Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when he next plans to meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45953/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraWednesday, 15 December 2010
Ceisteanna (2, 3, 4, 5)
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when the last formal annual meeting of the parties to the Towards 2016 agreement was held; when the next meeting is due; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45955/10]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his role regarding the implementation of the Croke Park agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46964/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent discussions with trade unions and employers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46965/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (29 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, together.
There have been three formal plenary meetings of the parties to the Towards 2016 agreement since its publication in June 2006. The last meeting of that nature was held on 15 February 2008 and no further meeting has been scheduled. There have been a significant number of bilateral meetings with each of the social partnership pillars since then, both directly with myself and my Department and with relevant line Ministers and Departments, including most recently in the context of their budgetary submissions.
There have been initial discussions with each of the social partnership pillars regarding the Europe 2020 process, which involves consultation with national stakeholders in the development of each member state's national reform programme. I envisage further consultations before the final national reform programme is submitted to the Commission next April. Social partner representatives also continue to participate in a variety of Governmental consultative fora and bodies.
Additional information not provided on the floor of the House.
The public service agreement agreed at Croke Park earlier this year and ratified during the summer provides the industrial relations environment for the successful implementation of the Government's public service transformation programme. My Department worked closely with the Department of Finance and senior management from all the main sectors in the negotiations which led to the agreement.
The agreement provides a means by which the Government can radically transform the public service, especially through greater flexibility, redeployment, changed work practices and overall reductions in numbers. The management-union implementation body, independently chaired by Mr. P.J. Fitzpatrick, has been given an important role in driving forward the process of change and ensuring that any difficulties which may be encountered are resolved in a fair and speedy manner. A senior official from my Department is a member of the public service management side of the implementation body, alongside senior officials from the Department of Finance.
I welcome the valuable work which has already been done by the implementation body since it was established. The Government has instructed senior management across the entire public service to accord the highest possible priority to implementing the agenda for change set out in the agreement and to working with the implementation body. The Government has always stated that it seeks full implementation of the agreement as soon as possible and the national recovery plan was prepared on the basis that the agreement will make possible the delivery of tangible savings. The national recovery plan also makes it clear that the commitments entered into by the Government under the Croke Park agreement are dependent on savings being delivered through its comprehensive implementation. Finally on the issue of the Croke Park agreement, I wish to state once again that the Government considers that any party that chooses to remain outside the provisions of the agreement cannot expect to benefit from the commitments it gave as part of the agreement. That is its clear position.
The area of public service transformation is, by definition, a very broad one, covering a wide range of issues and sectors such as health, education, local government, justice, etc. The Cabinet committee on transforming public services, which I chair, is overseeing the implementation of the transformation programme as a whole. However, responsibility rests with the relevant Ministers in respect of each branch of the public service. Implementation of these transformation programmes will be facilitated by the terms of the Croke Park agreement. A steering group of Secretaries General, under the chairmanship of the Secretary General of my Department, supports the Cabinet committee and meets on a very regular basis.
In addition to providing the secretariat to the Cabinet committee and the steering group, the transforming public services programme office in my Department, working closely with the Department of Finance, is supporting organisations across the public service in their transformation efforts and is supporting the Government in driving, co-ordinating and monitoring progress in implementation of the overall transformation programme. The programme office, in conjunction with the Department of Finance, also provides the necessary assistance to the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, with regard to his public service transformation brief.
In the original Towards 2016 agreement, there were to have been quarterly meetings to review, monitor and report on progress, as well as an annual formal meeting of all the parties to the framework agreement. Do I understand from the Taoiseach correctly that the last quarterly meeting of the full social partnership body took place almost three years ago in February 2008? If that is the case, is it not then the case that the social partnership arrangements have in effect come to an end? Specifically, what is the Government's policy at present in respect of social partnership? In his recent interview on "Morning Ireland", the Minister for Finance suggested that a report that was being drawn up in his Department on the financial crisis would find that social partnership did enormous damage to the financial system. I find this to be difficult to understand and invite the Taoiseach to state whether he agrees with this assessment by the Minister for Finance. If he does agree with it, can he explain to the House what it means?
As I stated, there have been a number of bilateral meetings both this year and in previous years. However, there has not been a plenary meeting because, as the Deputy is aware, the Government has been dealing with this crisis. In addition, we also have had the Croke Park agreement and there has been a huge amount of consultation and work that has provided the background to dealing with a lot of problems that were arising in the labour market and industrial relations areas. This work has been highly substantive and specific. Moreover, it is clear that in the new economic, financial and fiscal position in which we find ourselves, all these agreements, whether they be social partnership agreements or any other, are based on maintaining financial and fiscal stability and on putting in context that all our commitments in such areas are subject to that overriding imperative because, otherwise, the process of implementation, whether phased or complete, is put at risk. Consequently, I do not accept that these do not continue to inform our basic approach. In all its efforts, the Government has sought to make adjustments that are progressive whereby people at the highest end of the spectrum in terms of income and resources pay the greatest proportion of the adjustment. This has been the case and economic data are available in the budgetary papers to confirm this and subsequent analysis of the budget and the cumulative impact of the budgets the Government has been obliged to apply since 2008 confirms this progressivity.
As for the issue about which the Deputy asked regarding a recent interview, I understand the Minister was referring to social partnership as an influence on public spending increases. He also spoke about the commitments as reflected in successive programmes for Government in that respect. As for the wider public spending influence of social partnership, all agreements are negotiated against a background of the programmes that are in place and of the overriding requirement for fiscal and financial stability. Commitments expressed as being dependent upon available resources and against a backdrop of the overriding concern to secure economic and fiscal stability form part of those programmes or of any other commitments people made responsibly at the time. It is important to consider the impact on public expenditure through increased public service salary levels and increases then associated with the wider policy objectives as set down in partnership agreements. The process of building peace and stability in the labour market and underpinning the process of economic change has yielded two of the benefits that social partnership provides for us all. There is no doubt but that in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, social partnership must evolve to meet our current circumstances. However, as a matter of information sharing, opinion sharing and getting the views of people and stakeholders in our society, it remains an important point of contact for all social partners with the Government.
On the interview by the Minister for Finance, the Taoiseach has stated that the Minister was referring to those increases in public expenditure that arose from social partnership agreements. Will the Taoiseach confirm that any such increases in public expenditure were agreed by the Government and, therefore, the reference by the Minister for Finance to the effect that social partnership did enormous damage to the financial system is simply another way found by that Minister to find another whipping boy to blame for the Government's policy failures? Did the last meeting of the entire partnership framework take place on 15 February 2008? Are there plans for further meetings of it? The Taoiseach referred to the Croke Park agreement and the implementation thereof. How often has the implementation body for the Croke Park agreement met? Is it the case that the Government or various Departments of the Government have now submitted their implementation plans for reforms in the public service to the implementation body? Has the implementation body yet heard the full extent of what the Government and its various Departments plan with regard to reforms in the public service?
I do not have all the detailed up-to-date positions in respect of the Croke Park agreement implementation body. It has met seven times to date, meets regularly and I understand its next meeting is due on 23 December. That body is available to deal with issues referred up to it, rather than with all the issues. The body exists to ensure that the existing sectors resolve problems consistent with the agreement in a timely and appropriate way. It has met key bodies such as the managements of Departments and general secretaries of public service unions, as well as a wide range of people in different sectors on a bilateral basis. It also has met key bodies in this area, including the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. Chairs have been appointed to the sectoral bodies from the implementation body, including Mr. Pat Harvey in health and Mr. Dan Murphy in local government.
The bodies have met a number of times. The Civil Service body met recently and a chairperson has been appointed for the other sectors. Mr. David O'Callaghan represents education, Mr. John White represents State agencies and Mr. Michael McCloone represents prisons. The sectoral action plans for effecting the change set out in the relevant sectoral agendas contained in the agreement are being reviewed by the implementation body. That is the most up-to-date information they have on that.
On the previous part of the Deputy's question on social partnership——
Are there any plans for another meeting?
No plans are currently scheduled for another plenary meeting but it is important to point out that meetings are taking place on a bilateral basis with employers, unions and voluntary pillar on various issues, and that will continue.
I heard the interview with the Minister for Finance yesterday morning on "Morning Ireland". There was no question but that he was extremely critical of the Croke Park agreement and previous social partnership agreements. The Taoiseach's speaking note aside, has he heard the interview or read a transcript of what the Minister said? Would he agree with the very strong criticisms the Minister aired on the national airwaves yesterday morning?
Whatever the views of the Minister or the Taoiseach — I am anxious to hear what he has to say — would he not accept that, to all intents and purposes, he has torn up the Croke Park agreement by the passage last week of facilitating legislation to reduce the minimum wage from a date in the new year? That is a critical element.
Would the Taoiseach also accept that he has flittered up the Croke Park agreement by the measures he introduced in the budget last week? They will have devastating consequences for people on low and middle incomes and those dependent on social welfare. What prospects does social partnership have into the future against the backdrop of an agreement and then the total unravelling of all the essential elements and understandings——
Does the Deputy have a question?
I have several of them. I hope the Taoiseach has heard them if the Ceann Comhairle has missed them.
The reduction in the minimum wage does not kick in immediately. I refer to the exposure on "Prime Time Investigates" on Monday of a number of people working as home carers who are not only on the minimum wage but also earning below it. There is very bad behaviour on the part of unscrupulous employers who are exploiting people on the lowest incomes possible.
Would the Taoiseach revisit the decision, allow the minimum wage to stand and take whatever appropriate measures are needed to weed out unscrupulous employers who will continue to profit at the expense of low paid workers——
Could we have a final question?
——even in the event of a reduction in the minimum wage by €1 per hour?
I do not agree with the Deputy. The public service pay agreement, which comprises the Croke Park agreement, has been maintained by the Government. It is sometimes forgotten that the agreement was negotiated against a background of escalating industrial action and put an end to that. In accepting the Croke Park agreement public servants have accepted the imposition of a pension levy and pay cuts, resulting in an average combined reduction of 14% in pay.
There has also been a reduction of about 12,000 in public service numbers since the end of 2008. In line with the national recovery plan, there will be an overall reduction of almost 25,000 by the end of 2014, from an end of 2008 base reference period. In contrast with the experience of other countries where less severe reform measures have been pursued, we have been able to maintain service continuity, which is particularly important for the most vulnerable in our society.
The reduction in numbers means that there has been increased productivity across the public service, as well as a reduction in the public service pay bill. We are getting more work and output for less money. The process will have to continue, in terms of maintaining stability in the public finances and getting to the point where we can bring balance back into our public finances.
I do not accept the contention of the Deputy that there has been a breach of the Croke Park agreement. It is a public service pay agreement with transformation commitments made therein, on the basis that we want a sustainable public service for the future which is well-resourced, affordable in the context of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, which will be reformed and will enable people to contribute on the basis of a sustainable financial position. It is in everyone's interests for that to happen. To do otherwise would be to put at risk job security for those in the public service and the avoidance of compulsory redundancies.
Any sectors in the public service which do not undertake the commitments of the deal cannot expect the benefits which arise from it. We are seeing commitment and leadership across a cohort of people numbering some 300,000. Leadership at all levels will be required to bring about the changes which are necessary and that are agreed need to be implemented, albeit in difficult circumstances. It needs to be done and we are working in line with the agreement to achieve that.
A redeployment mechanism and changes in practices are necessary. All the measures are fundamental. Despite economic constraints, the Government has abided by the agreement on pay, compulsory redundancies and pension terms. Public servants, their unions and managers all have to abide by the commitments which have been entered into to pursue flexibilities and reforms in every part of the public service. We have made commitments to the continued reduction in the cost of the public service. If the Government is to be held to its side of the agreement these reductions must be delivered. That is the situation and it is important that we all work with that in mind.
A report on the future organisation of the Department, conducted by a number of external people, is due to be finalised and published. It will examine the past ten or more years. The review of the performance of the Department is being conducted by an independent review panel and will be forthcoming in due course. Of necessity, any review of fiscal policy and public spending over the past ten years will include the influences referred to, such as social partnership, Government programmes and commitments.
What were spoken of as policy failures by Deputy Gilmore in an earlier question must be considered against the context of the failures identified at the time by the Labour Party. These included inadequate social provision and spend which were not sufficient to meet the needs of the day. There is now the prospect that we will hear about failures because we spent too much. It will be interesting to see that analysis.
During those years, probably without exception, every policy initiative which was brought forward was welcomed, in some cases because they were consistent with the social partnership or other commitments which involved the expansion of social policy goals, increasing objectives and improving the position of people, which one would expect at a time of economic growth and financial surplus. The critique always was that more should be done.
It should be done better.
More should be done and more resources should be applied. It is on the record of the House. None of us can revise all of this. We all have read what was said at the time. That was the case.
The Taoiseach should tell us what he said himself.
Exactly. That was the case.
He should tell us what he said about the bank guarantee.
Despite the economic constraints that mean certain policies have to be pursued now as a matter of national necessity, a great proportion of the social gains that have been made can be retained. The recent improvements in economic competitiveness that have derived from our capital gains, which are now visible for many people in view of those investments, can also be retained. They can and will be built upon. The areas of social gain on which we are having to some extent to pull back can be re-examined in different times. We need to recognise that many of them can be retained, despite the depth and scope of this crisis, if we pursue difficult policy options and objectives. That has to be done if we are to forge ahead again.
I reiterate my appeal to the Taoiseach and the Government not to proceed with the proposed reduction in the minimum wage, for all the reasons I have recorded here many times previously. My final question on this group of questions relates to the Taoiseach's discussions with the trade unions and the employers. Subcontractors throughout the country are going through very difficult times as a result of disputes with main public works contractors. I am aware of a number of instances of such disputes in my constituency. I remind the House that workers on the M7 motorway scheme between Castletown and Nenagh have gone on strike because of difficulties with moneys.
Taoiseach's Question Time has fallen into the trap of being a catch-all for all types of questions.
I am asking if this has been——
Many of the questions that are being posed should be addressed to the line Minister——
I am very aware of that.
——and not to the Taoiseach.
This question, which I have posed validly on today's clár, relates to talks with the trade unions and the employers. I am asking the Taoiseach about the general principle, although I instanced a specific case. The Taoiseach will be familiar with the case I have exemplified as it directly affects Laois County Council, which covers part of his constituency, and the National Roads Authority.
If the Deputy does not ask a question, I will move on.
The principal contractors are failing to meet their commitments to make monetary payments to locally recruited subcontractors, thereby placing Irish companies at serious risk. Many jobs have been lost. Is the Taoiseach cognisant of this issue? Is he taking any steps to address it? Has he addressed it in the context of his engagement with employers? Would he consider introducing standards to ensure those who get publicly funded major contracts fully honour their commitments to the subcontractors engaged in such works?
All of these issues, including the specific issues being encountered by subcontractors, are dealt with by the Ministers concerned in the Departments concerned on an ongoing basis. The question of legislative change is being pursued. The Deputy is aware that the Government agreed to consider a proposal that was made by Senator Quinn, who is an Independent. It has been advanced considerably on foot of close and constructive work between the Departments of Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Innovation to prepare amendments to the relevant legislation. I hope the Bill will be enacted. It will not have retrospective effect, unfortunately, because the legislation cannot have such an effect. It is being prepared as part of an effort to address situations that have arisen, of which we are all aware.
I refer to subcontractors that have been left in difficult situations because of the financial problems of main contractors. We are all cognisant of that. Many people have been affected. The Government is working in co-operation with the sponsoring Senator to make this legislative change, which is an indication of the seriousness of our intent and purpose in this area.