asked the Minister for the Public Service if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the public sector pay negotiations.

25.

asked the Minister for the Public Service the up-to-date position on the 25th pay round; the groups which have now accepted the agreement proposed; when it will be implemented for those who have accepted; the full cost of the 25th pay round for 1986 for the entire public service; and the costs of all finalised arbitration awards for this year and the follow-on costs in future years.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 25 together.

Question No. 25 is a far broader question——

The Deputy will not be prejudiced in any way. I have no control in this matter.

This is the problem. Questions are grouped together but they are not alike.

I have no control over them, I do not group them. However, the Deputy will not be at any disadvantage——

The Deputy will not be restricted. I take it both Deputies are referring to the pay proposals which emerged in January last, details of which I set out in a reply to questions from the two Deputies on 20 March last.

The package of proposals has now been offered to a wide variety of public service unions and associations and the following is a summary of the current position in the main areas.

At a meeting of the General Council of the Civil Service General Staff Panel on Wednesday 20 April, the Civil Service Executive Union indicated their acceptance of the 25th round package. The Federated Union of Government Employees have also indicated their acceptance of the package. The package has been offered to the other unions on the staff panel and is being considered by them. One union, the Union of Professional and Technical Civil Servants, have indicated that the package is not acceptable to them.

Two of the unions on the Civil Service Higher Staff Panel, the Association of Higher Civil Servants and the Veterinary Officers' Association, have indicated their acceptance of the package. I have already indicated the position of the third union — the UPTCS — on the panel.

The Garda Representative Association, the Representative Body for Superintendents and the Chief Superintendents' Representative Body have all indicated their acceptance of the package. The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors have not yet responded to the proposals.

It has been made clear to the teacher unions that the same package of proposals put to the other unions is also on offer to them. Deputies will be aware of the current discussions with the teacher unions. While these discussions are continuing I do not propose to comment further on the teachers' position.

The package of proposals was put to the staff panel under the Local Authority and Health Services C & A Scheme on 17 January. No formal response has been received to date.

In regard to local authority manual grades, an offer of the public service pay package which had been endorsed in a Labour Court recommendation has been rejected by the unions representing general operatives in Dublin Corporation and further talks are taking place on the package; 25th round settlements have not yet been reached with general workers in other local authorities and health boards or with craft workers.

As regards the implementation of the increases for those groups who have accepted the agreement, all relevant payments will be made as soon as the necessary formalities have been complied with.

The "round" increase of 7 per cent consists of a 3 per cent increase from 1 May 1986, 2 per cent from 1 January next and a further 2 per cent from 1 May 1987. The cost in 1986 of applying this 3 per cent increase across the public service as a whole is approximately £52 million.

The proposals also involve the phasing in under clause 3.2 of special increases where the adjudication hearings had taken place prior to 1 January 1986. Such increases will be implemented in three phases over the period from 1 December 1986 to 1 July 1988. On the question of the costs of arbitration awards, the total annual cost of all existing arbitration awards in the Civil Service, teachers and local authority areas is approximately £70 million for those groups directly covered by the awards. The approximate cost of implementing these awards under Clause 3.2 of the current proposals in the years 1986 to 1989 is as follows:

Could the Minister indicate how many staff are represented by the unions who have indicated their willingness to accept the offer, how many are represented by those who have rejected the offer and those who have yet to respond to the offer? Could he also indicate whether payment to those who have accepted is dependent on the rest of the unions accepting the offer?

I do not have exact figures for each of the different unions. In regard to implementation, I referred in my reply to necessary formalities to be completed and, as soon as these formalities have been completed, payment will be made. I understand that these formalities involve the signing of conciliation agreements in accordance with the various conciliation and arbitration schemes. There is no question of it depending on acceptance by other unions.

If the Minister does not have the exact figures will he give the House, in broad terms, the list of those who have accepted, rejected or not responded as yet?

I do not have the figures with me. As it is clear from my reply a number of Civil Service unions have accepted such as a number on the higher panel and three or four Garda representative groups.

Is it fair to say that only a tiny minority of the public service unions have accepted?

That would not be correct. The offer is at different stages with other unions. Some of them have decided not to ballot while others have indicated that they will be balloting. I do not think the imputation in the Deputy's question is correct.

Was the £52 million mentioned for 1986 calculated on the basis of all public servants accepting the award?

Yes.

Is that £52 million exclusive of any special increases or arbitration awards? Is it the calculation for the 25th round only and excludes money for special increases?

The exclusions involve other aspects of the package which the Deputy is aware of. There were certain understandings reached in the discussions and a reference to a pension provision. Those items are not included in the £52 million.

As there is a lot of public confusion about this I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions in regard to it. Will the Minister outline the amount of money involved for 1986, 1987 and 1988 to pay the teachers' arbitration award based on the Government's offer?

I do not think it is in the public interest that we should be discussing any figures in relation to the teachers at this point because the discussions that are taking place are at a delicate stage. I do not think it would be helpful in any way for me to make a comment in relation to teachers while the discussions are continuing. The Deputy will have adequate opportunity to go into that matter when the discussions have concluded.

I do not wish to do anything that will hamper the talks that are in progress with the teachers elsewhere but I want to establish how much the Government have set aside in 1986, 1987 and 1988 to pay arbitration awards that are being postponed. If the Minister is not prepared to give me a separate figure in respect of the teachers, will he give me the total amount for those years? I am referring to awards under the arbitration scheme, apart from the 25th round.

I gave those figures in the course of my reply.

I may have missed them and I would be obliged if the Minister repeated them.

The figures for awards under Clause 3.2 are: 1986, £2 million; 1987, £25 million; 1988, £58 million and 1989, £70 million.

May we take it that the Government, on the basis of these agreements, have pushed all these payments forward.

The Deputy is now commenting on information he got.

The Minister mentioned that the Union of Professional and Technical Civil Servants have rejected the agreement and I should like to know if he is aware that a lot of the resentment among members of that union relates to the position of foresters who have been seeking the payment of an arbitration award. The Government have proposed paying that award in instalments commencing next December and to be completed by 1988. Is the Minister aware that negotiations in regard to that award began in 1981? Will he agree it is ridiculous that an award which follows talks that have been going since 1981 should be paid in instalments up to 1989? Will the Minister give a commitment to enter discussions with that group, represented by the Union of Professional and Technical Civil Servants, on the implementation of that award? Will the Minister accept that the people involved are unlike others who have received awards in that they have been delayed for five years? Will the Minister give an undertaking to enter into discussions on the implementation of that award?

I do not think the imputation of the Deputy's earlier remarks is correct. When I referred to £70 million I was dealing with the annual cost. The Deputy will see from my reply that the full annual cost of £70 million does not arise until 1989. With regard to the point raised by the Deputy about a recent award I should like to state that without examining the matter in detail or wanting to be provocative in any way I do not think I am at liberty to give any additional commitments or undertakings other than those which have been given already. I can say to the Deputy that in the light of his concern in regard to this matter I will look at it but I cannot go beyond that at this stage.

I should like to thank the Minister. Has the Minister to bring any further arbitration awards before the House for amendment by a vote of the Oireachtas?

The Deputy is aware of the different clauses under the different conciliation and arbitration schemes and I cannot say whether it will be necessary to bring any award to the Dáil pursuant to the provisions in the different schemes.

I am now moving to priority questions.