Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach his plans to re-establish the social partnership process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5743/11]

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach if he has met with the representatives of trade unions and employers [5800/11]

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Implementation Body. [5801/11]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach his views on social partnership and his plans for social partnership over the coming years [5914/11]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, together.

The Government values dialogue with the social partners, whether within the framework of a formal agreement or otherwise, and recognises the contribution that social dialogue can make to maximising common understanding across all sectors of society as we respond to the many challenges facing the country.

Social dialogue continues to take place in different ways and through different fora. The National Economic and Social Council provides a forum for consideration of strategic economic and social issues. There have also been recent discussions at official level with the social partners and other stakeholders on the development of Ireland's national reform programme under the Europe 2020 process.

In addition, social partner representatives continue to participate in a large number of other governmental consultative fora and bodies. In particular, engagement with the public service trade unions continues to take place under the terms of the Croke Park agreement, which is the responsibility of the Minister for public expenditure and reform.

I anticipate that this ongoing process of social dialogue will continue through these and other channels over the period ahead. While this process is not the concern solely of my Department, I intend to meet with the social partners in due course to outline the Government's approach and to explore how their activities can enhance economic and social progress.

I believe that any framework for engaging with the social partnerships, beyond the mechanisms I outlined earlier, can evolve if they are seen to provide value in achieving shared objectives which reflect the needs of the country at this time.

The National Implementation Body, comprising Government, employer and trade union representatives, played an important role over the years in maintaining industrial relations stability under the terms of successive national pay agreements. While Deputies will be aware that there is no current national level agreement covering the private sector, the Government remains supportive of engaging with employer representatives and trade unions to ensure a positive environment for the conduct of industrial relations.

I welcome the fact that the procedures agreed between ICTU and IBEC in 2010, under their Protocol for the Orderly Conduct of Industrial Relations and Local Bargaining in the Private Sector, have been recently extended for 2011. This protocol provides for the continuation of tripartite engagement to oversee industrial peace and stability.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am disappointed as that is hardly a commitment to the re-establishment of the social partnership process, although I welcome the Taoiseach's remarks that this process has played an important role in industrial relations.

There is a case in point. Down the road from here, five workers in the Davenport Hotel had their wages lowered without their consent. The ensuing dispute went to the Labour Court, which found in favour of the workers. The social partnership process would have prevented that from happening.

That type of scenario arises mostly because of the Government cut in the minimum wage, which sent the signal to employers that they could do this in the non-consultative way it was done in the Davenport Hotel. Would the Taoiseach commit to when the minimum wage will be put back to what it should be, which, indeed, is a minimum?

I appreciate that the Taoiseach met the women workers - I am advised by a colleague behind me in this case - and he will be familiar with the case. When does the Taoiseach intend to move on his pledge to reverse the cuts in the minimum wage? Would he not consider the Davenport Hotel case as a striking example of why we need, with all its flaws, that process of social partnership?

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

As I stated, I favour a good environment for dealing with stable industrial relations and for the better progress of the country.

I met the workers on the Davenport Hotel issue. As Deputy Adams will be aware, in the programme for Government we are committed to reversing the minimum wage reduction. This is a matter that is not merely budgetary. It may well require legislation and will require the approval under the programme of the IMF-EU deal and I cannot give the Deputy an exact date as to when the implementation of the reverse can become a reality. Those are the parameters of the situation.

This is an important issue for those who are locked into it and who are the subject of actions like that outlined. I understand it was not because of the decision taken that the action referred to was precipitated but I am glad it has been resolved.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it not the case that the Government and major employers used so-called social partnership since 1987 to keep workers' wages in check, but allowed speculation and profiteering in the areas of finance, property, etc., to rise uncontrolled and unchecked to obscene levels? Is it not a fraud to speak of social partnership when in the course of ten years, from 1997 to 2007, the so-called partners of ordinary workers can raise the price of a house by four times to make massive profits for themselves? Is it not the case that as soon as the idea, or pretence, of social partnership had passed its utility for both Government and big business, the Government jettisoned the idea and the trade unions, who had been under the illusion that they were partners of the Government and big business, were unceremoniously booted out in the cold?

Is it in order that State agencies, such as the HSE, can treat like indentured labourers hundreds of nurses denied positions in hospitals to utilise their skills and training. They have been forced to go to agencies to be put into hospitals when the HSE can, by diktat, cut massively their wages and working conditions. Is it not despicable to treat our nurses, particularly young nurses, in that fashion? Will the Government continue the policy of its predecessor in that regard in treating workers - in this case public sector workers - in this way or will the Government tell the HSE that it should reverse its decision and give those nurses tenure and rights equal to their colleagues who are already in the health service?

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

Nobody will dispute the value, quality and heroism of nurses who work on the front line in pressurised conditions. Many fine young people who go through nurse training here and those who partake in other elements of the health service, be it physio-therapists, speech and language therapists or such like, must then leave for other jurisdictions. Yet, many come back subsequently and work as agency nurses. That speaks for itself. That is the reason, as Deputy Higgins will be aware, there must be a radically restructuring of the HSE in its current form. This is a cental part of the programme for Government.

I pointed out on many occasions the obscene wastage of taxpayers' money while at the same time nurses who provide exceptional care and attention at the front line have been let go and cannot be employed in the numbers in which one would wish. That is why I agree in the sense of losing that exceptional level of care and attention. However, it must be dealt with in part by restructuring the entire system and the programme for Government is very clear on that.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand we are taking all the questions on social partnership together. We have asked for the Taoiseach's views on social partnership. I have listened carefully to what the Taoiseach has said and I believe it represents a significant departure from the concept of social partnership as we have known it in recent years. Is the Taoiseach saying today that the concept of social partnership is essentially abandoned and that we are going to evolve to a situation of what we term "social dialogue", the phrase the Taoiseach used in his response? If this is the case, then we need more transparency on this and a clear statement, from a policy perspective, of the new Government in respect of social partnership.

Social partnership is not only a social dialogue with trade unions. It involves a more comprehensive round table approach involving agricultural interests, employers, trade unions, the community and voluntary pillar and contributions and submissions from others. People can argue the merits or de-merits of it. Some people would argue that from 1987, during the last recession, it was a key factor in supporting the recovery of the economy. It is equally arguable that it was not fit for purpose in the latter part of the economic growth period we had prior to this recession. However, if it is the case that a policy departure of some significance is taking place then it should be articulated clearly and comprehensively by the Government. There may be sensitivities with the Labour Party members of Government in this regard.

The Taoiseach used some significant phrases. For example, he stated that the Department of the Taoiseach is no longer solely responsible for social partnership. The Department of the Taoiseach was the cradle of social partnership and it was where social partnership resided in previous Governments in central policy terms. Has this changed now? Is the new Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and the public service now assuming responsibilities in respect of aspect of that? Could we have some clarity on this point? It seems that a significant departure is occurring on a creeping basis but it is not being articulated in any clear way.

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

The engagement with the social partners was never exclusively a matter for the Taoiseach, although I have led in many of the negotiations and I will continue to maintain a central interest here. As Deputy Martin is aware, primary legislation is required to establish the new Department of public expenditure and reform and it will be pushed through as a matter of some urgency.

As Deputy Martin is well aware from having served in Government, the social partnership arrangement was central to stabilising industrial relations in the country for many years. Social partnership extended into a whole range of areas for which it was probably never intended in the beginning. In that sense, a one size fitting everything approach did not work as effectively as it should have. I have been invited by several of the social partners to meet them and I intend to do so during the period ahead. Suffice to say that the Department of the Taoiseach, my Department, will continue to keep a central involvement in this area. When the legislation giving effect to the Minister for public expenditure and reform is completed, the Minister will be centrally involved as well.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach intend to re-establish social partnership as we knew it, in terms of engaging with the farming organisations, the trade union movement, the employers' representatives and the community and social pillar? Will the Taoiseach bring these together on a collective basis in a meeting anytime soon?

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

Since the Government has been formed only recently, Ministers will be involved individually in meeting all the different groups and sectors under their departmental responsibility during the period. I intend to meet a range of groups during the coming weeks and months. When the new Department is given legal effect, it and my Department will consider the situation in so far as continuing serious interaction with the social partners is concerned.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach agree that while the idea of social partnership sounds like a good and fair idea, the reality of social partnership during the past 20 or 30 years has favoured employers and the wealthy over workers to a great extent? For example, the Taoiseach may or may not be aware of the share of national wealth that has gone to wages and salaries as against the share that has gone to profits, shares and bonuses. There has been a 10% shift in the share to the latter from the former. Does the Taoiseach agree that the facts suggest that social partnership has been a means to transfer wealth from working people to the wealthy in our society? There seems to be a suggestion in the Taoiseach's comments that we should move away from the existing model of social partnership to what he terms "social dialogue" and that a key objective in doing this should be to reverse that situation. In this regard, I draw the Taoiseach's attention to a dispute currently taking place in Dún Laoghaire, now almost entering its first full year of industrial action. Workers in a shoe shop, Connolly Shoes, some of whom have worked there for 38 years, have been unceremoniously sacked because they refused to accept swingeing cuts in their pay and conditions. They have simply requested consultation on these issues but have been left out on the street.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A question please, Deputy.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has a more general point or question to it. Does the Taoiseach see it as his objective to change a situation whereby an employer could do this to workers, some of whom have worked for 38 years in a shoe shop, serving the people? This could happen and other employers could develop the confidence to do this.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a general question, Deputy.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Should we not enact legislation which will ensure that workers cannot be treated like this by their employers? Perhaps the Taoiseach will examine that particular instance.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will take another supplementary question from Deputy Clare Daly.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I note the Taoiseach's lip service or aspiration to the idea of partnership. Will he comment on the fact that against that backdrop and as we meet here today there is a scenario where bin workers, employed by one of the Government's local authorities, South Dublin County Council have been informed unceremoniously that as and from this Friday their trucks will be given to a private company and their wages will drop by €200 per week? For workers on a relatively low salary, this is a decimation of their living standards and a poses a great problem for the financial commitments they and their families face. Will the Taoiseach comment on whether he believes this is an appropriate manner for a local authority to conduct itself?

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a general question on social partnership, not individual disputes.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am asking the Taoiseach to comment on whether he believes this is a reflection of adequate engagement in a partnership process in one of the Government's local authorities.

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

As a general comment, the programme for Government is focussed centrally on restoring good health to our public finances. The legacy that has been inherited is pretty grim. This requires some serious decision making. Fundamental to this is the confidence of our people and to give them hope that good Government can deliver opportunities for jobs and careers and satisfying and challenging work. This is part of the reason the Government will bring forward a specific jobs budget programme in its first 100 days in office and which is being worked on by the Minister with responsibility for jobs and enterprise as part of that stimulus for the local and indigenous economy.

Local authorities have a legal remit to draft plans and annual budgets. Many local authorities have made decisions in respect of privatising refuse, waste collection services or whatever, some of which have been in place for many years. Change always results in difficulties and while I can sympathise with any worker in this regard, local authorities have a remit to make decisions in respect of their budgets and how they provide their services. In his previous existence, the Ceann Comhairle was aware of the issue to which Deputy Boyd Barrett referred. There are well tried mechanisms for sorting out long-running disputes. These things often require a measure of common sense and I hope that the actors in this dispute can avail of the opportunities presented to arrive at a solution that will deal with the problem raised by the Deputy.