Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I would like to ask the Taoiseach about the considerable spinning going on following the talks with the social partners. The Taoiseach stated that most of the commitments have been honoured. However, David Begg, secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, was remarkably apologetic on radio as he explained how the inflation rate had overtaken pay increases. This leads one to reflect on what he has received over on the social side by way of compensation. When one goes back to the text of the agreement one finds, in respect of affordable housing, a complete failure to deliver. Pursuing the spirit of what has been agreed and regarded as a success, I recall that in those days it was described as having two fundamental principles, cohesion and competitiveness. The economy was to be competitive in an international trading environment. One must have cohesion with a reduction in gaps in incomes, gaps in services, gaps in access to education and access to services for the elderly. Suddenly cohesion is missing from all the scripts and we are supposed to be entering bad times when we are to receive lectures on competitiveness. In order to be positive on the day that is in it, if it is acknowledged that inflation has surpassed some of the basic increases, where then are the non-wage gains for the social partners? Did the Taoiseach discuss these at the meetings? For example, the Taoiseach discussed with me over the past year or two something which is very basic, the abuse by the Competition Authority of its role in such a fashion as would undermine the trade union Acts. The Taoiseach suggested that maybe he would legislate in this area and deal with it or he would deal with it when the social partnership talks were taking place. Has he dealt with that basic issue, for example, the right of collective representation, which is still outstanding?

He then moved on to the question about housing. Let us be positive and say that the contraction in the construction industry in the private speculative sector releases a significant number of labour skills that are available for the public housing programme. What do the social partners ask of the Taoiseach and what did he offer in terms of an expanded public programme, be it in terms of social housing or affordable housing? Reflecting on the new Green influence, that is no doubt present every Tuesday in the Cabinet, did the Taoiseach decide to shift resources from roads to rail? Where is the enhanced public transport programme and was it discussed by the social partners and did it interest them?

Perhaps if there were not going to be any real wage increases, did the social partners remember the document on child care they produced at the beginning of the talks the last time which showed the comparison between the absence of child care provisions in Ireland compared to European provisions?

This is a whole set of issues. The idea is that we are at the end of a period of significant success and we must now make sure we discuss only competitiveness. We derived from the European objective in the Lisbon accord the twin aims of cohesion and competitiveness, cohesion in terms of narrowing all the gaps and achieving inclusiveness. Competitiveness is necessary because we must trade internationally.

In times when the Taoiseach is not offering material on the wage side, what is he offering on the non-wage side? What is he offering on working time, on increased protection and all the other areas I mentioned such as child care, the difference between the actual net wage and the social wage, and so forth? Is it that the social partners came to the meeting with the Taoiseach and said they acknowledged they did not get what was promised to them but they were willing to say a prayer together for the future? Where is it and what is on offer by way of compensation for the non-delivery? What is on offer by way of balancing the demands being made for competitiveness? I am not interested in this spinning of information. One could re-read the tax statistics and say the fact that so many people are out of the tax net is because we are well on our way to a low wage economy.

See this speech in context