Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

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.

See this speech in context