeal for brevity as there are a number of other Private Notice Questions to deal with. I will call Deputy Rabbitte, to be followed by Deputy Spring.
Will the Minister accept that one of the implications of the Courts Act was to raise the jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts, so that the additional quality pre-court processing work is significant? Can he reconcile with his statement about goodwill the effective locking out of 263 low paid workers in the courts' service at a time, as Deputy Barrett said, when we are putting a Supplementary Estimate through this House for £244,000 for barristers' fees?
I am reluctant to reply to such emotive terms as "locking out" and so on. There were negotiations between my own staff and the union involved in the dispute last year; the claim by the union was examined in great detail and 42 positions were offered in relation to the 270 members approximately. That was increased, through negotiations, to a figure of 62 positions and discussions are taking place. I do not want to say anything in the House which could exacerbate a difficult situation.
In the course of his responses the Minister expressed his concern in relation to the dispute which has been running since 14 October and he said that every effort has been made to resolve it. Will he state exactly and specifically what is being done by him or his officials? Why has he not involved the Labour Relations Commission, a body charged with trying to sort out disputes like this, in the matter? Will the Minister outline to the House if he expects this dispute to be resolved within a matter of days and what steps are being taken to do that?
Without going into the exact steps I envisage — and those which are being taken — I am very optimistic that there will be a resolution this week. Of course in these disputes one never knows, but I am optimistic. However, I will not go into details in this House.
A final and brief question from Deputy Cotter.
It is incredible that the Minister has not personally intervened in this dispute after three months. It is about 14 weeks since the dispute began. I heard the Minister say on a number of occasions today that he has not been personally involved but that he had received memos from Department officials. That is disgraceful on the part of the Minister.
The Deputy is making a statement, which is not in order.
I urge the Minister to become personally involved and to seek the intervention of a third party. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that if he is not able to get the CPSU to assist him with regard to the payments that should be made to the wards of court he will set in train a scheme whereby the Department of Social Welfare will intervene at the earliest possible opportunity?
This is repetition.
In relation to the first part of the Deputy's question, I assure him that I am actively involved in the matter and have been since the beginning. I will continue to be involved until the dispute is resolved. As far as wards of court are concerned, I hope we will have a solution this week. If we do not I assure the Deputy that every effort will be made in relation to the issues he raised.