Vol. 485 No. 3
6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to develop the work of the National Economic and Social Forum in 1998; if he has discussed a programme of work with representatives of the forum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22711/97]
As the Deputy is no doubt aware, the term of office of the National Economic and Social Forum will expire on 31 December next. The term of office of the National Economic and Social Council also expires on the same date. These bodies are the principal social partnership structures, which operate alongside the monitoring arrangements under Partnership 2000 which my Department co-ordinates.
In accordance with a Government decision taken in October 1996, the future of social partnership structures has been reviewed in consultation with the social partners in the context of Partnership 2000. This review has taken account of the views of both the forum and the council.
Based on the outcome of this review, the Government is currently considering the arrangements for continuing the framework for social partnership and expects to make a decision on the matter shortly. Until such time as the Government reaches its decision, I am not in a position to comment further on the National Economic and Social Forum.
Does the reference to 31 December refer to this year or next year?
This year.
Can the Taoiseach assure the House that the National Economic and Social Forum will not be subsumed into an enlarged National Economic and Social Council bearing in mind that the two bodies perform quite separate but complementary functions? Is he aware of the widespread concern among some participants in the National Economic and Social Forum of their possible exclusion from any future arrangements if the forum, in its present form, is to be merged in any way with the National Economic and Social Council?
I shall certainly take note of what the Deputy has said. I have heard both sides of the case. The National Economic and Social Forum, established four years ago, does a particularly good job. I think some people are confused, because of the similarity of titles, that both are one and the same body whereas they are not. One contributes to a very much wider national consensus on economic and social issues while the other plans the future and engages in a macro and micro economic analysis of our economy, which is a different matter. The Cabinet will address the matter in its meeting on Friday next.
If the Cabinet is to consider it on Friday next, I presume the Taoiseach has some thinking of his own on this matter. Does he agree that the two bodies are quite distinct, notwithstanding the similarity of their respective titles, and that anything that would result in the abolition of the third strand or sector, clearly represented within the forum but not within the NESC to anything like the same extent, would constitute a retrograde step? Will he assure the House that the forum will not be abolished?
The matter will be discussed by the Cabinet on Friday next and has been discussed by the social partners, whose views and those of many others will be taken into account in those Cabinet discussions in addition to any expressed here. However, we should not preempt those discussions. I acknowledge that these two bodies have distinct and separate roles, both of which have proved very useful, particularly over the past few years.
Does the Taoiseach agree that it creates some difficulty for social partnership when the Government, in its choice of tax policy, goes against the consensus of the social partners and opts to reduce tax rates, which tends to help those on better incomes more, rather than increase tax free allowances and widen the tax bands, which was the consensus view of the social partners? Does he agree that, when the Government unilaterally ignores a consensus among the social partners on a key issue like the distribution of the benefits of prosperity, that does more damage to the social partnership than any neglect of particular institutions?
There was a time when Deputy John Bruton did not like it.
The authors of social partnership are very sensitive to everything the social partners say. Of course, we are conscious that reducing the burden of taxation is one such sensitive issue, which is why we did so.
I support the view expressed by Deputy Quinn on the importance of maintaining a separate identity for the National Economic and Social Forum, not because it happens to be in existence and is an institution but because it affords a platform for many organisations and people from many strands of Irish society to meet representatives of Government with whom they would not normally come into contact. Will the Taoiseach bear in mind my support for the maintenance of the NESF?
It is useful that I know the positions of people in the House.
It will not change the Taoiseach's mind.
I have not read the final Government document on this so I can honestly say I am not too sure what is in it. I now know the views of at least two of the parties in the House.
We are moving on now to priority questions.
