asked the Minister for the Public Service when it is intended to reappoint the public service arbitrator.
40.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Conciliation and Arbitration Schemes.
35.
asked the Minister for the Public Service the proposals, if any, he has for changes in the conciliation and arbitration scheme and the general procedures for pay determination in the public service; if he has made these proposals known to the public service unions concerned; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
51.
asked the Minister for the Public Service if he will appoint the arbitrator without preconditions.
53.
asked the Minister for the Public Service the amendments he wishes to have made to the conciliation and arbitration schemes; and the reason these cannot be made without the suspension of the scheme.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Priority Questions Nos. 51 and 53 together with Questions Nos. 35 and 40.
The conciliation and arbitration scheme has not been suspended. As far as the appointment of an arbitrator is concerned I have, on behalf of the Government, indicated to the Public Services Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that, in the context of an agreement on the 25th pay round and other pay related matters, an arbitrator would be appointed under the public service conciliation and arbitration schemes if the Committee would participate in discussion about the machinery for pay determination during the coming months. As far back as the talks leading up to the 1983 public service pay agreement the question of having discussion on the pay determination machinery was raised by me with the public services committee of ICTU.
On 24 September 1984 when the Government announced the appointment of an arbitrator for a further period they stated that they had found it necessary to give the present arrangements for pay determination the most serious consideration in the context of the forthcoming national plan and that it was intended to initiate discussion with staff interests about the operation of the present machinery for pay determination.
On 9 November 1984 I wrote to the Chairman of the Public Services Committee of ICTU indicating that I was anxious to discuss with the committee the operation of the present machinery for pay determination and that I would like to meet the committee within a week. In a reply to me on 16 November 1984 the chairman said that the committee had come to the conclusion that no purpose would be served at that stage by the discussions I suggested other than to delay still further the processing of the 24th round claims in the public service.
He indicated, however, that the committee would be prepared to consider a proposal for discussions at a later stage when the negotiations for the round had been completed. On 20 November I again repeated my request for discussions to the chairman of the committee. I indicated that I could not see how discussions on the pay determination machinery could prove an inhibition to any ongoing negotiations under the machinery. Indeed, I suggested to him that, since some form of negotiation was ongoing at any given time, such negotiations could always be advanced as a reason for not commencing discussions on what I thought was mutually regarded as an area meriting the most serious consideration. Again the chairman replied that the committee saw no reason to change their previous position.
In May last, following a request from the Chairman of the Civil Service Staff Panel about the appointment of an arbitrator, I indicated that, before replying, I would be most anxious to have discussion with the panel on the operation of the present machinery for pay determination. I sought to get such discussions under way before the summer holidays and indeed before the term of appointment of the arbitrator at that time had expired. However, correspondence with the chairman of the panel dragged on into the autumn when the chairman wrote to me noting the recent Government statement and indicating that the panel could not accept my invitation to discussions at this time.
I have gone into these matters in some detail in order to let Deputies know that every effort has been made by me over the past 12 months and earlier to get discussions under way and I am still hopeful that such discussions can take place. In advance of such discussions it would not be appropriate for me to indicate at this stage the specific amendments which I will be putting to the staff side.
My Question No. 51 on today's Order Paper is to ask the Minister for the Public Service if he will reappoint the arbitrator without preconditions and following the Minister's reply the answer is "no". He did not actually say it but it was it in every word he said. Will he not in a straightforward way at least show some honour and say that, until the Public Services Committee of the ICTU accept all the diktat and preconditions which he is setting down, namely, a satisfactory 25th round settlement, a deal on special awards and outstanding claims pending, and a commitment to negotiating changes to the pay machinery, he has no intention whatsoever of appointing a public service arbitrator and that the seven schemes are in suspension? I am amazed to hear the Minister say that the conciliation and arbitration system is not suspended. It is suspended.
A question.
Talks which took place during the summer — and the Minister stated that they refused to enter into further negotiations — ceased because of a statement imposing a pay freeze for 1986. To avoid further disruption which is pending in the public service will the Minister appoint the arbitrator without precondition?
I have dealt with all of those matters in my substantive reply.
Will the Minister appoint an arbitrator?
If the Minister refuses to say anything further than what he has said, will he accept that the invitations issued by him and the Taoiseach over recent weeks are unfair and misleading, that he has never changed his position, that no new offer has been made to the public services committee of the ICTU, that the Minister has laid down preconditions and has not at any stage been genuine and sincere about meeting to talk about the conciliation and arbitration system?
As I have outlined, for a period of two years past on various occasions the Government have sought to have discussions with the public service unions regarding the machinery for pay determination. Each of those attempts has been unsuccessful. The Government believe that it would be in the interest of the orderly progression of pay determination that the existing machinery should be the subject of examination and consultation. They also believe it is reasonable that, when one side to an agreement seeks to have discussions about the terms of that agreement, the other side would participate in those discussions. So far it has not been possible to have those discussions take place and get under way, but the Deputy is quite wrong in suggesting that the schemes are in suspension. A number of various claims, both departmental and general, are being processed through conciliation at departmental council and general council level at present.
The disruption at various levels in the Civil Service has gone on for several weeks and the Minister must be aware that further action is pending. The Public Service Committee of Congress will not even meet the Minister because he will not reappoint the arbitrator and allow the scheme to continue. The scheme has been in existence for 30 years and the Minister is suspending the system to ensure that he gets his way. I should like to ask the Minister if he is prepared today to call on the Public Service Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to meet him without the three preconditions he continuously sets down. Will he not put those three preconditions aside and call upon the committee of Congress to meet him to discuss whatever amendments he wishes to make to the scheme? Since the Minister has refused to tell the House the amendments he has in mind I should like to ask him if it is not possible to make amendments under the present scheme with the conciliation and arbitration board sitting? Can one side not bring forward amendments? The employer representative proved very effective in the teachers' dispute where he held the matter up for several months. I am anxious to know if the same individuals can put down amendments on behalf of the Government and discuss them without suspending the scheme?
I have to reiterate that the scheme is not under suspension, but Deputy Ahern has made a very important point. Of course it is possible to amend the scheme without it being suspended and that is precisely what I sought to do this time last year when I invited the Public Service Committee of Congress to meet with me to discuss possible amendments to the scheme. Their reply at that stage was that because they had their 24th pay round at conciliation, or just about to leave conciliation to go to arbitration, they considered it inappropriate to conduct any negotiations about amending the scheme whilst a claim was in process. In fact, that is not the case and the two matters could and as I suggested to them, ought to proceed quite independently. At any one time there are always a variety of claims at some stage in the conciliation and arbitration machinery and if that was to be advanced as a reason for not having discussions then, clearly, discussions could never take place. Unfortunately, that apparently is the case being advanced, and has been advanced consistently, by the staff side: that as long as a case is at conciliation or arbitration it would be inappropriate for them to discuss the terms of the scheme. Of course, discussions on the terms of the scheme can take place totally outside any matter in process within the scheme at that time. If the Deputy, as he seems to be in his question, is endorsing the terms of the several letters which I sent to the public service committee in November of last year I very much welcome his support in that regard.
I should like to ask the Minister to respond to a suggestion. If after the suspension we are talking about the public service unions were prepared to have on the agenda of the first meeting the conciliation and arbitration system would the Minister re-appoint the arbitrator without any further preconditions?
Without wishing to appear contentious I must say that the Deputy appears to have a misapprehension about how the scheme operates. Discussions about the possible amendment of the machinery for pay determination would not be discussions which would take place under the chairmanship of a public service arbitrator. Those discussions would take place between parties to the agreement — in other words, the Government or the employer on the one hand in the various schemes and the staff interests on the other hand.
For several weeks the Minister has not received any co-operation and he has not deserved it because he stuck to preconditions. I am asking him if he got an undertaking that the conciliation and arbitration system would be on an agenda for discussion after the re-appointment of the arbitrator would he reappoint the arbitrator now? Is it his stand that only if he gets his three preconditions — a satisfactory 25th round settlement, a deal on special awards and a commitment to negotiate changes — will he re-appoint the arbitrator? If the main point is to get progress will the Minister not appoint the arbitrator on the basis that amendments to the conciliation and arbitration scheme would take place after that? Is the answer to that question "No"?
I have already dealt with that question fully in my substantive reply to priority questions.