Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 28 Mar 2000

Vol. 516 No. 6

Private Notice Questions. - Industrial Disputes.

I will call on the Deputies who tabled questions to the Minister for Public Enterprise in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office.

asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the steps, if any, the Government is taking to secure the reopening of talks between union and management with a view to securing a negotiated settlement to the Dublin Bus dispute in view of the fact that Dublin will be without a bus service for three days this week and the growing threat of an all-out dispute, and the serious inconvenience for commuters and the damage to business and commerce.

asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the steps, if any, the Government is taking to facilitate a resolution of the dispute in Dublin Bus; the steps, if any, she will take to prevent it from escalating to other public transport services; if the Government will facilitate direct dialogue between management and unions; if she will provide essential transport services in the event of an all-out picket; and the plans, if any, she has to appoint independent productivity expertise in order to provide a basis for resolving the issues in dispute.

As Deputies Joe Higgins and Gormley are not present I call on the Minister.

I thank the Deputies who tabled the questions. On my own behalf and on behalf of the Government, I convey our sincere regrets to public transport users, the general public and business for the inconvenience and disruption caused by the Dublin Bus strike.

The Government made a very clear statement on the dispute last Thursday when it called for the suspension of the strike and the resumption of negotiations. I repeat that call today with renewed emphasis. The Government continues to believe that agreement is possible, based on genuine productivity and restructuring measures. I welcome the proposals which the NBRU made in the earlier negotiations. If agreed and fully implemented, they would generate savings of about £2 million, out of the total of over £9 million required to meet their 20% pay claim.

At the earlier talks, Dublin Bus tabled productivity measures which would generate cost savings in excess of the required £9 million, without the need for job losses or impact on earnings. The proposals tabled by both the NBRU and Dublin Bus can provide a basis for the resumption of negotiations. The State's industrial relations machinery remains available to assist where a basis exists for resumed negotiations.

In a separate development yesterday and today, permanent way staff in Iarnród Éireann have commenced unofficial industrial action. They are responsible for the maintenance, inspection and patrolling of railway tracks. The immediate effect of that unofficial dispute was that Iarnród Éireann had to introduce speed restrictions for safety reasons where safety patrols of the track were not being undertaken. Speed restrictions of 30 mph are already being applied to uninspected jointed track to ensure continued safe operation.

Since then, however, the dispute has escalated with pickets being placed on depots around the country. This is already leading to the cancellation and disruption of rail services. This unofficial dispute arises from the rejection, without a ballot, of a restructuring package for permanent way staff which was the subject of a recent Labour Court recommendation. In return for changes in working practices, the package would have given a 12.5% increase now, with a later 7.5% increase.

There have been high level informal contacts between management and union representatives to find a way to bring this unofficial dispute to a speedy end. The way forward is for an immediate end to the unofficial industrial action, followed by intensive negotiations to resolve the issues in dispute.

Arising from her policy position which she has outlined, does the Minister agree that £207 per week is an unacceptably low rate of pay for someone who drives a double decker bus in the traffic jams of Dublin? Does she agree that the proposal by the unions for a £2 million saving is a basis for negotiation? Does she accept that, with pickets being placed on DART and mainline rail installations, we are on the verge of a disastrous national public transport strike which will be the first such strike for 30 years? Does she agree it is unacceptable for the Government, particularly herself as Minister with overall responsibility for public transport, to wash its hands of this dispute and suggest, as she did in a very insulting manner on Thursday, that people should get on their bikes? Does she accept that her early ineffective meddling in the affairs of the company should be replaced by a policy which the company management could adopt to prevent this disastrous situation for commuters and business people in Dublin?

Deputy Gilmore cannot have it every way.

I am Deputy Stagg.

Deputy Stagg cannot have it every way. He cannot tell me one week not to take any interest or have any involvement—

Ineffective meddling is what I said.

—whatsoever in anything to do with CIE except to dole out the money, and two weeks later demand that I effectively intervene. I apologise for addressing the Deputy by the wrong name. I apologise to Deputy Gilmore and to whichever of the Deputies felt umbrage. I made a mistake.

I am not insulted by the change of name.

There are 1,640 drivers who work a 38 hour week for an average of £341. There are 203 drivers on £275 and 288 on £271. That is for an average week with no overtime.

Is the Minister aware that tens of thousands of people do not know how they will get to work tomorrow? This it unacceptable in an advanced economy. Does the Minister agree that the solution to this problem is that, instead of making arrangements for premia, bonuses and top-up payments, a new flat rate of pay should be negotiated in Dublin Bus and that, with the right productivity expertise, these talks should get under way.

Over the past two and a half years, the Minister led the unions and Dublin Bus to believe that with the advent of competition, she would give them the comfort of two to three years of public service contracts whereby competition would be phased in. In the past few weeks she unilaterally said that on the Attorney General's advice, she would grant no public service contracts. Does the Minister accept that one of the key reasons for this dispute is the failure of Government to implement public service contracts which the unions wanted?

The week before last I met with the separate unions and not once was the question of public service contracts raised.

The Minister had promised them.

I had said I would bring the matter to Cabinet. This can be read in the correspondence on the matter which I will send to the Deputy. I brought the matter to Cabinet and the Attorney General said I could not legally do that to one company. When competition is introduced and we have a properly financed public service company, there will be a need for public service contracts. I agree it is totally unacceptable that thousands of people in Dublin and throughout the country will be prevented from travelling by DART, mainline rail, Arrow and bus.

The Minister is responsible.

She is the shareholder. Where is political intervention?

(Dublin West): The Minister stated in the House last week that bus drivers do a very difficult job. In view of the difficult, arduous and responsible job which bus drivers do, does she agree that a demand for basic pay of £330 per week is just and that the Government should ask Bus Átha Cliath to accede to it? Last week the Minister was not fully aware of some of the demand being made by the company because they had just been published. Does the Minister think that Dublin Bus workers should agree to having 200 buses contracted out to private contractors when this is their work? Does she believe that bus drivers should accept the abolition of spread-over payments which are compensation for the fact that they can be on call for 12 hours while the time they are on call is extended to 13 hours? Does the Minister agree that the solution to the crisis is for the Government to make a proper subsidy to Bus Átha Cliath to enable the necessary capital input to be made and a just recompense paid to bus workers for the very difficult job they do? It is in the hands of the Government to resolve this dispute immediately.

The greater number of established drivers, 1,640, receive an average weekly wage of £341 for a 38 hour week. These figures have been given to me and I cannot dispute them. Deputy Yates referred to the importance of not relying on overtime payments.

I include overtime, shift payments and various premia.

There will always be a need for a bus service on Saturday and Sunday and late at night. However, a more balanced approach to a basic wage can, I am sure, be part of the talks between management and workers.

Deputy Stagg asked if the £2 million saving could be the basis of a renewal of the talks. I welcome those proposals and the statements from Mr. Bunting, which I read in this morning's paper, and from Noel Dowling of SIPTU, which I heard at lunchtime. Both expressed very strong but common sense views. If agreed and fully implemented they would generate savings of about £2 million. I have said that the proposals tabled by the NBRU and Dublin Bus can provide a basis for the resumption of negotiations.

Does the Minister accept that she has displayed an arrogant complacency during this dispute? Has she any empathy or sympathy with the workers and commuters who have been inconvenienced? How much inconvenience will be caused and how much money will be lost before the Minister takes this dispute seriously? In talking about increased productivity is the Minister, in effect, trying to force workers to accept competition? Is that part of the deal?

I have said in the House on several occasions that the Government decided last November that the 1932 Act should be reviewed with a view to introducing competition in Dublin.

Have the workers accepted this?

They have made submissions. We placed advertisements inviting submissions, which have been received from the two main trade unions and CIE. The process is ongoing. I reject totally that I am acting arrogantly. I am extremely concerned and strongly want the strike to end. By what they said today on the "News at One" the two trade union leaders have showed a willingness to move forward. I understand the Labour Relations Commission remains ready to renew the talks. I hope that is what will happen.

Given that we are facing the first national transport strike in 30 years does the Minister have proposals to bring management and the trade unions together with a view to opening discussions on a negotiated settlement which, as everybody accepts, is what is required? Given that the Minister has said that a balanced approach to basic pay is part of her policy and that the offer of the NBRU to secure savings of £2 million provides a basis for negotiations, will the Government take action to bring the two sides together to negotiate a settlement? Will the Minister indicate that she will not intervene in a strike-breaking manner by introducing the Army or private bus operators to do the work of striking workers as it would only make the situation worse?

I would be very loath to go down the road of strike-breaking measures. The Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission in particular are the bodies entrusted with the task of getting talks moving and remain poised. I have made it clear that I regard the offer of £2 million in savings as a basis for the resumption of negotiations.

We are facing the most serious crisis in public transport in two decades with the prospect of Dublin Bus, DART and inter-city rail services closed down. Does the Minister accept that she has a political responsibility? Does she further accept, as is generally acknowledged, that the basic pay of Dublin Bus drivers is very low and that the solution is to trade off shift allowances, daily premia, car differentials and Sunday allowances for a proper flat rate of pay? Will she set about solving the dispute on this basis?

I shall not set about settling anything. I have no argument with the Deputy on the premia and other allowances which make up average weekly pay. That would be a sane approach to adopt and I have asked management and the two trade unions concerned to work through these issues. The problems, however, are much more deep-seated. Unlike others, I have always accepted that I have political responsibility, and that is the reason I am not in Brussels today. Every method available to the parties involved should be fruitfully used to bring about a conclusion. To have the whole country immobilised and excluded from public transport in the year 2000 is a shame.

It has been going on for weeks and the Minister has done absolutely nothing about it.

The Deputy should ask Mr. Joyce about that.

It is absolutely disgraceful.

Indeed he was.

The Minister has just stated that Mr. Joyce was disgraceful, a person not in the House to defend himself. I ask the Minister to withdraw her remark.

I humbly apologise.

Well the Minister might.

He did not draw one penny for his tenure.

Did the Minister withdraw the remark?

I humbly apologise.

Does the Minister withdraw the remark?

I withdraw the remark, but Deputies know what he said, that I should not interfere.

We are not having a discussion on people outside the House.

He said the Minister has a policy role.

We have just illustrated why we have a problem.

Which is exactly why he went.

Arrogance of the highest order.

Does the Minister accept that the entire CIE group is in freefall and that the problems now manifest have been simmering for a long time and are entirely due to a lack of direction and leadership on her part for which she must take responsibility? Does she accept that it is a company without direction, strategy and a framework for the future and that inevitably morale is low? Does she accept that every week there is a new leak about its future, that it is most unfair to the company and the public to allow this to continue and that the time has come to make decisions about the future of CIE to end the uncertainty which is at the root of the strike?

When I answered questions last week I indicated to the Deputy that I had met the trade unions to which I had outlined our strategy and how we intended to move forward. There is no difficulty within the trade unions on the need for competition and a change of emphasis on the funding of public transport. I agree that the problems have been simmering for a long time in CIE—

Since June 1997.

For three years.

The Minister allowed it to happen. She has a different policy every week.

Some week I would like to invite the Deputies to look at the files on CIE – they are huge.

The Minister's train is running out of steam.

Does the Minister agree that the cause of the malaise lies in the fact that for the past three years she has demonstrated a total lack of policy on public transport with a series of proposals and changes leading to the resignation of the chairman of CIE? Given that its employees are going on strike, does she agree that the least that is required as a matter of urgency is a chairperson for that organisation? On this occasion will she appoint a full-time rather than a part-time executive chairperson?

Is that the Deputy's viewpoint?

We are asking the Minister.

The Government will make an announcement on the Chair very soon. I hope that the various parties in the Dáil would welcome that but that is up to themselves.

I hope it will be a full-time chief executive.

There is a chief executive in the company.

The changes need to be a bit higher up.

I agree with Deputy Bruton.

He means the Minister.

She should stop undermining the chief executive.

(Dublin West): Does the Minister accept that the subsidy to Dublin Bus is among the lowest, if not the lowest, to any bus service in Europe; that her Government and successive Governments have allowed a regime of extremely low pay to subsidise public transport; and that it was inevitable that the bus workers would become—

Deputy Higgins, we cannot have a Second Stage speech on it; a brief question to the Minister please.

(Dublin West): I have asked a question about the subsidisation of the service by low pay. When the Minister is appointing a chairperson to this State company, I ask that unlike custom or practice she will not appoint a political hack but somebody who has the confidence of the workers in particular, knows about public transport and can, in dialogue with the workers and the public, bring about a proper public transport system for the people of Dublin.

Before the Minister replies, we will take a brief supplementary question from Deputy Gormley.

Is not the root cause the fact that the Government has prioritised road transport as opposed to public transport? If I misunderstood the Minister, will she provide clarification? Is she saying that acceptance of competition will form no part of negotiations?

No. On the second point, maybe the interpretation of it might not be cor rect. I said that in the talks which took place the week before last the trades unions and I talked about competition. I acknowledge that acceptance in the fullest sense of competition can well be part of the basis for negotiations, if that is what the Deputy is asking.

Is it part of negotiations?

No, it has not become part of them but it could well become so.

On Deputy Higgins's question, the subsidy in 1996 was £3.4 million and now it is £13.2 million.

(Dublin West): Why does the Minister not start in 1987?

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Barr
Roinn