Mary Harney
Question:6 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions at Government Buildings, on Wednesday, 8 May 1996. [9693/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meeting with Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
Bertie Ahern
Question:7 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. [9797/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together.
Accompanied by the Tánaiste and Ministers for Social Welfare and Finance, I met representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions last Wednesday. I expressed the Government's concern at recent industrial relations developments in the public service, including the teaching, nursing and CPSU areas. In particular, I expressed concern at current and threatened industrial action which is contrary to the peace clauses of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
Against the background of the achievements of social partnership since 1987, we agreed to work in partnership to meet the changes facing the public service and achieve necessary restructuring in a positive and constructive way. We also agreed that urgent discussions would take place to find a means of resolving and bringing to finality the current problems, including the teaching, nursing and CPSU areas, within the parameters of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
In that context, I am pleased to say that these discussions, between the Government and Congress, have developed a framework to allow current issues to be resolved. The details of this framework are set down in a joint Government-ICTU statement which I am circulating to Deputies.
Separate discussions have taken place with the Civil and Public Service Union and a satisfactory arrangement to progress the outstanding issues within the framework has been identified. As a result, I am pleased to say that action affecting animal testing and uprating of social welfare benefits is being terminated.
The Minister for Health today met the Alliance of Nursing Unions. The Minister outlined the framework to the unions and asked them to consider working through the framework to resolve the concerns of nurses in a positive way.
Discussions are continuing with the teaching unions which are examining how this framework, or a similar framework, might enable outstanding issues for teachers to be brought to an acceptable conclusion.
I am satisfied that the arrangements developed in the discussions with the ICTU provide a sound basis for the resolution of current difficulties and significantly enhance the prospects for continuing and developing social partnership.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the best way to effect an increase in take home pay for workers is through changes in taxation rather than nominal wage increases?
It is a matter of equal value whichever way the money comes into the pay packet in terms of the people who receive it, but, plainly, from a national point of view it is important that we maintain our competitiveness, industrial peace and respect for agreements.
I am glad that following the meeting I had with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, together we have been able to find a way of overcoming a number of difficulties that were building up on the industrial relations front. That will achieve the objectives of maintaining competitiveness and industrial peace and providing ultimately for sharing equitably the benefits of economic growth.
I thank the Taoiseach for referring to the framework in his reply. Needless to say, I cannot examine it until later. Will the framework address the difficulties within the Army and the grave concern among soldiers about a number of outstanding issues? Will it address teachers' and nurses' issues and the issue of staff in the Civil Service? Without going into the details, how does the Taoiseach believe the current industrial disputes will be resolved without breaching the guidelines of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work?
The framework to which I referred, which has been agreed between the Congress of Trade Unions and the Government, represents an extension of what is entirely consistent with the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. The framework will provide for overcoming disagreements about the appropriate level of compensation for structural change and changes in work practices that should be made in individual work areas. We have provided for a framework for resolving individual disputes, which will differ from one profession or work area to another. The form of restructuring to be undertaken and the appropriate level of compensation for same will vary depending on the area of work in question at a given time. The framework is capable of being used across the board. That is why the Government's decision to engage directly with Congress on this matter was the appropriate approach rather than adopting a wider approach. We have achieved the right result from the way we approached this matter with Congress.
On the agricultural issue and the difficulty with certificates, will the Taoiseach give an undertaking that the backlog that resulted from the dispute, which has lasted several weeks and created major difficulties in the agricultural sector, particularly the beef sector, will be dealt with without delay? Will he ensure that the age old practice of putting additional resources into a section where a huge delay has built up will be employed immediately?
Now that the industrial action in the agriculture area has stopped, normal working will resume. There is a backlog, however, and I have no doubt the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry will make the appropriate arrangements to deal with that as quickly as possible. I ask people to understand that we have overcome the difficulty that existed but everything cannot be dealt with in a day or so.
Can I take it that in resolving the various disputes there will not be a breach of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work?
I answered that question in response to Deputy Ahern. The approach we are adopting is consistent with the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
Will the new Framework Document to which the Taoiseach referred have uniform application throughout all Departments as distinct from the arrangement entered into earlier, whereby each separate arrangement would rest within the parameters of the Department involved?
I am not sure I follow the Deputy's question. The framework is designed to deal with the type of matter that was provided for in clause 2.3 of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. We have provided an agreed framework for resolving arguments about the appropriate level of payment for appropriate level of productivity improvement in particular areas. While the framework applies across the board, consideration in each individual case will differ because circumstances will differ.
The Programme for Competitiveness and Work provides for productivity increases and allows people with special claims to negotiate them. Since that provision exists why is it necessary to have another framework?
We are not dealing with special claims. As the Deputy should remember, the Programme for Competitiveness and Work does not provide for a mechanism to deal with what are known as special claims.
I am talking about productivity increases.
The Deputy referred to special increases. This is not a provision for special increases, it is a provision for dealing with extra payments in the public service for improvements in productivity. The Programme for Competitiveness and Work does not contain a great deal of detail about the appropriate level of increase for an appropriate level of productivity for a given grade or about how productivity in one grade would relate to productivity in other grades in a co-operative organisation. Those issues were not elaborated to any great degree in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and that lack of a system contributed in some measure at least to the difficulties that arose. I am glad following my meeting with the Congress of Trade Unions last Wednesday we have worked out a mechanism or framework for dealing with these problems. That is very welcome and is a considerable achievement.
We ought not strive to debate the issues now.
As the trade unions are aware, in the past three years there has been a well run practice of dealing with productivity claims, but programmes covering the last nine years have not dealt with the fact that where a Government wants to pay up, outside a programme, it finds a way of doing so. At last week's meeting did the trade union movement express the real reason for the difficulties, as articulated at union meetings for the last three months, that there is grave disappointment at the absence of significant income tax relief in the budget, as promised in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work? It was pointed out that the Government has broken its promise in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work to undertake in the 1995 and 1996 budgets to reduce income tax as a portion of total revenue and that is the real reason for the difficulties.
A separate matter is being injected into this question.
As a result of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work all workers have experienced a significant improvement in living standards. If we look at the position that applied under successive programmes of this kind, since 1987 there has been a 17.5 per cent increase in take home pay——
For how much of it is the Taoiseach responsible? He opposed the two programmes.
——whereas there was a 5 per cent drop in take home pay in the period 1980-87.
He has no credibility.
The shouting should cease.
Furthermore, since this Government took office many of the workers have received a 45 per cent increase in child benefit. Also, the university fees employees with sons or daughters attending college previously had to pay have been abolished. That constitutes a benefit for the average family of approximately £2,000. In addition, the average mortgage payment by employees——
Is the Taoiseach responsible for that?
Deputy Cowen must restrain himself.
——receiving payments under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work is £100 to £130 per month less than they were when Deputy Cowen's party was in office.
The Taoiseach is a joke.
If Deputy Cowen continues, I shall have to ask him to leave the House.
The Taoiseach is a joke.
The Deputy heard what I said and I mean what I say here.
It is on the record.
I hope we get the créche.
If Deputy Cowen persists I must ask him to leave the House.
The saviour of Packard is on the other side of the House; the defender of the working class.
Deputy Cowen, leave the House.
That will put up the IQ.
It says lot for Minister Rabbitte's IQ.
Deputy Cowen, leave the House.
Deputy Cowen withdrew from the Chamber.