Joe Higgins
Ceist:1 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the outcome of the meeting with the social partners on 24 October; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24885/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Social Partnership.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26170/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the meeting with the social partners on 24 October 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26333/03]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the outcome of the recent October 2003 meeting with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27273/03]
Dan Boyle
Ceist:5 Mr. Boyle asked the Taoiseach his views on whether the representation of the community and voluntary sector within the social partnership process is adequate and appropriate. [28579/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:6 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of his most recent meeting with the social partners. [28858/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
As Deputies will recall, I reported to the House on 1 October 2003 that I attended the inaugural meeting on Sustaining Progress on 18 July 2003, together with the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance. In addition to my annual attendance at the July plenary meeting, I meet representatives of individual partner organisations on a regular basis.
As Deputies will also be aware, the second Sustaining Progress plenary meeting took place on 24 October 2003 in Dublin Castle. I did not attend this meeting but was represented by officials from my Department. Presentations were made by the Department of Finance on the medium-term economic outlook and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in conjunction with the Department of Education and Science, on lifelong learning. A presentation was also made by the ESRI on the mid-term evaluation of the national development plan and a detailed progress report on the implementation of Sustaining Progress was presented to the social partners. A copy of the report and relevant PowerPoint presentations have been laid in the Oireachtas Library.
As Deputies are aware, the membership of the community and voluntary pillar of social partnership was expanded following on from ratification of Sustaining Progress. The pillar now has 15 member organisations which have endorsed Sustaining Progress, six on an individual basis and nine in the strands of older people, disability, housing, children, rural, local-voluntary and care. The membership of the pillar changed as a result of a review of participation in social partnership, which included an examination of ways in which to maximise the potential contribution of the community and voluntary pillar, and the decision of two organisations not to accept Sustaining Progress.
In regard to those community and voluntary organisations which have not ratified Sustaining Progress, Departments have been advised that there may be areas in which the expertise of these organisations or their constituent members will be relevant to the policymaking and implementation process. These organisations may be invited to participate on particular committees or working groups in light of their particular expertise. This will be determined by the nature of the task or issue in question and is primarily a matter for each Department.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the latest report from the National Competitiveness Council showing this State as the most expensive country, along with Finland, in the eurozone for goods and services, makes a mockery of the idea that there is any real sense of social partnership between workers, employers who supply the services and the Government, and against a background in which the council noted that of 16 states, this State has the second worst rate of consumer price rises, the fourth most expensive insurance premiums and so forth?
Is it not the case that what are called partnership deals are little more than devices to hold workers' wage increases to a minimum, while allowing unrestrained profiteering in key parts of the services sector, housing and other areas? Does the Taoiseach agree that against this background the initials ROI, which usually refer to the Republic of Ireland, could just as easily stand for "Rip-off Ireland", over which his Government presides? Will he take responsibility for this situation, given that his Government has taken no effective action to reduce massive inflation and has been responsible for much of it through its regime of stealth taxes? What does he propose to do to give meaning to his claim that there is social partnership?
In Sustaining Progress, pay is a small part of the initiatives agreed by the social partners. I do not accept that they are minimalist rates of pay. They are higher than those in almost any of the other 12 or 15 EU countries. I am afraid that contention falls at the start.
As regards employment, competitiveness and reducing unemployment, the Deputy mentioned a few issues, such as insurance costs. The Government has introduced legislation and a range of initiatives which we hope will deal with that issue. One of the problems is that we need more competition. While we can deal with some of the legislative and legal mechanisms in the two Bills, we need competition to try to get a broader range in the market. As regards other issues, such as public expenditure, the national development plan, infrastructure and development, taxation and affordable housing, progress is being made on all the special initiatives associated with social partnership. The latest reports show that there has been substantial ongoing progress in these areas in this calendar year, the first year out of three. The Government must continue to work with the social partners and the organisations to implement the programmes.
Although this has been a difficult year, following a three year international economic downturn, we have still had great success in terms of low unemployment rates, an increase in employment and a reduction in inflation. I readily admitted at the start of the year that inflation was a major issue. However, our efforts are bearing fruit. We must continue in every way we can to work with the social partners and others to reduce inflation. The figure is encouraging compared to that at the start of the year when it was in excess of 5%. The figure is now closer to the EU average.
Was the Taoiseach concerned about the comment by IBEC's director general, Mr. Brendan Butler, during the negotiations on Sustaining Progress that IBEC would not support development levies? There is a disparity between various areas of the country which will give rise to regional imbalance. The charge levied by Fingal County Council for a 10,000 square meter industrial development, for example, is €1 million. However, south Tipperary County Council charges €750,000, while Sligo County Council charges €155,000. Has the Taoiseach discussed the development levies with the unions in view of the comments by the director general of IBEC?
The development levies were not part of the discussions on Sustaining Progress. Many of these issues are market led and market driven. The development charges in this city were unanimously fixed last night by the city council. They are bound to be different across the country, depending on the market. As regards what the market achieves and how it operates, regardless of the price the market fixes, it is a case of what price can be achieved. It is good that some of the developers' profits are drawn back in development levies.
As regards the provision for a joint consultative committee on social issues, was that committee used for the purpose of consultation on 24 October or on any date about the cuts of €58 million in social welfare which were subsequently imposed in the Book of Estimates?
The increases or tightening of the subheads were not discussed in any year with the social partners.
I did not ask the Taoiseach if many of the increases, which are properly a budgetary matter, were discussed, but whether there is any point having such a joint consultative committee if prospective cuts were not discussed with it. What is the meaning of partnership if the partners which are party to the joint consultative committee were not consulted? Does the Taoiseach not agree this matter has serious implications?
A question please, Deputy.
I asked the Taoiseach if he agrees this matter has serious implications. That is the best I can do as regards a question.
The Deputy should read the record when it appears.
With the utmost respect, a Cheann Comhairle, I suggest you do the same.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that for the people most adversely impacted upon by these cuts, the joint consultative committee would have been an appropriate place for them to be discussed?
What I stated to the Deputy, and he obviously did not hear the first part of my response, was that any tightening up or increases in any of the subheads or schemes, are not discussed. I dealt with the point he raised.
Within Sustaining Progress, or any of the programmes, discussions always take place around social welfare issues and the anti-poverty strategy, on the challenges we have to face and the targets we have to reach. They are issues that are discussed every year and taken into account. Individual areas in the Book of Estimates are not the subject of those discussions and never have been.
Sustaining Progress seems to be in increasing difficulty. Would the Taoiseach agree that Ireland has the lowest expenditure on social provision in the EU, in both GDP and GNP terms, and that 300,000 children are living in poverty, according to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul? In view of this, what is the prognosis for the ten key economic and social policy issues, the special initiatives, dealing with housing, accommodation, ending child poverty, etc.? What promises did the Taoiseach give to the social partners on these issues in October? Is there a clear difficulty for the Government which has to resort to non-payment of increases if there is any sign of industrial action? Does that not indicate the need to sit down again with the social partners to avoid the likelihood of serious industrial unrest, whether involving teachers, junior doctors, nurses, Land Registry workers, binmen, Defence Force personnel, Aer Rianta staff, Cork CSO workers, the list goes on?
Is there not a need for the Taoiseach to look at this again and resolve much of this industrial unrest before it affects us all?
Thankfully, this year has seen some of the lowest levels of industrial unrest across the public and private sectors. The Deputy asked about the special initiatives, all of which are being worked on. There are regular meetings of the social partners on the subject, there is close liaison on the issue and a complete exchange of views. The recent report gives an update on those issues. There will be another report next month, at the next meeting of the social partners in January, which will take the year as a whole into account. There has been substantial progress in a number of these areas, taking into account that it is the first year of three. In the housing area, and all of the other areas, there has been a large amount of progress.
There is no need for me to go through the updated report with a blow by blow account, all the issues have been documented in every area. I hope we can continue with the aims of the report. Some involve resources, some are system issues, but we have made considerable progress on all of them.
Has the Taoiseach taken the opportunity, in his most recent meeting with IBEC, or at any time previously, to raise the quite excessive increases in pay to Irish company executives? In its most recent report the Irish Management Institute states that Irish company executives have secured pay increases of the order of 50%. In contrast, under Sustaining Progress ordinary workers have been restricted over a two year period to a 7% pay rise. There is a stark contrast between these two realities. How does the Taoiseach view partnership in terms of those figures?
A key component of partnership agreements has been the addressing of poverty. It has been reported that some 300,000 children are living in poverty.
A question, please, Deputy.
Their families are earning less than €147 per week. Does the Taoiseach accept those figures? He has rejected them in the past. The figures were presented by the Combat Poverty Agency and supported by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. They are provided by the people who are at the coalface, trying to address poverty in our communities.
The Deputy is talking about private sector companies and executives. Only a small number of people receive the increases he mentioned – most do not. The private sector would argue that this year the public sector has done better than it has. It must be admitted there are highly paid people – one is sometimes staggered at the salaries they receive. However, this is in the private sector market and if an executive does not get it right he or she – and possibly the company – is out the door. That has happened many times this year. Company boards must take this into account. In many cases people are receiving bonuses and working under other arrangements. There is not much we can do about it. Not many people have received increases such as these, although some have. It is not possible to regulate this.
Many of the companies whose executives have received large salary increases also have good share options and so on for the staff. These arrangements often drive each other. I will not mention any names but one can see that some of the companies that give large increases to their executives also pay their staff the highest amounts. One can see these figures in the IR news any week. There is always a similarity between salaries of the executives and those of the staff. However, I am surprised at the figures – it is nice work if one can get it.
The Taoiseach forgot to answer the second part of my question about poverty statistics. The Combat Poverty Agency and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul—
The Deputy has made his point.
Deputy Kenny asked me that question last week and I answered it. I know what the figures are based on, as does the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. The Government is continuing to deal with this issue. Eight of the ten initiatives under Sustaining Progress have a clear focus on social inclusion, ending child poverty, tackling disadvantage and long-term unemployment and helping vulnerable workers and those who have been made redundant. We remain committed to the implementation of all these initiatives, which have received substantial resources. Most of our resources go into this area in one form or another, going towards education, social welfare and health. We have an enormous welfare budget and there are many initiatives in the area of disadvantaged education which were not there five years ago. All these initiatives are linked into the national anti-poverty strategy and are designed to assist in areas of need.
Did the Taoiseach take note of the recent comment by Dr. Rory O'Donnell, director of the National Economic and Social Council, that the public wanted solutions rather than an ideological impasse? I am sure that the Taoiseach, as Head of Government, cannot be too pleased with many elements of society. A typical example was given in yesterday's "Prime Time" programme about very young people being involved in crime.
Does the Taoiseach not feel the need for a redirection of social partnership? Everyone makes his or her own case and that is fair enough. The voluntary sector has pulled out of social partnership and yet it is obvious that, whereas investment that leads to ghettos breeds criminality and investment that leads to sprawling urban estates results in vandalism and opportunities for delinquency, investment in people deals with the issues of poverty and educational disadvantage. These issues will remain critical for the next 20 years.
What is the Deputy's question?
Does the Taoiseach believe that the social partnership model has been successful in attempting to grapple or cope with the problems of society which have the potential to give rise to huge costs?
That is a broad question. I remind the Deputy that, while social partnership covers many of the issues, it does not cover everything in society. It covers a broad agenda of employers, employees, farmers, and small and big business people. The community pillar is still involved. Some groups have pulled out but others have come in. In many ways it is stronger now than it was. A broader range of groups is included. There is a greater balance between older people, disability and equality than heretofore. The outside groups are accessible when they wish to have a say and when it is felt they should be communicated with.
Some of the other issues remain within Departments. I recall many of the challenges with which the Deputy and I would have had to deal 20 years ago, for example, in the mid-1980s when the drugs issue began to take hold and escalate and there was 20% unemployment and enormous social problems. Today, with 4% unemployment, half the European average, a huge amount of money is being invested to tackle educational disadvantage. That should be compared with the state of disadvantaged communities a decade ago. All parties in the House who were in Government during that period can take credit for tackling disadvantage in the meantime and making a success of it.
Formerly, it was just school teachers at the coalface. Now there are teachers involved in home liaison and dealing with disadvantage. There are breakfast and lunch clubs, enormous inputs into classroom assistance, and a huge resource input allied to low unemployment. The underlying reasons linking unemployment to deprivation are not present anymore. There still is crime, and drug-related crime, in some communities and that is what has to be tackled.
In my constituency in the heart of inner city Dublin the type of criminality that remains does not encompass the masses of poorer people, but there are certainly elements of crime that are drug-related. That remains and must be dealt with. However, the major rejuvenation of places such as Cherry Orchard, Ballymun and other difficult areas may be seen, where vast amounts of money and resources have been invested which could not have been before. That is why we must deal with our criminal problems, but we should acknowledge the vast amount of resources being invested, not least in education. Significantly more educational schemes are available now than were on offer a decade ago.
Was the question of housing discussed at the meeting of 24 October, specifically the provision of an additional 10,000 social houses? Has an assessment been made of how many will be provided at the end of this calendar year? Is the Taoiseach still optimistic that they will be delivered within the lifetime of the programme?
The housing issue is raised at all meetings because it is one of the key areas. The Government was committed under Sustaining Progress to an ambitious scale of delivery of affordable housing. The affordable housing initiative has been announced. The announcement of sites in Dublin, Meath and Kildare was made in the summer. The availability of other sites has been discussed since. Implementation meetings have been held with all the relevant local authorities on the form of the scheme, which the social partners favour. It will endeavour to help people who traditionally would have been able to afford their own home but who cannot now do so.
The Government is working with the parties to agree the precise terms of the initiative and to obtain more sites. The aim is to obtain approximately 10,000 sites. I am not sure if the full range of sites will be available, but a considerable number of areas in the greater Dublin region and around other cities are being considered. The implementation of the initiative is a priority for the Government. I am not sure what the figures are for this year but the aim is to try to make available approximately 10,000 sites during the course of the programme.
On the discussions that have taken place regarding concerns among civil servants, particularly lower paid civil servants, is the Taoiseach aware of some of these concerns which relate not just to pay rises, small as this may be compared to some of their higher paid colleagues, but also to the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill, which puts the responsibility on Secretaries General to hire and fire civil servants? Given that lower paid civil servants may wish to stand for election, for example, the pressure and work-related stress on such people give rise to concern about the Government's intention to introduce legislation to penalise civil servants based on performance and extend the scope of the Unfair Dismissals Act. Has the issue been discussed not just with higher paid civil servants but with representatives of lower paid civil servants who sometimes feel under the cosh of their Civil Service colleagues in upper grades?
All civil servants are represented in Sustaining Progress, including large numbers of civil servants in the lower grades. I do not think the issue the Deputy raised has been discussed but clear guidelines are laid down in the Civil Service which have long since been tested and found to be workable. If he is referring to individuals, the procedures are in place which have been tested. People have a right to the protections which exist.
On the changes to which the Deputy referred, as part of the overall benchmarking process it was agreed that the old centrally regulated system would be amended. Under the new system Departments will have more autonomy. They will be able to discipline and recruit staff and deal with other matters on a local basis, which makes more sense. It will also allow for more flexibility. Obviously on rare occasions it will mean that people can be disciplined or dismissed by the Secretary General rather than by way of the centralised basis. The same rules will apply but there will be more flexibility for dealing with issues more speedily. Up to now we have been operating under the 1924 Act, which has been amended and updated. Many of these issues have been negotiated under the benchmarking process and the Civil Service, by and large, is in favour of the changes.
The National Competitive Council has found that average price levels in this State are 12% above the EU average. Does the Taoiseach agree that after six and a half years in Government, his solution to this rip-off which calls for more competition, sounds hollow to ordinary working people and poor people who are suffering the impact of these rip-off prices? Is he aware that many of us suspect that informal, if not formal, cartels among key service providers ensure prices are kept high? Will he agree that in his reply he reflected the admonition of the Tánaiste, who is supposed to be responsible for this area, that we should all shop around, as if to say we should all become shopaholics and somehow prices might drop dramatically? If we put into effect the Tánaiste's admonition—
Sorry, Deputy, it is not appropriate to make a statement. I advise the Deputy to confine himself to questions. There are a number of Deputies offering and I would like to facilitate them all.
These are burning issues for ordinary people.
The Deputy will have an opportunity later in the week to address them.
Let me finish by asking a question to show up the ridiculous and futile position of the Government. Will the Taoiseach agree that if we tried to put into effect the Tánaiste's admonition in Dublin city centre in looking for a reasonably priced drink, we would all become alcoholics not shopaholics before reaching our goal? The partnership deal is called Sustaining Progress. As it draws to an end, how does the Taoiseach feel about the fact that he is inflicting savage social welfare cuts on those whom he says are part of this partnership process?
I mentioned competition in the area of insurance, which was the particular area I was thinking of when replying to Deputy Rabbitte. One can deal with the legal, legislative and administrative areas of the insurance issue, and surveys have shown that prices have come down during the past three or four months by approximately 3% but to make a huge impact it is necessary to get more companies into the market. The Government is very focused on that issue and is endeavouring to attract other companies into the market. That is necessary in other areas as well. I have read the report on the catering area. Why is it that the south of Spain and some other parts of Europe are cheaper? The adult rates are €3.50 while our minimum rate is €7. The answer is simple when they are paid those rates.
So the workers are to blame.
If one is getting a meal and the staff are getting decent rates of remuneration and pay – which they are—
Why are house prices so high?
Deputy Higgins had his opportunity.
If a chef receives €10 in a good hotel in the south of Spain while a chef here receives €35 here what tends to happen is that the price of the meal is more expensive.
So the workers are to blame.
It is hard to explain that to the Deputy as he does not want to listen.
I ask the Deputy to allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption. His colleague is offering and I would hope to reach him.
That is the difficulty. If a person receives €4 while another receives €20 the positions are different. If the Deputy wants to advocate his policy whereby employees here would receive those kinds of rates, then one will get a cheaper meal.
That is unbelievable.
That is the logic of the position. I do not want that position. I do not want to go back to 17% unemployment where people get low rates and no minimum wage. I do not want to achieve that but the Deputy does.
What about high prices in the housing market?
I can understand why the Deputy would want that kind of society but it is not the one I want.
The Taoiseach has acknowledged the disparity between the pay increases for Irish chief executives and the curtailments imposed on ordinary Irish workers under Sustaining Progress. What proposals has he to address this disparity? On the second question I asked earlier vis-à-vis the figures from Combat Poverty and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul regarding children living in poverty—
That matter is the subject of Priority Question No. 59 to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and I ask the Deputy not to anticipate the question, in fairness to the Deputy who submitted it.
I was not conscious of that. I am dealing with Sustaining Progress. I tabled Question No. 6, the subject matter of which I have just addressed to the Taoiseach. Does he now accept the figures presented by Combat Poverty and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul or is he content to commend them on their work without doing anything about it?
Is the Taoiseach aware that trade unions have indicated that they were not consulted on the reduced entitlements for workers to unemployment benefit, disability benefit and health and safety benefit, the so-called 16 savage cuts as Community Platform described them? What is the value of social partnership when the trade union representatives, who are a key part of that framework, have not been consulted on this critical area? Will the Taoiseach, in response to the trade union appeal, reverse these cuts forthwith?
Four more Deputies wish to ask questions. I will take one from each and a final reply from the Taoiseach.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied that youth sector organisations and young people generally are fully and properly represented within the social partnership model, and is he satisfied with how they are represented? Does he have any plans to expand such representation given that the Youth Work Act 2001 seems to be dead in the water?
How many of the sites identified last year for the 10,000 social housing units have been built on? I was not clear from what the Taoiseach said whether some sites had been completed and others identified or whether some are identified but no building has commenced.
Does the issue of social and educational disadvantage arise often at talks with the social partners? The Taoiseach referred to disability. Do the facts that 1,382 families of intellectually disabled people are on waiting lists, 621 await day-care places, and 823 seek respite care arise at the talks with the social partners?
Will the Taoiseach indicate to what extent the social partnership has benefited or is likely to benefit communities in areas of deprivation which have been under pressure for some time, such as Ballymun, Finglas, Ballybough, Neilstown and elsewhere? To what extent has the housing problem, which has also been a contributory factor, been addressed?
Deputy Caoláin—
It has been noted outside the Chamber that the Taoiseach does not use the Ó in my surname. Perhaps he would correct that in future.
I apologise to the Deputy.
I appreciate that.
I am glad to do that. Deputy Ó Caoláin—
Does the Taoiseach know where the Ó came from?
Cé hé?
Does the Taoiseach know that in the inner city he is called Bertie O'Hern?
That is much worse.
I know. I always was. Thankfully the voters find me on the ballot paper. I am concerned about that. I apologise to Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Deputy O'Keeffe dropped the Ó.
In the areas of the private sector where people fix and receive large increases, the Government cannot dictate those prices or rates and people in many areas of the private sector receive them. A few chief executives receive very high salaries which are much higher than those paid in political life or the public sector. That is the reality. These companies would not recruit responsible or dynamic people for their industries if they did not pay these rates. The rates are fixed by the market and there is no legislation to control them. If people price themselves out of the market with these rates, they will create difficulties for themselves, but it is not an issue the Government can or should control.
On welfare, through the NAPS the social partners have the opportunity to give their views on payment rates, and groups dealing with older people give their views to the Minister through the Irish Senior Citizens Parliament. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs, while preparing for the publication of the Book of Estimates, meets all groups dealing with poverty, deprivation, social disadvantage and carers. That happened this year as it does every year.
Deputy Stanton asked about the youth sector. It has always been involved in the social partnership process and the funding generated in that sector in the past 15 years is as a result of this interaction. It is still evolving and the sum outlined in the Book of Estimates for the sector is sizeable.
Deputy Rabbitte asked if any of the houses I announced at the ICTU conference at the end of July had been built yet. They have not been built because the land was the property of the State and it is now handing over the land for the construction of houses. The work is ongoing and building will take place but it is unreasonable to think that the houses would be built only four months later.
Deputy Finian McGrath asked about the discussion of issues of social inclusion. Discussion of these issues has been one of the major successes of social partnership, with a focus on areas of disadvantage, especially in education where vast amounts of resources, mainly additional teachers, have been provided in areas of social exclusion. There is no doubt this work has been a success. Deputy Finian McGrath took an interest in this throughout his professional career before entering the House. There has been enormous success in the area and we have all seen its benefits. The long-term benefit is already being seen in many communities and we will continue with our efforts.
Disability issues are regularly discussed and that helped in the formulation of the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill. An enormous range of services are being improved for those with disabilities and that work will continue.
Deputy Durkan asked about Ballymun, Ballybough, Neilstown and similar areas. In almost all those areas, not only through social partnership but also through the national development plan, we have seen substantial progress in rejuvenation and improving the quality of houses and facilities. Many of these areas were built without schools, community facilities or health centres. The benefits of the Celtic tiger were seen in these areas with the construction of the arts centre in Ballymun and the rejuvenation of sporting facilities. It has been a good thing but it must continue because it will not all be done in four or five years. There have been dramatic improvements in Tallaght and Blanchardstown and other similar areas.