Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It is under NAMA legislation. It does not concern the Companies Act. I am fairly sure the matter is not covered by companies legislation as there is specific legislation for NAMA. I am only speaking about cases in which NAMA appoints receivers, as opposed to most cases in which receivers are appointed by companies. We might seek clarification on that point.

Amendment No. 81 refers to the Labour Relations Commission.

I understand and agree with what the Minister said about the conciliation process and disputes but I would not call Croke Park II or Haddington Road a dispute. They were part of public policy, forming new pay agreements. People went into those talks to reach an agreement and not because there was a dispute. I was not aware there was a dispute and I do not believe that process would be categorised as an industrial dispute. People were invited to talk about reaching an agreement and not because there was a dispute. I am addressing those types of areas where there is not a dispute. When providing a public service on behalf of public servants, public servants are entitled to see what other public servants are getting because different letters are issued to different groups of unions or individual unions.

It is not right that Members of Parliament have not seen some of those letters. Some journalists might have them, having received them for various unions, but it is not right that the national Parliament does not have them. The trade unions involved would issue the letters to their members, so they have no problem clarifying points for their members, whether in the local authorities, the HSE or otherwise. By and large, these are letters of clarification. I want to see those included. However, I accept the Minister's general point but this is a specific one.

Amendment No. 83 concerns the terms and conditions of those in agencies under the NTMA, including NAMA, the National Pensions Reserve Fund and the National Development Finance Agency, and that they would not be partially excluded. Is this a new amendment?