Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Dec 2003

Vol. 577 No. 5

National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Ellis

I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Donovan.

I welcome the opportunity of making a small contribution on the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill. We all welcome this Bill and hope it will be passed and brought into operation as soon as possible. We are all aware that the office has been open since last February. This gives us an opportunity to look back on the economic development that has taken place in this country over the years. We are all aware that enormous strides have been made in that area. This Bill will provide structures to what has been an ongoing ad hoc operation in terms of development and relations in general, at a social or economic level. With this Bill we have an opportunity to regulate the situation.

We have seen enormous progress in this country over the past ten or 20 years. I recall the sort of problems we faced when I first became a Member of this House, which is perhaps further back than people might care to remember. The basic infrastructure, such as telephones, rail and road transport was lacking to a serious extent.

The first great step in Ireland's economic development was the introduction of free education. It was put crudely that free education was the opportunity to take the brains from the bog rather than leaving them in the bog. As a result of free education most people who desired it were given the opportunity to avail of second level and third level education. The benefits of free education may not have been foreseen at the time but the generation after the first beneficiaries of free second level education was fully aware of its importance.

Ireland's economy is now regarded as one of the most advanced in the world. Over 70% of the population have a third level qualification, which is of significant benefit. This statistic includes degree holders and those with training qualifications. It is important to ensure the education system continues to develop.

The National Economic and Social Development Office Bill may be summarised as a national policy and institutional framework which is consistently highly focused on competitiveness and employment creation, innovation and problem-solving. The establishment of such a body will no doubt make a significant contribution to economic development.

The rate of unemployment is at present the lowest in memory. During the recent economic downturn in other parts of the world, the Irish economy managed to continue to enjoy positive growth. This demonstrates the efforts of groups such as the trade unions, Government and local authorities. Every member of society, those dependent on social welfare and the employed, made a contribution to the development of the country. It is now regarded as the place to be.

The economic development has not been exclusively concentrated, as some would argue, on the eastern seaboard and in the major cities. Development of the road and rail infrastructure means that no part of the country will be far removed from first class services. Last week saw the further roll out of broadband technology. It is probably the greatest technological development to take place in our lifetime and will encourage economic growth and lessen isolation. I look forward to broadband being available throughout the country.

Over the years some NESC reports seemed gloomy about the prospects for economic development, but they always made a positive contribution on the subject of the improvement of the economy. It is imperative to establish a full-time National Economic and Social Development Office. For many years there were ad hoc arrangements which worked very successfully but they did not have the back-up and services necessary. The establishment by the Government of the National Economic and Social Development Office will make a significant contribution. The Bill is sponsored by the Department of the Taoiseach. It demonstrates that the commitment of the Taoiseach and the Government to national economic and social development is wholehearted and total.

This Bill will allow for sustained growth. The National Economic and Social Development Office will include NESC and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance. The primary role of NESDO will be to add value to the work of its constituent bodies by creating the conditions under which joint projects can be pursued and the potential for duplication minimised. The Bill sets up a grouping that will be co-ordinated and it will assist in the development of the entire economy. The most important decisions taken in recent times, such as the decision on decentralisation, will be of significant benefit. Rural areas will have the benefit of an influx of people in State employment.

I am pleased that Carrick-on-Shannon is to receive a section of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and another section is to be added to those already in Sligo. The Central Fisheries Board is being relocated to Carrick-on-Shannon. It is not desirable that centres such as Dublin, Cork and Galway grow at the expense of rural Ireland. Whether one lives in the north of Inishowen or Cahirciveen, one is entitled to have the same opportunities for development as those living in Dublin. It is no longer a hindrance to live outside the Pale.

Many parts of the country benefit from much better social and educational facilities than in Dublin. The development of institutes of technology has made a significant contribution to economic and social development in the regions. They are a source of third level education which had previously been regarded as being beyond the means or young people or their parents. It has given those who did not have the chance of a degree course an opportunity to develop up to degree level. Many institutes including, the Sligo Institute of Technology, now offer degree courses.

The National Economic and Social Forum has a particular mandate to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the policies and programmes for tackling inequality. This includes the issue of social inclusion in the context of social partnership agreements. We are all aware of the benefits of social partnership agreements. The trade unions are to be complimented for the manner in which they stood up to some sectional interests to ensure the full implementation of their recommendations.

The Irish workforce has made an important contribution to the economic development of the country. I welcome the Bill and I look forward to ensuring that the National Economic and Social Development Office makes the same contribution as legislated for in this Bill as it has done in the ad hoc arrangement in the past.

Mr. O'Donovan

I welcome the Bill and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak. I thank Deputy Ellis for sharing his time with me.

This Bill is a major step forward. We must compliment the Taoiseach on developing the National Economic and Social Development Office. It comprises the National Economic and Social Council, the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance. It is important to put this in context. During the 1960s Seán Lemass was credited with the industrial revolution. The Taoiseach must take credit for the revolution in modern technology and for bringing success to this country, which is probably second to none in the world in terms of economic and social development and growth. When the Taoiseach was Minister for Finance, he was able to work with the social partners and the trade unions to bring forward development plans which were crucial in ensuring stability.

The previous speaker mentioned free education, which was introduced in 1967. There were approximately 2,000 students in UCC when I was a student there. There are now more than 10,000 students at the college. The Cork Institute of Technology has approximately the same number of students. That is a significant increase over 20 years. Our success in that area should be recognised.

Many of my family live in America and other countries. When I travel abroad, whether to Great Britain, other countries in Europe, America or Australia, I get the impression from people who left our soil many years ago that they are envious of the Government's success. That did not happen overnight or by accident. The previous speaker said we have the lowest unemployment figures he can remember. They are the lowest unemployment figures in the history of the State. It was predicted by some of our opponents 12 months ago that our inflation and unemployment figures would rise. However, that has not happened, due to the success of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance. The prediction six or nine months ago was that inflation would rise to 6% or 7%. However, it has decreased significantly in the past two or three months.

Despite the forecast of doom and gloom, our unemployment figures are still low. When one compares that to other countries, such as Germany, whose unemployment figure is 10% or 11%, France, which has a similar unemployment rate, and the United Kingdom, we have done significantly well. I read recently that our GDP is the third best in the world. That success is linked to the approach taken by the Taoiseach. He must take credit for that success. If our inflation and unemployment figures and our interest rates were rising out of control, we would hear about it.

We should not forget our past. I was obliged to emigrate and the unemployment rate was at a record high when I came back in the early 1980s. Some 60,000 or 70,000 people left the country each year during the mid 1980s. Interest rates were at 18% or 19%. I remember a time in the mid 1980s when farmers' backs were against the wall as they had to borrow to develop their farms and to carry out environmental works to prevent pollution. They were encouraged to borrow money. Interest rates increased from 6%, 7% or 8%, which are extremely high by current standards, to 18% or 19%. Surcharges meant that the figure was higher than that in some cases. During the 1980s some people could not borrow money. Banks insisted that people had to save a minimum of £4,000 for at least two years before they would give them a loan. They would not take the risk. Everything has changed.

We often hear criticism about the housing situation in this country. I recently met representatives of the construction industry. It has reached its limit in terms of the number of houses built this year. It has delivered approximately 65,000 houses, which is phenomenal given the size of our population. If we can build 65,000 houses, America, which is the biggest economy in the world, should build approximately 2 million and the UK should build 900,000 housing units per annum. However, they are not building half that number. I am not saying there are no problems as regards social housing, but we have had significant success in recent years.

The previous speaker mentioned infrastructure. When I was elected to the Seanad in 1989, I did not have the Newbridge bypass on my journey from west Cork to Dublin. The Kildare bypass was recently opened, which will help motorists to save time on a long journey. The Watergrasshill bypass and the Lee Tunnel were built recently and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, recently opened the Skiberreen bypass. If it had been said in 1990, which is not long ago, that Watergrasshill or Skiberreen would be bypassed and that the Lee Tunnel would be built, people would not have believed it. Our economy was not doing well and the emigration and unemployment figures were high. The country's morale was at its lowest in the history of the State. The Government has done extremely well.

I praise the Taoiseach for bringing this Bill before the House. This will be the catalyst for further success. We have done well in this country and Dublin is probably the fastest growing city in Europe. There are still problems. We need Luas and an underground link from Dublin Airport to the city centre. Other infrastructural developments are also required, but much of the work is being done. I am delighted the Cashel and Fermoy bypasses have started and plans are under way for the Mitchelstown bypass. I welcome the Minister's announcement that he is proceeding to build a dual carriageway from Dublin to Cork. As someone who commutes on that route, I look forward to that development.

I wish you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and everyone in the House a happy and holy Christmas and a prosperous new year. I hope we will all be back here this time next year.

Mr. R. Bruton

I do not want to rain on people's parade in terms of partnership and the importance of this legislation. However, the introduction of this Bill should be an opportunity for us to seriously debate the position of social partnership as it has developed.

The NESC celebrated its fortieth anniversary this year, yet we are seeking to create a super structure to incorporate that in a legislative framework. I have not heard the full extent of this debate but from those whose contributions I have heard, there is no consciousness of the serious weaknesses in the partnership model as we have developed it. It is time for a searching analysis of the way in which the partnership model works.

Many people were dismayed by the benchmarking process, whereby insiders in the partnership system put a deal together. The information on which pay settlements were to be based was never made available to the taxpayers who have had to pay for it. All the information was shredded and was not available under the Freedom of Information Act. No one receiving the awards knew why they were to get them. The Government was supposed to embrace a serious agenda to change the public service. Some 75% of the award was to be conditional on that reform, yet the Government put forward no such agenda. None of the so-called partners was pushed beyond any of its established positions as part of the benchmarking agreement to deliver quality and improved public services to people who depend on them. Instead, we will see next year, as we have this year, many services for the most needy in our community being curtailed because pay is pre-empting budgets.

We have seen cuts in the crèche allowance for the most disadvantaged children. I know the sort of people who are in receipt of this allowance in my area and they are highly disadvantaged families who need this support. The same argument applies in respect of those who require the dietary allowance. We have ended up doing the very opposite to what a sensitive partnership arrangement should have done. That is not an accident; it has happened because of serious flaws in the way the partnership has been put together. Patients, parents, consumers, environmentalists and others had no seats at the partnership talks. Essentially, the partnership comprises the old producer-dominated structures. Trade unions and employers are still the first division players who drive the partnership's agenda.

It is no surprise that we have created rip-off Ireland in recent years, having given such credence to the views of producers in our system while ignoring consumers' rights. We have some of the worst consumer legislation, which has remained unchanged in recent years. Any initiatives on consumer protection have come from the EU, which we seek to transpose into our domestic legislation, but consumers have no say in the partnership model and neither do parents. As a result, the producer unions and management companies have called the shots on education reform. The parent organisations are extremely weak and we still have no accountability for what is happening in our schools. For example. we do not know what the literacy standards are in any of our schools because there is no obligation to create structured reports on school performance. This is no accident. It is because of the way in which we have given producer interests so much control in the partnership process and they have slowed down the pace of public service reform.

They may not be paragons of virtue on the neighbouring island but they have certainly started to reform the accountability of educational institutions. Under a more accountable system here, we might be able to find out why a school is not doing well and then do something about it. Most schools that are not performing well are probably in disadvantaged areas where teachers are working hard with the most disadvantaged pupils, yet they do not get access to additional resources because we, the legislators, do not see what the problems are. We do not get the sort of reporting that we ought to. A genuine partnership that tries to embrace such problems would not tolerate a situation where one in five students leaves school without sitting the leaving certificate. One in six leaves school unable to read or interpret the instructions on the side of an aspirin packet. That is a blight on the education system. Unless we face up to those difficulties and put in place structures to bring them continually to our attention, we will be failing to develop a proper partnership model.

It is no accident that Sustaining Progress, the deal the Government cut with the various partners, including the unions, has never been debated in this House. No one regards that as strange. Some 166 people were elected to this House to shape the way the country is run and resolve conflicts in society – and there are many such conflicts that need to be addressed – yet that partnership agreement never came up for debate and our views could be expressed.

All the previous agreements were debated in the House but, perhaps unconsciously, the Government now sees the Oireachtas as being less and less important in making decisions about our economy and society in general. Whether deliberately or by accident, the Government has become an ally of the lobbyist approach whereby important conflicts are not resolved openly here by elected representatives but in back rooms where aficionados of different bodies have access to the Government in order to shape and conclude deals. That is not the sort of political accountability we want to see in a modern democracy. If partnership becomes allied to this diminution in the importance of the Oireachtas, as it has in recent times, it will be a bad deal both for social partnership and parliamentary democracy.

The Oireachtas is effectively copper-fastening what is already there, while the Taoiseach has the power to change matters as they evolve. However, there is no attempt by either the Taoiseach or his Ministers to challenge seriously whether the partnership deal is achieving what we want it to do. The collapse in the importance and public recognition of the Oireachtas has occurred because alternative fora are available to people who want to influence the decision-making process. These fora are predominantly unelected and unaccountable.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but the Minister of State is entitled to reply at 3.15 p.m. because the proceedings must end at 3.30 p.m.

Mr. R. Bruton

The Opposition only got five minutes of the available time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a matter for the Minister of State to decide whether she requires 15 minutes for her reply.

Ms Hanafin

I will be happy to give Deputy Richard Bruton another few moments, if he so wishes.

Mr. R. Bruton

I will be brief. We should step back and ask whether or not the partnership as it is now constituted – with the first division players, including the employers and trade unions, and a mixed group representing the community and voluntary sectors – is really meeting the needs of a modern democracy. There are big issues concerning the accountability of the decision makers in that partnership process and how the Oireachtas should interface with the developing partnership model. Giving the Oireachtas 15 places on the National Economic and Social Forum is ridiculous. It is not the way in which the Oireachtas can hold the partnership model to account. We, the elected representatives, should hold these bodies to account for their decisions.

The partnership process was born at a time when the economy had become a basket case and deep industrial divisions were costing us jobs. People came together to deal with those issues and avoid self-destruction but because partnership was part of an important recovery period, we have overlooked its weaknesses and have been unwilling to scrutinise it properly. Unfortunately, I do not see in this legislation any way in which the Oireachtas and its elected Members can challenge the often false consensus that passes for this type of debate.

I heard a former trade union leader – I will not name him, although most people will know to whom I am referring – remarking recently at the 40th anniversary of the partnership process how conformist the system had become and how much uniformity of opinion was emerging through the process. That is bad because many of the challenges we face require robust debate by elected representatives, such as ourselves. That sort of robust debate is being lost, however.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Ms Hanafin)

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Teachtaí ar fad a labhair ar an mBille seo, a Bill which allows us to implement one of our commitments under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, namely, that the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, the National Economic and Social Forum, NESF, and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, NCPP, would be located within the National Economic and Social Development Office.

It is some months since the Bill started its passage through the Dáil and quite a number of Deputies have spoken on it. Even in the few months we have been discussing it, we have witnessed the way the economic climate has changed, both globally and at home. It is in that context, when looking at this particular Bill, that we can see the importance of it in terms of how well the economy has done, the way we managed to overcome the challenges facing us and in comparing what happened in 1987 when the idea of partnership started. That is something that was addressed today by Deputies Ellis, O'Donovan and Bruton. It is useful to remember the position in 1987—

Mr. R. Bruton

Partnership started 40 years ago.

Ms Hanafin

Sorry, I mean the national agreements. The first national agreement was back in 1987 and it is worthwhile remembering, as Deputies pointed out today, that the unemployment rate was 17.5%, inflation was 12%, emigration was at its highest and, as the two Deputies on this side of the House mentioned, the infrastructure and borrowing situation we were in at that time. We have come a long way from that and built an economy that is much admired, not just here but abroad. The progress made has been outstanding. It is always useful to remind ourselves that the unemployment rate is just over 4%, the inflation rate is just over 2% and that we remain a very competitive country. The reason we are so successful is because of partnership and the various agreements negotiated. We strongly believe we need to continue that if we are to remain competitive.

The discussions with the social partners over the past number of years focused realistically on the economic position but also on the social situation. They deal not just with competitiveness but also with economic growth and ensuring that people across the board can benefit from the process. The one point I would probably accept from Deputy Bruton is that we may have missed an opportunity to discuss Sustaining Progress in this House. That is something that probably should become part of our regular agenda when agreements are reached and it is something we will look to in the future. The goals are ones to which we all aspire: economic inclusion based on full employment; consistent economic development that is socially and environmentally sustainable; social inclusion; a commitment to social justice; and a continuing adaptation to change.

I am disappointed that from the beginning to the end of this debate, each of the Fine Gael contributions have been critical of the partnership process.

Mr. R. Bruton

As are the partners themselves. The Minister of State should talk to them.

Ms Hanafin

It cannot be a coincidence that it started with the contribution of the leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Kenny, when he decided to question the whole process. There is no problem with questioning a process but to be entirely critical of the way it has worked is too negative a view of a process which has obviously worked for the benefit of this country for the past number of years and which continues to work.

I do not accept that partnership is a type of club that excludes the disadvantaged in our society and which only has people of influence in it. One only has to look at the membership of the community and voluntary pillars to see that sitting around the table are individual members like CORI, the INOU, the NYC, Protestant Aid and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Those very groups represent the most disadvantaged in our society. There are various other strands including Age Action Ireland, representing older people, the Irish Council for Social Housing, the Children's Rights Alliance, etc. How can one claim, therefore, that it is an advantaged club and that the people who should be socially included are being left out?

Another major point which has come up frequently in this context is that those who sign up to partnership agreements do not represent the rank and file membership of the organisations they represent. Benchmarking has crept into this debate as well. What saddens me about the benchmarking debate, particularly from the perspective of Fine Gael, is that it appears to think that benchmarking will be paid to anonymous people doing anonymous jobs sitting in anonymous places. What we are talking about are the nurses in our hospitals, the gardaí on our streets, the teachers in our schools and our public servants who ensure that the mechanism of government works well. These are the people who will benefit from benchmarking and who will, from next month, get the money they deserve for the work they are doing based on a comparative process of salaries at other levels here and abroad. It is to their credit that the various groups involved in working out benchmarking ensured that people down the line would gain in terms of their salaries and, in return, give the type of service expected of them.

Deputy Bruton talked about the role of partnership in education. He will be the first to admit that over the past number of years the concept of partnership, albeit not formally recognised in much legislation although it is in some, has crept into many of our schools. As late as yesterday I was in a school in my own constituency, St. Anne's in Shankill, albeit to announce its new building, and I met 30 parents who go into the school every morning to do reading classes with groups of children. That is a direct involvement of parents in that school every day. One of the parents told me that if they see a child one day who is not good at reading it might be because the child is just tired but if the same child is not good at reading the following day and the day after that, obviously there is a problem. That is the type of partnership that is working on the ground and will tackle the type of issues Deputy Bruton talked about in respect of literacy. The concept of partnership exists but what has to be overcome is the fear among parents in disadvantaged communities that they are being excluded in some way from the school but that will not be addressed by way of legislation. That has to happen by way of encouragement, entitlement and working closely together on the ground. I believe that is happening.

Another issue raised in terms of social partnership was whether the process was inclusive. Of all aspects, the NESF is a good example of how the social partnership institution can be inclusive. We have talked here about the various bodies involved in it, and it is a forum on which we can have representatives of the Oireachtas, employers, unions, farming organisations, the voluntary and community sectors, central and local government and Independents. It might be useful, however, if all the parties in this House made their nominations to that body so that Members of the Oireachtas could have their voice heard on it. It is unusual to have that combination of people sharing their thoughts, developing policies and coming up with ideas. It is intended that this will continue because I am aware it is successful.

As a woman I regret the fact that the National Women's Council and the Community Platform decided not to accept the terms of Sustaining Progress. I believe they not only isolated themselves but many women also. Not being part of social partnership is to their detriment if not to the detriment of the partnership process as a whole.

One of the issues raised by a number of Deputies in the debate was the question of resources. The savings being made are as a result of the three bodies being relocated into one premises in Dublin. There is no effect on staff, and there will not be any cutbacks in that area. It is just a saving in terms of relocation.

Another issue raised was the importance of the small economy, etc., but Deputy Carey raised the idea of being competitive. The role of partnership 40 years ago and in 1987, when we had the first agreement, was quite different from what it is now but that does not mean it is not valid. It is as valid today as it was on the first day but it is playing a completely different role now to the role it played then. That is why I find Fine Gael's criticism of it particularly disturbing. Instead of examining how it reflects the type of society in which we now live and its current social and economic requirements, the party appears to do little other than knock it. I would be worried about the future of partnership if the Fine Gael Party was ever elected to Government. Partnership has delivered a strike free economy, wage agreements and the involvement of social partners in a manner never achieved before.

I hope we will be able on Committee Stage to tease out some of these ideas and that in doing so, Deputies will come to realise and accept the value of the various bodies working in this area, particularly those referred to and to which the Bill refers. I am sure Deputy Finian McGrath, who made a number of particularly interesting points on the legislation, will participate in the Committee Stage debate.

Mr. F. McGrath

The Government must not forget to pay the teachers. Deputy Richard Bruton does not want to give them their benchmarking payments.

Ms Hanafin

I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.