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

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach if a date has been set for the commencement of the next round of the social partnership negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30013/05]

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

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the current state of the social partnership process and his role therein; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31431/05]

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

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach the developments in terms of talks on a successor to the Sustaining Progress agreement; when he will meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31433/05]

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

Question 8: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent correspondence with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31435/05]

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

Question 9: To ask the Taoiseach his views on the implications for social partnership of the decision of SIPTU and ICTU to defer decisions on whether to enter talks on a possible new agreement due to concerns regarding the Irish Ferries dispute and other cases involving exploitation of workers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31495/05]

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

Question 10: To ask the Taoiseach if he has received a response to the letter he sent to ICTU on measures he is proposing to protect employment standards; the measures he proposed in the letter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31496/05]

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 11: To ask the Taoiseach the steps he intends to take to solve the impasse regarding the next round of social partnership talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31635/05]

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 12: To ask the Taoiseach the Government strategy regarding future pay talks; the timescale regarding the conclusion of those talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31861/05]

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 13: To ask the Taoiseach the role he is taking regarding the proposed withdrawal from social partnership by SIPTU and other trade unions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31593/05]

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

Question 14: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the social partners. [32466/05]

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 15: To ask the Taoiseach his views on whether a new social partnership agreement can be reached; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37872/05]

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 16: To ask the Taoiseach his assessment of the implications for talks on a new social partnership agreement of recent developments in the Irish Ferries dispute; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37877/05]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 16, inclusive, together.

As I previously informed the House, in late September I invited the social partners to participate in talks on a successor agreement to Sustaining Progress. I confirmed that the Government would enter the talks on the basis of our programme for Government and within the framework of the forthcoming NESC three-year strategic economic and social overview. As Deputies will be aware, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions raised a number of concerns in advance of taking any decision about entering talks. These concerns, which have surfaced in the context of specific industrial relations difficulties in recent weeks in Irish Ferries, relate to employment standards and the displacement of existing workers. I am pleased the parties involved in the Irish Ferries dispute have agreed to engage with the Labour Relations Commission along the lines recommended by the national implementation body in its statement of Sunday evening last. I hope that the intensive discussions under way will provide a basis for resolution of the particularly complex problems arising in this case.

Apart from the circumstances surrounding any individual dispute, we still face difficult challenges as a society and an economy in dealing with employment standards in a global market. In this context, I wrote to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 21 October to communicate directly the Government's intention to engage fully and effectively in the process of devising policies and measures which would protect employment standards and prevent a so-called race to the bottom.

I view with great concern the potential social and economic implications of the displacement of workers on established conditions to be replaced in the same jobs by workers on much poorer conditions. This Government wants to see greater productivity and enhanced competitiveness based on new products and services, upskilling of staff, new work practices and technological innovation. We do not want to see people building competitive advantage based on poor wages, casualisation of labour, low health and safety standards or other poor compliance practices. This would be the wrong way to go and is unsustainable.

There has been ongoing contact with the ICTU at official level on the broad range of issues comprehended by the general term "employment standards". Naturally, I strongly support the recommendation of the national implementation body that negotiations on a new partnership agreement should commence as soon as possible. I hope that the ICTU and all the social partners will be in a position to enter into talks about a successor agreement. As yet, no date has been agreed for a formal meeting of the social partners on this issue.

While the issues raised by the Irish Ferries case are difficult, the solutions to the problems we face as an economy and a society are best found within the context of a new social partnership agreement. Only partnership offers us the degrees of stability, engagement and trust that are needed if we are to continue to modernise and improve the quality of life for citizens in a fair and sustainable way. I find it hard to imagine that any other approach would produce the sort of interlocking policy responses that will be needed to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

Since 1987, social partnership has been a process which has delivered stability and confidence for all sectors of the community, especially investors. It has created and sustained the conditions for remarkable employment growth, fiscal stability, restructuring of the economy to respond to new challenges and opportunities, a dramatic improvement in real living standards through both lower taxation and lower inflation, and a culture of dialogue which has served the social partners and, more importantly, the people very well.

I hope there will be an acceptance on all sides that the Government is willing to work with the social partners to address issues of concern such that everybody involved can recommit themselves to the partnership process. I hope this will bring about an early commencement of negotiations on a new agreement.

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

I share the Taoiseach's view and I hope the intensive discussions taking place will lead to this difficult matter being resolved. It is fair to say that the partnership process over the past 15 years has been fundamentally important to economic and employment stability in Ireland which has led in great part to the strength of the economy. Obviously the economy faces a different set of challenges in the years ahead given the growth of China, India and the new EU countries, the emergence of different technologies, competitiveness pressures in manufacturing and so on.

The Taoiseach said some time ago when the Irish Ferries dispute began to get difficult that there was nothing further the Government could do. Arising from that statement, were some of the actions by Irish Ferries taken as a result of the Taoiseach indicating that the Government could not do any more? Was that a tactical mistake, given that the intervention of the national implementation body has demonstrated that more could have been done and that more can be done? I hope it works out. What is the Taoiseach's view on the damage done to the social partnership structure by this type of activity? Has it made it more fragile and susceptible to damage? During the next 12 to 15 months, does he see the partnership process reducing itself to the areas of real concern to the social partners or expanding its remit to, as he stated here one day, whatever one is having oneself? How does he see the new partnership structure as the economy and the country face the challenges of the times ahead?

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

I welcome Deputy Kenny's words on the current discussions. I appreciate the work done by the national implementation body over the weekend. The president of ICTU, the general secretary of IBEC and the Secretary General of my Department worked extremely hard to find a basis on which to deal with an extremely difficult issue. Their terms were to try to put the Labour Relations Commission back into a position on which it could build. We know how difficult it is from the discussions that took place yesterday and today. I hope all sides will try to work around these well-worked out and ongoing issues. It is approximately one year since we dealt with the Normandy when these issues also arose, so they are not new. It is also extremely difficult to do much about some of the issues if people want to move outside and re-flag, as happened with the Normandy. Discussions are ongoing and I do not want to say anything other than to be supportive and helpful. I will return to the question on the ongoing process shortly.

Irish Ferries is part of IBEC. At the end of September I started the process to negotiate a successor agreement, which we hoped to finish by Christmas. On the Monday of that week Irish Ferries made its statement. I answered Deputy Rabbitte's questions on the Wednesday of that week. It certainly did not help and has not helped the process since. It created a great deal of difficulty and tension.

Related issues on improving our mechanisms arose with regard to Gama and that debate had long commenced, as the Irish Congress of Trade Unions raised such issues a year ago regarding construction and the CIF. I was in the process of giving clarification, and subsequently did so in meetings during October. Discussions on improving the legislative base were already taking place in Departments.

Deputy Kenny asked if my words helped or hindered. As I stated outside the House, to put it in context I was asked at the launch of the new labour trust what more could I do to implement the Labour Court recommendations. Any examination of my words shows they were based on the fact that the Labour Court was involved and I could not do any more on that. I had already answered in the House that day or the previous day that I did believe we should raise the issue in Europe again. I was asked in the House if I would raise it again with the European Transport Council, which I did.

On the question of whether I knew the action would take place that night, I want to make clear that I did. I was told by trade unionists that the action would take place that night. I was told heavies were going to be used. I knew this when I made those comments and I thought the action would take place at 10 o'clock but it happened the following morning. I was correctly and fully briefed by trade union sources on this.

Looking at that event in isolation one could say a group of heavies was gathered overnight but this was not the case. I was aware of what was to happen. My words were intended to be helpful and the matter was worked out. Someone suggested I should name the trade union source but I have no intention of doing so. I was well informed by the source, who was totally correct, on the Monday.

Regarding the damage to the social partnership process, all social partners realise it is the best way to resolve issues now and into the dim and distant future. There have been many difficult issues concerning social partnership and I have been central to most of them in one way or another. Social partnership is always capable of trying to find a way forward and to build and strengthen our economy. The only way of damaging this is to go backwards, or affect our investments, protect our market or do something else in a way that gives a bad image to the country. Social partnership is the right way to deal with these issues but there is not always a resolution. Sometimes issues can be so intractable a stand-off ensues and the matter cannot be resolved fully. Most of the time social partnership does resolve issues. Lost days and trade union figures prove this.

Maritime issues are fundamentally different in every country but concern exists. I have talked to many people over the past months about this. We all know competitiveness, productivity and investment are important. Together, these elements drive our economy successfully. Sometimes people take the view that the way to be a great manager is to reduce staff numbers, get more out of existing staff and improve bottom line figures.

We have a high minimum wage, which is by and large not taxable, and it is very attractive. People come here and wonder how we can run the country. For example, most of the Croatian workforce, even those in senior positions, would not receive the Irish minimum wage. Bright managers can take the view that they should outsource work to contract positions, bringing in new people and getting rid of existing staff, and that this leads to higher profitability and is sustainable. This is a disaster and it is the last thing we need to do. We must be careful of this and it is what the Irish Ferries dispute is about.

We provide much good employment in this country. Over the past few years between 140,000 and 150,000 people have come into this country from the new enlargement countries. They benefit from our minimum wage, our health and safety practices and our good conditions. We look after them very well and while there have been a few incidents most situations are perfect. We must appoint extra inspectors to protect them. We do not want a situation where people seek to get workers out and find another way of getting staff. That is the issue and we can protect in social partnership. I have given a commitment a long time ago that we would try to deal with this.

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

Does the Taoiseach agree the prospect of a successor to the Sustaining Progress agreement will be bleak if the management at Irish Ferries is allowed get away with its acts of piracy against its workforce? Given the overwhelming support for the Irish Ferries workers and the significant rejection of the management of Irish Ferries, what further steps can the Taoiseach take to impress on that management that it should not proceed with its plans for re-registration and re-flagging of its ships? Will the Taoiseach accept that such a step on the part of the management is absolutely essential if we are to have a resolution to the current difficulties?

Given the strategic nature of the role played by Irish Ferries in terms of trade and commerce and our dependence on the sea for the importation and exportation of essential goods, would now be an appropriate time for the Government to consider a buy-out of Irish Ferries, to ensure that it is in State control and that we can guarantee the uninterrupted continuation of the essential supports that this economy requires as an exporting country?

Will the Taoiseach avail of the opportunity this afternoon, on his own behalf and that of the Government, to join the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in urging full support for its call for a mass mobilisation of support this Friday on the streets of Dublin? The call the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has made is being answered and prepared for by people from every walk of life throughout this State and island. Will the Taoiseach and his Government recognise the fundamental importance of the role of Government and congress in terms of social partnership, support the appeal from ICTU and give a rounded endorsement to its call for maximum support for Friday's demonstration, if all other efforts in the meantime have not overcome the current difficulties imposed by the management of Irish Ferries?

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

The Deputy has asked a large number of questions, which I will try to answer. The national implementation body — just to focus on the latest recommendation and not go back over the Labour Court and earlier recommendations of the Labour Relations Commission — made recommendations on four main issues. It said that Irish Ferries should suspend its application to re-register its vessels on the register of Cyprus. Second, it said that the efforts to arrive at an agreement regarding the terms and conditions of employees who wish to remain in the employment of Irish Ferries should continue and be brought to a conclusion by Wednesday, 7 December. Third, the NIB stated that the terms and conditions of employees who are recruited to work on Irish Ferries vessels in the future should reflect, inter alia, Irish minimum wage arrangements, in the context of the unique nature of the contracts of employment which typically operate in the maritime sector and the competitive pressures faced by the company. Finally, the NIB stated that in the event that the outcome of this process was that these vessels were not maintained on the Irish register, the terms of any agreement with regard to existing employees and the standards which would apply to employees recruited to work on the vessels in the future should be reflected in an agreement of binding character, which should not be updated or set aside by any subsequent change in the country of registration. These are the issues set out by the national implementation body.

The meaning of the recommendations, to answer the Deputy's second question, is that the unions and management are urged to engage fully with the Labour Relations Commission, without prejudice to their respective positions, as stated up to now. The NIB has suggested that the parties should explore a solution on the basis that the re-flagging proposal would be suspended for the moment, that some ring-fenced arrangements would be put in place for those staff who wish to stay on and that some mechanism might be found that would extend minimum standards of employment to new recruits on the Irish Ferries ships, including minimum wage arrangements. The precise manner in which this could be achieved was a matter to be discussed. A contractual arrangement is envisaged that would be binding on Irish Ferries even in the event of the company pressing ahead with reflagging its ships in another country, in this case Cyprus. The precise nature of this contractual arrangement would be a matter for discussion by the parties concerned. Having been involved in and kept abreast of discussions in recent days I support fully those initiatives.

There is a right to reflag under European laws of re-establishment but the mere entry of a vessel on a foreign register is not in itself sufficient to constitute the exercise of that right. Irish Ferries must therefore satisfy a Minister of a bona fide exercise of that right in accordance with its requirements. The Minister is not obliged to deregister a vessel unless there is a valid and bona fide exercise of that right.

I am aware that ICTU has arranged a march for Friday, 9 December at 1.30 p.m. in Dublin and at eight other locations, and that a meeting will be held about that this evening. I understand the frustrations about the issue, but Friday is a working day.

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

Will the Taoiseach be there?

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

I call Deputy Sargent and Deputy Rabbitte, to be followed by a final reply from the Taoiseach.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is disgraceful.

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

I will be brief so that others may ask questions. If the Government had adopted the draft EU directive on seafarers' rights it might have averted the Irish Ferries fiasco. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, said on television last night the Government was reviewing its position on that.

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

Will the Deputy confine himself to questions?

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

I will. What is the Taoiseach's position on that? Will the directive be used to ensure that the rights of workers are protected and to show Irish Ferries that the Government will not lie down and roll over? Will the Taoiseach answer that briefly?

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

The Taoiseach remarked on how surprised people were in Croatia at the level of the national minimum wage here. The Taoiseach will agree that the Irish would be surprised at the price of a bale of briquettes, a bag of coal or a loaf of bread in Croatia. Does the Taoiseach agree that his position on the services directive is central to the process of social partnership and new talks thereon, and needs to be made clear? Unless we repudiate the country of origin principle, airplane-loads of Croatians and Poles will come here to work under conditions applicable in their country of origin. No matter how diligently I search I cannot find out the position of the Government on that and I ask the Taoiseach to outline it.

Does the Taoiseach believe that the commitment given by the Government at the outset of Sustaining Progress that 80% of Irish workers would pay tax at not more than the standard rate is an impediment to a new social contract? Between 66% and 67% of people pay tax at the standard rate, at a huge cost to Irish workers. Does the Taoiseach believe the failure to index the tax bands is the biggest stealth tax of all?

There was a specific commitment in Sustaining Progress to build a net additional 10,000 houses, but at the end of the programme the houses are not built.

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

Will the Deputy ask a question?

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

Will the Taoiseach comment on that?

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

I will answer Deputy Sargent's question first. When the draft directive was first presented, virtually no country supported it.

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

The Parliament voted in favour of it in 1999.

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

The Commission withdrew it with practically no support.

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

It was approved by the Parliament.

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

The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, has advocated the Commission presenting it again in a different form to address the issues where there was fundamental disagreement on the part of several countries because there was no hope of success.

On Deputy Rabbitte's point on the service directive, I worked last year, particularly with the French, to ensure that the directive as it was at that time did not secure agreement at the European Council. We sent it back for significant changes. It has been in Parliament since with 1,000 amendments. In my letter of 21 October I made clear our opposition to aspects of it. If people could contract people and forward them to a country, it would create horrendous difficulties and I am against that. I made it clear that we were prepared to change. It would probably involve changing some of our legislation but we would engage with that.

We promised that we would work to establish a serious housing initiative involving State lands and engage with the ICTU on the issue, not that they were all to be completed. We have completed 250,000 houses in that period but we wanted to help with affordability of houses in particular. That is working quite well because a large number of houses is entering that end of the market. Through the State lands we have honoured our commitments. I have spoken previously about fast-tracking the process. What was the other question Deputy Rabbitte asked?

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

The final question I asked was about 80% of people paying tax at the standard rate.

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

That was asked about during Leaders' Questions recently. We have made huge headway in taking the minimum wage out of the tax net. That is an expensive approach because when it is done to the minimum wage, it applies to everyone across the band. If it could be directed at the top level, it would be possible to do much more.

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

That does not affect the issue I have raised, the commitment that more than 80% would pay tax at the standard rate.

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

We have not reached 80% but we have made huge strides.

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

The number has fallen back.

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

We have higher salaries and attractive tax rates. While we have not got every figure exactly, I do not think we have too much to apologise for. We are committed to trying to get to 80%.

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

It was 73% three years ago and now it is 67%.

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

Deputy Rabbitte should allow the Taoiseach to conclude.

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

People on the minimum wage when it was half of what it is today were paying tax.

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

That is not the point. The Taoiseach is turning mathematics on its head — 80% is 80% of the total.

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

That was not an equitable system.

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

It is impossible to live on the minimum wage.

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

We must now move on to questions to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

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

What about my question?

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

There were other Deputies I would have had to call before Deputy Joe Higgins and it would not have been possible to reach him even if we had carried on for another ten minutes. There are, however, four questions in the first ten to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment that touch on the same subject, some of them directly.