Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Wednesday, 19 May 2010

Ceisteanna — Questions

Social Partnership

Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent discussions with the public service trade unions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12967/10]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12968/10]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when he last met the social partners; when he next expects to meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13689/10]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

4 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date on the talks currently underway with the public service unions; if any deadline has been set for the conclusion of these talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13690/10]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he has scheduled further meetings with public service unions, other trade unions and employers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18793/10]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (32 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.

On 12 March last, along with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, I met with officers of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The purpose of this meeting was to explore the potential and appropriate conditions for a renewed engagement between public service unions and management on the development of a comprehensive agenda for the transformation of public services and on a framework for public service pay determination.

At this meeting, it was agreed that both sides would invite Mr. Kieran Mulvey and Mr. Kevin Foley of the Labour Relations Commission as facilitators to undertake initial discussions with public service management and unions. While appointed in a personal capacity, the facilitators would draw on the resources of the Labour Relations Commission to support their work.

As Deputies are aware, following lengthy and complex discussions, on 30 March a draft agreement was reached with the public service unions on a comprehensive agenda for public service transformation and a framework for public service pay determination over the period to 2014. This draft agreement, if ratified, will result in significantly enhanced public services and a more cost effective and better integrated public service. It will also provide certainty for public servants on job security and income levels.

The draft agreement is the best deal that can be negotiated. As set out in the Government statement of 14 April, it is the Government's intention, on ratification, to enter into and operate the agreement in absolute good faith, including the provisions relating to the review of public service pay.

In recent weeks, the public service unions have sought clarifications on a number of aspects of the draft agreement. Following consideration of this request, clarifications on a number of issues were provided on 6 May. These clarifications will provide greater certainty and assist the parties in having a better understanding of various issues that have been raised since the completion of the Croke Park negotiations. It is now for the individual members of the unions concerned, through their ballots, to decide whether to accept or reject the deal.

With regard to meetings with the social partners, I last met representatives of the farming pillar, community and voluntary pillar and environmental pillar at a series of bilateral meetings on 27 October last. I last met with representatives of the employer and business pillar at a bilateral meeting on 20 October. I had subsequent bilateral engagement with representatives of the Irish Farmers Association on 4 February. In addition to these formal meetings, there is ongoing contact on issues of concern to the social partners through bilateral contacts or consultation structures across my Department and other Departments.

I thank the Taoiseach for his response. If the Croke Park deal is endorsed by the trade union membership, as I hope it will be, the Fine Gael Party, if elected to government, will commit to honouring the commitment not to cut public sector pay between now and 2014. We would also prioritise the earnings of lower paid public servants in the first instance. In addition, as I have stated publicly, my party will contest the next general election seeking a public mandate on a more ambitious reform agenda, including the implementation of our party programmes on new politics, fair care in the health area and the establishment of a new economic recovery authority as part of our jobs plan.

The Croke Park deal falls short of the scale of reform that is needed to transform our public services in order that they will become absolutely efficient, rewarding and professional. While the deal includes some welcome and long overdue reforms in the areas of redeployment and flexible hours, it leaves core structural problems relatively untouched. It is worth noting that failure to tackle the over-centralisation of power in unaccountable Departments and bureaucracies such as the HSE leaves front line staff demoralised and frustrated. The system strangles initiative and does not reward creativity. In short, while the agenda is important, it is limited to achieving a small reduction in the cost of doing things in the same way. We should aspire to having a public service in which people are enthusiastic and understand that the work they do makes a contribution to the welfare and benefit of the country, economy and society and their initiative, creativity, contribution and hard work are rewarded.

As the Taoiseach is aware, the current industrial action is causing difficulties for people who were not responsible for cuts in salaries. Arising from this action, I am not sure if the Health Service Executive knows how much of its budget has been spent. The backlog of 70,000 applications in the Passport Office has also caused difficulties. It would be helpful if the Taoiseach were to recognise that one of the most sensitive issues in respect of the Croke Park agreement is the provision that commitments entered into may be withdrawn due to what are known as unforeseen circumstances. Will the Taoiseach clarify what this phrase means? For instance, if tax receipts for 2010 were to fall short of projections by up to €1 billion, would this constitute unforeseen circumstances?

This phrase has been used in other agreements and has been clarified by the facilitators of the agreement when clarification was sought by the public sector trade unions.

There is a full understanding on its meaning and content. It is important to point out that if this agreement is ratified, then the Government as an employer will implement the agreement in a bona fide manner.

I do not accept the Deputy's contention that this is a limited agreement. It provides an important platform, setting out the details of public service commitments on the reduction of staff and staff redeployment, reconfiguration of the design and delivery of services, looking at the issue of performance and skills, sectoral agreements, pay and pensions policy, performance verification, the mechanism to resolve disagreements, as well as a commitment to a stable industrial relations climate. This is a very important draft agreement which will be ratified in the weeks ahead for those who have yet to consider it. It is a matter of importance that this is the best agreement that can be negotiated.

I note that the Deputy is suggesting that he will be imposing other issues beyond what is agreed here, should he ever get into Government. That will be an interesting development to watch.

That is not as interesting as the developments we are watching now.

This agreement sets out the commitments being entered into on both sides, namely, pay commitments by the Government and commitments by employees on the transformation of services.

I agree with the Taoiseach that this is an important draft agreement. I do not accept his assertion that I make impositions. I made it clear that this party will contest the next general election on the basis of three serious programmes that are related to how we conduct politics in here, how to change our health system from a two-tier system to a universal health care system that will bring about efficiencies, make the patient central to that change and enable the Government to employ more front line people as nurses, doctors, physiotherapists and so on, and a major investment programme in job creation. We would co-ordinate the State agencies and other State bodies to a much greater extent.

Everybody can recognise the value and the work of our public servants, such as our teachers, nurses and gardaí. Many of them work exceptionally long hours in a dedicated fashion. The system strangles their initiative. We must find methods to change that so that our public servants are enabled to give their best in the interest of all our people. That is what an efficient public service should be about.

There are structural problems running through the entire public service that will need serious negotiations to overcome. I accept the references that the Taoiseach read out. I asked him whether the projected €1 billion shortfall in tax receipts constitutes unforeseen circumstances, but he did not reply to that.

No, that would not be regarded as an unforeseen circumstance.

Perhaps in his response he can give an example of what unforeseen circumstances might be. This is of interest to the trade union membership who are being asked to vote on the Croke Park agreement. A clarification from the Taoiseach of his understanding of what the facilitator has drawn up between the Government and the trade unions would be very important in how trade union members approach the vote before they make their decision.

The clarification has been given by the facilitators. It is the expressed intention and expectation of the Government that there will be no further reductions in the remuneration of employees in the public service for the lifetime of this draft agreement, subject to compliance with the terms of draft agreement. Paragraph 1.28 of the draft agreement states that the "implementation of this agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration" and the Government has agreed that these terms will be applied in a bona fide manner by the Government side. Similar clauses have applied in previous agreements. It is not envisaged that the clause will be utilised on the basis of any currently known facts. The option of the draft agreement will itself give a measure of certainty about policy and spending that will assist in the process of economic recovery.

There is nothing that we see at the moment that will cause that clause to be invoked. There is an arrangement in the agreement that should unforeseen issues arise that are so serious they will call into question the whole economic recovery programme, the Government and the trade unions will discuss that issue and see what impact it has on the agreement. I want to make it clear that it is a term that has been used and understood from previous agreements. The clarification given by the facilitators does not have to be added to in this respect.

There are a number of issues in these questions which were tabled prior to the conclusion of the discussions with the public service trade unions. The first issue is the agreement negotiated between the Government and the public service trade unions and which is now the subject of a ballot. I note that the president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has appealed to politicians in all parties to refrain from commenting on the proposed Croke Park agreement in order to allow trade union members time to focus on the intrinsic merit or otherwise of the proposals during the balloting period. I agree with that position. The danger of politicians commenting on it is the danger of hares being raised, which is quite unhelpful in the balloting process.

Where stands the wider social partnership agreement now? We had two agreements in place, namely, the Towards 2016 agreement and the Towards 2016 review and transitional agreement. Are those agreements now over? Are they still alive? My understanding is that IBEC has withdrawn from the process, so I wonder if there is a social partnership agreement that governs the wider industrial relations scene.

Is the Government still committed to introducing the various Bills in respect of employment rights and compliance? There were some suggestions in a newspaper report at the weekend that these are no longer a priority for the Government. What is the position on the national minimum wage? That had been on the agenda for the last full meeting between the social partners. It is now over a year since the Labour Court was asked to review the national minimum wage. When does the Taoiseach expect to get a determination from the Labour Court about it and can he give a commitment that the Government will not reduce it?

I agree that the draft agreement and the clarification provide a basis upon which a consultation is being undertaken by trade unions with their membership.

They should be allowed to proceed with that and conclude their arrangements for the organising of ballots and the results that will ensue. I agree that is a wise course of action. I wanted to ensure there had been reasonable clarifications. Clarifications were being sought because, as the Deputy knows, certain interpretations were being put on things which were not, in my opinion, in keeping with precedent in any event. The clarifications have an intrinsic merit in that respect given that they refer to the texts that were negotiated during what were very long, intensive and detailed negotiations between management and union representatives. I note that trade union representatives have, in terms of a negotiated settlement, confirmed that as far as they are concerned nothing has been left back on the table that was not available. This is the best negotiated settlement that can be provided for in current circumstances.

As I have said, there are arrangements to review the situation. As the Deputy knows, under the transition agreement there is an arrangement for review in the spring of 2011, which will proceed. In that respect those operable parts of the transition agreement still remain in place. There were pay aspects of that agreement, which, obviously, have been superseded by events and this draft agreement on the public sector side provides us with a prospect of having a way forward if ratified and agreed as far as the public service is concerned.

In the private sector, I understand the protocol between IBEC and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is that there will be further discussions in the autumn to see if something can be provided for there. In the overall scheme of things there is recognition by the parties that they are operating in a new context without a formal agreement on pay determination. Bearing in mind the shared commitment to maximising the sustainability of employment, it is accepted that the economic, commercial, employment and competitiveness circumstances of any firm are legitimate considerations in any discussion of claims for adjustments to pay or terms and conditions of employment. It is not the intention of parties to alter their historical approach to dealing with normal ongoing change. They are committed to ensuring they have a protocol that is effective for this year. They will meet in the autumn to discuss arrangements to apply thereafter. Otherwise the parties will meet as required to review the operation of the protocol, to oversee the delivery of industrial peace, stability and good industrial relations, and to consider any procedural matters where difficulties arise. The parties will establish agreed tripartite structures under a rotating chairmanship to include Government to discharge the functions set out in paragraph that I outlined before making that comment.

It is clear that they are seeking to deal with these matters on a case-by-case basis taking into account issues I have just mentioned as being important, shared commitments that both employer and employee representatives would have in terms of trying to maintain and protect employment, and provide a way forward consistent with the maintenance of employment generally.

On legislation, I would not agree with the characterisation the Deputy suggested. The Employment Law Compliance Bill and the Employment Agency Regulation Bill are being considered at present. The Employment Law Compliance Bill passed Second Stage here without division in March. It awaits Dáil Committee and Remaining Stages and Seanad consideration. A comprehensive set of Government amendments will be tabled for Dáil Committee Stage consideration, including changes to the body of the Bill to reflect the outcome of detailed consultation with stakeholders as well as further detailed examination of the Bill with the Parliamentary Counsel in the Office of the Attorney General.

The Employment Agency Regulation Bill was published in July 2009 and its Second Stage was completed on 25 February. We hope Committee Stage will take place during this session. It updates existing law on the licensing of employment agencies and extends the licensing regime to agencies outside Ireland. It is anticipated that progress will be made on the Bill in the current Dáil session.

There is also the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, the consumer and competition Bill and the issue of the transfer of undertakings directive. Legislation will be required to transpose into Irish law the terms of an EU directive on temporary agency work. Discussions between the social partners aimed at agreeing a framework agreement are continuing. Public consultation and preparatory work on the Bill are expected to be completed by the end of this year. Considerable work on legislation, both detailed and preparatory, is going on at the moment.

Will the discussions, which the Taoiseach expects to take place in the autumn between trade unions and private sector employer organisations, deal with the issue of pay in the private sector? I ask the Taoiseach to respond to the question I asked on the national minimum wage, which has been with the Labour Court for some time. When does he expect the Labour Court to issue its views and findings on the national minimum wage? What is the Government's thinking on the national minimum wage? There has been speculation that the Government was contemplating reducing the national minimum wage. Will the Taoiseach deny that speculation and give an assurance to those who are on the national minimum wage that it will not be cut?

I have no information on the status of that issue in the Labour Court at the moment. I would need to check it out for the Deputy and come back to him. As he says, there is speculation. I am not aware that there is a basis for that speculation. I do not know where it came from. We introduced the minimum wage and there is a process by which it is reviewed and referred to the Labour Court. That is an issue that is with the Labour Court at present.

Has the Government made any views of its own known to the Labour Court in respect of the minimum wage?

I will need to check that and come back to the Deputy.

Can the Taoiseach confirm that the Croke Park deal will maintain the current recruitment embargo in the health services? Can he confirm that to date some 1,900 non-replacements of front line service providers, nurses and midwives in the main, have resulted from that embargo? If it is to be maintained in the health services, over the next three years in excess of 6,000 further posts will remain unfilled and not replaced, with a corresponding cut of the order of some 3,500 further acute hospital beds in the public hospital network. If those are the facts — I understand them to be so — is it any wonder that the INMO has overwhelmingly rejected the Croke Park deal?

Having said that, I recognise that there are divided opinions among some trade union representatives of workers within the health services and that SIPTU has taken a conflicting position regarding the workers in the health services that it represents. At the end of the day how will it be possible to reconcile a situation, whatever the outcome, where there is such strong opposition within the sector representing the nursing staff and midwives and also the SIPTU representation within the health services? How is it possible to reconcile these respective positions, whatever the outcome, especially if acceptance is to be the case? How will the Government expect that to roll out after the final judgment on the Croke Park proposals?

As Deputy Ó Caoláin said, a general moratorium on recruitment and promotion was applied to most of the public service and incentivised early retirement and career breaks schemes were introduced. The way to deal with the situation outlined by the Deputy is through agreement on redeployment. Reduction in public service numbers is one aspect of the way we will deal with transforming the public service in the future. It is not simply about reducing numbers but also about getting a greater degree of flexible redeployment in order to ensure there is proper redeployment within the sector. Cross-sector redeployment can take place, within a geographic area where possible, having regard to the arrangements agreed in respect of non-commercial, semi-State sponsored bodies. To help with the integration of the public service, barriers to a unified public service labour market will be dismantled, including through legislative provision, as appropriate. To the greatest extent possible there will be standardised terms and conditions of employment across the public service, with the focus initially within sectors. In that context, the parties have agreed to review and revise contractual or other arrangements or practices which generate inflexibility or restrict mobility.

In those two aspects of dealing with the issue, there is also the reconfiguring of the design and delivery of public services whereby the parties agree they must work more closely across sectoral, organisational and professional boundaries when designing and delivering services. The focus will be on having people delivering cost-effective public services, committed to engaging at national, sectoral and local level to achieve specified measurable outcomes in regard to cost containment, service integration and reconfiguration, as well as on engaging staff, progressing change and maximising the productivity gains proposed from how work is organised and from streamlining procedures, processes and systems to allow for shared services and Government developments.

A substantial commitment to the redesign of work processes will be necessary. The parties will co-operate with the drive to reduce costs through organisational rationalisation and restructuring and by having service delivery organised in different ways or delivered by different bodies. The aim is to minimise duplication of effort, reuse data within the public system and reduce information demands on the citizen and on business. The introduction of new or improved technology, service provision and on-line electronic funds transfer would be regarded as the norm. Processes and service delivery would be improved by better collation and reuse of data and personal information and by centralising transaction and certain sectoral data handling support functions.

A range of issues are addressed and there are separate sectoral agreements. In the six chapters and 83 pages one can see what is envisaged in regard to various sectors.

I listened carefully to the Taoiseach's reply but there is nothing in what he said that gives any comfort to the wider populace, who will present at accident and emergency departments or in need of particular hospital care, concerning any possible changes in the current recruitment embargo and the posts that have been made vacant. Will the Taoiseach not avail of the opportunity to indicate clearly that the Croke Park deal maintains the current recruitment embargo on frontline staff? I speak specifically about nurses and midwives, an area where 1,900 posts are already vacant as a result of the embargo and, over the next three years, a signalled in excess of 6,000 further posts across the public health system will be left unfilled. Is the Taoiseach not aware also, from Deputies from all constituencies and across the House, there are huge difficulties at present within the health services and that frontline staff are being stretched well beyond the limit? This is exemplified in the very understandable position taken by the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation.

We have spent an inordinate amount of time on this group of questions.

This is the question I want to ask the Taoiseach. I want to know what he is prepared to say, further, because there is no relief in what he offers. Is he prepared to make any further statement that will give any hope or comfort to nurses, midwives, other frontline staff and to the dependent population?

On 2 February I asked the Taoiseach about the national minimum wage. In his response to Deputy Gilmore he indicated only that he did not know from where the question had arisen but he never answered it, either today to Deputy Gilmore or to this Deputy on 2 February. I ask again, will the Taoiseach give comfort to people in low-wage situations who are dependent on the minimum wage to sustain any level of making ends meet by clearly stating the Government does not intend to interfere with the national minimum wage and will maintain and sustain it? I acknowledge that a Fianna Fáil-led Government introduced it in the first place. Will the Taoiseach now give comfort to those who are most concerned, those at the lowest income levels throughout the State, and state he will not countenance interference and reduction in the national minimum wage, as currently stated?

As I said to Deputy Gilmore in regard to the minimum wage, there is a process and mechanism in place by which that matter is reviewed and looked at. I do not intend to interfere with the process.

In regard to the wider issue, a detailed health sector agreement is set out in chapter 2 of the draft public service agreement which specifically sets out, in such great detail that one could not contemplate reading it into the record, what is envisaged and what has been provided for. It is the case that a challenge faces us but the objective is to provide more cost efficient and better services and as good a service as we are able to provide, in a way that is sustainable in budget terms, which redesigns services and ensures that we get as many frontline people involved in the service as possible. The whole management and administration behind supporting that cannot be dismissed completely but must be done in a cost effective way that ensures that one provides the resources where they are needed and that they are not dissipated in other ways. That is the whole purpose of the transformation agenda.

There are arrangements for a very robust consultation with staff interests in respect of bringing this forward. These also mention ensuring a system is put in place where the contribution being made by those on the front line can be measured and ensure we are able to show the inputs and outputs are such that they justify resources going into particular areas. It will be therefore be possible to address the whole question of streamlining processes and procedures behind all of that. This is required to bring forward all the necessary modern technological advances to ensure costs are cut there as well.

I will take a brief supplementary question from Deputy Shatter.

In the context of the negotiations and agreements concluded, did the Taoiseach or the Government at any point address the scandal that since 2002 the IMPACT trade union has been involved in industrial action in respect of which social workers across the eastern seaboard areas have been directed not to apply the Children First child protection guidelines? This is referred to by the Ombudsman for Children in her report published last week. This is a major industrial relations issue that has placed children at risk and the Government has ignored for the best part——

It sounds like a question for the line Minister.

——of eight years now. The questions relate to the public service unions. In the context of all the issues discussed and resolved, did it cross the Taoiseach's mind or the Government's mind, based on the scandals and revelations of the past ten years and the State's failure in respect of providing protection to children, that this issue should be addressed, that the dispute should be resolved? Why is it that until the Ombudsman for Children's report was published not a single Minister acknowledged this dispute is taking place and is sabotaging the implementation of the Children First guidelines?

This is the time for questions to the Taoiseach.

No action since the ombudsman's report was published a week ago has been taken by a single Minister to indicate any intervention to resolve this dispute.

I can only speak generally with regard to the draft public service agreement. We must wait to see if the agreement is ratified by the membership. The public service committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions must confirm the outcome before this is implementable. However, in the coming weeks, those ballots will be finalised. We have the prospect of a very important series of changes in terms of how we do our business in the public service and a commitment from all sides to work together to achieve this and obtain savings from it. That is the focus and if there are specific issues, like those referred to by the Deputy, or other matters which have not been resolved through the industrial relations processes, this agreement sets out a system for dealing with some of those perhaps more effectively than previously.

If the Government is genuinely concerned with ensuring that children are given the protection to which they are entitled, could he explain why this dispute has been left simmering for eight years, preventing implementation of the Children First guidelines and resulting, as the Ombudsman for Children have told us, in instances of child abuse not being properly reported to the Garda? It is a particular scandal in current circumstances. Could the Taoiseach explain why it was not addressed in the context of these discussions? Did the Taoiseach even know the dispute was taking place until the Ombudsman for Children's report was published? What has he done as Taoiseach to have this dispute resolved?

The Deputy should really submit that question to the line Minister.

We are talking about industrial relations and public service unions. This is an example of a problem that has festered on the watch of the current Taoiseach and his predecessor which has left children at risk. It is a dispute that both the union and the Government kept secret for eight years. It took the Ombudsman for Children to reveal the existence of this dispute and the impact on child protection. I think that is a serious issue and the House is entitled to hear what the Taoiseach has to say about it. Is he going to do anything to have this dispute resolved? Is he going to intervene in it? Is he going to order his Minister of State with responsibility for children to intervene? Is he going to ask his Minister for Health and Children why she has done nothing about it since 2005?

Specific questions on particular disputes should be put to the line Minister and I am sure a detailed update from the Department could be obtained in that way. The questions I have been asked relate specifically to discussions we have been having with public service trade unions generally in the context of the draft agreements we are now discussing.

Barr
Roinn