Vol. 559 No. 1
1 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the ICTU on 20 November 2002; the implications of this meeting for discussions on the successor to the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23341/02]
2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting with trade union representatives on 20 November 2002 to discuss the impact of the Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23436/02]
3 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed at his meeting with union leaders on 20 November 2002 on the recently published Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23550/02]
4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent report of the National Econ omic and Social Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23559/02]
5 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his views on the recently published NESC Strategy Report, An Investment in Quality: Services, Inclusion and Enterprise; the report's relevance for the social partnership process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23762/02]
6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24353/02]
7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the Government's views on the recent publication by the NESC of the conclusions and recommendations of its strategy report, An Investment in Quality, Services, Inclusion and Enterprise; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24408/02]
8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting of 20 November 2002 with the ICTU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24447/02]
9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his views on the recent report of the National Economic and Social Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24453/02]
10 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the outcome of his meeting with representatives of the unions on the subject of the Book of Estimates on 20 November 2002. [24455/02]
11 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the findings of the NESC Strategy Report. [25349/02]
12 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25671/02]
13 Mr. Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he has received representations from the Senior Citizens' Parliament that they be included in the social partnership society; the consideration he has given to the request; and his views on whether the Senior Citizen Partnership should participate in meetings of the social partners. [25881/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 13, inclusive, together.
The National Economic and Social Council published a summary of the recommendations of its strategy report on 19 November and copies have been lodged in the Oireachtas Library. The report sets out an agreed approach to the economic and social contexts in which negotiations on a successor to the PPF should be set, the main challenges to be faced in the period ahead and the options or paths to be followed in tackling those challenges. I take this opportunity to commend those involved in the production of a high quality report that provides valuable guidance and direction on issues of major national importance.
Formal meetings such as the PPF plenary session in Dublin Castle on 31 October complement the meetings which I hold with representatives of the social partners on a regular basis. In this context, I met the Irish Congress of Trade Unions at its request on 20 November, along with my colleagues the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance. The meeting provided an opportunity for an exchange of views on the social partnership process. I reiterated that it was important to recall that social partnership is a long-term process which has underpinned our progress over the past 15 years. The social partners have shared short, medium and long-term goals. The Government believes it is to the mutual benefit of the partners, particularly in a difficult environment, to seek to reach a common understanding of the problems and to develop jointly framed responses to them.
The ICTU identified a number of issues, such as housing, health, public transport and caring, as being of concern to it in the context of the Estimates for 2003. I emphasised that in formulating the Estimates for next year, the Government was guided by the need to ensure that the levels of public spending were consistent with actual and projected economic growth, which in turn affects revenue levels. During the growth period and continuing into this year, public expenditure rose sharply – the rate of increase in spending in 2001 and 2002 totals almost 40%. Much of this has gone into the expansion of services in recent years, particularly in the health and education sectors.
Capital investment by Government under the national development plan has also increased significantly. However, we must protect our hard-won economic gains by being prudent in the management of the public finances. We will not repeat the mistakes of the past in terms of excessive borrowing and high levels of taxation. The Government regards social partnership as an important contribution to the governance process in this country. However, as in the past, there are times when it is essential that Government takes hard decisions in the interest of achieving widely shared goals, even though they may be difficult for the social partners.
Deputy Sargent asked for my views on the implications of this meeting for discussions on the successor to the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. As the Deputy will be aware, I formally launched the talks at the last PPF plenary meeting in Dublin Castle. Following on from this, a series of bilateral meetings is now well under way and, as with previous agreements, the proceedings are subject to normal confidentiality arrangements in order to protect the negotiating positions of all. However, each of the social partner pillars, as well as the Government side, has made clear on many occasions in the recent past its own priorities and concerns.
The programme for Government also indicated that the models of participation in the social partnership process would be reviewed, including an examination of ways of maximising the efficiency and effectiveness of the process and the potential contribution of the community and voluntary sectors. A number of organisations, including the Senior Citizens' Parliament, have applied for inclusion in the social partnership process. We are considering how we can achieve our objectives in the context of these applications and it is an inherent part of the process that any changes proposed will be discussed with the relevant social partner pillar. In this context, each applicant organisation has been asked to provide a formal statement of its case for inclusion in the social partnership process, and my Department is in contact with these organisations.
The Government remains fully committed to seeking an appropriate basis for a new agreement between all of the social partners. I believe that the NESC analysis is helpful in this regard. All of the parties are aware that any new agreement will have to take account of the uncertain economic climate over the past year or so. As NESC has indicated, we will have to agree a suitably flexible strategy which allows us to continue to tackle major national priorities such as health care, child care, education, equality, poverty, infrastructure and competitiveness in the context of our future economic performance as a nation.
In relation to the pay terms of any agreement, based on the exploratory contacts over recent days between Government, the employers and congress, I believe there is scope to agree a new deal. Both employers and unions have indicated a genuine willingness to enter serious and intensive negotiations to find a pay deal whose terms address their legitimate concerns about living standards, competitiveness and jobs. While any deal must address the needs of workers and employers in the private sector, similar concerns arise for Government, as an employer, and public servants. Any deal on pay will be reached in the context of commitments by employers, unions and Government in relation to the workplace environment and in the context of the wider strategy to tackle our shared economic and social priorities contained in the overall agreement.
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a gabháil leis an Taoiseach as ucht an freagra a thug sé. I was interested to hear the Taoiseach say that he would like to see a review of the talks process. What review or changes does he have in mind, other than obtaining a statement from each of the constituent partners? Might he consider the absent environmental pillar, which has not had a part in the partnership process so far? Does the Taoiseach agree that the budget has not helped raise hopes for a new partnership agreement? The failure to implement the national anti-poverty strategy, a key objective of the last agreement, will make it difficult for the Government to appear credible as it goes into this round of talks. Will the Taoiseach take on board the view of the ICTU that welfare increases should be linked to average earnings, as recommended in the strategy, or the CORI assessment that there should be an increase of €18.70 per week in the next four budgets to meet the Government's commitments in the national anti-poverty strategy?
How will the Government address inflation, which is heading towards three times the EU average, in the partnership talks? Will he ask the Competition Authority to investigate the pharmacies, drinks traders and other professions to root out anti-competitive and inflationary practices?
A number of organisations applying to different pillars have put forward cases. The agreement over many years is that any new groups are discussed with the relevant pillar. To enable us to do that, we have asked for a formal statement of the case for inclusion in the process by the groups in question. Some, including the Senior Citizens' Parliament, have responded to the request already. Contact with the organisations and with the pillar they would like to join is ongoing. I cannot, however, confirm any details for the environmental group. It is open for any group to join any pillar, and it may have applied because there are a number of organisations in each. We extended the number of pillars in the last round of negotiations. We do not want the organisation base to become unwieldy and we have succeeded with that so far. I have no difficulty with this. It might make negotiations slightly more cumbersome but different sectors are covered and that outweighs leaving out any groups.
As in all cases, some people will be happier with the budget than others. Some will feel more could have been done for their sector. The Minister had to make decisions based on the resources available to him on the day and spread them in as even a way as possible, taking all issues into account.
The revised national anti-poverty strategy, with its new targets for the reduction and, if possible, elimination of consistent poverty and the achievement of a rate of €150 in 2002 terms, presents a challenge. Resources are also demanded by other related areas dealing with employment, education, health, housing and administration. Many related plans have been laid out under the PPF, such as the health strategy, the parallel primary care document, the national action plan against racism, reports on homelessness and the national anti-drugs strategy. They are all reviewed on an ongoing basis. The social economy group and all other groups in PPF try to make improvements in pay and in legislation. Many of the proposals have been already implemented. I hope they will continue in the future regardless of whether there is a programme in place. I think the NAPS strategy should remain.
Is that a disimprovement?
The Deputy will appreciate that in 2000-01 €1.5 billion or €1.6 billion was spent on these categories under the PPF. The assessment was reported back to the PPF groups. There have been enormous financial resources put into this area. Funding will probably increase more slowly now, but I hope we can get back to a position where it will increase substantially. These are all policy areas which are listed and structured. I hope we will continue to make progress in this area under any partnership process, even though it may not happen as quickly in 2003.
I asked about inflation.
Sorry, Deputy Sargent. Some 45 minutes is allowed for questions and we cannot allow the whole of the time for the Deputy's supplementary questions. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
Does the Taoiseach disagree with anything in SIPTU's statement on the budget making the securing of a new social con tract virtually impossible? Does he disagree with SIPTU in regard to the inflationary impact of the VAT increases on excise duties, the lack of provision for child care facilities, the failure to index tax bands, the failure to increase tax credits in line with inflation, the achievement of bringing more people into the top rate of tax and the abolition of the first-time buyer's grant? All of these measures, together with a range of charges that increase the cost of living and take more take-home pay out of the pockets of workers make securing a new social contract immensely difficult. Is there anything in that menu on which the Taoiseach disagrees with SIPTU?
It is easy enough to look at a budget and say what is not included, what one would like to see included and what aspirations one would have. I disagree with many aspects but if one looks at individual areas one will see the progress being made in many areas. While the Exchequer provision for housing is down, the provision for Exchequer capital expenditure is €932 million. This is more than double what it was when the PPF began and Exchequer funding was €450 million. Non-Exchequer spending for local authority housing has increased to €1.7 billion, up 7%. People commented that funding for public transport was not sufficient but it stands at €1.5 billion or €1.7 billion. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been allocated €70.8 million for child care provision, an increase of 21% on the allocation for this year. The Estimates provision for the ongoing equal opportunities child care programme is substantially increased.
I could take issue with many aspects of the budget. If one looks back over the past two years when there was an increase of almost 40%, I accept the increases are not now as high. I do not contend that without a social partnership deal we can continue to make enormous strides. During the various discussions, I take issue with many aspects such as the health issue, where there has been an allocation of 709 beds, even in a more difficult year. The extra €53 million next year will mean an overall investment package, including capital expenditure of €118 million in that initiative alone. There is the treatment purchase fund and we have seen improvements in areas dealing with cancers. Many of these issues have been raised by the ICTU. I cannot agree and think that not to have a social partnership agreement will not improve matters. These are issues on which the Government, to the best of its ability, will maximise resources and try to put as much money as possible into areas of concern to ICTU and the Government over the next few years.
I call Deputy Joe Higgins.
Excuse me, a Cheann Comhairle.
I will come back to Deputy Rabbitte. There are six Deputies who have submitted questions.
The Taoiseach said he would disagree with many of the things I read out. He did not disagree with any of them. Did he disagree with the inflationary—
I call Deputy Higgins. Deputy Rabbitte is making a statement.
I want an answer to my questions.
I will come back to the Deputy.
I did not answer on inflation, a Cheann Comhairle. I am sorry.
The Taoiseach dealt with a range of things I did not raise such as health, housing—
Allow the Taoiseach to answer, Deputy Rabbitte. The Deputy is not in order. Six Deputies submitted questions. Each is entitled to ask a supplementary question and I will then come back to the Deputy.
It is fair, at eight minutes to 3 p.m., that I get an answer to my questions.
The Taoiseach wanted to respond.
I will, a Cheann Comhairle. I did not mention inflation although Deputy Sargent mentioned it. Deputy Rabbitte mentioned initiatives on health, housing, child care and infrastructure.
On inflation, I take issue with the Deputies. It is fair for the Government to point out that in a number of areas more resources could be gained if products such as drink and cigarettes were left out of the index. The Government has repeatedly requested the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to agree to that. Last week, the Minister's total increases amounted to 0.85% of inflation; some 0.42% of that related to cigarettes while a significant amount also related to drink. Drink and cigarettes are not essentials and could be taken out of the calculation and more resources could be raised to put back into health and other areas. We were not in a position to do that because of the weighting of inflation.
There are still concerns about inflation even though Central Bank and other figures have shown that it will drift down over the next year or two. We must be careful in these negotiations to consider the rate of competitiveness generally and pay levels particularly. Pay levels have gone up by over 30% in recent years compared to 13% in other countries. That is a significant danger and inflation is part of it. I accept that care must be taken but there are ways of dealing with this, and I highlight the areas of drink and cigarettes.
How can the Taoiseach stand there and expect us to believe that he has even a tráithnín of credibility in calling on workers to again play a con game called national partnership, and in reality to accept a new wage control deal, when his Government has not raised a finger over several years to stop profiteering in services – including the rip-off under the cover of the euro – which has severely impacted on working people's ability to purchase, and when his Government has raised in the budget a series of taxes under other names?
Has the Deputy a question?
Yes, an important question, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Taoiseach expect workers to accept wage restraint when one stockbroking firm today predicts that inflation could shoot to 6.5% next month?
The Deputy is making a statement. A question, please.
Can I ask the Taoiseach squarely why any worker who needs to put a home over his or her head for the first time should accept national partnership or wage restraint when the Government snatches a £4,000 grant from him or her and increases the price of a home by €2,000 through a VAT increase? Is the Taoiseach aware that the Central Statistics Office has clearly shown that since 1987 the amount of national production going to wages or salaries as a proportion has dropped dramatically while that going to profit, dividends and rents has increased dramatically as a result of outrageous profiteering which his Government did nothing to stop?
Does the Taoiseach believe it is moral to stand in the Dáil and call on workers to accept wage restraint when he does not call on speculators and builders to moderate the profiteering in the building industry or on private landlords to moderate the profiteering in the private rented sector? Does the Taoiseach believe that his Government and the bosses can fool all the workers all the time? That will not be the case from now on.
I do not call on only one side to moderate their demands. It covers all sectors.
They must not have heard the Taoiseach.
The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to respond.
I am sure the Deputy saw in the budget that a substantial amount of tax will be clawed back from what the Deputy considers the business class. That is right. However, the Deputy must accept that the pay increases, not to mention the tax breaks in recent years, have substantially eroded the competitive position of our economy. Like the Deputy, I want to maintain the highest possible number of jobs in our society. We have been lucky in that we have been able to employ approximately 96% of the total labour market in recent years. That is a big improvement on our weak position. We want to keep as many of those people as we can in jobs and that should be the main purpose of price stability. I acknowledge we have a battle to fight in that regard and that people in certain sectors, which have been well identified, are taking an increased share of profits.
The Government has not done anything to stop them.
They are not all large firms or financial sector firms. They are spread across a range of services, particularly the professional services. The State agencies must continue to fight that battle. As Deputy Sargent said earlier, some of these sectors have shown big increases. Last week I mentioned pharmacies and other areas where competition may help, although it may not solve all the problems.
As regards the Taoiseach's comments about remodelling the nature of social partnership, will he elaborate on that to take into account the position in which we find ourselves? Does the Taoiseach agree that the current model is outdated and that it has protected some sectors from necessary reform in terms of value for public money for consumers and taxpayers? Does he accept that the broader needs of the community should be dealt with to a greater extent and given greater priority in the future? An article published some time ago by the Fine Gael spokesman on finance, Deputy Richard Bruton, pointed out that while partnership is important, partnership between the community, the employers and trade unions is equally critical. The focus has been on wages, employment and profits to the detriment of community relations and family pressures. Employers and unions tend to be first division players, while other interests in society, which must deal with important issues, have been relegated to the second division.
Given the statement by David Begg that, from an ICTU perspective, the failure to index tax rates and to tackle the important issues of housing and health will make another partnership agreement practically impossible, does the Taoiseach share the view that the current position is outdated and that we should move into the broader perspective of making the Dáil more relevant and effective in terms of creating the type of society and country in which our people must live in the future and abiding by the consequences of whatever agreement is put in place?
There are different aspects. In my reply to Deputy Sargent, I spoke about some of the additional organisations which are outside the social partnership process but which feel they have a national profile and could usefully join one of the pillars. The process will be made workable if these organisations are open minded about their involvement in it as well as about following it once it is agreed among the pillars. I do not have a difficulty in that regard.
On the broader question Deputy Kenny asks, bringing the social and community pillar into the process made the agreement wider than it had been on the five previous occasions. The first of those agreements was purely related to pay in bad times while the second was a pay agreement which also opened up elements of social progress in non-pay areas. The third, fourth and fifth agreements were very different in that they included large elements of non-pay agreements while the pay issue was settled between ICTU and IBEC on one side and the Government and the public service committee unions on the other.
Dozens of working groups are involved in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and they have been working through various agendas related to "quality of life" issues in housing, child care and health care. I am not sure it is the most efficient way of doing things. I have argued within the talks – as recorded on 31 October, which means I am not breaking a confidence – that it would be better to concentrate on a small number of strategic areas in the social partnership process. It is obvious the three or four areas would be in line with those mentioned by Deputy Kenny. Over a period of three years, we should try to make progress in those areas rather than attempt to save everything in society at once with an enormous number of officials working on all of these committees. It is an enormous task. If there is to be an agreement this time I would rather concentrate on a small number of areas such as child care, housing, retraining and lifelong learning. People may have different views about the areas to be considered, but those are a few that could be agreed. I hope any social partnership process will be along those lines.
The Deputy asked whether the Oireachtas should be involved. Last year, I stated that it is not a good idea to exclude the Oireachtas and even, on occasion, the Government from the partnership agreements. There should be regular reports to a committee of the Houses. My officials have gone to a great deal of trouble to provide very detailed progress reports, which are placed in the Library, but very little is done about them and there is not much debate. Useful debate could take place on some of those issues if they were not as lengthy as they are at present.
Has the Taoiseach noted the contradictions in the approaches of the authors of the texts of the national spatial strategy and of the National Economic and Social Council's recent report? There was only a week between the publication of both. While the national spatial strategy offers the prospect of brighter times ahead, which we all hope it will deliver, it also offers compliments on claimed past achievements. However, the report of the NESC catalogues a very different picture of a past littered with failures. Does the Taoiseach agree with the NESC when it reports that Ireland faces an infrastructural deficit, the possibility of shortages in the generation of electricity and a low level of communications connectivity? Is he not alarmed when a body such as the National Economic and Social Council finds this State deficient in housing, public transport, roads, cultural and recreational infrastructure, telecommunications infrastructure, energy production and waste management?
Regarding energy, does the Taoiseach believe it is ludicrous that the ESB, our own Electricity Supply Board, is precluded under European Union rules from building and running any more power stations in this country, despite the fact that we are currently looking at an energy shortage and facing the prospect of an energy crisis as a consequence? I would like the Taoiseach's opinion on that important issue also.
The Deputy raised the question of the divergence of views between the NESC report and the spatial strategy. There is no need to tell the Deputy what the spatial strategy is seeking to do over a 20 to 30 year period to develop the country in a more balanced way so that we get proper balanced regional development and that the necessary infrastructure is provided to do that over a sustained period. NESC is looking at a short-term strategy for the short and medium term. It is highlighting the areas of infrastructure that still have to be dealt with. The Deputy knows as well as I do, why that is the case. It is because the economy has doubled in a decade and there are strains on some of the infrastructure. On its latest examination, while the ESB requires infrastructure it has the capability and the capacity to put it in place. It has had only one stretched day over the last three winters when it had a difficulty. I remind Deputy Sargent that, unfortunately, it was a calm day and wind power would not come to its rescue the only day it was needed. That is another difficulty about storing it and the interconnector.
Turlough Hill.
Hopefully, it will keep going. Even in more difficult times we are spending on infrastructure, in GDP terms, about 2.6% which is over one percentage point more than any of the other European countries. We are spending on infrastructure and continuing to try to catch up with huge deficits on infrastructure. In the 1970s and 1980s, other than telecommunications infrastructure, very little was spent on secondary roads, the ESB and in many other areas. We are in a catch up phase with a growing economy. The Deputy raised the question of the ESB. The ESB is experiencing difficulty in a number of areas. This is due to the fact that the industries in the areas are using enormous energy intensive plants which are a huge pull on the electricity capacity both in the factories on the west coast and on the east coast. However, the ESB believes it will get ahead of that.
In so far as EU regulations are concerned, they are set, but they are not prohibiting the ESB from expanding. The ESB has invested an enormous amount of money in recent years and will continue to do so. If the Deputy is putting forward the view that the ESB will not be able to keep up with the capacity, that is not the case. Other companies are allowed take a proportion of generation and they are doing that and are taking a slice of the action. It is not prohibiting the ESB from investing. The ESB's capital investment programme is probably the largest it has ever had.
In respect of that last point, is it not the case that unless work on building a new 300 megawatt generation plant has commenced within the next six months, there will be a crisis in the provision of energy? I ask the Taoiseach to answer the point made by the deputy president of SIPTU. In a situation where inflation is heading for 5% or 6%, depending on which commentator one believes, why is it that ordinary workers ought to be prepared to sacrifice the gains of recent years in order to facilitate excessive price taking in several areas of the economy?
The Taoiseach is an expert at jumbling together more than one question and avoiding an answer.
Does the Deputy have a question?
I will settle for one question. What does the Taoiseach say to the position taken up by the largest union that it will not recommend a successor agreement to the PPF unless trade union representation is guaranteed in all employment?
ICTU and SIPTU have made trade union representation a key issue of these negotiations and we have had numerous discussions between IBEC and ICTU on the issue. The Government, which is not opposed to increasing the areas of trade union recognition, has stated its position but that position does not go as far as ICTU or IBEC requires. We are prepared to move on it.
The right to representation is critical.
People are entitled to representation but, as Deputy Rabbitte knows, a substantial number of workers work in multi-national companies which have within their structures a right to representation on work committees. They do not want to change that. If we were to change it through legislation we would change a practice that has worked here since the 1970s. In fairness, SIPTU has never taken an aggressive position nor sought to change that over the decades. It has allowed the multinationals to work—
SIPTU was not confronted with the circumstances now confronting it.
I accept that. Some companies do not have works councils or committees and are quite hostile to organised labour movements. In those cases unions have a right to organise and to be represented. A distinction must be made between those that take a hostile position and those that do not. I have been taking more of the trade union line in this round of talks and in recent years. I will continue to do that.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the last place a trade union will come to, if it wants to change trade union recognition, is the Dáil or the Committee on Enterprise and Small Business? This parliament, as the centre where difficult social issues are resolved, has been emasculated by the process of committees. There are committees on everything. The Taoiseach has set up committees of unelected people who are making decisions on serious political issues when the real centre of authority is here. As Deputy Kenny points out, many groups, including trade union rank and file, small business people, consumers and environmental interests, are not represented adequately at this table. We have allowed the centre of decision making to be eroded and removed from the elected people. We need to call a halt and bring central powers back into parliament. The Taoiseach spoke about needing committees—
May we have a question please?
We have committees making recommendations and reports which are ignored by Ministers. Committees of elected people of this Oireachtas and from all parties are totally ignored.
The Deputy is being repetitive now.
The Deputy's point, which has been raised by him and others over the years, is important. What has happened is that over a sustained period the social partners and Government, working through various mechanisms, have given input and direction into a great deal of policy areas where, perhaps, this House has not. Perhaps that is the point the Deputy is making. I do not believe Ministers ignore reports from committees. Those reports are discussed regularly at Cabinet meetings, as has been the case over all the years I have sat at the Cabinet table. With regard to the social partnership process, with particular reference to economic and social develop ment in key areas, as I have already said in reply to Deputy Kenny, I believe there are too many areas. I am trying to narrow it down to a few strategic areas this time, such as housing, child care, life-long training and other issues which come up year after year in which we can make real progress. To make a fundamental change in some of those areas, one needs everybody on side. While I do not wish to appear to criticise colleagues from either side of the House who chair committees of the House, those committees tend to bring in delegations from here, there and everywhere when, in fact, the relevant strategic policy initiatives are there in black and white for us to pursue, including the social partnership process and the national spatial strategy. There is no need to go into new areas. Committees can develop on existing policy areas and there is nothing to prevent that.
Deputy Bruton will be aware that it was his brother, Deputy John Bruton who, with my support from the Opposition side of the House some 20 years ago, moved this House into the committee system. As I was then, I am totally supportive of that system. I know there is relatively little interest from outside the House or, perhaps, from the media—
We would have a better chance of reforming a committee of the Dáil than a committee—
The Taoiseach without interruption.
There is nothing to prevent representative groups from appearing before committees and being part of the process. The reports are prepared and presented. It would not be difficult to move the system from its present position to where the Deputy is advocating, with the House having an input.
We are the representatives of the people.
We are. However, rather than trying to do the job of representatives of organised labour and the employers, we should try to interact with them. That would make for a far more useful input. That is the best resolution to this issue and it is within our capacity to deal with it in that manner.
What prospects does the Taoiseach hold out for a new partnership deal, given that the recent budget awarded a 3.5% cut in corporation tax, kept people in the tax net who are at or below the minimum wage, imposed major cuts and failed to deliver on commitments in the health area? Promises in relation to social welfare were also broken and, today, cuts in the back to work scheme have been announced. What prospects are there of rank and file trade unionists accepting a deal with the Government at this time?
This was the last budget in the PPF process. To answer Deputy Ó Caoláin's question, one has to look at the many positive aspects of this budget in conjunction with the measures taken over the entire PPF period. There have been enormous gains in pay, tax reductions and increased benefits, all of which are well documented in the material provided in the House on 31 October and 1 November. There are clear advantages in continuing that process and building on the work of successive Governments over the past 15 years, during which enormous benefits resulted from the social partnership process. There is nothing to be achieved by breaking the social partnership. We must sustain and build on our competitive position.
I note Deputy Ó Caoláin's comments on corporation tax. The reality is that we are managing to hold on to jobs and markets in a difficult year in which exports have gone down from 16% to 4%. We have to keep our industry competitive. It is easy to say that a cut in corporation tax helps the wealthy. In fact, it is helping to provide jobs in this economy. We have come through two difficult years on international markets with some 96% of our labour force still working. That is a considerable achievement of social partnership and Government policy.
