I call on the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, to make her speech. She has 15 minutes.
Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 31: Transport Industrial Disputes.
On a point of order, under Standing Order 31, the person who moves the motion and whose motion is accepted has priority over other speakers.
Acting Chairman
My list states that Deputy Yates has 15 minutes, Deputy Stagg has 15 minutes, Deputy Joe Higgins has five minutes, Deputy Gormley has five minutes and there will be a question and answer session for 15 minutes.
Under the Standing Order, the person who moves the motion has the right to order the business for the 70 minutes. I have agreed the order of the business with the Government Whip, therefore, I will move the motion first.
I have no difficulty with that.
Acting Chairman
That is not what the order states.
We had this before.
Deputy Stagg will be first, followed by the Minister and me.
Acting Chairman
If that is agreed, I call on Deputy Stagg.
I move: "That the Dáil do now adjourn".
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing the debate and the Government and Opposition Whips for arranging the debate in an orderly manner.
We are in the midst of the worst public transport dispute for more than 30 years. Dublin commuters are in the second day of a three day dispute, already having been deprived of buses on three days in the past few weeks. Today Bus Éireann services throughout the country have been withdrawn and mainline and DART services are virtually non-existent. Given the state of industrial relations within the CIE group, no one can be assured the buses will be back on the streets when the formal three day strike ends tomorrow. Whatever happens, we know that unless the Dublin Bus dispute is settled the buses will not operate for four days next week and that there will be an all-out strike shortly after that. I am anxious that we are not seen to make a political football of this issue. The purpose of the debate should be to seek a means of finding a resolution.
The hardship and inconvenience to those dependent on public transport has been immense. Some people are forced to walk to work while others are unable to get to work at all. Children, including those in examination years, are unable to get to school, those with medical appointments are unable to get to a hospital or a doctor, people are unable to visit relatives in hospital and there is huge disruption to economic and business life. It is clear that unless action is taken to secure an early settlement to the dispute, enormous damage will be done and hardship caused. It is evident by the empty streets in Dublin this morning that large numbers of people were unable to get to their places of work. While the situation has been spiralling downwards into chaos, the responsible Government Ministers have been content to play the role of spectators, content to do nothing other than tut-tut about the consequences of the dispute and, in some cases, send their political stalking horses out to make unhelpful and inflammatory statements.
The Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, who has overall responsibility for public transport and who is the shareholder, on behalf of the public, in CIE seems more interested in waging a political battle against perceived opponents on the board of the company than in restoring morale in the company and creating an atmosphere conducive to a settlement. The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, who has overall responsibility for industrial relations issues, has shown not one whit of interest in the dispute. This strike could be happening in Timbuktu for all the Tánaiste appears to care.
The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Public Enterprise were elected to govern. That involves dealing with difficult issues like transport disputes, as well as making the good news announcements of new projects and more spending. Where has the Taoiseach been while thousands of commuters are unceremoniously dumped on the roads? This is a politician who cut his teeth and largely built his political reputation as a fixer of difficult disputes when he was Minister for Labour. The Taoiseach makes himself available for innumerable photo opportunities, but the public, including Fianna Fáil voters, might be more impressed if he devoted his considerable skills to finding a solution to this dispute.
While the Government may be able to claim it was taken by surprise by the sudden unofficial dispute involving engineering staff in Irish Rail, it had plenty of advance notice of the Dublin Bus dispute. This dispute has been simmering for months. The claim was first lodged last August and the buses were first taken off in February. A month's grace was secured to try to resolve the difficulties. Nothing happened and it was entirely predictable, given the anger among members of the NBRU, that the dispute would escalate. I uphold the right of NBRU members to take official industrial action in pursuit of their claim. The right to strike and the right to withdraw labour is an essential component in any democratic society. I do not believe it is in anyone's interest for workers to take unofficial action. These actions simply add to the complexity of disputes and make settlements even more difficult. However, I am not going to join in the sanctimonious denunciations of low paid public transport workers by commentators who probably spend more in a week on expenses than CIE workers get in the weekly pay packets.
Transport workers must also consider the long-term impact of prolonged disputes, especially unofficial actions. During the 1970s and 1980s, the image of public transport suffered greatly from repeated industrial disputes. In recent years, it has managed to remain largely strike free and with the introduction of additional vehicles and welcome innovations like the Quality Bus Corridors, confidence in public transport is recovering and more and more commuters are using buses. Against this background, what has happened in recent weeks has been a serious setback.
Driving large buses in Dublin traffic conditions is a demanding and stressful occupation. The wage structure should reflect this. A basic starting salary of £207 per week, which is approximately £30 more than the statutory minimum wage that will apply from 1 April, going up to £273, does not reflect this. It is clear that part of the reason for this dispute is that bus workers do not believe the work they do is reflected in the current wage scales. The result of the low basic pay is that drivers must work many hours overtime to earn a decent wage. Apart from the safety aspects of drivers working 60 or 70 hours per week, it is likely that the extension of the EU Working Time Directive to the transport sector in the near future will limit the maximum working week to around 48 hours, resulting in reduced overtime working. Working patterns based on an overtime culture have had their day.
Ironically, there seems to be a general consensus that the basic pay of bus drivers is too low. The issue is how to deal with it. It has to be accepted that in this day and age, wage increases over and above those provided for in national agreements, have to be paid for through productivity improvements. Much progress has been made in this area and the drivers seem to have got little credit for it. It is important for instance to remember that ten years ago there were two workers – a driver and conductor – doing the work now done by a single driver. There are not many sectors of which this can be said.
The General Secretary of the NBRU has already said that he has identified savings of up to £2 million which, if matched by Dublin Bus, might provide a basis for re-opening discussions. This position has been supported by SIPTU. Why can negotiations not be re-opened on this basis? Goodwill is required on both sides. A commitment by Dublin Bus to pay, as an interim increase for a further six months, the £15 which has been paid for the past four weeks, would be helpful. There is clearly a need for outside intervention to bring the parties together to prepare a productivity package, based not just on concessions by the workers, but also on substantially increased investment in the company.
Workers also believe the culture of low pay in the company arises from the very low subsidy received from the Exchequer, one of the lowest for any public transport system for a European city of comparable size. The level of subsidy amounts to no more than around 4p per passenger journey. I appeal to the Minister and to her fellow Ministers in Government to govern and to find a mechanism now to bring the parties to this dispute back to the table. If the dispute is allowed to continue and fester, it will put the newly nego tiated national wage agreement at serious risk. I do not believe we can afford this. Neither can we afford a situation where drivers of complex machines, that have to carry up to 70 passengers around our congested city, are asked to work on the basis that they must work 70 to 80 hours per week to achieve a living wage. Right across the board from the Taoiseach to the Minister to commentators and unions everybody says that wage rate is not adequate. A mechanism must be found and the Minister must put policies and funding in place to ensure a solution is found. I look forward to the Minister's response.
I appreciate the measured way in which Deputy Stagg has addressed the issue and the way in which it was addressed yesterday. He said he did not wish to make the issue a political football and that is the best approach. He said nothing had happened since last August when the NBRU tabled its first claim for a 20% pay claim. In fact a study had been agreed by Mr. Healy of the NBRU. When he produced his study the union did not accept it as suitable for further discussion. The bottom two rungs have been taken away. On a point of clarification, 1,600 out of 2,000 drivers have minimum guaranteed earnings of £341 for a 38 hour shift, excluding overtime. That is a fact and not a drummed up statistic. The debate could still centre around whether that is too low.
Virtually all the public transport system is at a standstill today. The result is that more than 400,000, perhaps 500,000, public transport users have been severely inconvenienced, something everybody regrets and for which I extend my apologies.
The disruption today arises from three separate sources. Dublin Bus drivers are on official strike in support of their 20% pay claim. Other public transport workers have taken unofficial secondary action in support of the Dublin Bus claim. Iarnród Éireann permanent way staff have taken unofficial strike action in a separate dispute.
The unofficial and secondary industrial action is a matter of grave concern. It will do nothing to help resolve the disputes. In fact it is hindering their resolution. It is also resulting in severe inconvenience to the travelling public and disruption to the economy.
The Government's position on the Dublin Bus dispute has not changed. We believe agreement is possible. We believe there is scope for more pay provided it has its basis in genuine productivity and restructuring measures.
During the earlier negotiations, the NBRU proposed measures which, if agreed and fully implemented, would generate savings of about £2 million. This is out of the total of more than £9 million which would be required to meet their 20% pay claim in full. At the same talks, Dublin Bus made it clear that it was prepared to seriously address the pay claim. It tabled productivity proposals which would generate cost savings in excess of the required £9 million, without the need for any job losses or any impact on earnings.
The proposals tabled by both the NBRU and Dublin Bus can provide a basis for the resumption of negotiations. The State's industrial relations machinery remains available to assist. However, it only makes sense for it to become involved when it is satisfied that a basis exists for resumed negotiations.
The secondary action which has been taken in support of the Dublin Bus claim is not helpful. It will do nothing to advance the resolution of the dispute. It is involving the staff of both Iarnród Éireann and Bus Éireann who are not in dispute with their companies. It has disrupted the lives of many thousands of public transport users and has created serious difficulties for their colleague workers across the country.
The message on the Dublin Bus dispute is suspend the strike and resume negotiations. There are both union and management proposals already on the table which can form the basis for serious negotiations, provided there is a willingness to negotiate. If these negotiations can make real progress in addressing the basic pay aspirations of the Dublin Bus drivers, wider issues can be considered. The starting point for these negotiations has to be a serious and sustained review of all the options for efficiencies and cost reductions. The scope exists to generate substantial cost savings which can be used to finance an increase in basic pay without the need for job losses or any impact on earnings.
Permanent way staff in Iarnród Éireann have also gone on unofficial strike. They placed pickets on a number of depots across the country which led to the cancellation and curtailment of both mainline and suburban rail services yesterday. Today it has been subsumed in the wider disruption of services.
One of the jobs which the permanent way staff carry out is the regular patrolling of track. These patrols are necessary to ensure the safe operation of rail services and are most frequent on the older jointed track. One of the first effects of this unofficial action was that Iarnród Éireann had to introduce speed restrictions for safety reasons where safety patrols of the track were not being undertaken. Speed restrictions of 30 m.p.h. were applied yesterday to uninspected jointed track to ensure continued safe operation. If this dispute continues it will quickly become impossible, for safety reasons, to run services on uninspected track. This will most immediately impact on jointed tracks but continuous welded rail track would also be affected if the dispute lasted.
The dispute, as mentioned by Deputy Stagg and Deputy Bruton earlier, arises from the rejection, without a ballot, of a restructuring package for permanent way staff which was the subject of a recent Labour Court recommendation. In return for changes in working practices, the package would have given a 12.5% increase now, with a further 7.5% increase nine months later.
If this unofficial action is ended, negotiations can begin immediately to find a resolution to the issues in dispute. I am aware that in those circumstances the Labour Court would also be available to clarify any matters arising from its original recommendation.
The current disruption is contrary to the partnership process which Government and the social partners have built up over the past decade and which has provided the platform for the economic success enjoyed today. The Government cannot countenance measures which are contrary to the partnership agreements which everyone has so painstakingly negotiated.
With the agreement of the House I propose to share time with Deputy Olivia Mitchell.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
We are facing the worst public transport crisis in living memory. Today there is total paralysis of Dublin Bus, DART, inter-city bus and rail services, in other words, a complete shutdown. This, in an advanced economy, is simply intolerable and unacceptable. I call on the Minister and the Government to set aside, for the duration of the dispute, a position where CIE's monopoly would no longer pertain and other essential services would be put in place. It is not enough to articulate the hardship caused to students, commuters generally, those getting to health appointments and other critical services. If CIE cannot do the job there is an obligation to let others do it. The Minister's position is untenable. Her position, as articulated yesterday, is that she will not intervene in the dispute and she is opposed to introducing alternative contingency measures. If she is opposed to either of those, I can only categorise hers as a "do nothing" position which has led to total paralysis.
It is important to look for the seeds of this dispute. I have said repeatedly that they lie in the situation of July 1997 when the Imp bus dispute in Bus Éireann resulted in ministerial political intervention. This said to CIE workers that in the case of a serious industrial relations dispute they should not go to management or use the industrial relations procedures because the Minister is boss and will settle all disputes. The resulting raised expectations has led to in today's woe. The current dispute has developed into one between the NBRU, led by Peter Bunting, and the Government. The union is confronting the Government head on.
I have been advised that NBRU workers in Dublin Bus were led to believe that in the introductory phase of competition, public service contracts would be introduced to give a comfort zone of two or three years to Dublin Bus. I am told that in the last few weeks, perhaps because of Progressive Democrat pressure in Cabinet or on the Attorney General's advice, this plan has been scrapped and public service contacts ripped up. This has been a contributory factor to this dispute.
At every conceivable opportunity in Dáil debates and at meetings of the Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport, I have said what the Minister should do. She should publish a White Paper on transport setting out a reform of the 1932 Act. For intercity and rural services the Minister should set up the equivalent of the Independent Radio and Television Commission which has successfully re-regulated independent radio which was also chaotic. In Dublin a franchise system of competition is needed similar to that in London. Dublin Bus would be similar to the red bus company in London under whose bonnet 11 different companies have successfully tendered for different routes. The advent of competition has been dealt with well in some countries and poorly in others.
A menu has been facing the Minister and the Government for the past two and a half years from which they must select the optimum method of competition. The fact that we have not progressed the introduction of competition has allowed a position to develop where the country can be held to ransom by a relatively small group of people. Those are the contributory reasons for the dispute and those fundamental policy questions will not go away.
There is a clear solution to the dispute. I was told that if First Bus or Stagecoach began to operate in Dublin they would deal with Peter Bunting by offering a good flat rate of basic pay for a 30 hour week and abolishing Sunday and shift bonuses, the daily allowance, the car differential and all the incremental payments. That is how the dispute will be solved. The pay structure in Dublin Bus must be sorted out on a modern, competitive, flat rate basis. This will improve pay and conditions for workers but it will do so on the basis of removing some of the restrictive practices, inflexibilities and demarcations which currently exist. The Minister should be pushing in this direction at a policy level if the dispute is to be resolved.
My understanding of the permanent way dispute is that it arises because people are not prepared to work beside sub-contractors who are carrying out the rail safety programme. I am told CIE does not have the plant and equipment to carry out much of this work. Once the Government accepted the IRMS safety report, it was inevitable that specialists would have to be used.
Only last Friday 550,000 workers and IBEC endorsed the Programme for Productivity and Fairness. On page 35 of the agreement provides, "that no cost increasing claims by trade unions or employees for improvements in pay or conditions of employment other than those provided in clauses 3 and 5 will be made or processed during the currency of this agreement". Later the document says the agreement, "precludes strikes or other forms of industrial action by trade unions, employees or employers in respect of any matters covered by this agreement where the employer or trade union concerned is acting in accordance with the provisions of this agreement". This dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission, a pay increase of 20% has been put forward and there has not even been a ballot on the claim. The authority of SIPTU and the ICTU is being overtly challenged. We must adhere to agreements. If the Government or CIE were in breach of an agreement I would be equally critical. Those agreements must be honoured.
This dispute shows a laxity in the rigour and discipline of industrial relations in CIE. Secondary picketing and unofficial action have led to a total paralysis of the railways. The majority of people who are in dispute today have no grievance with CIE. The rail drivers and Bus Éireann drivers have no grievance with CIE yet they are not driving their trains or buses today. If this pay increase of 20% is conceded in a straightforward fashion it is inevitable that other bus and rail drivers will seek an equal increase because the stress and pressure which is suffered by Dublin Bus drivers is also suffered by other bus and train drivers.
I am utterly confused. When Mr. Joyce resigned I read in a Sunday newspaper that the Minister planned to split up CIE. In another newspaper I read that officials were in discussion with a UK company to privatise CIE. I read that the Government had made a decision to look again at the previous Government's decision on Luas. In May 1998 the Minister decided to go ahead with Luas and I now read that Luas will not proceed within the family of CIE. I have read of a £4 billion metro plan for Dublin. I do not know where we are going on a project or policy basis. We also have leaks and rumours but I will not discuss those.
It is the Minister's job to provide the resources, the investment, the policy context and a clear sense of direction. I want the same modern public transport system which the rest of Europe enjoys and EU directives will soon make this obligatory in many cases. The Government should immediately provide the basis of some independent productivity expertise to trade off all the premia allowances and bonus payments for a proper flat rate of pay to deal with the Dublin Bus situation. The PPF must be honoured and, in relation to the permanent way dispute, procedures in essential services must be honoured.
The Government has an obligation to govern. If there is an attempt to blackmail the country and bring it to a standstill the Government should suspend the 1932 Act and allow other bus providers to carry out some essential services on a stop gap basis as a prelude to a proper introduction of competition.
I place the entire responsibility for this strike in the hands of the Minister. She has single-handedly brought the country to a standstill. We call for contingency plans but it is fanciful to expect a contingency plan when we do not have a mainstream transport plan.
This strike will be resolved but not without a great deal of inconvenience and hardship to the public and incalculable cost to business and the economy. Resolving this strike, urgent though that is, will only treat a symptom of a much deeper problem which will continue to manifest itself in industrial action unless the Minister tackles its root causes.
The Minister and the Government have failed to make decisions about the future of CIE and transport delivery. The Minister has been warned in this House, in other fora and by other agencies of the growth in transport needs and of the total inadequacy of the institutional and structural arrangements to deliver a transport plan. Due to under-investment and the Minister's failure to give it any direction, CIE is incapable of delivering a transport plan. Of course, we do not have a transport plan and if we had one we have no agency to deliver it. CIE is effectively in the throes of death, murdered by abuse and neglect on the part of the Minister.
Over £2 billion has been put aside for public transport in the national development plan but not a single decision has been made on how and by whom it is to be spent. For over three years the Minister has engaged in diversionary tactics and play acting with Deputies, alternatively expressing herself in favour of public enterprise, privatisation, competition, public-private partnerships and, most recently, breaking the company into its constituent parts. Any decision or direction would be welcome at this stage. Is it any wonder that CIE is on its knees with no direction or certainty about its future and that morale is at an all time low having lost workers, management and chairmen? Is it any wonder that we are dealing with not one but a series of strikes which are taking place in only one sector of the economy – the transport sector – and entirely due to ministerial failure? Meanwhile the Minister has established quangos and appointed consultants and advisers who are leaking conflicting transport plans. There is a plan virtually every week designed to mask the reality that the Minister is incapable of making a decision. She has no strategy or plan and, even if she had, there is no one available to implement it.
This dispute will be resolved but not without much inconvenience to the public. Will the Minister start by making short-term decisions to allow competition on the streets? The buses operating to Dublin Airport and Leopardstown – the Icon service – are empty because of the ludicrous and oudated rule that they are not allowed to pick up and drop off passengers. This rule should be changed, at least for the duration of the strike, which proves, if proof were needed, the need for competition in public transport services. This should the last occasion on which citizens are left completely dependent on the uncertain services of a monopoly transport provider.
(Dublin West): The low wage regime which successive Governments have used to subsidise the public transport system has finally and inevitably blown up in the face of the Government. The patience of bus drivers and other workers in the public transport system has finally run out. The Government is totally responsible for the strike and the acute inconvenience to hundreds of thousands of public transport users.
The strike breaking call this morning by IBEC that the Army and private bus operators be used to break the strike expresses the breathtaking arrogance of the captains of industry. For 13 years of so-called social partnership they have grown fat on massive profits while wage increases for low paid workers, including transport workers, have been pegged to the absolute minimum. IBEC represents the speculators who in four short years have put a modest home out of the reach of virtually every public transport worker who is unlucky enough to be a first time house buyer or starting a family. IBEC also represents private landlords who rack-rent to the point where the rent on a modest bedsitter in Dublin accounts for half the weekly wages of a transport worker.
Did the Government and IBEC seriously expect low paid workers to go on having their economic lifeblood sucked out of them in this way without a response? Farmers were right to take on the greedy beef barons who were abusing them and there were no half measures. The iron is now in the fire and it should stay there until a solution is found to the problem of low pay in the public transport system which should be adequately subsidised by the Government.
It is clear from what Fine Gael said this morning that politicians are one million years removed from the suffering of low paid workers. It is also seeking strike breaking measures. An all out transport strike is the quickest way to make politicians and the Minister in particular realise the seriousness of the situation and force the Government and CIE management to provide a decent and just wage for bus drivers who are among the most exploited in the economy. They should also demand the introduction of a realistic long-term public transport investment programme.
IBEC's strike breaking call should be treated with contempt. How dare it try to use rank and file soldiers who are low paid workers in uniform as its door mats to impose a low wage regime on public transport workers? Soldiers should greet any such cynical attempt with a massive go sick protest. They should not allow themselves to be used in such a cynical way. It is in the interests of suffering public transport users and low paid public transport workers who depend on each other that bus drivers win a decent wage, that other low paid public transport workers are also adequately paid and that there is a long-term investment public transport programme providing for the introduction of new rail services and proper and decent wages for workers.
Will the Minister please stop misrepresenting the position on bus drivers' pay? It is not true that they can earn £341 for a 38 hour week. They start on a basic of £207 per week which, with a shift bonus for working unsocial hours, including Sundays, rises to £276. After six years service the basic is £273 which with a shift bonus rises to a maxium of £322. The Minister is involved in a propaganda war to make people believe that the workers concerned are not low paid and are not being exploited. The reality is that bus drivers perform an enormously difficult and responsible task for derisory wages which Ministers spend at lunchtime with a few of their guests. This system has to be rooted out and that is the only way the dispute will be resolved.
Those who do not depend on public transport do not understand the severity of the crisis. Many students, workers, hospital outpatients and shoppers are at home awaiting a resolution of this dispute. As I cycled past the Taoiseach's office in Drumcondra where his car was parked on the footpath I wondered from where the vision and leadership would come in providing a proper level of pay in the public transport sector.
It is agreed that bus drivers are poorly paid. CIE management informed the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business that it cannot afford to provide the proper level of pay because it does not receive the necessary funding from the Government. As a consequence, industrial relations are unstable and work practices which are based on overtime present dangers for bus drivers as they lead to tiredness.
The public will not wear increased fares, which are already high by international comparisons, for a service that is inadequate. The alternative is to increase the subvention of £100 million which has been declining in real terms since 1985. As was stated earlier, only 4% of the fare comes from the Government. The cost of congestion is rated at £2 billion. Therefore, a sum comparable with 5% of the cost of the annual congestion is going on the subvention. It does not sound like economic sense to starve the public transport sector in this way.
There is £2 billion for public transport and £6 billion for the NRA for the next six years, which is more than the authority wanted in the national development plan – it had in mind a 20 year plan rather than a six year plan. The Government is failing and neglecting public transport. It is causing this strike by its lack of vision in public transport. There is no leadership and no vision of what is needed either from the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, or the management, which was asked to provide that prior to the national development plan.
The Dublin Trasportation Office report, which has not been published but certainly has been leaked, estimates that by 2016 there will be a need for five times the capacity which is being planned for in public transport. Clearly this is the tip of a huge problem but it is, in itself, causing chaos.
The Department of Public Enterprise is only now conducting a national rail needs study whereas the NRA had its study done before the national development plan. There is a catch-up game going on and Deputy O'Rourke, as Minister, is responsible for the appalling neglect which is causing the strike and giving rise to greater problems down the road.
The private sector is paying far more for drivers and, therefore, naturally there will be a continuing crisis in CIE. Bus capacity, the provision in the plans for which, as I said, will need to be increased approximately fivefold, will mean that CIE will not be able to get drivers. Whatever about the drivers who are currently being lowly paid, there will be no drivers available to cater for that extra capacity because there is a problem getting drivers at present.
I want to bring home to the Minister that this is not just a question of low pay. It is a question of an overtime culture giving rise to tiredness, truculence in industrial relations and a situation where the public is being forced to stay at home, the economy is losing £2 billion a year due to congestion and the Minister has a considerable amount of work to do. I ask the Minister to back off the telecommunications sector, which has preoccupied her mind for a while, and put her efforts solidly behind the vision and leadership which is needed in the public transport sector, primarily to lift the lowly paid workers out of the abyss of misery in which they find themselves. They cannot afford to raise a family, purchase a home or lead a normal life. They are subjected to work which gives rise to enormous tiredness that endangers both them and the public. Unless this matter is resolved, ultimately it will bring down the Government.
Acting Chairman
That concludes the contributions by the various people named. We will now move to the next stage, the question and answer session, for 15 minutes.
My understanding was that the debate would adjourn at 1.30 p.m. As all of us took less time than that which was provided for, surely the questions should run until 1.30 p.m.
Acting Chairman
No. I am advised, as per the order, that 15 minutes has been set aside for questions and answers. Therefore, we are restricted to that.
I agreed to a 20 minute question and answers session, not 15 minutes.
I do not mind.
The sos is at 1.30 p.m.
Acting Chairman
The Minister is ready to resume on the Children Bill, 1999.
We should finish at 1.30 p.m.
Acting Chairman
The time provided is 15 minutes. However, we will allow some latitude, but not too much.
Will the Minister agree that the form of privatisation as proposed by the Fine Gael spokesman and as imposed by former Prime Minister Thatcher in Britain, which is a disaster in Britain, would be a disaster in Ireland for both the public and the staff? Will she agree that the history of paying operatives in the private transport sector is bad, arising from the fact that it is not unionised, and that arising from poor pay, large numbers of drivers of private buses in Ireland must get family income supplement from the State to supplement their income? Arising from what she said yesterday, will the Minister tell the House that there will be no attempt by her at strike-breaking, either by the introduction of the Army or privateers during the period of the strike?
Yesterday I answered the question of bringing in the Army or considering an immediate private operation and I said that I am not inclined to go that route. The fact remains that 400,000 people are disadvantaged and inconvenienced. Certainly my instincts are not for taking that route. Did the Deputy ask about the privatisation of the UK system?
I asked about the proposal of my colleague, Deputy Yates?
Deputy Yates made a genuine effort to put forward ideas which he would judge to be helpful.
I am sure he did.
I am quite happy, as I have been for the past two years, to articulate my policy on these matters and I am prepared to let the public make its own judgment on them. From our questions and answers yesterday, on Thursday and again today, this is the way I perceive the Minister's situation – she will not intervene in the dispute per se, she will not provide a competitive solution, for which my party has called, on a temporary basis and she will not introduce alternative measures to which the Deputy referred. What exactly will she do?
The matter is quite clear. The Government cannot agree to a 20% hand-over, as expressed last night by some of the employees, with no strings attached. That is just not a tenable position for a Government of any political disposition.
In fairness, they are not looking for that.
I saw a fellow being interviewed on television and he said so.
The trade union is not looking for that.
Deputy Stagg says that is the total view, but I am stating the situation regarding 20% without productivity. There is scope for considerable enhancement of employees' wages and salaries if we go the route of productivity. That is the route which we must go. Therein lies, in my estimation and in the belief of the Government, the way to enhancing the basic salary.
In answer to Deputy Higgins, I am telling the truth because this information has been given to me by Dublin Bus. I am not saying that it is a wonderful wage – far from it – but I am stating the facts, that 1,600 of 2,000 drivers have minimum guaranteed earnings of £341 for a standard 38 hour shift excluding overtime and of course working five days out of seven because it is a seven day operation.
What answer has the Minister for the public? Today they are stranded. Let us leave aside for a moment the workers in Dublin Bus and Iarnród Éireann and let us think about the public who depends on a service. What is she saying to them? What is her solution so that they can go to work, hospital, school or college?
My solution is to ask the bus employees—
What is she going to do? She is the Minister in charge.
I think I am entitled—
I did not ask the Minister of State a question, I asked the Minister.
That is a cowardly way and that is not the Deputy's style.
Acting Chairman
The Minister without interruption, please.
I do not need the help of the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob. I asked a simple question about what the public is to expect.
The public would not thank me if I intervened and said, "Pay 20%, with no productivity." My answer to the Deputy is to ask him to endorse my call to the trade unions to come to the negotiating table—
I am asking what sort of transport they can get.
—and to continue the talks on productivity which will lead to an enhanced salary for them.
Therefore, they will not get a transport service.
In her statement, the Minister spoke about agreement being based on genuine productivity and restructuring measures. Will she confirm or deny that the measures, or the strings attached as she later mentioned, would include acceptance of the changes she is proposing to the 1932 Act and that that is part of the package which she is effectively holding over the head of the union? To my mind, because she has control over subvention, that is blackmail. Will the Minister outline more fully the productivity and restructuring measures she has in mind?
I did not draw up the productivity measures. They were drawn up by Dublin Bus—
What are they?
—and its management. They were tabled at the LRC and were then sent by the managing director of Dublin Bus to each employee. They will not impact upon the wages or employment of any Dublin Bus employee.
The Deputy also asked about the 1932 Act. I explained this in the House yesterday, but I do not mind doing so again. Last November the Government took a decision to review the 1932 Act. We followed this with public advertising in the newspapers asking for submissions which were received. The Department is engaged in consultations with the unions on their submissions. I met the unions two weeks ago and we talked about competition. There is nothing covert about this – it is quite open. We will see what form the review of the 1932 Act, which has already been discussed with the unions, will take.
Is it conditional that the union accept those changes before agreement is reached?
No. Eventually, when matters are back to normal, we will continue our discussions with the unions. At meetings last week they dwelt very much on competition and talked it over with me and the officials.
It is conditional.
Taking into account that the NBRU has identified savings of around £2 million in productivity and that Dublin Bus has also identified areas where in excess of the required £9 million could be saved, what would the Minister recommend that these two bodies do? What State industrial relations machinery should they now approach to try to resolve the impasse?
Dublin Bus made it clear that it was prepared to seriously address the pay claim. The proposals tabled by the NBRU and Dublin Bus can provide a basis for the resumption of negotiations and the State's industrial relations machinery remains available to assist. However, it will only make sense for it to do so when it is satisfied that a basis exists for resumed negotiations. The precise mechanism would be the Labour Relations Commission.
It is time to bring in Phil Flynn – it is the only hope.
Acting Chairman
A number of Deputies are offering and if they will be concise and to the point in their contributions we will reach each of them.
Will the Minister address the question I asked about putting in place some measure to help the public get around during this strike? Will she make a ruling to allow private bus services pick up and set down passengers? I cannot understand an ideology which prefers to have the public walking beside empty buses rather than using them. Private bus services, such as Icon and Aircoach, are on the streets but are not allowed pick up passengers. Allowing them do so would lessen in some small way the inconvenience and genuine hardship being experienced by the public.
That matter, and the issue of measures to help people who are disadvantaged and massively inconvenienced, is being kept under review by me and the Department. I am reluctant to go down that road while we are still trying to ensure decent talks begin again.
(Dublin West): Would the Minister agree that the Fine Gael Deputies rushing down to the farmers' blockades a few months back is in sharp contrast to their call today for strike breaking action against low paid workers? Why is a 20% increase not justified in a situation of immorally low earnings and, therefore, exploitation? Will the Minister agree that permanent staff in Iarnróid Éireann have a basic wage of between £210 and £227 per week? Does the Minister for Finance agree with the Minister that a 20% increase for these low paid workers would be unjustified when last summer he believed that Deputies should get an increase of 25%, starting from a much higher level than very low paid bus workers?
We do not hear about the Deputy's allowance of £26,000.
The Deputy did not mention the extra £25,000 he receives tax free.
(Dublin West): The allowance for the Deputies' party is £700,000.
Dublin Bus and the Government believe there is considerable scope for an enhanced increase in the basic wages of employees of Dublin Bus if we can enter productivity talks.
(Dublin West): They have given five productivity deals in the past three years. Does the Minister want to bleed them dry?
Will the Minister agree that the policies not only of this Government but of successive Governments regarding State subvention for public transport lies at the root of the current problem and that it has given rise to high fares, low morale, low wages, inadequate service and low levels of usage? In light of this will the Minister examine the policy on State subvention for public transport and look at other European countries to see how they subvent public transport services? Will she implement as quickly as possible the long promised social contracts for CIE to operate the social routes?
I think Deputy Wall has tabled a question today about this. Three months ago I asked the Department to engage somebody to examine the policy on subvention. It engaged a person from UCD. When the report is given to me we will debate it, I hope, in the House. The effect of giving 20% without any strings or productivity talks would have huge repercussions right across the public and every other sector. It is not tenable for this or any Government to hand out 20% without engaging in productivity talks. The people who have been hugely inconvenienced would not thank a Government that went down the path of giving huge increases without any return in productivity. I have put the study in train and when I receive the report I will discuss it in the House.
Is the Minister aware that people who have been forced to cancel hospital out-patient appointments may have to wait many months before they get another appointment? Is she further aware that certain schools were not able to function because school transport was abandoned? Does she know that many people working in the Houses of the Oireachtas do not know how they will travel home tonight or travel to and from work tomorrow because trains and buses will not run for safety and other reasons? When she says that she is keeping alternative measures under review, what level of hardship will make her change her stance? She made it quite clear that she will not concede the pay demand and she has been absolutely straight about that. At what point will she alleviate the hardship caused? Will it be after a three or four day strike or an all out strike? We have surely reached the point where the level of hardship is so intolerable that alternatives must be found.
There is no doubt that the level of hardship is extreme. I have spoken to people who have telephoned my office throughout the morning and each one had a different, harrowing story to tell. People are hugely inconvenienced. We are keeping alternative transport under review but I am loath to take that road.
This morning I gave a lift to a number of people who were trying to get to work. I also spoke to some strikers outside a bus garage in Dublin, one of whom is in receipt of family income supplement. None of them wanted to be on strike and they wanted this issue brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Will the Minister, in the context of a tripartite agreement between the workers, the company and herself, on behalf of the Government, confirm whether the low subsidy which the company receives from the Exchequer can form part of the resolution to the dispute? If so, will she make the negotiators aware of her position in this?
If this House is to be relevant in regard to what is happening whereby people are unable to travel to work or get home in the evening, will the Minister give a commitment to arrange for negotiations, which at the end of the day will resolve the dispute, to commence before the dispute gets out of control completely? While the Minister is prepared to enjoy the positive aspects of transport policy, the ball is in her court and she must accept her role in this and get negotiations under way.
The Labour Relations Commission, which comprises professional negotiators, has stated that it is willing to resume negotiations. I stated clearly that the figure of £2 million already put forward by the NBRU can form the basis for such negotiations. I understand that the low subsidy has already been discussed in the context of the earlier negotiations. The study that was carried out by Mr. Healy under the aegis of the Labour Court dwelt on that subject while the study being undertaken by UCD for the Department, which is focusing on comparable levels of subsidy across Europe will tell its story when it is published. I have not even received a draft of it and, therefore, cannot comment.
Will the Minister respond favourably, on behalf of the Government, if the subsidy is shown to be out of kilter?
I did not receive the study yet. Apart from subsidising the employees of the company, there is also a need to upgrade the services for commuters and, therefore, the subsidy can be used in many ways. There is a need to examine different routes operated by Dublin Bus because many of them are based on outdated demographic figures and many new towns are within the company's scope. That would also form part of the examination of the subsidy. The subsidy was £3.6 million when the rainbow coalition left office and it is currently £13.4 million. It increased by 43% this year in comparison to last year. It is obviously still not enough.
(Dublin West): It was more than £16 million in 1987.
Acting Chairman
That concludes the debate. In accordance with the order of Dáil Éireann today the motion, "That the Dáil do now adjourn", is lapsed.