Vol. 518 No. 4
1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach when proposals will be made to Government on the detailed arrangements to be put in place to give effect to the strengthened institutional structures to enhance the role of the National Centre for Partnership; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7746/00]
The current role of the National Centre for Partnership, as described in Partnership 2000, is the promotion of the partnership approach in both the public and private sectors through the organisation and facilitation of seminars, workshops and training programmes. The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, recognising the progress which has been made, proposes a new approach signalled by a new title and role for the National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP). It is envisaged that the centre will work with IBEC and ICTU in supporting the deepening of partnership including, through deliberation, consensus-building and dissemination, monitoring, research and analysis, and training and facilitation.
This will enable the centre to contribute to more effectively tackling the challenges of ensuring that enterprises, both public and private, are better equipped to adapt to change, including new forms of work organisation, underpinned by effective arrangements of lifelong learning.
It is proposed to initiate discussions with IBEC and ICTU on the detailed arrangements now that the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness has been ratified.
What are the arrangements for the National Centre for Partnership to work in the public sector? In this context will the public sector include organisations in State ownership, such as CIE, which is in grave need of improvement in the partnership approach?
I hope that organisation and others will be included in the new arrangements but the details of how they will operate have yet to be worked out. It will work in the same building as NESC and NESF. It has done very good work in the past two years but it was felt by the social partners that that could be extended, as I have outlined in the reply. The centre will now be able to implement the partnership approach in various bodies, as Deputy Bruton has mentioned.
Is the Taoiseach aware that in the programme, the reference to the public service specifically excludes commercial State-sponsored bodies? If the public service arrangements for co-operation with the National Centre for Partnership exclude bodies like CIE, what arrangements would include CIE?
CIE was probably discussed in the talks more than any other body. The arrangements with both IBEC and ICTU will enable the centre to contribute to more effective tackling of challenges and to ensuring that enterprises both public and private can work better. The question of CIE was raised. However, there has to be agreement between IBEC and ICTU and the Government before they can go into any organisation. It happens that it was CIE which was discussed in the course of the talks.
If the question of CIE was raised during the talks, why was agreement not concluded in the talks to deal with CIE?
It was agreed in the talks, because of time constraints, that the details of how the arrangements will operate will have to be worked out. The question of CIE was raised. However, the social partners would not agree to any initiative in any organisation until a framework is agreed. That will be done. The social partners are conscious of the needs in CIE, and the Government is anxious that it should be involved. If we are to promote partnership arrangements and restructuring, that has to be done in the context of partnership. The details will be worked out. I have no problem with the details being discussed. That is what was agreed. However, CIE was an obvious example which was raised in the talks.
I am not interested in what was raised. I am interested in what was agreed or not agreed. Why was agreement not reached on an arrangement for CIE to be involved in the operations of the National Centre of Partnership? Is this not an important enough issue for the Government to have sought to have agreed as part of the programme? Why was this postponed in view of the appalling state of industrial relations in CIE?
I will restate what I have already said. Time did not allow for working out the framework for involvement in various areas. Until that is worked out, the social partners would be reluctant to sign their names to it. However, they have agreed that as soon as the programme is finished they will work out the details. That will now be done as soon as possible.
The Taoiseach said that time did not allow. How much time did the Government have to negotiate this? How come time did not allow?
Practically three months were spent on the entire negotiations which covered hundreds of issues. Arrangements were made for an extension of the remit of the National Centre for Partnership. It was agreed that it would be involved in public private partnerships. It was agreed what kinds of areas it would extend into. It is a national agreement and, having negotiated four such agreements, I know it is not possible to tie down every little bit in the overall negotiations. However, that will be done in working out the detail.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that this far from a little bit. Anybody who is not well off has to rely on CIE as their means of getting around. It provides bus and train services. Its industrial relations record is dreadful and services have been interrupted. Any Government with eyes and ears could see and hear that there is a necessity for an improved partnership arrangement in CIE, yet the Government spent three months negotiating an agreement with the unions and employers and failed to nail down an arrangement for introducing special partnership arrangements in its own company, CIE, which partnership arrangements it was preaching at everybody else. Surely the Government, which owns CIE, should be setting an example in introducing partnership structures rather than preaching at other people and failing, on the entirely spurious grounds of lack of time, given that the Taoiseach has admitted he had three months to deal with this and to deal with the issue of introducing a proper arrangement in CIE.
I do not intend to range widely because there are many important questions to be answered. The National Centre for Partnership has changed its remit. That has been agreed in negotiations. The areas to be looked at have been agreed in negotiations. The final details will be subject to further discussion. If the Deputy wants to pursue details about CIE and proposals that were made yesterday and other things which I think he is getting at, he should put down a separate question.
I am just saying—
I have allowed the Deputy a great deal of latitude on this question. The questions he is now asking are matters of detail that are proper to another Minister.
The Taoiseach is typically misinterpreting what I am saying. I am simply concerned at the Government's failure in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness negotiations to agree institutional arrangements for introducing partnership structures in CIE. The Government has failed to do the job and the record speaks for itself.
The talks did not involve agreeing details about every organisation or every part of the Civil Service. They involved drawing up a framework which will be filled out as time goes on. I have no doubt that that will be done successfully.
