Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

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?

See this speech in context