Vol. 494 No. 5
6 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed with the social partners at the annual Partnership 2000 meeting in July 1998; if the matter of tax reform was raised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17510/98]
7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach, in view of his reply to Parliamentary Question No. 6 of 17 December 1997, the progress being made by his Department in implementing Partnership 2000 and the further development of the social partnership process. [17578/98]
8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings with the social partners. [17641/98]
9 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Taoiseach his views on the demands of organisations representing senior citizens, including the Irish Senior Citizens Parliament, to be included as social partners for the purposes of negotiations for further national agreements and related matters; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17431/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, together.
In fulfillment of a provision in Partnership 2000, I attended the last plenary meeting in Dublin Castle on 28 July. The Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance also attended. The matters discussed were wide-ranging but focussed mainly on social inclusion and equality and the modernisation of the public service. Obviously, matters relating to tax reform were raised and I emphasised in particular the Government's commitment to focus in a special way on the low paid and those most marginalised in our society.
Looking to the future, I firmly believe the best way to ensure a successor to Partnership 2000 is to fully implement the terms of the current agreement. My Department, along with the social partners, is overseeing the implementation of all outstanding commitments. The agreement has still more than one year to run, which is certainly adequate to ensure full implementation.
At the same time, however, the Government is already putting in place the necessary logistical and analytical structures to secure a successor to Partnership 2000. Principal amongst these are the restructuring of the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum. The NESC will continue to provide strategic analysis through its reports and will thus develop the framework within which discussions on future national programmes will take place, while the NESF will focus on the detailed monitoring of initiatives taken in the context of social partnership, especially with regard to social exclusion and long-term unemployment. The National Centre for Partnership, established under Partnership 2000 to facilitate partnership at the level of the enterprise in both the public and private sectors, has been working with the social partners and with individual organisations in embedding partnership and this work will be built on in future social partnership arrangements.
A decision on what, if any, additional organisations will be represented in the negotiations on a successor agreement will be made closer to their commencement.
Was the question of a minimum wage raised by the social partners or the Taoiseach? Has he indicated to the social partners his willingness or otherwise to ensure that income at or below the minimum wage level proposed will be tax free? Was the nurses' dispute raised during the meeting, and what comfort was offered to the social partners regarding the solution of that problem? Does the Taoiseach expect a Bill putting the NESC and NESF on a legislative footing to come before the House soon?
Both employers and trade unions raised the issue of the minimum wage in their presentations, and the discussion document on this matter will be published in a few weeks. The legislation on the NESC and NESF will be dealt with this session; if not I will tell the Deputy when it will be introduced. The nurses' dispute was not discussed. Public service pay issues were discussed generally, and I outlined how I believe public service pay should be dealt with in future. I invited other parties to discuss this in future meetings. I stated that we needed a new and more imaginative approach to ensure that public servants' incomes should reflect performance more clearly. We have already identified the need for restructuring and the importance of performance management in delivering the full potential of the strategic management initiative reforms. We must consider how public pay policy can be more closely related to performance as part of that. The aspirations of public servants must be met on one side while unavoidable limits on public spending must be maintained on the other.
How many other grades of employees in the public sector are eligible to bring forward special claims under the clause in the PCW under which the Garda award was made?
There are a good number. The Garda and the craft workers were the two big claims. There are a number of other smaller ones but I cannot recall them. There is certainly a half dozen. They held back and did not submit their pay claim because they wanted to see what would happen with larger claims, something they had the right to do.
Is there any difficulty with other areas which have settled their claims earlier under the PCW clause as a result of the Garda being able to make a second claim?
No, and the Government has made its position clear on that. Other than the Defence Forces, which is the other large claim in the process of being settled, we have made it absolutely clear that there is no case for other claims. An enormous number of claims remain to be settled under Partnership 2000.
Are they within the 3 per cent ceiling?
Yes.
The Taoiseach's response to my question was very negative, especially for the almost 450,000 people over 65 who seek formal recognition as social partners. Does the Taoiseach agree they have a significant contribution to make, given the knowledge and experience they have gained over the years?
I am sure the Taoiseach is aware that next year has been designated by the United Nations as the year of the elderly. Does he agree that, apart from giving senior citizens a hoped for increase in pensions in the forthcoming budget, their recognition as social partners in their own right would, in a small way, celebrate the year of the elderly? Surely this is not too much to expect.
I am disappointed the Deputy considered my response to be negative as I would have thought it positive. We will discuss the matter in 1999, the year of the elderly. The Fourth Pillar, which was in addition to the earlier Programme for National Recovery, Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the PCW, has proved to be very successful. It is in that context that it will be examined.
What concrete measures have emerged to date from the National Centre for Partnership for implementing partnership at firm level?
The partnership arrangements and models upon which the centre has been working have proved to be very helpful. It has developed models of partnership by examining training, retraining, skills, the tax system and share option schemes. Where such practices have been successful in Irish business, it has tried to transfer them to other companies. It has held presentations and roadshows. It took it a year to get up and running, but I met with the people involved before the summer recess and they feel they have been effective in the past six months. Their aim is to determine best practice in partnership in the public and private sectors and to implement that in as many industries and organisations as possible.
Is there any evidence that firms are increasing their financial commitment to the training of their employees at a time of very high profits and when money is available to reinvest in employees? Is the Taoiseach aware that Irish enterprises have historically been decidedly unenterprising in investing their own money, as distinct from the State's, in training?
The Deputy is correct in that, historically, little money was put into training by Irish companies and that was highlighted many years ago by the Galvin report on training. Now there is an increase in the level of training by employers because, if they do not do so, they will lose people. I am not sure they would have done so had the situation been otherwise.
The stick and not the carrot is working.
The incentive is there in that unskilled people who are anxious to work will be loyal to a firm which trains them. There is an increased commitment now, especially in apprenticeships. Deputy Bruton will remember that a major issue in the House a decade ago was the impossibility of getting construction firms to do anything about apprenticeships. Consequently, FÁS, or AnCO as it was known then, had to train people for the first year and, even then, they could not gain employment. There has been a significant improvement in the area since.
On the minimum wage, will the consultative document to which the Taoiseach referred be published or at least placed in the Library? Regarding the minimum wage being tax free, does the Taoiseach agree that it does not make sense to establish a minimum wage and then tax it since it is the minimum income upon which a person needs to live?
The report I mentioned will be published in a few weeks. That will give the social partners and others an opportunity to make known their views on the proposals. It will then have to be legislated for and that is expected to be ready for the spring of 2000. I will not enter into a debate in Question Time on the taxing of the minimum wage.
Will the Taoiseach, as part of the analytical and logistical structure for partnership, put in place updated information in quantified form on the actual financial commitment individual firms are making to training? Will he ensure that is collected centrally so that it is a subject which can be negotiated upon and discussed in the forthcoming partnership negotiations? Does the Taoiseach agree that the experience of modern life is that, as far as many analysts are concerned, if something cannot be counted, it does not exist and that only the quantifiable has reality for many people? Does he agree that we need to quantify what is being done as far as training is concerned?
I would not have difficulty with that; it is a good suggestion. I will examine how it can be done.
I stated that the Taoiseach's response to my question was negative. His other response was little more than a delaying tactic. An application has been made, as has a detailed case, on the necessity and benefit of having representatives of the elderly involved in partnership discussions along with the 19 other organisations involved, whose participation I welcome. The Taoiseach is a man of the people and I ask him to give a specific commitment, or at least a more positive response, to the almost half million senior citizens that their case will be examined favourably. It is not too much to ask that the Taoiseach should respond positively to this issue.
I have given my response. I have heard everything the Deputy has said but I have not seen the application other than in the newspapers.
It was sent to the Taoiseach.
This was not raised by the Fourth Pillar or any other pillar in the recent talks. We will look at this issue.
