Bertie Ahern
Ceist:1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if membership of the Central Review Committee in terms of organisational representation has altered since December 1994. [10567/97]
Ceisteanna — Questions. - Central Review Committee.
The function of the Central Review Committee under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work was to monitor implementation of that programme. The seven trade union, employer and farm organisations — ICTU, IBEC, CIF, IFA, ICMSA, ICOS and Macra na Feirme — responsible for negotiation of the PCW were members of the committee. The PCW expired at the end of 1996 and has been replaced by Partnership 2000.
Under Partnership 2000 a variety of monitoring mechanisms have been put in place and these are set out on page 74 of the partnership document. They include: (i) an annual meeting of all the parties to the partnership, which I will chair; (ii) six monthly meetings with those parties that negotiated the pay agreement and who have a specific interest in the modernisation of enterprises and the modernisation of the public service, chaired by the Secretary of my Department; and (iii) quarterly meetings of members of the four pillars, that is, trade unions, employer and business organisations, farming organisations and community and voluntary sector organisations, chaired by the Secretary of my Department, to review and monitor the operation of the partnership.
In addition to these arrangements, any party to the partnership may raise an issue regarding any aspect of the partnership with the Secretary of my Department, who may convene a special meeting to discuss that issue. The NESC will play a role in the monitoring process by benchmarking progress in areas covered in the partnership. The NESF will also play a role by monitoring the implementation of the social inclusion and equality elements of the partnership. All 19 organisations which took part in the negotiations will be involved in monitoring the implementation of Partnership 2000.
Who are the people on the Central Review Committee, which still exists? Who are the negotiators and what organisations are represented on the negotiating body? Who does the Taoiseach consider were the negotiators of the agreements last Christmas?
The Central Review Committee existed for the purposes of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. That programme was more confined in terms of the number of people involved in negotiating it. In the case of Partnership 2000, we extended the range of organisations involved in the negotiation, partly at the prompting of Members of the House. It includes, for example, community and voluntary organisations, women's groups, the unemployed and so forth.
As the number of people involved in aspects of Partnership 2000 was much wider than the number involved in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, we had to find new, more flexible arrangements than the Central Review Committee, which was basically one core group with everybody else on the edge. We have now agreed multi modal arrangements. There will be an annual meeting involving everybody. There will also be six monthly meetings, the first of which I held two weeks ago, with the employers and trade unions on pay issues. The six-month period is a minimum and we can meet more often if necessary. In addition, there are quarterly meetings with the trade unions, employers, the business sector and the voluntary sector regarding their areas of interest in the partnership.
The arrangements are designed to cope with the more diverse range of people involved in the negotiation of this agreement. A more narrow range of organisations was involved in the negotiation of the previous agreement.
While I am in favour of the participation of more people, is the Taoiseach satisfied the system of annual, six monthly and quarterly meetings with different groups to deal with different issues is workable? Even though it is only months since the agreement, there are strains in many areas and many representations have been made to Opposition Deputies about aspects of the partnership which I understood had been negotiated and concluded. If the Taoiseach is not satisfied with the system, would it be possible to devise an easier structure? The Taoiseach did not design the structure and it appears to be cumbersome. Even the Taoiseach's explanation of it — some are involved in meetings each year, some are involved in the six monthly meetings and some are involved in the quarterly or monthly meetings——
I am sorry to interrupt but I wish to clarify one point. These regular meetings are the minimum guaranteed frequency. Obviously, where issues arise the various groups can come together more frequently.
The pay aspects are always difficult.Are meetings on those issues only held with the employers led by IBEC and CIF and the trade unions led by ICTU? In other words, on matters relating to pay are we effectively back to the old Central Review Committee, excluding the farmers?
Yes. The first meeting to discuss pay took place two weeks ago. However, there are contacts about pay issues between my Department, the Department of Finance and other Departments which have daily responsibility for these matters and either employer or trade union organisations. These contacts are ongoing in regard to all areas of difficulty. The Deputy referred to current areas of difficulty. It is important to point out that these arise under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. They are claims which have not been settled or agreed under clause 2 (iii) of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, not Partnership 2000, and relate in particular to changes in structures, work practices or other conditions of service. They are currently the source of some public concern.There is no mention in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work of relativity as a basis for claims. The basis for claims under clause 2 (iii) negotiated by a previous Government is changes in structures, work practices or other conditions of service. It is stated that no form of industrial action or pressure shall be taken by either side in furtherance of claims. This explicitly excludes industrial action. The clause was agreed and signed up to by all of the social partners.
Let us not dwell overlong on this question.
I have no wish to do so as my colleague, Deputy Cowen, is dealing with the issue. I do not understand why the Government is adopting this as a negotiating tactic. In the Programme for National Recovery, the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work the Labour Court was appointed guarantor. If agreement could not be reached on a particular issue, it was open to the Government to ask the Labour Court to deal with it. It is open to the responsible Minister, in this case the Minister for Health, to refer this matter to the Labour Court under the appropriate clause of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. We are turning what is a simple industrial relations matter into the most complicated one we have ever had to deal with. I cannot understand why it has not been dealt with.
It is open to any of the parties involved to seek the assistance of the Labour Court in the resolution of the dispute. The Government is approaching all disputes with a view to reaching agreement based on negotiation but without industrial action being taken by either side. The clause under which all of these claims are being considered excludes specifically industrial action or pressure by either side in furtherance of claims. So far as using the conciliation and adjudication arrangements of the Labour Court is concerned, the Government is open to approaches in this regard.