Michael Noonan
Question:1 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet the social partners to discuss the implementation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11324/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
Michael Noonan
Question:2 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the activities of the national implementation body established under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11402/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:3 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to his Department in respect of the national implementation body established under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11403/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:4 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11550/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:5 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the status of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. [11554/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting involving the social partners and senior officials of his Department on 26 April 2001. [12883/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
Considerable progress continues to be made in implementing the wide-ranging set of commitments in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. This is borne out by the fourth PPF progress report produced for the social partners plenary meeting held on 26 April, copies of which have been lodged in the Oireachtas Library.
The plenary meeting dealt, in the first place, with the foot and mouth crisis, the Government's handling of which was strongly supported by all the social partners. For my part, I would like to record the Government's sincere appreciation for the solidarity shown by all sectors and the public alike in addressing this issue of national importance. I would also like to take this opportunity to stress the need for continuing vigilance in the face of what is still a very serious threat to the economy. The 26 April plenary meeting also dealt in considerable detail with the themes of tackling social exclusion and promoting equality. Significant progress has been made in these areas and we are well on the way to implementing the full range of relevant commitments in the PPF.
While I have regular contact with the social partners individually, the next PPF plenary meeting will take place on 26 July. I will chair that meeting and the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance will also be present. The principal items on the agenda will be competitiveness, housing and waste management. In accordance with normal practice, the meeting will also afford the opportunity to review progress and deal with any issues of particular concern at that time.
The national implementation body was established on foot of the 4 December agreed adjustment to the terms of the PPF. Its purpose is to ensure delivery of the stability and peace provisions of the programme. In that context, it considers, in particular, the potential implications for the PPF of any ongoing disputes of special national importance and is doing useful work in this area. Responsibility for the resolution of disputes, however, continues to rest primarily with the parties concerned and the pre-existing industrial relations machinery of the State, as necessary. To date, the body has not incurred any costs to my Department.
Most Members of this House would consider that the primary responsibility of social partnership is to ensure smooth industrial relations. On the second day of the rail dispute, with 100,000 people stranded yesterday and 25,000 people stranded in Munster today, and people not getting to work or to hospital for essential medical appointments, does the Taoiseach not believe it is time to abandon the "head in the sand" approach adopted by his Minister who feels she has no function in this matter? Does he not believe it is the responsibility and duty of both the Government and unions to ensure that essential public transport operates and that the question of essential services such as trains, aeroplanes and energy supplies, which are, in the final analysis, the responsibility of social partnership, is addressed in a more up front manner by the Government?
Is this relevant?
Every dispute that arises is dealt with by the Ministers and the social partners in the best way possible. Thankfully not too many have arisen in terms of the number of sectors of the economy. Sometimes they are dealt with through the Labour Court, the Labour Relations Commission, direct talks or the national implementation body. The work is done, by and large behind the scenes, to help to bring the sides together.
On the recent dispute, to add to what the Minister has said and what has been said outside the House, I deplore the industrial action taking place in CIE. It is manifestly unnecessary and it is causing severe hardship, as Deputy Noonan said. It could easily have been avoided, and almost was avoided last week. When I spoke to the social partners on Thursday about other matters I raised these matters with them on the side and they believed they had been resolved.
The action is at variance with the commitments to industrial peace and stability in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to which the people involved in this dispute are a party. More significantly, however, it is a flagrant breach of agreed procedures within the trade union movement, as has been pointed out by the Congress of Trade Unions leadership. The orderly conduct of industrial relations is essential to our well-being, quite apart from the implications for the PPF. Without it we would have anarchy and the public and the economy would suffer, ultimately damaging jobs and competitiveness.
It is a long time since the country was faced with this type of self-destructive inter-union action. There are agreed procedures in these unions and within these companies. Those procedures have existed for a long time. They normally work well. In this case the unions, the Minister and those of us on this side of the House understand them. The Minister outlined the position clearly yesterday and if we do not stick to agreed procedures, we know what will happen but if the Minister takes arbitrary action in this case we also know what will happen. We would end up with a national strike involving all SIPTU workers. They have made that perfectly clear because they would consider that as the Government or the company recognising something that has not been done since the 1946 Industrial Relations Act. The Minister cannot do that. I hope a meeting of the Congress of Trade Unions committee will be held tomorrow to deal with this issue. The Minister and other members of the Government will make every effort to provide assistance. However, we must wait to see what will happen tomorrow. The procedures have been laid down and are clearly understood. In this instance, however, they have been breached by the ATGWU.
I put it to the Taoiseach that avoiding industrial relations chaos is the basis of social partnership. Since the Minister has abandoned all responsibility in dealing with the rail strike, will the Taoiseach indicate what he and the Government intend to do to restore the rail service, to avoid further chaos on the railways and when they will act, either within the social partnership framework or otherwise?
I have supported the code of the Congress of Trade Unions for many years and I will continue to do so. I have no intention of breaking principles agreed by the social partners. I will not support the actions of the ATGWU, which are in breach of an agreement between CIE, the Congress of Trade Unions and SIPTU. If I did support those actions, I would damage the social partnership. The ATGWU is wrong in this instance; it is in breach of the congress code, of the understandings reached by the other parties and of the rights of SIPTU. I will not do anything to help the ATGWU, but I will support the Congress of Trade Unions in terms of the position it has adopted.
One always arrives at a crisis if one's Ministers procrastinate and do not try to resolve matters at an early stage. The Government has reached a crisis and it is its responsibility and that of the social partners to avoid situations such as this. I put it to the Taoiseach that he must do something about this dispute because people cannot get to work or go about their ordinary business. It appears, from what he has already stated, that the Taoiseach is prepared to allow this dispute to continue, in the form of a series of rolling strikes, without any hope of resolution. Does he intend to call a meeting of the social partners to discuss this matter to see if a resolution can be arrived at?
I have already stated that I met the social partners last Thursday in respect of this matter and, at that stage, they thought they had arrived at a resolution. Tomorrow, a Congress of Trade Unions committee is due to meet to deal primarily with this issue. Like the Minister yesterday, I call today on the ATGWU to call off this destructive action and to resolve the issues in question with the other unions concerned through the agreed procedures that are in place.
We are dealing with industrial relations procedures which have been in place for half a century and through which I have no intention of running a coach and four. In this instance, it is clear where the blame lies. The ATGWU made the case that it has a right to deal on behalf of the seven suspended members but that is not the case. SIPTU has the right to deal on behalf of those seven people. When an official of the ATGWU accompanied the workers to a meeting with CIE management aimed at addressing this issue, the management representatives inquired if the ATGWU official was entitled to attend the meeting and were informed that he could do so as a colleague of the seven workers. However, the official in question said he was not there as a colleague but as a member of the ATGWU, knowing it would be impossible for the company to deal with him. The union is wrong, it is in breach of the procedures. SIPTU management cannot deal with that and the Minister cannot run a coach and four through the agreed procedures. That would not be correct.
We must try to resolve this issue as best we can under the rules laid down by the Congress of Trade Unions. If suggestions emanate from the Congress of Trade Unions, SIPTU or, for that matter, the ATGWU that would help, the Government will support them. Deputy Noonan must understand that if the Minister breached the procedures and dealt with the ATGWU, there would be a national strike by SIPTU workers. That would be the Government moving away from agreed procedures, which it will not do.
No one is suggesting that. The position the Taoiseach ascribed to us is not correct. It is the responsibility of the Government, the Minister for Public Enterprise in this case, to ensure essential services work. People must get to work and as they must commute, there must be trains. Governments during the years have delegated part of this responsibility to social partnership. If social partnership is not prepared to take it on, it is not working. It seems that social partnership is now beginning to creak, mainly because of neglect by individual Ministers. There are rolling strikes in Aer Lingus which closed the airports.
I ask the Deputy to put a question.
I am doing so. This is relevant as I have tabled four questions about social partnership.
The Deputy should ask a supplementary question. He is making a long statement which is not in order at Question Time.
I appreciate that.
I ask the Deputy to put a question.
I will. There is a series of industrial relations problems across the public service which are tending to undermine social partnership. These include Aer Lingus; the railways; the CPSU, the main Civil Service union which is withdrawing from partnership completely; the nurses who have said that the next time they strike they will withdraw emergency services, and the teachers who are unwilling to settle despite a blatant offer of £40,000 a year made by the Minister for Education and Science at one of their congresses. Social partnership is creaking and frayed around the edges. The Taoiseach is no longer running an Administration which is keeping essential services working. It is his responsibility and that of his Minister and he must give a better answer to the House than the one he has given so far.
Social partnership across the affiliated trade unions of congress, the affiliated organisations of IBEC, the farming bodies and all other groups is working extremely well. Their efforts to develop this country are second to none in Europe. I am proud of their actions. This is not a dispute about wages or conditions, but an inter-union dispute about recognition, for which there is a procedure laid down, which has been breached in this case by the ATGWU. There is an agreed written procedure within the CIE company. There is a formula for dealing with the matter through the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which has been breached by the ATGWU. A solution must be found, but it cannot be found by the Minister, the Government or CIE throwing aside industrial relations procedures. The Deputy unwisely thinks that it would resolve the dispute, but it would escalate into a national dispute. A solution must be found, but it must be dealt with carefully. The individuals involved thought that they had a solution last week, but that was not the case. It must be dealt with carefully and sensitively and without resorting to off-the-head ideas. The Government will continue to do so.
The Green Party is not asking the Taoiseach to drive a coach and four through any procedures or code. However, we want more hands-on management skills and flexibility for which the Taoiseach has built a reputation and which is lacking on the other side of the House. We remain to be convinced that the Taoiseach has a policy in mind other than non-interventionism.
Does the Taoiseach agree that a coach and four has been driven through the commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to increase resources to tackle tax fraud and evasion and ensure tax reductions are delivered in a straightforward, equitable and transparent way as a result of the Revenue Commissioners' tax amnesty?
The Deputy should not broaden the scope of his question.
The question concerns the commitment given under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness which will affect social partnership. Will the Taoiseach ensure his intervention is to maintain social partnership rather than undermine it, which it currently will do? At the next meeting, when the Taoiseach comes to deal with issues such as waste management and housing, he should attempt to bring in the social partners to find a more radical solution to those problems, given the failure of current policies. Given the international experience, the social partners could be brought on board in the area of the zero waste strategy. The possibility of a constitutional referendum to reduce the absolute rights of private property so that the rented sector might provide more of the solution to the housing crisis could also be put to the social partners.
I commend the efforts of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to resolve the issue. It has been very clear that the ATGWU is at fault in this matter in renewing a dispute that caused great hardship last summer, and which the Labour Court pointed out could only be addressed by an orderly agreement. If there was goodwill this dispute could be resolved in one hour by the individuals involved. I understand that a basis for resolution was almost agreed last week. The Minister met the social partners last week and I also had a meeting with them. The problem was believed to have been resolved at that stage. Representatives of congress and some of the affiliate unions were at that meeting.
I call again on the ATGWU to call off what is destructive action, and to resolve the issues with the other unions concerned through agreed procedures. That is the only way to succeed and the way is open for the ATGWU to do this. If there is help the Government can give, it will do it, but will be careful not to make the situation worse. The action is damaging not only to the travelling public but to the public transport system. I know Deputy Sargent is a supporter of the current investment in the system. It has been argued that there was under-investment in the past but that is no longer the case. It is unfortunate at such a time of investment that a union gets involved in this type of recognition dispute, but this is also damaging to the trade union movement itself. I do not want to see that movement damaged as I have a great regard for it.
Proper trade unionism can be effective in safeguarding the interests of members only when it is seen to be rational and responsible. In this case it is not. This is irresponsible action which has weakened trade unionism as a social partner and as a key influence on social and economic development. However, trade unions cannot be forced to do things. We do not live in a totalitarian, non-union State. I agree with Deputies Noonan and Sargent concerning Government assistance. The Government will do everything it can to help. This dispute should not have begun and what we can do to bring it to a close, we will. The Minister for Public Enterprise stands ready to act immediately.
On the issue of social partnership, the commitments on pay, tax and environmental matters continue. Deputies will see in the progress report the amount of progress that has taken place in those areas. Some of these issues were discussed in the House yesterday. The Government and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government are committed to seeing these policies through.
What about the tax amnesty?
There is no tax amnesty.
What action have the Taoiseach, the Cabinet, and specifically the Minister for Public Enterprise, taken since last summer when this dispute first manifested itself? Does the Taoiseach accept that there is a direct responsibility on the Government, on the Taoiseach as the leader of that Government, and on the line Minister, in this instance Deputy O'Rourke, to take decisive action to ensure that CIE is adequately resourced to deal with issues that have come to the surface once again? They could have been predicted to surface over the past year. What direct action has the Taoiseach taken through the social partnership mechanism to ensure the Government, as the stakeholder acting on behalf of citizens, has ensured CIE is properly equipped to resolve this dispute and the other problems associated with the poor management of CIE over many years?
Numerous developments have occurred, not least of which is the rail investment programme. Fundamental changes occurred in the operations of Dublin Bus following the successful resolution last year of difficulties in the company. I commend the company on its positive developments during the past year. The rail safety programme was introduced and new plans have been drawn up on CIE's future operations. The Minister has successfully negotiated additional resources for the company and this has been widely welcomed by all of the unions. A number of industrial relations issues have arisen in the company as there are a number of staff grades and unions involved. Deputy Quinn will be aware that the three wise men have almost completed their report on CIE in which these issues are addressed.
The current dispute is a separate issue. It was not foreseen that members of ILDA, who created such difficulties last year, would move into the ATGWU. That fact, which has arisen only in the past two months, was not anticipated by ICTU, SIPTU, the company or the Minister. This issue must be addressed through a mechanism agreed by all parties. It would be catastrophic for CIE for the Minister to attempt to intervene in this dispute without taking into account the overall picture. We must be very careful about how we resolve this matter.
(Mayo): The Taoiseach stated, in reply to Deputy Sargent, that this dispute should never have arisen. Is he aware that during the debate on a Private Notice Question to the Minister on this issue yesterday, I brought a letter from the ATGWU, dated 19 April, to the Minister's attention? The letter outlined in considerable detail the grievances which remained unresolved in spite of the promises made to the union last August if it called off the strike. The Minister for Public Enterprise stated that she had not even acknowledged the letter, let alone addressed the fundamental issues raised. She further stated that she referred the letter to the Taoiseach's Depart ment. What did the Taoiseach do with the letter? Was any action taken on foot of the letter or was it simply buried? Is that the real reason we now face a massive industrial relations problem in CIE for the second day in succession, a problem which effectively closed down the east of the country yesterday, the south today and which will close down the west tomorrow?
I outlined the basis of this dispute in detail and it would not be useful for me to go any further at this point.
Why did the Taoiseach fail to deal with the correspondence from the ATGWU?
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
Any correspondence passed to my Department would have been dealt with. This dispute was called off last year and the Minister dealt with the industrial relations issues within the company, in so far as she could. She continued to honour the agreements made. This issue must be resolved within the framework of ICTU's agreed procedures. As the Labour Court stated, understandings can be developed between the unions on a goodwill basis. This dispute cannot be dealt with in any other way.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree that if he were the captain of a ship which ran into a storm, it would, instead of quoting drily from a manual, be preferable to look out to sea, elicit from where the waves were coming and decide on a course of emergency action? The Taoiseach was asked about the letter sent to the Minister for Public Enterprise regarding the issues at the heart of the rail dispute. Is he aware that a significant section of the locomotive drivers allege they are being mistreated, isolated and victimised by Iarnród Éireann management which has, on 56 separate occasions, refused to go to the Labour Relations Commission to deal with individual grievances?
What does that say about the spirit of social partnership within Iarnród Éireann? Will the Taoiseach agree it makes a mockery of social partnership when a State company refuses to deal harmoniously with a significant section of its locomotive drivers? Will he call on the management of Iarnród Éireann to enter into dialogue with its workers to try to overcome the current problems and ensure a proper public transport system is kept continually on the rails?
Will the Taoiseach agree it is now abundantly clear that "social partnership" is but fancy words for a system which seeks to keep wage increases for workers to a minimum while placing no such limits on profits, rent and speculation? Why would low paid civil servants continue to have any allegiance to social partnership when their wages are hammered to minimum and they are being robbed by rack-renting landlords in the major cities in which they live? They are faced with continued increases in house prices, an issue with which the Taoiseach has failed to deal.
The Deputy should ask a relevant question.
(Dublin West): Their incomes and standard of life are continually eroded. With no effort by the Government to take on the profiteers or rack-renters, why should workers continue to give allegiance to this system?
I am not too sure what question the Deputy was asking.
(Dublin West): I can spell it out for the Taoiseach, if he wishes.
If I was confronted by a storm while out at sea, I would follow procedures. I would not paddle my own canoe and ignore safety procedures.
The PPF was negotiated with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I am not sure if Deputy Joe Higgins is suggesting that the company should just ignore written procedures negotiated and agreed under the banner of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions with an affiliate union. The union involved in this case is SIPTU but it could have been any other union. It could have been the ATGWU and another company. Rules governing the rights of organised workers were laid down in law in 1906. They were amended in 1941, 1946, 1990 and 1998. The ATGWU is in breach of those rules. It is ignoring the guidelines of its own organisation, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Its leader is a member of the executive of that organisation and would be the first to shout "foul" if somebody else did what has been done here. We are trying to follow the rules. We either have rules or we do not. As long as rules exist, the Government will honour them.
We negotiated the PPF with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions; we will adhere to those rules and when ICTU decides it no longer wishes to have rules we will do something else. As of now, rules and regulations exist. They may be a little inconvenient at times, there is no doubt about that, but they have been used to structure organised labour in a proper manner. I thought the Deputy would like that. We are following that line.
I refute what the Deputy had to say about social partnership. It has enabled us to give employment to another 750,000 people. We are no longer facing the bad times of the 1980s when we had high emigration, high unemployment, industrial unrest, anarchy and a lack of investment and hope in our country. We will not go back to those times. We must deal with this dispute in a sane, sensible manner. This matter could be sorted out, under the rules, in an hour. We will not break the rules.
After those enticing images of the Taoiseach as a seafarer, can we get back to the railways? The ports are still open and ships are sailing, but the trains are not running. The Taoiseach seemed to imply that Members on this side of the House are advocating that a coach and four be driven through industrial relations procedures. We are not suggesting that at all. There are no coaches on the railways in Munster today and there was none on the east coast yesterday.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, who is ready to interfere in the affairs of State companies regarding trivial matters, has refused for some months to deal with this crisis? When she was put on notice of the issues in a letter dated 19 April she did not act and gave the Taoiseach the hospital pass. However, the issue does not seem to have been dealt with in the Taoiseach's Department either.
The reason there were no trains in the east yesterday, that there are none in Munster today and that there will be none in the west tomorrow is that no one dealt with this problem when it was crystal clear it was going to end up as it has done. This has been clear for several months.
I put it to the Taoiseach that a hallmark of the manner in which his Ministers behave is that they deal with crises as if they had suddenly stepped on a rake and say, "Oh, what happened," while everyone else knows the issue has been a matter of concern for months.
Needless to say, I reject that nonsense as that is not the case. It would be easy for a Government which did not care about social partnership, procedures or negotiated collective agreements to just throw down the cards one way or the other. That is not the position. The position is that a union which was not recognised fought a long dispute, did not get its way and did not resolve the issue because it could not be dealt with due to the collective procedures within the union. It then tried a different approach and is getting the same answer.
There is a process which can resolve this issue which has to be followed. There is no quick fix or easy way around this. That would be the wrong thing to do. Industrial relations is a delicate, tricky issue. It would be lovely if it could all be sorted out in Question Time. If that was the case it would have been sorted out decades ago. However, that is not how it works.
It works out based on negotiated agreements, clear understandings of who negotiates for whom, who has the right to speak for whom and who represents whom. These agreements have taken a long time and much hard work to reach, and I agree with them. Regardless of the pain, we have to deal with them.
This issue can be resolved. It is wrong that the public is suffering today, that it suffered yesterday and that it will suffer tomorrow, by the way things are going. However, this issue has to be resolved by organised workers under the rules of ICTU. That is what has to happen. The Government and the Minister will do whatever they can.
I refute the suggestion that the Minister has not taken a hands-on approach to this issue. She is normally accused by CIE and other companies under her remit of taking a hands-on approach.
Why did the Minister not answer the letter?
Order.
She is doing so on this issue and will continue to do so.
A question was put to the Taoiseach to which he has not replied. Let me put the question again. Does he not find it extraordinary that a letter from a group such as the ATGWU to a Minister would not be acknowledged or replied to by the Minister but was instead sent to the Taoiseach's Department? Does the Taoiseach recall receiving the letter or was it brought to his attention, as I presume it must have been under normal departmental procedures? What action did he take when the letter was brought to his attention? Did he ask the Minister why she was passing the buck to him when she had the capacity to deal with the matter herself?
There has been much correspondence about this issue.
I am talking about one letter.
There have been many letters. The Departments of the Taoiseach and Public Enterprise have made their positions clear. I did likewise in my discussions with ICTU as recently as last week. The ATGWU and the CIE unions are well aware of this position.
The Taoiseach should tell the House why the letter was not answered.
The Taoiseach has addressed this matter for over 40 minutes but he has outlined only the symptoms of which we all have been aware for some days. The Taoiseach is conveying the impression that no one is in charge and there is nothing the Government can or will do to address the issue. He has no message for businesses which are suffering.
The Deputy should put a question.
What message does the Taoiseach have for the tourism industry which is already—
The House is dealing with questions about the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
This matter is most important in terms of prosperity, fairness and social partnership. What message does the Taoiseach have for the tourism industry which is only just ready to leave the intensive care unit following the foot and mouth scare? What message does he have for the people engaged in rail tours and the thousands of commuters to the city other than that nobody is in charge? What will he and the Government do to ensure the country has a rail system that operates?
This issue should not have arisen and it needs to be resolved.
It has arisen.
It is most important with regard to competitiveness, the tourism industry and the travelling public. However, a resolution will not be achieved with a magic wand and there is no quick fix. It must be resolved within the procedures. That may be the bad news, but that is the position. Last week the Government thought the matter had been resolved and that there was a clear understanding between the two unions involved, SIPTU and the ATGWU, under the umbrella of congress. However, that did not work for the various reasons outlined by the Minister yesterday. That aspect must be brought back into play; there is no other way of resolving the matter.
Regarding who is in charge, the Minister, CIE management, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the unions involved have a role to play. If there was agreement, some of the State's industrial mechanisms would be available. However, that is unlikely in the absence of agreement. That avenue will be pursued at the meeting tomorrow.
The dispute has the appearance of an opening festering wound. Will the matter be on the agenda when the social partners meet to discuss rural transport? Has the Taoiseach learned any lessons in terms of a framework for the provision of acceptable rural transportation? Has the dispute coloured his judgment in relation to public transport and how it should be provided in the future given that it appears the dispute is focused on claims about a lack of representation for the workers involved?
The view of the Combat Poverty Agency is that the partnership approach largely ignores the needs of those who are unable to work. Has that view coloured the Taoiseach's judgment regarding the failure of partnership and the fact that it needs to be radically altered to ensure that people who are unable to work are included and represented by the mechanisms? The dispute appears to be focused on people who do not consider that they are represented, but they have muscle to do something about it, which has created chaos. What is the position regarding people who are unable to work and do not have any industrial muscle? Is the Taoiseach prepared to alter the mechanisms so they feel represented?
That might be possible if we could find a way of doing it without upsetting the traditional structures. However, there must be some movement. Regarding rural transport, additional resources have been provided under a number of headings in the national development plan. County development boards have already started their surveys and a number of lines that were closed will be reopened. Lines that have been under-utilised are to be improved. A number of lines, including in north Cork and Sligo, require considerable extra resources.
On the question of rural transport, feasibility studies have started with the county board structures, the Department and the transport agencies to devise new plans for what are, perhaps, old ways. Resources have been allocated for this purpose under the national development plan. The Government would be very supportive of them because they will be very beneficial in the future.
Bodies such as the Combat Poverty Agency are not represented.
A wide range of representative bodies are included within the county development board structure. We are in favour of people having an involvement in order that they can have a say about the future of their transport systems, especially local systems.
Four times the question of the keynote letter of 19 April has been put to the Taoiseach, but he has not answered. Why did he or his Minister not answer this letter, which set out precisely what would happen if certain action was not taken?
The letter of 19 April is no more a keynote letter than the fact that there is a man in the moon. The key element is that the ATGWU is in breach of the negotiated agreement with the ICTU. Mr. Ogle and his colleagues tried one way and failed. They are now trying another way, but will fail again. The issue must be resolved. The answer to all the letters, including those of 18 and 19 April, is that of the congress position, which holds that SIPTU is correct and the ATGWU is wrong.
The Taoiseach did not answer the letter.