Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent developments in the social partnership talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9144/06]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Social Partnership.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:2 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in the talks on the social partnership process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9268/06]
Joe Higgins
Question:3 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent meeting with the social partners. [9374/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent developments in the social partnership process; the recent meetings he has had with the social partners concerning this process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10189/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent contacts with the social partners; if he will report further on the progress made to date with regard to the negotiation of a new national agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10197/06]
Phil Hogan
Question:6 Mr. Hogan asked the Taoiseach the progress of the social partnership talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11390/06]
Brendan Howlin
Question:7 Mr. Howlin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding his discussions with the trade union movement, in the context of the social partnership negotiations, on concerns they have expressed regarding the need for additional measures to protect working standards and conditions of all workers against the background of the considerable inflow of workers from abroad; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11258/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, together.
As agreed with the social partners, the negotiations are being conducted on a strand-based approach. The first strand within the negotiations on a new pay agreement has focused on the issue of employment standards. A great deal of time and energy has been devoted to this but it is important for all of us that we get the right balance between ensuring decent employment standards while maintaining our competitiveness, flexibility and attractiveness to investment. A number of plenary and bilateral meetings have been held in this regard and contacts are ongoing with a view to establishing the scope and possibilities that exist for agreement on the issue. I hope, with a bit of goodwill and flexibility on all sides, we will be able to move on soon to address pay and other workplace related issues.
A round of bilateral meetings has also taken place with each of the four pillars — trade union, business-employer, farming and community and voluntary — at which the pillars have set out in greater detail their key issues and priorities for a new agreement of which the pay agreement would be one part. Subsequent plenary meetings have discussed, inter alia, the National Economic and Social Council report, The Developmental Welfare State, the Fitzpatrick Associates review of the special initiatives implemented under Sustaining Progress, the implications of the proposed long-term framework for social partnership, the macroeconomic context for the negotiations and the economic, environmental, infrastructural and social policy priorities within a new agreement.
A further round of multilateral engagement on more specific priorities in respect of these wider non-pay issues, where the social partners have agreed that a long-term perspective is appropriate for full implementation, has also been completed. The primary purpose of this round of engagement is to secure from the partners greater clarity and detail concerning what they consider might be achieved through the social partnership process in each of the identified thematic areas.
While I have not been directly involved since the initial plenary meeting on 2 February, I am kept fully informed by the Secretary General of my Department, who is chairing the ongoing negotiations. Officials of the relevant Departments are participating in the talks. The positions to be finally agreed in the context of these talks will reflect the Government's policy priorities, since the response to the social partners in the talks is determined by my colleagues and I. At this point, it seems unlikely that the negotiations can be concluded by Easter.
I thank the Taoiseach for his response and welcome his comment on the central feature of employment standards. Recent revelations in the context of the mushroom industry make this matter pertinent. Is the Taoiseach holding out for the prospect of a ten-year national partnership agreement or is it likely that we will face some type of sticking plaster 18-month short-term agreement? Is there a sense that the Government will be in a position to conclude a ten-year partnership agreement?
What response has there been to the recent report of NCB Stockbrokers on migration? It clearly indicated and predicted another 15 years of inward migration, of the order of 40,000 per year, to drive economic growth. It also predicted upward pressure on house prices, which are a central feature of life today. What impact did the report have on the partnership talks?
I refer to a matter which I raised with the Taoiseach last week in respect of the current system of social partnership. A total of 400,000 people drive with provisional licences while some 132,000 await driving tests. I understand that tests were cancelled in Ballina today due to road works. This means people, young people in particular, pay an additional €23 million in insurance premia they should not have to pay. There is a stigma attached to being unable to qualify as a driver, as well as social disruption when one is unable to take up a job because of one's lack of a full driving licence.
Outsourcing has been inhibited within the current structure of social partnership. I understand it was to be used to deal with the backlog. Since this issue was raised, has the Taoiseach been able to deal with the trade unions in terms of getting a derogation under social partnership? When discussions with the social partners are resumed, will this issue, which has a direct influence on standards and, ultimately, on matters of life and death, be a central theme?
As for the first question regarding time spans, at the initial plenary meeting of the social partnership discussions in February I proposed that our approach to the negotiations should be based on the shared vision for the country outlined by the National Economic and Social Council. NESC put forward the ten year concept, thus reflecting the need for a medium to longer term policy, planning and reform framework. NESC set out the arguments very well in this regard and I specifically stated we should consider agreeing on a ten year framework for a social partnership process so it can be aligned to and contribute to the development and implementation of the longer term agenda. The continuity and momentum of such a longer term agreement would itself make for a greater degree of confidence in delivery.
Such a longer term approach would be accompanied by specific pay agreements. Hence, such agreements would form part of the overall context, whether they were for 18 months or three years — different aspects would change. However, the overall agenda would be longer, as outlined in detail by the NESC and this is the Government's preference. The social partners would consider some aspects to be part of the ten year strategy while others would have a shorter term life. Obviously, such issues change. In our experience, a matter which was important in one social partnership can become almost irrelevant in another.
However, a rolling medium to longer term perspective would be supported by specific policies over a shorter period that would help competitiveness and skills training. It would provide sustainable employment opportunities, improve workplace conditions and help build an inclusive society. This has been the basis of the discussions and the nature of the approach to such a longer term perspective is being pursued in the context of the ongoing negotiations. Obviously, pay is a shorter term issue.
I note the Deputy's observations regarding the mushroom industry. There have been a number of such incidents and all have been followed up by the inspectorate. In all cases, the inspectorate has done good work. As many employers have begun to come forward with information, people have begun to wake up to the facts in this regard. We must try to induce all employers and subcontractors to follow this agenda, which will take some time. One detailed aspect of the talks pertains to the question as to how this should be resolved in the longer term and how it should be made to work effectively on the ground. This has probably been the key issue at the talks to date.
As for the driver testing issue, while there is broad agreement as to how it should be handled, the individual workers concerned do not yet share that view. We have been engaged with this issue. Much preparatory work has been carried out to find out how the issue can be dealt with and handled efficiently by outside contractors so we can deal with the backlog and the difficulties that have been evident for some time. Officials of the Department of Transport believe this is an excellent way to progress. It is not being done at the expense of the individuals involved because they will continue to have security of employment. However, they are reluctant to make the necessary changes. As we will not be able to resolve the difficulties in the context of the present arrangements, we must find a new way to deal with the issue. The model of this approach has been outlined and it is ready to be put in place if we can reach agreement. Like all of these issues, it cannot be done by rolling over people. We must try to convince people about what we are doing.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the decision by the MANDATE trade union to withdraw from the social partnership process blows the myth that this is a high wage economy? Does he accept that the members of MANDATE took the decision primarily because the greater number of them receive a very poor return for their work? Does he recognise that the majority of these members work in bars, restaurants and shops which form a highly profitable sector, yet these workers are not getting a return commensurate with their labour? Does he not accept that, since its inception, the social partnership process has failed these workers? Does he not accept that many workers have been left lagging behind and that while it is not confined to MANDATE membership, it is where it is most apparent and most acute?
There has been evidence in recent days of a further tranche of workers working for a Serbian company, which is involved in subcontracting work for the ESB, who have been paid an outrageous return of approximately €4.96 an hour? Will the Taoiseach tell these workers and their colleagues, who are correctly and courageously standing shoulder to shoulder with them, what the partnership process will do to correct this type of abuse? Does he agree that current employment protections and regulations are not being adhered to by those who subcontract for work on major schemes and it is not the first time that either State or semi-State contracts have been involved? Does he agree that these abuses are taking place within the State and semi-State sector where public money is involved, and there is a legion of such examples down through the years?
As the Leader of the Government, does the Taoiseach agree that it is appropriate that all State and semi-State companies, including local authorities, should carry out a full audit and appraisal of the work practices of all these companies to whom they have contracted out public works? This should be done to ensure that there is full adherence to hard fought for and hard won trade union rights and levels of remuneration for Irish workers, which should be enjoyed right across the board and without distinction. Will the Taoiseach join me in calling for a rigorous review, for want of a better description, of all such contracts to ensure that where this practice is currently taking place, we do not learn of it piecemeal, with others able to operate in a continuum, and that rather we now see a situation whereby companies which are prepared to abuse are put on notice that they will not be considered for public contract works in the future unless they immediately desist?
On low-paid workers, the position always depends on where one places the benchmark. People make their cases in negotiations, but generally the low-paid workers about whom Deputy Ó Caoláin is talking are not on the minimum wage, which is untaxed. In terms of take-home pay, those on the minimum wage are in a much better position than their international competitors in most industries. Obviously, people make their cases in negotiations, not just in terms of the social partnership but in the Labour Court. That will continue and it is the right of people to try to improve their lot. It is normal for workers and those who represent them to do so.
As I said, one of the big issues is dealing with employment standards, both by trying to maintain competitiveness and attractiveness to investors while at the same time ensuring decent employment standards. I know from the ongoing discussions that these are complex issues and people have different perspectives on them. I was involved in a number of disputes, directly or indirectly, last year, which were difficult to handle. Contacts between my officials and employers and trade unions are ongoing with a view to establishing the possibilities for progress on this issue. With goodwill and flexibility on all sides, we will be able to move ahead and address pay and related issues.
It is clear that a rapidly changing labour market brings new challenges in the area of maintaining and developing employment standards and we are committed to meeting these challenges. I have repeatedly made explicit the Government's intention to engage fully and effectively in a process of devising policies to deal with the challenges, protect employment standards and prevent the so-called race to the bottom. We have been doing that in the discussions which I hope will reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Deputy Ó Caoláin referred to the ESB and other State companies. As regards the ESB, the Moneypoint power station issue came to light as a result of audits of compliance initiated by the ESB, so the company was doing precisely what Deputy Ó Caoláin suggested companies should do. All other companies should do likewise. I welcome the proactive role the ESB played in this matter. The labour inspectorate contacted the principal parties on the issue a few days before Saint Patrick's Day and subsequently met senior representatives of the ESB and their agents. These contacts have been ongoing for the past two weeks or so. In the meantime, labour inspectors have commenced inquiries with the contractor concerned and have visited the head office and the site at Moneypoint. Inquiries are continuing and a further visit will take place later this week.
The inspectorate is examining documentation already obtained from the contractor, who has been co-operating fully with the investigation. I am aware of the suggestion that there has been victimisation of some of the workers involved. The Labour Relations Commission has made contact with the parties involved to offer its services in assisting in an agreed solution, and I urge the parties to co-operate. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, who has responsibility for labour affairs, has also been dealing with this matter.
The matter relating to the Serbian workers goes back over a number of months. The view was that a resolution had been found in October. I am aware a dispute has arisen between the TEEU and Laing O'Rourke, the main contractor, over the liability of the subcontractor involved, Energoprojekt Oprema, for further back moneys. An investigation by labour inspectors into the most recent allegations has taken place. The TEEU and several non-national workers have already provided statements with the assistance of an independent translator. Further clarification is being sought on a number of issues including the status of certain workers and their appropriate statutory entitlements. It would neither be helpful nor appropriate to pre-empt the outcome of that investigation.
The mushroom industry was also mentioned. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, and the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, have already been involved in trying to make progress on that issue.
How can workers in Ireland take the concept of partnership with any seriousness when every week new scandals of worker exploitation emerge? How can they take the Government as being serious in any sense when, for example, a Polish company which was outed a few weeks ago as a major exploiter can turn around and sack and victimise the workers who brought that exploitation to trade union and public attention and feel the confidence to do this under the present Government? How can Aer Lingus workers take the concept of partnership seriously when the Government is proposing to ram the privatisation of the national airline down their throats, when the experience of privatised industries in this State has been disastrous so far as workers' wages and conditions are concerned, as witnessed in Irish Ferries?
What did the Government decide today on Aer Lingus privatisation? Will the Government make a complete mockery of what ordinary people might consider to be partnership by foisting privatisation against the will of the majority of Aer Lingus workers and throwing them to the stock market wolves with disastrous potential consequences for jobs, pensions, security and their future?
As always on these issues I do not agree with the perspective taken by Deputy Joe Higgins. Workers in this country have not done badly out of social partnership. Their job security and ability to get the same employment and proper standards have been dramatically improved every year for the past 20 years. That continues.
There have been individual cases of exploitation and I have referred to a few of them. Obviously it would be better if nobody engaged in such practices. The labour inspectorate and the various companies must deal with that. Where 2 million people work, there will be people who will exploit workers. The discussion is on how to minimise such exploitation to the greatest extent possible by employers, especially private sector ones, working together with those who represent workers. An effort is being made to tie this down, whether by legislation, arrangement or local understandings, and to do so to the best possible effect.
That is what leads up to that kind of exploitation.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
In regard to Aer Lingus, as Deputy Joe Higgins is aware, security of employment was far from certain when it was in the State sector. Thousands of jobs were lost when the State had total control. As I have said previously, I am in favour of private equity being invested in Aer Lingus. I am in favour of the company growing, expanding, developing, increasing employment and gaining strength in the aviation market. I do not want to see it continue in the old ways of reducing employment and suffering every time there is a difficulty. I continue to support it. When one considers the European Union-United States open skies policy and the opportunities it has created to develop and expand employment, I believe strongly that this is the way we should proceed.
The Government will proceed with the privatisation of Aer Lingus.
Have disputes in Gama, Irish Ferries, the mushroom industry and a number of other cases influenced the social partnership talks? Does the Taoiseach have in mind measures that would allay concerns about job displacement? Does he expect discussions on a new enforcement agency to reach a conclusion? Will the social partners sign off on the appointment of 40 additional labour inspectors? Has progress been made on the issue of providing a care package for the elderly, which I understand is to be part of the final outcome of the partnership talks?
What is the impact on the partnership talks of the current ideological drive by Government to substantially privatise Aer Lingus? Has the Taoiseach taken into account the SIPTU decision, taken by a vote of nine to one, to engage in industrial action if privatisation proceeds without agreement?
The matter does not arise from this group of questions.
The basis of the question is the effect of the SIPTU decision on the partnership talks and whether it has been taken into account.
Will the Forfás report be central to the partnership talks given the stark message it sends to Government regarding the doubling of the country's oil consumption in the past 15 years? Does Ireland face a difficult future given that average oil consumption per capita here is 50% above the European Union average? Will these issues have a bearing on a social partnership agreement? Will the Government produce a strategy on reducing energy demand and delivering freedom from oil dependency and, if so, will it form part of the social partnership process? If that strategy is to have real meaning will it be taken on board in a social partnership agreement?
As I stated, the major issue in these talks has been getting agreement on an enforcement system and new arrangements to deal with workers and employers and the issues that came to light in some of the disputes the Deputy mentioned. Discussion on this issue has been long and arduous over a period of several weeks. There is always some big issue in every social partnership agreement, and this is the big issue in these talks. While progress has been made on many other questions in the economic, social and development strands of the talks, the big issue has been to see if the social partners can find a way to balance the protection of workers' rights with the need to deal with the issues of flexibility, competition and foreign direct investment and to agree on a system with which both sides can live. Obviously, there are different points of view and people have to argue a case on behalf of those they represent. All the efforts of officials of my Department have been focused on trying to bridge the gap and get a solution which the Government believes it can work through its various agencies and which it can make stick in the wider economy.
All the published reports, including the NESF report, show that demographic change will continue and a large number of people will continue to come here. Whatever the figures, different reports on immigration matters indicate that a substantial number of people will arrive here and we must ensure they as well as our own workforce are protected. The big issue is whether that is possible. Ultimately, the Government will decide what legislative measures will be put forward but we will make our determination on this before the talks with the social partners. However, regulation of the labour market is most effective when the provisions have the support of the social partners. That is what we are endeavouring to secure and why we have been encouraging them to find an agreed position in the current talks. That has the best likelihood of fitting into an agreement.
Obviously, what is agreed in the social partnership process relates to issues that are put forward by the social partners and the Government. Some of the issues raised by the Deputy are not in the social partnership context but are broader issues of the economy. The Minister is working on the energy policy Green Paper, which will be published shortly. In so far as people work to co-operate and deal with some of the challenges of the future, if it is in the social partnership agreement, all the better.
Fourteen labour inspectors.
It is clear from the Taoiseach's comments that the issue of protection of employment standards has the talks bogged down. The talks were to conclude by St. Patrick's Day but now the Taoiseach says they will not conclude by Easter. Outside of more labour inspectors in whatever agency they might be organised, what is being contemplated and why is the issue proving so difficult to resolve? Only a few months ago the Labour Party published a document and a large number of eminent persons, such as former EU Commissioners, archbishops, academics and a number of others, were recruited to say there is no displacement. Clearly, we have at last reached the stage where we acknowledge there is displacement, although not of the eminent personages who write about it.
Other than the straightforward invigilation of labour standards, what measures are likely to be taken? Are there tensions between public sector and private sector representatives? Can the Taoiseach brief the House on the up-to-date dow in terms of anticipating a new benchmarking exercise? What is the effect of the apparent commitment on the part of the Irish Nurses Organisation and the Psychiatric Nurses Association to proceed in any event with their own settlement? In respect of the exclusion of the MANDATE trade union, which is a significant union numerically, can the interests of a union such as MANDATE, with workers in modestly paid employment in the private sector, be encompassed in the wider discussions in a fashion that is reasonably fair to these workers?
If the talks progress to a pay settlement, is the settlement not likely to last for longer than 18 months? Is that likely to be the duration in the discussions? There was a recommendation in the Labour Party paper that there should be proofing of public contracts for compliance with labour conditions. Is there any good reason why, whether it involves a local authority, State company or the State directly, the award of a public contract cannot be proofed for compliance with good labour standards and so obviate some of the phenomena we have seen recently?
I would not describe the talks as bogged down but it is a difficult issue to resolve. It means getting a balance where both sides can be satisfied that they have enough in substance and in terms of protection to ensure there is proper regulatory and legislative compliance.
As much as anything, inspectors are there to police and investigate. Employers and, in particular, trade unions would like to see a spirit among people to implement this in an honourable way rather than try to find the means of getting around it. Its aim is to ensure that employment standards are something with serious intent, at least on behalf of all organised employers in the State. The object is not just to think of the agenda of flexibility, competitiveness and private sector issues. That is their challenge. Is that trust, spirit and goodwill there? They are trying to find a way forward.
Trade unions would strongly argue that it would be far better if this kind of case did not arise. If employers and their organisations are well organised through two or three organisations and if they follow a system of good employment standards, most of the difficulties will not arise. That is what trade unions want to see as much as anything else. The Government will obviously have to legislate and have an inspectorate and this will be far better than having this conflict of employers almost saying this is the way to go and that it is a competitive force in the economy that will drive it forward. That happens in other countries and creates many difficulties. It certainly would not be compatible with social partnership.
There are a range of measures under discussion, including those the Deputy raised. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions put forward an extensive list at the start of the year in its negotiating document, as did a number of other people. All of those issues have been up for discussion, but obviously they will not all be agreed or all form part of the agreement. The agenda is that broad one mentioned by the Deputy.
I do not know whether there is a mechanism that can be found for proofing. It has been discussed and some of the trade unions have raised the issue. It is at least a way of policing public sector contracts to check compliance.
The next round of benchmarking is at the end of 2007. Some of the issues raised in these talks, such as flexibility, will come up then in terms of the private sector. There has not been great progress on the pay side. We will, hopefully, get around to that shortly. The sides have put down their opening positions. I expect the private sector unions will argue for some kind of flexibility, although this is not something with which the employers agree. The negotiations must take place shortly if we are to have an agreement.
What is envisaged for the public sector benchmarking arrangements is more or less the same as the last time with, perhaps, some improvements based on that experience. By and large the arrangements will be based on the previous experience.
Did the Deputy ask me about some other issue?
I have forgotten. With regard to the Cabinet decision to proceed with the sale of a majority stake in Aer Lingus, does the Taoiseach anticipate this could be a breaking point with the trade unions in terms of the social partnership discussions?
The Deputy asked about some other area; it will come back to me.
I hope not. The Minister has been engaged and continues to engage with the trade unions. He is conscious of their concerns. In allowing the sale of Aer Lingus to proceed we hope the concerns highlighted by the trade unions in numerous meetings, as late as last night, can be dealt with. There are obviously concerns about employment status and pensions. The Government and the Ministers for Finance and Transport have been directly involved and are anxious that we reach satisfactory understandings on these issues. This will help the company to grow, while at the same time dealing with the issues that the trade unions have rightly raised.
I asked the Taoiseach about MANDATE and the INO.
I would always prefer that everyone stayed within the centralised arrangement and it would be negotiated on that basis. As the Deputy knows, with practically every agreement some large group, for one reason or other, pulls out. However, MANDATE workers and lower paid workers are the big winners when one looks back over the years on positions maintained in this country as against other countries. It is quite clear that the minimum wage, flat-rate sums and tax arrangements were part of agreements. The position is far better for organised labour and the improvements are clear to see, relative to other countries. One can always examine pay relative to some other grade but if one looks at where people were three, five, seven or ten years ago, relative to where other countries were, the gains from social partnership are clear. The improvement is quite substantial across all the lower paid grades in this country as against——
That is complete nonsense.
No, it is not.
What about the price of a house?
Allow the Taoiseach to conclude without interruption.
What about prices?
The Deputy will always move to something else. When people were unemployed and working in England, there was no worry about the price of a house, and that is the position the Deputy would like to return to, but it is not what I would like to do.
That is not true.
Deputy Joe Higgins was always happy when there was 18% or 20% unemployment because he had more to argue against.
He did not want people to own their own homes.
That is not the attitude to take.
The question of the INO is a different one. It has made a strategic decision because it believes its case can stand up better on its own. It believes that rather than trying to complete a centralised agreement, it can put forward its own case. Unions sometimes take that view and we have to deal with that in the ongoing negotiations. To be frank, however, I would prefer if these matters were dealt with on a central basis.