Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Programmes for Government.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 10 May 2005

Tuesday, 10 May 2005

Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

1 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet the social partners; the agenda for the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11676/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Dan Boyle

Ceist:

2 Mr. Boyle asked the Taoiseach his views on whether the critique of Sustaining Progress in a mid-term review report issued by the community platform network is justified. [11452/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Dan Boyle

Ceist:

3 Mr. Boyle asked the Taoiseach his views on whether the community and voluntary pillar within the social partnership process properly reflects the wider community and voluntary sector. [11449/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12842/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the next meeting of the social partners under Sustaining Progress is due; the likely agenda for the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13043/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when the next meeting of the social partners is planned; the agenda for the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14828/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

7 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15226/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

8 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15227/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (77 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, together.

The membership of the community and voluntary pillar of social partnership was expanded following on from ratification of Sustaining Progress. The pillar now has 15 member organisations, which have endorsed Sustaining Progress, six on an individual basis and nine organisations in the strands of older people, disability, housing, children, rural, local-voluntary and care.

The membership of the pillar changed both as a result of the review of participation in social partnership, which included an examination of ways in which to maximise the potential contribution of the community and voluntary pillar, and the decision of two organisations not to accept Sustaining Progress.

In regard to those community and voluntary organisations which have not ratified Sustaining Progress, Departments were advised that they should continue to be consulted in areas where the expertise of these organisations or their constituent members would be relevant to the policy-making and implementation process. These organisations have on occasion been invited to participate on committees or working groups in the light of their expertise. This is determined by the nature of the task or issue in question and is primarily a matter for each Department.

There is no facility for groups joining partnership during the course of an agreement. We are now in the final year of Sustaining Progress, and we will begin negotiations on a successor agreement later in the year. In the context of those talks, we may review the composition of the community and voluntary pillar and consider applications from groups not currently involved in social partnership.

The community platform, a social partner under the PPF, chose not to endorse Sustaining Progress and is therefore not currently part of the partnership process. I have not received a copy of its mid-term review of Sustaining Progress. However, as Deputies will recall, there was a formal mid-term review of Sustaining Progress in summer of last year. This review incorporated the views of all the pillars of partnership, including the community and voluntary pillar. It included among other elements a detailed report on the ten special initiatives of the agreement, which was presented to the plenary meeting last July. That review recorded that considerable progress had been made in each of the special initiatives. Detailed and comprehensive reports were laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The most recent quarterly plenary meeting of the social partners took place on 5 May. I was represented at that meeting by officials of my Department. The agenda for the meeting included the rural transport initiative and a presentation by the CSO on its report, Measuring Ireland's Progress 2004, which shows the progress made in Ireland in important economic, social and environmental matters. As well as showing developments over time, the report benchmarks the situation in Ireland against other EU member states. The eighth progress report on the implementation of Sustaining Progress was also presented to the meeting. A copy of the reports and relevant PowerPoint presentations have been laid in the Oireachtas Library.

The date of the next quarterly plenary meeting of the social partners is 14 July 2005. I will attend that meeting with the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance. While the agenda is not set, I envisage the meeting will address progress to date under Sustaining Progress and key issues and priorities for the future.

Formal meetings such as these complement the meetings which I hold with representatives of the social partners on a regular basis. I will continue to meet the social partners regularly and as required over the remainder of the lifetime of Sustaining Progress.

When the Taoiseach meets the social partners at the next scheduled meeting on 14 July, will the very important issue under Sustaining Progress, housing, be on the agenda? Does the Taoiseach agree that but for the commitment by Government in the course of the negotiations for Sustaining Progress to provide an additional 10,000 affordable houses, that agreement would likely not have been signed up to by several of the trade unions?

When last I raised this question with the Taoiseach in February, he indicated in his reply there had been 500 completions under this additional commitment and that a further 1,500 completions would be recorded in 2005. Has the Taoiseach noted that last weekend in Killarney the Construction Industry Federation's house builders' conference was advised that not one — I repeat, not one — of the 10,000 affordable homes under Sustaining Progress had yet reached the planning stages? Which is the truth of the matter, the report given at the CIF conference last weekend in Killarney or the information provided by the Taoiseach to me last February? Should the record of the House be corrected in that regard? Where are the promised homes? If the Taoiseach is standing by the information——

Detailed questions are a matter for the Minister responsible. Only general questions are in order.

If the Taoiseach has it within his gift to elaborate on the statistics he indicated to me last February, will he indicate the breakdown of those statistics and where the houses are, understanding the difference between additionality, as committed in Sustaining Progress, and those that come under Part V of the Planning Acts? I am particularly concerned with the Taoiseach's answer in that regard. I also ask him to ensure, in his engagement on 14 July, the inclusion of the fact that 37,000 workers are now back in the tax net. What steps will he take to ensure that those on and below the minimum wage are removed from it? For those workers who find themselves back in the tax net as a result of the increase of the minimum wage, what steps will he take to ensure——

That is not a question for the Taoiseach.

It is a question about Sustaining Progress and the re-engagement with the social partners, which is very important. I hope the Taoiseach will give us substantive information on both issues.

I disagree with the Deputy that the unions would have taken a separate view because the initiative was that the Government would provide up to 10,000 sites for affordable housing. Nobody involved in social partnership believed they would provide and build the houses and get it all finished. As we know it takes a developer, who owns the land, almost six years from start to finish. So nobody would have taken that view. It is expected that on specific affordable housing initiative sites and those provided through Part V — they were always taken together — 1,300 affordable housing units would be completed this year. The target set in the Sustaining Progress affordable housing initiative was to further enhance the supply of affordable housing with the objective of increasing the supply, such as the 10,000 units. That has happened, as I reported in February. Over 70 projects on State or local authority lands are planned, which together with the projected 2,500 houses under Part V of the Planning and Development Act gives over 10,000 housing units.

I beg the Taoiseach's pardon.

I ask the Deputy to allow the Taoiseach to speak.

I ask the Taoiseach to give consideration to——

The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to answer the question.

We are not interested in Part V.

It is not appropriate to interrupt the Taoiseach when he is speaking.

It is not my intention. However, I would like him to address my question.

That is what the Taoiseach is doing and I ask the Deputy to be quiet.

On the affordable housing initiative, Part V has always been taken with the lands and social partnership. On the broad area of social partnership, this year 3,000 affordable units are projected under various affordable schemes, but in the social partnership context, Part V was taken with the housing initiative.

On the Deputy's question regarding the other schemes not being taken in, I agree with the Deputy in that other schemes should not be taken in. This year we will spend more than €2 billion on housing measures, which is double the expenditure of five years ago. We have long believed there is a broad spectrum of need in the housing sector and that this need must be addressed in a multifaceted way. We have focused on expanding the provision of social and affordable housing and this year approximately €2 billion will be spent on the needs of people. The needs of approximately 13,000 households will be met through the combination of these measures, which is a different matter from Part V and social and affordable housing.

Thankfully we have the highest minimum wage in Europe. As happens during any year when people get either incremental salary increases or increases as a result of pay rounds, people will move up the structure and into the tax net. In his next budget I am sure the Minister for Finance will consider the provision of changes for minimum wage earners regarding taxes. That is an issue for the budget next December.

I call Deputy Boyle.

May I ask a supplementary question?

Deputy Ó Caoláin will be called again later.

I am surprised the Taoiseach has not received a copy of the mid-term review by the Community Platform Network. I understand this report was sent to the secretariat of the partnership group and I presume it is readily available there. In any case as the mid-term review was extensively reported in the media, the Taoiseach should ask his much-vaunted media-monitoring group why it did not bring the contents of the report to his attention. On the wider issue, given his road to Inchydoney conversion last year, does the Taoiseach not think that even the publication of the social progress report by CORI in recent days indicates the direction and effect of many of the Government's policies are still negative in terms of those who are without in our society? The social partnership process cannot be all-embracing and representative if many of our citizens are still being seen to be treated in this way by the Government, especially when those who are very much wedded to that process still persist in saying these things. Perhaps the Taoiseach might outline the value of becoming part of the partnership process from a community and voluntary sector viewpoint. One new actor involved in the process since Sustaining Progress has been the disability sector. If the hope behind involvement in the process has been that Government policy might be influenced and legislative change achieved, how can the Taoiseach reconcile that with the fact that the disability sector, while now within the partnership process, is faced with a Disability Bill that all disability rights organisations——

Once again, I draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that we allow general questions but not detailed ones on legislation, which are for the responsible Minister.

I would have thought that the whole purpose of the social partnership process was prior consultation and acceptance of the Government's legislative——

I am sure that any Deputy would accept that, at Question Time to the Taoiseach, it is not appropriate to ask very detailed questions about different Departments.

Mine is a very general question about the Taoiseach in his role as Chair of the Cabinet, which is processing legislation that a newly arrived social partner has daily said is inadequate.

The Deputy will have an opportunity to discuss that when it comes before the House. It is not appropriate.

Given the ongoing opposition to this legislation, is the Taoiseach minded to bring before the Cabinet a proposal to remove this Bill from the legislative programme once and for all?

That does not arise.

The value of social partnership is that those within the process can bring forward their own ideas and initiate change in areas where they desire it. All the other social partners, based on the necessary consensus that has operated for almost 19 years, try to have a major input into policy. Across a host of areas, including the national anti-poverty strategy, social housing, legislation and labour market initiatives, that happens year in and year out. That is why such qualitative progress has been made in this country over those 19 years, whether in welfare, child care or any other area. I accept that, by and large, those organisations lobby continually and work to see change. When they have a series of benchmarks or recommendations in one period which are fulfilled, they seek to stretch them further. That is the nature of such organisations, and I would be surprised if they did anything else. They try to achieve a certain standard before moving on to another and getting more resources for their areas of interest. The majority of organisations would subscribe to this and then point out the areas in which they seek further progress. That is the nature of how the system operates.

I do not disagree with the Deputy on the Disability Bill 2004. I have been involved in that debate for many years, and this legislation provides an enormous number of areas and ways in which people in this country will make progress. The Bill far surpasses what is available in other countries. I know of the ongoing argument about rights-based and resource-based laws, but no such legislation exists anywhere in the world. The Disability Bill 2004 is far in advance of that. More importantly, resources have been made available up to 2009 to back it up, and one hopes that will continue thereafter.

I know that the lobby is seeking to secure a ring-fenced legislative resource base. Since 1921, we have never done that in this country, and I do not see it happening now, since we will not take that route. We shall continue to try to improve the Bill, and the great number of amendments proves that. Not that long ago we had approximately 34 issues, but I believe that we are now down to five. However, I will answer in detail the questions raised by the legislative disability group to assure it of our position. Last week there was a statement by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, regarding resources. People rightly want to know from the statement of practices that resources will be made available so that such things become a reality, and the Government intends to do that. We want to work with groups in the area to build on the high base we now have regarding disability resources. We will continue to build on that for the future. In regard to those aspects which are legislation-based, we will build on the legislation to the extent that we can.

Has the Taoiseach received any communication from the trade unions about the concern they have expressed that hard-won taxes gained through Sustaining Progress are being eroded by a series of stealth taxes? Second, Sustaining Progress contains a number of commitments in the education field. How does the Taoiseach intend to use the measures contained in the agreement to deal with the incidence of almost 5,000 primary school children attending classes of more than 35 pupils? Sustaining Progress makes specific reference to this issue. How does the Government propose to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio to the level set out in its targets? Third, what has been the extent of social housing provision throughout local authorities? The Taoiseach might refer this question to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

I will refer the Deputy's last question to the Minister, Deputy Roche, as I do not have a breakdown of the figures. Some €2 billion is being allocated this year to fund the housing needs of approximately 13,000.

On education, while some 5,000 additional posts have been provided, the main issue in Sustaining Progress has been the attempt to improve education in the areas of disadvantage and special needs. Not all demands have been met in this regard but the Government has endeavoured to put more resources into those areas. At a recent meeting of the social partners under Sustaining Progress, which took place before the announcement of the creation of the 5,000 additional posts, it was emphasised that the pupil-teacher ratio must be improved.

I answered a question from Deputy Rabbitte on this issue recently. The Minister for Education and Science has rightly targeted resources at those areas in which there is social disadvantage. This is not to say we should not try to get the numbers down in every case, because we should. However, those areas where class sizes are large and where there are difficulties of disadvantage, whether rural or urban, must be the primary target. The Department of Education and Science has completed a full review of the measures that have been put in place over the last 20 years to support pupils from these areas.

The new framework will be introduced on a phased basis from the beginning of the new school year in September. Its implementation will involve an additional annual investment of €40 million and will incorporate the provision of some 300 additional posts across the education system. The social partnership recently discussed the survey on reading literacy in disadvantaged primary schools which was launched some months ago by the Minister, Deputy Hanafin. This survey involved national assessments of the reading abilities of pupils in first and fifth classes and the mathematics skills of fourth class students. A report of this evaluation was published last week and the OECD assessment is also available.

Our objective has been to target resources at these particular areas and to deal with the disadvantaged situation of Traveller children in the education system. The measures in Sustaining Progress have not perhaps had as great an effect across all aspects of education but they have certainly helped in the area of disadvantage, which was selected as a priority area under the agreement.

In terms of the performance of Sustaining Progress and the negotiation of any new agreement, is the Government looking at the question of enforcement of standards in the workplace? I refer in particular to the labour inspectorate in light of the Gama Construction affair. I am advised there are 54 dog wardens but only 21 labour inspectors. Does the Taoiseach agree we have good reason to believe the Gama affair may be a one off in the nature of the particular scam but that the abuse of non-national workers, for example, and the lack of enforcement of their rights and entitlements under labour law is not, by any means, confined to Gama?

What is the Taoiseach's response to the advocacy, on a number of occasions, of the leader of SIPTU that it is time to go back to a separate Department of Labour? Is it the case that the Gama experience reinforces the claim he made that there is a need to concentrate on that area?

Is the Government rethinking the decision to cut off the core funding for the Community Workers Co-operative? According to independent experts, this organisation has contributed significantly by focusing on disadvantage and exclusion and as an advocate——

A question to the Minister responsible would be more appropriate.

Yes. This body has been to the fore in criticising Government policy when necessary. There is widespread belief that it has been denied funding because of a vindictive response by Government.

The Deputy should table a question to the Minister responsible.

Will the Taoiseach give an undertaking that in any new social contract, core funding will be restored to an organisation which has done such worthy work although it has been critical of the Government from occasionally?

I do not have details on that question. I will pass on the Deputy's remarks to the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, who is dealing with that, but I think I replied to correspondence the organisation sent me some time ago. Most such organisations which receive funding would, in some way or another, be critical of and would make submissions critical of the Government, so I do not think that is the issue. However, I will pass on the Deputy's remarks.

On the Gama issue, if I recall correctly, the Minister, Deputy Martin, appointed an additional 21 or 22 inspectors recently drawn from staff in his area or other areas in the inspectorate. I do not know the total number.

What is it?

The total is 21 and the Minister promised to appoint 11 inspectors.

I knew he appointed additional inspectors. I thought the figure was 20. I accept those numbers.

I accept the labour inspectorate must be vigilant in this area. The inspectorate deals with complaints from the public, the trade union movement and from employees. It is always looking for additional staff and resources but it is still a good unit. In the case of Gama, as soon as it was brought to its attention, it did a very good job, which the Opposition has admitted in this House. If Deputy Rabbitte's numbers are right, the number of inspectors has increased by one third. Given the constraints in regard to numbers in the section, that is not a bad increase in one go.

In regard to Gama, the Labour Relations Commission has completed talks with SIPTU and it is to be hoped that issue will resolve itself, although I think it might take some time to work itself through. However, there is a need to be vigilant. I got a briefing note when the Gama issue arose which said there were other areas where there were abuses, but the number was not enormous. We saw this issue arise in the meat processing and other sectors in recent years. It seems to be a sectoral issue. Fortunately, it does not seem to arise in all areas. However, with such high numbers of people working in many sectors, be they EU nationals, non-EU nationals or from the Chinese community, there is a need to be vigilant. Some work legally and others illegally but whatever the case, we have an obligation to attempt to monitor their treatment, which is the inspectorate's function.

As far as the Department with responsibility for labour is concerned, there are two ways of looking at the question. When I was over that Department, many, including the trade union movement, argued that many relevant sectors were not the responsibility of the Department of Labour but of the old Department of employment, or trade and employment.

The Department of Industry and Commerce.

Yes. They argued it would be useful if agencies such as CERT, the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court were all brought together and that it would resolve issues of competitiveness or that fed from competitiveness. I believe I was the last Minister for Labour and many years have passed since that change was made. At the time, it was strongly argued that the change was both desirable and modernising.

I do not have a fixed view on the issue. I believe I was the longest-serving Minister for Labour in the State and in that job, one found oneself working alongside other Departments, which was no bad thing. The Department of Finance was responsible for public sector pay and I used to cover the issue. It used to be called the Department of Finance and the Public Service and even though I was Minister for Labour, I dealt with that sector. I also dealt with some of the health and safety areas that were the responsibility of other Departments.

More importantly, as the Public Service Management Act 1997 recognised, if a cross-departmental range exists for a particular issue, the workings of the cross-departmental committees are probably more important because one never encounters a Department which embraces all the aspects of an issue. I do not state that a Department of Labour would not be a good idea again in the future. However, it would be obliged to take over many areas of responsibility from other Departments. For example, health and safety is now a major issue everywhere and FÁS and CERT continue to operate. Industrial relations fall under the aegis of that Department but function independently through the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court and the rights commissioner service. The question is whether bringing them all back together again would be better. Unlike a decade ago, I have not been working closely enough with the area to know whether the idea is worthy of consideration.

This follows on from the previous question I raised in February concerning the Sustaining Progress programme when I asked the Taoiseach about the implications for social partnership of the Kyoto Protocol and whether it had been discussed with the social partners, particularly regarding any tax burden to be placed on Irish citizens following the Government's failure to meet its targets in any meaningful way. At the time, the Taoiseach replied that the Kyoto Protocol is not on the agenda for social partnership. What is the updated position?

Which tax did the Deputy have in mind?

Any tax that the Taoiseach might be considering. At the time, the proposed carbon tax was on the agenda. However, given that part of the Sustaining Progress programme undertakes that the national climate change strategy will be fully implemented, when will it be on the agenda? Two years ago, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government estimated that the sum of €260 million would be the cost of purchasing carbon credits. How is this to be levied? Will it be levied on the taxpayers?

The Deputy should address such specific detailed questions to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

My question is whether the item will be on the agenda, given that it has a real impact, and must be addressed, particularly by those who are most responsible for landing the carbon burden on the country in the first place, who in the main are not the ordinary taxpayers. Will the Taoiseach put this issue on the agenda and will environmental groups be represented on social partnership in light of its importance? Where does the review of the national climate change strategy stand? I understand the strategy is currently being reviewed.

Deputy Sargent is correct in saying the national climate change strategy is being reviewed. I raised this issue before in the context of the plan for some environmental groups to form part of one of the pillars of social partnership. I have no difficulty with that. The response of the environmental groups in question was that the sustainable development group, to which many of these groups belonged, was influencing policy, that they had their own mechanism of dealing with that and that environmental issues tended to be discussed to a greater extent in it rather than in the quarterly meetings of social partnership. The Government made a decision with regard to carbon tax, of which Deputy Sargent is aware. I understand the sustainable development group discusses issues like the carbon tax and engages with the relevant environmentalist NGOs on them.

It is peripheral.

I will not argue with the Deputy because I am not involved, however, that was the reply I was given at the time. I will raise that issue again but I think there was a desire on the part of the environmental groups in question to hold on to that mechanism rather than be swamped in a bigger group where they might receive a limited amount of time. I will ask for an update on the issue but that was the answer I received at the time, which must have been a few months ago.

I asked a question concerning €260 million which does not appear to have made any impact.

As I pointed out earlier to Deputy Sargent, that question is a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The Taoiseach does not care about the issue.

I care about the issue.

It is a matter for the Minister.

Does the Taoiseach accept that two years after 10,000 additional affordable houses were promised under Sustaining Progress, not one of these houses has reached the planning permission stage? Does he agree that only a few hundred units have yet been provided under the earlier Part V planning rules, which were introduced four years ago?

The Deputy should keep detailed questions for the Minister.

These are not detailed questions. This issue is not linked to the commitment in Sustaining Progress, although the Taoiseach continues to try to link the two issues. Does the Taoiseach also accept that the pledge of 10,000 additional houses was a key pledge of the social partnership agreement in March 2003? I am concerned by the Taoiseach's initial response that he did not regard it the same way.

It is not necessary for the Deputy to make a comment. The Deputy should confine himself to questions.

I am merely referring to what the Taoiseach has said. I am seeking clarification of his views.

The Deputy should confine himself to asking questions. A number of Deputies wish to ask questions and we are reaching the conclusion of Leaders' Questions.

Does the Taoiseach recall that he agreed in Sustaining Progress to make the achievement of measurable progress by the mid-term review an objective? If the information provided at the CIF conference last weekend is true, any measurement is very poor.

The Deputy should not be repetitive in making his statement and should allow the Taoiseach to answer.

I think Deputy Ó Caoláin misunderstands the purpose of the social housing initiative.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Ó Caoláin must allow the Taoiseach to speak.

I will explain the purpose of the social housing initiative. At that time, the normal process of local authority house construction was in existence and the Government spent approximately €2 billion in social housing initiatives. There was great concern because the rate of inflation was more than 20% on first-time buyers; the rate is 1% or 2% today. It was believed that the Government should introduce a specific affordable housing initiative and that people on local authority rents should be able to avail of it. As part of this, two initiatives were brought forward. One initiative is that most of the developments built in the past few years did not take place under Part V since they had already received planning permission. Only now are planning permissions under Part V taking effect, as the Deputy probably knows. It takes a few years for those with planning permission to build the houses. The Deputy either has his tongue in his cheek or he does not understand. Is he saying that one can buy land today, get planning permission tomorrow, build next week and put a family in there a week later? In some parts of Asia this may work but on this side of the world——

With respect, two weeks later——

——that is not the process. The initiative was——

Not even a planning application——

The Deputy must leave the House if he continues. He will not prevent other Deputies from asking a question.

——to search State-owned lands to determine whether we could get 10,000 houses. People were sceptical that we would be able to provide affordable housing in this way within the programme. We examined all Departments and agencies and attained a number of over 10,000. Some of these houses are under construction, some are operating as swaps and others must go through the formal planning process with local authorities but will hopefully be built as quickly as possible. It will add 10,000 houses to the affordable housing initiative. This endeavour will follow its own process. Due to past experiences in this House, I have no intention of becoming involved in the planning process to help this stage be reached. I never would do that.

So there is none now. Is this the case?

Is the Taoiseach concerned that social partnership began by dealing with wages, income tax, price increases and so on but has now broadened to the point where many groups and organisations have access beyond all parties and Members of this House to the central government decision-making process and discussions? Is the Taoiseach concerned that the elected representatives of the people have no say whatsoever under the current social partnership operation and that Members listen to various individuals commenting on the radio about discussions at social partnership level which are never discussed here? This is supposed to be a House of Parliament representative of the views of the people.

In view of the central role played by the Labour Relations Commission in Sustaining Progress, how does the Taoiseach intend to deal with the CEO of An Post who said that even if the LRC recommended a cost of living increase for An Post workers and pensioners, An Post——

The Deputy's question is more appropriate for the line Minister.

——would refuse to pay? Is this not contrary to public policy?

I will answer Deputy Gerard Murphy's question first. I have always held that the decisions of the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission should be abided by despite great difficulties and problems. Issues concerning productivity exist which must be achieved through negotiation to make An Post viable. In the public and private sectors, it is good practice to pay on the basis of the courts' decisions, as the Government does as a State employer. This is my long held view and I have practised it through most of my political career.

On Deputy Kenny's question, this matter was raised by his colleague, Deputy Bruton, when I addressed the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service recently. I know this has been Deputy Bruton's view for many years. There are three issues involved. The discussions under that process which are detailed, comprehensive and analysed are not much different from those at Question Time or at committees. The committees of the Houses are exhaustive in the issues they examine and all Members contribute to that process. Members, perhaps not on the floor of this House but in committees, examine issues in great detail. If there is anything wrong with that system, it is that the committees of the Houses do not get enough air time and publicity for the work Members put into that process, but that is a different day's work. The committee system is good. I have long held the view that there is a solution to that difficulty but it is not practical. In every other parliament that has a proper committee system, sittings in the chamber do not take place at the same time as committee sittings because of the difficulty in terms of coverage. It may be difficult to resolve that problem.

Teasing out policy decisions with farmers, big and small, employers in the private sector, big and small and Departments and agencies, with all their different perspectives and priorities, by its nature, will involve discussing legislation or administrative change. The system is not bad. The system we set up in 1987 examined pay, conditions, tax and a few other areas, but I agree with Deputy Kenny that as the years went by the approach has broadened to include all kinds of issues. I accept that point. It would be better in everyone's interests to specify that over the next period we will take A, B, C, D and E — we tried that approach this time in that we took seven of ten special initiatives — and try to make quantitative and qualitative progress in those areas, confining discussions to those issues. When we discuss everything, it is difficult to see the wood for the trees.

I will make that point again in hope rather than certainty as to the outcome. As Deputy Kenny is aware, everyone involved in the process raises their special needs. Farmers are well organised in terms of raising their issues but there is a large number of sections in that industry. Likewise, IBEC has many sectors. From a national point of view, it would be better for the process if we took five or six good initiatives and stuck with those.

Barr
Roinn