Bertie Ahern
Ceist:1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the reason he has declined to meet ISME in advance of negotiations on a new national agreement. [16342/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - New National Agreement.
Mary Harney
Ceist:2 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the discussions, if any, he has had and/or proposes to hold in the future with the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed. [16483/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the negotiations for a successor to the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. [16484/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach whether he has made a final ruling on the case being made by the Irish Small and Medium Enterprise Association for representation on the Central Review Committee of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. [16485/96]
Tom Kitt
Ceist:5 Mr. T. Kitt asked the Taoiseach the steps, if any, he is taking to ensure that a new national agreement will be in place by January 1997. [16647/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
As I indicated on a number of occasions, it is the Government's view that a new national programme is desirable in view of the significant benefits which have arisen from the process to date.
The National Economic and Social Forum (NESF) presented its opinion on the issues which a new programme should address. The National Economic and Social Council (NESC) finalised a strategy report which sets down a framework for a new programme. The council's recommendations and conclusions were published yesterday, in advance of the full report. I am arranging to circulate a copy to each Deputy and Senator.
The council has recommended that participation in the partnership process should be enlarged for the discussion on a new programme.
Specifically, the council recommends that at the outset, all relevant parties, including Government, make opening position statements at a formal meeting for that purpose and that discussions thereafter proceed bilaterally and multilaterally, as appropriate, depending on the issues being considered.
The Government has accepted the Council's recommendation. I have therefore invited appropriate key national organisations, who have formally sought to be involved in the process, to discussions in Dublin Castle on 23 October, during which they will have an opportunity to present their views and priorities for a new programme in the light of the NESC analysis and the opinion of the NESF. Details of these discussions were agreed yesterday by the Government.
The role and composition of the central review committee and its relationship with other bodies under a new national programme will be settled in the course of discussion on a new programme. Negotiations on pay and related matters will be undertaken by those organisations which have an established role in pay and industrial relations matters.
What role will ISME and the other social partner groups play in the talks process? I am talking about the INOU, ISME and any other bodies which have made representations to the Taoiseach.
ISME and the other bodies referred to by the Deputy are invited to the committee meeting on 23 October. Discussions thereafter on matters related to the programme will involve all the participants as appropriate depending on the subject matter under discussion. Negotiations on pay and related matters will be undertaken by those organisations that have an established role in pay and industrial relations matters. The Central Review Committee, will come into operation only after the programme has been agreed. The question of who will be involved in the review is a matter for discussion in negotiation of the agreement. No pre-ordained position is taken on that matter. Submissions may be made by all participants in that regard.
Will the Taoiseach clarify what will happen on 23 October? Various bodies including ISME and INOU will be invited to set out their stalls, as it were. Will ISME, for example, be involved in pay negotiations or negotiations relating to the tax regime that operates in this economy?
As regards pay negotiations, the bodies involved will be those normally involved in pay negotiations, and that does not include ISME. It will, however, be enabled to make a submission on other matters at the meeting on 23 October and discussions thereafter on the basis of that submission, which may include its views on tax matters, will be the subject of bilateral and multilateral discussions as appropriate.
Will the Taoiseach accept that at a time when he is endeavouring to bring about a new national agreement it is most unfortunate that Bus Éireann is attempting to bring in changes in a unilateral way and, more importantly, that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications sanctions such change? Will he accept that is a wrong signal at a time when he should deal with the trade union movement on a partnership basis? The Taoiseach tried to deflect responsibility for this matter yesterday by giving a lecture on public administration. I remind him that the Minister sanctions such changes, which is very dangerous. Will the Taoiseach accept there is tremendous unrest, particularly in the transport area between Bus Éireann and CIE unions, and it is wrong of the Government to make these signals to that movement at a time when we are trying to bring in a new national agreement?
It would not be appropriate to postpone necessary improvements and changes in CIE until there is a new national agreement.
It should be done in partnership.
It is very important that CIE and all other companies, private and public, work to modernise their operations on a partnership basis within their own company and do not link matters that need to be dealt with within a particular company with wider national negotiations.
Will the Taoiseach accept the arrangements in place for the Programme for Competitiveness and Work discriminate in favour of public sector workers? Will he accept that many of IBEC's employer organisations are semi-State companies and that the only organisation that represents the private sector, which is a key component in the economy, is not represented in the negotiations? Does he accept that we need to adopt a more inclusive approach to pay and tax negotiations?
To suggest that ISME is the only body that represents the private sector is overstating matters.
It is the only body that solely represents private sector workers.
IBEC represents the private sector and some public sector employers who behave in a commercial way. It is a body that represents enterprise, largely private sector enterprise. In addition, farming organisations represent the private rather than the public sector. We debated this matter here before at great length and there are arguments for including additional bodies on the Central Review Committee. I have said, and I adhere to this, that I will not change the Central Review Committee arrangements for the existing programme, but if a new programme is agreed there will be a review of arrangements. On 23 October all parties to the discussions will be free to make submissions on who they regard as the appropriate people to be involved in the Central Review Committee or in sectoral review committees as may be set up under any new programme.
At the outset of talks for a national wage agreement, what is the Government's policy on the inclusion of a local bargaining clause?
That is a matter that is best dealt with by negotiation. In the existing agreement arrangements there is some margin for local bargaining. As to the content of a future agreement, in the first instance in regard to the private sector, that is a matter for private sector employers and unions representing private sector workers to discuss and agree. As far as the Government is concerned, it is a different question in that there is not the same local character in regard to public sector pay issues.
What is the Government's policy on a local bargaining clause?
It is not appropriate for the Government at this stage of negotiations when matters are being opened up for discussion to say in a prescriptive way what its policy is. It is important that people address the issues rather than address themselves to whether they agree or disagree with the Government. In these cases there is always a way of avoiding the issues by saying one does not agree with the Government. It is better not to adopt that approach but to allow the parties to address the question of whether that should be provided for. There will be ample opportunity for a full discussion on that matter in the negotiations that will be initiated after 23 October.
In its capacity as an employer, what is the Government's policy on a local bargaining clause?
In the outgoing agreement the Government agreed to arrangements that allowed for additional payments for restructuring. That is not local bargaining in the strict sense of the term, unless each category of employment is considered to be a locality. It is not a geographically local bargaining provision and is not firm specific; it is specific to types of employment where there are particular forms of restructuring. Generally speaking it is best to seek to encompass all these matters in a global provision because the global provision must be met by the Government within the criteria laid down for public spending, taxation and borrowing under the economic and monetary union criteria. It is very important that we do not place ourselves in a position where anything we might agree to in the industrial relations sector would create difficulties for the obligations we have under the treaty on the question of adhering to the requirements of economic and monetary union.
The Taoiseach said the plenary session will be held on 23 October and, if I understood him correctly, that there would be a division between what one can only describe as those in the chamber and those in the antechamber. Is it the Taoiseach's intention that ISME will be in the antechamber?
There will be no chamber or antechamber arrangement. There will be an arrangement which is appropriate to the subject matter for the discussion of issues, bilaterally and multilaterally, that are relevant to individual organisations.
I disagree entirely with the Taoiseach's attitude to ISME. It is the only body that represents small and medium sized industry. That is a matter about which I feel very strongly and I have discussed it with IBEC. Will the successor to the Programme for Competitiveness and Work deal with labour costs and labour regulation in the Irish market? Will the Taoiseach accept that we are losing out to places like Scotland and Wales because of our high labour costs? Will he further accept that workers in those countries are better off, even though labour costs are lower? This week a Hyundai plant was lost to Scotland. Scottish workers are better off, yet labour costs there are lower. Will the Taoiseach accept that if we are to maintain jobs in companies like Semperit and Packard Electric and get new labour intensive investments into this economy we must become more competitive?
Deputy Harney should have a word with Deputy Michael McDowell because he was at a meeting of the Small Firms Association which I also attended but which seems to Deputy Harney not worth mentioning. It is an organisation which recently attracted a large attendance of small business people in the private sector. It is plainly not true to suggest, as Deputy Harney did, that the only representative of the small business sector is ISME.
It is a subsidiary.
The Small Firms Association is purely private sector. It shares certain services and works as part of an umbrella organisation with IBEC. It is, in my view, an effective organisation. The Deputy is unwise to speak in a denigratory way about the Small Firms Association in order to build up her case for ISME.
The Taoiseach should answer the question.
I have answered the question already.
What about labour costs and labour regulations?
The Deputy sought to draw parallels with Scotland. I would safely say that our employment record is as good as that of Scotland. I would also safely say that employees here are a good deal more satisfied with the arrangements made by their Government in regard to employment than perhaps is the case with the Scottish people.
Not any more.