For weeks, I and others have been raising questions with the Taoiseach about his Government's preparedness to handle the escalating industrial unrest in the public sector. It took a last-minute breakthrough at the Labour Court a week ago to prevent the first all-out strike by An Garda Síochána in our nation's history. The cost of the deal that was done to keep An Garda Síochána on the beat will amount to much more than the €40 million or €50 million the Government has priced it at so far. Disruption of more than 500 secondary schools has, thankfully, been temporarily averted but there is still no clear line of sight to the end of that dispute. Day after day, matters get worse. On Tuesday, it was revealed that junior doctors will ballot over industrial action if they fail to secure the return of their accommodation allowance. Yesterday, the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, INMO, became the latest union to announce that it was proceeding to ballot on industrial action.

For weeks, I have tried to put the case for mechanisms to avert ongoing industrial unrest but the Taoiseach has resisted any initiative to put the Government ahead of the curve and to maintain the very precious industrial peace in the public sector that we have enjoyed over recent years. Repeating the mantra that the Lansdowne Road agreement is the only show in town is no longer tenable. A queue of public sector union leaders - the people who negotiated this agreement - say publicly that the terms of the agreement have been breached. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform announced yesterday that the Government had reiterated its commitment to a collective approach to industrial relations and pay policy. As the Taoiseach knows, that is quite different to sticking to the Lansdowne Road agreement. The language used by Government was opaque. I want the Taoiseach to spell it out now. Am I right in saying that the Government has finally accepted that there is a need for a successor agreement to the Lansdowne Road agreement to be negotiated now - much earlier than the date indicated so far - so that public servants can have a clear path to pay restoration?

If so, will the Taoiseach also adopt the other suggestion I have been pushing for some time now, namely, to create a discussion that is broader than pay to make sure that public servants are involved in conversations about the investment that is needed in public services because I know that gardaí, nurses, teachers, doctors and public servants of all hues want to ensure that their services are maintained and enhanced as well as their own pay? It is already very late in the day for the Government to be proactive and forward thinking on the crucial issue of public service pay but it is not too late. Will the Taoiseach act now to prevent a free-for-all?

Deputy Howlin seems to have reversed some engines himself on this matter but that is a point of view. He and I had discussions previously when he was in a different position about holding lines very clearly. In fairness to him, I have often said that he stood his ground very fast and clear. I welcome the fact the ASTI is now in discussions and I hope that those discussions will lead to an end to some of the industrial disputes it has in respect of supervision and substitution and the money on the table for new entrant teachers. I am glad the INMO has stated very clearly that it supports the Lansdowne Road agreement.

Deputy Howlin asked me a direct question about whether I accept that there is a need for a successor to the Lansdowne Road agreement. The answer to that question is "yes". Do I say that it should take place now? The Public Service Pay Commission needs to be able to start its work. That is representative of a very broad range of exceptionally qualified people and they are entitled to look at the broader question raised by Deputy Howlin if they so wish. This question concerns having work conducted in respect of pay, conditions and broader issues relating to any of the sectors that are in there. We remain fully committed to the Lansdowne Road agreement and I have said this very clearly but we also need a successor to it. The fact that the Public Service Pay Commission has already started its work is an important element here. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform does not have endless resources, no more than Deputy Howlin had.

We are not concerned only about the public sector and public services which people work very hard to provide; we have 3 million of the population, many of whom are self-employed and involved in small businesses. Jobs were lost by the hundreds and thousands in the time of recession. We need to strike a balance and have continued prudent management of the economy in order that we will move ahead as a country at a time when there are obviously complexities with Brexit and other issues internationally because of the economic climate. We support taking a collective approach to dealing with this matter. I greatly value the work that will take place with the public pay commission. I recognise that there has to be a successor to the Lansdowne Road agreement and obviously would like the Labour Court's proposal to be reflected and voted on by the GRA and the AGSI in due course. The Government will, of course, have to take all of these things into account.

I think the Taoiseach will acknowledge that the Haddington Road agreement was negotiated in the worst of times and the Lansdowne Road agreement in better times as the economy improved. However, the commitment to the public sector unions was always that as the economy improved the legislation which had formed basis on which public sector pay had been cut - the FEMPI legislation - would have to be repealed, but it needs to be done in an orderly way. Does the Taoiseach accept this? Does he understand it is subject to legal challenge at any time? Without a negotiated settlement, there is a danger that the agreement might collapse entirely, that the FEMPI legislation might collapse. I ask the Taoiseach to confirm that the cost of the Garda pay deal which was approved by the Government will be €40 million or €50 million and that it will be part of the published Government arithmetic. Does he expect additional knock-on costs to be met from the published Estimates for next year?

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has spelled out his estimate of the cost. He has also said there is no intention of increasing taxes to generate money to pay for it; it must come from within the public budget.

On the Haddington Road and Lansdowne Road agreements, obviously the Lansdowne Road agreement allows for an initiation of a reduction and retraction of the FEMPI legislation. That has been done in the case of opportunities for new teachers and other sectors because the Lansdowne Road agreement allows for a difference in the conclusion of discussions, depending on who is being dealt with. In that context, the Minister set out the cost. It is necessary to have an orderly plan to deal with the eventual successor to the Lansdowne Road agreement and that is very much on the Minister's mind.