Bertie Ahern
Ceist:1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with the social partners to discuss difficulties arising in relation to Partnership 2000. [9894/97]
Ceisteanna — Questions. - Partnership 2000.
Last Wednesday, with the Ministers for Social Welfare and Finance, I met representatives of IBEC, ICTU and the CIF to discuss progress on social partnership.
In that context pay developments in both the public and private sectors were reviewed. I am happy that the meeting was very productive, where all the participants restated their full support for Partnership 2000 and the objective which it represents, namely, the growth in real living standards in tandem with improved competitiveness and more jobs. Among the objectives which were discussed was deepening partnership between management and employees in both the public and private sectors, and in this regard the establishment of the national centre for partnership was agreed.
I confirm that each side outlined its position in relation to recent pay and industrial relations developments and that my colleagues and I expressed concern on behalf of the Government that the normal procedures for dispute resolution would be operated fully prior to industrial action of any form being contemplated. I strongly reiterated the Government's position in relation to adhering to pay norms and restated the Government's resolve to resist pay claims which would threaten the management of the public finances.
Government, employers and trade unions restated their commitment to promoting industrial harmony both in relation to outstanding issues under the PCW and the future implementation of Partnership 2000. It was agreed that officials of the Departments of the Taoiseach and Finance would meet ICTU representatives as regards the public sector, while IBEC and ICTU will meet separately in relation to private sector issues.
The consensus among those participating in last Wednesday's meeting is reflected in the joint statement issued on behalf of the Government, IBEC, ICTU and the CIF which I have laid before the House. I am pleased to note that since our meeting there has been a satisfactory outcome to both the disputes involving ambulance drivers over the weekened, proving the case for the operation of agreed procedures in preference to industrial action.
The fact that all parties have had to restate their commitment to Partnership 2000 when the partnership programme has been in existence for only a few months indicates the strains that have built up in such a short period. I suggest that too much has been taken for granted in social partnership over the past few years. What is required is a hands-on effort by the Government, through a Minister. I appreciate the Taoiseach has responsibilities and cannot always deal with these meetings, but some Minister should co-ordinate the effort. If it is to work into the future somebody must be directly responsible and adopt a hands-on approach to dealing with all the social partners, particularly if we are to include more groups in future. This concept has worked for a decade and if it is to work in future the Taoiseach should consider giving somebody the responsibility for co-ordinating it. It is not considered that anybody in the Government currently has that responsibility.
I am interested in what the Deputy said. It should be stated that the meeting we had was part of the process of social partnership. It is agreed that the social partners should meet the Taoiseach and senior Ministers on a regular basis to review progress. The meeting was timely, but it was also part of a regular process. As Taoiseach I have responsibility in this area for overall maintenance of social partnership, and I meet on a regular basis the social partners, together and individually. My Department has a unit headed by an assistant secretary which maintains daily contact on an ongoing basis with the social partners relative to all matters, pay and non-pay, of concern to the social partners. Also, it operates and services the National Economic and Social Council and other instruments that contribute to social partnership.
Obviously, the workload has increased because, in contrast to previous agreements, under Partnership 2000 a larger number of people are now involved. The unemployed, for instance, are more directly involved than ever before. Those involved in various types of work with the marginalised and the disadvantaged are involved directly in social partnership in a way they were not before. This obviously imposes additional pressures on all those involved. The Government's decision, announced at the meeting, to proceed rapidly with the creation of posts and appointment of the relevant staff to the centre for partnership will be of particular assistance to all concerned in ensuring that the partnership continues to work as well as it has done. I have acknowledged on many occasions in recent times the very great contribution that social partnership has made to the comparative economic prosperity that we enjoy today.
I appreciate that the Taoiseach has listened to the points I made. However, there is no Department of Labour. What was the Department of Labour has been subsumed into the Department of Enterprise and Employment and effectively lost. Anybody who knows anything about negotiations and industrial relations acknowledges that. Nor is there any longer a Department of the Public Service. Somebody other than the Taoiseach, who cannot deal with day to day issues, should be dealing with these issues. There is nobody to do that at present and that is why, a few months into this programme, there is frustration.
Is the Taoiseach concerned about the rash of special pay claims? Some of these claims are being made under the PCW, but some are outside it. The Garda Síochána are marching on the House today and, as far as I recall, they signed up to the PCW. Their claim is a new one and I am not sure whether it is under Partnership 2000. Three thousand paramedics and a host of other people are following that lead. Is the Taoiseach concerned that we seem to be drifting back to analogues and relativity and not moving, on the basis of the strategic management initiative, towards productivity and efficiency? Is he not concerned that we are drifting back to the effectively bogus productivity claims that ruined the economy in the 1970s and early 1980s?
If I were to agree to the Deputy's suggestion in the first part of his question, there is a risk that it would be seen as downgrading social partnership by hiving it off to another ministry and removing the responsibility from the Department of the Taoiseach. It is appropriate that the overall responsibility for social partnership should rest with the Taoiseach. In the way in which the Government works, there are essentially three issues where overall responsibility on a reasonably frequent basis rests with the Taoiseach: Northern Ireland, overall management of our relationship with Europe because of participation by the Taoiseach in summits and, the most important area, social partnership. The Deputy put forward a constructive suggestion, but there are risks of misinterpretation of the kind to which I have referred. I do not wish to argue the matter with the Deputy. He put forward the proposal with the best interests of the country at heart and I acknowledge it on that basis.
On the second part of the issue, we must make a distinction in terms of claims that arise under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work which have not yet been reached in the normal process of negotiation. Most claims in regard to productivity arising under that programme have been settled. However, a small number remain to be settled, one of which relates to paramedics. That claim arises under the old programme and is being processed in the normal way. Such claims are in a different category from claims that are made anew by people who have already settled these matters under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
Under the conditions in the Partnership 2000 agreement the 2 per cent local bargaining element, which was agreed, will be payable in mid-1999 on the achievement of real verifiable progress on the public service modernisation programme in each sector of the public service. The only provision in Partnership 2000 for locally negotiated pay increases is as set out in clause 6 and it debars the submission and processing of claims other than those permitted under the terms of that clause. The clause operates on the basis of verifiable progress in the area in which the people making the claim work, in terms of improved productivity and improved application of change under the Strategic Management Initiative. That is the basis on which this matter will be considered and negotiated.
In regard to groups such as the Garda Síochána that are not party to that clause and were not at the table to negotiate it and on whose behalf the clause was not negotiated under the umbrella of the Congress of Trade Unions, what guidelines did the Government set down to influence their claims or claims from other groups now working outside that area? Some of those groups ask how can they be party to an agreement in which they were not involved in terms of negotiation and voting. I have not seen any guidelines laid down by the Government that cover the general workforce, whether in the private or public sector.
The groups referred to by the Deputy negotiate with the Government and the Government's policy on pay for change and modernisation is set out in Partnership 2000. That is not simply the policy of the social partners but is Government policy. I outlined that policy when I referred to mid-1999 and the pursuit of claims in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 6.
In regard to the Garda, in particular, a fundamental review of Garda efficiency and effectiveness is under way in which the role of the force, how it can function better and how it might be changed is being examined. The review group will make recommendations very soon which will involve significant change. It is the view of the Government that the best context in which to look at any changes in payment that might arise as a result of changes in practice, procedure and productivity is in the context of that report, which we expect to receive very soon. This is the most thorough re-examination of the way in which the Garda function on behalf of the people that has been undertaken in recent years and it will prove to be a landmark in the development of the force. It will also prove to be a mechanism whereby those working in the force at every level will be able to do so not only with greater efficiency on behalf of the public but also in a more personally fulfilling way.
We are dwelling on this question over long.
I take it when the efficiency review of the Garda is complete the Garda pay claim will be negotiated in the context of productivity. Will the report form the basis of the pay claim in a few months' time?
I would like to bring this question to finality.
The matter will be dealt with in the context of the provisions adopted as Government policy in regard to claims of this nature as set out in clause 6 of Partnership 2000, the main content of which I have read into the record. All claims will be considered in the context of that Government policy, which provides for a local bargaining element, up to 2 per cent of which might be payable in mid-1999.
Regardless of what the report shows in terms of efficiency, productivity and changes in the structure of the Garda, the maximum that can be negotiated will be as set out in clause 6, that is 2 per cent, payable in 1999. Effectively we will be asking the Garda to make all these changes on the basis that they will receive only 2 per cent in two years' time. Is that the Government's position?
That is the Government's policy as set out in Partnership 2000. Obviously the issue will be negotiated on the basis, and within the constraints, of Government policy. I am sure the Deputy will understand that there are also commitments in Partnership 2000, for instance, to reductions in income tax for the PAYE and other groups in the private and public sectors. To the extent that additional resources are taken for the purpose of pay increases, whether for productivity or of a general kind, those resources are not available to reduce the burden of taxation. There is a very simple choice to be made.
It is very important to ensure improvements in efficiency in the Garda Síochána, many of which will make the Garda Síochána a better place to work, involving in some cases no cost for those working under the improved conditions which it is intended to achieve. When the report is available it will be the intention of the Government to sit down with all those involved and discuss the way in which the changes are to be brought about in a partnership atmosphere and with a partnership attitude within the context of the overall Government policy set out in Partnership 2000. We will approach the matter by way of consultation with a view to achieving major change for the better in the way the gardaí work and in the way the public service generally serves the public.
Does the Taoiseach accept there is a strong argument for ministerial responsibility for social partnership because of the pressures being put on the Labour Relations Commission? I compliment it on the way it deals with industrial relations matters, albeit in a crisis management way. Surely prevention is better than dealing with matters in that manner. As the Taoiseach correctly stated, with the advent of Partnership 2000 the agenda is much broader and includes matters such as unemployment and labour affairs. Does the Taoiseach accept that ministerial involvement in matters such as consultation in the workplace and job sharing would be more appropriate than involvement by the Taoiseach's Department? Does he accept that the National Economic and Social Forum could feed into such a process and that this would be more appropriate from an employment prospective?
I do not agree with the Deputy. The best way to emphasise the importance of social partnership is to place responsibility for it with the head of the Government. Social partnership is too important to devolve responsibility for it to another Minister. The Taoiseach should take responsibility for it.
We are talking about day to day matters.
Bodies such as the National Economic and Social Forum are appointed by the Taoiseach's Department and report on a regular basis to it. To have those bodies report to another Department would create unnecessary duplication and division of responsibility, and that would not be in the interests of social partnership. I give high priority to social partnership and to the work I do with the social partners to ensure that their input is felt in every Government Department. The Taoiseach is the member of the Government with the capacity to influence all Government Departments and issues that arise in social partnership affect all Government Departments. Therefore, the most appropriate Minister to deal with social partnership is the Minister with the capacity to influence all Government Departments, namely the head of the Government, the Taoiseach.