Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach his plans to initiate a resumption of the social partnership process in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46882/09]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Economic and Social Forum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46884/09]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach when he will next meet with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48379/09]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent activities of the National Implementation Body; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48382/09]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach the proposed work of the National Economic and Social Council during 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48393/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach his plans to meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48419/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the National Economic and Social Forum and its work programme for the coming year. [48420/09]

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 8: To ask the Taoiseach his views on the status of the national wage agreement regarding private sector firms; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1840/10]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 9: To ask the Taoiseach the discussions he has had with trade unions regarding reform of the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3468/10]

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 10: To ask the Taoiseach his views on the implications for industrial relations of the decision of an organisation (details supplied) to withdraw from the Towards 2016 agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4826/10]

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 11: To ask the Taoiseach his views on the implications for industrial relations generally of the collapse of the social partnership process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4827/10]

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 12: To ask the Taoiseach the position regarding the National Implementation Body; when the body was last convened; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4828/10]

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 13: To ask the Taoiseach the implications of the decision to subsume the National Economic and Social Forum, the National Centre for Partnership and Performance into the National Economic and Social Council; the timeframe of implementation for this action; the estimated reduction in staff numbers to be achieved by this; the estimated cost savings; if any committee or entity will replace the council of the NCPP in the new arrangement; the implications for the future employment of the director and executive staff of the NCPP; if any committee or entity will replace the management committee of the NESF in the new arrangement; if any committee or entity will replace the membership of NESF in the new arrangement; the implications for the future employment of the director and the policy staff of the NESF; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5069/10]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 13, inclusive, together.

As Deputies are aware, we engaged in intensive dialogue with the social partners throughout last year with the objective of agreeing an integrated strategic response to the unprecedented economic challenges the country is facing. As part of our engagement with the social partners last year, the Government held discussions with the public service unions aimed at agreeing a permanent structural reduction in the public service pay bill. Regrettably, as Deputies are aware, those efforts were not successful. I gave the House a detailed account of those discussions in my reply to questions asked on 9 December last.

Elsewhere, IBEC and ICTU held a series of informal discussions aimed at reaching an agreement on private sector pay matters late last year. I understand that those discussions, while constructive, did not yield an agreed outcome, as a consequence of which IBEC has announced its decision to withdraw from participation in the pay terms of the Towards 2016 review and transitional agreement. While the conclusion of a national pay agreement is a matter for the parties themselves, there is obvious merit in developing arrangements for the orderly conduct of industrial relations in the private sector in the period ahead.

The inability to reach agreement on this occasion does not mean that mutually beneficial collaboration and joint problem solving, which have been hallmarks of our model of social dialogue in this country for more than two decades, are no longer possible, relevant or desirable. It is true that, on this occasion, we have struggled to devise an agreed central framework under social partnership appropriate to current circumstances. This clearly suggests that our current model of social partnership needs to evolve further, as it has in the past, if it is to be capable of responding to the unique challenges we now face. This is something on which the Government and each of the social partners must reflect over the period ahead.

Notwithstanding recent developments, and as I stated in my reply of 9 December last, the Government continues to believe in the value of social dialogue as a way to maximise common understanding and engagement between all sectors of society. In particular, within the context of the ten-year framework agreement, Towards 2016, the Government will continue to consult, as appropriate, with the social partners as key stakeholders in the development and implementation of relevant sectoral policies.

As regards the public service, the Government in its role as employer and the public service unions both recognise that change is important and both sides know what must be done in each sector to achieve change. There is a shared view on the sort of changes across the public service that would produce greater efficiency, better services for the public and more satisfactory working conditions for public servants. It is important for the public service and the citizen that there is engagement on this reform agenda and it is through such engagement that the issues of concern to public servants can be addressed.

One of the main benefits of our model of social partnership is the significant industrial peace the process has delivered over the past 22 years. Over the past decade, the National Implementation Body has played an important role by helping to avert and defuse a whole range of complex industrial disputes, successfully underpinning and reinforcing the role of the State's dispute resolution machinery. The body, which last met on 19 November, was established by the Government, employers and trade unions to monitor the implementation of national agreements, but it also had a role in terms of oversight of industrial relations more broadly and, in particular, regarding major industrial disputes or threatened action which could have significant implications for the economy. While clearly the role of monitoring national agreements does not arise at present, I see merit in a continuation of this type of engagement between the Government, employers and trade unions in respect of industrial relations matters generally.

Members will be aware of the ongoing efforts across the public service to achieve savings, to ensure synergies and to avoid duplication. In light of this and the value for money review carried out last year, the Government has decided to amalgamate the three constituent bodies of the National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO, by absorbing the National Economic and Social Forum, NESF, and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, NCPP, into the National Economic and Social Council, NESC. The overall grant-in-aid allocation for NESDO in this Department's Estimate for 2010 is €3.854 million, representing a decrease of €1.205 million over the 2009 Estimate. Work is still ongoing to finalise the transitional arrangements for the bodies.

Both the forum and the centre have played a valuable role over the last number of years in advising the Government on policies to achieve greater equality and social inclusion and on promoting and facilitating partnership-led change in the Irish workplace. I wish to acknowledge formally the work of all of the staff involved in both of these bodies, together with the members from across all of the social partners. In particular, I would like to thank Ms Maureen Gaffney, chairman of the National Economic and Social Forum, and Mr. Peter Cassells, chairman of the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, for their contribution. This decision does not reflect any diminution of the Government's support for social dialogue and the National Economic and Social Council will continue as a forum for engagement between the Government and the social partners in the period ahead. During 2010, the council will further adapt its work programme to ensure that appropriate aspects of the work of the NESF and NCPP are continued, while focusing on economic and social aspects of the ongoing crisis, including support for those who have lost their jobs, as well as on completion of its report on the role of the European Union in Ireland's economic and social development.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How can the Taoiseach justify the decision to exempt top civil servants from the full effect of the pay cuts through 2009 and into 2010 while, at the same time, those on lower to medium-income levels are being punished severely? Is it a case that the closer one is to the Minister the less one will suffer and that, therefore, an ordinary clerical worker in the Civil Service is out of sight and out of mind? These are the questions that people are asking in all our constituencies at this time. There is huge anger at the Government's position on this matter.

Following the savage budget cuts to wages, social welfare and public services there were immediate calls from some in business for a reduction in the minimum wage. That is exactly what we predicted would happen. We predicted that following the savage cuts in public service and sector incomes there would be those who would seek to have the same or comparable measures applied to those employed in the private sector. Will the Taoiseach use this opportunity to once and for all put to bed any notion that there will be any diminution or reduction in the minimum wage arrangements that apply in this economy? Will he avail of this opportunity in the Chamber to make it absolutely clear that there will be no further attacks on those who are already struggling to make ends meet at lower income levels?

Last week, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Dara Calleary, stated that he intends to allow employers to apply to the Labour Court for an exemption from the requirements of the employment regulation orders and registered employment agreements. These orders and agreements have existed for decades to protect workers from exploitation and to ensure that agreed minimum rates of pay apply in their respective sectors. They protect workers in a range of areas-----

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue of pay cuts is a matter for the Minister for Finance. Perhaps a parliamentary question to that office might be more in order.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is within the ambit of the questions I am addressing here. Social partnership is a central focus of our concerns as we speak but these protections have been in place primarily to give a guarantee to people involved in industries such as catering, hotel, construction, retail and grocery, hairdressing and printing. They help ensure that the rates of those workers are, as have been negotiated through long representative collective bargaining, at 8% above the minimum wage.

Does the Taoiseach realise that if these amendments are forced through they will see in place the drive to the bottom that certain interests in Irish society want to see achieved? Is this the intention of the Taoiseach and the Government? Will the Taoiseach avail of this opportunity to make it clear that there will be no drive down to or below the minimum wage as it applies to all of those on low to medium income levels at this point in time?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have already answered the Deputy in detail on the claim he makes that there was a less than progressive adjustment in pay as one goes up the pay scale in the public service. That is not correct and it is a contention that Deputy Ó Caoláin continues to make without relevance to the facts.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is representative of the reality for people.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will explain it to the Deputy a second time.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I heard the Taoiseach the first time and I did not buy it then either.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Did you not?

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach without interruption.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Even in Deputy Ó Caoláin's world facts are facts.

The question on less of a reduction being applied to higher-paid people than lower-paid people is the central thesis of Deputy Ó Caoláin's argument.

We applied the pay reductions in a progressive way, as we did in regard to all the adjustments to the cost of public service pay. This has meant that lower paid public servants have suffered less of a net loss, proportionately, than those in higher grades. For example, a Civil Service clerical officer on the middle point of a scale will have suffered a net loss of 11.7% over the course of the three budgets since Autumn 2008. That loss, while significant, should be compared to the net loss of those in higher paid grades over the same period. An assistant secretary has suffered a net loss of over 24% of pay and a deputy secretary of over 27%. The most highly paid civil servants, level 1 Secretaries General, who volunteered for additional pay reductions, have seen reductions of more than one third to their net pay.

I am acutely aware of the difficulties that the reductions in public pay will cause but the Government had to take these decisions to stabilise the public finances. The reductions do not reflect any lack of recognition of public servants or the quality of the work they do. They are simply a matter of budgetary necessity in these extraordinarily difficult times.

The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with responsibility for labour affairs has indicated that he intends to include in the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009 an inability to pay provision in respect of the employment regulation orders and registered employment agreements. Such a provision would have to balance current demands of trade unions and employers by continuing to modernise and streamline the joint labour committee system as well as strengthen the legal status of registered employment agreements, which alleviate the financial pressures employers face under the current arrangements. The final details of the provision remain to be decided. It is proposed to introduce an amendment to the Bill on Committee Stage in the Dáil to give effect to that objective.

The decisions which had to be taken by the Government were aimed at ensuring that we did not impose too great a burden through a reduction in the level of services which would have been required had we not considered the public service pay bill. They were taken after due consideration of the limited options available to us in the context of stabilising the public finances as our top priority. We must now see how we can proceed, having recognised that an agenda exists for further efficiencies on the non-pay side. We need to get more for less while continuing to stabilise the public finances. The aspirations of everybody in regard to these matters are reflected by the economic realities we all have to face. Our ability to cover the public sector pay bill is also determined by that consideration. The Government brought forward these proposals because they were necessary but we have no desire to follow the same route again. We want to engage on an agreed agenda in a proper context for further efficiencies on the non-pay side.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach's claim that the top paid civil servants have experienced a progressive reduction in comparison to lower earners does not hold up. We all know that, after the announcement, the scrapped bonus payments were factored into the calculation, resulting in a reduction in the order of 3% at the higher level as against 5% for low to middle income earners. The Taoiseach has been made aware of those facts not only by the Opposition benches, but also by backbenchers in his own party, who, I understand, raised this particularly vexed issue on numerous occasions.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ó Caoláin, that is a Second Stage speech.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I put it again to the Taoiseach that this is a matter he must address. Is he prepared to face the facts and the reality of the situation, not the spin that he and other of his colleagues are trying to have us believe?

Will the Government agree, in the context of social partnership and whatever hope and prospect there is of talks on resumed social partnership engagement, that a reversal of the decision on the percentage reduction for low income earners is an absolute necessity if we are to see any real engagement with the trade unions representing the public service workers across this State? Let the Taoiseach make no mistake, in the talks before the budget, the public service unions put forward imaginative proposals-----

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Deputy have a question?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----that entailed sweeping changes in work practices, and that would have had serious and important changes in terms of work practices, particularly applying to those across the health services. Why did the Taoiseach reject and turn his back on what was a very imaginative, brave and thoughtful set of proposals put forward by the trade union representatives? What chance is there of any resumption of social partnership talks while the Government continues to resist such a proposal?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I made clear to the Deputy that the reductions we have introduced and for which we had to legislate stand. They are part of a reduction in the overall pay bill that is necessary in the context of trying to stabilise the public finances. That situation has not changed on 1 February as compared to 1 December. The Government had to make those decisions because of the necessity of the situation that faced us and in recognition that if one was to seek to reduce expenditure, to avoid a situation where a contribution of approximately €1.3 billion would be made on the public pay side, would have meant seeking further savings of that magnitude on the services side, which would have greatly affected the quality and level of services that would be available to citizens in the course of the current year. That was not an option. It was a question of requiring a contribution to be made on the pay and non-pay side in order to meet the budgetary parameters that were set out and which were necessary. There was overall agreement in the House that such a level of saving was necessary. It was not an avoidable issue for the Government. We had to confront that issue, and we did so in a progressive way.

I do not accept the contention made because the pay rates of the category to which Deputy Ó Caoláin referred had taken into account in previous benchmarking exercises the fact that a bonus scheme was in place. Once one got rid of the bonus scheme, that was another consideration that had to be taken into account. The Government's actions, both in terms of the levy, taxation and pay reductions, in the series of three budgets discussed amounted to wage reductions of 24%. The reductions are 11% for people on lower wages. That is as it should be. It is a progressive system.

The continuing contention being made by Deputy Ó Caoláin is in an effort to be divisive and to suggest that the system is unfair. The reality is that the wages of a person at the lower end of the scale, which are still considerable, have reduced by 11%, one tenth, the income of another person who is higher up the scale has reduced by almost one quarter, and a person who is higher up the scale again has reduced by one third. That is the way it should be. I do not accept the contentions Deputy Ó Caoláin makes and I do not believe the facts bear them out.

The reasons that were given by the Minister on that issue have been well documented and set out. I similarly set out matters in great detail. There is no point in me repeating them. I refer the Deputy to the Official Report. We had considerable discussion on the breakdown of the talks on 9 December. At that time I set out in great detail the Government's position on those matters. The issue now is whether we can devise a way forward.

It must be asked if a breakdown in industrial relations will result in any benefits for public servants. I do not believe it brings any benefits to public servants or to citizens. I do not see what benefits will emerge from it. While I am aware people are unhappy that pay cuts were necessary, the reality is we have to move on, get more from less and recognise that the present budgetary situation requires us to look at other areas now. We need to do that in a shared way on the basis of re-engagement. However, we can only re-engage when we have the proper context and an agreed agenda. It does not involve what the Deputy is proposing because the economic realities are the same now as they were on budget day.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thought the bonuses were only to be paid in exceptional circumstances. It seems as if they are being paid to more than 600 public servants, according to the latest reports.

I listened to the chief executive officer of the Labour Relations Commission yesterday who believes considerable work must be done by the Government before the unions can sit down again around the table. Approximately 70,000 SIPTU members joined the work to rule yesterday indicating clearly that the Government has lost the trust of public service and the taxpayer in the management of both the economy and the reform of our public services.

The Fine Gael Party has put forward a different approach. We said the Government should give an assurance that there would be no additional pay cuts in the next budget, the work to rule should be called off by the unions and they should accept people who pay their taxes have a right to modern well-run public services. This would allow for a position where negotiations and discussions could begin again. I have said previously those negotiations should begin on the basis that the most recent pay cuts could be reversed over time as new contracts and new work practices in the public service are adopted sector by sector and provided the new contracts deliver better public services and real savings for the public.

I have two questions. First, what is the status of the National Implementation Body, which is chaired by the Taoiseach's Department? Is it meeting? Is it valid? Does it have any status now? If it had, the action taken by the air traffic controllers probably would not have gotten as far as it did. That is a serious and fundamental issue. Second, does the Taoiseach agree the work to rule by the trade unions in the public service should be called off and that he should ask them to do so while also saying clearly that there will be no additional cuts to public service pay in the next budget as a precursor to getting back around the table to discuss where we go from here?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Any industrial action that is taken is regrettable and I believe it does not achieve objectives. We have to do everything possible to minimise the impact of any industrial action that is taken. What form it takes and whether there is action is a matter for individual unions to consider. We need to reflect on whether objectives would be achieved through this means, the extent to which we can provide reassurance for public servants, on how we work and on how we can develop public services for the future. These could be better guaranteed in the context of engaging in an agenda that has been identified where further efficiencies can be implemented and to try to do that in a co-operative way. I recognise at the moment there is a lot of disagreement by the trade unions regarding what happened in December and we need to change the context if we can. We need to have an agreed agenda if we can but we need to engage on that agenda at the end of the day. The Government has no wish to seek further reductions in public service pay rates, but the only way to deal with the pay aspirations of public servants and their representatives is through engagement. It is through engagement on the agenda that has been identified - namely, changes across the public service that will result in greater efficiency, better services for the public and more satisfactory work conditions for public servants - rather than through industrial action that the issues of concern to public servants can best be addressed.

It is important to point out that we cannot undermine the budget. An important part of it was the savings that were identified and are now being implemented, and we cannot simply reverse that. It was important and necessary in order to stabilise the public finances. We must now try to proceed on the basis of the common agenda that has been identified. That is the best way of trying to meet people's requirements in the workplace over the longer term. The reversing of budgetary decisions that were made two months ago is not an option that is available to the Government.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not suggesting that the decisions made in the budget be reversed. The Taoiseach said the Government had no wish to see further cuts in public pay, but he is in a position to deliver on that. He knows as well as I do the pressure that thousands of public servants are under in managing from week to week while paying mortgages, bills for their children's education and all the other costs that arise in normal life. Somebody said to me the other day that a loss by 300 teachers of €3,000 apiece is the equivalent of one pay-off to a former public servant. The Government is in a position to tell public service workers that it wishes to consider the immense savings that can be made across all Departments in public procurement, how best to use the resources we have, and the question of quangos-----

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do you have a question, Deputy?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do. Nobody is saying the Government should reverse decisions made two months ago, but it is in a position to say that while €3 billion will be taken out of the economy at the end of 2010, there will be no further cuts in public sector pay, with particular reference to those who are on the line as it is.

I asked the Taoiseach one more question, which he may have forgotten to answer. What is the status of the National Implementation Body? Arising from that, what sort of mechanisms are in place for sensitive sectors such as air traffic control? Nobody wants to see a repeat of the industrial action taken by those working in this sector, but if the implementation body had been in place, it might never have got that far. We are a long way from returning to that sort of relationship. What mechanisms are in place for such sectors?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I have said, the Government considered the situation last December and, unfortunately, was obliged to take some necessary decisions on cuts in expenditure that included pay levels. We have no desire to go down that route again if we can have engagement on the other issues. There are still savings to be found and efficiencies that have been identified. There are ways forward that improve the position for people in the workplace as well as enabling them to get more from less. There has been much discussion on that; it was one of the benefits of the discussions that did take place, which had an intrinsic merit in their own right. On the basis that we are trying to stabilise the public finances and improve our financial position, we must be able to get more from the limited resources that are available in these areas. We need engagement on these matters.

There are no winners, either in the public service or among citizens, when disputes are escalated. I am simply outlining that the Government had to make decisions that were necessary in the circumstances of the budget. A common agenda can be identified to find improvements in public service provision going forward. We have no desire to go down the route of direct pay cuts again but we need engagement on the other issues. It is vital that happens in order that we can move on to that agenda and approach rather than one where there are industrial relations issues, with all the attendant problems, that do not get us anywhere and that do not meet any aspirations of public servants because we are not in a proper industrial relations relationship that secures positive outcomes.

I have already said the National Implementation Body last met on 19 November. It cannot monitor national agreements, since those do not arise at present, but there is merit in the continuation of such contact between Government, employers and trade unions in industrial relations matters generally.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The president of SIPTU, Jack O'Connor, said on the other issues that this was the best offer any Government was ever made by the unions. When the Taoiseach says he wants to engage on the other issues, and the unions say they made the best offer ever to any Government, the Taoiseach is in a position to bring matters together by saying the Government recognises the scale of savings that can be made and could guarantee no further cuts in public sector pay, getting back to the offer on the other issues. The Taoiseach should say that because this is going to get worse.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must make clear, in a way that is consistent with the public finance position as well, where we stand. I made the point on 9 December when we discussed these aspects in detail that there was no certainty in regard to 2011 and beyond regarding reductions in the public service pay bill. Unfortunately we did not reach a successful conclusion on that matter.

There are issues surrounding reforms that I believe will be an improvement for everyone, including public service workers, in due course. It is not just a question of calling people in, there must be a context and agenda that can be agreed. From our point of view, we cannot simply walk away from the budget strategy and decisions that were necessary on 1 December by saying on 1 February they no longer matter; of course they matter.

Those decisions have been taken and we must move on now to see what other areas of the public sector pay bill can be improved in terms of both services and the lot of workers through agreed arrangements.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been listening to the Taoiseach's replies to Deputy Ó Caoláin and Deputy Kenny. To be honest, they sound like replies from some time in the dim and distant past. The game has changed, the Taoiseach changed it when he sent the public service trade unions away from the bargaining table in his Department the week before the budget. There is now no social partnership. The Taoiseach ended the talks with the public service unions and IBEC has withdrawn from the pay terms of the partnership agreement. We are in a new situation where there is a free for all. It may not have manifested itself too clearly yet other than in the work to rule issues that have arisen in some areas since.

I have listened for the last half an hour to the Taoiseach talking about talks that I doubt will ever take place. Who will the Taoiseach engage with? Does he propose to engage with those people who, at the beginning of 2009, he led up the garden path and, when they had agreed cuts of €2 billion, sent them away and introduced the pension levy? The Government did the same in November, in that it led them up another garden path, brought them to the point at which seven or eight documents on public service reform were on the table and then collapsed that process, unilaterally cutting their pay. What type of engagement does the Taoiseach believe he will get and does he believe that those engaged in the previous talks will be in a position to deliver their members on something he has been discussing for the past 30 minutes but which I doubt will occur?

What will the Taoiseach do about our new circumstances? We are not in a centralised bargaining situation any more and we are not in a social partnership arrangement. We are in a new situation of a free-for-all wherein any group of workers is free, since there is no national agreement, to serve pay claims or, as a number have done, notice of industrial action if it wants. The issue now is what will the Government do to respond.

The second issue about which I would like to ask the Taoiseach concerns the decision made to vary the terms of the pay cut for senior civil servants. I want clarity from the Taoiseach on a number of aspects. Last week, we were led to believe that the number involved was 160. Now, we are told the number is 600. How many public servants are benefitting from the change made in the terms of the pay cut during the Christmas period and what is its total cost?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have the detail for an exact reply to the second part of the Deputy's statement. It will have to be obtained from the Department of Finance and the Public Service, which have it. I can get it for him. As I said to the Deputy - I think last week - in regard to this matter, the reasoning for it was outlined publicly by the Minister for Finance. He and I have outlined to other Deputies here that the overall contribution from people at those grades is, as one would expect, progressively higher than people on lower grades. I have given some of the reasoning behind that.

With regard to industrial relations as they stand, I am aware of the fact that we do not have a level of engagement in the social partnership context. Social partnership is about more than one pay agreement. We have fora like the National Economic and Social Council, which predates social partnership, still available to us in terms of how we can engage with social partners on matters of economic and social importance.

The point to be made is that the Government had to reluctantly proceed with making decisions in the context of the budget without the full agreement of the social partners - I have acknowledged that - despite everyone's best efforts. The background is set out in the record of the House of 9 December.

While there has been a reaction to the decision by Government, the question remains as to what is the best way to proceed from here. It is, I believe, ultimately through re-engagement. I accept that the present atmosphere is not good for that but, as with all disputes and all industrial relations problems, employers and employees have to try to find the right context and agree the agenda in which to proceed. We have many areas in common, both as employers and employees, in terms of identifying ways and means by which public services can be provided in this country in the context of a very difficult financial situation. We should try to pursue that but, at the moment and as things stand today, that dialogue is not available to us. I believe it should be available to us as soon as we can arrange it, if that is possible.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Then the Taoiseach should answer the telephone.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will allow a brief supplementary question, as the time has expired.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I asked the Taoiseach about the details of the variation for the senior public servants. I appreciate that he will forward me the information on cost. I wish to ask him about the numbers affected. The two figures mentioned are wide apart. One was 160 while the other was 600. Which of these two figures is the closest to the mark? We do not currently have a social partnership arrangement or a national agreement on pay. Therefore, we do not have a national framework within which disputes over pay or any other industrial relations problems likely to arise in the public service can be dealt with. As I interpret the Taoiseach's comments, he wishes for a return to some kind of centralised deal. We all have our own views as to what the prospects for that might be.

While we wait for that wish to be fulfilled, what is the mechanism by which disputes in the public service will be addressed and resolved? We are currently in a position where there is industrial action in a number of areas of the public service and from what I gather, it is growing. There is notice being served all the time of various kinds of work-to-rule arrangements and so on.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Nobody is answering the telephones.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no national agreement and, therefore, there is nothing to stop any group of workers serving a pay claim. How will those issues be dealt with between now and when the Taoiseach's wish for a national agreement comes home, if it ever does? Will a system of arbitration be put in place and how will individual disputes be resolved? Will we continue to see a free-for-all in industrial relations?

I appreciate we have not been here for the best part of a quarter of a century because there has been centralised bargaining. Even in the days when there was no national agreement before 1987, there were centralised agreements in the public sector. There has been a long period since we have been in a position of having no agreement, framework or rules, effectively, governing the industrial relations climate in the country.

Mr. Mulvey, who is responsible for the Labour Relations Commission, is exercised about what will happen but what is the Government's view? What is to be put in place?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The number involved in the grades mentioned with regard to the change in pay arrangements is close to 600.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is 600.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the figure involved in those and other related grades.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the approximate cost?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have-----

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would the Taoiseach make a stab at it?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry?

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thought the Taoiseach might make a stab at the cost. He is a figures man.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know how highly the Deputy regards accuracy in these matters. I want to give him the exact amount because he is not a man prone to exaggeration himself.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I can appreciate that.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Industrial relations machinery is available and it would be far better for many people if there was a centralised pay agreement in place. I am sure there are ongoing talks and contacts between employers and unions in the private sector considering whether that is possible. There has been no outcome yet.

As the employer on the public sector pay side, we are not in a position to look at changing pay arrangements until 2011, which the Minister for Finance has made clear. We are in a position whereby, not having had a successful outcome to the last effort, people must reflect on what will be the best way forward from everybody's point of view. An escalation of industrial action will not bring any benefits to citizens or to public servants and a large number of ordinary public servants recognise the necessity for what the Government had to do in the last budget.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are not acting like it.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I firmly believe that. We must try to find a way in which we can engage again on a constructive basis. That is not necessarily easy to achieve and there must be a great deal of reflection on it. It is the best way forward in due course and I would rather it be done with a view to the agenda that has been already identified as a means of making sure we can get better and winning outcomes for everybody in due course. That would be better than simply escalating industrial action, which will not achieve any real constructive objective.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That concludes questions to the Taoiseach.