The section states "The Taoiseach may by order appoint a day to be the establishment day for the purposes of this Act." Can the Minister of State indicate when the office will be established, given that this Bill was first published in 2002 and we are only now, some four years later, getting around to dealing with it in its entirety? What is the current position?
National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
As Senator Brian Hayes is aware, the bodies in question are all up and running and what is involved is simply a matter of formalising the position. There is nothing controversial about this legislation. The three bodies, the NESC, the NESF and the NCPP will become the National Economic and Social Development Office. A date needs to be appointed for this to take effect. The Bill states that the Taoiseach may appoint the date. The matter is straightforward, but I have no news for the Senator as to such a date.
Effectively the Minister of State is saying the legal framework surrounding the composition of the new body will have no effect until such time as this legislation goes through both Houses of the Oireachtas and that the people in these organisations are working in circumstances where no legal certainty applies to those offices.
They are all working legally on an independent basis. From a legal perspective, this Bill will bring the bodies together as one entity.
As a new entity.
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
This section dealing with expenses is a standard provision included in every Bill but it usually refers to a Minister. The normal wording of such a section is "The expenses incurred by the Minister ... shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance...". The requirement that sanction for expenses incurred by the Taoiseach must be approved by a Minister whom the Taoiseach can sack seems contradictory and is probably unconstitutional. I do not want to start a major row about this, but I believe this requirement is unconstitutional.
The Taoiseach cannot be subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance whom he or she has appointed and whom he or she can dismiss. He or she can simply ask the Minister to resign. The Taoiseach can sack the Minister at any time. Therefore, how can the Taoiseach be subject to the sanction of somebody over whom he or she has absolute authority? Perhaps the Minister of State can explain the position.
This is a standard provision regarding the expenses incurred in the administration of the Act and their payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. As the Senator said, it is a standard provision in legislation.
It is not standard for the reference to be to the Taoiseach.
I can only presume that the reference is to the Taoiseach because the legislation is sponsored by the Taoiseach's office. The Taoiseach's Department is the one involved. This is a standard section.
I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily but this is not a standard provision in terms of applying to the Taoiseach. We are dealing with a different position in this Bill. The Taoiseach is the boss. He or she is the one who appoints and who can, without any reason, sack the Minister for Finance. There is the absolute right of a Taoiseach to seek a Minister's resignation. The Taoiseach does not have to give a reason and many a Minister or ex-Ministers has said that.
What happened here is that a standard clause, which goes into all legislation dealing with expenditure, names the Taoiseach whereas normally the Minister would be named. It is a mistake but I will not start a row about it. I simply invite the Minister of State to ask whether the Attorney General's office approved this phrase or whether it was slipped through by a junior official in that Department without thinking about it because I do not believe it has any validity in law.
Senator Ryan makes a valid point, particularly in the context of section 7. Section 7 gives absolute power to the Taoiseach to establish a new body under his discretion and control even though he must consult the Minister for Finance and other Ministers. There seems to be a discrepancy between both sections. In section 5, the sanction of the Minister for Finance is required in regard to expenses while in section 7, the Taoiseach has absolute power to establish a new body or group of bodies. There is inconsistency between both sections. In one section, the sanction of the Minister for Finance is required but in the other, the Taoiseach has absolute discretion even though he might have to consult the Minister.
I have been assured this was approved and drafted by the parliamentary counsel. I have been told it follows the normal procedure but I will double check it. I must press ahead with the Bill but again I assure the House I will double check it.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Section 7 seems to be an all-embracing one which, as I said, gives absolute power to the Taoiseach to establish new bodies. Will the Minister of State inform the House what new bodies would be considered by the office? Given that this office has been up and running for some years, does the Government have an idea as to what other new bodies need to be established? A Member of the other House said this is the quango to beat all quangos given the new overarching body we are putting in place to bring the other three bodies together.
Section 7 gives the Taoiseach considerable power to establish new bodies without coming before either House of the Oireachtas. From my reading of the section, as a layman, section 7 gives the Taoiseach a very all-embracing power. Has the Government ideas on new bodies which will be established? If such bodies are established, why is the approval of either House of the Oireachtas not required before their establishment?
We do not have any specific ideas or proposals at this stage. What the Taoiseach and the Government would have in mind is that if there was a need for the establishment of a new body in the social-economic area, for example, following a national agreement and after consultation with the various parties, the option would be there. This is not something the Taoiseach would do lightly or unilaterally. The thrust of the Bill is based on partnership and consultation and it leaves that option open.
In that scenario, I presume it is the Government's view that neither House of the Oireachtas would need to be consulted or asked to provide a statutory framework for the new office as is the case with the new office being provided for in this Bill.
This issue emerges later with regard to consultation and the democratic deficit which has been referred to in the other House and we can deal with it then. The same answer applies here. Governments are there to govern but there is always provision for debate and for matters to be brought before the Houses. Issues such as this would be well aired and well signalled. Regardless of who is in Government, there would be no possibility of an abuse of power in such a situation. It would be done on the basis of transparent consultation.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The Council shall, prior to the commencement of negotiation of agreements between the Government and the social partners, present to the Oireachtas an assessment of key strategic challenges relating to the efficient development of the economy and the achievement of social justice and set out a strategic framework for endorsement or amendment by the Oireachtas before the negotiations commence.".
This is the only amendment I tabled which has not been ruled out of order. It is an important amendment and Deputy Bruton brought this matter to the attention of the other House on Committee and Report Stages. I know the Government's position on this matter. We are sitting at a time when the potential of the next phase of partnership may or may not be realised. There is a type of brinkmanship taking place as to whether we will have a deal. Let us hope we have a deal because it would be good for everyone, whether employer or employee.
The significant issue of democratic accountability around this entire process should be provided for and we have the opportunity to do so in the context of this Bill. The Minister of State knows from my comments on Second Stage that I, and my party, are concerned about the failure of the Government to involve the Oireachtas in a meaningful and significant way in not only the pay talks, but in the entire partnership process. This amendment inserts a new subsection into section 9 which gives the Oireachtas a significant role in demanding that the Government of the day shall, prior to the commencement of negotiation of agreements between the Government and the social partners, present to the Oireachtas an assessment of key strategic challenges relating to the efficient development of the economy and the achievement of social justice and set out a strategic framework for endorsement or amendment by the Oireachtas before the negotiations commence.
It is crucial that before the Government of the day embarks on the process of negotiation in these deals, such an assessment is presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas and that each House has the opportunity to shape those discussions and the way in which the key ingredients to any such deal are put on the table. It is important it is done at the start rather than at the end of the process. There has been criticism that a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas is not required for a partnership agreement to be ratified and that should be dealt with. However, our concern relates to the start of the process. Members of the Oireachtas should have an opportunity at the start of the process to put their views on the table in terms of what they hear in their constituencies and elsewhere and to shape the discussions and negotiations.
There is not a sufficient degree of ownership of the process within the Oireachtas. Significant powers of policy-making over a five-year or even a ten-year period have been conceded to the partnership process. It is often the case that not only Opposition Members but Government backbenchers feel frustrated by a process which seems to give so much power to a very small group of people even though they represent a significant number of people through the trade unions, employer groups and so on. Ownership of this process needs to be rooted in the Oireachtas. That is why it is very important that type of critical assessment is done at the start rather than at the end of the process.
The process has been insulated from the Oireachtas. While 15 Oireachtas Members play an important role in one of the research bodies in the process, the Oireachtas is not involved in a plenary session. It would be useful for the process if such an assessment were made.
We must re-engineer and refocus partnership so that all consumers of public services, such as parents and people who deal with the health service, have a vested interest in the process equal to that of the people who are paid to provide the service and their employers. This is necessary for partnership to succeed.
The process went badly wrong in the first benchmarking deal which was clandestine, had no accountability, and there were no genuine practical advances for consumers in terms of the service they would receive. That went wrong because the process was neither democratically constructed in, nor reported to, the Oireachtas. The critical issue is that we must make the process more consumer-focused and friendly so that those who need the public services feel their voice is respected and reflected in the process. We believe that our amendment achieves that end.
The last partnership deal included many commitments regarding social housing, none of which has been delivered. The Oireachtas does not undertake an effective survey of the implementation of this deal but is continually sidelined. Too often the vested interests within the process dominate it to the exclusion of the people to whom public services are delivered.
Our amendment puts the Oireachtas centre stage in this process and allows a better economic and strategic assessment of how we can shape the talks. We are more concerned about the start of the process than the end product, to ensure that the voice of the people is included, rather than that of those who represent one third of all workers or big business. The way to do that is to give the Oireachtas a key defining role in the start of each partnership deal. Accepting this new subsection would give the Oireachtas the kind of control we outline and would help the process.
I support everything Senator Brian Hayes said except his remarks on benchmarking on which we have a long recorded difference. The fundamental problem with benchmarking was that many of the participants in the private sector demanded that all the records be destroyed because they did not want what they regarded as confidential information about wages to enter the public domain.
Senator Brian Hayes is right to say that it is important for trade unions in the public sector to recognise that their function is to serve the public. This should not have to be said but it is sometimes ignored. If one starts from that position one can negotiate all sorts of deals which are reasonable.
Social partnership has depoliticised everything of significance. The natural instinct of that most suppliant of public bodies, RTE, is to ask the Government and a social partner to debate issues while the Opposition is left fulminating on the sidelines. It is rare to hear Opposition members giving the first reaction to the Government decision. That is profoundly wrong. The Oireachtas needs to reappropriate ownership — not control — of this process. For example, the 15 Members who are members of the forum should be set up as an Oireachtas joint committee on the partnership process, with the same powers as all other Oireachtas committees to require these agencies to report to it about the partnership process.
I support the amendment and believe it would advance the process of returning democratic accountability to centre stage, instead of the relationship between Government and other interest groups in which the Oireachtas, the most fundamental of our democratic institutions, is marginalised.
I also warmly support the principle of Oireachtas reform to achieve the greatest possible degree of accountability and democracy. We are considering some initiatives regarding committees and interaction with the public via the Internet.
I have, however, to disagree with the case well made by Senators Brian Hayes and Ryan. The Government has a duty to implement its programme for Government. I cannot accept the amendment.
The function of the council under section 9 of the Bill is to analyse and report to the Taoiseach on strategic issues and it would not therefore be appropriate for it to report to the Oireachtas in advance of this reporting mechanism. However, we could undertake that the Government make arrangements when the reports are published for the Oireachtas to discuss them. This is a good idea. My colleague, the party Whip for this House and I have discussed this and agree that we would be more than happy to arrange for discussions at that stage. That is as far as I can go to meet the points made by the Senators.
I do not believe there is a democratic deficit in the relationship between the process of social partnership and interaction with the Oireachtas, which withstands close scrutiny. Each of our six social partnership agreements has been based on the primacy of the then programme for Government and within the framework of the NESC three-year strategic economic and social overview.
I do not often make partisan points but I assume the negotiations leading to Partnership 2000 between 1997 and 1999, overseen by the then rainbow coalition Government, were conducted on a similar basis. The current negotiations are being conducted on that basis. The monitoring and review of the implementation of the social partnership agreements operates at several levels within the Oireachtas. Detailed quarterly progress reports on implementation, keynote speeches and other relevant documents are laid before the Oireachtas for closer scrutiny and probing. In excess of 40 key documents were laid before both Houses in respect of the current agreement.
Senator Brian Hayes mentioned the current partnership agreement which is relevant to this discussion. I understand the talks to discuss a new national pay agreement have resumed this afternoon after they adjourned last night, without agreement, despite the intervention of the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach, accompanied by the Tánaiste and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, held direct discussions with the parties last night in an attempt to finalise an agreement. The parties are considering an outline pay agreement put to them by the Government.
Commenting on the proposals for a new national pay agreement, the Taoiseach said: "From my own discussions with both sides, I believe that they meet the demands of the unions for adequate pay increases, while providing certainty about pay costs for a reasonable period for employers". He also said the proposals represented the best terms that could be achieved and urged the parties to accept them as a basis for continuing the partnership process which has the potential to provide solutions to problems which may arise in the future. He hopes that both sides will accept the proposals. It must be recognised that we are dealing with difficult issues which will have an important bearing on the future development of the economy. It is a question of getting the right balance. We must ensure we have decent employment standards and maintain our competitiveness and attractiveness as regards investment. This is just a brief reference to the pay talks. We wish those involved well and both Houses would like to see an agreement. Following the remarks made by Senator Brian Hayes, I wanted to put that on the record.
That is my position. I regret I cannot move beyond saying that we could undertake to make arrangements for the Oireachtas to discuss reports when they are published. My colleague, Senator Moylan, would obviously give a similar undertaking.
The problem is we are talking about two different things. The Minister of State has rightly said that either House of the Oireachtas can debate any of the reports that come from the NESF, but that is not the issue. What we attempt to do with our amendment is to re-engineer the process so that at its start both Houses will concentrate on its priorities. We have complete control as to what reports from the NESF can be debated, but that is not the issue. The issue is that we need some control at the start of the process. By doing that we will have much greater ownership over the process.
The Minister of State made the point that a key aspect of a programme for Government would be an agreement between the Government and the social partners. In a sense, with the election of a Taoiseach to any new Dáil, we are electing a programme for Government. However, what happens midway through the life of a Dáil when a new deal is formed between the social partners and the Government? At that point the Government is not seeking a new mandate, but simply putting into effect an agreement made with the social partners.
In so far as the work of both Houses is concerned, it would be more sensible, realistic and inclusive to have a process whereby the Houses of the Oireachtas could set the terms upon which the general framework of an agreement is formed. This would be more inclusive as it would not just involve the Government and backbenchers, but also the Opposition. It would get over the difficulty we have had since the beginning, the sense that the people do not have ownership of the process. That is the intention behind our amendment, which would re-engineer the process and give greater control to both Houses.
I do not wish to take away from the excellent work done by the 15 Oireachtas Members of research groups already involved. Their work is very important. They inform themselves and their colleagues about the issues involved in partnership, but that is not the point. We do not want to be just a debating chamber for any report that comes from the NESF. We want some ownership of the process. By not accepting our amendment, the Government fails to re-engineer the process and make it more inclusive and democratic.
I have listened to the debate with great interest and wish Members would have the same interest in the social partnership process as they always have when it comes towards a conclusion.
I have raised this issue time and again and during peace time while no negotiations were taking place. On at least three occasions in the past year I asked in this House for a process to be established whereby the Houses would have an involvement in the process of national partnership negotiations. The matter was considered by the Seanad reform committee and is currently under consideration by the committee established by the Government to examine the implementation of Seanad reform. Both committees wrote to the Department of the Taoiseach on the issue and we have had three communications from that Department, all affirming that the Department would be more than happy to facilitate whatever level of discussion Oireachtas Members require on the social partnership.
I also raised the issue of regular reports as a member of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. This too was brought to the attention of the Department of the Taoiseach and Dermot McCarthy, the Secretary General of the Department, replied in positive and open terms that it was prepared to do that.
Senator Ryan's suggestion that the members of the forum should form a committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas is interesting and makes sense. However, the reality is — this will not suit anybody outside the Government parties — that when an agreement in which people have played a part is made, it is written in blood and everybody is tied into it. That would not be of much help to Opposition or non-Government Members.
It is no party defending a national programme or partnership, as generally a programme will find more opposition than otherwise. Members were in a comfortable position in terms of defending the issue of benchmarking, although it was criticised at all levels, particularly by those benefiting from it who were barely convinced they should accept it. Convincing people of the benefit is one of the great difficulties.
Senator Ryan made the point that it was not the beneficiaries, the unions nor the negotiators who wanted to keep the basis on which benchmarking was done a secret. The private sector, which provided the information to the benchmarking body which enabled it to establish the benchmarks, did so only on the basis that it would not be made available to anybody else. It was not made available to the trade union negotiators. I tried to get and argued for access to those papers many times, but they were not made available. One of the problems of negotiations is that there is always this cloak of confidentiality.
I have raised this issue with the trade unions and with the farmers' representatives. They are happy, and I am sure IBEC would be too, to come and discuss their issues at the start of a programme. I agree with the point made by Senator Brian Hayes about the Government setting out its strategic objectives. That would be useful and helpful.
Something which is not understood about the partnership process is who is represented at the talks. Perhaps Deputy Kitt should arrange for a photograph to be taken of the different groups represented before they leave. I defy anybody to name a voluntary, social or community group not represented at the talks or without a strong voice there. However, the only people the media and politicians in general are interested in are the trade unions, IBEC and the Government. The other groups are represented and need to be there.
Everybody I know involved in partnership, the Government, the trade unions, the social and community pillar, the farmers and IBEC, is in favour of involving the Oireachtas as far as possible, but nothing comes of that. If people are involved, they are tied into the outcome to some extent. There is nothing wrong with the points put forward by Senator Brian Hayes, but when people go to Government Buildings to discuss the issue, it is not just Oireachtas Members who are not involved. Every shop steward in the country would also like to be there to represent his or her union. However, the reality is that trade union members elect their representatives and it is they who go to the talks. The same is true for the business and farming communities and the many bodies in the social and community pillar. These groups elect people such as Fr. Seán Healy as their spokespersons. These various groups say that we do the same, and that we elect the Government and send it to the talks on our behalf. They would argue strongly that the strongest representation is the representation by the Members of these Houses. Senator Brian Hayes's argument, which is not without merit, is that only the Government side is represented. That is a fair point.
There should be discussion in these Houses on partnership issues as they arise and develop. I would be in favour of being involved in such discussion. I have pleaded for it time and time again. Nobody is opposing it, but it just does not seem to fit the business of the Houses or the committees. It is not very sexy to be dealing with an issue that is not the subject of significant media interest. I do not know where we can get to. I completely agree and have no problem with the strategic framework, which is normally very public anyway. The process is built on that basis.
I note there is a vote in the Dáil.
Is the Minister of State paired?
Somebody is checking it for me.
Perhaps the Whip will check.
Yes.
We do not mind if the Government falls.
It would be for a good cause.
It would suit us, given the present state of the opinion polls.
Perhaps the House will agree to a ten-minute suspension because an unexpected vote has been called in the Dáil and the Minister of State is not paired.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Members for their co-operation.
It seems that I am paired after all.
We can proceed with our business because the Minister of State can stay. I thank Members for their courtesy and help.
Is that agreed by the House? Agreed.
I thank the Acting Chairman for his co-operation.
I welcome Senator O'Toole's participation in the debate on amendment No. 1 because he has been involved in the social partnership process for many years. I value his contribution and the contributions of others to this discussion. I have listened to the comments which have been made.
As I said earlier, I am keen to examine the proposals for Dáil and Seanad reform. Senators have mentioned the efforts they have made to try to make progress in the area of scrutiny, for example. I am prepared to consider such suggestions in the context of the Dáil reform programme I have been pursuing. Some very good scrutiny is taking place in many Oireachtas committees. I am undertaking some reforms involving public consultation on the Internet in the context of forthcoming legislation like the broadcasting Bill, which will be before the Houses soon.
I am keen to give every member of the public, rather than just the Members of these Houses, a chance to make an input into legislation. I hope to facilitate the use of modern technology to allow people to comment on the heads of Bills as they are proposed. That is something I am very keen to pursue. The point that we need to examine this entire area in an organised way is well made. I suggest that we should do it through a different forum.
I am holding firm in my position on this amendment. It is the duty of Governments to govern. Senator O'Toole asked whether it would necessarily suit the Opposition to be internally involved in important matters of this nature. I have heard members of Fine Gael arguing against social partnership in the past. They have made the point that it is too inclusive and that there is a need for a healthy alternative view.
We are paid to give the alternative view.
Of course. A genuine argument has been made for better scrutiny of the many complex aspects of national agreements. Such agreements now extend into many areas, including child care and parts of the social and voluntary pillars. I understand the argument made by many Opposition Deputies and Senators that they need to be involved in this process. If there is something I can do in this regard in the context of Dáil reform, I will be glad to consult my ministerial colleagues about it. We have not made great progress in some of the areas of Dáil reform because of a lack of consensus. We try to deal with these issues on the basis of consensus. To say I will consider the ideas which have been expressed here is as far as I can go. It is important that I hold firm on the basic point, which is that when a Government is elected with a programme for Government, it has a responsibility to follow through on that programme.
The amendment regarding this important issue has been moved by Fine Gael in both Houses. The Opposition and the Government recognise that something has to happen in the social partnership process to ensure not only that it is more representative but also that more life is brought into it. When I have listened to the debate over recent weeks, I have noted a sense of déjà vu. I have heard people making the argument, “If it does not happen, so what?” It is a great shame that people are taking such an approach. Very important matters are being discussed as part of this process. We need to have some ownership of it.
I do not believe the Opposition's job is to represent anyone at the social partnership talks. It is the job of the Government and the Taoiseach who were elected on the first day of the new Dáil to ensure they do their best in those talks. Nobody is suggesting that we want to be part of the talks, but we are suggesting that a framework should be set out, as part of the Government's agenda going in to those talks, under which everyone can express their views. Such a framework should involve a process whereby the views of Fine Gael and other parties, as well as Independent Members, can be reflected in public and in plenary session.
Our difficulty is that many key groups of people have been excluded from the current process to date. We do not have a sufficient starting point from which the Government can then reflect a position as it goes through the Houses. The Government's position regularly changes as matters go through both Houses when proper consultation takes place on all sides. That is a normal part of political life. We are suggesting that the Government's initial strategic objectives — what it wants to achieve during the talks — could change as a result of proper dialogue with all Members of the Oireachtas. Not only would that be of benefit to the Government, but it would also ensure that the views of both of these Houses would be represented. The views might well be in conflict, but at least there would be some debate on them. It is accepted on all sides that something has to give during this process.
Senator O'Toole referred to the work that was done by the Seanad reform committee. The Senator rightly pointed out that the Department of the Taoiseach did not object at the time to the committee's view that the Seanad needs to have a much more meaningful role in the scrutiny of the social partnership process. Am I right in saying that this Bill was first proposed in 2002?
Yes.
We have had four years to get this right. One deal has been concluded in that time and it is hoped that another deal is about to be concluded. We have had four years to change, but nothing has happened. There is frustration in Fine Gael that the necessary re-engineering of the parliamentary scrutiny and accountability process is not taking place in this Bill, even though the Government has had four years in which to do it. We feel strongly that our position offers at least one way of doing that.
It is fine if there are other views — we should hear them. People should put their amendments on the table so that we can see the colour of their money. Fine Gael's proposal, which will not cost the Government anything, will allow the Houses to be involved at the start of the process. It would be foolish to suggest that the Houses should ultimately sanction any social partnership deal, it would be ridiculous to get involved after the horse has bolted. We need to be involved at the start of the process, rather than at the end of it.
There is a great deal of merit in the points which have been made by Senator Brian Hayes. I would like to point out, for the information of the Minister, that I raised this issue the last time we discussed this matter, which I think was in January. I spoke in the House at that time about the issues to which Senator Hayes now refers, namely, strategic economic and social justice challenges. I explained how that is done, how the partnership process is kicked off and what happens on the first day.
The answers are contained in a public document and I asked that it be discussed in this House. I refer to the NESC report, which contains the strategic objectives which have formed the basis of every agreement in which I have been involved. I raised this point in the House four or five months ago and asked for a debate on the report, which subsequently took place. The next step to take place in the first days of the partnership process, during which partners meet in full plenary session, is a presentation by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance regarding the more narrow economic objectives.
Senator Brian Hayes is correct to suggest this issue should be debated and I have asked for such debates in this House. I cannot recall whether the presentations made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance at the early kick-off sessions are publically available. As they are not confidential documents, I suspect they are. From the Government's perspective, these constitute the three documents in which its strategic objectives are set out. This took place in 1987, the early 1990s and throughout the period.
While this Bill has plans for the NESC and the NESF, this is why the NESC report is the basis on which the partnership process is carried out. It is not a three-card trick. However, what happens subsequently is hard to describe because, as Senator Brian Hayes has noted, everything changes, even as one looks at it. It is like a three-card trick, in that while one sees it happening, one cannot see what is happening.
I accept the Senator's point. Although the House has already had a debate on the NESC report, I would welcome a debate on the report, as well as the other two documents. Moreover, the other social partners make their presentations available and they are worth hearing.
However, this boils down to a simple issue regarding the nation's wealth. While I do not wish to coin a 200 year old phrase, this concerns the redistribution of wealth. I have seen a million different ways to approach this issue. I recall discussing a simple way to do so with a former Taoiseach and a former Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach. Can a formula be agreed as to how the wealth of the country should be distributed? In other words, if there is 5% growth, where does it go to? Of course no one wants to get into that. It would be many bridges too far for all concerned and will not be done.
This suggestion does not require an amendment and could and should be done. This House has already had a debate on the NESC report and there could easily have been a debate on the other two documents to which I referred. They do not differ greatly from the Minister for Finance's budget speech. While I have not sought access to them, I do not believe they are confidential documents and they do exist.
I am unsure whether this would advance the cause of transparency very far because after the presentations, everyone gets to grips with the different issues. In one sense, the documents are simply for guidance purposes and in another, they constitute the opening gambit in negotiations. There is no comparison between the original documents and what emerges subsequently. While I do not know how this would help the Houses, I would welcome any debate on any aspect of social partnership. The more people who are involved in such a debate, the greater the visibility of social partnership.
Senator Brian Hayes correctly referred to the nonsensical discussion as to whether we should have social partnership. The issue is not whether we should have social partnership, but concerns its contents. Does it have any benefits? I will repeat a point which I have made three or four times in the House. In simple terms, to see its benefits one should re-run television images of Brussels, Paris, Rome and parts of Germany in the past year, showing public service strikes which entirely closed down all those countries for one to three days. As an aside, the issues involved were the same as those which are under discussion in Ireland today. Members may recall that the issue was pensions in Germany and Italy, while in France the issues concerned pensions and other matters. There were also a variety of other issues such as workers' rights, the protection of workers and the quality of public services. That is how it should be.
All Members agree with a point made by Senator Brian Hayes before I entered the Chamber as to who monitors what is happening. Committees have been established to deal with sectors such as education, health and the Civil Service, in order to monitor the review. Their function is meant to be to prevent payment of the money in the absence of delivery. For example, one month ago, the relevant committee spoke out when it was suggested that the INTO would not support whole school evaluations. The union was immediately told its members would not receive the 2.5% salary rise. Hence, the process works and the connection is clear. This also happened in the health service. Two months ago, people decided not to co-operate with a change and were told that the money would not be forthcoming. It was not the Minister that spoke, but the group that evaluates quality in each sector.
What has partnership achieved? I will give one example, because people assert that our public services are backward and have not done this, that or the other. While it is true that major reforms must be made, in the area of education a completely new curriculum has been introduced at both primary and post-primary levels, with full co-operation and agreement. This has not happened in any other European country, although all have tried to do so. While they have introduced such reforms, they have resulted in war and spilled blood in every one of them.
Moreover, there has been a reorganisation of the school year at both levels. While this may not have been to everyone's satisfaction, it was done. Ministers and secretaries of state for education in other European countries have been unable to introduce whole school evaluations. Some have introduced measures which have caused problems at all levels. Hence, progress is being made.
I accept the point made by Senator Brian Hayes. Matters such as proposed developments and what people get back for their money should be spelled out. Undoubtedly, some people would then assert that having spent €1 billion, we were not getting enough back. However, when €1 billion was spent on benchmarking, the prize, in the words of the previous Minister for Finance, was that there would not be strikes and industrial disputes within the public service. That was the desired prize and the most significant goal. This explains why everyone was rather annoyed and upset by the unofficial rail strike that took place in recent weeks. Members should recall that the first groups to state that such action was wrong and unacceptable were the unions of which those people were part. That is the price of partnership. It is difficult to achieve it and I do not have a problem with Senator Brian Hayes's proposal. However, I wish that a full House discussed such matters.
Since the issue of the value of social partnership has been raised, I am sick of the way in which vested interest economists selectively pick small items and state they would have been achieved without social partnership. Social partnership stabilised this country in the period between 1987 and 1989. Whatever might have been asserted subsequently about wage agreements and other matters, stability was achieved by the institution of an agreement whereby, uniquely, and entirely differently from the neighbouring island, enlightened trade unions accepted there was no point in demanding 15% wage increases when inflation was 14%. Many other things developed from that basis. Subsequently, social partnership has extended so far beyond wage agreements that its institutional framework requires an examination.
I am always intrigued by the allegation that the public sector had to be dragged into the use of modern methods, etc. While I will discuss third level teaching shortly, every teacher I know at primary and secondary level has demanded for years that he or she be properly equipped to teach using modern technology. They have not sought special pay agreements or productivity deals. Instead, they have sought to have the equipment provided, in order that they could use modern technology as part of teaching. There were no hidden agendas, they did not seek extra money and they were not given it.
In the sector in which I work, all innovation in teaching, whether in the use of information technology, modern teaching or audio-visual methods, has been dragged out of the system by teachers' innovation. The teachers did not hamper innovation. If anything, innovation has been held back by the inability of the State and the funding agencies to respond rapidly. I was using e-mail before any part of the private sector had discovered electronic mail. The same is true for the Internet. We were held back in the use of information technology because for a long time our private sector was quite primitive about such matters. The image of the slow public sector and the thrusting private sector is contradicted by the facts and we should move on from it.
I support Senator Brian Hayes's amendment because we need to create an institutional way to re-establish the primacy of politics in how our country develops. Without that primacy we cannot have a genuine democracy.
I welcome this debate, a crucial part of which is getting Houses that are as full as possible. This is an area in which I have a significant interest, having been very privileged to be Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs some years ago. In that role I got to know many of the parties in the partnership process. I echo the words of Senator Ryan, who has rightly commented on some commentators who chip away and are inclined to continually criticise those involved in the partnership process on the basis that they are involved in some sort of elitist process as if those who walk through the gates of Government Buildings feel elitist or act in an elitist way, which is not true.
Those I know from all sides, in particular those from the trade union movement who have given enlightened leadership over many years, are involved because they are very tough and good negotiators. They give much of their time for the betterment of their own particular sectors and more importantly for the betterment of the nation and our people, which this debate has reflected. We should applaud those involved from all sides who represent various sectors.
We have strayed somewhat from the amendment. I cannot go any further except to say that very legitimate points have been made about the need for greater involvement of Oireachtas Members. For a period in the past I was involved in the NESF, which does tremendous work. Some suggestions have been made about the committee process. I cannot give any commitments other than to say that as Chief Whip working with the Opposition Senators' colleagues I will consider the committee structure. I cannot give a commitment except to say that we will look at it under the umbrella of the process of Dáil and Seanad reform.
I echo some of comments of Senator O'Toole who asked whether we need this amendment to deal with many of the issues raised. For example, I have responsibility for the CSO and today I answered parliamentary questions on the figures released today on employment and how many non-Irish nationals now form part of our workforce. I believe the workforce has increased by approximately 90,000, of which 50,000 are non-Irish nationals. While I have not done so, others have raised issues regarding possible displacement, which are legitimate issues for debate. Extensive information is available from the CSO reports. I arranged for a debate in the past on one such report on the household survey and the economy. Those reports contain issues central to social partnership debates and there are huge opportunities for us as Members of these Houses to debate such basic issues.
This morning on the Order of Business, the Tánaiste gave a commitment to a debate on decentralisation, which has obviously also become part and parcel of the partnership process. There are many opportunities for both Houses to debate these issues, not for the sake of debating them, but because at a given time they are very important issues that form part of the partnership negotiations. We should be able to arrange to do that without putting it into a legislative process.
I can go no further except to say that I hold my position. I am more than open to looking at other options, working closely with colleagues in this House to see whether we can deal with the case made by Opposition Members for greater involvement of Oireachtas Members. There are huge opportunities to hold debates here and in the other House on all these issues. Partnership has become a very wide area of dialogue with many issues. Today the CSO also released new figures on child care. These issues are central to the negotiations and both Houses should have an opportunity to debate them when they see fit.
Amendment No. 1 has had a good airing at this stage.
I agree. I will not detain the House much longer. I have spoken on the record on this matter for as long as I have been in this House and the other House. My party's position is that this amendment is needed because despite all the talk about Seanad and Dáil reform, nothing seems to happen. Despite all the promises made about new ways of approaching such issues, nothing happens.
The problem is that we need consensus.
The dilemma is that I am faced with a Bill on which I am doing a job. I am trying to put into the Bill precisely what people say should happen. The intention of the amendment is to have within our grasp in both Houses of the Oireachtas the ability to change the agenda as far as the Oireachtas is concerned for the start of the process of talks. This is the net point in our amendment. I have repeatedly said that Governments of various descriptions — although Fianna Fáil has been in power more than Fine Gael has been of late — have continually dumbed down the Dáil and Seanad in terms of debate. Every major Government statement is made, not in this House or the other House, but in the press briefing section of the Department of the Taoiseach and some stupendous other location.
As we are not allowed to use PowerPoint, we cannot do them here.
Correct. Westminster would not put up with that. The Speaker of the House would intervene and rap the Government across the knuckles——
She did.
—— at the notion that a major policy announcement would be made outside the House. We must reassert the authority and primacy of politics. Last September at the start of these talks when going into Dublin Castle the Taoiseach said that his key objectives were health and education because those were the latest buzzwords coming from focus groups. As Fianna Fáil was in trouble, health and education were the priority matters last September. When I heard that interview, I wondered why the Taoiseach needed to go social partnership to address health and education. These matters should be addressed here. If we are serious about Dáil reform, we should be serious about this amendment. It would send out the right signal that we intended to re-engineer the process and do something more by encouraging more people into the House to debate these matters.
People do not come into this House and the other one as they feel it makes no difference. I speak as much on behalf of Government backbenchers as I do on behalf of Opposition spokespeople. We need to reassert the authority and primacy of politics in this country. The only way to do so is by forcing Governments into the Houses of the Oireachtas to face their responsibility there. I was not aware that it had originally been planned not to sit next week. Where did that come from? It makes no sense for the Government to do this four weeks before a summer recess. While the amendment is specific to social partnership, it is more important in terms of establishing, as I have described it, the primacy of politics in this country. We need to get back to basics.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 26.
Tá
- Bannon, James.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, Fergal.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Hayes, Brian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Norris, David.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Ross, Shane.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Níl
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Callanan, Peter.
- Cox, Margaret.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Glynn, Camillus.
- Hanafin, John.
- Kett, Tony.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lydon, Donal J.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Minihan, John.
- Morrissey, Tom.
- Moylan, Pat.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O’Brien, Francis.
- O’Toole, Joe.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Phelan, Kieran.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Walsh, Jim.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators U. Burke and Cummins; Níl, Senators Minihan and Moylan.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 9 agreed to.
Sections 10 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 have been ruled out of order as they involve potential charges on the Exchequer.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
Sections 14 to 16, inclusive, do not provide for somebody who can represent unorganised workers. Anybody working in agriculture is free to join a representative body and every employer is equally free to join IBEC. However, a significant number of people in this country are effectively being prevented by their employers from joining trade unions. A study carried out by UCD suggests that 70% of those at work would join a trade union if their employers allowed them to do so. It is extraordinary that one branch of partnership, namely employers, is preventing part of another branch of partnership from taking part in an institutional arrangement.
There is no simple solution to this issue but it needs to be put on the agenda. Many people in this country have reservations about how their employers would react if they joined a union. I refer to small businesses which employ three people. My experience of employers in the voluntary and charity sectors is that many of these would also take exception to trade union membership among their employees.
At present, there is nobody to represent those who are not allowed by their employers to join a union. The trade union movement does its best but it would be preferable that every worker could feel free to join a union.
The Minister of State might give further consideration on Report Stage to the gender balance of members of boards. If people are to be appointed to boards, they should be appointed in a gender balanced way.
On Senator Ryan's point about representation, section 14(2)(f) provides that the Taoiseach may nominate a person to represent the category in question. I will convey the Senator’s remarks to the Taoiseach in the context of that provision.
With regard to gender balance, the Taoiseach wrote to all parties on foot of a previous debate on that issue. The letter, which I will forward to Senator Moylan if he so wishes, calls on all parties to ensure a gender balance on bodies.
According to the information I have to hand on female representation, women comprise 50% of NESDO, 19% of NESC, 44% of NESF and 29% of the NCCP.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
With regard to subsection (3)(a), I am somewhat disappointed that no legislative statement has been made on the appropriate proportion of Deputies and Senators. It would appear that the normal proportion is ten and five, respectively, but apparently the proportion could be 14 and one if the Taoiseach so wished. I do not know the current proportion but I presume that every joint Oireachtas committee should comprise proportionate numbers of Members from both Houses, including at least one Senator.
I understand that criteria for membership are based on the ability and commitment of individual Members. The issue of gender balance has also been raised in this regard.
I was never asked.
It is a question of proportionality.
I was never asked.
The party leaders are involved in selections there. Senator Ryan kindly informed me of a possible amendment to a section later on for which I thank him. I understand we are concluding approximately now. We would be glad to examine that in the meantime. I am pre-empting something that may happen. The Senator knows what I am talking about. I see a reference to Dáil and Seanad Members. It relates to that area and I will examine it between now and the next time we meet.
I ask Senator Ryan to report progress.
I have only a small problem, that the House ordered that the debate would finish now. I am happy to report progress. I am a stickler for procedure, contrary to what people think.
It is not the Chair's fault.
I never said it was. I move that we report progress.
I ask the Acting Leader to clarify the situation.
We will resume debate on this Bill on Tuesday, 13 June 2006.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.