Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 24 November 2016
10. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the way he is addressing the current public sector industrial unrest; his plans to address fairly the concerns of public sector workers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36366/16]
View answer156. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he remains satisfied that the unions that signed up to the various agreements such as the Lansdowne Road agreement are not penalised as a result; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36715/16]
View answerI know that the Minister had a lengthy discussion earlier with other colleagues on the Lansdowne Road agreement. It is often perceived that the agreement is effectively in tatters because of some of the Government's actions in recent months. It seems to have used a huge portion of the available space in dealing with some of the earlier public sector disputes. Is the Minister going to address fairly the concerns of public sector workers and can we expect to see early in 2017 serious discussions and negotiations to restore their pay and conditions?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 156 together.
I have already outlined the plans for what will happen in the aftermath of the Lansdowne Road agreement. Briefly, the plans are to allow space for the Public Service Pay Commission to conduct its work and to then have discussions and negotiations on what will happen after the Lansdowne Road agreement. That continues to be the case. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan has alleged that the agreement is in "tatters," to use his phrase, due to actions taken by the Government. Will he clarify to what actions he is referring? The agreement we made with the INTO and the TUI is recognised as being inside the Lansdowne Road agreement. If the Deputy is referring to the issues that developed in the aftermath of the proposed settlement with An Garda Síochána, does he believe gardaí should have access to the Labour Court and the Workplace Relations Commission? If he believes they should have access to these institutions which are independent of the Government, does he believe we should ever be at a point where Government would not accept the recommendations of these bodies and thereby undermine their work for the entire economy in the future?
The Minister's key responsibility is to restore the living standards of all public servants. He has mentioned the Garda deal. I am not sure what the final figure is, but some have suggested it might be €50 million which has been set aside from the little money the Minister had in the kitty. That is the overall cost. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions and SIPTU have made a request that serious negotiations begin on the organisation of pay and conditions for public sector workers post the Lansdowne Road agreement. I welcomed the appointment of the Public Service Pay Commission. We have heard quite a few people, including Deputy Sean Sherlock and others, speak about having an employer-labour conference across the economy, not just for the public service. Does the Minister agree that Fine Gael has a fairly brutal record when it comes to social partnership? It has not created the connections that are necessary to get us all moving forward together. I do not think anybody denies that restoration of pay and conditions is necessary. The Minister clearly has the key responsibility to try to carry on the work of his predecessors.
I thank the Deputy for his comments, but he did not answer the question I put to him. It is an important question for people who are critical of the Government, including in this House, to tease out. Of course, they are entitled to be critical, but the question must be asked if they are in favour of gardaí having access to the Labour Court and if they are, do they believe an employer should not accept the Labour Court's recommendations? That is the position in which the Government found itself and it has created consequences for those who work in public services, as I have acknowledged to the Deputy and publicly. That is the reason I am engaging with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on what happens in the aftermath of the recommendations.
On the Deputy's particular question about a labour-employer forum, we actually had an initial meeting of such a body some weeks ago in the run-up to the budget. Perhaps it was not given the profile it merited. Such a mechanism will be a help in the future.
To respond to the Deputy's question on social partnership, at times it had a pretty bad track record. That is something of which my party was critical and I think at times our criticisms have been acknowledged as being correct. However, that we engage with all elements of society in a collective approach to public sector pay is a necessity in the context of how we deal with the issues raised by the Deputy, including Brexit.
I believe all public servants should have access to the industrial relations machinery of the State. That is a sine qua non, on which I agree with the Minister. It is, however, his responsibility to engage with all elements of the public service. We made reference to the debate on the Finance Bill last night. I acknowledge the great support given to Members by staff of the House in carrying out our duties, of which we are deeply appreciative. Has the Minister and his Department given any thought to or sketched what the landscape post the Lansdowne Road agreement will look like? We still need restoration. Living costs in the State are the fifth or sixth highest in Europe. A person working in the public service, while he or she has job stability and security, is certainly not going to make a fortune. Has the Minister given any thought to that matter?
We have given a huge amount of thought to it. I am actively engaged in considering it because the figures are exceptionally large. The Deputy referred to restoration. If one equates restoration with equalling the earnings that are not available owing to the FEMPI legislation, the figure comes to €1.4 billion per year. How the State responds presents an exceptional challenge. A Programme for a Partnership Government makes it clear that the only way we can respond is in an orderly and affordable way for everybody. I am committed to doing this. The Public Service Pay Commission will have a very important input into that work. The consequences for other things the Deputy wants to see happen are large. He sent me an excellent budget submission which was very lengthy. I did not agree with everything that was in it, but he had put a lot of thought into it. He made reference to all of the things he would like to see happen, the money for all of which would have to come from a single fund. That is why how we manage future wage levels in the State is so important.
