Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)

On behalf of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, I acknowledge the hard work of all those who worked to bring about this agreement, Towards 2016. Much of the agreement, especially the social provisions, is aspirational. Commitments need to be more concrete. Other aspects of the agreement are simply a rehash of existing policies. Many commitments are belated. I would be interested to hear why it has taken nine years for the Government to even consider drawing up a national strategy for family carers. However, aspects of the agreement, such as special pay increases for those on very low incomes and the belated decision to establish the office of the director of employment rights compliance with 90 labour inspectors and measures to address displacement of workers with cheaper labour, are welcome.

Some concern has been expressed that the social partnership process bypasses our democratic institutions. I share that concern. The commitments contained in the agreement are binding on succeeding Governments and because of this, it is important that the Dáil has a meaningful way of engaging with the partnership process and the finalising of agreements. That way is not, as the Tánaiste has suggested, through the Government.

The Green Party has consistently called for the establishment of a special Oireachtas committee to oversee and interact with the social partnership process. I repeat that call. My colleague, Deputy Boyle, our finance spokesperson, has stated that any Dáil debate on the agreement should be structured around a motion on whether the Dáil will agree or reject the agreement. With regard to the involvement of the State's democratic institutions, I am pleased to note that the agreement states, in a section on monitoring and reviewing arrangements, that "a meeting of all the parties to this ten-year framework agreement with the political process, chaired by the Taoiseach, will take place annually". I raised that issue on the Order of Business this morning. Will the Taoiseach elaborate on how this engagement with the political process will take place? I have yet to receive a formal invitation to such a process. I hope this is not an indication that the Government considers Opposition parties to be outside the political process.

Whether the social aspect and its life cycle approach and the other aspects of the agreement deliver for individuals is very much dependent on who is in Government until 2016. The Government has distinguished itself as a failed guardian of important aspects of previous agreements. For example, the commitment to provide 27,000 social housing units in the next three years, while welcome, will not be achieved if the parties opposite remain in Government. I also note that the commitment falls short of the National Economic and Social Forum recommendations. Moreover, I ask the Taoiseach to indicate clearly what his interpretation of "honouring" this commitment means, given his rather liberal interpretation of honouring previous commitments on social and affordable housing.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has observed that it is the meat in the sandwich that makes the difference. I was interested to read the speech of the Minister's party colleague and close ally, Senator Morrissey, in the Seanad on the issue. The Senator indicated that the agreement would not bind Progressive Democrats policy. I observe that the Taoiseach's partners in Government do not intend to take social partnership too seriously. I am sure this fact has been noted by putative parties to the agreement.

The successful implementation of the agreement depends on good Government and a sound economy. With this in mind, I have listened with interest to the Taoiseach's recent radio interview on the agreement. I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach has acknowledged that energy is a major driver of inflation. However, his insistence on producing an inflation figure with energy excluded is puzzling. It seems in no way relevant to the individual trying to feed his or her family or pay for medical treatment. Energy is the economy fundamentally. I hope this will spur the Government to adopt a more ambitious approach to energy policy.

Significantly, the Taoiseach appeared to convey the impression that he is complacent about the level of inflation which is approaching 4%. The Taoiseach also appears to be satisfied with house price inflation at 15%, even though one in five first-time buyers are being forced to take out 100% mortgages to buy houses that have an average price of more than €300,000. Judging by the way he has repeatedly talked up the housing market, he appears to want house prices to continue to rise rapidly.

The 27-month pay deal comes to 4.05% per annum. Inflation, excluding house price inflation, is at 3.9% and is likely to continue to rise as the Taoiseach has admitted. I put it to the Taoiseach that if he maintains his complacent attitude to inflation and continues to spur house price inflation with his public pronouncements, the value of the pay deal and other aspects of the agreement will be wiped out. In this context, it would be fair to include in the agreement some kind of safeguard which would allow changes in the pay deal if inflation reaches certain thresholds.

In its editorial on the social partnership agreement, The Irish Times observed that "there are economic storm clouds on the horizon". If the Taoiseach's policy and public statements continue to push inflation and personal debt, I fear it may be correct.

I welcome aspects of the agreement but I observe that it is only as good as a Government that implements it. Whether its provisions are delivered depend on the ability of Governments in office until 2016 to manage the economy in the face of domestic pressures, such as housing demand and inflation, international pressures such as rising energy costs and the Government's desire to have a trustful relationship with representative groups and with the people. Unfortunately, the Government is failing on each of these fronts.

See this speech in context