Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:1 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Economic and Social Forum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38710/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraWednesday, 8 February 2006
Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
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. [39747/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraEnda Kenny
Ceist:3 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. [39750/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraEnda Kenny
Ceist:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the proposed work of the National Economic and Social Council during 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39763/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the next quarterly meeting of the social partners under the Sustaining Progress agreement will be held; the agenda of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40403/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraPat Rabbitte
Ceist:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress on his contacts with the social partners regarding the possibility of a new national agreement to replace Sustaining Progress; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40404/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraPat Rabbitte
Ceist:7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting with representatives of the trade union movement on 4 January 2006; if further meetings are planned; if he expects negotiations on a possible new national agreement to open; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1060/06]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the position in regard to the social partnership process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1235/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraTrevor Sargent
Ceist:9 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his 4 January 2006 talks with trade union leaders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1236/06]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Joe Higgins
Ceist:10 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the social partners. [1868/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraJoe Higgins
Ceist:11 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the studies currently being carried out by the National Economic and Social Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1870/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraTrevor Sargent
Ceist:12 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Economic and Social Forum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2325/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:13 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in the social partnership process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3205/06]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Phil Hogan
Ceist:14 Mr. Hogan asked the Taoiseach the likelihood of a deal with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4063/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (126 píosaí cainte)
We are continuing with supplementary questions by order of the House yesterday. Deputy Rabbitte had been called when we adjourned.
The following reply was given by the Taoiseach on Tuesday, 7 February 2006.
As the House is aware, I met a delegation from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 4 January 2006. The meeting was positive and it was agreed that there would be further engagement at official level with a view to finalising a structure on a possible talks process over the following days. Subsequently, the Secretary General of my Department wrote to IBEC, CIF and ICTU outlining possible arrangements for the conduct of any new round of talks on a successor agreement to Sustaining Progress, in particular around the handling of issues regarding employment standards. It was proposed that a multi-stranded approach would be taken to the conduct of the negotiations and that they would commence with an early plenary meeting between the Government and the four pillars of social partnership to launch the negotiations formally.
In respect of pay and workplace matters, it was proposed that the process of negotiation would reflect the NIB statement of 4 December which recognised the need for urgent engagement on employment standards, displacement, inspection and enforcement, the protection of vulnerable workers from overseas, and related issues raised by congress. This will therefore constitute the first strand of these negotiations. The Government recognises that it is the congress position that significant progress will be made in this first strand regarding employment standards before any substantial engagement takes place around core pay issues. It is proposed that talks with the four pillars on the other strands will commence simultaneously with the employment related strand. Furthermore, as in previous negotiations, another strand of talks around public service modernisation will also be established.
I am pleased to inform the House that, following the vote in favour of entering negotiations by the SIPTU special delegate conference on 31 January and the decision by the executive council of ICTU on 1 February to accept formally my invitation to enter talks on a new national agreement, I formally launched the negotiations at the plenary meeting of the social partners in Dublin Castle on 2 February.
The plenary meeting, which was also attended by my colleagues the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with responsibility for labour affairs provided an opportunity for the Government to set out its priorities for a new agreement and also to hear initial opening statements from the social partners on their priorities for a new agreement. Following on from this, a series of bilateral meetings has got under way. As with previous agreements, the proceedings are subject to normal confidentiality arrangements to protect the negotiating positions of all.
The Government recognises that there are many challenges to be faced in any talks on a new agreement, not least in determining how the area of employment standards should be protected. We believe, however, that the concerns of the social partners on this topic, as on other issues, can best be addressed through a new partnership framework. Social partnership has a proven track record of problem solving, resulting in the radical transformation of our economic and social fortunes since 1987. We believe that with goodwill and determination on all sides, we can negotiate a mutually satisfactory outcome which will deliver further economic and social progress, building on the strong foundations we have already put in place.
The national implementation body, which includes employer and union representatives, operates under the chairmanship of my Department. Its purpose is to oversee delivery of the industrial peace and stability provisions of Sustaining Progress. The body met on a number of occasions over recent months to assist in the resolution of industrial relations disputes in both the public and private sectors. In particular, it played a key role in resolving the difficult disputes at An Post and Irish Ferries towards the end of last year.
Meetings of the body also provide opportunities for informal discussion of some of the broader issues relating to the social partnership process and the industrial relations climate generally. The body will continue to meet as necessary to this end.
In December last, the National Economic and Social Council published its three yearly strategic overview of Irish economic and social policy entitled NESC Strategy 2006: People, Productivity and Purpose. The strategy report, as its predecessors did, provides a guiding vision for the coming years for economic and social development in the country and, more immediately, the framework within which the talks will take place.
In the coming months, other studies will include completion of the study on migration policy, which is well advanced. In 2006, NESC will also complete a report on the Lisbon strategy, focusing on the open method of co-ordination. Further studies nearing completion include a study on child poverty and child income supports that will examine the possibility of merging child benefit allowance and family income supplement.
During 2006, the council will consider how best to address other items in its current work programme, including taxation policy and competition and regulation in networked sectors. It will also work on its first periodic social report and a significant NESC contribution to a knowledge society foresight exercise.
The reconstituted NESF held its inaugural meeting on 26 May 2004 in the Royal Hospital Kilmainham at which the work programme for the coming term up to 2006 was discussed, as well as the appropriate structures and working arrangements in the context of the work programme. Early childhood care and education, care for older people and creating a more inclusive labour market were subsequently selected as priority topics. The report on early childhood care and education was published in September last and the reports on care for older people and creating a more inclusive labour market were published recently and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Cultural citizenship and the delivery of public services have been identified for inclusion in the second phase of the work programme. Preliminary work has been undertaken on both these topics and projects in these areas will commence shortly.
The NESF held the second national anti-poverty strategy social inclusion forum in the Royal Hospital Kilmainham on 26 January 2005. The social inclusion forum gives those who are not directly involved in the social partnership process an opportunity to input their views and experiences in implementing the national anti-poverty strategy. A report of these proceedings was published in April 2005.
The NESF also hosted, in conjunction with UCD, a conference on evidence-based policy making in February 2005. The conference examined the supply and gathering of evidence and applying this in the policy making process and the design of practical policy solutions. The ongoing monitoring and evaluation of policy outcomes was an important focus of the conference.
We have a major block of questions on social partnership and related matters. Probably the most topical question this morning is confirmation by the Taoiseach that he will sell off the Great Southern Hotels with some of them to continue in business as hotels. Even where that happens, given commentary in this morning's newspapers, we can anticipate the displacement of some of the remaining staff.
What is the Taoiseach's response to the protection of labour standards and displacement issue put at the top of the agenda by the social partners in the discussions which are under way? Is it his intention that his Government will move to deal with that concern highlighted by the trade union movement in the wake of Irish Ferries, Gama Construction, yesterday's report from the two economists establishing that displacement is going on generally in the economy and the fears expressed by the unions?
Will the Taoiseach respond to some of the measures set out in the Labour Party document? He sought a copy of the document on the date we published it. I refer, for example, to decisions on the labour inspectorate. Is it the intention to take on board the recommendation by my colleague, Deputy Howlin, that rather than establish a separate, new body, the labour inspectorate would fall under the Health and Safety Authority? I do not mean that — nor did Deputy Howlin — as a cover to maintain the low number of inspectors invigilating standards in Irish industry because clearly the number of inspectors must be increased. Will the Taoiseach respond to the suggestion in respect of the Health and Safety Authority?
On the issue of the protection of employment standards, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions made it clear since last summer that in the next talks, it wanted it to be the major issue. At meetings with it in September and in writing to it in October, I gave a commitment that we would accept that. In a rapidly changing labour market, the issue brings with it new challenges in the area of maintaining and developing employment standards. The Government's commitment to meeting these challenges is equally clear. I have repeatedly made explicit the Government's intention to engage fully and effectively in the process of devising policies and measures which would protect employment standards and prevent a so-called race to the bottom. I have made this commitment in letters to the social partners and I stated it in my speech to them last July and again at public meetings in September and October and at the plenary last week.
We are committed to bringing about greater productivity and enhanced competitiveness based on innovation in the workplace through new work practices, new skills, new technologies and new products and services. We have stated clearly that it is neither acceptable nor sustainable to attempt to build a competitive advantage based on poor wages, on casualisation of labour, on low health and safety standards or other such practices. I have been very clear in my belief that the most effective way of engaging with these matters is through the partnership framework.
Last October I asked officials across Departments to bring together the various aspects of legislation in this regard so we would not have to wait for the talks process. They have carried out a comprehensive examination. We are looking at the ICTU-SIPTU document and at the Deputy's document, which I have read fully, to see how we can bring these issues forward. I do not have a fixed view on how this should be done. I have not thought about whether it should be done by the Health and Safety Authority or a new agency or whether legislation is needed. I am not saying I am against any particular proposal but I have been looking at how we can comprehensively deal with the issues highlighted.
I have engaged with the employers' side as well so that whatever we do is realistic. As the Deputy knows, some people on the employers' side will say any move on this will close off flexibility. We were aware of the danger in the autumn of people starting an unnecessary campaign on some of these issues but we have moved to a more realistic assessment. In a changed labour market and because of the voluntaristic nature of our industrial relations, we cannot leave things as they are. I think I have convinced both sides that is the right thing to do.
We are now into the detail. All the issues the Deputy mentioned and many more have been put on the table by the trade union movement. We will now systematically go through them. As the Deputy knows, the trade unions have asked that this be the first strand of talks, so we will deal with this before we address any pay issues. This is the priority of the talks. The other pillars will go ahead with their work but this will be the key issue in the employer-union pillar before we turn to pay issues.
I noticed at the commencement of the talks, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, made a statement which clearly indicated that competitiveness would be the big issue. Does the Government have a position on the issue of competitiveness from an international energy point view? That will be a key issue at the talks if we are dealing with competitiveness.
Is the Taoiseach aware of reports this morning from Sweden that it proposes to be the world's first oil free economy? It has a population of 9 million. The Swedish energy minister stated that a Sweden free of fossil fuels would give it enormous advantages not least by reducing impact from fluctuation in oil prices. Given that Ireland is the most oil dependent country in the EU, how does the Taoiseach propose to address the slide in competitiveness which is inevitable when one engages in the partnership talks? Can he offer anything to the other social partners?
My colleague, Deputy Boyle, asked the Taoiseach whether environmental and energy NGOs would be part of the partnership process. I also mentioned it to him in February 2005. The Taoiseach said he did not have any problem. Has there been any development on that? Does he see it is now more urgent than ever?
This is not the most uncompetitive country in the world. In many of the areas——
I said we are the most oil dependent country in the EU.
Sorry. I thought the Deputy was speaking generally. Obviously, the issue of energy will come up as part of competitiveness because every country in the world, particularly in Europe, is looking at their dependency, especially on Russia. Those assessments are going on here. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has been involved in assessments from the Irish point of view. The Department of Finance has been involved in those assessments.
To the best of my knowledge, some of the non-governmental organisation groups, including Friends of the Earth, have applied for membership. However, as the Deputy is aware, as the environmental NGO views are conveyed by several different organisations, their work is fed into the process. Nevertheless, the Deputy is correct in that issues pertaining to sustaining and protecting our position in the future are related to issues regarding competitiveness and energy. As I have noted previously, we are pressing on with initiatives in wind energy and other matters. Sweden's forestry is a great natural resource. We have good natural resources as far as gas reserves and some other areas are concerned. It would also help us in the future if we could make use of some of the assets we possess, having gone through the proper processes.
Not for long.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the Government has no credibility in seeking another so-called partnership agreement, the main purpose of which is to hold workers' wage increases to a minimum? Yesterday, the Department of Finance's report on tax breaks showed that the Government has been shovelling billions of euro in tax savings to speculators, developers and builders who have squeezed the economic lifeblood out of young working people trying to purchase a home through the ransom demanded by these very beneficiaries of the Government's tax schemes. This has occurred to the extent that yesterday's "Pat Kenny Show" stated the Government has created 12 billionaire speculators.
The Deputy should ask a question.
Does the Taoiseach accept that, in reality, social partnership is now another flag of convenience to curb workers' wage demands? In the context of the partnership talks, while private capitalists are allowed by the Government's policies to gorge themselves obscenely with speculative profits and tax breaks as crucial public services such as health and education go short, does the Taoiseach believe that the 18 so-called investors, who set up a speculator's company in the Caribbean to scam €309,000 per year legally from the tax fund in this State deserve to be called partners, or would the term "parasites" come more readily to mind? The Taoiseach has facilitated them. I read in yesterday's Irish Examiner that after——
It is not appropriate to quote and I ask the Deputy to confine himself to questions.
I am asking a question. While I will not quote, I read in the Irish Examiner that after the Taoiseach’s recent visit to Singapore, they named a——
It is not even appropriate for the Deputy to state what he read in the Irish Examiner. He should simply ask a question.
Very well.
This is ridiculous.
The purpose of Question Time is to elicit information from the Taoiseach, not to impart information to the House.
In Singapore, this would be a criminal speech.
This is simply censorship.
Yes. However, they named a new hybrid orchid in the Taoiseach's honour. They called it "Mokara Bertie Ahern".
How can the Ceann Comhairle rule this out?
It must have been sponsored by developers and speculators, as the Taoiseach has certainly been a true cara to them.
A delicate flower.
An extremely good cara to the speculators. How can workers take this seriously, against the background of the Government giving €5 billion in tax breaks to speculators and the super-wealthy? At the same time, the Government is now jeopardising 800 workers' jobs in the Great Southern Hotel Group as it prepares to hand the group over to the asset strippers through privatisation. On many occasions over the past eight years, I have debated this issue with the Taoiseach, who has looked upon me as though I was some kind of rare orchid. However, in today's Irish Independent, the economist David McWilliams, who is no revolutionary socialist, makes exactly the same point, namely that the partnership process is, in reality——
I ask the Deputy to submit a question to the Taoiseach.
——a fraud. How does the Taoiseach reconcile the fact that for example, there is no inclusion of the massive increase in house prices in the reckoning of inflation in these talks, when it is now crucifying tens of thousands of young PAYE workers? How can we take any of this process seriously?
The Deputy will appreciate that I do not agree with him. In reply to the Deputy's last question on pay levels, the reason our competitiveness is out of line is because our pay levels, when set against our main competitors, are much higher across practically all professions and strands. The Deputy referred to hard-pressed workers. In most of these sectors they would be thankful because the social partnership process, along with the system which allows people to negotiate in this way, has given them much higher increases than any other system. People are engaged in this process across all sectors.
As for our own budgetary policies, I am sure the Deputy also read in the newspapers that the ESRI has shown that our last budget was the most progressive ever seen in this country. It strongly favoured low income groups. The ESRI found that gains for the poorest 20% of the population were more than 6% while those for the top income groups only came to 2%. When it reviewed the budgetary impact from 2002 onwards, it found a similar pattern. Hence, the overall net impact over the past five years has been to boost incomes in the lowest income groups by between 8% and 17% while incomes in the higher groups have seen very small income gains.
We will be obliged to have a whip around for the highly paid.
I am simply giving the facts provided by the ESRI, which would never give anything other than the complete truth in this respect. As I stated yesterday, the Government has examined the existing incentives for people to generate wealth and the Minister for Finance has named those whom he believes should be eliminated. As we had that debate yesterday, there is no need to go back over such issues again.
Moreover, the developments in respect of affordable housing that have taken place are quite interesting. The Deputy is aware that currently in many cases, in some sectors, there is almost over-capacity in the affordable housing market, where people are not switching or——
That is incredible. I do not believe my ears.
——where they are not selling.
Where?
The Taoiseach, without interruption, please.
It is a simple question. Where?
In several parts of the greater Dublin area, as well as in Cork.
No.
This is unreal.
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
There has been a slow take-up in affordable housing. Thankfully however, the affordable housing initiative, which has taken place under the aegis of social partnership, has facilitated far more co-ordinated activity in these areas. Hence, I do not accept the Deputy's point.
More houses were built in the bleak 1980s than are being built now.
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
The Deputy has referred to social housing. I referred to affordable housing, which has just been raised.
The Taoiseach has been misled by his brother, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern.
In the bleak 1980s, one had to provide social housing. However, as the Deputy can recall, there was no great difficulty in so doing, because so many people emigrated.
There are 50,000 families on the housing list. Is the Taoiseach aware of this?
However, 80,000 families take up houses every year.
I do not blame the Taoiseach for being misled by his brother. He has misled us too.
The Taoiseach without interruption, please.
A total of 80,000 families a year have taken up houses. We have built more houses in the past five years than were built in the previous 30 years.
However, 20,000 of those families are getting——
Deputy Burton should note that it is Deputy Joe Higgins's question. I ask her to allow him to hear the answer.
A total of 20,000 of those families are getting a second or third home.
Through affordable housing, social housing and the voluntary housing sector, the issues discussed in social partnership have improved the situation.
It certainly helped the landlords.
I have provided comprehensive figures in this respect.
We got two in County Kildare from the entire package. Despite all of the building in County Kildare, we only got two.
Deputy Stagg should allow the Taoiseach to speak.
Half of Dublin is moving to County Kildare because the houses are——
They are not moving into social housing or affordable housing.
They are moving into affordable housing.
Not at all. We only got two. I received a report yesterday.
The county has extremely good affordable housing.
It should be good as it took five years to build.
Let them eat cake.
The Taoiseach, without interruption, please.
There is some extremely good affordable housing in Kildare, which is much cheaper than most places, to that county's credit.
The Indian visit was not good for the Taoiseach. He is out of touch with what is going on.
I ask Deputy Rabbitte to allow the Taoiseach to answer Deputy Joe Higgins's question.
The Opposition wants to ruin the economy.
The Deputies do not want to accept we are building 80,000 houses and that through Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the affordable housing initiative, more than 11,000 sites have been generated.
That is because investors are vying for tax breaks.
They do not want to say this is having a significant impact and they do not want to give credit to the affordable housing initiative, which is very unreasonable. They want to take issue with the ESRI and they do not want to recognise that this year's budget was the most progressive in the history of the State.
However, I agree with Deputy Joe Higgins on one point, which is that the high rate of salary paid to ordinary workers is a competitiveness issue. I hope he is not against that and that he does not want to return to the old days of——
The fumes from that orchid must have gone to the Taoiseach's head because he is delirious, as he said yesterday about the Opposition. He is wandering in a——
The Deputy is a rare orchid.
I heard a report about a flower called after the Taoiseach. Shelley wrote: "Full many a flower that is born to blush unseen, and waste its sweetness on the desert air".
Gray wrote that, not Shelley.
Be careful of the cankerous rose.
I am not sure in a political sense if the Taoiseach epitomises the orchid. When the people get an opportunity on the next occasion they might perform a painful process called an orchidectomy. Deputy Devins can explain what that means.
The role of the national implementation body was to determine the number of breaches of Sustaining Progress. Now that the agreement is drawing to an end, how many breaches took place? What arrangements will be in place in the event of another agreement being reached to ensure breaches will not recur?
Is the Taoiseach concerned by the economic report referred to by IBEC recently, which highlighted that because of America's budgetary situation and balance of payments deficit, there may well be a triggered devaluation of the dollar which would have serious consequences for exporting countries such as Ireland and for the construction industry, in particular, which is critical to our economy? IBEC pointed out, for instance, that a reduction of one third in the price of houses would drive down volume by 40% and growth by 1% and would drive unemployment up to 10%. While the Taoiseach would not have control over such a catastrophe, is he concerned the implications of such an economic report for Ireland in sustaining the strength of the economy?
On the first issue, in fairness to the social partners, while the national implementation body held numerous meetings during the round, there were not that many breaches. By and large, people stuck to the terms of the agreement and there was good compliance with it. However, my Department is undertaking an examination of the effects of progress on a number of areas, which will be ready shortly. While there were difficulties with the pay terms, I would not play them up. It worked well and people tried hard, including organised workers.
There is concern about the second issue. As a small and open economy, we have learned that competitiveness and flexibility are key to economic development, and that is a simple reality which must guide us in the talks, not least when it comes to pay. We must price and position ourselves in a very challenging market. We can best protect incomes by setting wage growth at a sensible and affordable level and it is important that we do not undermine the job creation capability of the economy or our international attractiveness as a place in which to work and invest. This is the context in which a successor to the current national agreement must be considered.
Deputy Sargent referred to energy policy while Deputy Kenny referred to the US deficit. These are the two concerns on the horizon. Energy is a concern for the reasons I stated earlier. The issue has moved to a new plateau because of the strength of Russian control and the Iranians and a number of other oil producing countries on the other side. This is a concern. We saw what happened at the turn of the year following the difficulties with the Ukraine and the potential knock-on effect on European oil supplies. This could have a significant effect on the economy and it means everybody will examine alternatives. Deputy Sargent mentioned the Swedes but we must examine our own sustainable energy policy and natural resources, including gas supplies.
I find it increasingly difficult to understand how the US, with a budget deficit of more than 6%, is not forced into dealing with it. In some ways, thankfully, the US is not. If the Americans decide to correct the deficit in a major way, it would have a worldwide impact. However, they seem to think the vibrancy of their economy makes such a deficit sustainable or at least only needs a marginal correction. This is the fourth or fifth year international economists have stated this will be the year the Americans correct it. If they were to make a hard cut a year, it would have an effect. I hope, if they tackle the deficit, it will be done on a phased basis. I do not see it having a major impact in the short term because they are not tackling the problem but if they change policy, inevitably it will have an effect on us as an exporting country and as a country with a significant connection with the US through the 600 American companies located here and the significant number of Irish companies based there.
I have three questions to which a simple "yes" or "no" reply will do for one or two of them. Did the social partners discuss the Government's proposals for the sale of State assets at recent meetings? Have they been discussed at the new resumed meetings? I refer to property owned by CIE and the Great Southern Hotel Group. For example, there are implications for public policy where CIE in Galway has been instructed to hire consultants to examine the disposal value of a 15-acre site owned by the company, despite the Government's commitment to the North-South rail line, commuter rail lines, intercity rail lines and so forth. Combined with the sell-off of the Great Southern Hotels——
A question, please.
The question relates to State assets. At the talks, does the Government favour amending the Competition Act 2002 to restore the right of atypical workers to be represented in collective agreements by their trade union? I refer to the ruling against SIPTU which resulted in the union having to sign an undertaking that it would not represent in collective bargaining actors, musicians, freelance journalists and all others outside the PAYE sector. Will that issue be resolved at the beginning of the social partnership talks? It is a breach of the Trade Union Acts of 1900, 1901 and 1990 and the 1989 International Labour Organisation directive.
Have the social partners agreed, which would be surprising, that projected figures on social housing included in the current agreement could be substituted by alleged figures for affordable housing in the new agreement? For example, the Taoiseach referred to 80,000 families but that number refers to housing completions. These houses may be owned by people who own multiples of houses and are, therefore, not families. Does he agree it is a disgrace that the social housing outturn is less than one third of what it was in 1973 and that the 60,000 on the social housing list are subject to different criteria of qualification from those who qualify for affordable housing? Is it the case that the social partners disputed these figures with him and the ESRI has pointed to the distinction between social and affordable housing?
On the sale of assets, the Government has a position on this aspect and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions put forward a position paper on the sale of assets which, I have no doubt, will be discussed during the social partnership talks.
On atypical workers, I am aware of that initiative. The issue has not yet come up in the talks but it will come up. I am aware of the position for actors, musicians, sculptors and all atypical workers. The issue arose, in particular, in regard to the ILO issue.
It was an ideological-driven decision by the Competition Authority.
I am not aware of the position regarding the CIE lands at the back of the Great Southern Hotel in Eyre Square. I understand that CIE proposes to develop further the station and its own site. If it is selling it off, I presume it will just sell the parts it does not want, but I am not aware it is selling the land.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that there is no instruction to CIE to dispose of its property?
To the best of my knowledge, there is not, but I will ask about the matter. I heard the Chairman of CIE, Mr. John Lynch, say that it wants to extend the station in Galway, which I favour.
On social housing, there is a clear line between what is private housing, the affordable housing initiative and social housing. There is no transfer option in this regard. Under the social partnership process and Sustaining Progress, we are achieving as much affordable housing as possible under Part 5. We are making available as many sites as possible under the affordable housing initiative. In the latter part of last year, the new affordable housing initiative advertised for more and more developers to turn over part of their lands for affordable housing. I understand from those involved in the affordable housing initiative that there is a good take-up of interest in that. A significant number of developers are interested in making their lands available for affordable housing in conjunction with the affordable housing initiative, which is good.
What are the social housing figures?
Social housing is a separate issue. It is a matter for the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, but I am not mixing up the two figures.
I suggest that the Government is building only one third of what was built in the 1970s.
The Taoiseach without interruption, please.
In the 1970s and early 1980s, when we were building far more social housing, hardly any houses were built in the private sector. The equivalent figure was approximately 20,000.
People were driven into the private sector.
(Interruptions).
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
The social housing initiative is now being put into the private rented sector. If people receive rent supplement, they cannot work.
Sorry Deputy Rabbitte, I have called Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Does the Taoiseach accept that a fundamental issue in the partnership talks must be the threat to the pay and conditions of workers in Ireland posed by the EU services directive? Does he accept that the services directive represents a threat to the long-established rights of workers throughout the length and breadth of the European Union? If implemented in its current form, what we will see is private companies undercutting public service providers by employing people on the salary levels and under the conditions of their countries of origin. This is a very serious matter. Has this issue been addressed in the partnership talks? Did the Taoiseach raise the matter, as the Government signalled its intent in the partnership talks, in regard to the EU services directive? What exactly is the Taoiseach's stand on the matter? Will he oppose it as it is currently presented?
The key issue for Ireland in regard to the draft services directive is to ensure that we strike the right balance between removing obstacles to the realisation of a single European market in services, which we favour, while upholding the integrity of national traditions in the area of social partnership, industrial relations and dispute resolution practice, not least ensuring that established times and standards are properly protected. The Deputy will be aware that the current directive is under discussion. A huge number of amendments have been tabled. The Commission is committed to bringing forward a new document on the country of origin issue. Whatever happens, ultimately, it will be a very different document from the one we saw at the beginning. Our approach will be guided by the fact that as a small open economy, the development of a single open European market in services will be very much in our national interest in terms of employment prospects, trade opportunities, customer choice and the growing dependence of our future prosperity on high value international trade in services and goods. None of these issues should be underestimated.
It is clear that an enormous amount of work remains to be done on the draft directive before it is close to being presented for agreement to the Council of Ministers. While the Commission will bring forward these new proposals, it will probably be another few months before it will do so. It is expected to address the many concerns we raised, particularly the country of origin principle. There is a long way to go in this regard.
The answer to the Deputy's question is that we do not support the draft directive as it was put forward. We participated actively in the discussions to change it, as did our MEPs. Deputy Ryan, MEP, has been very active in this area. He has worked with trade union and employer interests, and will continue to do so. He will also continue to work with the social partners.
Will the Taoiseach agree that because of a direct decision of the Government a number of jobs will be lost due to the sale of the Great Southern Hotel Group, including up to 400 in my constituency of south Kerry, in Parknasilla and Killarney? The Taoiseach knows many of these people personally and, given the service they have provided over the years to this country and to visitors to the country, they do not deserve this treatment. The Taoiseach said this morning that some of these properties will not be retained as hotels. Will he agree that the jobs that will be retained will be replaced by a non-unionised workforce who will be paid slave labour wages, which is what is happening in the service industry?
Will he also agree that the issue of pay and conditions in the service industry in general needs to be part of the partnership talks, and particularly the lack of labour inspectors? There are no labour inspectors to examine the pay and conditions in certain sectors of the service industry. Will the Taoiseach agree that this outrageous decision by the Government to sell the Great Southern Hotel Group could have the effect of derailing the partnership talks?
I correct the Deputy in that the decision was taken by the board of the Great Southern Hotel Group.
Can nothing be done other than sell them off?
The board reported to the board of the Dublin Airport Authority, which fully supports and endorses the decision. The Deputy is correct that the staff in these hotels are excellent. I hope the interests of staff are protected in the negotiations and the sale. There are top quality staff in these hotels who are forever moving to greater things. The problem in the Deputy's constituency is trying to keep the good staff, whom I know so well, because they all move on to other groups. To their credit, they move to jobs in hotels in this and other cities with far better pay and conditions. Like the Deputy, I am always proud and satisfied with the service they provide.
They want to stay in Kerry.
Then I will rephrase it. Many of them move to better paid jobs in hotels in the private sector in other parts of Deputy Moynihan-Cronin's constituency.
Just say anything.
That has been happening all the time. The Ceann Comhairle knows that.
People have been there for 35 years whom the Taoiseach and I know.
There are.
Is the Taoiseach saying he has no say in the matter? He will have a say.
The Taoiseach should be allowed to speak without interruption. We must move on to the next business.
I am telling the Deputy that I have an interest in seeing——
No, that is not the question.
If the Deputy answers her own question there is no point in me trying to answer it.
That is not the question.
That is not the question.
Flagship is very important——
The Taoiseach should be allowed to speak without interruption.
I hope that the key hotels in the group, that we both know, will do much better than is the case at present. We are already aware that they are looking at forming strategic alliances and partnerships to try to develop the sites. They can do much better. Even at the height of the season last year it was disappointing to see that they were only on 40% occupancy. We all know that is not sustainable. The best staff will not stay in that situation. That has increasingly been the case in recent years and they have had to recruit the key staff elsewhere. The people who have served me and others have been Austrians and Germans because the hotels were not able to retain people who moved elsewhere. That has been the position.
I do not know what will happen to some of the hotels that have been losing money endlessly and that have not been able to cut it. Perhaps others will come in and make them work, but the key ones can have a very good future. The Government will do anything it can to help in that. The Minister will meet the representatives next week.
So the Taoiseach has decided to sell them.
Essentially the partnership talks will deal with major issues of national and international importance. Is the Taoiseach taking account of how the sale of the Great Southern Hotels could perhaps dominate proceedings? Does he believe the approach should be much more understanding of the concerns of those employed in the hotels in that, prior to the matter being raised at the partnership talks, there should be discussions on whether rationalisation will be involved as well as on any other changes that might be envisaged? Otherwise the current situation has the potential to derail the process. I urge the Taoiseach to take this seriously into account so that the partnership talks will not be derailed for want of some diplomacy, of which he claims to have some knowledge.
Does the Taoiseach intend to provide for the involvement of the Houses of the Oireachtas in the social partnership process? I do not know how many pillars we have now, but it is extraordinary that everybody is involved in these discussions and negotiations except those chosen by the electorate to make decisions in this Chamber about their future. No provision has been made for their inclusion or for debate of the terms of the agreement and the framework that should apply. I read in the newspapers that there might be an agreement——
Deputy Rabbitte should make just a brief comment. We are running out of time.
——for ten years. The Taoiseach said he would not continue in office for ten years but I would not rule it out. I find it difficult to understand that decisions can be made for ten years and the Members of this House have no involvement or participation in the shape, substance or outcome of these discussions.
In the period of the previous programme, 40 different documents, including quarterly and sectoral documents, were laid before this House. I, and most other Ministers, answer questions daily on social partnership.
Yes, but do we get any answers?
The National Economic and Social Forum comprises public representatives who are the overseers of the various documents that come about through social partnership. It is not correct to say that there is no direct involvement by this House in the social partnership process. It is right that there should be. On the pay end, the Government acts as employer, the trade unions act as negotiators and IBEC and the other employer interests contribute on the issue. Full reports come to the House and to committees of this House on the other issues and that should continue to be the case.
In reply to Deputy Sargent's question, the Government has received the decision of the board of the Great Southern Hotel Group and the view of the Dublin Airport Authority. The Minister will act in any way that can be helpful on these issues, but they have made their decisions and the Government accepts them. Now we must see how the decisions can be implemented to take account of staff interests and to ensure the group is kept as a going concern and as many as possible if not all of the jobs are protected into the future.
The ten-year programme is a ten-year strategy. Some elements of it might only last a year but for others it might be three years. The special initiatives of Sustaining Progress and of previous agreements such as Partnership 2000 and others show that one needs a longer period to achieve consistency of policy to try to resolve issues such as those currently arising relating to elder care and affordable housing. One needs a longer period than just three years to implement these policies. It is better that they form part of a ten-year strategy but obviously the process would be negotiated every three years. That makes sense and it would bring greater coherence into policy over the next ten years.