Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Feb 2007

Vol. 631 No. 4

Leaders’ Questions.

Yesterday in reply to a question, the Taoiseach played down the extent of drug abuse throughout the country. Today I would like to ask him about a report published by UNICEF Report Card 7, Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich Countries. This report indicates that 20% of children under 16 smoked cannabis in the past 12 months. I have been dealing with parents, teachers and boards of management for a long time and there is a growing concern about the toll being taken on young people's development by the abuse of drugs and alcohol in a growing number of second level schools. I know this is a matter of concern to the Taoiseach.

Some weeks ago I suggested that where, on a voluntary basis, boards of management, parents and students in particular schools wish to introduce random alcohol and drug testing, the Department of Education and Science should support such a scheme and where necessary provide facilities and counselling support. I have spoken to many teachers who are experiencing increasing difficulties with some pupils, particularly as a result of drink and drugs. In view of the specific reference in the UNICEF report to the abuse of drugs at second level, would the Taoiseach support a voluntary scheme for random drug and alcohol testing in second level schools where teachers, parents and students want such a scheme to be implemented? They would send out the message "in our school, you don't do this".

The point I made yesterday was that the level of drugs is played up when there is much statistical evidence that the national drugs strategy campaign has enjoyed success.

Deputy Kenny is suggesting a voluntary scheme in schools and if we are dealing with minors, the agreement of parents is necessary. If the parents, the board of management and the children agree, however, it is a matter for the board of management to decide, as is the case with any disciplinary code. Any indication that it would be compulsory would lead to difficulties. The Deputy did not say that but when I was asked about this before, I said that if minors were to be asked to undergo any testing, it would have to be done with the agreement of the parents. It is a matter of discipline for the school authorities to agree with the parents.

I asked last week if any reports had been published on this but I could not find any school operating such a system. If the Deputy has information about any school he wants to give me, I will look at it. There are several schemes where schools and boards of management are trying to deal with under age drinking and many of them have disciplinary codes that do not involve random testing but involve checks to monitor and control under age drinking. I could not find any schools checking for drugs.

It is correct that there must be parental consent when dealing with minors. I am talking about a scheme on a voluntary basis where there is agreement from boards of management, parents and students. Several private schools do this and I have looked at the analysis of the facility in Kent which appears to be successful and which is catching on.

In a case where a board of management, parents and students discuss this and say they are happy to have a random alcohol and drug testing programme for the school, will the Department of Education and Science support that process by perhaps supplying the facilities necessary to carry out random testing? If cases are discovered where drugs have gone beyond experimental use, could counselling facilities be provided?

The UNICEF report, in respect of alcohol and cannabis for young people aged 11, 13 and 15, makes the point that regular cannabis use is associated with depression, physical ill health, problems at school and other forms of risk taking. It may also trigger psychosis, especially in young people already prone to such conditions. When schools decide to establish a voluntary programme by agreement with the boards of management, parents and pupils, will the Department of Education and Science support that?

As a rule, anything that helps to curb under age drinking or misuse of drugs in any form would have my support. I do not know the extent to which Deputy Kenny thought this through, although I generally support what he is saying, but he continually mentioned random and voluntary checks. A random check of its nature is not voluntary in the normal way.

Free consent could be given.

If a board of management——

Six or eight pupils in a school could be picked.

The Deputy has made his contribution and should allow the Taoiseach to reply.

If the board of management, the school authorities, the parents and the children agree — in these cases as the children are minors their parents would need to agree — it would be something we would be in support of. However, one would need to clarify how random it would be. Normally in our laws, cases or protocols random and voluntary are two separate things.

It is like selecting Nos. 3, 12 and 13 from the Dublin team.

It is like breath testing.

Already in education and community needs there is the rehabilitation for drug misusers, which has become a central part of focus in education. There is a range of available treatments, particularly now the treatment options for cocaine, which is a major problem in some communities. There are the needle exchange programmes, the reduction services, the emerging needs fund that was devised to provide a flexible and community level response regarding drug misuse, and the local drugs task force, which is a very good scheme and is used very effectively. There are now more than 65 community-based projects being funded under the emerging needs fund, which are nearly all helping young people — they are not in schools, but in communities surrounding schools. There is the drugs awareness programme — the initiative by Crosscare — which is partly funded by the Government. It provides invaluable contacts and covers addiction counselling and treatment support around the State. Again it is focused very much on young people of school going age.

There is the health promotion unit, which already publishes a guide for parents on understanding drugs, which is the document the support programme of the Department of Education and Science uses. It is freely available and is accessible on the Internet. It is used by boards of management and schools around the country. It is a good programme. I cannot comment if some private schools are using it. The concept of anything that helps to eliminate and control drugs is one I support.

Does the Taoiseach or any member of his Government have any appreciation of the impact of rising prices at the moment? Did the Taoiseach look at the CSO figures quoted in the Irish Examiner today, which show that food prices have increased by 16%? The article states that 37 of 50 items in the shopping basket have increased “substantially”. On top of that the Irish Independent quotes IBEC’s predictions for the future. It believes that shoppers are likely to be hit with massive increases for the cost of basic food and that bread, breakfast cereals, fruit juices and canned foods are set to rise in the coming months, with some items to increase by as much as 20%. Food has already increased by 16% and we have those projections for the future. We have had a 23% increase in gas prices and a 12% increase in ESB charges. Bus and rail fares, toll charges and domestic waste collection charges have increased. The European Central Bank has in effect promised that next month there will be another hike in interest rates.

Is the Taoiseach concerned about the recently concluded pay agreement, which gave a pay increase of 10% over 27 months, with the first phase being 3% and the second phase 2%, given the prices environment in which we are operating? Can he explain why both he and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment told us that after the striking down of the groceries order food prices would fall?

The Deputy's time has concluded.

When I heard the Minister, Deputy Martin, say that the prices of the shopping basket over the year would fall by somewhere between €500 and €1,000, I should have known that the opposite would have been the case. He is one of these Ministers who, so long as his tie is straight and the script is available from the spin-doctor, out he goes. Anything at all comes off the top of the head. The impact has been the opposite. Given the Taoiseach's income and that of the tired band on his front bench, does he have any appreciation of the impact of these increases on ordinary people——

The Deputy's time has concluded.

——on average industrial earnings? This spate of price increases has resulted in a 4.9% rate of inflation. Does the Taoiseach agree with those commentators who suggest that this month inflation could rise to as high as 6%?

Knowing Labour Members are 60-plus and rising, they are tired.

The Government does not understand what workers need to put up with.

Allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.

It is time for the Government to go.

60-plus Pat. You would not answer on Saturday.

There is the same absence of foliage on the top of the Minister's head and it has the same colour as anybody on these benches.

I request the Minister and Members of the Opposition to allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.

A rather tired group in the red band.

The socialists are 70s.

I ask the Minister to allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.

The Taoiseach is the socialist.

If I have a few moments silence I will answer Deputy Rabbitte. There has been an upward trend in inflation for the past four or five months and it could go up for at least another one. That is the projection of the CSO. I am not going to make a guesstimate on what that figure will be precisely. The second point is that under Towards 2016 we have revised the anti-inflation group, which did a very successful job in 2003, when it ran a campaign centred on controlling prices in 2003. The same model and arrangements that were used in that period are already in place. The group that is dealing with this, containing a cross-section of Departments and the social partners, has already had meetings with most of the groups involved, including the consumer prices section of the Competition Authority. It will meet the energy regulator next week and is pressing for a range of initiatives in areas with the support of the Government, which I believe will have an effect. I do not believe it will have a detrimental effect on the Towards 2016 agreement.

The inflation rate either for the calendar year 2006 or for the year to date is just over 4.1%. Half of the increase for the last year was in two areas — energy and various interest rate increases. The interest rate increases by the European Central Bank have had a knock-on effect and we will probably get another one in March. Markets have already discounted another 0.25% increase in March and perhaps even again later in 2007. If those increases are excluded, which is what the markets have been doing, it is 2.1%. So the inflation rate for the year has been 2.1%, excluding those two initiatives.

As Deputy Rabbitte knows the regulator has had a change of heart on the energy issues. Even though the Government had compensated those on welfare, there have been a number of decreases. That is good and they will take effect.

The groceries order was repealed a year ago, on 20 March 2006. Many of the increases now forecast are as a result of external influences as IBEC has pointed out. There have been a number of problems with fruit. The prices of fruit have gone up because of poor fruit harvests last year. There have been increases in international commodity prices, such as oil and wheat. There has been a large increase in the price of wheat, which obviously has been passed on. These are not factors within the control of the Government and have certainly nothing whatsoever to do with the removal of the groceries order. The impact of these factors on food costs underlines the importance of competition in the market place. I pointed out to Deputy Rabbitte yesterday, in reply to another question, that in certain areas the lack of competition has led to increases of8%. According to the most recent CSO figures the price of items previously covered by the order, the so-called groceries order goods, decreased by 0.5% in the month. Since April of last year, the first month following repeal of the order, the prices for goods that used to be covered by the groceries order are down 1.6%. Therefore, Deputy Rabbitte is factually incorrect. These items are at their cheapest since December.

According to Dublin City pensioners they have increased by 15%.

The Irish Examiner got it wrong again.

Not for the first time Deputy Rabbitte is shopping in the wrong shop.

The Taoiseach without interruption, please.

The House will accept that it is the CSO that decides these issues, not others. The items are down 1.6% and are at their cheapest level since December 2002.

That is positive thinking.

According to the Consumer Strategy Group report clothing prices decreased significantly in recent years. Items not previously covered by the groceries order declined by 0.1% in December but have, however, increased by 2.3% since removal of the order in March. These include mainly fresh meat, fish and vegetables where the real prices are historically more variable due to a less constant cost production. That is straight from the CSO.

That is comforting.

The combined groceries order and non-groceries order items declined by 0.1% in December and have declined by 0.3% since March.

That is massive.

The Taoiseach without interruption, please.

If one looks at some of the other increases that have caused difficulties in recent times one will see that car insurance is down 45%, which has had a huge impact.

It is not down.

It is a bit like electricity prices.

As I stated yesterday there are areas where the prices are up mainly due to lack of competition.

Who has been in government for the past ten years?

I do not know what the Taoiseach's diet is made up of but we run through the prices as before and after the groceries order. Beef is 10.2% higher, lamb 6.6% higher, pork 1.8% higher——

Rabbit down 0.8%.

That is only for income tax rates.

The Minister of State, Deputy Power, is going to join the Green Party.

That is one of the most imaginative things to emerge from that side of the House this year. Fish is 24% higher. I do not think the Taoiseach understands what is going on. He speaks about energy prices. A barrel of oil costs $52, the lowest price in 19 months. Anybody who has to go into the petrol forecourt will know that has happened. I know that the Taoiseach and none of the comedians beside him has had to go near a petrol forecourt for a long time so that they do not have any idea of the situation confronting the average taxpayer and the average citizen. How can the Taoiseach seek to deny the facts before his eyes in terms of the cost of living? Inflation, according to his own figures, is officially 4.9%. That Ireland is the most expensive country in the eurozone area is something the Taoiseach ought to know excludes some of the items he tried to include. I asked the Taoiseach what action he proposes to take on this issue. He said various meetings are lined up and that he will meet the regulator and so on. When answering a question in the House recently the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, made clear that he had no intention of changing the position where the regulator makes his decisions once a year.

That is right.

Is the Taoiseach saying that position has changed? Does he intend to take any action having regard to the fact that people have settled for pay increases of 3%, first phase, and 2%, second phase, while the reality is that the European Central Bank has promised to increase interest rates again in March?

The Deputy's time has concluded.

I ask the Taoiseach to deal with the reality of the figures from the CSO.

CSO figures are the figures we use so let us not try to use other figures. The CSO figures are the basket of figures we use for measuring inflation. I said at the outset that the figures were up for the past five or six months and that half of the increase, excluding energy and interest rates, 2.1%, is the rate of inflation. The price of the overall basket of food items has been very low. I gave the facts yesterday.

When did the Taoiseach last go to the supermarket and fill up?

Allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption, please. Out of courtesy to her Leader, at least allow him to hear the answer.

It is 2.1%. The regulator has decided to do the same as the airlines and other groups have done. I am not sure if the Labour Party supplies Deputy Rabbitte's car but the Government supplies mine. When I was on holidays last August the price of petrol was €1.25 per litre whereas it is now 99c in competitive garages. That is a big decrease. The regulator has taken that into account as well. Yes, the barrel of oil has doubled in price but I hope the Deputy is not asking me to control the price of the barrel of oil on the international markets. The CIE group asked for a 10% increase but was given a 2.75% increase which is below the rate of inflation. There are difficulties in some areas. In the three items highlighted in the figures, wheat items, fruit and fish, there have been huge increases. I am not denying that. The overall price has been relatively low. I would not in any way denigrate the actions and the efforts made by the social partnership group who, three years ago, did a good job, with the backing of a campaign funded by the Government, and put pressure on the various interests to keep prices down. As I said yesterday, for IBEC and others there are areas where there is a lack of competition and with the assistance of competition in those areas we could get further increases. The end point is that inflation, excluding energy and interest rates on all of the food items which represents everything else is at 2.1% which is very favourable in international trends.

For raising the price of everything on the international market.

Is the Taoiseach filled with embarrassment this morning over the mess into which, by the privatisation of the national airline, he has plunged Aer Lingus workers who have felt obliged to vote by 95% to take industrial action to repel a very wide-ranging assault on their income and conditions? The Taoiseach sold out Aer Lingus workers, he threw them to the wolves on the international Stock Exchange when he refused to invest in the national airline. He and the Minister for Transport made reassuring noises at the time that workers' wages and conditions would be secure. Only months later, the management of privatised Aer Lingus is arrogantly and unilaterally breaking agreements and imposing wide ranging attacks on workers' wages and conditions.

Hear, hear.

They have already imposed yellow pack contracts on new entrants, to be extended to all existing employees. Only last September, a letter to SIPTU signed by both the chairman and chief executive stated that following flotation, Aer Lingus will continue to adhere to all existing collective agreements and continue with existing consultative and negotiating arrangements in accordance with agreed practice and legislative requirements. The letter also stated that "continuous improvement in efficiency, productivity and cost-effectiveness will be achieved through a process of consultation and agreement between management and the signatory Trade Unions". A few months later, that piece of paper might as well be flying all over Dublin Airport in the slipstream of Aer Lingus jets.

In 2005, when the GAMA and Irish Ferries exploitation scandals were exposed, the Taoiseach at least verbally opposed a race to the bottom in terms of workers' rights. Now this company of which he, as Head of Government, still owns 25%, is pushing workers' conditions towards the bottom and adopting one of the fundamentals of the race to the bottom, which is anti-trade union action without negotiation.

The Deputy's time has concluded.

There has not been a word of objection from the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance. The lambs on the Fianna Fáil back bench could not even manage a bleat of opposition. What is the view of the Government with regard to Aer Lingus tearing up these agreements and attacking its workers' rights and conditions in this way?

Hear, hear.

The company is in active negotiations with IMPACT and the Irish Airline Pilots Association, IALPA, in respect of the proposed changes it is seeking to receive. It has not been possible to progress discussions with SIPTU and the craft unions. On Monday, IMPACT commenced participation in a facilitation process at the Labour Relations Commission. The union is participating with the National Implementation Body and it is also understood that the company proposes to write to the LRC to request that the entire matter be referred to the National Implementation Body with a view to avoiding industrial action. Obviously, I hope that can be achieved.

On 1 December 2006, the Aer Lingus unions were provided with a detailed presentation by the company of its plans for continual improvement into this year. The proposed changes in work practices are based on findings of a recent benchmark study, which found practices and costs at Aer Lingus to be outside industry norms in a number of areas when compared with other airlines and that there is a need to reduce staffing and other costs and increase productivity. This is obviously what one would expect the management of a company to be doing for it and one would expect the workers to be protecting their interests. They are involved in negotiations and I wish them well.

That is a disgraceful reply. The Taoiseach did nothing more than read what could be the Aer Lingus management's press statement. How can workers take anything seriously when they are supposed to begin from the point of view of accepting a complete tearing up of agreements and reassurances that were given by the very top management only a matter of months ago? The Taoiseach comes in here and lectures me month after month about so-called partnership. He professes to believe in these mechanisms but when they are torn up by the management which he appointed and a company of which he owns one quarter, he is silent. This is hypocrisy in the extreme.

These workers have made hundreds of millions of euro in profits for Aer Lingus over the past few years. We have a management which now apes the worst features of the Ryanair outfit, namely, an anti-trade union and anti-worker approach.

The Deputy's time has concluded.

If Ryanair will resort in the future to charging passengers a penny to go to the bathroom, which surely cannot be very far off, Aer Lingus management will want to go one better and perhaps charge them for the hand dryer as well. The Taoiseach stands by and unless he replies differently at his next opportunity, he is endorsing this attack on these workers' wages and conditions. How much profit is enough for the speculators to whom he has given the national airline? Is it not clear that from recent Ryanair examples, that the relentless pursuit of profit by these investors will tragically lead to a very dangerous situation in the future?

The Deputy's time has concluded.

In conclusion, will the Taoiseach at the very least vindicate the workers' rights under existing agreements, which were reaffirmed only five months ago, or will he now betray those workers over and over again?

Deputy Joe Higgins knows my position on this. Staff in Aer Lingus have done a tremendous job over the past 15 years and the management of the company is also doing a good job. In spite of very stiff competition and opposition, it is trying to maintain a strong company. There are 1,800 members in the company who have been given relatively good conditions which they, obviously, want to hold on to. As I have said, the company is in active negotiations on the proposed changes with IMPACT and IALPA and I hope it can get to the same position with SIPTU and the craft unions. I have already said that the National Implementation Body is there. I do not think anybody in Aer Lingus, be they in the board, management or staff, want to do anything to damage the company. In general, Dublin Airport is receiving far more competition from more airlines coming in and increased activity. The staff rightly wish to hold on to their existing conditions. The company has put forward its presentation and it is a matter for normal industrial relations negotiations.

The company's proposals apply to revised terms and conditions for new staff from 1 February and for intensive negotiations on revised terms for existing staff from 1 March. Obviously, the trade unions in the company want to have their input and say in that and will not agree to changes they believe are to the detriment of the workers. This is normal industrial relations work between Aer Lingus and the unions. I know the company is expecting to receive strike notice later today from SIPTU, but I hope there can be a realisation by both sides that they must negotiate this matter. Based on the good work they have done in Aer Lingus over the past 15 years, I have no doubt that both sides will be doing their utmost to avoid any difficulties and come to an amicable resolution of their difficulties, allowing the company to protect employment and grow and strengthen itself. I wish them well with this.

Top
Share