Is Seanad amendment No. 1 agreed to?
National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002: From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
May I ask who is proposing the amendment on behalf of the Government? Will they outline to the House exactly the raison d’être behind each of the amendments presented?
I call an tAire Stáit on Seanad amendment No. 1.
With your indulgence, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, will colleagues agree to the procedure that applied to the previous legislation, which was very useful and mature? That is, that the Minister of State would address the composite number of amendments — there are six in total. He could give a short address outlining the background to each amendment. He could then allow each of the other Deputies to respond accordingly. That means that everyone will get a fair chance to participate.
I would be very happy to do that with the agreement of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Amendment No. 1 is to section 1 of the Bill, which contains the list of definitions. It proposes to delete the words "unless the context otherwise requires" from line 27, which I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel are no longer required as a result of the Interpretation Act.
Amendment No. 2 reads "Section 5: In page 6, line 22, "by the Taoiseach" deleted." The purpose of this amendment is to delete the words "by the Taoiseach" from section 5 of the Bill, which deals with expenses incurred in the administration of this Act. I am advised that this amendment will make the Bill consistent with the similar section 6 of the Statistics Act 1993, which also comes under the responsibility of the Department of the Taoiseach.
Seanad amendment No. 3 reads as follows:
Section 20: In page 13, subsection (2), lines 40 to 42, paragraph (a) deleted and the following new paragraph substituted:
"(a) paragraphs (a) and (b) do not apply to a member of the Forum to whom section 15(3)(a) applies who is nominated as a member of Seanad Éireann or is elected as a member of either House of the Oireachtas, and”.
We have done this to make sure we cover the position of those who are nominated as Members of the Seanad.
Seanad amendment No. 4 reads, "In page 14, subsection (4), line 20, "member or" deleted." That is just a tidying up exercise.
Seanad amendment No. 5 reads:
In page 14, subsection (4), line 21, "Forum" deleted and "Forum (subject to subsection (5))” substituted.
Seanad amendment No. 6 reads:
In page 14, between lines 23 and 24, the following new subsection inserted:
"(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to a person, who is for the time being entitled under the Standing Orders of either House of the Oireachtas to sit therein, to whom section 15(3)(a) applies being appointed under section 15(2) as a member of the Forum.”.
This is probably the most significant amendment. It came from a proposal by Senator Ryan in the other House. I thank him again for alerting me to this matter.
Seanad amendment No. 3 proposes a small but important change to section 22(a). This subsection makes an exception in the case of the forum to the requirement contained in section 21 that a member of the council, forum or centre who becomes a public representative, must cease to be such a member. The amendment is required to include Senators who are nominated in addition to those who are elected.
The purpose of Seanad amendment No. 4 is to delete the words "member or" from subsection (4). The Parliamentary Counsel has advised that these words are superfluous.
Seanad amendment No. 5 is required to refer in subsection (4) to a proposed new subsection (5).
Seanad amendment No. 6 proposes that the new subsection (5) be inserted. The purpose of that new subsection is to make an exception to persons who are, for the time being, entitled to sit in either House of the Oireachtas and to whom section 15(3)(a) applies, from being disqualified from membership of the forum. This is an important amendment as otherwise there would be a contradiction in the Bill between section 15(3), which defines the composition of the forum and requires that 15 members of the forum shall be Members of either Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann, and section 24 which would otherwise disqualify elected Members from membership of the forum. This amendment comes to the heart of the issue raised by Senator Ryan in the Seanad. We are accepting that there was a contradiction there and we are putting forward this amendment to rectify it. I thank Members of the Seanad for proposing these amendments, which I commend to this House.
I have no objection to these amendments being made. I still regret the Bill has missed the opportunity to forge a more mature relationship between the Oireachtas and the various institutions of the social partnership of which these are prominent parts. As I said earlier, the Dáil should have a role in shaping the agenda of social partnership. Currently that is a task primarily done by the National Economic and Social Council from which the Dáil is excluded. Token membership for Members of the Oireachtas on some of these fora which are dealing with subsets of the overall agenda of social partnership is not an adequate response.
Recognising that social partnership is a permanent feature of the way we do our business, we need to have a more mature relationship with the Oireachtas where people who are elected this House to represent the broad citizenship have a greater say instead of relying primarily on representatives from interest groups, who have a valid say, but not to the exclusion of Members of the Oireachtas who have a broad mandate. While this was a missed opportunity, the Minister of State knows the views of the different Members so I will not labour the point at this stage.
I am sure the Minister of State is relieved at this late hour that the end is in sight. I said to him previously this is really the quango of quangos, the über quango and the quango to beat all the quangos. It is a conglomeration of them all. In that sense it will have a breadth of representation which will always be interesting. Social partnership has served the country well but, like all structures that become embedded, it runs the risk of becoming exclusive, especially to newer people and interest groups.
I was interested to hear the debate on social partnership and wage matters being referred to again as the national wage agreement. In the end is my beginning. We are back where we were approximately 20 years ago on terminology. Nonetheless, I hope the body will serve some useful purposes. I think there are many problems with the membership of such bodies. Those willing to serve on them actively are a fairly select group of people and, being willing to serve, they are actively in demand. Since the National Economic and Social Forum was conceived in the 1992-94 period, it has done much valuable work, especially on sectoral issues and broad issues affecting Departments, such as children's access to pre-school education and the question of educational opportunities in society.
There is a problem about Deputies and Senators genuinely being able to participate in such bodies. Often they meet on a Wednesday morning, which is difficult for most Members. Nonetheless they do valuable work. Some imagination must be put into acquiring continuous capacity to draw people of talent to serve. I wish the Minister of State well with the future organisations and operation.
The amendments are largely technical in nature and there is no reason for the House to divide. They will be widely accepted but they show, as other speakers have said, a continuing flaw that lies at the heart of the Bill and the structure that is being proposed in that the proper involvement of the Members of the Oireachtas in the partnership process is not being properly acknowledged in legislation. I speak as one who was a member of the National Economic and Social Council. My last meeting was on the day of the general election in 2002 and because I was elected that day, I was obliged to resign. I did not have a choice in the matter.
It is curious that the main set of amendments arising from the Seanad, as the Minister of State has acknowledged, came from Senator Ryan who recognised the huge dichotomy that existed between clauses that restrict Members of the Oireachtas from being involved in bodies such as those mentioned in the Bill, while at the same time there is one body, the National Economic and Social Forum, that is very much part of the Bill and of which Members of the Oireachtas are a constituent part. While that kind of double-think is going on, this is a structure that will continue not to interact properly with elected representatives.
There is a job of work to be done in explaining all the constituent parts. Even after my own membership of the National Economic and Social Council, I am at a loss to know what the Centre for Partnership does. It has never been properly explained in all the debates in this House or analysed in subsequent committees of the House. We are very clear on what the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum are about and they play valuable roles in informing debate. That debate could be better informed and wider and more interactive if more actors were involved.
The only other point I would make in this limited debate is that there is Dáil acknowledgement of the national partnership agreement. We have been promised a debate in the House and that there will be a motion surrounding such a debate. As legislators we should insist that such partnership agreements can only come into effect after a vote in this House, that it is not only a matter for the Executive, especially when there are areas in this agreement that are meant to be binding for ten years, which potentially and most probably will cover the lifetimes of other Governments. On those grounds all Members should be involved in such decision making. It is not likely we will have such a debate until October, by which time the main social partners, ICTU and IBEC, will have had their decision-making processes. It is a matter to which the Government should give consideration as the first business of the House when it returns at the end of September or early October, namely, a formalisation of the role the House should play in such agreements in the future.
As other Deputies have done, I indicate acceptance of the amendments as presented. I will not repeat any of the points already made. One would be tempted to ask who else might incur expenses other than the Taoiseach and the Administration etc.
The only point of importance to make, especially this week, is to echo the Minister of State's commendation of the further scrutiny of the legislation by the Seanad and the useful role it has played in terms of greater exactitude in the final legislation that will go to the President. Surely, against the backdrop of repeated guillotines in this and the previous week, there must be a realisation that what we are putting through in this most imperfect and truncated opportunity for Members is legislation that is likely to be littered with flaws, faults and issues that may have to be revisited.
On the point the Minister of State made about the final amendment, which was attributed to Senator Ryan, I have no doubt that if the legislation had gone through without that having been identified, the Minister of State would have had to come back. That is a fact. That is the import of it. Given all the legislation, from the Defence (Amendment) Bill last night to the Building Societies (Amendment) Bill tonight and so many other Bills over recent weeks, surely the lesson must be taken on board from this exercise that this is something to be avoided at all costs. Greater sitting time would accommodate the requirement of better scrutiny and a more perfect legislative process. I have no doubt that all Members would be enthused by such an approach. On behalf of my colleagues I acknowledge the amendments as presented and record support for them.
I thank the Opposition Deputies for their comments and their welcome for the amendments. As the Deputy rightly said, the main amendment came through from the Seanad, which demonstrates its importance. We acknowledge its role and the role of Senator Ryan in particular.
This will not be headline legislation, but it brings together three important bodies, including the national centre for partnership and performance. I have noted some of the work it does and find it exciting because it is visionary. Perhaps we should publicise it more because it is looking at partnership in the workplace, particularly the workplace of the future. This is welcome. It is important to have such a body of committed people in the sophisticated economy and society in which we live. They can try to look into the crystal ball to see what issues may arise in the workplace, such as work-life balance, bullying and harassment and other complex issues that need to be addressed. We need a body like this to do that. In the area of technology there is huge potential to make life easier for everybody. It is important to bring the three bodies together and create a synergy between them and that is what we are doing.
Deputy Bruton raised the issue of the lack of Oireachtas involvement in the partnership process. In the context of the social partnership, I believe it is the duty of Government to govern. However, I acknowledge that as partnership has expanded to the voluntary pillar etc., there is an issue to be addressed. We need to put our heads together as to how we do this. Deputy Quinn spoke earlier in the debate on partnership on the new agreement Towards 2016, and mentioned the role of committees. There is so much detail in the agreement that I believe there is significant potential for committees to examine some of the issues in the coming years. I accept partnership is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Perhaps we could look at the issue under the process of Dáil reform. We have not got far with regard to Dáil reform, but we could deal with it in the context of reform of the role of committees. I am not sure we can do it in the short term, but I acknowledge there are issues that need to be addressed in the context of the Oireachtas as whole with regard to scrutiny of such a major document as Towards 2016. It is certainly a comprehensive agreement.
I thank the Deputies for their co-operation on this technical business at this late hour.
The question is: "That Seanad amendments Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, are hereby agreed to and agreement to the amendments is accordingly reported to the House."
Question put and agreed to.