Dáil debates

Wednesday, 9 February 2005

Ceisteanna — Questions.

Social Partnership Agreement.

10:30 am

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach the measures which will be put in place at the expiration of the current Sustaining Progress partnership agreement to ensure that community and voluntary sector representation in this process will be strengthened and increased. [33287/04]

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33292/04]

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach when the next quarterly meeting of the social partners under the Sustaining Progress agreement will be held; the details of the likely agenda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34260/04]

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach his views on whether there should be another national agreement when the terms of Sustaining Progress expire; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34261/04]

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach when he will next meet with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34613/04]

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach when he will next meet the parties to the Sustaining Progress agreement; the priorities for the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1387/05]

Photo of Joe HigginsJoe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1469/05]

Photo of Joe HigginsJoe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 8: To ask the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1470/05]

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 9: To ask the Taoiseach the details of the likely agenda for his next meeting with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3560/05]

11:00 am

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 9, inclusive, together.

Social partnership has been of enormous benefit to Ireland both socially and economically. Since the programme for national recovery in 1987, the stability it provides has allowed for record levels of growth and enhanced social inclusion. In recent times of more moderate growth, the processes of social partnership have helped maintain competitiveness and a pro-jobs environment while enhancing a co-ordinated and comprehensive approach to inclusiveness issues. I assure the House that I am committed to the implementation of Sustaining Progress which is operative to the end of 2005 and to the development of further national agreements in future.

I attended a meeting of the social partners in Government Buildings on 13 December 2004, to mark the publication of two important reports, the second progress report on the implementation of the affordable housing initiative, by Mr. Des Geraghty, former president of SIPTU and the social trends report, Women and Men in Ireland, 2004 by the Central Statistics Office. Copies of both reports have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The next quarterly plenary meeting of the social partners is set to take place on 18 February. While the agenda remains to be finalised, a presentation by my Department on the EU Commission's response to the second Wim Kok report and to national inputs will be a key feature. Formal meetings such as these complement the meetings which I hold with representatives of the social partners on a regular basis. I will continue to meet with the social partners regularly and as required over the remainder of the lifetime of Sustaining Progress.

As Deputies will be aware, the membership of the community and voluntary pillar of social partnership was expanded following ratification of Sustaining Progress. The pillar now has 15 member organisations which have endorsed Sustaining Progress, six on an individual basis and nine organisations in the strands of older people, disability, housing, children, rural, local, voluntary and care. The membership of the pillar changed both as a result of the review of participation in social partnership, which included an examination of ways in which to maximise the potential contribution of the community and voluntary pillar, and the decision of two organisations not to accept Sustaining Progress.

In regard to the community and voluntary organisations which have not ratified Sustaining Progress, Departments were advised that they should continue to be consulted in areas in which their expertise or that of their constituent members would be relevant to the policy-making and implementation process. The organisations in question have, on occasion, been invited to participate on particular committees or working groups in light of their particular expertise. This is determined by the nature of the task or issue in question and is primarily a matter for each Department.

Any further applications for membership of the community and voluntary pillar will be considered in consultation with that pillar and in the context of future negotiations on a successor agreement.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach accept that the community and voluntary pillar is far from fully representative and that the change he mentioned, which took place at the end of the previous agreement, the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, resulted in the exclusion of significant actors from future deliberations in the social partnership process? These include the community platform, which consists of organisations such as the Community Workers Co-operative, the Irish Travellers Movement, and the National Women's Council, a significant actor in its own right. Is it Government policy to extend its punitive approach to the community and voluntary sector to the granting of funding to such bodies, as decisions made by other Departments appear to indicate? Will NGOs receive funding on the basis of whether they criticise Government policy?

To what extent are environmental NGOs adequately represented in the community and voluntary pillar, given that they do not appear to be represented at all? While the addition of groups representing older people and people with disabilities is welcome, what plans, if any, has the Government to ensure the community and voluntary pillar will be treated in exactly the same way as the other pillars when Sustaining Progress is, I hope, replaced by another agreement? If IBEC, ICTU or the IFA were to disagree with the eventual agreement, the organisation in question would not be excluded from future partnership talks.

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The community and voluntary pillar is larger now than it was but some groups are not involved. Some years ago, for example, the ICMSA did not approve the programme and left the process. On another occasion, the IFA pulled out for a period. In social partnership the people on the group are obviously the people who sign up for the agreement. If one does not sign up, one is automatically not part of it. One cannot have it both ways.

There is no linkage in funding. People make their funding applications to the Departments and there is no relationship to social partnership. As I stated, many of the groups which opted not to participate in social partnership continue to participate with Government, Departments and agencies in different working groups.

As regards the Deputy's question on the next programme, a review is held at the end of each programme with the individual pillar about new members and changing members. This will take place in the second half of this year. People who were not in the process previously may come back in again and this has happened in many areas. It is a matter for them and how they judge the report.

From a Government point of view, I like the process to be as inclusive as possible because it is far better from an administrative point of view to have one process than individual processes. That is a matter for the individual groups.

From dealing with the community and voluntary pillar, it is my view that it is far more representative and stronger this time than it has ever been because the groups have a broad range of people. I have not seen it as strong over the years as in Sustaining Progress.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Taoiseach answer my question on environmental NGOs?

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Again, on that issue the environmental groups have traditionally come in under sustainability issues. Deputy Sargent raised this issue before and, as I understand it, some of the groups are making or are about to make applications to come in in the next round.

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Taoiseach favour their applications?

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, I would rather the process to be inclusive because it makes it easier for the system in engaging with them.

Photo of Joe HigginsJoe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

An important element of Sustaining Progress is its commitments on transport, which have major implications for workers in terms of accessing work and their living conditions generally. When the Taoiseach was in Adamstown the day before yesterday disguised as a construction worker and giving commitments that the new town would have all the elements of transport infrastructure put in place——

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are dealing with Questions Nos. 1 to 9 on the Order Paper.

Photo of Joe HigginsJoe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy's question is not related to them.

Photo of Joe HigginsJoe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My questions relate to Sustaining Progress.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy's questions, Nos. 2 and 7, relate to——

Photo of Joe HigginsJoe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will bring the matter to a point quickly. I live in a town of 100,000 people, which has massive transport problems. A recent report indicated that reopening the old rail line to Dunboyne is a viable proposition. Will the Government invest in the line as part of Sustaining Progress?

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Specific questions should be directed to the Minister responsible.

Photo of Joe HigginsJoe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will do that but my question is put in the general context of the importance of transport in Sustaining Progress.

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sustaining Progress is not really about transport. On the general issue, I have to comply with the Act I introduced in 1989 on safety at work, which requires one to wear protective gear on sites. It is good practice to do so.

Photo of Joe HigginsJoe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach may have incinerated material on his forehead but he is not wearing sackcloth.

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My suit could be sackcloth.

Photo of Joe HigginsJoe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In that case, he is wearing expensive sackcloth.

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It does not look as good as the Deputy's suit.

Photo of Joe HigginsJoe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Appearances can be deceptive.

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At least the Deputy's tie, with its Dublin county colour, is the right colour. He is moving away from the Kerry people.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have gone well beyond Questions Nos. 1 to 9.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Higgins is all right.

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is. Generally, we examine any improvements we can make in the transport area, including the particular transport issue the Deputy mentioned, namely, the improvement of some of the line closed since 1961 in the area he mentioned. I understand the strategic rail review did not look at the whole line but a section from Clonsilla to Dunboyne. I believe it is supportive of opening it and the issue is being examined.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Social partnership seems to be drowning in cotton wool. Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the current social partnership structure is capable of dealing with our economic problems, given that it is a producer-led as distinct from a consumer-led forum?

The national action plan against racism made a specific recommendation that funding would be put in place for a system to prevent racist remarks and so forth during elections. How will this apply in the forthcoming by-elections which must be held at some point?

In respect of educational disadvantage, the number of young people who are not moving from primary to secondary education is increasing by approximately 1,000 per annum. How will social partnership be able to cater for this given the U-turn on the reduction in class sizes? Will the Government be able to meet its commitments in dealing with child poverty and early school leaving made in Sustaining Progress, given that zero progress has been made in coping with the number of early school leavers?

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Detailed questions are more appropriate to the line Minister.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Ceann Comhairle will agree, all three questions are relevant.

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In regard to consumers, Deputy Kenny has made this point before and I do not disagree with it. Social partnership is based around all the organisations. They do not have a particular consumer role but, as the Deputy knows, under Sustaining Progress and the last agreement, the social partners worked together collectively on inflationary issues and inflationary trends. Therefore, indirectly they help to try to keep the interests of their members, which are the interests of the consumers, to the fore. While they are not consumer organisations, they take a general interest in this.

On the racism programme, as I said yesterday, the national plan has been published. It provides strategic direction to combat racism and to develop a more inclusive intercultural society. That is set out in the plan. The strategic monitoring group has been established to oversee the implementation of the plan. Elections will also be covered so that there are no racism elements. As the Deputy will know, at the last election we all signed up to a code on this issue. That is now part of the plan and the chairperson of the implementation group will bring it forward. I presume the group will issue, where necessary, guidelines and practices which we must follow, although that is already happening in respect of elections. We signed up to a code at the last election but I do not know whether we need to sign up again because we signed it as political parties. However, we should put into practice what we have done.

On education, the Government continues to make progress on class size. However, I think Deputy Kenny knows that often the problem is not class size. In some inner city and poorer areas, the issue is not class size as they are quite low. For example, in my area of the inner city, class sizes are very low but that still does not prevent drop-outs. While child poverty has decreased and consistent poverty has dropped from somewhere in the region of 15% to 6%, recent reports show the areas we must target. All of the resources must be put into those areas.

The Minister for Education and Science has the figures but what is being done for those who drop out is good. Home liaison teachers work in conjunction with the school and visit families. They are addressing the underlying causes of why children drop out and are consulting the families. That is one of the best things. Children drop out of school but there is always a reason. The home liaison teachers are working very effectively and the families are being consulted.

There are other issues too — there is no point denying it. There are issues in respect of pre-school, after school and school meals. I saw surveys last year in regard to schools providing breakfast and how that got children to go to school. There are real problems in some areas. If there are family problems, they must be addressed.

I said to the Minister that is where we should target resources. Everyone cannot say he or she is disadvantaged, as tends to happen in the system. We must focus on the areas where there is real disadvantage. I accept there is real disadvantage, as has been shown in the recent National Economic and Social Council report and the report on living conditions. We must target resources.

The social partners should not ask us to have the same rules in all areas. If we are to make a real impact on areas with difficulties, we should not be asked to have the same guidelines in the poorest places, whether rural or urban, although they tend to be mainly urban. We must put the resources into these areas and should not say that if we do so in one area, we must do so in all areas. I do not think that is a sustainable argument.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In regard to Question No. 1 and the community pillar, I put it to the Taoiseach that it was a vindictive decision to excise the Community Workers Co-operative. What criteria did the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, use to deprive it of funding for the first time since 1993 and slice it out of the action? I have heard no explanation and it has arisen on Question Time.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is really a question for the line Minister.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It may be but, as the Ceann Comhairle knows, the line Minister does not answer in a language any of us understands. Question No. 1 is pretty clear in terms of community and voluntary sector representation. Why should an organisation, albeit occasionally critical of the Government, which has being doing such productive work in the anti-poverty area be cut off from funding for the first time since 1993?

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That does not arise. Even the first question refers specifically to representation and the Sustaining Progress partnership agreement. Funding is a matter entirely for the Minister.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This involves representation in the most practical and pragmatic sense. The Ceann Comhairle and I have had this discussion before. If he had his way he would not let us ask anything and would only let us read out the question.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not correct, and the Deputy knows it.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I take it back then — it is not correct.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The reality is that the Chair must live within Standing Orders, the same as everyone else.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You do Sir, and I know how repressive that can be. Will funding be reinstated to the CWC?

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Which organisation?

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Community Workers Co-operative.

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not know why funding was withdrawn, to be quite frank. As I said earlier to Deputy Boyle, there is no relationship between who is involved in the pillars and the Departments which provide grants. My Department makes no effort to stop funding. In fact, we continue to operate alongside organisations which pulled out and did not agree to Sustaining Progress in other fora and committees. The Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, and the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, have been reviewing community grants in many areas but the amount of money is increasing, not decreasing. I do not know why the Community Workers Co-operative did not get grants.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps the Taoiseach would be good enough to try to establish the answer. I do not say this lightly but it seems to have been a vindictive decision by the line Minister.

On the future of social partnership, is the Taoiseach concerned about the manner of decision making in some employments recently but, most disturbingly in the former State company, Irish Sugar, now Greencore? The Carlow factory was closed without any consultation, even that required by EU directive, with the trade unions or the representatives of the workers concerned. The Minister for Agriculture and Food is on record denying she discussed the issue with Greencore when she met it shortly before the closure. I am sure the Minister is telling the truth but it beggars belief that Greencore met the Minister for Agriculture and Food just before it was to announce the closure of the plant and did not tell her.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a question for the line Minister.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It goes to the heart of social partnership.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It may well but, under Standing Orders, it is still a question for the line Minister.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. The Taoiseach leads the talks on social partnership and these nine parliamentary questions relate to that in one fashion or another. Does the Taoiseach deplore the fact there was no consultation with the trade unions? He is as familiar with EU directives on communication, consultation and so on as I am.

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I certainly will not defend the position. The consultation process is clear. When companies are making strategic decisions — neither I nor Deputy Rabbitte is questioning their decisions, which they have right to make — they should follow the directive and normal good industrial relations practice. In fairness to the trade union movement in this country, it is not unreasonable in that it understands companies must make strategic decisions but they should consult it. The Minister informed me that the company did not raise the issue earlier in the autumn when dealing with the sugar quota issue. State companies, former State companies and other companies should enter into these discussions as early as possible because if that is not done, it leads to industrial relations difficulties. We should always try to follow best practice. I am sure I will find an appropriate time to say that directly to the company.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach agree this is a reasonable proposition? Will he ask the Minister to intervene on the basis that the IFA has requested that the plant be kept open for a year while we have time to discuss the issue of quotas and so on?

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Rabbitte's question should be addressed to the line Minister.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be helpful——

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate it would be helpful but the Deputy has other ways of raising his question.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——if the Taoiseach would indicate that this might be a reasonable route.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If I allow the Deputy to put this question to the Taoiseach, every Deputy will want to raise issues that are the responsibility of Ministers.

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to respond briefly to Deputy Rabbitte's question. The Minister met representatives of Greencore yesterday. She will also meet the IFA and will discuss the issue with an Oireachtas committee today.

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My question relates to the likely agenda for the next meeting with the social partners. It is in order to ask whether the Carlow sugar factory and the funding of the Community Workers Co-operative will be on that agenda. These are issues which are pertinent to the social partnership process.

A bugbear we have regularly raised in this House is the non-delivery of the promised 100,000 additional affordable houses. How do matters stand in this regard and will it be on the agenda in any developed form?

Given that next week, on 16 February, the Kyoto Protocol will come into effect, has it been explained to the social partners the degree to which the Government will be using taxpayers' money to compensate for not having taken sufficient action to address the requirements of it? What is the latest estimate in this regard? Figures of €35 million, €50 million and €200 million a year in terms of carbon credits have been mentioned. Have the social partners discussed this and are they taking into account that payment in the overall plans?

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Kyoto Protocol is not on the agenda for social partnership.

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understood it was.

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Deputy tables a question for the Minister he will receive the latest information on the issue, which was recently before the Cabinet.

Regarding the Carlow sugar factory, the Minister is dealing with a committee of the House today and will provide information on that matter.

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I take it the issue is not on the agenda.

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On affordable housing, the total potential yield of housing units under the affordable housing initiative is over 10,000. This is positive as it represents a greater figure than that originally set out. There is now an injection of extra State resources for the purpose of moving the scheme on as quickly as we can. Mr. Des Geraghty has issued his second report which has been helpful in this endeavour. The mortgage market has been opened up. Bank of Ireland has already made an announcement in this regard and other institutions will follow. This will help first-time buyers by minimising the amount of the deposit required, which was one of the difficulties.

Public investment in the affordable housing scheme will now be supported by legislation giving effect to a claw-back arrangement designed to prevent profiteering and facilitating direct sale. The issue now is to move ahead and get the houses built. The planning process for a number of developments has begun. Those at Finglas Road, Flemington in Balbriggan, Blessington, St. James's Road, Infirmary Road and Brickens are at an advanced stage in the procurement process and will start this year.

We are also considering the possibility of land swaps because an issue we are encountering is that a number of housing units are available in the private sector. Advertisements have been placed for the Harcourt Street site, which is the most advanced. The developer or builder will get that site in return for a specific number of completed houses, which will be assigned to designated people through the local authority system. I have been encouraging this imaginative approach which avoids the delay necessitated by the planning process and so on.

By this means, instead of undergoing a process which generally takes a number of years, we can obtain units that are already built. The land is then transferred to the builder in exchange and he or she then takes responsibility for the planning process in regard to private dwellings to be constructed on that land. In this way, the units go straight to the people. Proper procedures and rules must be adhered to, but it is the fast way of dealing with this.

Mr. Geraghty's third report will monitor the effectiveness of the delivery mechanism structure employed by the local authorities and the alternative fast-tracking strategies and communications strategies applied both centrally and within each local authority area. He is also engaged with the relevant bodies in regard to other direct costs incurred by affordable housing applicants, such as conveyance costs. The delivery of units through the planning and construction process takes time and may encounter difficulties. The contact group which is overseeing the initiative has been examining alternative strategies that can be used to expedite the delivery of units. I have mentioned one of these but other approaches are under consideration.

I understand all local authorities which have sites under this initiative are examining them to determine the feasibility of their use as land-swap options. I hope this will speed up the process as against undergoing the lengthy and sometimes painful ways of dealing with these issues.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the proposed increase in the national minimum wage form part of the Taoiseach's discussions with the social partners? What is his view on the recommendation of the Labour Court for an increase from €7 per hour to €7.65? Does he agree that for many on the minimum wage this increase is clearly inadequate in terms of what they must strive to cater to in today's——

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Detailed questions should be put to the line Minister.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My question relates to Sustaining Progress and whether this issue will be addressed by the Taoiseach. He can simply answer "yes" or "no" and give an opinion if he chooses.

Will the plight of immigrant workers be addressed in the Taoiseach's engagement with the social partners? We have all had representations on behalf of immigrant workers and are aware of the worker whose situation was highlighted on RTE last week. His case is but the tip of the iceberg. Will the Taoiseach put the issue of the plight of immigrant workers high on his agenda for those talks? Will he agree with employers and unions a new system whereby work permits are issued to the worker rather than the employer, thereby affording workers such as the man featured on RTE the opportunity of movement within their employment sector? This is an important measure.

Does the Taoiseach recognise that the exploitation of immigrant workers is absolutely objectionable in its own right and also undermines——

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy may address general questions to the Taoiseach but detailed questions should be put to the line Minister.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——the hard-won terms of Irish workers, achieved through many years of campaigning, struggling and great hardship?

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ó Caoláin is making a statement.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, I am asking the Taoiseach's opinion on the issues I have raised and will be grateful for his reply.

Finally, will the Taoiseach tell us the exact status of progress in regard to the package of 10,000 affordable houses, as agreed under Sustaining Progress? How many have been completed and how many, if any, are occupied? I know there are some but I hope the Taoiseach has some further statistics.

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some 500 affordable housing units have been completed and a further 1,500 completions will be achieved this year. The land is available, initiatives are under way and local authorities are working with the contact group and the implementation group. Des Geraghty's second report and the efforts of the entire system are focused on moving as quickly as possible, having identified the sites, whether they are land swaps or other initiatives. It is up and running and I hope it will be delivered as quickly as possible. I have mentioned the legislation to help the scheme and make the finances available.

On the minimum wage, as part of the process the Labour Court makes the call. We now have by far the highest minimum wage in Europe. We also have the lowest tax on low-paid workers anywhere. The combination of those factors significantly helps low-paid people and we need to stay in favour of those initiatives, which are good.

As regards immigrant workers, yesterday during Leaders' Questions I answered this question. It is an important issue. The social partners have addressed it and obviously will continue to do so if there are abuses. Labour law applies to everybody and everybody must be protected. Obviously, the potential for abuses exists. We have a high minimum wage in contrast to the average wage in other countries, even in EU member states. A recent newspaper report highlighted that our minimum wage is €7.50 or €7.60, whereas one country had an average wage of less than €3. It is possible to see the reasons why people will try to exploit these matters. I said yesterday and repeat today that I accept that our labour inspectorate must be very vigilant on these issues. With the social partners we must ensure abuses do not occur. People should not try to find scams to bring people here and then abuse them.

On the issue of permits, I am not certain where this matter lies at the moment. I understand from a briefing I got prior to Christmas that the issue of moving towards the individual holding the permit is fairly well advanced, which should address the issue. It also has the benefit of allowing people to change workplace and not be trapped, as has been the case for a long time, especially considering the danger associated with their being outside the country. This will be a significant move. While I am not sure whether this change requires legislation, it is certainly being examined.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I look forward to its early implementation.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What does the Taoiseach envisage as the future for Sustaining Progress and social partnership? In 1987 when the Programme for National Recovery was introduced its aims were fairly simple, namely industrial peace and job creation traded for tax reform and wages. It has now become a much-expanded series of documents. For instance one of the key principles, referred to in an article in The Irish Times this week, precludes:

strikes or other forms of industrial action by trade unions, employees or employers in respect of any matters covered by this agreement, where the employer or trade union concerned is acting in accordance with the provisions of this agreement.

Another key principle was as follows:

It is accepted that the rapid pace of change in the business environment demands ongoing adaptation and the parties are committed to full co-operation with normal ongoing change and the need for continued adaptation and flexibility.

This year we have had a series of threatened strikes, which would lead to the disruption of power supplies, postal services and air transport. It seems those issues would have been covered under the social agreement. Minimum wages, pay increases and ESOTs have all come about as a consequence of social partnership. Everybody across the political spectrum accepts these have been very beneficial in the national interest. When will the next round start? Where does the Taoiseach see this process heading? When matters such as social housing and others are included in the social partnership agreements, does it not mean the documents pertaining to the agreements can often become so convoluted and woolly that they become meaningless? How will it evolve in the future?

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is right. The first agreement was fairly simple as it tried to recover the country from seven years of negative growth, control the finances and have low pay agreements in return for reducing taxes and trying to stabilise the economy. Every agreement in the 18 years has been different in nature and each time we look at new challenges. This year a broad range of issues was covered under the special initiatives, including tackling education disadvantage, tackling child poverty, looking at issues on the social agenda, migration, interculturalism and trying to deal with waste and housing issues. All these issues became special initiatives under social partnership, in which the social partners could have a view, make an input and influence change.

Of course, social partnership does not eliminate industrial issues. All companies need to undergo a process of change. Managements are looking for new flexibility and new ways of doing things. Technology moves on apace. These all bring their own friction. In organisations like An Post, where the figures are unfavourable, these issues need to be addressed. At least social partnership gives a process for dealing with these issues. The benefit is that the country loses very few days due to strikes. The past few years have been very good in terms of industrial unrest and disputes. While they happen, at least in many cases they are resolved.

New challenges lie in the future. Obviously there are issues relating to competition, infrastructure and higher educational standards, in addition to issues relating to pay, sustainability of employment, continuing to generate new employment and, in particular, holding on to what we have, which is almost full employment. These issues are hugely important. When we can, we look at what we can do on taxation, welfare and health, as we did in the budget for 2005, while taking into account the issues for workers. All these matters are included and I have no doubt new issues will arise in the discussions.

In terms of timing, as always, the Minister for Finance and I will take the lead in these discussions later in the year. In the second half of the year we will put our minds to considering the basis for social partnership. Obviously, we will also deal with the issues relating small employers, farmers and major employers. All these issues will need to be taken into the mix.