I said yesterday what I wanted to say on this terrible business and will come back to it when the Government's legislative proposals are ready.

I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the Government's response to the breakdown of talks for a new social contract and ask him to respond to the decision of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions not to enter into talks at this time, thus making the prospect of a new social contract less likely. Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that this reveals the concerns that exist, quite widely, about the operation of social partnership, the handling of the dispute at An Post and the manner in which the necessary modernisation there is being driven, the manner in which the pensioners are being blackmailed as a factor in driving the programme of reform and the decision of Irish Ferries to dismiss its entire workforce and to employ people at reportedly less than half the national minimum wage? The Taoiseach will recall that on the day the Dáil started this term I raised this issue with him and he denounced the practices being operated by Irish Ferries. Yet it is the issue of displacement, more than any other, and its implications throughout the economy that has caused the breakdown of the talks. Whereas the Taoiseach roundly condemned Irish Ferries that day he has not, nor have any of his Ministers, since said what he intends to do about it. His letter to the leader of SIPTU has completely failed to address the issue. The Taoiseach could do a number of things. For example, the Labour Party has prepared a Bill which seeks to build on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It addresses the question of whether a link exists between a flagship and the state in which it is registered and enables the Minister to prohibit a vessel being registered in a state to which no connection exists.

The Deputy's time has concluded.

If the Taoiseach meant what he said about disapproving so vehemently of the practices Irish Ferries engaged in, why does he not take on board such a measure, which would enable the Minister to prevent a ship being registered in any country that can be thought of off the top of one's head with no connection of any kind between that state and the origins of the vessel? If the issue of displacement is not addressed with the consequent knock-on effect it could have in other areas of the economy, it is highly unlikely a new social contract would be agreed with all the implications that would have.

I note the decision of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions not to accept the invitation to enter talks on an agreement to succeed Sustaining Progress. I note the intention as proposed by SIPTU that clarification should be sought on what was envisaged in my letter to the president of ICTU. It did not, as Deputy Rabbitte said, reject that letter. It wanted clarification on issues of protection of employment standards.

I dealt with the issue of An Post yesterday. There is a Labour Court decision on the matter and there are talks. The Minister has been directly engaged with the unions over a long and sustained period right up to late last week in an effort to try to resolve these issues.

Deputy Rabbitte is correct that the issue of Irish Ferries has created this difficulty. The company has made its decision. I have said what I have said and there is no need to say it again. I have said it many times since. I have said it to SIPTU members and ICTU members as late as last Thursday night and at several meetings, so they are very familiar with my views.

Words are cheap. The Government should introduce legislation to address the issue.

We must not forget the pensions.

I have repeated it many times outside the House. The leaders of SIPTU have met the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and discussed at length the issues of the legislation. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has also given his best assessment on it. We have also agreed with ICTU and SIPTU to exchange our legal situations on the matter to see precisely what we can do. For the record, at this stage I am advised it would be extremely difficult to deal with the issue of re-flagging in both Irish law and international law. That has been the advice. I wish there was an easy solution to this issue, but there does not seem to be. It does not seem to be permissible to change it, but the Attorney General is closely examining the matter and he has also looked at international law to see what we can do on it. I will exchange any of those facts with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to try to resolve this issue.

An argument has been made over which I am deeply concerned. I have spoken to the senior management of Irish Ferries. I met the chairman and the chief executive. What I said here and much more I said directly across the table to them. Irish Ferries would argue, as would many others on the employers' side, that it is a totally exceptional issue. There are grave dangers for social development in the country if we are to create a situation that employers can get rid of Irish workers who are doing a good job and buy them out whether it is at large levels of remuneration or redundancy or otherwise and replace them with people from eastern Europe or elsewhere at low cost.

The Government financed it in the case of the MV Normandy.

There are all kinds of arguments around that. Irish Ferries maintains it is not bringing in people on low wages. Its existing non-Irish staff are on quite large salaries; they are not paid below the minimum wage. The company has shown me the evidence and I must be fair in these matters. However, it is creating a difficulty and we are doing our best to resolve it.

I agree with the Taoiseach that it is appalling. However, what I and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are asking is what he will do about it other than condemning it. He allowed a precedent to be created in the case of the MV Normandy. Our money was paid to make the workers redundant while cheap labour was employed by the company. Is it any wonder it would then try to do the same on the central corridor?

That is right and it was stated at the meeting.

In the absence of any political will to do anything, the Taoiseach can easily get legal advice suggesting it might not be possible for one reason or another. We have prepared a Bill that would address the question of the link between the flagship and the state of registration. Will the Taoiseach give the Bill consideration? Does the Taoiseach not appreciate that the matter is wider than this issue? For example, compliance with minimum standards by contractors brought in here——

The Deputy should conclude.

The Government sought to bring in contractors and minimum standards were not observed. If Dublin City Council can have an arrangement with contractors that requires compliance with minimum standards why can this not be applied in the rest of the economy? Instead, the Tánaiste went to Turkey and brought in a company that abused Turkish workers and the Government made a special arrangement with it not to pay any PRSI while they were here. Does the Taoiseach not appreciate that this matter goes wider than the issue of Irish Ferries as the Taoiseach claims? The unions concerned are concerned about non-invigilation of the construction industry where widespread abuse of workers' rights goes on. This is a far wider canvas than the Taoiseach seems to want to admit. With due respect to its craftsmanship, the Taoiseach's letter goes nowhere towards resolving the impasse that has been reached.

I dealt directly with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and SIPTU so I know what the concerns were. I will not listen to the Deputy telling me——

I have dealt with them also and that is not what they have told me.

They told me the issues. The Labour Party was one of the parties in this House that advocated going outside the country to bring in construction companies and was very strong in its support for that.

We said they should comply with the standards here.

The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

Of course any company operating in this country should comply with the law. I also readily admit that the culture in the country now is different from that in the past. Ireland was a country of emigration and high unemployment, and we did not have foreigners working here. It is now a different economy. There is a strong argument for improving the legislation we have. We have already given that commitment to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and to SIPTU. As late as last Thursday morning the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, gave that undertaking to SIPTU. The wider issues have been addressed in discussions. A commitment was given that SIPTU and ICTU would be able to have an input and give their views on that legislation.

Deputy Rabbitte has asked me whether I would look at his party's Bill and I would. The Deputy knows I cannot introduce legislation when I have advice that it would be unconstitutional. I cannot do that. I want to resolve this issue. The question is what we can do on the flagging issue.

What is the constitutional point?

Bunreacht na hÉireann was passed in 1937.

The Taoiseach should be allowed to speak without interruption.

The advice I have received is that we would not be able to legislate on flagships, as it would be contrary to matters that are set out in Bunreacht na hÉireann.

The Taoiseach is suggesting that slavery is endorsed by the Constitution.

I remind Deputy Joe Higgins that Deputy Rabbitte is well able to deal with his own leaders' questions. The Deputy had his opportunity yesterday.

In reply to Deputy Rabbitte, I will look at the Labour Party Bill and I will continue to engage with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on the legal advice. It asked me to share the legal advice and I stated I would.