Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Mar 2010

Vol. 704 No. 1

National Economic and Social Forum and National Centre for Partnership and Performance Dissolution Order 2010: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Pat Carey)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

National Economic and Social Forum and National Centre for Partnership and Performance Dissolution Order 2010,

copies of which were laid in draft form before Dáil Éireann on 26 February 2010.

The profoundly changed national and international context throws up challenges that must shape the way the Government conducts its business in the coming years. Aligned to this, as Deputies will be aware, are ongoing efforts across the public service to achieve savings and avoid duplication.

The Government is keen to ensure that such decisions are made on the basis of sound, evidence-based policy. The Government has therefore considered the future role of the National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO, in the context of the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes and the recommendations of the value-for-money review of the office which was carried out last year. These took account of the evolution of policy and programmes since the various bodies were established, not least the increase in sources of policy analysis and commentary.

In light of these considerations, the Government has decided to amalgamate the three constituent bodies of NESDO by directing that the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance be absorbed into the National Economic and Social Council. This approach reflects the views of many of the stakeholders, including the social partners, which were consulted, as well as staff of the office.

Under the National Economic and Social Development Office Act 2006, it is possible, if the Government so decides, to create other bodies within the NESDO framework. There is no such proposal under consideration at present, but it is prudent to leave NESDO in place as a potential shared services provider, as it will give rise to no substantive additional costs beyond those of the NESC.

The NESF and the NCPP have played a valuable role over the last number of years in advising the Government on policies to achieve greater equality and social inclusion and on promoting and facilitating partnership-led change in the Irish workplace. The excellent work of all staff involved in both of these bodies, together with the contributions made by all the social partners and Members of this House, was an integral part of the success of the two bodies and it is appropriate that we acknowledge that today. I formally acknowledge the contribution of Ms Maureen Gaffney, chairperson of the NESF, and Mr. Peter Cassells, chairman of the NCPP.

The overall grant-in-aid allocation for NESDO in this Department's Estimate for 2010 is €3.854 million, representing a decrease of €1.205 million over the 2009 Estimate. Work is still ongoing to finalise the transitional arrangements for the bodies and I expect that further savings will rise in future years as a result of the amalgamation.

The decision to dissolve the NESF and the NCPP does not reflect any diminution of the Government's support for social dialogue, and the NESF will continue as a forum for engagement between the Government and the social partners on strategic, economic and social issues over the period ahead. During 2010, the NESC will adapt its work programme to ensure that appropriate aspects of the work of the NESF and NCPP are continued, while also focusing on economic and social aspects of the ongoing crisis. The new arrangements will provide for a continued strong contribution by the social partners to the development of economic and social policy through a more streamlined structure, while also delivering substantial savings to the Exchequer. I would welcome a strengthening of the engagement of the Oireachtas with the work of the NESC, in particular through discussion of the council's reports by the relevant committees. I look forward to the debate.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion.

I acknowledge the work carried out by these bodies over the last number of years. There is no doubt they have played a valuable role, as the Minister of State said. Over the last few months, Fine Gael has called for the rationalisation of many quangos, which is a word that can be used to describe some of the bodies we are talking about this evening. I welcome their amalgamation. However, I would like to know what work will be carried out by these bodies in the future and what role the Government has laid out for them.

The Minister of State mentioned that the bodies would be more accountable to the House. Many quangos are not answerable to the Oireachtas and cannot be questioned by its Members. These bodies should be made accountable to the House, perhaps through parliamentary questions to the relevant Minister. Currently, if I table a question about a body to the Department of the Taoiseach or another Department, the reply will be that the Taoiseach or Minister has no direct responsibility for the body concerned. The Minister should be given direct responsibility for such bodies and if parliamentary questions are tabled by a Deputy, he or she should receive a direct reply. I ask the Minister of State to forward this suggestion to the Department of the Taoiseach. The approach over the last number of years has been to keep these bodies at arm's length.

The Minister of State spoke about value for money, which is very unusual, especially for this Government which has created a large amount of quangos. I listened to Colm McCarthy with interest when the report of an bord snip nua was published. He tried and failed to ascertain the amount of quangos that were in each Department. Quangos were hiding behind other quangos and nobody knew who was responsible for them.

I support this proposal. Many more of these bodies should be amalgamated. There is much overlap within different Departments and quangos. There is no doubt that such bodies could be more progressive if they were brought together and given a better and more robust role. The existing roles of quangos can be beneficial and we can highlight social advantages brought about in particular by the NESF. There are different representative bodies on each of these boards. The work should be continued within these bodies but there should be more of a function through the Oireachtas.

These quangos were set up on a whim as jobs for the boys but the function of each of these bodies was lost over a number of years. When people were appointed to these boards, it was done as a favour or to look after friends. That is exactly what has happened over the past number of years. I ask the Minister of State to request that these bodies have more of a responsibility to the Oireachtas; when a Member tables questions on the role, work or function of them, the relevant Minister should have direct responsibility.

I acknowledge the work which has been done by these bodies over the past but I would like to see the duplication evident over the past eradicated. These bodies should have a more robust role.

Deputy Emmet Stagg

The Government decision to abolish the NESF and the NCPP is a small but typical example of the way the public service has been mismanaged and mishandled under Fianna Fáil. In this case an announcement was made some time ago that a public sector body, the National Economic and Social Development Office an umbrella group for the NCPP and the NESF, was to be set up. Years were spent putting that decision into effect and now it is to be completely reorganised in order to save money. We have a new body with plenty of staff but no clarity on its mission.

Despite this, the Government initially saw no need to discuss this matter in the Dáil. The National Economic and Social Council is a body that has existed for decades and which has played a vital role in the economic development of the State. It has produced several reports of great significance and has provided strategic thinking to underpin the social partnership process. This role has been crucial as it means there has been a framework of common strategic understanding on which detailed negotiations can be based.

During the 1990s, the Labour Party was largely responsible for the establishment of the NESF, which broadened the debate between the social partners and which included Members of the Oireachtas. Over that period, the forum has done important work, having a strong focus on social issues and in particular producing a number of important reports on the implementation of policy, not all of which were favourably disposed to the Government.

Later, in response to a growing awareness of the importance of developing partnership at workplace level, the NCPP was established. For a number of administrative reasons it was felt necessary to establish an umbrella body for these organisations, which was NESDO. The Bill to establish NESDO meandered through the Oireachtas for years and was never a priority matter. It was on the Order Paper for an interminable period.

Two of the bodies under the NESDO are to be abolished following a recommendation of the McCarthy report. After years of legislating for an umbrella body, it will only have one entity to shelter. At the same time the entity has no defined mission. The NESC has a mission defined in the NESDO legislation, as did the forum and the centre. We are told that some of the functions of the centre and the forum are to be continued by the NESC, although we are not told which functions they are.

How will any of this work? Will the NESC, for example, take on the role of researching the implementation of policy? Can it do so effectively when there are five Secretaries General on the NESC council? Does this not automatically neuter the possibility of robust criticism of policy implementation?

What of the NCPP? It may be beneficial to have the expertise of the NCPP staff available to the NESC. One of the areas in which social partnership has seen most difficulty in recent years has been workplace rights and industrial relations. Bringing that pool of expertise into the NESC may be useful but we do not have clarity on how the NESC mandate, which is set out in legislation, and the NESC working model is to be adapted to take account of these changes.

We are getting a new model based on a short-term cost-saving measure rather than starting with the question of what we need and building an organisation to meet that requirement. This is a small example but it reflects a broader problem in Government in the whole approach to public service reform. The emphasis has been on the short term rather than a planned and calibrated approach to rein in the excessive costs created by Government in the first place.

The big question underlying all of this is the future of social partnership. The same short-term approach has effectively put social partnership into suspended animation. As a country, we need a determination to move forward together, and we need a system of social dialogue to help us achieve this. It will be a different system to the social partnership model that went before and instead of getting ideas from the Government and positive proposals on how to reform and remake social dialogue, we are getting a half-baked measure that will save some money but which leaves many important questions unanswered.

This is an opportunity to describe to the House what has happened with quangos over the past ten to 15 years. Some 205 quangos have been established and every one took authority from this House and the Members of the House who were elected by the people. In effect, we took authority from the people which we were given as Members of this House. It is outrageous that this happened. It occurred in a Pontius Pilate manner to wash Ministers' hands of responsibility for decisions which had to be made, particularly difficult decisions.

We are now in a position with all of these quangos fully funded with public money but we cannot even raise a question in this House about them. Ministers apparently have no responsibility for them. There is a general broad brush in that the Minister has a responsibility for policy and can in that sense control the quangos but it is not true in practice.

Each one of these quangos has a chairman, a chief executive officer, a board and hires spin doctors to tell us the great actions they are taking, producing fancy and expensive magazines to tell us what they are at. I would like to see an Act of Parliament to bring every one of these under the control of this House until we get around to abolishing about half of them.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

The Sinn Féin members do not agree to this motion seeking our approval for the dissolution of the National Economic and Social Forum. We are not particularly concerned with the dissolution of the National Centre for Partnership and Performance.

This motion arises from the McCarthy report. We have no difficulty with the statement in that report that there is duplication among overlapping agencies, including the National Economic and Social Development Office, the National Economic and Social Council, the NESF and the NCCP. However, as the McCarthy report itself points out, the NESF's mission is to provide advice to Government about policies to achieve greater social inclusion and equality.

In our view the NESF, because of its remit to achieve greater social inclusion and equity, is the one body among these bodies that should be retained. This Fianna Fáil and Green Party Government has already abolished the Combat Poverty Agency at a time when Government policy is driving more people into poverty. Over the years, the NESF has produced many reports that have proved embarrassing for the Government because the focus of those reports was about ensuring equity of access for all to quality public services and the need to combat social exclusion. Elements of many of the reports have also been included in Government policy. The forum was one of the more inclusive bodies involved in the social partnership process.

I could cite many reports that have never been implemented, but are still totally relevant. I made a brief mention of three of them today during the Order of Business. The 2002 NESF report on equity in acute hospital care exposed the grossly inequitable two-tier nature of our health system. The report stated that the two-tier system was inequitable in practice and that additional health service funding was not enough, because major structural reform was needed. The report asserted that consideration of alternative models from countries without equity problems should be the highest priority. The NESF report stated that the State should be a guarantor of access for all, regardless of means. This is the only way to achieve equity of access to acute care. Therefore, entitlement — as opposed to eligibility — is the most appropriate frame for health policy. Health care entitlements should be codified in legislation. Those were the key points made by the NESF. If this motion is passed, the NESF will be gone but the gross inequalities and inefficiencies in our health services will still be with us.

In 2005, an NESF report exposed the massive deficit in child care in this State. It has taken the Government five years to act on the key recommendation of that report, which was for State-funded early childhood care and education for all children in the year before they go to school. Unfortunately, the Government's implementation of this is flawed and has created an age gap which is currently excluding thousands of children born in July and August 2007, something that is replicated each year. The latest NESF report was published last October on the home care package scheme, and it stated that the scheme is being stymied by bad implementation on the part of the HSE.

The body which completed all this valuable work — there are many other reports to which I could refer and from which I drew over the years as a Member of this House — is being abolished and nothing will be put in its place. It seems that the Government is killing off the watchdogs one by one. Quite frankly, we are not at all in favour of this approach, so we will oppose the motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Pat Carey)

I thank Members for their contributions. Those who have spoken have either been members or clients of the service provided by the National Economic and Social Forum, so I understand where they are coming from.

Deputy Kehoe raised the issue of accountability to the Dáil. Under Taoiseach's questions, all of those bodies are accountable to the Dáil and that will continue. Reports that are laid before the House will be routinely debated. I would like to see more regular debates on the various policy initiatives both here and in the other Chamber.

To answer the question raised by Deputy Stagg, the NESC will continue the research, analytical and evaluation work delivered by the NESF. The publication of their reports not only assists policy formation, but informs public debate, including consideration by Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas of issues and proposals arising. Any reports produced by the NESC shall be laid before the Houses and published. The Government will welcome a greater engagement by the Oireachtas with the work of the NESC, through discussion of its reports by the relevant committees and by the House itself. This is the most appropriate way for Members to contribute to these issues, as they do with many other advisory bodies.

The transition process is under way to ensure the amalgamation of the NESF and the NCPP into the NESC and to ensure that the process is managed carefully. This will adapt the NESC work programme and methods as necessary. The NESDO will remain a structure which the Government can use to establish new bodies if required, at no extra cost.

A query was raised about the fact that five Secretaries General were on the NESC, but there were five on the NESF already, yet that did not restrict debate very much.

Deputy Emmet Stagg

It is a bit like a "Yes Minister" syndrome.

Deputy Pat Carey

Deputy Ó Caoláin is entitled to his view on what the Government is doing. I fundamentally disagree that there is an intention by the Government to close off any organisation that is providing worthwhile analyses of policy and is providing directions for policy. I was a member of the team that produced the child care report, as mentioned by the Deputy. It was an all-party report, and everybody on the group agreed with the approach. It was not completely taken on board, but the child care policy that was outlined is being implemented in stages. In due course, the child care programme to be made available to young children will be as good as that in any other country. This programme is being developed using the policy documents drawn up by the NESF.

I ask that Members reflect on this decision. It is well thought through. There is no intention at all to restrict the availability of analysis to Members of this House, to members of the public or to other policy groups throughout the country. There is still a mix of expertise and interests on the groups which heretofore had been present. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 22.

Tá

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Andrews, Barry.
• Andrews, Chris.
• Ardagh, Seán.
• Aylward, Bobby.
• Blaney, Niall.
• Brady, Áine.
• Brady, Cyprian.
• Brady, Johnny.
• Browne, John.
• Byrne, Thomas.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Carey, Pat.
• Collins, Niall.
• Conlon, Margaret.
• Connick, Seán.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Cregan, John.
• Cuffe, Ciarán.
• Curran, John.
• Devins, Jimmy.
• Dooley, Timmy.
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Fleming, Seán.
• Flynn, Beverley.
• Gogarty, Paul.
• Gormley, John.
• Grealish, Noel.
• Hanafin, Mary.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Healy-Rae, Jackie.
• Hoctor, Máire.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Kelly, Peter.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kennedy, Michael.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Lenihan, Conor.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McGuinness, John.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Mulcahy, Michael.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
• O’Brien, Darragh.
• O’Connor, Charlie.
• O’Donoghue, John.
• O’Flynn, Noel.
• O’Hanlon, Rory.
• O’Keeffe, Batt.
• O’Keeffe, Edward.
• O’Rourke, Mary.
• O’Sullivan, Christy.
• Power, Peter.
• Roche, Dick.
• Ryan, Eamon.
• Sargent, Trevor.
• Scanlon, Eamon.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Mary.
• White, Mary Alexandra.
• Woods, Michael.

Níl

• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Burton, Joan.
• Ferris, Martin.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Lynch, Ciarán.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• McGrath, Finian.
• McManus, Liz.
• Morgan, Arthur.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O’Shea, Brian.
• O’Sullivan, Jan.
• O’Sullivan, Maureen.
• Penrose, Willie.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Sherlock, Seán.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Upton, Mary.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Aengus Ó Snodaigh.

Question declared carried.