John Bruton
Question:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach when the next meeting of the Central Review Committee is scheduled to take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10087/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Central Review Committee.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the Government's views on the negotiation of a new national agreement to replace Partnership 2000; the preliminary discussions, if any, which have taken place with the social partners regarding the possi bility of such an agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10103/99]
Thomas P. Broughan
Question:9 Mr. Broughan asked the Taoiseach the representations, if any, made by organisations seeking to be part of the next national agreement and whose members are primarily dependent on social welfare for their income; and the recommendations, if any, he made to Government regarding this process. [10341/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach when the next meeting of the Central Review Committee will take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10864/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, together.
The National Economic and Social Council has been asked to prepare a new strategy report which will form the basis for a successor to Partnership 2000. Work on that report is well advanced and is likely to be completed before this summer. It is envisaged at this stage that substantive negotiations on a new partnership agreement will get under way towards the end of the year, probably September or October.
In addition, the Department of Finance and other public service employer organisations are continuing their discussions with the public services committee of ICTU. The key aims of these discussions are to explore the position on public service pay policy and to devise a new approach to determine public service pay in the period following Partnership 2000.
As regards the prospects for a successful outcome to negotiations on a new agreement, all the social partners share a firm belief in the enormous contribution which social partnership has made to the transformation of the economy. Against that background, there is every reason to be confident that negotiations on a successor to Partnership 2000 will yield a positive outcome.
On the issue of representation in those negotiations, no application of the precise type inquired about has been received.
In response to Deputy John Bruton's question, a plenary meeting of Partnership 2000 is taking place this morning. The main themes for discussion are modernising the public service, enterprise, jobs and small business. The next meeting, which I will chair in accordance will paragraph 11.7 of the agreement, will take place on 27 July and the main theme will be social inclusion and equality.
Does the Taoiseach agree our economic success is somewhat at risk in light of some of the extravagant demands being made? I refer, in particular, to the scaffolding workers' demand for a 200 per cent increase. Some extravagant demands are being made which could entirely derail our process of economic growth. Does the Taoiseach agree there is need to have discussions with the trade union movement on how best to deal with this situation, particularly in the case of unofficial disputes?
Unofficial disputes are always the most difficult and cause great difficulty for the economy. While it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the specifics of any particular dispute, I urge the scaffolders' representatives and those of the construction industry employers to engage with the labour relations machinery of the State as a matter of urgency to try to resolve this matter. The resolution of this or any other dispute can only be achieved through dialogue and negotiation. I am confident that, with the determination of both sides, a satisfactory outcome can be achieved.
I agree with Deputy Bruton's comments; there is no doubt that a major industrial dispute in the construction industry affects output, investment and the perception of our ability to perform properly and deliver on target – something we have been doing successfully. It would be very damaging to all sectors if the perception developed that any one area of industry was not performing properly. I hope those involved in this case can see the bigger picture.
Will the Taoiseach be more specific about what he had in mind when he informed the IMI conference that the prospect of a succeeding agreement to Partnership 2000 would be put at risk by what he called "ridiculous demands"? Will he outline some instances of such demands?
On the scaffolding dispute, was the Taoiseach aware that one of the parties to the review – the CIF – announced last night that it would raise the dispute in the context of this morning's discussions with the review committee? What is the Government's position on that issue? Does the Taoiseach accept that in an industry which is booming, other grades, particularly the craft grades, used the local bargaining clause and won some concessions as a result? Does he accept, without commenting in any way on the actual claim as phrased, that scaffolders have a real grievance and that a facility should be available to them, through the normal industrial relations machinery, to negotiate on it?
I will not go into the specifics of this dispute. I have said I hope it can be resolved through dialogue and negotiation using the State's industrial relations machinery. That is the only way by which these matters can be resolved.
On the issue of a reply I gave during a question and answer session at the IMI conference, I was referring to cases where demands for 100, 150, 200 or 250 per cent increases are made. No economy could sustain those. I was not referring to any particular case but I am sure the Deputy is familiar with the kind of people who have talked about such claims.
What reports has the Taoiseach had from the review committee's meeting this morning?
I have not had any. It is an all-day session.
Does the Government have a position on this matter, which I have attempted to raise in the House for some time. It is important that this dispute is brought to an end. I am not aware of any proactive measures on the Government's part to bring that about.
The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Tom Kitt, and departmental officials have been involved in this matter. I take this opportunity to urge the scaffolders' representatives and those of the construction industry employers to re-engage as a matter of urgency with the labour relations machinery of the State.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree that it makes a mockery of partnership when construction industry employers flatly reject an application for a wage which would make it possible—
We are getting into specific questions here. I would point out that this subject is under consideration for today's Adjournment debate. The Deputy should be brief.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree that building workers in receipt of £13,000 per annum cannot afford to purchase what they create, that is to say, they cannot afford houses? It speaks ill of any concept of partnership. Does the Taoiseach agree it ill behoves Deputies earning £40,000 per year to criticise scaffolders earning £13,000 per year for wanting an income which, if granted, would not come within an ass's roar of what the Taoiseach or the leader of Fine Gael earns per annum?
Or what the Deputy earns.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the benefits of social partnership which he lauded in his reply are not enjoyed by everyone in the community, and that specific regard will have to be had to this if we are to have another agreement? Will the participation of community and voluntary groups in the next national agreement be facilitated? If so, how? A number of groups have demanded access to the next national partnership negotiations. Under Partnership 2000 they were one step removed from the process. Will the structure of the negotiations for the new agreement be similar to that of Partnership 2000 or will such groups be directly involved?
Prior to the beginning of negotiations on a new agreement, some existing and new groups are asking for discussions concerning their involvement. In some aspects they are happy to be one step removed, such as on pay issues which tend to be negotiated between the Government, employers and unions. On other issues the groups want direct involvement.
The vast majority of the population has gained from social partnership, albeit at different levels.
At vastly different levels.
That is inevitable.
(Dublin West): They cannot buy a house after ten years of partnership.
People have done better as a result of social partnership when we examine the numbers unemployed at the beginning of the decade, participation in education and what has been achieved under the national poverty strategy. The arguments put forward which state otherwise are not convincing.
Deputy Higgins raised the difficulty of disputes. There has always been, and I hope there will continue to be, a big difference between official and unofficial action.