The current dispute in An Post and last week's threatened industrial action at Dublin Airport and CIE have heightened the vulnerability of the public to industrial action in essential services. There is now a situation where the public must pay the price for these disputes, such as the current one where mail can neither be sent nor received. Is the Tánaiste aware that the Labour Relations Commission produced draft codes of practice for disputes in essential services, signed under the seal of the then Minister for Labour, Mr. O'Kennedy, on 6 January 1992? These impact directly on people and business. Will the Tánaiste explain whether the bodies involved have such codes of practice and why, after 12 years since the LRC wrote the draft, these have not been implemented or there is no impetus to have them implemented? Does this not demonstrate a failure of Government and a failure of the current partnership model to protect consumer interests? We are now faced with daily threats to essential services and these mechanisms have not been put in place 12 years after the LRC wrote the draft codes of practice for such bodies.
Leaders’ Questions.
I share Deputy Kenny's concern about the difficulties in some State bodies, particularly those delivering essential services. I welcome the fact that both sides in the postal dispute will have talks tomorrow with the Labour Relations Commission. In the State sector generally, companies must be prepared at both management and employee level to embrace change. An Post has lost €100 million on a cumulative basis over the last few years and that is not sustainable.
There is a code of practice on essential services which parties have agreed and it is important that those who have agreed it, honour it. We have operated industrial relations in the State on a voluntary basis, staying away from the prescriptive legislation that exists in other countries and which has not worked satisfactorily in many instances. We have usually been able to resolve disputes in that way and I hope that will be the case in this situation. I appeal on behalf of the Government to both sides in the dispute. I ask employees to return to work to implement the plans which they agreed and I hope the Labour Relations Commission can resolve the outstanding difficulties in An Post.
Will the Tánaiste confirm if a code of practice exists in An Post for dealing with disputes of this nature? In the LRC document that deals with essential services, they are defined as services the cessation of which would cause major damage to the national economy or widespread hardship to the community. Can the Tánaiste confirm if the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has called in the chairman of An Post, who happens to be an active member of Fianna Fáil, and told him that mail delivery is essential to the smooth running of the country and fundamental to the State?
Will the Tánaiste outline the structure and strategy for the long-term implementation of a code of practice that will continue to deliver an essential service like the delivery of post, to the highest possible standard? Has the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources called in the chairm an of An Post and what is the strategy for the long-term implementation of a high-quality essential service that is now being disrupted, causing hardship to the community and which may cause severe problems for the economy?
The Minister has been in constant contact with the senior management, chief executive officer and the chairman of the board of An Post about the dispute and ongoing matters affecting the company. We hope the discussions that will begin tomorrow at the Labour Relations Commission will be successful. In the first instance, the discussions will be held separately with both sides and it will be a matter for the LRC to proceed thereafter.
There is no long-term strategy.
Has a decision been made on the date to hold the referendum on citizenship? Will the Tánaiste explain to the House why the Taoiseach told us on 17 February that there were no proposals to hold any referendum in 2004 and why a couple of weeks later, on 10 March, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said there would be such a referendum and it would likely be held in conjunction with the elections on 11 June? Why did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform say his decision was based on a meeting with the masters of the Dublin maternity hospitals who he said pleaded with him to change the law?
It is a disgrace.
Why did the Minister state that the meeting was held at their request when we now know from a statement issued by the masters that they deny ever asking the Minister to change the law or hold a referendum? It turns out it was the Minister's officials who invited them to the meeting which took place in October 2002.
It is misinformation.
Perhaps the Tánaiste knows the answers to these questions because I do not. How can this be reconciled with the Good Friday Agreement? What changes will be necessary to it given that Articles 2 and 3 derive from it? How can it be reconciled with the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, chaired by Deputy Brian Lenihan, which recommended not just that sufficient time should be given to debate a measure like this, but that Standing Orders should be changed to embody a presumption that every Deputy and Senator who wishes to discuss this ought to be permitted to do so and that a separate Oireachtas committee be set up to examine the Bill when it is published? He said that in exceptionally urgent circumstances, the 30-day limit should apply. Why is this so urgent? Does the Tánaiste agree with the leader of her party in the other House, Senator Minihan, who said it would be most unwise to hold this referendum in the context of the local and European elections, given how the race card has been played by some Members of this House and many candidates outside it?
Indeed.
Does the Tánaiste agree with her colleague, Senator Morrissey, who said at a meeting last Sunday that a decision had already been made to hold the referendum on 11 June?
I hope we do not start playing the race card here.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has already started.
No one has been more open or liberal on immigration issues than me but the fact remains that the law in this country is being abused, everyone must acknowledge that. It is not acceptable that people can fly here from anywhere in the world to give birth. The referendum was discussed at Cabinet this morning but no date has been agreed yet.
What was decided?
We decided two weeks ago to hold a referendum but the date for it has not yet been decided. Many would be of the view that we are having an election anyway ——
Disgraceful.
—— and it makes more sense to have it on that occasion than to have it during the presidential election, if there is one.
There will be an election.
Will the Deputy be a candidate?
There will be an election.
I thought the motley group that got together had already broken up because it could not agree on the Hanly report.
We have four times as many votes as the Tánaiste's party.
I request that the Tánaiste does not respond to interruptions and I point out to her that this is Deputy Rabbitte's question. He is only the person entitled to an answer at this time.
How many Members has the Tánaiste's party?
I would look forward to an election. No agreement has been reached on when the referendum will be held, that has still to be decided by Government. Any referendum will be totally compatible with the Good Friday Agreement and there will have to be a debate in this House. There are time deadlines for the passing of a Bill before a referendum can be held and the Government, when it discussed this matter some weeks ago, decided that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should enter consultations with Opposition parties, which he did in advance of the Government decision. That remains the position.
The necessity for the referendum occurs because of what is happening and no one can disagree with that. The proposal is in line with almost every other European country, many of which have much more restrictive rules on residency than we are proposing in this legislation.
The Tánaiste is supposed to be closer to Boston than Berlin.
I agree with the Tánaiste that we cannot have a situation where anyone can fly in from any part of the world to use the maternity services in this city. However, we do not know the extent to which that is happening because the only figures the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has given are those for non-nationals. Furthermore, the Minister seriously misrepresented the meeting with the masters. When Deputy Gay Mitchell tabled a parliamentary question in this House to find out the extent of the phenomenon referred to by the Tánaiste, the answer was that the figures were not available and the Deputy would be contacted in writing. As of yesterday, that had not yet happened.
Why does the Tánaiste want to hold this referendum in the context of elections? Why did the Taoiseach tell the House on 17 February that no such referendum was proposed? Why would the meeting with the masters be misrepresented? Why do we not have time to tease out the implications for the Good Friday Agreement given that it can only be jointly reviewed?
Is the Tánaiste aware of the consultant from the United States brought in by the Fianna Fáil Party to identify the current issues in this polity. It was they, not I, who identified immigration as the main issue, 17 points ahead of health?
That is despicable.
Any collusion by the Progressive Democrats Party in permitting that issue to be put in the context of elections would be unworthy of the Tánaiste's party.
I was not at the meeting with the masters and I am not certain what occurred at it. I doubt very much if the masters would have come to it looking for changes in legislation but I know from private discussions with people working in the maternity hospitals in Dublin that there is enormous concern about what is happening. One senior consultant told me some time ago that if the trend continued we would need another hospital facility in the greater Dublin area. There is, therefore, considerable concern about what is happening.
We need another maternity hospital in any case.
The relevant figure for the Coombe is 2%.
As the Deputy knows, non-nationals account for 22% of births in Dublin, many of whom come here for that purpose.
Many of them are working here.
No, not many of them are working here.
They are in——
Again, I remind the House that this is the Labour Party's question and it is inappropriate to answer questions from the Technical Group, which will have an opportunity shortly.
As regards the date for the referendum, it is important to acknowledge that it has not yet been agreed. It is also important to acknowledge that there is no doubt that whenever it is held it will stir up undesirable feelings. The onus is on all of us in the House who want to ensure that racism does not take hold in Ireland to ensure that the campaign is conducted to the highest possible standards, which has been the case generally with most parties in the House on this issue.
By holding the referendum during the local elections, the Government is ensuring we will have a racist campaign.
Is the Deputy opposed to the referendum?
The Government is facilitating——
Is Deputy Joe Higgins taking the Technical Group's question today?
I was remonstrating with the Tánaiste.
We will have order in the House.
I wish to focus on an issue of some interest to the Tánaiste, who has expressed views on selling public assets to private ownership on many occasions. I ask particularly about the rush to privatisation now taking hold in the marine sector as regards ports and harbours. The current edition of The Irish Skipper reports that the sale of Waterford Port is “irresponsible” according to local industry. Has the issue of the sale of harbours and ports arisen at Cabinet?
While I am aware that discussions on Waterford Port are ongoing with the Ministerfor Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has the sudden proposal to sell off Balbriggan and Skerries harbours been raised at Government level, given that the Harbours Act 1996 specifies that these named harbours are not to be sold off but transferred to the local authority? Is the Act, which states that on the commencement of subsection 88 there shall stand transferred to Fingal County Council from Dublin Port Company the following harbours, namely, Skerries and Balbriggan harbours, any more than window dressing? How can the legislation have credibility when we hear from the Dublin Port Authority that the harbours will be placed on the open market? Is the company acting in line with Government policy or is it effectively thumbing its nose at legislation?
I understand the ports mentioned by the Deputy were offered to the local authority in question and it was not interested in taking them over. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources intends to bring to Government shortly proposals on a strategy for the ports and this will be put in the public domain for public discussion in advance of any decisions being made.
Will the Tánaiste, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, read the legislation a little more closely? It is up to the Minister, acting in concert with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to issue the relevant order. It is not a matter for Fingal County Council to state it does not like the look of the law; it is a matter for Government to take action.
The question which arises is whether the Government will govern by mediating between the different parties to arrive at a remedy which implements the law, or simply roll over and effectively allow the law to be flouted. Many people are interested in finding out the answer because the precedent being set in this context could be repeated whenever a body such as a local authority does not like an aspect of the law and refuses to implement it. What is the response of the Government in such a scenario? Surely its job is to govern by bringing together the different views and resolving the matter. Will it do its job?
It is more appropriate for smaller ports to be in the ownership of local authorities.
I agree.
In the case of the two ports the Deputy mentioned and Waterford Port, an offer was made to the local authorities in question and there did not seem to be any interest. The facilities in question need to be upgraded and require investment. The most appropriate decisions will be made at local government level, so I suggest we focus our interest on local authority members with a view to interesting them in taking responsibility.
That is the job of the Government.
The Government will shortly publish proposals on the ports for public discussion.
Will the Government issue a directive?