We move to Private Notice Questions to the Minister for Public Enterprise on the dispute at Dublin Bus. I will call Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for Public Enterprise in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office. I call Deputy Stagg.
Private Notice Questions. - Dublin Bus Dispute.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the steps, if any, being taken to seek a solution to the dispute involving Dublin Bus employees which has led to the withdrawal of bus services from the greater Dublin area in view of the severe hardship caused to commuters and the dangers of a future escalation in the dispute.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the steps, if any, she will take to ensure there is immediate dialogue between management and unions in Dublin Bus to provide for a resumption of full services without delay.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise what steps she intends to take to encourage negotiations between the two sides in the Dublin Bus dispute to prevent an escalation of the strike and if she will consider putting plans in place to provide alternative transport arrangements for Dublin commuters.
I take it my question has been transferred to the Minister for Public Enterprise. It is a worrying development that we seem to be striking out the existence of a Minister for labour. Traditionally, there has been a Minister for labour, and my question was to that Minister.
The Chair has no control over that.
With the utmost respect to you, a Cheann Comhairle, recently you have facilitated the view that there is no Minister for labour. A number of matters have been raised on the Adjournment—
The Deputy should put his question. If the Deputy has a query on that matter, he should consult my office.
In deference to you, Sir, I will do that. We have a Minister for labour and it would be appropriate if that Minister came in to answer the question.
My question to the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke is: in view of the serious hardship being caused to commuters by the current dispute involving employees of Dublin Bus and the potential disruption to business and industry, if she intends to take any steps to facilitate a resolution to the dispute; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
(Dublin West): I call on the Minister for Public Enterprise to make a full statement on the Dublin Bus workers' strike.
I thank Members for putting down these questions. I express sincere regret and apologies to all those who have been extremely discommoded today because of the lack of bus transport. I thank the gardaí and the Office of the Director of Traffic for their efforts to keep traffic flowing and road users for their patience.
On 4 February, the National Bus and Rail Union served strike notice on Bus Átha Cliath in respect of an increase in basic pay for drivers. The existing basic pay for most drivers is £273 and the claim issued was for a 20% increase in basic pay. Further strikes are threatened for Tuesday and Wednesday next, for three days from Monday, 28 February, for four days from Wednesday, 8 March and an all out strike the following week.
The NBRU originally served strike notice in support of a 20% increase in basic pay for bus drivers in September 1999. SIPTU also served strike notice at the same time but did not quantify the percentage. The Labour Court considered this dispute on 28 September and issued a recommendation on 11 October which found that the claim was in breach of Partnership 2000. I understand the NBRU is not a partner in Partnership 2000. However, the court recommended that an independent third party carry out an investigation of a range of issues on which there was wide disparity between the parties on the factual position, including pay and conditions, pensions, the effect of State subvention, comparisons with other driver groups, current working practices and methods of payment. The court recommended that the third party report, when it would issue, would be used as a basis for further negotiation.
The company agreed to the appointment of the independent third party whose name was nominated by the unions. It was a group headed by Mr. Seán Healy. I must explain that it is not the Seán Healy of CORI because I heard somebody say on radio it was. His report was submitted to both parties at the end of January. The third party concluded that the current pay claim would place in jeopardy the future viability of Bus Átha Cliath if conceded in isolation. It also states, however, that inflexiblities still exist in work practices within the company and that there are significant opportunities for cost savings, which could form the basis of a productivity deal to address the basic pay issue in a meaningful way. The report also states that there certainly is room to examine the starter pay of drivers.
I have been in regular contact with the management and unions in Dublin Bus to ascertain if a basis can be found for negotiations that will lead to an early and satisfactory resolution of this dispute. I will continue those contacts and urge the parties to enter into urgent negotiations without preconditions on either side or the threat of industrial action, but with the interests of customers foremost in their minds.
The Labour Court recommendation of 11 October provided the context for the resolution of this dispute. It also recommended that the third party report should be used as the basis for future negotiations. While I am aware of union concerns about the report, it should be possible to use it as an agenda for negotiations.
Having regard to the progress of Dublin Bus in recent years, does the Minister accept that an ongoing strike would not be in the interests of the company, the workers or the commuters? What specific action does she intend to take to assist in finding a solution to this dispute? Does she believe a basic starting salary of £207, which is only £30 above the proposed national minimum wage, is adequate pay for the difficult and stressful job of bus drivers in Dublin city every day? Rather than pussyfooting around the edges of this dispute, will she do what she has often done on previous occasions and intervene directly with management and tell them to sit down around the table with the unions who are prepared to talk to resolve this strike before it escalates any further? The Minister has plenty of experience of doing that with this company.
I agree that the starting salary of £207 is—
It is scandalous.
That is addressed in the third party report, which contains a paragraph on that matter. Deputy Higgins alluded to that. The Seán Healy report refers specifically to the starting salary.
The Minister should tell management to sit down and talk about it.
As I stated in my reply, I want the two sides to get together on this matter.
As she did on previous occasions, the Minister should instruct management to do that.
I hope that will be the outcome. I regard the matter as extremely serious. Discommoding thousands of people in going about their daily business, whether social or commercial, is not the way to run a capital city.
Does the Minister agree Dublin Bus management and staff have treated 200,000 commuters with utter contempt in that people have been unable to go to work today because of the strike, the unions have taken an approach to strike as a first rather than a last resort and Dublin Bus management has laid down a precondition to talks, which is different from what the Minister said? Has there been a shift in the management's position? Its members laid down a precondition that while there was a threat of a strike they could not talk? Is the Minister saying that precondition has been lifted and that there will be talks on the Healy review of the six productivity areas? Can she give an assurance to the House that the two days' strike threatened for next week will not go ahead and dialogue will replace it?
I cannot give such an assurance. It would be foolish of me to give an assur ance in respect of what might happen next week. I will continue the contacts I had last week and this week and urge the parties to the dispute to enter negotiations urgently, without preconditions on either side or the threat of industrial action and with the interests of customers foremost in their minds.
On the broader issue of industrial relations problems within the group and particularly within Dublin Bus, does the Minister agree she is at least partly to blame for today's strike because she failed to address the two underlying problems concerning bus transport, the lack of competition and the lack of subsidy, without which Dublin Bus will always struggle and the public will not have a comprehensive service? Will she address the question, which I also raised in my private notice question, about providing alternative transport if this strike is not settled next week? Will she consider bringing in the Army to provide a skeleton service for the public, as happened in 1979?
(Dublin West): The blue shirts will ride again.
Would the Deputy prefer commuters to have to walk to work?
The issue of—
(Dublin West): Bring in the troops. Why not shoot a few workers at the same time?
That is not what Deputy Mitchell said or implied.
Our concern is for commuters and that should also be the Deputy's concern.
I want to address the matter of the subvention. That proposal has been peddled not only by workers but by everyone else. Bus Átha Cliath got a subvention of £3.75 million in 1996, £7 million in 1997, £9 million in 1998 and £13.4 million in 1999. The subvention has increased four times in the past three years.
Yet some of the workers get only £207 a week.
I want to know the comparable subvention to public transport companies in other capital cities
It is 50%.
A group in UCD is undertaking a study on that and it will be completed in four weeks' time.
Deputy Mitchell also raised the issue of competition, which I answered in reply to an oral question prior to this one. The Government decision in November mandated me to bring forward a study of the 1932 Act by the end of February. That is being done and I will be bring that matter to Cabinet at the end of February.
Does the Minister agree the Minister for labour appears to have been written out of the script and that this kind of confrontation would not happen if we had a pro-active Minister for labour? Does she agree that, while the emphasis in the questioning up to now has been quite properly on the plight of commuters, it is unconscionable to expect people to do the kind of work bus drivers do for the paltry wage they are paid? Is it not the case that they are the worst paid essential workers in Dublin and that it is incumbent on her as Minister to require the management of Dublin Bus to pay bus drivers who are now manning one person buses a proper salary and, if it does not, to sack the management?
I accept, and have said publicly, that all bus drivers, but particularly Dublin bus drivers who have to cope with an increase in traffic, difficult social engagement with passengers and all that is involved in filling a bus and letting passengers on and off it, have a difficult job and they do it most competently and most safely—
And most cheaply.
—which is very important.
Deputy Rabbitte asked if, vis-à-vis other workers in the public sector in Dublin, bus drivers are the lowest paid. I do not know the veracity of that but it could be checked.
The study, from which we seem to have strayed, was suggested by the Labour Court. The unions agreed to the study, they nominated the person to do the study and it was to form the basis of further negotiations. However, when the study was produced at the end of January it did not find favour.
I apologise for not being present at the commencement of the Private Notice Question, although I heard the Minister's reply and thank her for it. Does she accept that the 5% subvention to Bus Átha Cliath, which the Government and previous Governments have underwritten, is at the heart of the drivers' dispute, given that they feel they are underwriting, by means of their low pay, the operation of Dublin Bus? Does she also accept there is a public safety issue which affects both the drivers who operate one person buses – this must be recognised and compensated for – and the commuters who endure overcrowded conditions on those buses? Will Deputy O'Rourke intervene, not only as Minister for Public Enterprise but also as the people's representative in the operation of an efficient public transport system? In the absence of a statutorily recognised public transport users' group, it is the Minister's responsibility to rep resent the public by intervening, not merely by wishing for the problem to be resolved.
I do not know if the Deputy was present when we discussed the subvention.
I was.
The subvention rose from £3 million in 1996 to £13 million in 1999.
It is still only a percentage.
The figure has increased by four times the original and that might not be adequate. I do not know. We must wait to see how operations proceed this year. An argument has been promulgated that there has been a diminution in the amount of the subvention but it has actually been increased to four times the original amount in three years. I reiterate that the people who drive buses in Dublin traffic are doing a most competent job.
The Deputy inquired why I have not intervened directly. The Labour Court, the Labour Relations Commission and the bodies of State which were established and reinforced by various Governments are those to whom we look for leadership in respect of matters of this nature. Having said that, it was under the aegis of the Labour Court that the suggestion for the third party study arose. That study was subsequently produced but it did not find favour, despite the fact that the person responsible for completing it was nominated by the unions. It did not get us anywhere. We want the buses back on the streets of Dublin and its environs—
The Minister should tell the management to start talking then.
—so that commuters will be able to travel into town. I urge both sides to enter into urgent negotiations without imposing preconditions.
(Dublin West): Does the Minister agree that the easiest way to encourage bus drivers to return to work is to pay them a decent living wage and that, while they are fine, words of tribute do not pay the rent? Does she agree that it is immoral for the Government to preside over a situation where bus drivers wages rise from £207 per week to £273 per week after six years for a job which brings them into contact with the hazards of stress, traffic congestion and pollution? Does she believe that between £207 and £273 is a just wage for a job which carries awesome responsibility? One lapse by a driver can have terrible consequences for themselves and the public.
A question please, Deputy.
(Dublin West): A Deputy can nod off in the House and only the Chair will notice. However, if a bus driver nods off he or she or members of the public may die. Does the Minister appreciate the hardship experienced by workers who live in daily fear of having, for example, blood filled syringes or other horrible weapons placed against their throats by people demanding cash? Is she aware that a driver with two children who pays a rent or mortgage of £100 per week – that is the lower end of the scale – must work 60 hours, some of them unsocial, to obtain an income of £260 and £300 per week?
The Minister referred to the Seán Healy report on a number of occasions. Is she aware that this report is absolutely unacceptable to bus drivers because, even after conceding ground on six productivity deals, the report involves further savage cutbacks, no spread-over payment, a working day beginning at 7 a.m. and ending at 7 p.m., with no compensation—
The Deputy has asked his questions and he should—
(Dublin West):—a flat rate of pay on Sundays without overtime and increased working hours at weekends?
The Deputy must conclude because a number of other Members are offering. We must move on to the Order of Business.
(Dublin West): Is the Minister aware that these recommendations are totally unacceptable and will make the situation far worse?
Did you read the Seán Healy report?
The Minister should address her remarks through the Chair so that we can have an orderly Question Time.
(Dublin West): With respect, the Minister is here to answer questions not me.
At least her question was brief.
The report I read does not bear any connection with the facts outlined by Deputy Higgins.
(Dublin West): Will the Minister visit the picket lines and speak to the workers?
Will the Minister address her remarks through the Chair? We cannot have Question Time if she addresses Deputies across the floor.
The Minister never asked a question that brief when she was on this side of the House.
I have no desire to dwell on this report which was made at the suggestion of the Labour Court. The unions put forward Mr. Seán Healy to compile the report, a man with whom I am not familiar. However, I am aware that he is not Seán Healy of CORI.
Seán do bheatha Mhuire, three times.
The Minister without interruption.
The unions are seeking a flat increase of 20% and I want negotiations to commence without preconditions on either side. Those negotiations will consider the question of productivity and why should they not?
(Dublin West): Because the workers have given as much as they can give. Is the wage situation not immoral?
I am not interested in heavy ethics and, therefore, I do not know what the Deputy means by immorality.
The Minister should not answer questions which come by way of interruption. We want an orderly Question Time.
The Minister has repeatedly accepted the competence of Dublin Bus drivers. If they were not competent they would have to be sacked because they would be a danger to the public. It is not their competency which is in question. Does the Minister accept that we are concerned here with the difficulty of their work and their low level of remuneration? Does she have it in her heart to state that they are paid lousy wages for the job they do? It would be positive and helpful if she could do so.
Rather than urging sides to talk – the unions want to talk but the management will not talk to them – will the Minister, who is responsible for the company and its management, order representatives of management in CIE to drop the precondition they have placed on negotiations to the effect that if there is a threat of a strike they will not talk? There is always a threat of a strike, if there was not there would not be any negotiations. Will the Minister order management to remove its precondition and commence negotiations? Management representatives have wasted a week and ensured that the public suffered a great deal.
Management, by letter, offered to commence talks. I have stated that the parties should enter into urgent negotiations without preconditions on either side or the threat of industrial action and with the interests of consumers in their minds.
Has the Minister informed management of that?
I am saying it now.
Will the Minister confirm that 1,400 of the 2,000 bus drivers have an average pay of £413 per week? Will she confront the real issue, namely, that 50% of bus drivers are members of SIPTU and 50% are members of the NBRU and the difficulty is that the latter is outside all partnership agreements, in respect of which this claim is in clear breach, and that the Minister with responsibility for labour affairs should make an effort to resolve the core problem?
Does the Minister accept that the only buses operating in Dublin today are those which offer the air coach service? Does she agree with Deputy Mitchell that competition is the key to this issue, given that the age-old problems on the No. 16 route to Santry were solved overnight when the air coach service was introduced? Will the Minister deal with subvention, competition and ensure that talks to avert further strikes will take place?
I stated earlier that the NBRU is outside the partnership agreements. I understand that, during the recent partnership negotiations, there were hopes that the union would enter the process. That did not materialise. It is entitled to stay out if it wishes but it poses difficulties because there are two unions. It is clear that SIPTU members do not wish to pass pickets of their work colleagues. I worked in a school which included ASTI and TUI members and this posed difficulties whenever trade union problems arose. I understand this but they are outside Partnership 2000 and this is a breach of that partnership.
I answered the question concerning competition at Question Time when I said that by the end of February we would have a report on the discussions held about competition and the way forward. It is obvious that the 1932 Act does not serve in 2000.
When did the Minister last speak to Dublin Bus senior management on this issue? I am sure she is aware that we are promised two days without buses next week. What practical steps does she intend to take between now and next Tuesday to avert that?
I spoke to all the parties yesterday. The Deputy asked about my contacts with senior management to whom I spoke yesterday. I spoke to Peter Cassells, Noel Dowling, Peter Bunting and senior management. I also spoke to the parties last Thursday, Friday and Saturday and urged them to come together. The unions propose to strike next Tuesday and Wednesday which would be completely unacceptable to the people of Dublin. One can say that it is unacceptable but that will not resolve the matter. We have to find a means of solving this issue and the only way it can be solved is by the parties beginning to talk. There will be some results if they talk and that is why I urge both sides to begin talks without preconditions.
Will the Minister direct management to do so?
Both sides have to talk.
Will the Minister direct management to do so?
Management has stated that it wants to talk. I have the letter.
Will the Minister direct management to remove its preconditions?
I would ask the Minister not to answer questions by way of interruption. We want an orderly session and we have to move on to the Order of Business.
Does the Minister agree that today's events and the threat of an escalation next week and the week after are causing untold damage to public transport and the public's confidence in CIE's ability to solve the public transport problems in Dublin? Will she clarify her earlier remarks to the House that she is asking Dublin Bus management to speak to the unions without preconditions? Will she speak directly to management and ask it to speak to the unions to negotiate its way out of this impasse without preconditions?
It is without preconditions on both sides.
(Dublin West): Does the Minister agree that it is pathetic that the Government will not make a proper subsidy available for public transport in Dublin when the Exchequer surplus was in the order of £678 million in January? Will she agree that Fine Gael's proposal that the Army should be used in strike breaking is an insult to the workers in uniform who constitute the Army rank and file and should not be contemplated? Does she give any credence to Deputy Yates's proposal for organised strike breaking? Since she would not give a straight answer when asked if she considers Dublin Bus drivers' pay to be pathetic, could she do a bus driver's job or live comfortably on a Dublin Bus driver's wage, including paying for a home and family?
I did not hear any proposal regarding organised strike breakers from Deputy Yates.
That was a deliberate misrepresentation of my remarks by Deputy Higgins, as per usual. It was deliberate deceit for his own purposes.
The issue of the Army arose in the context of helping disadvantaged people or others with alternative arrangements. I have no answer to that as we have not considered the matter. There is no point in having coloured arguments which are not based on fact.
I call Deputy Sargent.
(Dublin West): A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Minister wished to answer my last question.
When was the last time the Minster made a regular journey on Dublin Bus?
We are in for a lecture here.
Does she accept that the average Government subvention in other European cities is closer to 50%? Is she conscious of this target and when will it be reached in Dublin? Is she prepared to allow a two-day stoppage take place next week, a three-day stoppage the following week and an all out stoppage by the middle of the month if the Labour Court does not find a solution and the two sides refuse to budge without her persuasive intervention? Will she intervene at any point along that deteriorating path?
We constantly read how the Deputy cycles to work. I walk to work.
Does the Minister travel by bus?
I walk for no other reason than my figure and my health.
It is working well.
I have walked to work for some time. I constantly read how Deputy Sargent cycles 19 miles and I congratulate him for it. He does not use the bus but takes his bicycle.
I also use the bus.
I go by foot. Deputy Higgins asked if I would drive a bus but I do not have a D licence. However, I bet I could drive a bus if I got such a licence.
The issue of a subvention is a serious question because, even though it increased fourfold in three years, it is a matter which should and will be looked at. It is another matter whether the subvention goes towards improvements in bus services or is divided between such improvements and salaries. There is a correlation in the Deputy's proposal in that the subsidy would go directly to employees. That matter would have to be examined.
We must move on to the Order of Business soon. I will take two more questions.
Is the Minister aware that it is estimated that if the 500,000 workers who needed to use buses this morning were delayed by ten minutes, 8,000 work days would have been lost as a result of today's strike? As this is a labour relations issue, has the Minister discussed it with the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney? Where is she? Have they identified any gaps in the labour relations mechanisms which need to be filled in order to bring this dispute to an end?
I was not aware of the 8,000 work days estimate. The Tánaiste is abroad on a trade promotion and will be back today.
What about the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt?
The Deputy asked about the Tánaiste. The Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court carry out admirable work. I have not discerned any gaps in their operations.
I am not sure what the Minister has told the House, given the amount of obfuscation and street walking which has been going on. Can she tell the House in clear, plain, Athlone English if she has ordered CIE management to drop its preconditions and to enter talks? I assure the Minister that the unions are prepared to talk.
What has happened to the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, Deputy Tom Kitt? We have not heard from him in the House since he voted against his own Sunday trading Bill. Is it his responsibility to telephone Peter Cassells and all the other people the Minister had to contact? As he is a senior Minister and member of her party, will she take the whip to the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, and insist he does his job?
This is happening because the Tánaiste is away.
I find terms such as street walking and whips pejorative.
I did not intend that.
I have urged both sides to start talking without preconditions and I repeat that call here today.
Did the Minister do it directly?
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.