John Bruton
Question:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the steps, if any, he proposes to take in 1998 to further develop the social partnership process. [1173/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Social Partnership Process.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:2 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he has considered the recent report of the NESF which urged a greater role for the voluntary and community sectors in future national agreements; his views on the recommendation; if it is intended to implement it; when it is intended to place the NESF and the NESC on a statutory basis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1592/98]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the annual meeting of all parties to Partnership 2000 convened by the Taoiseach, as provided for in the agreement, was last held; the matters discussed; when the next meeting will be held; the likely agenda; if the question of trade union recognition will be discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1725/98]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, there are to review the monitoring procedures of Partnership 2000, following the publication of the NESF report, "A Framework for Partnership"; if so, the form the review will take; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1726/98]
John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 26 January 1998. [2362/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5 together.
Over recent years both the NESC and the NESF have made a valuable contribution to the social partnership process. In response to views put forward by both the NESC and the NESF, in particular the latter's Report No. 16, "A Framework for Partnership", the Government announced on 19 December its decision to reconstitute both organisations on a statutory basis. The heads of a Bill are now being prepared and it is my intention to present legislation to the Houses of the Oireachtas later this year. In the interim, both the NESC and the NESF will continue to operate on a non-statutory basis.
The terms of reference of the two bodies are being revised to ensure that their activities are fully complementary. The NESC will continue to provide strategic analysis through its reports and will develop the framework within which discussions on future national programmes will take place. The NESF will focus on the detailed monitoring of initiatives taken in the context of social partnership, especially with regard to social exclusion and long-term unemployment. It is intended also that the membership of both bodies will be changed to reflect more fully the various strands of the social partnership process. It is hoped that the invitations seeking nominations will be issued soon. The exact composition of both bodies has yet to be finalised. It is envisaged, however, that the composition of the NESC will be five nominees from each of the four social partner pillars, five representatives from Departments and five independent members. In the case of the NESF, the composition will be 15 members of the Oireachtas, five nominees from each of the business, trade union and farming pillars, 15 representatives of non-governmental organisations, five representatives of Departments, five representatives of local government and five independent members. The terms of office of members of both the NESC and the NESF will be for a period of three years, during which time members may nominate alternates.
As regards participation in the negotiations of future partnership agreements, a decision on expansion has not been made. The Government will bear in mind the views of the NESF, as set out in its Report No. 16, as well as the views of all the social partners. The widening of the membership of the NESC to include the voluntary sector reflects the views of the NESF.
Our focus remains firmly fixed on the full implementation of Partnership 2000, which is just over one year old and has more than two years yet to run. An impressive amount of progress, however, has been achieved so far and it is our intention to sustain that momentum until the present agreement expires in March 2000.
Under the terms of Partnership 2000, as part of the monitoring procedures, I will attend an annual meeting with all the parties to the agreement. In respect of 1997, I fulfilled that undertaking at the July meeting which focused largely on the themes of enterprise promotion, job creation and modernising the public service. I regularly meet the individual social partners both on a formal and an informal basis.
Accompanied by the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance, I met representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on Monday, 26 January to discuss a number of current issues, including a review of progress in the implementation of Partnership 2000, the outlook for the Irish economy and Ireland's entry into EMU. At this meeting I reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the implementation of Partnership 2000 and to working with the social partners to strengthen the spirit of partnership. It was agreed the Government, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the other social partners will work more intensively in the coming year under Partnership 2000 to ensure the benefits of economic growth are shared fairly among all the people.
In addition, the Tánaiste and I met representatives of IBEC on Monday last. We agreed that the Government, IBEC and the other social partners would work more intensively in the coming year under Partnership 2000 to ensure that economic growth and its benefits are sustained. We underlined the crucial importance of continued adherence to the pay agreement in Partnership 2000.
The latest plenary meeting to monitor Partnership 2000 took place on Tuesday, 27 January and focused primarily on competitiveness and budgetary related issues. The next meeting will take place in April and it is envisaged it will deal with the themes of enterprise and agriculture, food and forestry. The monitoring of Partnership 2000 will benefit from the revised terms of reference of the NESF, which reflects the views of the forum as set out in Report No. 16.
Was an agreement reached during the Taoiseach's meetings with the social partners that they would come together with the Government to deal with any shocks which might affect the economy after the Irish pound has locked into a relationship with other EMU currencies and if, for example, there is a sudden fall in the value of sterling which will affect certain export sectors and there is a need to share the burden to avoid redundancy? Was an agreement reached on a mechanism to deal with the problem of asymmetric shocks?
As regards the change in the terms of reference of the NESF, did the Taoiseach say the NESF would have a primary monitoring role? If that is the case, does that mean it will not be continually involved in policy making as well as policy monitoring? If it is to be confined to monitoring and not to policy making, surely that is not the appropriate place for Members of the Oireachtas to be involved given that the role of the Oireachtas is policy making rather than monitoring of policy?
Why is it necessary to put the NESF and the NESC on a statutory footing? Does the Taoiseach not see that by putting it on a statutory footing it will be more difficult to make changes? Social partnership in Ireland is a living thing. New needs arise, new bodies need to be represented and some, perhaps, need less representation than they had in the past. If everything is written in stone and statute, it will be harder for these institutions to work as they should. If institutions of social partnership which have been put on a statutory basis in other countries, such as the Economic and Social Council in France which is provided for in its constitution, have not worked at all because they became rigid, stratified and formalised, surely a non-statutory approach might be better?
I stated that the NESF will focus on the detailed monitoring of initiatives taken in the context of social partnership, especially with regard to social exclusion and long-term unemployment. It has presented a number of reports in this area. It wants to have the opportunity to reflect on the implementation of its reports and to ensure these matters are policy driven and that initiatives it has researched and published in reports are followed through.
That is what they are seeking to do. Otherwise these reports would end up on the library shelves.
Is it their function to bring forward new reports on these subjects?
Yes, but they also want to monitor their own commitment.
In terms of the legislative basis, this has been in the process for some time. The NESC has not changed its structure. It has been involved over the years in detailed economic analysis. The NESF has been only five years in existence. It is felt that as a mechanism of developing social partnership as a concept it is better that they have a legislative base. One could argue either way about it but a commitment was made to these bodies, and the people involved in those bodies believe this is the way to go. If one were to draw a logical conclusion it would be that the joint labour committees, the Labour Court, the Labour Relations Commission etc., should have been set up on a non-statutory basis, but that would not work because these organisations have a particular role in developing partnership. In the context of partnership, it is now put forward by the social partners that these bodies should be set up on a permanent basis. I do not see NESC changing in the years ahead.
Why not? Look at the number of bodies which were added to social partnership in the last programme. We have to be able to provide for change all the time but, in the light of what the Taoiseach said, we will not be able to do so.
The NESC and the NESF are not just part of the social partnership system. The NESC was providing detailed reports representing industry, trade unions and agriculture long before social partnership. It just happens to have been its report which brought the social partners together in l986 and put forward the first document which led to the Programme for National Recovery. It had other roles and functions and still does. It is involved in the analysis of factors within the economy and in reporting on them. The NESF did it from another view-point where other bodies, including the Houses of the Oireachtas, had an involvement, although they are not social partners per se, in the same way as farmers, employers or trade unions.
It is not broken.
Deputy Bruton is going back to his old ways. He was against this concept in the first place. Eight months ago he was for it and actively pursued it in the Department, but now he seems to be against it.
I am for it.
When does the Taoiseach expect the legislation relating to the NESF and the NESC to be brought before the House? Is it intended in the meantime to change the membership of the NESF and the NESC? What mechanisms will be used to encourage the co-operation or better co-ordination between the two bodies which has been recommended by the NESF? Can the Taoiseach indicate in what way the proposed changes in relation to the membership of these two bodies differ from what is already there? Is he simply adding the voluntary community sector to the NESC? What changes is he thereby making to the NESF? I am not making a specific argument for it, but does he not think he should perhaps consider that if public representatives have a valuable role on the NESF, they have an equally valuable role on the NESC?
I hope the legislation will be ready this year. In terms of the changes, we are largely following report No. 16 and trying to tidy up where the briefs cross. That is what both organisations would wish. The NESC continues to do its detailed analysis, bringing together the reports while the NESF is involved in the implementation of policy, particularly in the voluntary community sector. Strong arguments have been made regarding the involvement of local government in these issues, and that is a good idea. Local government has been excluded from these processes for a long time, and should have a meaningful involvement that stands up to scrutiny. Both bodies would agree with that involvement.