Is the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, responding to this matter?
Adjourment Debate. - Civil Service Dispute.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, is unavoidably absent and has asked me to take the matter.
I am glad of the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the matter of the dispute in the Civil Service. I raise the issue because it is many years since the public service has been brought to such a pitch. I understand that matters are now being discussed, about which I am glad. My colleague, Deputy McCreevy and I met the CPSU today and we have been in correspondence with it. It has a strong grievance which, as the Opposition spokesperson on Enterprise and Employment and Deputy Leader of my party, I am glad to put to the House.
The Minister for Finance has allowed this dispute to escalate to a critical level without making a serious move to obviate it. At least ten areas of Government have been at a standstill, including the Department of Education, with which my colleague, Deputy Martin, will deal, the Collector General's Office in Limerick, the Department of Social Welfare, the Companies Office, the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, the beef intervention and the TB testing sections of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, the Land Registry and the European Presidency section of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Indeed, the country is in a state of chassis. However the most serious threat is to the examination system with which, as I said my colleague will deal.
The Minister for Finance should not have allowed this dispute to spiral to such a level. His inactivity has been breathtaking. I noticed in The Examiner that a senior Democratic Left source said the Minister had dealt with it in a purely Department of Finance way, that is, in a very castigatory way. It is interesting to get these insights into what is happening. The Minister for Finance's intervention last Friday was laughable. He went to Verona, with its fountains, blooming flowers and flowing wine, from where he castigated the lower paid civil servants and told them to shut up and be satisfied with their lot, or words to that effect.
I noticed that he waited until his colleague, the Minister for Education, Deputy Bhreathnach, was safely back in Dublin before he spewed this diatribe from Verona. I thought is was inappropriate for someone who was in a place where the sun was shining and the flowers were blooming to call to account the lowest paid civil servants for the imprudent management of the public service and for the financial situation under this Government.
It is a crude embargo; the only way out for many low paid civil servants is through promotion and recruitment which have stopped. I was in Cabinet when these matters were discussed in a practical and reasonable fashion. However, these civil servants have been brought to the brink by this Minister and the haughty, assertive and arrogant way in which this Government has sought to distance itself from the concerns of ordinary people.
I ask the Minister to take account of what I have said and to tell us about the breathtaking discussions in which his colleague, the Minister for Finance, is engaged. Why have ten Departments been brought to the brink and been castigated from sunnier climates? Why are those who are not in good positions being castigated? Why is the Government removed from what is happening? This Government must attend to the concerns and the needs of the CPSU.
There has been much confusion and even disinformation about the nature of the action taken by the Government over the past year as regards the size of the Civil Service. Perhaps I might sketch out some of the background leading up to these events so that the position can be clarified and discussion can focus on the facts rather than the perceptions as portrayed by particular staff interests.
This Government is not the first in recent years to become concerned about the size of the public service and its cost. Much of this growth reflects improvements or expansions in public services introduced by the various Governments. These services of their very nature tend to be labour intensive. Each such improvement in service is inevitably seen by Government as a success. To some extent, therefore, I suppose we are trying to cope with the human resources consequences of our many successes.
The Government has felt compelled to take action to control growth in numbers in all parts of the public service. Such measures cannot be identical in all parts of the public service, given differences in their operating environments and the control mechanisms which apply to them. Since this debate is focused on the Civil Service, I will concentrate on that sector.
In the period January 1990 to January 1995 the number of non-industrial Civil Service posts, whole-time equivalent, increased from 25,628.5 to 28,370, an aggregate increase of 2,741 or by about 550 a year on average. In the first half of 1995 it became apparent that numbers were rising more rapidly than usual. By the end of March 1995, Civil Service numbers had increased by 241, almost half the usual annual average increase. Moreover, it was clear that there were demands from virtually all Departments and offices for yet more staff. In the event, the increase in the second quarter of 1995 amounted to 551 posts.
Accordingly, the Government took a series of decisions in June and July 1995 and also in the context of the 1996 Estimates aimed at slowing the rate at which both the Civil Service and the public service generally were increasing. These measures included imposing a ban on the creation of new posts without prior Government sanction — other than for transient tasks such as the EU Presidency, the 1996 Census of Population and the payment of equal treatment arrears or decentralisation; allowing the filling of only one in three vacancies; and empowering the Minister for Finance to redeploy surplus staff, arising from decentralisation or otherwise, in accordance with priority needs.
It is important to make it clear to all concerned that there is no embargo on recruitment. As indicated, it can take place for the one in three fillable vacancies and for the hundreds of posts required for the transient tasks I have already mentioned. Nor is there an embargo on promotions. If a senior post is fillable, then the consequentials down the line are also fillable. As a result, there have been many promotions already this year throughout the Civil Service.
The one in three restriction on the filling of vacancies will, of itself, save several hundred posts in the Civil Service this year. On the other hand, the temporary increases sanctioned for the EU Presidency, the Census of Population and other transient tasks will offset this fall leaving the overall situation in broad balance. In the circumstances, it is ironic that the Government's actions should be represented by certain staffing interests as a cutback in overall numbers and/or as some sort of a freeze on promotions. As I have now made clear, it is neither.
The Civil Service trade union which is at the forefront of the present industrial action is the Civil and Public Services Union — CPSU. Every trade union has a legitimate interest in promotions in the interests of its members. The bulk of the CPSU's members are in the clerical officer and clerical assistant grades and the promotional outlets of most concern to these grades are in the staff officer, executive officer and higher executive officer grades. These grades have expanded significantly during 1995. Account must also be taken of turnover in these grades which would have further boosted promotion prospects very considerably.
As to what the Government is doing about the present impasse, I can assure the House that everything possible that can be done — consistent with the Government's overall aim of containing the growth in the size of the Civil Service — is being done. Discussions took place with the staff panel last week about possible alternatives to the one in three restrictions but which would have a broadly similar effect in 1996. I might mention that the staff panel is representative of all the main trade unions in the Civil Service, including the CPSU. My officials will have another meeting with the staff panel later this week to further explore measures which might be acceptable to it. I would be hopeful that both sides will approach these talks in a positive and constructive way.
It has been widely reported in the media — indeed it is an open secret at this stage — that the present dispute is also concerned with claims by the CPSU in relation to pay and restructuring of their grades. I would like to say a few words on this aspect.
Negotiations on public service pay can only take place within the framework of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work pay agreement as it applies to the public service. This arrangement was endorsed by all public service unions and accepted by the Government. The pay agreement is an integral part of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. Its pay provisions and costs formed a crucial part of the background against which the Programme for Competitiveness and Work overall was negotiated and accepted by the Government. The Programme for Competitiveness and Work has served the country well. Job creation targets have been substantially exceeded, economic growth has been exceptionally high and interest rates and inflation have been kept low and stable. It is crucial that the public service pay provisions of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and their associated costs are not exceeded.
In addition to general increases in line with those agreed for the private sector, the pay agreement provides a mechanism for addressing certain long standing concerns of groups of public servants. This mechanism can take what has become known as the restructuring route aimed at mutually acceptable resolution of claims without resort to industrial action or, alternatively, processing of a straight pay claim for 3 per cent.
The CPSU elected to follow the restructuring route as the mechanism for pursuing its outstanding claims. After detailed and prolonged negotiations an offer was made to the union which was rejected in a ballot by their members. However, informal contact has been maintained between the union and the Department of Finance with a view to establishing a basis for resumption of negotiations. The Minister for Finance met with representatives of the CPSU today and he is hopeful that a way forward will be found.
I am pleased with this development. I feel confident with goodwill on both sides that it should be possible to achieve a peaceful resolution of the outstanding issues while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work pay agreement.