Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6753/07]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Code of Conduct for Office Holders.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his plans to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8364/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if the code of conduct for office holders is under review; if changes are proposed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9643/07]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12572/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The code of conduct for office holders was drawn up by the Government pursuant to section 10(2) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, following consultation with the Standards in Public Office Commission, and published in July 2003. On two occasions since the code was launched, I have provided office holders with additional guidance on it in the light of views expressed by the commission. The first occasion related to the use of public resources in the context of public events or advertising. On the second occasion, the guidance related to briefings by civil servants to Members. These are the only two occasions on which it has been necessary to issue guidance to office holders on the code since it came into operation. We should obtain wider experience about the effectiveness of the code before reviewing it.
I am sure the Taoiseach is as anxious as everybody else that everything should be absolutely clear in so far as the remit and role of public servants is concerned. In respect of briefings to be prepared for Ministers and Ministers of States on political matters in the run-in to the forthcoming general election, can we take it that public servants will not be asked to provide political material? In other words, if a series of information leaflets is to be produced, for example, will it be provided from the Taoiseach's party resources rather than by public servants? There should be no misunderstanding about this.
I read a report in the newspapers recently that there are up to 400 positions to be appointed on various boards and bodies. Is it the Taoiseach's intention to go ahead with that before the election? I understood there was a type of gentleman's agreement that a raft of appointments would not be made until the people decided what they want to do with their votes in terms of the appointment of the next Government.
Public servants generally, particularly those in the departmental system, never involve themselves in political material or political drafting. Therefore, the answer to the Deputy's first question is "No". That has always been the position, even outside election periods.
On the Deputy's second question, those reports arise from an omnibus parliamentary question put down to all Ministers on all the vacancies and positions that arise. Board positions are filled as they arise. As I said before, it is not the position to wait until an election period and then fill them all. In my Department, the list that came out included appointments to the NESC and NDF boards, which are all the social partnership boards. These amount to 70 or 80 names and they are done in a pro forma way.
Is any review of the code of conduct planned, particularly in view of the pledge, after the brouhaha last year, that legislation would be introduced to reform the ethics legislation? The last time the Taoiseach answered questions on this, on 18 October, he said the Dáil would have an opportunity to discuss the matter "when the relevant Bill is introduced shortly by the Minister for Finance". It is unlikely we will see that now because the Taoiseach is closing down the Dáil towards the end of this week and he will permit himself some three weeks of campaigning before we start the campaign properly. When will we enact this legislation the Taoiseach and Tánaiste pledged would be enacted last October?
That legislation started in the Seanad and there is no reason it should not get through.
I take that as a commitment from the Taoiseach that the Bill will come into this House before the Dáil is dissolved. In respect of the imposition on Members to pay for the use of facilities during the election campaign, does that imposition apply to office holders? Is it only ordinary Members of the House who will be obliged to reimburse the Oireachtas for the use of its offices and staff? Does the imposition apply to Ministers in the discharge of their duties or are they in a separate and more privileged position?
As I understand it, if constituency facilities are involved or facilities related to one's capacity as a TD, they are apportioned so everyone would pay. If it is related to one's public office role or departmental role, it does not apply. That is how I understand it.
Does that mean Ministers have an advantage? For example, they have the use of transport. The Taoiseach and his Ministers can reasonably say that what they are doing is discharging their ministerial functions whereas——
I think we have gone well outside the scope of these questions.
I thought you might say that, a Cheann Comhairle.
I would prefer if Members would stay within the questions they submit.
Furthermore, Sir, you may well be right.
Yes, Deputy, and if the Chair is right I expect you to obey the Chair.
The Taoiseach heard my question and, perhaps, he will answer it.
As I understand, all these matters are being worked out by the commission and we are all bound by the same rules.
The code of conduct requires office holders to declare where they have a particular interest which transcends or encroaches on any particular performance of their office in the course of their holding same. To the Taoiseach's knowledge, what number of declarations have been made since the requirement was introduced in 2003? Has he any indication of the regularity——
It does not arise under this question.
Does it not?
It is one of the areas under the code of conduct. Does the Taoiseach see any need to revisit the matter in terms of amending the code of conduct in respect of that area? Does he agree one way of determining whether an amendment is required is whether the existing codes of conduct requirements are being honoured. That is why I asked the question in the first place.
As I said in my original reply, I see no reason to review the code because there have been only two determinations in the six years since we started the process and declarations are made on an annual basis to the Standards in Public Office Commission. Every Member and office holders, in particular, have to make a detailed declaration every year.
I asked the Taoiseach specifically if he would amend the code of conduct for office holders. The reason I asked that question was that on 28 February last the Taoiseach told us very clearly that he was opposed to the packing of State boards. Will he amend the rules in line with his clearly stated view on that matter, given that in the first six months 375 appointments were made by office holders to State boards and apparently 400 appointments are to be made between now and the end of the Government's term? Is there any point in taking seriously what the Taoiseach says here, that he is opposed to the packing of State boards, when he will not amend the code of conduct for office holders to reflect that clearly stated preference on his part? If he is opposed to it, how can his Ministers go against him in that regard? Will he, therefore, change the code of conduct?
The issue we debated on that and other occasions was that after an election it was the practice of all Governments, whether they changed, to fill positions on State boards. There may be some urgent ones but I do not think that generally such boards should be packed in that interregnum period. On filling positions on boards as they arise, on a daily or weekly basis, they have to be filled and it would be wrong not to fill them. State boards cover many different areas and have to be filled on an ongoing basis. There are two different things here, however. There are 400 vacant positions to be filled, many of which are on nominating bodies, as the Deputy will be aware from the reply to the questions. They are nominated by various organisations and bodies, but even if they were not, ordinary day-to-day departmental procedures must be adopted. The interregnum period is a different matter so my view still holds.
Is there not a need to change the code of conduct, therefore, at least to reflect that so that it is not ambiguous? It is so at the moment.
My view is that people should use common sense in these matters. There is nothing to stop the positions from being filled in the interregnum period but I do not think it requires a code. If we start putting everything into codes——
Not everything.
Well, we are moving in that direction.
How does the Taoiseach draw a distinction between saying he is opposed to State boards being packed on the eve of an election and saying that he will proceeded with 400 appointments between now and the general election, as has been reported recently? "Packed" is only a derogatory term applied to the appointments. It seems the Taoiseach is proceeding as he said he would not at the last Question Time.
May I also ask the Taoiseach about the answer he just gave me concerning the reform of this legislation as promised at the time of the Paddy the plasterer affair? He said the Bill is in the Seanad. On reflection, can he say if that is the case? I am advised it is not.
The Government Chief Whip tells me that if the Bill is not in the Seanad it is going to the Seanad and it will be dealt with there.
The Taoiseach said it was in the Seanad. When does language ever mean anything?
The Bill has passed——
There is not a day the Taoiseach comes in here that he does not tell blatant fibs. It is either in the Seanad or it is not.
Please, Deputy Rabbitte.
The Taoiseach said the Bill was in the Seanad, now he says it is going to the Seanad.
I ask Deputy Rabbitte to allow the Taoiseach to continue.
Can the Taoiseach never answer a straightforward question?
I ask Deputy Rabbitte to allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
I think Deputy Rabbitte should withdraw his comment that I come in here every day telling blatant fibs.
It is disgraceful.
I can rhyme off half a dozen of them the Taoiseach told me in the past two weeks.
If the Deputy is not going to withdraw it, that is all right.
The Taoiseach told me there were 91 labour inspectors when there were 30.
I ask the Deputy to withdraw the comment.
Five minutes ago, in answer to a perfectly harmless question, the Taoiseach told me that the Bill was in the Seanad and that it would come back here for enactment.
I ask Deputy Rabbitte to withdraw the word "fibs".
If the Deputy does not want to withdraw it, that is fine, a Cheann Comhairle. One would not believe anything he says either.
I ask Deputy Rabbitte to withdraw the word "fibs", please.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I am sorry, Taoiseach, I am asking Deputy Rabbitte to withdraw the word "fibs", please.
Can you give me an appropriate term, a Cheann Comhairle?
I am asking the Deputy unequivocally to withdraw the word "fibs", which is unparliamentary. It has never been allowed by any of my predecessors in this House and I am certainly not going to permit it.
There are analogous terms that are stronger.
Sorry, Deputy, I ask you to withdraw the word and we will resume business.
What the Taoiseach told me was not in accordance with the facts, and that is not for the first time.
I want the Deputy to withdraw the word "fibs".
I withdraw the word "fib".
The Government Chief Whip informs me that the Bill has been approved by the Government and is due to start in the Seanad, although I do not know on what day. I will check and let Deputy Rabbitte's office know the date. I am not responsible for the business of the Seanad, and I think the Deputy knows that.
The Taoiseach is responsible for his answers here, however.
My answer is that the Bill left the Government to go to the Seanad.
That is the Taoiseach's answer now, but it is not what he said earlier.
I said the Bill was going to start in the Seanad.
The Taoiseach did not say that; he said the Bill was in the Seanad and had started there.
I will find out exactly where it is for the Deputy. I will check whether it is in the Whip's office, stopped on a corridor or sitting on a shelf. If the Deputy wants to get into that kind of precision, two of us can play that game. What was the Deputy's second question anyway?
My second question related to packing State boards.
I have already answered that question.
National Security Committee.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the National Security Committee; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6755/07]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Security Committee; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8363/07]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:7 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the National Security Committee. [8940/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the National Security Committee; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9644/07]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:9 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Security Committee; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11367/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 9, inclusive, together.
Having regard to the confidential nature of the work of the National Security Committee, it would not be appropriate to disclose information about the dates of individual meetings or any of its proceedings.
The committee is chaired by the Secretary General to the Government and comprises representatives at the highest level of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. It is concerned with ensuring that I and the Government are advised of high level security issues and the responses to them, but not involving operational security matters.
The committee meets as required and will continue to do so. In addition to meetings, the members liaise on an ongoing basis to monitor developments which might have national security implications, in particular in the international arena.
It was reported last year that up to six Islamic terrorist cells were operating in Ireland in 2003. I raised this matter previously with the Taoiseach and he said that some people were being observed. Does the evidence available to the Government indicate that these Islamic terrorist cells are still based in Ireland or that personnel associated with them are still based here? What is the latest information available to the Government and is the Taoiseach happy that if these individuals are here, their activities are not illegal? Is the Taoiseach satisfied that, if such individuals were involved in planning terrorist activities, the matter has been addressed?
Last year potentially major terrorist attacks on transatlantic flights between the United States and Britain were foiled and this has implications for Ireland and Irish people who travel abroad. The Taoiseach said previously that the recommendations of the Emergency Planning Society would be costly to implement. Has the Taoiseach arranged to implement some of these measures, if not all of them, to help keep an eye on things here?
There were two major emergencies recently on motorways in County Kildare that were tragic and also caused massive inconvenience to hundreds of thousands of people. Have the outcomes of these emergencies been evaluated and emergency plans adapted accordingly to help deal with any unfortunate future incidents?
It is not appropriate to speculate on the matter raised in Deputy Kenny's first question but I assure the House that the Garda Síochána closely monitors the security situation, including threats to international security, on an ongoing basis. A small number of people are closely monitored and those under observation change from time to time. The situation in this regard has not changed greatly in the past year.
The Deputy's original question related to the National Security Committee and not emergency facilities. The only report that I have seen in regard to the crash was on the involvement of the national emergency committee and Naas General Hospital, which worked well. It is unfortunate that there was a fatality and a number of injuries but the system worked well from the perspective of emergency planning.
Regarding alternatives, many organisations involved, such as the Garda, local authorities and health groups, feel that their work and roles would be duplicated by an office of emergency planning to bring everything together, as is the case in some countries. What happens is they have a committee like the national security committee and other committees where they come together and co-ordinate their actions. They do this on an ongoing basis through direct contact and physical proximity meetings with each other. To replicate this in a major office or structure is not considered necessary by all of them.
In this regard, is the threat from terrorist groups more extensive than we are being told or is there another explanation for the frequency of resort to examining telephone records by the Garda Síochána, given the revelation some time ago that in 2006 alone there were 10,000 such requests by the Garda? This seems to be an extraordinary high number of such examinations by the Garda. Does the Taoiseach agree with the assistant Data Protection Commissioner who concluded that perfectly innocent people are having their private records pored over or can he give a logical explanation as to why there should be this frequency of resort to examining the private telephone records of citizens?
On national security and the question about people who are brought to the attention of the security forces because of national or international liaison with groups such as those I referred to earlier, there are not many such persons in the country. Some of them are in or out of the country and some of them have contacts with the country. The Garda is continually involved in monitoring ongoing subversion by, thankfully, a limited number of groups and, of course, there are criminal groups. I do not have a breakdown — this is a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform — but the Garda is monitoring criminal gangs, subversives and a small number of people who are or may be associated with international terrorism all the time. I do not have any details on the make up of the 10,000 or 20,000 figure.
Does the National Security Committee address the dangers to the health and safety of the Irish people from the British nuclear industry, including the site at Sellafield, and the threat that must be real from the fact that Britain is the holder of a nuclear arms arsenal? Has this matter been addressed, particularly in the context of a vote on 14 March at Westminster when the Labour Government experienced one of the largest rebellions from within its ranks since the outbreak of the war on Iraq and had to depend on Tory party support to see through its measure? Has the national security committee addressed this decision at Westminster given that Britain is intent on renewing and enhancing its nuclear arms holding? What plans does the Taoiseach have to address this matter with the British Prime Minister if it has not been addressed?
After the events of 11 September 2001 the Government set up an office of emergency planning to co-ordinate the work of various emergency services in preparing contingency plans. The office is chaired by the Minister for Defence and meets frequently to assist in that role. It oversees emergency planning generally to promote the best possible use of State resources and ensure compatibility between different emergency planning requirements. Any issues related to Sellafield are dealt with by the two relevant Departments, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. In so far as I raise the Sellafield issue on behalf of the Government, I have had ongoing meetings and correspondence and there has been liaison between senior officials and the British Government, which continues.
What about their nuclear arsenal?
I call Deputy Sargent.
What about the weapons of mass destruction they hold?
That is outside the scope of the question. I call Deputy Sargent.
Is the Taoiseach not interested?
I have called Deputy Sargent.
It is well within the scope of the question. My question refers to the work of the National Security Committee. I want to know whether the Taoiseach is considering widening the remit of that committee. The issue is not just about an Islamic terrorist cell or what might be relevant in other countries. Is the Taoiseach, for example, considering the possible effects on national security if we could not access the oil supplies we need, and whether this needs to be part of the remit? Is he considering the incidents of water contamination in Galway, which will be exacerbated by climate change, with flooding and treatment plants unable to provide safe water supplies? Are these matters part of the remit of the committee? Where does the remit begin and end? It is time to reconsider the remit, given the changing circumstances in which we live.
Matters related to health or water schemes are dealt with in the emergency planning within individual Departments and are not part of the remit of the national security committee. The committee comprises representatives at the highest level of the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Defence, the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces, who examine areas of concern where there is a perceived threat to national security, whether of domestic or international origin. When the committee becomes aware of gaps or inadequacies in responses or preparations, it deals with these issues. It considers issues around international and national security and is not involved in day-to-day operational issues, which is the function of Departments, local authorities and State agencies.
Programmes for Government.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6756/07]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:11 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on those aspects of the programme for Government for which his Department is responsible; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6757/07]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8362/07]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:13 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress to date in implementing An Agreed Programme for Government. [8941/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:14 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the programme for Government as it affects his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9645/07]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:15 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of An Agreed Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11370/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 15, inclusive, together.
Progress on the implementation of the Government programme is kept under review. Deputies will be aware that on the completion of each full year that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have been in Government, we have published an annual progress report that sets out progress to date in implementing every commitment in the programme for Government.
The last edition of the Government progress report was published in July 2005. It was decided to defer publication of a report in 2006 and instead to publish a final progress report in 2007, giving a full account of the achievements of this Government in implementing the programme. This final report will give a more complete picture of the Government's level of delivery over almost the entirety of its term of office. It is the responsibility of each Minister to ensure the commitments in the programme that fall within his or her portfolio are fully implemented.
The Department of the Taoiseach derives its mandate from my role as Head of Government. As such, it is involved to some degree in virtually all aspects of the work of Government. It provides support to me as Taoiseach and to the Government through the Government secretariat, the Cabinet committee system and through its involvement in key policy areas and initiatives.
The current key strategic priorities of the Department are set out in its strategy statement. They include Northern Ireland, EU and international affairs, economic and social policy, social partnership, public service modernisation and the information society and e-government. Both I and the Ministers of State in my Department answer questions in the House on these issues. In all of its work, my Department works closely with other Departments and offices. Individual Ministers are answerable to the House in respect of their specific areas of responsibility.
The key areas for which my Department is responsible in terms of An Agreed Programme for Government can be broadly summarised as follows: supporting the development and implementation of social partnership, working with the British Government and the parties in Northern Ireland to achieve the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in all its aspects, co-ordinating the e-government initiative to bring about an expansion in the range and quality of online Government services and ensuring that Ireland's key objectives in the European Union are carried forward in the context of my role as a member of the European Council.
With regard to the requirement of the Taoiseach's Department to oversee the implementation of social partnership, in which the Taoiseach has had a long involvement, I made the point some years ago that a one-size-fits-all benchmarking process leading to social partnership does not fit all circumstances. The current work to rule by nurses is in full swing and in this respect nurses, patients and taxpayers will all suffer. Obviously, intransigence on either side can lead to stalemate, to more serious action or to a situation where everybody loses. With regard to responsibility to oversee implementation of social partnership, what is the role of the Taoiseach's Department in setting sufficiently flexible criteria under the benchmarking process to allow for matters to be put on the table that could be negotiated and discussed and which could lead to the social partnership criteria being fulfilled?
In other words, there is a problem today with 40,000 nurses and the negotiation process cannot even get started. The point I made three years ago was that the benchmarking process was not sufficiently flexible to cater for such circumstances. Does the Taoiseach's Department have a responsibility or role in opening up the criteria for negotiation so those with legitimate grievances, from whatever sector, are able to say the process allows them to put their grievances on the table and discuss them? Is this possible if, for example, the nursing organisations say they are prepared to change practices and become more efficient etc., leaving aside the two fundamental issues at stake from their point of view? If they cannot get through the starting gate to discuss these things, what is the responsibility of the Taoiseach's Department in so far as broadening the criteria for benchmarking is concerned?
In general, the criteria, the terms of reference and operation of benchmarking are worked out between management and unions. That has already been done and worked out for the next round of benchmarking. There are many difficulties in this particular case. First, some of the nurses, the INO and PNA, have not signed up to Towards 2016, while those who are members of SIPTU have. The Labour Court has made its position clear that the issue is a matter for the benchmarking process. The criteria have already been worked out for the next round of benchmarking and both the union and management sides have had a role in fixing those criteria. Their position has been agreed and that is part of the problem, that it is an agreed position between both sides.
There are several issues involved. On the issue of the 35-hour week, this could have been discussed between management and union sides if it arose at the benchmarking discussions. My people and others tried hard in the national implementation body, NIB, discussions over the past three weeks to make progress on the issue, and did make some progress. The issue of the pay anomaly is also related to the situation. It arises as a result of pay adjustments for nurses and midwives and affects a small number of people. I believe it can be resolved.
The big issue is the 10.6% pay increase demand. We have no mechanism to resolve that because it flies in the face of the overall pay agreement. There are possibilities in the other areas — other people worked hard for three weeks to achieve that position. The Labour Court has recommended that the issue can be dealt with only through benchmarking. The national implementation body, NIB, despite all its efforts over the past three weeks, was unable to find an alternative solution.
The dilemma in which we find ourselves is that conceding the nurses' demand on pay would spell the end of pay policy, the collapse of the arrangements made not just with the rest of the public service, but with workers generally across the economy. That is the issue we cannot resolve. This is not the fault of benchmarking but is due to the fact that we have a national agreement and we cannot have two.
I am focused on the responsibility and role of the Taoiseach's Department in overseeing the implementation of social partnership. The NIB met for three weeks but not much progress was made there. If the Labour Court states that benchmarking is the way forward, what is the Department's role in making the criteria sufficiently flexible, given that the Irish Nurses Organisation and the Psychiatric Nurses Association have not signed on to social partnership? If they understand that the issues they raise regarding efficiency and change of work practices should be dealt with in the benchmarking process, does the Department have a role in making the criteria more flexible given that the NIB was unable to make progress?
The Labour Court and the NIB have reached the view that the issue can be dealt with under the benchmarking process. Nobody can predetermine the outcome but the Labour Court and the NIB tried to see if there was a helpful way of moving the discussion forward for three weeks and concluded that the only way to deal with this was within the benchmarking process.
Is the Taoiseach saying that the nurses' dispute may be resolved only within the benchmarking system?
There are many big ticket items in the programme for Government that have not been achieved. However, there is one that was not in the programme but the Government seems hell-bent on achieving it, judging by the pressure being applied to professionals to sign off on contracts for the building of super private clinics on the grounds of public hospitals. I understand the deadline of 16 April cannot be met but does the Government still intend, notwithstanding the opposition of so many of the Deputies behind the Taoiseach, to sign off on these contracts to build super private clinics on scarce public land?
For the past three weeks under the NIB, officials of my Department, the Department of Health and Children and the management of the Health Service Executive tried to resolve this issue. A reduction to a 35-hour week, however, would represent a massive change in working arrangements, involving a reduction of 7.7 million nursing hours. That cannot be undertaken lightly. They endeavoured to find a way to do this on a cost-neutral basis. To be fair to the nurses' unions, they are open to doing that but they could not find a way to do so outside the benchmarking process. They want a final date before they discuss how the change can be effected on a cost-neutral basis. Those in negotiations on the management side rightly want to find out how this will be done and to work out a logical sequence. Everyone knows it cannot be done in a short period. It will take some time but we are prepared to make moves to start it. That must be done first, otherwise everyone has to work out how to achieve it before the final date and that is not possible.
The pay adjustment for nurses and midwives is not a major issue providing that is not treated as a relativity and does not have a knock-on effect for everybody. Only 44 people are affected by the relativity and the nurses' position is they want it extended to 40,000 people. It is a little different trying to square that but the issue can still be resolved because if there is an anomaly, the pay increase should be confined to those who suffered the anomaly and it should not have a knock-on effect. Progress can be made on that.
The Government cannot award a 10.5% increase outside the agreement and thereby break the agreement and the entire procedure involving public service workers. However, within the parameters of last week's discussions, working out the 35-hour week is a possibility. That could not be agreed last week and we will continue reflecting on that issue.
That concludes Taoiseach's Questions. We now move on to questions to the Minister for Transport.
The Taoiseach was in mid-reply.
The Ceann Comhairle indicated I would be called.
Has the Taoiseach concluded?
I refer to Deputy Rabbitte's other question. Negotiations on the other contracts are ongoing with the HSE and I do not have an update on that.