John Bruton
Question:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if the appointment of an observer from the EC to NESC is in accordance with that body's constitution and terms of reference as drafted at present.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - National Economic and Social Council.
John Bruton
Question:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will outline his views on the appointment, as either full members or observers, of members of Government and Opposition parties in Dáil Éireann to participate in the work of NESC.
John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach when the five year term of office of each current serving member of NESC expires.
John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the way in which the constitution and terms of reference of NESC can be altered and by whom; and if he will outline the occasions, in the past four years, in which it has been altered.
John Bruton
Question:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the reason there are nine Government nominees on NESC in view of the fact that paragraph four of the constitution and terms of reference of NESC states that there shall be five persons nominated by the Government of whom two shall be from the National Youth Council.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive together.
The National Economic and Social Council was established by the Government in November, 1973 as a forum in which the Government and the social partners discuss the principles relating to the efficient development of the national economy and the achievement of social justice and advise the Government, through the Taoiseach, on their application. The constitution and terms of reference of the council were established by the Government in consultation with the social partners and can be altered by the same procedure. The membership of the council was revised in 1989 to provide for six Government nominees, one being from the National Youth Council of Ireland. Previously there were five Government nominees, of whom two were from the National Youth Council. The three Secretaries of Departments attend by right of the office held and are not Government nominees.
The term of office of all current members who are appointed for five years will expire on 16 November 1994. The Government and the social partners agreed in 1989, because of the importance of the European Community dimension for the council's deliberations, that an observer from the European Commission nominated by President Delors could attend council meetings as an observer. There is nothing in the constitution of the council to prevent this arrangement and the council, as a matter of practice, have on occasions invited experts to council meetings.
The council is not a political forum. The value of its views and reports is greatly enhanced because they are of a non-political nature. It would not be appropriate, therefore, that party political representatives, as suggested by the Deputy, should participate in it. The role of political representatives arises when the reports of the council are laid before each House of the Oireachtas and published.
Will the Taoiseach acknowledge that the material in the NESC documents, including in particular the strategy for the nineties, played a large part in creating the basis upon which the Government were able to produce the commitment contained in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress? In view of the fact that the policy commitments in that document are ones in respect of which, ultimately, Dáil Éireann must make a decision and in view of the concern to have a national consensus, will the Taoiseach agree that it would be appropriate to find a mechanism whereby elected representatives, other than office holders, would have some opportunity to have an input to the discussions in the NESC, either as full members or, if not, as observers? If that is not the case we will have a situation in which Dáil Éireann will be presented with a fait accompli negotiated outside this House with the social partners in respect of which the Dáil will have no option but to accept or reject in toto whatever proposal is made.
I will not say that the Deputy is confusing but he is merging two things. I am firmly convinced that it would not be desirable to have participation in the work and reports of the NESC by Members of this House or others. It is a carefully constructed economic and social forum which has worked well. Its value largely derives from the fact that it does not have any political character or input; it is simply a forum whereby the different elements in the social and economic structures of our society can come together and arrive, as far as possible, at agreed views and opinions and report thereon.
The other point Deputy Bruton made related to the national programme. Again, that is something which was worked out in the normal way with the social partners. It was negotiated, discussed, amended and finally produced in its present form. It is the intention to bring that programme before the Dáil, to have it fully debated and approved or disapproved as the Dáil thinks fit. I think that is the best, most feasible and most constructive way of proceeding. With regard to the NESC reports, we have debated in the House one of the major reports in connection with the European Community. As I see it, the proper procedure is to have all these matters considered in a non-political forum and then have the reports discussed here in this political context. With regard to the programme itself, if the Deputies opposite wish, we could perhaps agree to discuss the NESC report on strategies for the nineties and the national programme together and have a vote on the programme as such.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that in most other countries where consensus economic policies are pursued — it is desirable that one should have consensus as far as possible — specific arrangements exist to involve parliament in the building of consensus? Would he agree that it is not desirable, from the point of view of the sovereignty of parliament, that parliament should be presented with a fait accompli which has been agreed outside this House in respect of which we would have no choice but to either accept it in toto or reject it in toto? Would he agree, if he wants a genuine consensus not just involving the social partners but the best available democratic input, that some mechanism must be found to involve parliament prior to the finalisation of the programme either through the NESC or some other mechanism? Would he not agree that that is the pattern in most other countries where consensus policies are pursued? May I ask the Taoiseach one other specific question as five questions are being taken together? Why has he reduced the representation of the National Youth Council, from two members to one, in view of the very large number of young people, many of whom have to emigrate, who ought to have representation on the NESC and should not see their representation being cut in half as seems to have happened in the recent revision?
First of all, the place to secure political consensus is here. The position now is that we have secured economic and social consensus between the Government and the social partners. It now remains for us when we debate the programme to see if we can achieve political consensus here. There is no other feasible way of doing it. I would like to remind Deputy Bruton that we discussed this several times during the course of the negotiations. Not only would it not be feasible but it would be totally impractical to endeavour to have political input into the negotiations on the programme. I am sure the Deputy understands that it is complex enough as it is to secure agreement between the trade unions, the employers, the farmers and the Government. That is a multifaceted process. If we were to attempt to bring in to that process the additional political dimension the thing would become quite impossible.
Not necessarily.
With regard to the question of the representation of the National Youth Council on the NESC, again we have discussed that matter ad nauseam here and I have explained exactly what the position was. There are a number of very important bodies which have only one representative on the NESC. That works perfectly satisfactorily. The National Youth Council had two representatives but the normal practice was that only one of the representatives attended. In fact I do not believe that the two ever attended together but they are in no way deprived from giving full expression to their opinions by having one representative as have these other major and important bodies. The National Youth Council have the right to have an alternate. If the nominated person cannot be there the alternate can be but, as I said, we have been over this ground again and again and I have explained the position. I believe it is working quite satisfactorily.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition are valid in that, if we are to have consensus and a ten year plan, as envisaged in the Irish Congress of Trade Union's document and indeed in the programme, that this necessarily involves the alternative government and that in order to copperfasten this approach there is a need to involve the Opposition parties at an earlier stage and in a more meaningful way than is envisaged? Would he also not agree that there is a danger that this new form of consensus between the Government and the social partners could lead to what was described in The Irish Times as a Fifth Estate or, in other words, a third House of Parliament which would be more influential than the elected Houses of Parliament?
I would reject that completely; there is no merit in that argument. What is happening is a process that happens over and over again in many other areas. First, the people involved sit down and come up with an agreement which is hammered out between them. That agreement then goes to the constituent parties to be approved. This agreement has to go to the social partners, the trade unions, the employers and the farming organisations to be approved but the ultimate approval is the democratic approval of the Dáil. That is the right way to do it and that is the way the last programme was done. We talk about consensus and, of course, I would greatly welcome an all-round political consensus but I doubt very much if there is any possibility of getting it considering the diametrically opposite and conflicting views, not just on policies but on ideologies that are held in this House.
Would the Taoiseach not accept that what he has said may have been correct at a time when national agreements related solely to pay matters but in the context of the current arrangement where there is a broad legislative programme and a broad range of commitments right across the board, affecting Justice, Environment, Labour, practically all Government Departments it appears that, in the event of matters continuing as they are, it is the social partners who will determine the legislative programme of this House and any input made by the Opposition parties will cease to be as relevant as that which derives from the social partners at the times when such agreements are negotiated?
We are having an element of repetition.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that that creates a problem for the way this House functions?
This is becoming repetitious. Let us have another question please. Question No. 8.
The Taoiseach wanted to respond.
If the Taoiseach wishes to intervene, he may do so.
I am afraid you are quite right, that to a large extent I will be repeating myself. I do not think there is any basic substance in what the Deputies opposite are suggesting in this regard. We agree a programme with the social partners but that is subject to the approval of the Dáil, and not just a general approval which we hope we will get within the next few weeks, and also this Dáil has the final authority to vote the money for all these things which will still have to come before the House individually for approval. If these things have to be covered by legislation, again that legislation will still have to come before the Dáil in the normal way for approval. Therefore there is no question of the House abdicating its responsibility in these areas. Let us look at the budget, for instance. The budget will be brought before the House today and it will have to be approved by the Dáil. This is exactly the same situation.
Can it be amended by the House?
Question No. 8 in the name of Deputy Spring.
Can it be amended?
Deputy Spring's question has now been called and will be replied to.