I will call on the Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for Public Enterprise in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office.
Private Notice Questions. - Aer Lingus Dispute.
(Mayo) asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the up to date situation on the various industrial disputes within Aer Lingus, the steps being taken to resolve such disputes and to have services by the company restored to normal, and if she will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the steps the Government will take to address the growing crisis in industrial relations in Aer Lingus which has led to the suspension of all scheduled services on 17 October 2000, especially having regard to the implications for the public, for tourism and for commerce of prolonged industrial disruption in the national carrier, and if she will make a statement on the matter.
(Dublin West) asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the steps she will take to persuade Aer Lingus management to resolve the dispute over low pay and unsatisfactory conditions of employment of Aer Lingus staff which has resulted in the grounding of all Aer Lingus flights today.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise to address the means to avert further industrial relations chaos in Aer Lingus and, indeed, among employees of Irish airports generally and to hear from the Government if the privatisation of Aer Lingus is now off the agenda.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if she will make a statement on the cancellation of all Aer Lingus flights today and on the other work stoppages by cabin crew and baggage handlers and the threatened action by the airline pilots and the steps she is taking to resolve these disputes so that the thousands of air passengers per day using our airports can be facilitated.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if she will report on the collapse of industrial relations which has grounded all Aer Lingus flights, if she will indicate why her early warning system has not prevented the emergence of a battery of disputes that threaten to cripple our air services and if she will indicate why she has not taken initiatives to use the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act designed to protect essential services in order to avoid this type of disruption to passengers.
I thank the seven Deputies who submitted questions. I am very much aware of and greatly regret the inconvenience caused to Aer Lingus's customers as a result of the ongoing industrial disputes in the company. I very much regret also their effect on the tourism, consumer and business sectors of the economy. I will go through each of the disputes in question and will say at what point is each. In that way, we can lead on to other questions.
The first dispute concerns baggage handlers. Aer Lingus management will meet the baggage handlers tomorrow at 10 a.m. The baggage handlers have been through the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court and they have rejected both the outcomes of those two bodies. Aer Lingus management will meet them tomorrow and, I hope, discussions will resume.
Aer Lingus will meet the clerical staff on Thursday. The clerical staff have been through the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court and have rejected the findings which came out of both of those. Aer Lingus management will now enter into discussions with them. Aer Lingus will meet the catering staff on Friday. The catering staff have been through the Labour Relations Commission and are awaiting a date for the Labour Court.
In regard to cabin crew, around whom today's dispute centres, SIPTU is at the Labour Relations Commission and it is awaiting a Labour Court date. IMPACT clearly wants to go to the Labour Relations Commission and pilots are working to rule. The ICTU executive will meet tomorrow to review the disputes committee's findings. That will go to its executive and then it will issue a direction, that is, on the findings on the number of SIPTU staff who have transferred or who wish to transfer to IMPACT. Altogether, 50,000 flights were to go in and out of Dublin Airport today, 20,000 of which are Aer Lingus—
That cannot be right.
Passengers. Some 50,000 passengers were to go in and out of Dublin Airport today, 20,000 of whom were Aer Lingus passengers – they are going nowhere – and 30,000 of whom are using other airlines, and they are travelling in and out of Dublin today.
(Mayo): I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she realise, as the major shareholder in Aer Lingus – indeed, the effective owner of Aer Lingus – that these matters should have been resolved at an earlier stage? Does she acknowledge that to have one major dispute is bad enough, to have two is extremely serious but to have five disputes simultaneously where up to 6,000 people are effectively withdrawing their service is a catastrophe for the company? Why were these five disputes not addressed earlier? Why were they allowed to simmer and fester until such time as they all boiled over simultaneously? Why has the Minister, who is the custodian, the trustee on behalf of the people and who effectively owns the company, not taken a more active, hands-on role before now?
I am reminded that about six months ago the Deputy's party hauled me over the coals because I was intervening in CIE. In a very robust debate, it was said I should never stick my nose into a semi-State company again.
Not before your bath.
We will leave the bath out of it, if you do not mind.
The Minister is still in hot water.
Yes, I am. The Deputy is in a bit himself.
Deputy Higgins asked why nobody intervened. Baggage handlers have been to the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court and they have rejected the resolutions which came out of that. The clerical staff have also been to the Labout Relations Commission and the Labour Court. Catering staff are awaiting a Labour Court date. In regard to the cabin crew, SIPTU is at the Labour Relations Commission and is awaiting a Labour Court date. IMPACT wants to go to the Labour Relations Commission and pilots are working to rule. They have all been, in one shape or other, through the machinery available to the country and to employers for handling such disputes. Direct talks have taken place but there should be further direct talks.
Speedy reference of outstanding matters to the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court is highly desirable in this case. The Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court, as I said, are the industrial relations institutions of the State which deal with matters of this nature. I urge the parties to utilise these services where it has not happened in order to prevent further unnecessary disruption to the travelling public.
Does the Minister agree this is a classic case of Nero fiddles while Rome burns? The Minister is preparing for the great auction or sale of Aer Lingus while the company is coming apart at the seams as a result of a litany of industrial disputes which the Minister read out as if she were boasting about them and seemingly blithely unaware of her responsibility in the matter.
Does the Minister accept that many pay levels in Aer Lingus are a national scandal? Does she acknowledge that starting rates for some cabin staff are barely above the minimum wage levels at £5 per hour? Does she accept that this is a disgrace for a semi-State company and does she acknowledge that, as a major shareholder in the company, she must accept her share of the responsibility for these shocking wage levels and the resultant strikes? Does she accept her responsibility in that and what will she do about it?
Of course, I accept responsibility. That is why I am in Dáil Éireann.
What will the Minister do about it?
Excuse me. That is why I am in Dáil Éireann and why I am here, quite correctly, to reply to the seven questions put down. I have never refused to come to Dáil Éireann or sent anybody else to talk for me. It is my job to come here.
Will the Minister tell us what she will do about it?
Deputy Stagg, allow the Minister to speak without interruption.
The Deputy was in Government for two and a half years and I did not see him address any of these issues.
There were no strikes.
The Minister should be embarrassed.
I am not embarrassed, I am astounded.
I am astounded at the Minister.
I am very much astounded at Deputy Noonan who is the finance spokesperson.
Will the Minister give an explanation?
The explanation is – Deputy O'Keeffe did not put down a question, but I will answer him—
The five sorrowful mysteries.
There are no sorrowful mysteries – I am reading out a factual account. There is no glorying in it, Deputy Stagg. How could there be? Deputy Stagg's party knows, as do all parties—
The Minister is responsible for this.
What will the Minister do about it?
The Deputy's leader has said something to him, but I do not know if he obeys anybody – I think he is a law unto himself.
The Minister should deal with the issue rather than making personal remarks.
Will the Minister address her remarks through the Chair. We will not be able to get through this question unless the Minister addresses her remarks through the Chair and does not invite interruptions.
The Minister should be embarrassed.
I have gone through each dispute and I have mentioned in each case where each of them resides, or has resided for some time – in the Labour Relations Commission.
We know that.
What question do the Deputies wish to put to me?
(Interruptions.)
We are going from bad to worse. Why has the Minister allowed this happen?
Do the Deputies want me to manage the airport? They should try that.
(Interruptions.)
Pontius Pilate.
I call Deputy Joe Higgins.
Do the Deputies want—
Please allow Deputy Joe Higgins put his question.
(Dublin West): Some of the Minister's foghorn diplomacy would be better aimed at Aer Lingus management than across the floor of the Dáil. Will she admit she has been gravely derelict in her duty to protect companies in public ownership and ensure fair play for their workers, in this case, Aer Lingus workers?
How does she justify allowing a low wage, yellow pack regime to fester for years in Aer Lingus, in the same way she allowed Dublin Bus to be heavily subsidised by the low wages of its drivers for years? Does the Minister not remember that when the workers were massacred by the hatchet job called "the Cahill plan", that was as a result of failure by successive Governments to invest properly in this premier State company? We are now having a repeat of the Government washing its hands—
A question please.
(Dublin West): Why has the Minister not directed the management of Aer Lingus to negotiate seriously with the many categories of staff who have serious grievances over pay and conditions? Why has she not blown out of the water the calculated misinformation put out by Aer Lingus management that the major cause of the strike today is a dispute between two unions? Will she say that is a lie and a smokescreen, used as an excuse for the failure of the management to come to terms with the real problem and negotiate seriously? That is very important.
Does the Minister understand that the management of Aer Lingus has deliberately continued to implement a low wage policy, despite profits of more than £50 million, so that those profits will look rosy to the vultures it wants to buy the company when the Minister and her Government privatise it, or attempt to privatise it? They hope they will then get bonuses as obscene as those received by the Eircom management to whom the Minister gave our telecom services. That is the reason there has been no serious negotiation—
Deputy Higgins has asked his question.
(Dublin West): —with the workers on the disgracefully low wages they endure.
There is no doubt that many will say the seeds of the current discontent were sown during the 1992, 1993 and 1994 Cahill plans. Aer Lingus itself has said there is a real question about low pay for sections of its employees. That is the real reason it is now engaging in proper discussions with them—
(Dublin West): It is not.
—to see if, despite the fact they have rejected both the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court—
(Dublin West): The cabin crew have not been to the Labour Court.
The Deputy must allow the Minister answer his question. He had a good innings.
I am about to deal with that. When I said the cabin crew, I said that SIPTU was at the LRC. It is awaiting a Labour Court date. IMPACT wants to go to the LRC. I think its dispute should be referred to the LRC.
The Deputy described the dispute between IMPACT and SIPTU in regard to the cabin crew as a smokescreen. I do not intend to enter into that dispute because the resolution of a dispute between two unions is ICTU's business. As of now, there are 250 cabin crew in SIPTU and 1,400 in IMPACT.
That is not the reason for the industrial dispute.
No, I am just replying to Deputy Higgins, that is, if one takes the numbers that the staff put forward. ICTU might have a different version of that tomorrow. However, it is its prerogative to do that.
I call Deputy Sargent.
This is another Pontius Pilate job. The Minister is passing the buck to ICTU. She has responsibility for this.
Deputy Sargent, without interruption.
Will the Minister agree that both she and the Aer Lingus management have seriously taken for granted both the work rate and goodwill of employees? The management told us at the public enterprise committee that it had implemented a range of savings – £50 million annual reduction in operating costs, a redundancy package for more than 1,000 staff, a £250 million disposal of non-core assets and a £175 million capital injection. Will the Minister take into account that the management did not mention any improvements, in terms of its own staff, in the list it read out to us? Will she make it clear that the low wage regime it operates has been consigned to history and that proper remuneration with dignity will be restored, as was the case in the early days of Aer Lingus? Pending that, will the Minister put on hold and review seriously any thoughts of privatising the company, given its current perilous state?
It is quite clear that nobody could move forward now in regard to privatisation.
Not after the Eircom debacle.
The Cahill plan and the money that was injected into the company at that time for both redundancies and capital development happened six years ago. Aer Lingus itself will say quite clearly that the question of low pay for various sectors of its employees remains to be, and should be, addressed. That is its viewpoint and mine. What was the Deputy's third question?
Remuneration.
Many of the employees made very large sacrifices at the time of the finalisation of the Cahill plan in 1994. We heard all of this when we were dealing with TEAM. They now see others who were not as restrained as they were under that plan forge ahead. Clearly, that has bred a spirit of concern and discontent.
Aer Lingus must also maintain viability under EU rules. When we got permission for the money in 1994, we were clearly told it was the last cash injection that could go into Aer Lingus, so Aer Lingus must operate in an economically viable manner and pay its way.
It was not the last investment.
The Minister is the Minister for no Luas, no taxis, a bus strike, a train strike, a threatened ESB strike and five disputes in Aer Lingus.
Does the Deputy have a question for the Minister?
That is not a very auspicious record for the Minister's Department. When did the Minister have a meeting with the chairman of Aer Lingus to be told of these pending disputes? How long ago was she informed of these disputes? When was she informed that Aer Lingus, as a spokesman said, accepted there was an issue of low pay, particularly for the cabin crew and baggage handlers?
What did the Minister say to the chairman of the board about these issues, in regard to the Government's take from Aer Lingus? If Aer Lingus gives way on some of these elements of pay, its profits will obviously go down. Has the Minister given an indication that she would back any pay improvement for these very low paid workers? Many of us did not realise how badly paid are the cabin crew until we heard the recent interviews. When did the Minister know about all this?
I met the chairman, Bernie Cahill, last week.
Last week was too late.
We talked about the impending problems in Aer Lingus, which was common knowledge in the newspapers and everybody knew about it. I met the new chief executive, Mr. Michael Foley, about two weeks ago and I met him again today. He clearly regrets very much what has happened today at Dublin, Cork and Shannon Airports. He also knows quite clearly that he has a commercial mandate which he must fulfil and which he is determined to fulfil, which was underpinned by all Governments and the Opposition. Equally, he says, and was quoted, that there are low pay issues which must be addressed. That is the reason—
When did the Minister hear about them?
How long ago is it since the Minister heard about them? That is my question.
I am sorry, Deputy Owen, I did not hear about them today. I heard about them quite some time ago.
What did the Minister do about it?
Allow the Minister to answer the question.
How long ago?
Clearly the Deputy knew nothing about the pay they were getting. I knew when the baggage handlers went to the LRC. I knew when it went to the Labour Court. I got a file on it.
What did the Minister do about it?
I knew when the clericals went to the Labour Relations Commission. I knew when it went to the Labour Court. I knew about each step.
We are moving on to the Order of Business.
I do not interfere with the Labour Relations Commission or with the Labour Court. That is not my business. Deputy Owen knows I cannot interfere with the Labour Court or the Labour Relations Commission.
I will write that down.
They make their decisions. On the issue of taxis, I am the wrong Minister.
Does the Minister accept that to hear from her that she met the chairman of Aer Lingus last week shows a decided lack of urgency about a dispute which must be costing the economy £50 million to £100 million per day? Does she accept we are facing into another strike notice next week which is for an indefinite period? Can she give an estimate of the commercial cost and cost of loss of business to this country if that dispute goes ahead? Has she tendered any advice on settlement of these disputes outside the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness? Has she as shareholder and as Minister offered any advice to the company on the settlement terms for low paid workers? What action, if any, has she taken in respect of the code of practice for essential services? We have had a series of disputes in companies under her remit that have disrupted essential services and what has she done to ensure codes of practice are adopted in those areas? There is a need for the Minister to indicate where lies the resolution to these issues rather than tell us the five disputes may lead to serious disruption. We need solutions, not the Minister sitting on the fence as if she were making a running commentary on horses running up a field.
Exactly.
I find the Deputy's comparison of the employees to horses running up the field a bit thick. Deputy Owen asked when I last met the chairman. I met him last week and I meet him almost every week. Let me be quite clear. We set up the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. They are the two arms of industrial relations machinery for dealing with disputes.
Is there anything in the portfolio for which the Minister is responsible?
The Deputy now wants me to indicate to the chairman and to the chief executive what rate of pay they should give each of the handlers. I do not intend to do that.
What is the Government's policy?
(Mayo): Will the Minister accept the main problem is that she can never make a decision? She could not make a decision in the bus strike, the rail strike or in this case.
I did.
(Mayo): In respect of her meetings with the chief executive and the chairman of Aer Lingus, will the Minister list, in relation to the baggage handlers, pilots, catering staff, administrative staff and the cabin crews, the individual problems in each area that have to be resolved? Are they pay, pensions, contracts, rosters, conditions of employment and so on? The myriad of problems will not be solved until such time as we recognise and identify the problems in each area. Will the Minister accept there is a deep industrial malaise within Aer Lingus, that a once happy thriving successful company is now beset with industrial relations problems and is a cesspool of bitterness and division and that something will have to be done as a matter of urgency before the bubble finally bursts and the entire operation goes down the tubes?
I accept that for over a decade there has been a feeling of unrest in sections of Aer Lingus employees. That was evident through the turbulent years of 1992, 1993 and 1994. In 1997 the problems at TEAM continued for 12 months. Taking the decade as a whole from 1990 to 2000 there was a clear continuation of unrest and concern. There is no doubt part of that remains because the legacy of the 1994 Cahill plan, estimable and worthy as it was, resulted in a pay freeze and an acceptance that if the company was to be able to hold its head up and be viable sacrifices had to be made. That has continued right through the decade. Many of the five disputes which are in waiting have their roots in that period. The Deputy asked the reasons for each of the pending disputes. Most relate to pay plus pensions. Rostering is an issue for some, while the pilots have highlighted equivalence. The problems relate mostly to pay and pensions and in some cases rostering.
It is all about money.
When did the Minister first learn there would be a strike at Dublin Airport today grounding the whole fleet, something which has not happened for 20 years? Has she known this for two days or three days? Most of us read in the Sunday newspapers that it would occur. When was she told authoritatively that it was likely to occur today? What action has she taken since then, as the Minister responsible, to prevent the strike taking place? Since she has taken a Pontius Pilate type attitude towards most of her brief, what does she think the company should do in regard to the issue of low pay given that it has acknowledged that it is an issue? Will she tell the House how the Labour Relations Commission can address the issue of low pay which is a policy matter and must be addressed in advance as a policy matter by the company or by the owner, being the Minister, before it can act on it? Calling for the matter to be referred to the Labour Relations Commission in the absence of a policy on low pay from the Minister is like going down a cul-de-sac.
Aer Lingus has said and has recognised clearly in print – and I agree – that there are policy issues of low pay—
What does the Minister say?
—in some of the categories to which I referred earlier in my reply. It has said so clearly and intends to address them. They cannot be addressed without talking. This goes back to what I said at the outset. The talks have happened at the machinery. I would love to hear some approval of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court from the opposite side of the House instead of putting them to one side as if they do not exist. They have instituted talks tomorrow, the day after and the day after with three separate groups who have turned down talks with the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. I hope the new discussions will bear fruit.
With regard to IMPACT who wish to move to the Labour Relations Commission, that should happen. That directly answers the question which Deputy Joe Higgins put to me. It is a highly relevant one in today's circumstances. Finally the Deputy asked when I heard about the strike. I heard of it at the weekend. The management took a decision that it would be better, because of the pending 24 hour strike today, to halt all Aer Lingus flights. That was a management decision which the management took.
The Minister did not do anything since she heard about it.
Yes, I did; I have had about 21 meetings.
That is what I asked the Minister about.
Sorry. I will go through them all and write to the Deputy about every one of them.
What has the Minister done about it?
What does Deputy Quinn want me to do?
Why not tell the truth?
(Interruptions.)
I call Deputy Sargent.
On a point of order, the Minister did not answer the question. She has indicated that she has the information. If she has the information, she should give it to the House. I am not saying she should write a letter about it.
Allow Deputy Sargent to ask his question. We must move on.
I hope the Minister will answer that question after I have put mine. Is she aware that the company informed the public enterprise committee that it had successful delivery of sav ings and disposal programmes and that they exceeded the targets? That sounds as if the company is rolling in it. Does she accept that the viability of a company requires, first and foremost, a work force which feels valued and duly rewarded for the stress and strain of its endeavours? I include the pensioners in that. Given that £175 million in State funding was injected into the company, does the Minister accept that if viability is the criterion on which this company is judged, she has an obligation as the main shareholder to require that that viability takes into account the low wage issues and that her role is to make that happen?
Yes, the low pay issue must be resolved. Aer Lingus has also made it clear that it wishes to resolve it and bring it to a conclusion. To that end, despite the fact that the unions have rejected both Labour Relations Commission and Labour Court recommendations, Aer Lingus management and employers are willing to recommence the talks.
With regard to the pensioners, I accept that the pensioners' issues have not been addressed for many years. The file on it is interesting reading.
They have not been addressed by this Minister either.
Exactly, but we will do it.
The Minister should write a book on it when she retires.
They are serious issues. As well as current employees, those who were employed in more difficult times should have their needs addressed.
I will take two more questions, one from Deputy Noonan and one from Deputy Seán Ryan, before we move on.
The Chair did not give Deputies who put down questions a chance to ask a second question. I have a brief question.
I will take two more questions if Deputy Noonan wishes to give way to the Deputy. It is not possible to facilitate everybody on a Private Notice question.
Where stands the privatisation of Aer Lingus now?
The Government made a formal decision some months ago to proceed with the privatisation of Aer Lingus.
I would put it on hold if I were the Minister.
It is quite clear now that it can- not proceed until the current disputes are resolved.
Which the Minister did not foresee.
I agree that sacrifices have been made since the implementation of the Cahill plan. Would the Minister agree that the people who are on strike today and the four other groups have made huge sacrifices while other people who were in vested positions were able to make huge profits by being pensioned off and re-employed at huge cost, as consultants? Will she also agree that both the Government and the management took their eyes off the main problems by being more concerned about the pending sale of Aer Lingus rather than the conditions and salaries of the staff? Will she acknowledge that the five groups of workers – baggage handlers, caterers, clerical workers, cabin crew and pilots – are no longer prepared to accept a low pay regime in the airport? Will she give a commitment on behalf of the Government and the management that a time scale will be put on this and that they will deal in a realistic way with the problems of the people I met on the picket lines this morning who are earning £5,000 per year? That is a disgrace.
Before the Minister replies, I will take a brief final supplementary question from Deputy Noonan.
After all the explanations the Minister has given, what will she do next?
I have an equally brief question. If the trade unions are agreeable to going to the Labour Relations Commission, what policy guidelines has the Minister given Aer Lingus?
I have no wish to insult anybody, but I found Deputy Ryan's observation the most sensible. They should get ahead with the talks; they should institute them as quickly as possible and bring them to fruition. I certainly agree with that. The Deputy also asked—
Did you say that, Seán?
—about consultants who had left the company and had returned. I am sorry for the notoriety I have given the Deputy and if he is annoyed about it.
The Minister is suffering from too much aircraft noise, Deputy Ryan, and did not actually hear the question.
The Minister without interruption.
The Deputy spoke about consultants who left and returned. I do not know who they were so I cannot comment on them. Deputy Noonan asked what I now intended to do and what directions I was going to give.
No, I asked the Minister what she was going to do.
The dispute will go to the Labour Relations Commission or to the Labour Court. If the Deputy expects me to intervene with the Labour Court, I will not do so and I regret that a finance spokesperson for what is termed the main Opposition party, would talk that way. Deputy Rabbitte—
The way the Minister is going she will soon be in the main Opposition party.
At least the Deputy will not be leading it.
I would not want the Minister.
Deputy Rabbitte asked what policy direction I will give to Aer Lingus. Aer Lingus has informed me that, as the management and employers of the 6,000 staff at Dublin Airport, it will address the low pay issue through the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court.
The Minister has no policy.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.