Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 5 Nov 2002

Vol. 556 No. 3

Ceisteanna – Questions. - Programmes for Government.

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15620/02]

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15621/02]

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the plenary meeting of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness held in July 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15622/02]

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent activities of the National Implementation Body; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15623/02]

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of social partners under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness on 25 July 2002. [16376/02]

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the next quarterly meeting of the social partners under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness will be held; the likely agenda for the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16377/02]

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the Government's views on the prospect of another national agreement to replace the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16378/02]

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the farm organisations on 5 July 2002; and when he next plans to meet the farming organisations. [16581/02]

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17122/02]

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the social partners in July 2002; when he will next meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18120/02]

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress made in the implementation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18121/02]

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

12 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the studies being carried out by the National Economic and Social Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17119/02]

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

13 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on current research projects by the National Economic and Social Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18123/02]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

14 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the outcome of the meeting of the participants in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness in July 2002; the agenda and date for the next meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19898/02]

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

15 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the National Economic and Social Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19901/02]

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

16 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the outcome of the plenary meeting of the social partners under the PPF held on 31 October 2002. [20271/02]

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

17 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the social partners on 31 October 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20565/02]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 17, inclusive, together.

On 25 July the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and I attended the plenary meeting to monitor implementation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. All the social partners were represented at the meeting and its purpose was a review of progress and plans under the broad headings of Social Inclusion and Equality. Action in these areas on a Department by Department basis, and under the NDP, formed a key part of the presentation to the plenary meeting. In addition, the extensive policy framework, which has been developed to deliver social inclusion and equality, was considered.

As part of the formal launch of the talks on a successor agreement to the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, I also attended the PPF plenary meeting in Dublin Castle on Thursday last, together with the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance. Again, all the social partners were represented at the meeting and its primary purpose was to begin the process of considering the nature and scope of a new agreement. A presentation on the economic outlook in the medium term also featured. The meeting also provided an opportunity for us all, Government and social partners alike, to outline the priority concerns which we will each bring to the process.

I emphasised, with my colleagues, the Government's continued strong commitment to pursuing our nation's wellbeing and prosperity through the process of social dialogue. To that end, I made clear that the Government is in absolutely no doubt that a renewed consensus in a new social partnership agreement is in the best interests of all our people. At the same time, I felt it necessary to caution against sectional interests being pursued at the expense of the wider community. I also reiterated my remarks at the PPF plenary in July when I said that I would be inviting organisations to participate in negotiations on a new agreement in the context that the Government will enter talks on the basis of An Agreed Programme for Government. I also made it clear that those organisations invited to participate in the talks do so on the basis that social partnership brings rights and responsibilities, that these are exercised in a spirit of mutual respect and respect for the primacy of the democratic process and that what is agreed must reflect the objective needs of the whole community and the necessary accountability for public policy and public funds.

The formal plenary meetings complement those which I hold with representatives of the social partners on a regular basis. In this respect, I met representatives of the main farming organisations on 5 July to discuss a number of issues of concern, including the decline in farm incomes, the proposed mid-term review of the CAP and the referendum on the Nice treaty. After the meeting the Government acknowledged that while farm families are experiencing income difficulties, we have no doubt that the expansion of the European Union will provide significant opportunities for Irish farmers and the agri-business sector.

My Department exercises the main co-ordinating role for overall implementation of the programme as well as supporting a range of cross-departmental issues, such as public service modernisation, infrastructure delivery, social inclusion and the information society. My Department also chairs the national implementation body established under the adjustments to the terms of the PPF in December 2000. This body continues to meet as necessary to consider, in particular, the potential implications of any ongoing disputes of special national importance. It also provides opportunities for informal discussion of the broader issues relating to the social partnership process, from the employer and trade union perspectives.

Deputy Rabbitte asked for my views on the prospect of another national agreement to replace the PPF. As I have said many times before, including my most recent remarks at the last plenary meeting, I believe the series of agreements we have had since 1987 have played a very significant role in the radical transformation of this country's economic and social fortunes in the recent past. The issues confronting all of us today, whether in terms of management of the public finances, competitiveness, social cohesion or environmental sustainability, are complex and interdependent and require a collective response. In this respect, I am encouraged by the formal announcements from the social partners at the plenary meeting on Thursday last that they will enter into talks with the Government on a new national agreement.

The reality, however, is that general economic conditions are tighter now than they have been at any point in the last five years. The international environment has become dramatically more challenging in recent months and the outlook is, to say the least, uncertain. The competitiveness agenda has become much more demanding, as recent job losses have underlined. The inevitable impact on the public finances has become sharply evident in recent weeks and months. Therefore, it is important that realism should guide us all. As I said at last week's PPF plenary meeting, we have it in our own hands, to a large degree, to determine how the economy will perform in the coming years. However, in order to secure an agreed outcome, it will be imperative that expectations should keep in line with current economic realities. This is the key challenge now being presented to the process of social partnership.

The National Economic and Social Council is in the final stages of completing its three yearly overview of economic and social developments and policy. I expect that the key recommendations will be agreed within a matter of days, followed shortly afterwards by finalisation and publication of the detailed strategy report. This report, with the Government's programme, will act as a guiding strategic framework for the negotiations on a social partnership programme to succeed the PPF.

In addition, the council is undertaking work on the following three reports: the management of public expenditure; regional development in a cross-Border context – a case study of the north west – and a review of strategic options in taxation and social welfare. Soon after completion of its strategy report, the council will define its work programme for the coming years.

Will the Taoiseach outline his assessment of the importance to the economy of the successful completion of another agreement? Does he consider that one will be achieved, given the glacial nature of the recent confrontation between the social partners? Does he agree that the current structure of the agreement is capable of dealing with the range of complex circumstances that now apply? Does he also agree that the true state of the public finances should be made available to each partner before negotiations on a new agreement commence? Will he indicate the reason, following a request by my party under the Freedom of Information Act, only one Department has replied under the terms of the Act within the 28 day deadline set down? Two weeks after the deadline eight Departments have failed to respond. In fairness to all the parties it is necessary that the true state of the public finances be available to them before they enter into serious negotiations.

There are a number of answers in reply to Deputy Kenny. The concept of social partnership is vitally important to the economy. Likewise, if we are to continue to make progress, as has been done in good times and bad, such a system is necessary. Social partnership has been of enormous benefit and allowed us to get over what seemed to be insurmountable difficulties. The last agreement had four pillars operating and the others had three pillars. The process with its dialogue and quarterly reports was always useful and that is no different now in more difficult times.

With regard to the structure of the partnership, each agreement has been arranged differently. The plenaries are a constant but the type of report differs. The PPF consists of an enormous amount of sub-groups and it was the same in Partnership 2000, but not in earlier programmes. It is my view that the present one has been too cumbersome due to its many working groups. This point was cited by the social partners themselves as it takes an enormous amount of their effort and resources to service them. I agree with the general secretary of ICTU, David Begg, who said that we would be better to take a number of strategic and important areas on which to focus rather than taking 170 as we did in the last programme.

In terms of the information available, as I said in my reply, a presentation was made last week by the Department of Finance on the economic outlook. It was full and complete and is available. I understand Deputy Kenny is talking about what is available under FOI. I will ask my colleagues about it and make the presentation available to him, if he has not already received it.

Does the Taoiseach agree that we should not be in our current economic position and that we would not be in it if the Government had properly managed its affairs on behalf of the nation? How does the Taoiseach propose to negotiate an agreement with workers given that his Government has frittered away a €4,800 million surplus into a €1 billion deficit?

Does the Taoiseach agree that at the conclusion of a new agreement, it will be necessary to implement quality public services and deliver all the commitments in the Government's programme in terms of the national health strategy? Does he further agree that there is a great deal of unease and concern and that the talks are being undermined by growing union discontent about redundancy payments, and will he make a statement on the matter?

I will make my replies in reverse order. The issue of redundancy payments has been debated in this House a number of times. The trade union movement has made clear that it is looking for a substantial change in their structure. The Minister, Deputy Harney, has already presented the interim report and said that the detailed discussions on that will hopefully come to a satisfactory conclusion. An updated scheme of redundancy payments will be implemented as part of the process.

Deputy Kenny is correct in regard to the difficulties with the financial situation, which is now more difficult than it has been in the past number of years, and certainly more difficult than it was in 1999 when the discussions for the last talks took place. I do not believe the Government is responsible on the whole for that. The Government played its part but this position has been the result of the domestic and international situation, about which the Deputy will be well aware.

We were able to continue to maximise and improve public services at a fast rate when the economy was growing at the order it was but that has declined over the past two years. The economy grew by 12% during the first quarter of last year, 9% in the second quarter, 3.8% in the third quarter and 0.1% in the final quarter and that trend has continued so that economic growth this year will be around 3% of GNP and more than 4% of GDP. That has meant that we cannot continue providing public expenditure increases in the order of 20% because income has only risen by 4%.

We have to alter our course. It was right when the economy was strong to put resources into building public services because they had been allowed to suffer over many years. However, this can only be done when resources are available and that was the case. For example, five years ago we were spending €3.7 billion on health whereas now we are spending €8.5 billion. Nobody will argue that the 122% increase in health spending, the 186% increase in capital infrastructure spending or the average increase of 91% in spending on public services was unjustified over that five-year period. The reality was we had resources to do it.

The position is different now. The international climate is different and competitiveness has become a key issue again. Our export markets are not performing as well as they were because the economies of the countries to whom we export are not growing at the same rate they were. We have to trim our own sails and cut back public expenditure to more realistic levels.

With regard to Deputy Kenny's question on borrowing, on budget day last year the Minister for Finance estimated a small surplus for this year, which will not happen because revenue continued to decline during the year, including in the latest figures published yesterday. This means the figures outlined by the Minister for Finance on budget day last year for a small surplus this year, a deficit of almost €3 billion next year and an increased deficit the following year could be higher. That is a fact of life which we must manage. The economy is in a more healthy condition than those of many other countries and the important thing now is that we manage it for this period as prudently and carefully as we can until international markets pick up again so that when things turn, as they always do, we will be ready to take off again.

Does the Government want another social contract?

I congratulate the Deputy on his election to the leadership of his party. I have dealt with him in many briefs over the years and I sincerely wish him and his deputy leader, Deputy McManus, well. The answer to his question is easy and I hope all the questions he puts to me are as easy. The answer is, very much so.

I thank the Taoiseach for his kind wishes. I hear his own backbenchers are looking at the system we employed in terms of the next leadership outing in his party. I recommend it but he should wear his shinguards.

I never take them off.

The Taoiseach cannot wear them on his back.

That is right.

If it is the case that the Government wants another social contract, why did it take a position at the opening of the national pay agreement talks that was described by the vice-president of SIPTU at his conference in Galway last weekend as not only taking the trade unions aback in terms of its bias but it also so took aback IBEC that it had to amend its statement to the effect that it was seeking a pay pause? He told the conference they had not taken that position in private discussions, but that as a result of the position taken by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, they were now seeking a pay pause. If the Taoiseach wants an agreement, is that the best way to leverage the parties towards one?

Last week marked the start of the discussions. It is vitally important for every side to outline a frank position. It is not correct to say anyone amended their position. As regards the Government side, I set out a fair position of what social partnership has done over the past 15 years and what it has achieved through all the programmes, including the Programme for National Recovery, PESP, the PCW, Partnership 2000 and the PPF. I outlined where we are now and the difference compared to where we were three years ago in the autumn and winter of 1999 when we negotiated the PPF. I also set out the financial position. The Government side outlined where we were on public service pay during the discussions. We reiterated the position that the cost of benchmarking of up to 25% back to December of last year, to which we are committed, was approximately €290 million. It will cost approximately €230 million to €240 million to pay this on an annual basis. It will cost €1.1 billion to meet benchmarking alone on a full year term before we come to a round. These figures are in addition to a public service pay bill which is already €12 billion. When I put the figures in this form, it made people sit up. However, they are not new. That is the factual position. We must deal with these issues in the negotiations. As Deputy Kenny said, it is better to be frank in such discussions. I took the opportunity to outline the difficulties in order that we can have meaningful discussions in the next number of weeks.

The Taoiseach has said the Government wants a contract. Is it realistic, in the context of the inflationary environment and constantly rising prices, for the Government to take a partisan position fully in support of IBEC demanding a pay pause and, in the opinion of trade union leaders, inspiring the IBEC position for a pay pause for at least six months?

We should be careful. Neither IBEC nor the Government mentioned a pay pause. I said we should look at a more focused agreement and at the starting dates after that agreement. That is as far as I went. The IBEC position in the private sector does not advocate a pay pause. There will be an opportunity on Friday of this week for IBEC and ICTU, with the Government in the chair, to come to the first round of discussions on pay policy in the private sector.

I note the exultation of Deputies Rabbitte and McManus. The country is waiting for Deputy Stagg to tell us whether it was a take-over or a surrender. I am sure he will do this.

Does the Taoiseach agree that as new talks commence for a new so-called partnership deal, it should be reflected upon that the experience of partnership so far is that it has put workers in a strait-jacket as far as pay increases are concerned, although most of them have been absorbed by inflation, while allowing corporate profits to pile up exponentially—

A question please, Deputy.

—and rents by private landlords, which are mainly paid by low paid workers, and speculative profiteering to rise to obscene levels?

Deputy, a question please. The point of Question Time is to elicit information from the Government.

That is exactly what I am trying to do. I want to elicit information regarding a very fundamental principle of what these—

In fairness to other Deputies who have questions to submit, I ask you to confine yourself to questions as Deputy Kenny and Deputy Rabbitte did before you.

I am doing so. In view of the experience of these pay deals to date and the current rampant profiteering in services, does the Taoiseach agree that workers are outraged at IBEC demands for a pay pause and enhanced flexibility in the sense that, having run with the massive loot from the Celtic tiger in its heyday, workers are now being asked to pay for its medicine as it collapses into disability? What confidence can the Irish Rail workers have in so-called partnership given that their trade unions spent four years negotiating new contracts and working arrangements with the company – they were extremely low paid – and who were told by the company this morning that 330 of them are to be let go—

A brief question to the Taoiseach, Deputy.

—and their service turned over to private hauliers?

Individual groups who have difficulties with trade unions and management will always use free collective bargaining to resolve these issues. As always, I fundamentally disagree with the Deputy on the broader question of social partnership. Irish workers are working because of social partnership. We now have 1.75 million people in work, 600,000 of whom joined the workforce in recent years. The current agreement is well on the way to achieving the target increase of 24% or more in take home pay. The tax burden of workers has been reduced, their facilities are better and their future, in most instances, has continued to develop.

The old way was to make sure they participated in social partnership in some other country. As always, I disagree with the Deputy's concept. The fact that Irish workers have more security and are able to move forward, even in more difficult times, is better than the previous position. Of course, I do not deny there are individual cases where employers exploit or create difficulties. These must always be addressed which is the reason we have State mechanisms to do so.

Ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a ghabháil leis na Teachtaí Rabbitte agus McManus as ceannasaíocht Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre a bhaint amach. I congratulate Deputy Rabbitte on becoming the second party leader, after myself, to be elected by the full membership of his party. I join him in appealing to other parties to widen their democratic base by allowing the election of their leaders using this system.

The Taoiseach stated that all social partners attended the recent meeting. The environmental social partners did not attend the meeting because they are not allowed to do so. This position should be reviewed given the crisis in the area these groups represent.

With regard to the balance of payments, which is obviously a central point of discussion at the partnership talks, has the Taoiseach considered recent proposals to broaden the tax base as a way of bringing about more agreement among the social partners, for example, by raising corporation tax to 17.5% as favoured by CORI, the ESRI and my party? This would still ensure Ireland remains very competitive. Has he considered another CORI recommendation, namely, the introduction of a land rent tax? I ask him to examine proposals to introduce a tax on currency transactions, which are supported by many overseas development bodies, and to levy eco-taxes which have been discussed but not acted on. Is the Taoiseach bringing these to the negotiating table and is he going to bow to the wisdom of dropping the special savings scheme given that it costs €500 million a year? That money is going untaxed. Will the Taoiseach ensure that everybody takes considerable action to bring about agreement?

A number of groups have applied for membership and they have been asked to state their cases and the priority areas of interest to them, which some of them have. There is a long-standing agreement that those issues are discussed with the relevant pillar in the social partnership and that process is under way. Alternative ways of broadening the financing mechanisms will hopefully be discussed, which is what has happened over a number of programmes with good progress being made.

I do not know to what extent there can be consensus on broadening the tax base, but it is desirable that it happens beyond the extension of rates as the Deputy mentioned. Ways must be sought of looking at tax shelters, allowances, exemptions or systems which allow people to profit themselves but not the Exchequer by sheltering their taxable income. Those ways will hopefully come up in the discussions. They will certainly come up in the preparation of the budget with regard to the ongoing fiscal position, particularly in terms of the environmental taxes which Deputy Sargent has raised a number of times. As always, the Minister is looking at bringing those forward and is supportive of a number of those issues. However, no decisions have been made as yet.

The Minister is continuing with the SSIA scheme.

Can the Taoiseach tell the House how a new partnership agreement will address the reality that, over the past five years, the richest 10% of the population enjoyed 25% of the tax benefits provided by his Government through a series of budgets, while the poorest 20% received a mere 5%? Is the Taoiseach aware that an ESRI survey published earlier this year has shown that more people live on less than half the average income than was the case in 1994?

People talk of a pay pause, but we will call a spade a spade. With a public service pay freeze being endorsed, how can the Taoiseach justify the receipt by his personal advisers, including former civil servants, of salaries in excess of €172,000 per annum?

Nobody is talking about pay freezes. If the Deputy was listening to me he will know—

We also hear what the Minister for Finance is saying.

—I was outlining the extent of the pay commitments that are on the table and which have to be dealt with on top of what has been dealt with over recent years. In this programme, which covers a three-year period, take home pay increases are about 25%. If the Deputy looks at the charts of the nominal increases or the unit cost increases in Irish labour – which we should be proud of if we could continue to afford them – he will see that hourly costs are at 16% against an EU average of about 8%, a euro plus average of about 12% and a United States average of about 11%.

The gap between the better off and the poor is widening.

Over recent years, we have had pay rates far in excess of anywhere else. We must now operate in more realistic terms because income has changed.

With regard to the other points raised by the Deputy, there is the argument that some of the rich get richer, but in terms of social partnership the reality is that all the programmes under social inclusion – even for this year which will account for €1.5 billion in the full year – brought forward from budget 2001 have helped to deal with social exclusion. The revised national anti-poverty strategy and the new terms for that over the next few years are designed to deal with the issues raised by the Deputy, the objective of which is to try to help the people concerned. Figures will show that the numbers in real poverty have been halved in the past five years. It will be more difficult to continue to reduce those figures at the rate they have been reduced. When the figures for this year or for the past five years are benchmarked against figures for previous years, the Deputy will appreciate the enormous progress that has been made.

I call Deputy Kenny.

The Taoiseach did not respond to all my questions.

The Deputy, who tabled only one of this set of questions, has asked more questions than Members who have tabled five or six questions.

All I asked is for a response to my questions.

The Deputy made three interventions when he was not called. I call Deputy Kenny.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Ó Caoláin, I may have to ask you to leave the House.

Is this an advance of a pay freeze for everyone else?

I have called Deputy Kenny.

I join with other Party leaders in congratulating a fellow Mayo man, Deputy Rabbitte, on his elevation and I also congratulate Deputy McManus. While I have had some discussions with Deputy Rabbitte, we have not yet decided to reverse Cromwell's words and "go to Connacht or to hell".

How does the Taoiseach square his remarks on having more realistic cutbacks with a statement issued by the Minister for Finance some 20 weeks ago to the effect that no cutbacks were planned in secret or otherwise, given that these cutbacks were referred to as "adjustments" during the electoral period? Will the current level of recruitment to the public service of 1,000 people per month be sustained? Has the Taoiseach confirmed to the partners that the Government intends to use the national reserves to bolster the cracks and to fill the yawning gap that exists in the economy?

The decisions that will form budget 2003 have yet to be taken. The Book of Estimates is being prepared and can be debated when it is published. To answer the Deputy's question fairly and squarely, the position is that as far back as June, based on figures for the first half of the year, the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance believed that the outcome for this year would be in line with budget day targets which would be achieved from the revenue side provided the Government could control the expenditure side, by adhering to the 14.5% figure, which we are endeavouring to do, admittedly with difficulty in spite of the adjustments made, having regard to the 19.6% figure revealed in the figures published yesterday.

I do not want to return to the argument about what happened mid-year. Public expenditure increased significantly this year and what happened cannot be declared a cutback. In some areas, health in particular, figures were adjusted from one Department to another, but there has continued to be an enormous increase in public expenditure. There will also have to be an increase in public expenditure next year, but it will have to be at a far more moderate level if we are to remain competitive and to keep matters in order, which would be the wish of the Government and, I am sure, most right thinking people.

As we move towards the end of the year we have to continue to keep expenditure as tight as possible. We must note the reality of the base figure and realise that we are achieving income increases in the order of only 4%. The tax receipts published today were 2.3% higher than for the corresponding period last year compared to a budget target of an increase of 8.6% for the year as a whole. The year-on-year VAT income shows an increase of 12%, income tax is down by 9.3%, corporation tax is up by 7.3% and excise duties are up by 8.6% for the ten month period. For the reasons I mentioned earlier, it is a long way short of what the expected figures were for this year. As is normal, unless there is some immediate change in the international position – which I do not foresee, nor is it forecasted by the Government or independent bodies – the base figure we have now will continue into 2003. If we are to remain competitive we will have to adjust to that position. That is the position we will have to look at in the four weeks between now and the budget.

Can we take it the Government does not support the IBEC position of a pay pause in the private sector? In the context of the Taoiseach's belief that his Government bears no responsibility for the deterioration in the public finances, does it mean that he will focus on strictly non-pay items in a new social contact? Is the Government prepared to introduce legislation to amend the Redundancy Payments Acts, which go back to 1967? The Taoiseach concedes that the rate of job losses now is about twice what it was this time last year and many workers are being thrown out of work on a basic redundancy of a half-week's pay per year of service plus an additional week's pay. The same applies to trade union recognition legislation, where trade unions do not have the right to representation.

The Taoiseach gave a commitment to Deputy Sargent that he is always prepared to review tax shelters and breaks etc. Will the Taoiseach's review include the revocation of the measure that he introduced to benefit Mr. Ken Rohan, a supporter of his party? Is he prepared to review the legislation relating to tax exile status which he introduced in 1994 to make it easier for those living abroad and not paying tax here to visit more frequently, bestow requests on the natives and spend time at race meetings? Is he prepared to ask the Minister for Finance to look at industries that are entirely tax exempt and whether industries, such as the bloodstock industry, might not be able to bear a modest tax without the stallions following their owners abroad?

IBEC has not declared that it is seeking a pay freeze in the private sector. How we are going to deal with the overall pay bill in the public sector is up for discussion. Starting on Friday, there will have to be discussions about what will happen in the private sector. I am more than sympathetic to the issues of redundancy and recognition. I have completed the review and it now forms part of the negotiations. The redundancy legislation is old in modern industrial relations terms and deserves to be examined. A number of arguments have been put forward by experienced groups that have lost jobs to other areas and people are now looking at new ideas and the benefit of the social fund being in a healthier position.

The Deputy will recall being shadow spokesman on finance when I was Minister for Finance, when he supported me in most areas. I closed more shelters and loopholes than anyone else and got into deep water with the private sector because of the amount of schemes I eliminated.

The Taoiseach also devised one.

Deputy Rabbitte is correct that I also initiated a number of them. He will recall that when one of the most valuable art collections in the State was packed and ready to be transported abroad, I was lobbied by many people, including individuals on the Labour benches at present, to do something.

I correctly did something.

If the Taoiseach was not lobbied by Deputy Michael D. Higgins, he certainly was not lobbied by the rest of us.

I correctly did something about it. If the Deputy is stating that he would like to see a position arise where the homes in this country that open up for more extended hours should lose their collections of art etc. abroad, he should state that this is his policy. There are many houses whose owners – I refer here not only to those who are members of the Georgian Society etc. – would not have retained their collections.

It would be nice if they lived here on occasion.

I refer to the ones who live in such houses. It would be easy to close off the loophole relating to tax exiles and to ensure, as Deputy Rabbitte has clearly indicated as new Labour Party policy, that all people who are tax exiles in Ireland are made aware that neither they nor their investments are welcome here.

I never said that.

It is very close to what the Deputy said. He can always deny it.

I was referring to the loosening up the Taoiseach did in this area in the past.

Does the Deputy wish me to name the people who benefited from my action? We all know who they were. They are people who had some of the best—

I would have loved it had the Taoiseach named them at the time and—

Deputy Rabbitte, please allow the Taoiseach to conclude.

During this Question Time we have clearly heard enunciated policy that those people who invest in this country, who are tax exiles and who employ hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people—

Like Denis O'Brien.

—are not really welcome and that we should close off the loopholes in this area. If that is the policy of the Labour Party, it is regrettable because there will be many more people unemployed in the future.

Barr
Roinn