Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 May 2006

Vol. 183 No. 12

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

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

I thank the Members of the Seanad for the opportunity to commend the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill to this House. The purpose of this Bill is to establish the National Economic and Social Development Office, comprising three bodies, the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, the National Economic and Social Forum, NESF, and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, NCPP. Both the NESC and the NESF have been in existence on their own for some time but the more recently established NCPP — successor to the National Centre for Partnership — arises from the commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness that it be located with the NESC and the NESF, within the National Economic and Social Development Office, where it would work with IBEC and ICTU in supporting the deepening of partnership. All three bodies have been operating on a non-statutory basis since their establishment. This Bill, when enacted, will place them for the first time on a statutory basis.

The National Economic and Social Development Office, or NESDO as it is known, which is being established under this Bill is, as I have already said, made up of three separate bodies and I would like at the outset to say a few words about the important work of each. The National Economic and Social Council was established in 1973 as an advisory body to the Government on the development of the national economy and the achievement of social justice. The council also provides a forum in which views can be exchanged between people who have a common interest in the development of the economy and the pursuit of social justice. The council is representative of the major economic and social interests in our society and this fact is reflected in its membership.

The council has undertaken innovative and pioneering work in a number of areas. Many of its strategy reports have provided the framework for negotiations of the national agreements between Government and the social partners since 1987. Last December, the NESC published its three-yearly strategic overview of Irish economic and social policy entitled, NESC Strategy 2006, People, Productivity and Purpose, which paved the way to the current negotiations on a successor to Sustaining Progress. As Senators are aware, discussions with the social partners are currently under way in the context of securing a new social partnership agreement.

The first strand within the negotiations on a new pay agreement has been focusing on concerns about maintaining and protecting employment standards and it is recognised that there is a need to find the right balance between ensuring decent employment standards and maintaining our competitiveness, flexibility and attractiveness to investment. The agreement of the ICTU executive council on 26 April that sufficient progress has been made in this regard is welcome and this means that the talks have now moved on to address pay and other workplace related issues.

Several other plenary and bilateral meetings have been held which have discussed, among other things, the NESC report entitled Developmental Welfare State, the implications of the proposed longer-term framework for social partnership, the macro-economic context for the negotiations, the economic, environmental, infrastructural and social policy priorities within a new agreement, and the wider, non-pay issues and priorities, where the social partners have agreed that a longer-term perspective is appropriate for full implementation. We look forward to further progress in the new round of talks and hope that the overall negotiations will be successfully concluded at the earliest possible date.

The National Economic and Social Forum, NESF, was originally set up by the Government in 1993 for the purpose of widening the social partnership process and of achieving consensus on as wide a basis as possible on major economic and social policy issues. Since 1998, the forum's work has focused on evaluating the implementation of policies dealing with equality and social inclusion. The main tasks of the forum are as follows: to monitor and analyse the implementation of specific measures and programmes identified, especially those concerned with the achievement of equality and social inclusion; to do so through consideration of reports prepared by teams comprising the social partners, with appropriate expertise and representatives of relevant Departments and agencies and its own secretariat; to prepare reports to be published by the forum with such comments as may be considered appropriate; and to ensure that the teams compiling such reports take account of the experience of implementing bodies, customers and clients — including regional variations, in such experience. The forum may consider such policy issues on its own initiative or at the request of the Government.

The National Centre for Partnership and Performance was established by the Government and launched in October 2002. Its purpose is to support and drive change in the Irish workplace. It enables organisations in the private and public sectors to respond to change, to build capability and to improve performance through partnership. The NCPP's mission is to support and facilitate organisational change, based on partnership, to bring about improved performance and mutual gains. This contributes to national competitiveness, better public services, higher living standards, a better quality of work life and the development of the workplace of the future.

The centre will carry out this role by carrying out research, identifying past practice and developing new national strategies and new models for partnership in the workplace. These are the distinct bodies which will come together to operate as the National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO. Their own roles are separate yet complementary, and this legislation will establish the new office as a means of supporting the three constituent bodies, promoting complementarity between them and providing administrative and logistical support on a cost effective basis. It will also act as the employer of staff, and so provide a better career structure for the secretariat of the three bodies.

I now propose to deal with the Bill and its provisions. The Bill deals with the practical arrangements for the establishment of the office and for the benefit of this House I would like to touch on some of its main features. Section 6 sets out the establishment of the office and refers to its constituent parts as including the NESC, the NESF and the NCPP. It also states that the office and each body established under this section and section 7 shall have all such powers as are necessary for, or incidental to, the performance of its functions under the Act.

Section 7 gives the Taoiseach the power, following consultations with the Minister for Finance and any other Minister he or she considers relevant, to establish by order such other bodies as he or she consider appropriate, to prepare advice and reports on any aspect of any matter relating to the functions of the office.

Section 8 states that the function of the office shall be to advise the Taoiseach on all strategic matters relevant to economic and social development in the State. This fits in naturally with the individual roles of the NESC, the NESF and the NCPP as set out in their own terms of reference.

Sections 9, 10 and 11 set out the functions of the council, the forum and the centre, respectively. The functions of the council shall be to analyse and report to the Taoiseach on strategic issues relating to the efficient development of the economy, the achievement of social justice, the development of a strategic framework for the conduct of relations and the negotiation of agreements between the Government and the social partners.

The functions of the forum shall be to advise the Taoiseach on policies to achieve greater equality and social inclusion, and such other matters as may be specified by the Taoiseach in the context of social partnership arrangements, by analysing, monitoring and evaluating relevant programmes and policies.

The functions of the centre shall be to support and facilitate organisational change and innovation based on partnership in order to bring about improved performance and mutual gains, and to contribute to national competitiveness, better public services, higher living standards, a better quality of life and the development of the workplace of the future.

Section 13 sets out the composition of the office as being the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the council, the forum and the centre. Sections 14, 15 and 16 explain the nominating procedures for the ordinary membership of each of the bodies. In all cases the members shall be appointed by the Taoiseach. Section 17 gives the Taoiseach the power to alter by order the composition of the council, forum or centre.

Section 18 sets out the term of office of both the chairperson and of an ordinary member of a body, and the conditions under which they both will hold office. This section also calls for an equitable balance to be achieved between men and women in the composition of a body. Section 20 outlines the conditions which apply to a member of the council, the forum, the centre or a member of staff of the bodies when they are nominated or elected to the membership of either House of the Oireachtas or European Parliament, and thereupon cease to be a member of the particular body.

Sections 21, 22 and 23 relate to the establishment of committees and how they will function, the disclosure by members of the office, the three bodies and staff of interests, and the prohibition on the disclosure of confidential information. Section 24 deals with the role of the chief officer of the office and indicates the duties assigned to him or her, the method of his or her appointment and removal by the Taoiseach, and other conditions which apply to the post. Section 25 deals with the directors of the bodies and outlines their functions, as well as the conditions and term of office.

Section 26 is concerned with the staff of the office and how such staff are to be recruited. This will require consultation between the office and the director of the body concerned and must have the consent of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance. It also deals with the removal of any officer or employee who fails to perform his or her functions satisfactorily.

Sections 29, 31 and 32 cover the financial arrangements in regard to the office and, in particular, the advancing to the office of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, the keeping of accounts and the conditions which apply to their submission to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Section 31 relates to the giving of evidence by the chief officer to the Dáil committee established to examine and report to Dáil Éireann on the appropriate accounts and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The office shall be required under section 33 to prepare a strategic plan for approval by the Taoiseach not later than six months after the establishment day of the office and every three years from the submission of the first statement. Once approved, a copy of the plan will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. Section 34 requires the office to make a report to the Taoiseach at the end of the financial year and the Taoiseach shall cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

Section 35 allows the Taoiseach the right to dissolve the council, the forum, the centre and any body established under section 7, following consultation with the office and any Minister who has representation on the body. The office will be included in the First Schedule to the Freedom of Information Act 1997 and will thereby be covered by its provisions. This is set out in section 36.

The remaining sections are concerned with the dissolution of the non-statutory bodies on the establishment day of the new office, the transfer of rights and liabilities of the dissolved bodies, the drawing up of the accounts of the dissolved bodies and, of particular importance to the staff of the bodies, the conditions which apply to their transfer to the new statutory bodies.

The Bill will put in place the structures referred to in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness by combining the NCPP alongside the NESC and the NESF to ensure that their complementary roles are acknowledged and developed to support the economic and social fabric of our society. I am confident that the new office will achieve this and I wish it well in this important work.

I appreciate that much of my contribution is mundane and unexciting. However, as someone who is a former Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs and who serves with a Taoiseach who held the labour portfolio, I commend everyone involved in this work. I used the word "partnership" frequently because Ireland is recognised as a country that promotes partnership and there is no better person than the Taoiseach in this regard. Everybody is aware of the time and energy he puts into the process and he is doing so again during the current round of talks on a new agreement.

Ireland is the envy of many countries, particularly in Europe. They constantly refer to the success and advancement of the economy, which has come about primarily because of this process, and it is important to recognise that. The Taoiseach and all the social partners have demonstrated tremendous leadership within their organisations and representation has been widened. They have done significant work since the process commenced in 1987 to develop the economy for the benefit of the people. I commend the Bill to the House.

I warmly welcome the Minister of State to the House. I congratulate him on being the first official substitute in the Department of the Taoiseach.

My initial reaction to the latter part of his contribution is that we need to be careful not to overegg the partnership process. It has been a success but, as Brendan Behan said, we are all very popular, popular among ourselves. The notion that the driving force behind our success over the past 20 years has its genesis in the partnership process is wide of the mark. The Bill was published in 2002 and it was introduced in the Lower House in 2003 but it has taken three years to get to this House. It does not augur well for the Government's strategic drive that a Bill published four years ago is only coming before the House now. If we are serious about reforming the way both Houses do their business, the expeditious passage of legislation should be ensured once it is promised and published. This legislation was promised under a partnership agreement a number of years ago.

The Minister of State alluded to a problem in this process. The centralised control of the process is exercised by the Taoiseach's office and not the Houses of the Oireachtas. Sections 14, 15 and 16 provide that all the council's members shall be appointed by the Taoiseach. Under section 24, the Taoiseach is given the absolute right to remove the members, while section 26 provides that all new bodies established under section 7 require the consent of the Taoiseach. Section 33 refers to the preparation of a plan that must be forwarded to the Taoiseach's office, while section 34 provides for a report to the Taoiseach of the end of year financial results. Section 35 gives the Taoiseach the right to dissolve the council in its entirety. We are putting into law a highly centralised process under the absolute control of the Taoiseach.

Significant questions are raised privately by both Government and Opposition Members when I converse with them about the way in which this process is completely devoid of oversight by the Houses of the Oireachtas and resides within the Department of the Taoiseach, to the exclusion of virtually all politicians. They say what we have witnessed in recent years is a dumbing down of Parliament and the control of Parliament by the partnership process. The Bill will not change that because it puts the office that contains the three divisions overseeing the partnership process on a statutory footing.

The entire process is top heavy and it is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of workers. Approximately 70% of workers are not represented at the negotiating table because they are not in unionised labour, while the vast majority of small and medium-sized business are also not represented. Partnership involves a deal between the public sector unions and the Government. I fully understand why the Government and Governments, of which my party was a member, want that to happen but it should not be overegged. The process should not be described as something it is not and we should not overdramatise its effect on the economy since the mid-1980s.

My party has made many comments on the benchmarking process in recent years. When the issue was first raised, we sought accountability regarding the determination of the awards and we also wanted greater flexibility in the establishment of the awards. The new benchmarking formula is better than the original and the proof of the pudding will emerge in the next few weeks. Many people in the private sector are agog at the way in which increases can be given to the staff of an entire Department, irrespective of their performance.

If we are serious about benchmarking going forward, a more flexible process must be established, based on delivering results in the public service, in which significant funding and staff resources have been invested in recent years. The increase is justifiable for many, but not for all, and it must be based on a new system. I hope the new process will deliver a better result for public service consumers but it should be recognised it is too often based on vested interests, including public sector unions, and the people at the trough to the exclusion of the 70% of workers who are not unionised and who are not represented at the negotiating table. They have experienced a significant reduction in their take home pay compared with public sector staff and that issue needs to be addressed.

I was astonished by the Taoiseach's comments last September when he was doorstepped entering Dublin Castle for the first phase of talks on the new partnership deal. He said his ambition in the new round was to concentrate on health and education issues. He was right but why should these issues be raised during these talks? They are matters for the Houses of the Oireachtas. If the Government's view is that health and education funding is not sufficient, Ministers should say that in Parliament, not in Dublin Castle. Much of the baloney and verbiage that is part and parcel of the process must be unravelled. The idea that the Taoiseach needs the approval of the social partners to increase funding in health and education is anathema to the notion of a representative parliament and representative democracy.

Part of the success of this country is due to former Deputy Ray MacSharry when, as Minister for Finance in the late 1980s, he decided to curtail much of the expenditure we could not afford. He was supported in that decision by former Deputy Alan Dukes, then leader of my party, in the Tallaght strategy.

Between 1987 and 1989, we managed collectively to turn the economy around by dealing with the gross overexpenditure on the current side. That was a radical thing to do and a new departure in politics, where a national consensus was reached among the two biggest parties in the country.

However, references are rarely made to this and we often hear verbiage that the partnership process was the catalyst for the economy. That is not the case and anyone who believes it needs to look at the facts. A partnership process is essential in difficult times, when we have high levels of unemployment and when the public finances are not as healthy as they are now. However, there may be a case for bilateral agreements between workers and their employers to ensure those workers get a better deal. The notion that a blanket increase across industry leads to a better situation for all workers may have to be questioned.

There is a mania for establishing quangos that started in the early 1990s and for which I do not necessarily blame Fianna Fáil. It started with partnerships, bodies and unelected, unaccountable people in well-paid positions who produce endless reports that nobody reads. This mania affects all Governments, including my own Government. In 1992-93, an obsession developed whereby new boards were established all over the country. However, we are cementing this in legislation today.

There are three bodies in existence at the moment and I wonder if they would be better off as one body. That would curtail much of the expenditure on administration, salaries and costs. It is difficult to understand the differences between them. Much of the work could be done by the ESRI, which is in existence for more than 40 years. Is it necessary to have the NESC, the NESF and the NCPP in operation, given the current level of expertise in the public sector? I accept that if there is a partnership process, then there needs to be a backup for that process. However, I do not understand why the process should be segmented in three different areas when the State is already developing it in many Departments. In the Department of the Taoiseach, there are very substantial resources and excellent public servants who can do this work. Do we need to make jobs for others? These bodies have grown exponentially in recent years like plants in the ground and nobody is prepared to stop them.

The Minister of State spoke about the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, yet one could argue much of its work is done by the strategic management process in the public service, which aims for greater efficiency, consumer focus and organisational change. I served on that committee for a number of years and I understood that these developments were already under way in the public service. However, this Bill seems to reinvent it once more.

Section 7 gives the Taoiseach absolute power to set up any subgroup or body within this framework, following consultation with the Minister for Finance and any other Minister. We are putting into law a centralised process that has its beginning, middle and end in the Department of the Taoiseach. That is bad for our Parliament. If politicians want to take ownership of this process, we need a hands-on approach and we need to be involved in the process. Whatever comes from the partnership process may be debated here, but it does not require a positive resolution of either House of the Oireachtas. It only requires the assent of the Government. Is there any other plan with such significance over a three or five-year period which would not require a resolution of both Dáil and Seanad Éireann? This is bizarre. We are now giving power to the Taoiseach to establish any other body as he sees fit, without recourse to legislation. We will have to tease this out on Committee Stage.

The Minister of State referred to the fact that the office now comes under the Freedom of Information Act. Will the constituent bodies under the office also come under the Act? The public has a right to know what is going on in feeding the partnership process itself. The problem with benchmarking the first time was the lack of public accountability about the information being supplied to the decision-making body. Does the FOI provision apply to all three bodies under the office to be established? On Committee Stage of the Bill in the Dáil, Deputy Bruton attempted to have a much more rigorous procedure put in the Bill which would involve the Oireachtas. I will return to that issue on Committee Stage in this House.

Politicians say one thing in private and another thing in public. In fairness to Senator O'Toole, he is consistent on this issue. However, colleagues in the Minister of State's party and in my party say very different things about this process. We must make it work, we must make it more accountable and we must ensure that our Parliament is not sidelined as it has been so often by different Governments in the past ten years.

Is mian liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit agus buíochas a ghabháil leis toisc an léirithe a thug sé dúinn ar an mBille seo. Ní gá dom a rá go n-aontaím go hiomlán le gach rud a dúirt sé. Tá sé ciallmhar, bunúsach agus níl aon amhras faoi ná go mbaineann sé leis an stádas atá ag an tír seo i láthair na huaire ó thaobh cúrsaí eacnamaíochta agus sóisialta de.

There are many in this House who are old enough to remember the bad old days. When we travelled abroad, the perception of us was that our begging bowl was seldom far from the table. We should not forget that people threw around labels such as "banana republic" and "deprivation."

Last year, I visited Shanghai where together with our consul general I met with a top local official who had high praise for Ireland. Shanghai has a population of 20 million people, yet the chairman of its foreign affairs office, a position which is almost the equivalent of prime minister, told us that the city had much to learn from Ireland. On St. Patrick's Day, I visited Latvia, where the Irish ambassador and I held an open session with the mayor. Shortly after our welcome, we were told that, as a new EU member state, Latvia has much to learn from Ireland's accomplishments. On Easter Sunday, I met with 300 members of the Irish community in New York. I remember going to America in the late 1960s, when dollars were being collected to send to Ireland. The debate on my most recent visit, however, was about Ireland's economic success and what the change in the country's image means for the Irish in America.

That success does not pertain only to economic or social affairs. Our international status has become what it is today because we have proved ourselves. That has impacted on many aspects of Irish life, none more so than the Northern Ireland situation, which was our Achilles heel on many occasions. If we had not taken centre stage in world and, especially, European affairs, the President of the United States would not have had a hands-on role in trying to bring about a solution to the Northern problem. Those problems also had economic aspects because, as anyone who dealt with foreign tourism bodies could explain, an incident in the North of Ireland could undo an advertising campaign just as progress was about to be made.

Today's Bill is another milestone on a phenomenal road of success and progress. I accept Senator Brian Hayes's argument that its passage has been slow but that has not detracted from the work of the three constituent bodies in any way. It is important to remember this Bill fulfils a commitment given under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. I was interested to hear the points made by Senator Hayes, some of which were also raised by Senator McHugh on the Order of Business. They implied that the job of Government is not to govern but governance is fundamental to democracy and is the reason Governments and taoisigh exist. It would be wrong to suggest that interaction does not take place because hardly a week goes by in which Senator Ross does not expound on many of the ideas raised by Senator Brian Hayes. In turn, Senator O'Toole, who represents the trade union movement, puts the other side of the argument. These issues are discussed in virtually every Bill pertaining to the economy that comes before the House.

It is not right to use the word "quango" in the way it was used by Senator Brian Hayes. When the National Economic and Social Council was established in 1973, the Government took an important step in terms of engaging on a broader basis with people who were focused on the national economy. The advisory body employed people who were in touch with reality and were the best in their fields. That did not detract from the role of parliamentarians in any way and actually extended the role of the Oireachtas. Had the partnership model not been developed, the country would have experienced constant industrial strife. What investor would be attracted to a country riddled by strikes?

I come from the small town of Cashel, which has a population of 3,000. Every time the opportunity arose of attracting a new industry to the town, we put together a business formula. After a while, I discovered that prospective investors knew more about us than we realised and subsequently learned that they studied local newspapers to investigate whether Cashel's environment was fertile for their industries. Wherever there was an overemphasis on industrial action, they fought shy because they realised that problems would arise down the road. Investors no longer have to buy local newspapers because modern technology allows them to receive reports on a minute-by-minute basis. However, it is still the case that prospective investors will not risk their money if the environment is not conducive to growth.

We have succeeded in that strikes are virtually an issue of the past. When threats of strike action previously arose, everybody went to the wall but these threats are now dealt with through the structures we have developed. While we all knew that a solution had to be found, we only did so after the damage had been done. Invariably, workers suffered because strike pay did not compensate them for loss of money. Generally, they returned to somewhat improved employment conditions but the damage done by the strike meant the workplace was less able to cope. Through our structures, the confidence we built and, above all, the trust that currently exists, the bad old days are in the distant past. I give credit for this to the visionaries who established the first body.

The establishment of the National Economic and Social Forum in the 1990s sent out the statement that great progress had been made but that more people had to be brought into the process. Contrary to the arguments of Senator Brian Hayes, the net has in fact been spread to allow more people to interact with each other within the forum. This step favoured the worker by supporting the changes needed within the workplace. Progress was made, people were given opportunities to interact and the process reached ground level. Changes have taken place in all Irish workplaces at all levels. For example, aberrations in health and safety, which are fundamental, make the headlines because they are so few and far between. Issues such as sexual harassment and equal opportunity have been addressed. The new body, the NCCP, will address the few issues remaining on the priority list. Not only have these three elements contributed to our current affluence but they also ensure that the social element will at all times be to the fore.

I do not know how many people go back on bóithrín na smaointe and compare like with like. We are pushing out the parameters from a base of unprecedented success but when we look back at ten or 20 years ago we do not compare like with like. With the new body bringing the three constituent bodies together into one office I can understand why that commitment was sought at the time and why it was readily provided.

According to economic forecasts we look forward to another three or four good years, but nothing remains static. There will be new competition from eastern Europe and others. If we remain static and just pat ourselves on the back we will not see the dangers and opportunities that might arise in a year or two. We have not lost many industries as a result of the opening up of the EU but we have lost some and may lose more, largely due to our success, the level of wages and work conditions available.

It is important we take account of our situation. While I do not suggest the three constituent bodies have not interacted, there is a need for co-ordination, pooling of resources and a totality in the work they do. I cannot see how anybody would suggest we do not need the bodies. It would be like a layman saying he would take the stones from the foundation of a house and expect it to stand. It will not. If any of the bodies, quango or otherwise, is removed, we would endanger the process.

The Bill allows the Taoiseach to be Taoiseach. He is the Leader of the Government and the country. Members of the Houses and the media hold taoisigh to account for everything they do, and rightly so. To suggest, as it would mean, that he should abdicate his responsibilities and powers, which he has by mandate from the people through the elected representatives and the creation of the Government, would be a negation of democracy. That is why I refer to what Senator McHugh said this morning about the Progressive Democrats having the Ministry for health and children because it is a small party. That is not how government works. It is not about numbers but the responsibility placed on them by being in government. The only way the Taoiseach can govern is by ensuring he has full accountability and responsibility.

Let us examine the Oireachtas committees. This is important. The powers, responsibilities and opportunities of the Oireachtas committees are possibly the most expansive in the world. Many a country, those with existing as well as developing legislatures, will study our model in the future. Every day of the week the committees sit and deal with Government business handed down to them by the Houses of the Oireachtas and they have the power to invite witnesses to appear before them. Any of the bodies listed here can be asked to come before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

It has been suggested that trade unionists and businesses are under-represented. The democratic structure has always been that one joins an association, elects a leadership, agrees a constitution and tells the organisation what are one's views. The leadership of the organisation takes a consensus and promotes that. This is what IBEC and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions do. There is no other way except to go back to the fair day when one raises one's hand to say one agrees. We have gone beyond that and it is particularly important not to underestimate how the structures operate.

The Houses of the Oireachtas have a direct input if there are issues in the Bill with which we do not agree. Senator Brian Hayes has proposed some good points. I would not take them from him and I am not trying to score political points. This is not the sort of Bill on which to score political points as fundamentally, we all agree. We have to say something to use up our 15 or 20 minutes and get on the record of the House.

We do not have to.

It would be difficult to disagree——

The Senator has almost used up his time.

This Bill will go through smoothly because fundamentally, we are proud of our success and are anxious to ensure it is protected. Above all, each of us who has any visionary element in our spirit looks to the future to maintain, expand and develop what we have.

I am pleased to have these few minutes to speak on this Bill and I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I have just run here so I am exhausted.

Senator Feeney may speak first.

Yes, let her speak first. I apologise.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I am happy to allow my colleague Senator Kate Walsh to get some oxygen while I use my few minutes. I welcome the Minister of State and the Bill. The National Economic and Social Development Office will be established under the terms of the National Economic and Social Development Bill. The new office will incorporate three bodies, the National Economic and Social Council, the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Council for Partnership and Performance. When enacted, the Bill will place the three constituent bodies on a statutory basis as part of the National Economic and Social Development Office. It will also be responsible for other such bodies that may be established in the future by the Taoiseach or his office.

I would like to speak on the body of which I am a member, the National and Economic Social Forum. This body is chaired by Dr. Maureen Gaffney.

I understand Senator Feeney is sharing time.

No. As the Minister of State has pointed out, the NESF was the first established, in 1993. Its purpose was to contribute to the formation of a wider national consensus on social and economic policy initiatives, particularly on unemployment, equality and social exclusion. I am pleased to have been asked by The Taoiseach to join the NESF. I share my membership with other Members of this House, namely, Senators O'Rourke, Mooney, Daly, Coghlan, Quinn and Kate Walsh.

In 1998, the Government asked the NESF to undertake a new role in the national policy process, mainly to focus on monitoring and analysing the implementation of particular measures and programmes identified in the social partnership arrangements, especially those concerned with achieving equality and social inclusion. The NESF has produced a wide range of influential policy reports and every member of this House is familiar with them as we have debated some of them here over the years. These provide a solid basis for facing future policy challenges.

The NESF had its term of office renewed in 2003 and in doing so the Government asked it to convene public consultations, particularly on policy issues, so that the Government may refer to it from time to time for examination. This strengthens the role given to the NESF. It provides the forum and individuals, as well as the members of the wider voluntary community and other sectors who make contributions to it that affect policy, which I know first-hand from having sat on the body.

Some of the reports produced by the NESF in recent years included Creating a More Inclusive Labour Market which was published in January of this year, and Care for Older People which was published in November 2005. I sat on the sub-committee which produced the latter report with Senator Kate Walsh, which gave me the first-hand knowledge to which I referred. I could see the valuable work done by voluntary members and groups, together with civil servants from the different Departments involved. The report, which was debated in this Chamber, made excellent recommendations. Another report was Early Childhood Care and Education, published in July 2005. The NESF is the one of three bodies about which I know most because I am a member of that body.

The second body is the National Economic and Social Council, established in 1973. The function of the council is to analyse and report to the Taoiseach on strategic issues relating to the effect of development of the economy, the achievement of social justice and the development of a strategic framework. The council is chaired by the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach and contains representatives of trade unions, employers, farming organisations, NGOs, key Departments and independent experts.

The third body is the National Centre for Partnership and Performance. The NCPP was established by the Government to support and drive change in the Irish workplace. The centre's remit is to enable organisations in the private and public sectors, through partnership, to respond to change, build capability and improve performance. The NCPP is currently finalising its new strategic plan, which will be published shortly.

The work of these organisations has contributed greatly to policy formation and implementing change. Through my work on the NESF, I have gained valuable insight into a wide variety of issues through interaction with representatives from the outside bodies and the various organisations represented on it. As the Minister of State outlined, this approach is all about partnership and is one with which I agree and would like continued. It is through such organisations that we, as legislators, will obtain these comprehensive reports, which are the blueprint for legislation.

Having listened to the contribution of Senator Ó Murchú, I believe the NESF can take a proud bow because it has played its part in the economic and social success that we experience today, a success of which we are openly proud. I commend the role of the chairperson of the NESF, Dr. Maureen Gaffney, and pay tribute to the members who sit alongside myself and Senator Kate Walsh for their fine contribution to the work of the committee.

As the Minister of State noted, this is not a Bill that one can really get one's teeth into. We have often had great debates and arguments in the House but this Bill is rather technical in nature. I shy away from technical things. Perhaps a woman would not really know what technical issues are about, no more than she would know how to hammer a nail into a wall. If it can hurt me, I do not go near it. I stay on a straight road. However, while the Bill is technical, I have some experience in that I sit on one of the bodies involved. My contribution is focused on discussing the important role of that body.

This debate is not about scoring points but I did not agree with the point made by Senator Brian Hayes regarding the Taoiseach's that this was all about examining the issues of education and health. The Government is not trying to take away from the role of Government or dilute the powers of Government in any way. It is showing leadership by including bodies such as these. The Government involves not just legislators and elected politicians but also the electorate in general, community groups and people who would heretofore have felt themselves to be outside of politics. It is in this way that the Taoiseach is showing leadership. If we are to say anything about the Taoiseach, he is certainly a man of the people. He is trying to be inclusive and bring everybody on board.

This is an important Bill. It is all about partnership, which has proven it can work well. I look forward to the contribution of Senator O'Toole, who knows more about partnership than any other Member of this House or the Lower House. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House. I commend the staff of the various bodies involved and look forward to the next Stage of the Bill.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute and welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, to the House. Two of these three organisations are reasonably well known, the NESF and NESC, and while the public are still getting to know the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, the work done by Peter Cassells and Lucy Fallon-Byrne has been extraordinary.

We all know social partnership but as far as most are concerned, it is something that happens in Kildare Street, where the trade union movement, the business community and Government and various other groups meet at the top level. One of the problems is that one can agree to something across a table in Dublin but to get that agreement understood in a small workplace in another part of the country is difficult. As politicians we have seen this in other ways. The NCPP is trying to deepen the concept of partnership.

We need to give a clear guideline as to what goes on in the partnership talks and what these three bodies are doing. In every partnership discussion going back to 1987 — I was involved in every one — we would begin with the most recent report from the NESF and NESC and on that would build the partnership process. That is how important these organisations are. They are not prescriptive but they outline the situation. Issues are agreed in principle, then they are fleshed out in negotiation.

How does this process work? One important point is that the process requires people to develop a coincidence of objectives. They must have an understanding and agreement as to where they are going. The first issue is one that some in the trade union movement would argue is not their business, and one that some in the business community would argue is not the business of the trade unions. It is only when one can force people to sit around a table and listen to each other that progress can be made on this first issue, which is that of wealth creation. There is no point in my arguing from the trade union side about redistributing wealth if there is no wealth to redistribute, and the same applies to the management side. We must all agree to create the conditions necessary to create wealth. That is the basis of the Celtic tiger, and involves issues such as employment, labour law and, in particular, competitiveness.

We must be competitive. When one hears a discussion on competitiveness, it almost always boils down to how much workers are being paid, which is only one small part of the issue. The job of the trade union side has been to say it is not only that and that it is about profits, etc.

Over the past 20 years, the level of wealth creation — in other words, the growth in the economy each year — has been quite extraordinary. This year growth will be 5% to 5.5%. With the exception of the blip around 2001-02, the development of wealth in this country has been quite extraordinary. We have moved from a time where the per capita wealth of the country was way below the European average. It is now above that. I am only using that as a measurement or a benchmark. It does not mean anything for many people who do not share in that wealth and that is why we need further social partnership.

When we create the wealth, we must decide what to do with it, which is the crucial part. We have grown the wealth of the country by 5% this year, so what should we do with it and who should get it? How difficult is that? The longer one spends thinking about it, the more difficult it gets but one can begin with the top-line issues. Some of that money will have to be reinvested in industry or in whatever is creating wealth and in research and development to ensure our industries develop and more wealth is created. If we do not do that, we will have no future. That is crucial for the following reason. We will no longer make widgets or have huge manufacturing industries. Any add-on value we create will come from intelligence — intellectual add-on and investment. That is why we need research and development in new products, new markets, new industry and new services. If that is not done, we will have no future.

I refer to that dirty word "profit". It was years before the people I represent became comfortable with discussing the idea. We must accept that profit is a motivator and is part of the deal. Some of us might not like to see too much of it around but it must exist. It is the job of those of us on the left or the labour side to ensure we hold down the profit level so there is more left for the share-out. However, the shareholders, risk-takers and entrepreneurs in a company deserve to get their cut.

When industrialists here talk about how much they are being overtaxed, they have no argument. This country has the lowest tax regime in Europe in terms of capital gains tax and corporation tax. I have argued with Government for 20 years that it does not need to be quite so low. The reality is industrialists are getting a very good deal and whether it is right or wrong, nobody can argue with the fact it has worked and has created wealth. Industrialists are operating in a very relaxed regime.

Tax money is spent on services such as those provided by the school in Dunquin, the hospital in Drogheda and the jail somewhere else. There must be money for health, education, justice and social welfare. What do the disadvantaged in our society, voluntary bodies, pensions, etc., get? Suddenly it all becomes very clear. It is easy to do a flow chart of the above.

Everyone must agree on the conditions needed for the creation of wealth. Those conditions include interest, competitiveness, inflation, etc. The next question is what we do with the money generated. Some of it must be reinvested in research and development, some will be taken as profit, some will be used to pay workers and some will be used to pay tax. The Government uses tax revenue to run the country and look after people, including some of those who have taken a profit because they still send their children to school, avail of the health service, drive on the roads, use the airports, etc. These are real issues and as soon as we bring them together, we recognise that is what social partnership is about.

Social partnership is important because if we did not have it, we would have a comfortable situation where people would not go outside their own tents. The trade unions would never have to eyeball or do face time with those on the other side of the argument. If the social partners did not have to deal with each other, they would never have to hear the arguments of those on the other side. If those on the business side did not have to argue their point or listen to the other side, life would become very easy.

The guy who makes the most extreme demand or comment gets the loudest applause at meetings with his own crowd and everybody leaves the meeting with a feel-good feeling. However, if he is brought into Government Buildings the following day, lined up with the Government, the farmers, the voluntary bodies, etc., on the other side and told to listen to responses to his argument, he will hear things he never heard. That is the value of social partnership and that engagement is crucial. People might dislike it and might not like what they hear but they must listen.

There is always compromise and every national agreement is a sell-out by all parties. There has never been an agreement where all parties have got all they looked for. What we can have with a partnership agreement and which we have had many times is what I refer to as a "Chinese bargain" where every party gets something positive out of it. No party gets all it looked for but each gets some of what it looked for.

In all of that, we try to raise the boats of all groups. However, we have failed to look after people who need more help because this has become a competitive and survivalist society. Recently I listened to a French person living here whose view was that this is a great country in which to live if one is healthy, doing well and working in a good job but that it is a difficult one in which to live if one needs support or help. That is why we must welcome this legislation.

This legislation copper-fastens much of the basis for the above, which is why I commend it. It is the way forward. Even if there is no partnership agreement, there will always be partnership. If there is no partnership, we would spend our time pulling each other apart. For many years, we have had the best industrial relations record in Europe. No country has had fewer strikes. In fact, public service strikes are almost unheard of in Ireland these days compared with what we have seen in France, Belgium, Italy and Germany in the past year where there have been strikes over pensions, public services, investment and labour law, issues which are dealt with in partnership negotiations here and, as consequence, it is a boost for the economy. This legislation is important as it gives a statutory basis to the various bodies.

I have a particular interest in the points relating to the function of this new office. The Minister of State referred to section 8 and the individual roles of the NESF, the NESC and the NCPP. These valuable groups have their own terms of reference and this legislation fits naturally with them. As a member of the committee, I am proud of the role played by the NESF. It currently provides advice to the Government on policies to achieve greater equality and social inclusion which is a valuable contribution. By analysing, monitoring and evaluating relevant policies identified in the context of social partnership, the NESF contributes greatly to the ongoing efforts by the Progressive Democrats and this Government to ensure the fruits of our prosperity are used to help the most vulnerable in our society.

It is correct that we put in place the necessary structures under social partnership and I welcome the recognition and complementary roles of the NESF, the NESC and NCPP. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure we have proper arrangements to develop and support the social and economic fabric of our changing society. In this context, I hope the House joins with me in welcoming this Bill.

I welcome the Minister of State. As other speakers have said, the purpose of the Bill is to establish the National Economic and Social Development Office comprising three bodies, namely, the National Economic and Social Council, the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance. Section 9 states the functions of the council shall be to analyse and report to the Taoiseach on strategic issues relating to the efficient development of the economy and the achievement of social justice, and the development of a strategic framework for the conduct of relations and the negotiation of agreements between the Government and the social partners.

Section 10 deals with the functions of the forum, which are to advise the Taoiseach on policies to achieve greater equality and social inclusion and such other matters as may be specified by the Taoiseach in the context of social partnership arrangements by analysing, monitoring and evaluating relevant programmes and policies, and to facilitate public consultation on policy matters referred to it from time to time by the Government.

Section 11 states the functions of the centre are to support and facilitate organisational change and innovation based on partnership in order to bring about improved performance and mutual gains, and to contribute to national competitiveness, better public services, higher living standards, a better quality of life and the development of the workplace of the future. I concur with what my colleagues have said about the progress made since the partnership process first came about and the great developments that have taken place.

Section 14 deals with the composition of the council and section 16 deals with the composition of the centre. Section 15 deals with the composition of the forum. The ordinary members of the forum shall include: 15 Members of either the Dáil or Seanad; not fewer than three representatives of business and employer interest groups; not fewer than three members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions; not fewer than three representatives of farming and agricultural interests; and not fewer than ten and not more than 15 members representing the "community and voluntary sector". I would like this to state "community, voluntary and youth sector" because I would like youth to be mentioned specifically in the legislation.

I welcome the fact that section 15 also states that not fewer than three and not more than five members shall be persons nominated by organisations which the Taoiseach considers representative of the local government system. I would like clarification that this means councillors rather than members of the administrative sections of councils.

Section 20 states:

20.—(1) Where a member of the Council, the Forum (subject to subsection (2)), the Centre or a body established under section 7—

(a) is nominated as a member of Seanad Éireann,

(b) is elected as a member of either House of the Oireachtas or to be a representative in the European Parliament,

(c) is regarded pursuant to Part XIII of the Second Schedule to the European Parliament Elections Act 1997, as having been elected to that Parliament to fill a vacancy, or

(d) becomes a member of a local authority (within the meaning of the Local Government Act 2001),

he or she shall thereupon cease to be a member of the Council . . .

If somebody is doing a good job as a member of either body and is elected to the Oireachtas, a council or the European Parliament, he or she should not be barred from being a member of any of the groups.

I have much more to say but am aware that the Minister of State is pressed for time. I welcome the Bill and look forward to contributing on Committee and Report Stages.

I welcome this debate. I will not be able to address all the issues raised but will make a commitment to deal with them as best I can on Committee Stage. Some very important, detailed points were made.

I am a great supporter of social partnership and respect Senator Brian Hayes's opinion that Members, across party lines, have different views thereon. Senator O'Toole, a strong proponent of this system who has been an active player, made the key point that there are always other issues to address. We all know the issues that need to be addressed in respect of health, marginalisation and poverty and we must do more work on these.

Senator Brian Hayes mentioned the democratic deficit, which has been discussed previously, and Senator Ó Murchú covered it in his contribution. There is a role for the Oireachtas in this regard. The Taoiseach has taken well in excess of 300 oral questions on social partnership since 1997. Each of our six social partnership agreements to date has been negotiated on the basis of the primacy of the programme for Government within the framework of the NESC three-year strategic, economic and social overview. I assume the negotiations leading to Partnership 2000, overseen by the then rainbow coalition Government, were conducted on a similar basis.

The monitoring and review of the implementation of the social partnership agreement operates on a number of levels in the Oireachtas. The detailed quarterly progress report on implementation, keynote speeches and other relevant documents are laid before the Oireachtas for close scrutiny and probing. In excess of 40 key documents have been laid before both Houses in respect of the current agreement. Ministerial colleagues have also engaged in extensive debate on social partnership-related issues. The Oireachtas strand of the National Economic and Social Forum, a key social partnership institution, comprises Members of the Dáil and Seanad. I welcome the debates in the Seanad on this issue.

On the NESC strategy for 2006, the report provides a guiding vision for economic and social development in the future. The strategy report represents a particularly valuable input into the necessary process of dialogue. The social partnership process is more than a pay agreement — it represents a set of relationships between Government and social partners which helps to produce a problem-solving response, as stated by Senator Ó Murchú. I have personal experience of this and I remember the famous dispute involving baggage handlers in Ryanair. A mechanism exists to solve problems as they arise and it has been marvellous in terms of the partnership approach and in managing change in the direction of strategic progress. This point was made by Senator O'Toole.

On the accountability of NESDO, Senator Brian Hayes said we are putting in place a process centralised in the Department of the Taoiseach. However, section 32(1) gives the Committee of Public Accounts a role in examining the expenditure of the respective bodies. Section 32(2) requires the directors and chief officers to give an account of their operations to a committee of both Houses. Freedom of information guidelines will apply to each of the three bodies of the office. I have covered briefly the role of the Oireachtas in the partnership process.

I regret that, in my capacity as Government Chief Whip, I must now leave for some pressing business concerning a necessary part of the democratic process, namely, voting. I welcome this debate and assure Senators that I will address some of the outstanding issues on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 9 May 2006.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Next Tuesday at 2.30 p.m.

The Seanad adjourned at 12.40 p.m. until2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 9 May 2006.
Top
Share