John Bruton
Ceist:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the National Economic and Social Council. [22926/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Pay and Social Policy.
John Bruton
Ceist:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has fixed a date for a meeting with ICTU for the Government to open discussions on an agreement to succeed Partnership 2000. [22928/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:7 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the main points made in his speech to the first meeting of the new NESC on 4 November 1998 and, in particular, his proposals regarding a performance related pay structure within the public service. [22930/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together.
My speech at the inaugural meeting of the National Economic and Social Council on 4 November 1998 has been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. In my address, I asked the council to prepare a new strategy report which would form the basis for a successor to Partnership 2000.
I suggested that it should reflect a vision for Ireland as an economy and as a society over a ten year period and should outline the steps to be taken within a three year programme to progress that vision. It should especially take account of globalisation, EMU and the need to modernise our systems for managing domestic policy issues. I invited the council to explore innovative solutions to tackle problems such as the tightening labour market and the opportunities created by a sharp easing of the population dependency ratio for the next decade or so.
Partnership 2000 has over a year to run and the Government is properly focused on implementing it. This approach is being complemented by the putting in place of the necessary arrangements to prepare a basis upon which a new programme may be negotiated with the social partners. The work of the NESC and the National Economic and Social Forum are an important contribution to that process.
Substantive discussions have not yet commenced on a successor to Partnership 2000. However, I signalled in my address to the Partnership 2000 meeting in July and again at the inaugural meeting of the NESC that there is a need to develop a new approach to the management of public sector pay. I suggested it was necessary to consider how a policy of relating pay more closely to performance can meet the aspirations of public servants while maintaining the unavoidable limits on public spending. The Government is prepared to explore the options by which this might most effectively be achieved. I envisage that discussion will commence on these issues with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions following the budget.
By what date must substantive negotiations open on the pay aspects of a successor to Partnership 2000?
Some time early in the new year.
When the Taoiseach referred in his speech to sustainable economic growth, did he mean growth that is merely economically sustainable or growth that is also environmentally sustainable? Could he indicate if those two aspects of sustainability have been put on the agenda for the NESC?
When he asked it to examine the issue of inclusion, did he give it specific directives or understandings as to how the Government sees the issue being dealt with over the next ten years? What were those directives or understandings?
In terms of performance related pay, will he indicate how it will apply to the Defence Forces, the Garda or teachers? It would seem to be an extraordinarily difficult notion to apply in these cases. How would the productivity of a teacher teaching a class be measured?
On Deputy De Rossa's first question, sustainability includes both employment and environmental matters.
In terms of social exclusion, I spelled out at great length, both in my NESC and NESF presentations, the way I would like to see social inclusion develop in the period ahead, particularly in regard to those in society who are unable to work, whom the system has worked against and who do not have a proper education or job qualifications. The main aspect is to help those with an educational standard to get a job. We discussed many other issues also. An enormous number of initiatives, in terms of policy documents were presented by NESF and they set out what it believes is a partnership approach where, over the next ten years or perhaps more, we can deal with disadvantage and social inclusion in Irish society.
In terms of performance pay, Deputy De Rossa is right. Any change in the present structure will be difficult and, in some cases, may be impossible to implement. I am trying to open up new horizons where we can explore this issue away from what has been the traditional system of relativities. There is agreement across the trade union movement that the system of relativities is not a good one but we have to explore new areas. In most Departments there are dozens of grades all linked to relativities regardless of what happens in performance pay or management, and we have to try to devise a better system. I have invited the social partners to join with the Government in examining other ways to do that. The Government is trying to put together some proposals which we will table in due course to the social partners to see if we can move away from the old system of relativities which is a system from another day.
In response to the Taoiseach's last comments on the question of relativities and the invitation, which he has just confirmed, to the social partners to respond to this difficult issue, do I take it the Government does not intend to issue a discussion document on this matter? Is the Taoiseach waiting for the social partners to come back to him? In relation to the large number of grades currently in the public and Civil Service — a review of those grades is ongoing — has any progress been made with regard to their rationalisation? Does the Government intend to initiate a discussion on this matter by way of a paper or does the Taoiseach propose to stand by the invitation he has just mentioned and await the social partners response?
I cannot answer the Deputy's question on the grades. I am aware the Department of Finance is examining that issue. I do not need to remind Deputy Quinn of the problems with the grades. The Government has to come up with proposals; I do not think the social partners will respond. We are engaged in examining not just what happens here but also elsewhere to see if we can come forward with a new system. I hope to have that early in the new year when we open up discussions because we must move away from the old system.
In referring to performance related pay, is the Taoiseach talking about the payment of individuals for individual performance or the payment of teams for good team performance? Is the Taoiseach aware of any country in the world where performance related pay has worked in the provision of public services by public bodies?
In both schemes it is in terms of individuals and groups. Every country has tried different schemes but they have not come up with a proper scheme——
That is right.
——either in terms of performance pay or anything else.
I would be worried about hitching my wagon to that star if I were the Taoiseach.
They have all moved away from relativities.
Where are they?
Perhaps there are problems with the new schemes——
They are in orbit.
——but they have moved on, since the 1960s, from our scheme.
I suppose it would be invidious to ask if it is intended to apply this performance measurement to Members of the House.
The next election.
We do well in this House.
Unfortunately there are no relativities in this House.
We have a critical review process every couple of years.
It does not matter whether a Deputy is ten days or 20 years in the House, they get the same income. I put it to the Taoiseach that it would not be a good idea to apply performance measurements in the way they have been applied in the past in the UK to education and health services, which has resulted in doctors and teachers spending most of their working lives filling forms. We end up with league tables of schools and hospitals which are inimical to good education and good health care.
I have been dealing with public service pay, in one form or another, for 24 years and I know the pitfalls but it is time for us to try — perhaps it is not possible — to find a new scheme. I have difficulty accepting that the best system we can have means that because a person working in a hospital who is one of perhaps 300 grades, which is possible in most of our health services, gets an increase based on some standards or negotiations, relativity applies to everybody regardless of what the group might have given in its determination to get that agreement. That is an unsatisfactory system which is costing this country enormous amounts of money, does not generate much staff satisfaction and is not particularly liked by the trade unions. It behoves us to at least try to find an alternative system. I add these remarks to what Deputy Quinn said about the number of grades, which is a major part of the problem.