Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the schedule of planned meetings of the social partners in the next three months. [8084/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach when the next quarterly meeting of the four pillars of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness will be held; the proposed agenda for the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8724/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has received from the NESC a report on national progress indicators; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8728/01]
Joe Higgins
Question:7 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach when the groups who are party to the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness are formally to meet. [9087/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
The next quarterly plenary meeting to monitor overall implementation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness will take place on 26 April. The agenda for the meeting will deal primarily with social inclusion and equality as well as a review of the implementation programme for the rest of the year. The meeting will, of course, also provide an opportunity for an overall review of issues of key concern to the social partners.
The plenary meeting will be complemented over the next three months by the ongoing deliberations of a wide range of working groups involving the social partners. These cover the full spectrum of issues addressed by the PPF, including living standards and the workplace environment, infrastructural and sectoral development, social inclusion and equality and sustainable development in response to change.
Regarding national progress indicators, the PPF contains a request for the National Economic and Social Council to consider the development of a framework to bring into operation such indicators. Work on this project is at an advanced stage and completion of a report is expected by the early summer. The council has agreed upon a framework for measuring sustainable development and is currently finalising the selection of national progress indicators. These indicators will cover the three broad themes of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental development. They will be linked to the council's vision for Ireland, as outlined in its strategy report of December 1999.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. What is his reaction to the statement from the Irish Business and Employers Confederation which threatens the 2% pay increase due to be paid to more than 500,000 workers from 1 April? In the context of the teachers' dispute, the Taoiseach has stuck doggedly to the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness on every occasion he has been asked to intervene. Is sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander and will the Taoiseach reject what many view as an attempt to swindle workers out of a negotiated agreement into which they entered in good faith? Go raibh maith agat.
The December agreement provided that employers and trade unions would negotiate a further increase in rates of 2% of the basic pay with effect from 1 April 2001, subject to five or six provisions. Perhaps I should outline those provisions for the record. They include full and ongoing co-operation with change, flexibility and increasing productivity in employment – this element shall not be pursued through industrial action of any kind, and a national implementation body representing Government, IBEC, CIF and ICTU to meet quarterly to ensure delivery of the stability and peace provisions of the PPF – that body continues to meet and a meeting is likely to take place later this week.
Clause 7 of the pay element of the PPF provides a mechanism to negotiate any difficulties employers may have in meeting the pay terms of the agreement and enables employers to claim an inability to pay. In the context of these stability enhancing measures, particular regard must be had to a number of circumstances in which competitiveness and employment are at risk. These include employments in vulnerable sectors; employments where wage costs within the terms of the PPF have increased significantly; employments which are experiencing economic and commercial difficulties and those which may be adversely affected by changes in exchange rates and employments in which pay costs have increased significantly above those employed by the terms of the agreement. These are the core terms of the adjusted PPF as they relate to the 2% increase.
I asked my officials to look into this issue following the statement made on Monday night and I understand the increase will come into effect this weekend in practically all cases, with the exception of a small number of organisations and one or two large ones who are putting forward cases under the terms outlined that they either have difficulties or that they have gone well beyond the increases. They must negotiate those terms with the representatives of their staff. However, the increase will be paid in all other cases. The Labour Court has a role to play where there is a difficulty with interpretation, although I am not aware that this has happened in any case and there are only a few days to go until the increase comes into force. If there are any difficulties, I urge the parties in such circumstances to utilise that facility. To the best of what I can check, other than a few organisations which have been mentioned in public and who will obviously put their cases forward on the terms I mentioned, all others appear to have agreed to pay the increase from 1 April.
The Taoiseach's reply did not address one of the central questions I asked him, namely, his reaction to the statement from IBEC. Given the importance the Taoiseach attaches to the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, it is important we recognise the debilitating effect of this statement and how it undermines workers' confidence in such programmes. It is also important we recognise that, if employers renege in this instance, it will undermine the commitment of workers to enter into future agreements and this must be of concern to the Government. Rather than sectioning off those areas where concern remains, the Taoiseach should use his position to urge that all workers benefit from the 2% commitment as of this weekend.
There is no difficulty with that. My understanding is that almost all employers will pay with the exception of a few who will plead their case under the conditions I mentioned, and they are entitled to do that. I hope they can reach agreement at a local level because it would be reasonably clear under the terms laid down whether they had a case. No employer should try to go outside what was agreed as recently as 4 December last. They should pay unless they have a case under the terms of the agreement. If they do, they should follow the process. My understanding is that the largest trade union, SIPTU, has only four cases. Three of those are in negotiation and there is an understanding on the fourth.
I am not too sure what the statement from IBEC on Monday was about. Perhaps it was just a reminder that conditions were attached to the agreement. If that is what was meant by it, then it was correct. If it was about something else, it was incorrect. The process appears to work well and I urge employers to adhere to it. If not, they should follow its terms and, if there is a dispute, the Labour Court should be involved. I hope that is clear.
Does the Taoiseach share the view that the statement of Monday night was an unfriendly act and unnecessary provocation which did not relate to a specific case and that, at a time when negotiations with the ASTI and the consolidation of social partnership are at a fragile point, the actions by IBEC have been inexplicable, bearing in mind that its members have benefited enormously from reductions in the rate of corporation, capital gains and capital acquisitions taxes and from the substantial and sustained rates of increase in profits over past years? Did the Taoiseach see fit to contact IBEC informally to ask it what it was about because the escape clause is a standard one relating to ability to pay which has been included in all national agreements since their beginning? What was IBEC trying to do? Why did it issue the statement at that time? What does it want? What did the Taoiseach or his Department do in response?
I do not wish to wind up matters, but the answer is that I do not know why the statement was issued. The terms of the agreement are clear. There has been a significant number of contacts during the week with colleagues at different levels in my Department and I still do not know. I do not want to say any more about it other than that the terms of the agreement are clear. They were clearly negotiated and Deputy Quinn is correct to say that the provisions were used not only in the recent agreement but also in previous agreements. It is as clear a piece of drafting as one can get in industrial relations. Anything else I might say might be unhelpful.
On Question No. 6 dealing with national indicators, does the Taoiseach not agree it is unacceptable that, while a progress report stated as far back as 21 July last that the council considered a paper on the conceptual issues surrounding the measurement of national progress and sustainable development, nine months later we still have not reached the point of publication and of having some concrete measures which can be used to see how effective is the Celtic tiger in sharing and redistributing the prosperity which clearly has been created in terms of economic wealth but is not enjoyed as social wealth?
To be helpful to the House, the NESC report is not yet completed and the Deputy will understand that I do not have control over that. I can tell him what is being considered but not what has been completed.
The framework for national progress indicators hopes to achieve a measure of sustainable national progress in its broadest sense. We had a debate before the summer break last year on issues which would complement rather than replace the narrower concepts of GDP and GNP. The issues being examined to try to bring about a coherent picture of progress are an adaptation to change, the information society, economic inclusion, social inclusion, lifelong learning—
Access to health.
—balanced regional development, commitment to EU and international organisations and environmentally sustainable developments. They are the issues I am aware have been examined at this stage. I hope the council's report will be submitted to Government soon but it is not yet finalised. I checked that today. We will consider the best mechanism for implementing the council recommendations as soon as we have them. It may have examined other issues but I am not aware of them.
Returning to the 2% issue, do I take it that it will be paid throughout the public service, even to members of unions such as the ASTI which have long since opted out of the PPF before the 2% increase was negotiated? Will the Taoiseach give a commitment that the Minister for Education and Science will report to the House, either later today or early tomorrow, on any outcome of the Labour Court discussions?
On the second question, it appears it might be tomorrow morning before the recommendations of the discussions are put. It appears there will be a meeting of the full executive of the ASTI tomorrow at some stage. Subject to that, it may not be possible for the Minister to make a statement before the Dáil week is over.
The Deputy is correct in his first question. Following the conciliation and arbitration process, the arbitrator stated that, while the ASTI had pulled out of the PPF and made its case regarding a down payment on its issues, as an act of good faith and goodwill, the Government could deal with that by paying the full amount due under the PPF to the ASTI. That is why the Government did so.
Does it include the 2%?
I think so. It was the full terms of the PPF.
The arbitration preceded the negotiations on the 2% payment. I want to clarify in terms of the timing of the 2%—
The Deputy is correct because the arbitrator's report was available before 4 December. The 2% was negotiated in December as a result of the inflation rate during the year. It was effectively an amendment to which the employers, Government and unions agreed. In terms of consistency, if one received the other amounts, the Government should pay the 2%. However, I must be sure, so I will check the position.
Regarding the current misunderstandings or differences that have arisen between the social partners about the 2% payment, does the Taoiseach accept the situation has changed since last December in so far as inflation is now home grown? It is no longer possible for the Taoiseach and the Government to blame the falling euro or oil prices for inflation. The current 5.3% rate relates to home grown inflation.
Given that the payment was agreed on the basis that it was compensation for inflation, does the Taoiseach agree the exemption or opt-out clause now being relied on by IBEC was to be the exception rather than the rule? The employers' organisation is saying now that the opt-out clause may have a general application. If that is the case, will the Taoiseach comment on the apparent misunderstanding and clarify the position?
The year-on-year inflation rate will not be the figure mentioned by the Deputy. The rate on which the agreement was based in December will be the factual position.
I do not believe IBEC has made the position clear. I could have understood its statement if it had been issued a month or six weeks ago when it could have been interpreted as the organisation trying to avoid paying the 2% increase. However, the statement was issued on Monday when practically everybody had signed up to it. My only reasoned interpretation of it is that a few large and small companies have difficulties or believe they are covered by the opt-out terms which they are entitled to do. IBEC's statement may have related to the actions of those companies. If that is the case, it is fine. However, if it is not the case, the position is, as I said earlier to Deputy Ó Caoláin, that the 2% must be paid to the sectors which agreed to the statement on 4 December.
Regarding national progress indicators, as the Oireachtas is not represented on the NESC, which is chaired by a person from the Department of the Taoiseach, will the Taoiseach express to the NESC the desire of the Oireachtas that the indicators should be formulated in such a way that ensures they are clearly under standable and intelligible to ordinary people? The United Nations indicators take as a measure of health and well-being, as distinct from per capita income, the two criteria on an international scale of infant mortality and literacy combined with per capita income. It constructs an index around which the performance of countries can be ranked.
If the exercise is to have any value, it must have the same degree of clarity and a much larger base of statistical data available to it. If the Taoiseach's earlier reply indicates that there will be a treatise from the NESC, describing national progress indicators, the whole exercise and the reason Deputy Sargent, among others, so strongly advocated it, will have been a waste of time.
I will communicate the views of the House. I am anxious to ensure the indicators are not narrow and I agree with that view. It is appropriate to have indicators that are easily monitored—
And measured.
I will raise the issue.