Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 2006

Vol. 184 No. 5

National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002: Report and Final Stages.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, to the House. Before calling on him to speak, I would like to welcome the leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Enda Kenny, and a group from Killavalley, better known as Killawalla, national school in Westport, County Mayo, including the principal, Mr. Mairtín Ó Maicín, and other members of the teaching staff. They are very welcome to Leinster House.

Before commencing with the Bill before us, I wish to remind the House that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Also on Report Stage, each amendment must be seconded.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 8, after "AS" to insert "OIFIG NÁISIÚNTA D'FHORBAIRT EACNAMAÍOCH AGUS SHÓISIALACH, OR IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE".

I am reintroducing these amendments, which we discussed yesterday, not because I am annoyed but because I think the Bill contains a measure of drafting inconsistency. I can find no convincing reason for the Government not to accept them, other than some disposition not to do so. They are consistent with a large part of our corpus of legislation. They are also consistent with the statement that there are two official languages and that the Irish language version of Bunreacht na hÉireann is the definitive text. Where there is ambiguity or uncertainty, the Irish language text of Bunreacht na hÉireann determines the meaning.

I second the amendment.

As Senator Mansergh and I said on Committee Stage yesterday, the Long Title of the Bill is merely a descriptive term outlining what is contained in the Bill. What counts is what is in the body of the Bill itself. In the Irish version, the names of the bodies were inserted into section 6 of the Bill on Committee Stage in the Dáil in response, quite rightly, to Opposition amendments. On the basis of advice from the Parliamentary Counsel, I do not propose to amend the Long Title of the Bill.

I share Senator Ryan's interest in the Irish language but I think we are splitting hairs to a certain extent. I accept that it has been done in other Bills but this was the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel on this matter. It is in the Long Title of the Bill, which is the main thing. It is on page 1 of the Bill, as Senator Mansergh pointed out, and is also on the back page of the Bill, as was read out yesterday. The English description of what the Bill is all about is on the right-hand side, while the Irish description appears on the left-hand side. That is as far as I can go.

Is the amendment being pressed?

I am intrigued. There are two issues involved here. One is the status of the Irish language, about which Fianna Fáil can sometimes be very eloquent. I wish its deeds matched its eloquence but, nevertheless, there is a considerable group of people within Fianna Fáil with whom I would identify because of their genuine commitment to the Irish language. I am thinking in particular of people like Senator Ó Murchú.

A separate issue, however, is how in God's name the Parliamentary Counsel can advise the Minister of State that this is inappropriate when somebody else called the Parliamentary Counsel has inserted identical phraseology in other Bills? That question warrants a simple answer. If we end up with a situation where Government Ministers come to this House with contradictory advice because the individual in the Parliamentary Counsel's office takes a different view, we are not getting official advice, we are getting individual eccentric opinions.

All I want to know is how we can have two different pieces of advice from the Parliamentary Counsel about the Long. I do not have a major hang-up about this but I hate sloppiness. I also hate the fact that this House has spent a ridiculous amount of time on the matter. The Minister could have accepted these amendments in the other House and we would now be done with it. There is plenty of evidence that is the way some Parliamentary Counsel operate. Depending on whose desk it lands on in some office — although I am never quite sure which office it is — we will either have the Irish version or we will not. That is not the way to do business in 2006.

May I speak?

Senator Mansergh cannot speak on the amendment. I call an tAire Stáit.

I would be glad to allow Senator Mansergh to contribute.

He is not allowed to speak after the Minister on Report Stage.

This Bill has been in gestation for some time. We have progressed along the way and have listened to the Opposition. We have, rightly, done something in section 6 with regard to the Irish language. Senator Ryan is coming forward with a proposal at this stage. Whatever about the Parliamentary Counsel, Senator Ryan is right in saying that the responsibility rests with the Minister at the end of the day. I am simply saying that we have made changes along the way.

Senator Mansergh, who has not been allowed to speak on this amendment, made his own point yesterday. The first thing one sees is the Title of the Bill in Irish on the front of the document. It also appears on the back page and in section 6. It is not in the Long Title which is merely a descriptive term outlining what is contained in the Bill. I do not think this is a matter of life or death. I accept there is a duty on all of us to promote the Irish language but, quite frankly, I think there are other ways in which we can do so. We have come a long way with this legislation and I am anxious to get it enacted. Hopefully, we can go from here to the Dáil before the end of this session. I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

On a point of order——

Excuse me. I understood that these four amendments were being discussed together and that Senator Ryan had replied to them. Is that correct?

I have spoken, yes.

On a point of order, a Chathaoirligh, is it in order to describe a public servant — the Parliamentary Counsel — as sloppy and eccentric?

I did not hear that being mentioned in the House.

I have to say that I deprecate attacks on people who are not in a position to defend themselves.

The Senator is out of order.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, not moved.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 5, to delete line 27 and substitute the following:
"2.—In this Act—".

The amendment proposes to delete the words "unless the context otherwise requires" from section 2, which lists the definitions. I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that this is no longer required as a result of the Interpretation Act. This is a tidying-up exercise.

This is neither sloppy nor eccentric.

It is detailed and precise.

However, a process which allows contradictory advice to come from two different staff members in a Department is sloppy and eccentric. That is not a commentary on either of the individuals involved, or any number of individuals, but is a commentary on the process for which — I do not want to be nasty about this — the Chief Whip is one of those who should take responsibility. He is supposed to organise this business and he should do so in such a way that Ministers do not get contradictory advice depending on which individual is involved. That is sloppy.

I will pursue that issue.

The Minister of State will have an opportunity to reply. I call Senator Mansergh.

I am sure parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants follow closely what is said in the House on Committee Stage. Having taken that into consideration, they have given the Minister advice. It is not necessarily the case that the same procedure is always adopted for Bills that have a short Long Title and those that have a long Long Title, such as this Bill. I reject the aspersions cast on the Parliamentary Counsel as there seems no basis for them. Having taken account of yesterday's debate, I am sure there are good reasons for the position.

I appreciate that Senator Ryan is not objecting to the amendment. As Senator Mansergh stated, it is not only civil servants but also Ministers who listen to our debates and peruse the results of our deliberations. I take heed of what has been said and of the legitimate point with regard to consistency. I take on board Senator Ryan's point and will raise the matter at Government level with the parliamentary system and those who assist us in that system. We have previously discussed the Interpretation Act and consolidation Acts. There is a good argument for consistency but there is a valid point which I will pursue as a result of this debate.

Amendment agreed to.

We move to amendment No. 6. Amendments Nos. 7 to 17, inclusive, are related and the amendments may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 6:
In page 6, line 22, to delete "by the Taoiseach".

The purpose of amendment No. 6 is to delete the words "by the Taoiseach" from section 5, which deals with the expenses incurred in the administration of this Act. I am advised that this amendment will make the Bill consistent with the similar section, section 6, of the Statistics Act 1993.

I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 7 to 17, inclusive, the effect of which would be to airbrush the Minister for Finance out of the Bill. As the House will appreciate, under public financial procedures and the legislative framework for public expenditure, the sanction of the Minister for Finance is required for public expenditure, notwithstanding that general approval may already have been given by the Dáil. The Minister for Finance — this is the important point — is constitutionally and legally responsible for the administration of all public funds. It would not be appropriate or correct, therefore, for me to accept the amendments.

I have checked two Acts which were sponsored by the Taoiseach, namely, the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act 1988 and the Statistics Act 1993 to which I referred. In both Acts the sanction of the Minister for Finance is required in regard to expenses incurred. I do not propose to deviate from that precedent in this Bill.

For both these reasons, therefore, I cannot accept the amendments. The constitutional position is straightforward.

The constitutional position is extremely clear. I wish to move my amendments.

The Senator will speak to the amendments and we will then dispose of them.

All of my amendments are of a similar tone. It is simply not true to suggest the Minister for Finance has a constitutional position which requires that the Taoiseach receives his or her permission. It could not be the case. I checked the Constitution. I accept that the office of the Minister for Finance is a constitutional position but the fundamental constitutional principle is that the Taoiseach appoints the Minister for Finance and can dismiss that Minister without reason or explanation, just because he or she wants to. That is the way the Constitution was written and it is the way every Government operates.

The Minister for Finance is not somebody who can withhold a decision from the Taoiseach. If the Constitution intended that, there would be a procedure for dismissal. The Taoiseach can decide to dismiss the Minister for Finance today. If the Minister refuses, the Taoiseach can tell the Minister he or she has to go. No qualification is attached to that. How could it be logically and constitutionally consistent to suggest that a subordinate would have a veto over the decision of his or her superior? It is meaningless.

This is part of what I have believed for many years to be a necessary campaign to get rid of the Stalinism in our public sector and public services, which has the result that the Department of Finance believes it knows best for everybody and that it can micromanage everybody. I know ex-Ministers — I am not referring to present company — who have suffered from the determination of junior officials in the Department of Finance to tell Ministers what they can and cannot do in the name of the authority of the Department of Finance.

This country has collective Cabinet responsibility. The idea that one member of the Cabinet would have authority over another member of the Cabinet contradicts collective responsibility because there cannot be collective responsibility if one person can tell another what to do. However, that is a separate issue.

On this issue, the Bill contains certain language. Section 18(6) states, "There shall be paid to the members of a body such remuneration (if any) and such allowances for expenses incurred by them as the Taoiseach, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may from time to time determine". So, in order for the Taoiseach to decide how much should be paid, he would have to get Deputy Cowen's permission. Deputy Cowen is only Minister because the Taoiseach appointed him. How could it be constitutionally consistent to say the Taoiseach must get the Minister's permission?

Perhaps the most extraordinary part of the Bill is the section which concerns superannuation. Section 27(6) states, "If any dispute arises as to the claim of any person to, or the amount of, any superannuation benefit payable in pursuance of a scheme or schemes under this section, such dispute shall be submitted to the Taoiseach [which is fair, as he is responsible] who shall [not may] refer it to the Minister for Finance, whose decision shall be final". That utterly contradicts the constitutional structure of authority in this country and gives a totally disproportionate amount of power to the Department of Finance.

A convenient excuse is being used by the Minister of State, namely, that in order to be consistent with another Bill, the reference to the Taoiseach is being deleted. In truth a constitutionally unsustainable position, that the Taoiseach could ever require the sanction of the Minister for Finance whom he has appointed, is being deleted here. It is like suggesting the chief executive officer of a company requires the sanction of a subordinate that he has appointed. It may be sensible to use the words "consult with" and "seek the agreement of", but to suggest the Taoiseach could be vetoed on anything by a subordinate Minister is constitutional nonsense.

I never thought I would see the day when Senator Ryan advocated dictatorship. This is essentially what he is suggesting, that the Taoiseach be top dog in everything and his word never gainsaid. This would be an incorrect way to do business. Many people commented last week that a particular person who passed away, God rest his soul, was a dictator and so on. This element of the Bill is correct. I do not know how many Departments I have been in where everything had to be referred to the Department of Finance. Departmental officials listen to Ministers' references to spending in debates on Bills and so on and note whether subversive things have been said, which we all say from time to time. I cannot believe that Senator Ryan is advocating that the Taoiseach become a dictator.

That is not quite what I said, but in the spirit of a fine sunny afternoon I refuse to be provoked.

Senator Ryan is an advocate of dictatorship and I never thought I would see such a day in this Chamber. It is proper that the Minister for Finance must cast his eye over all of these ideas and plans to examine their spending and misspending potential.

Should he be able to veto the Taoiseach?

Of course he should.

What would the Taoiseach do then?

He would resign.

That is what it looks like.

The idea is that the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance would work together. I know the incumbent in the Office of the Taoiseach would not seek to be a dictator. I do not approve of Senator Ryan's amendments; I approve of whatever the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Tom Kitt is about to say.

I regret that I was not in this House yesterday for the second round of the Committee Stage debate.

However, on the first round of the Committee Stage debate we embarked upon this interesting amendment that Senator Ryan put to the House. It is proper that if a Department is embarking on a spending programme the Department of Finance should play a part. If the Department of Education and Science seeks to spend a certain amount of money it is right that, at some point, the Department of Finance must consider the purse strings. We can understand the Department of Finance exerting a degree of control over spending by Departments and, although we often complain about it, it is an important part of administration.

Problems arise where this control relates not to Departments, but to officeholders. The fact remains, the words "with the consent of the Minister for Finance" bring into question the roles of Minister for Finance and Taoiseach. In my Second Stage contribution I was critical of the fact that the Taoiseach can produce committees at will, ad hoc, long-term, medium-term committees and so on. This power is clearly given to him in the section to which I referred on Second Stage. The Taoiseach has the power to do all this without recourse to anyone. Significant powers are already given to the Taoiseach in the Bill as part of his job of making the partnership process work as leader of his Department. The subordinate role that the Taoiseach could find himself in following the passage of this Bill, should a Minister for Finance refuse to consent to a spending programme, would leave us in a constitutionally dangerous situation. It is appropriate that, at the very least, we debate it in this House. It could be argued that this entire Bill should be with the Department of Finance. At least there would then be clear lines of control.

That is what those in Department of Finance think.

The clear de facto position is that the Department of Finance will ultimately have control of this.

There is a contradiction here. If the Bill gives the power to the Department of the Taoiseach to establish and dissolve committees without recourse to anyone, the ultimate power, in terms of financial purse strings, lies with the Minister for Finance. This represents a constitutional contradiction and I await the Minister of State's reply.

Senator Brian Hayes may have to hear my view first.

I await it with bated breath.

We have heard a most extraordinary broadside against the role of the Minister for Finance. I remind Senator Hayes that the Cumann na nGael Government of 1922-23 introduced our system of public administration, particularly a system of financial administration that gave a central role to the Department of Finance. One can argue that for the first 30 or 40 years of the State a tight, conservative financial policy was followed that may be criticised. When we reached the 1970s that control loosened to an unacceptable extent. For the last 20 years this country has prospered in a way not seen before and an integral part of this has been a massive improvement in our public finances which has reduced a debt of 125% of the gross national product to approximately 25% to 30% this year. This achievement is matched almost nowhere else. The notion that one would not make certain spending subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance is untenable.

The Taoiseach appoints the Minister for Finance and can, in theory, dismiss him or her. I cannot recall any occasion, in over 80 years of independence, when this has occurred and such an action would send out considerable shock waves unless there were very particular circumstances to justify it.

This Bill does not mean that the Taoiseach is, in any way, subordinate to the Minister for Finance; it relates to the financial sphere. I am something of an expert on the later years of the French absolute monarchy. The king could sign un bond, the equivalent of a cheque or financial order, but it was the controller general of finances who decided if it could be paid. There were occasions when it could not be paid. I do not think this Bill creates any constitutional problems. The Minister for Finance is given a particular job to do and our system of public administration of finances and economics over the past 20 years has triumphantly vindicated itself.

I assure Senator Ryan and Senator Brian Hayes that if Deputy Rabbitte were to become Minister for Finance——

Senator Mansergh means when, not if.

If Deputy Rabbitte were to become Minister for Finance there would be no change in the relationship between the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach.

The only difference is the Minister for Finance would not be blamed for the problems experienced by the Taoiseach and dispatched to Brussels.

I do not want to personalise this as it would be true of any Minister for Finance under any Government. I assure both Senators that were they in Government they would not alter the system one iota.

We will not go down that road.

Order, please.

I heard there was something about debates in the Seanad in the afternoon.

I wonder what it is.

I was wondering if I was hearing things. We are dealing with a serious issue and I was wondering if Senators Ryan and Brian Hayes were serious. Effectively, this is all about accountability and treating the Taoiseach the same as any other Minister.

He is accountable to the House.

I know he would be happy to be treated the same as everybody else. The Minister for Finance has constitutional responsibility for the administration of all public funds. As Senator O'Rourke said, what Senator Ryan suggested is touching on a dictatorial type of regime. If this is a flavour of a new potential rainbow between my two colleagues on the right I would have some concerns. Effectively what the Senator is saying is that the Taoiseach should be in a position to overrule normal procedures.

He is accountable to the House.

Senator Brian Hayes's party leader who was in the Chamber earlier has posters up around Dublin indicating he will lock up criminals. This suggests he is going to ignore or overrule——

He is going to sack those who waste money.

——the courts system and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. A theme is emerging that we should have an all-powerful Taoiseach. That would be very dangerous.

He is going to turf them out of accident and emergency departments.

Let us be careful. We have a steady, accountable system in place to which the Taoiseach is happy to adhere. As Senator Mansergh said, the Taoiseach has to choose his lieutenants wisely, particularly the Minister for Finance. I have worked with many Ministers for Finance and the current Minister for Finance is a responsible and enlightened Minister who takes his role seriously in liaising with other Departments. The Taoiseach agrees that there should be no difference in the way our Department, the Taoiseach's Department, deals with these areas. This is about accountability and procedures and systems that have been in place through successive Governments, including that of which the Senator was a member. I certainly hope they will not change the system.

They will not get a chance to do so.

Order, please.

May I respond?

I have amendments tabled——

Senator Ryan, please——

If I had realised that I would not be allowed to reply to my own amendments, I would not have agreed to them being grouped.

Senator Ryan, has spoken to his amendments.

Yes, but I am entitled to reply.

No, the Senator has spoken to his amendments.

When I move an amendment I am entitled to reply under Standing Orders.

The Senator has not moved the amendment yet. Even at that stage——

I will learn in future not to be agreeable.

That is the Senator's prerogative. Order, please.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, lines 23 and 24, to delete ", to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance,".

I still believe I should have the right to reply.

The Senator has spoken on the amendment.

I agreed to a procedure for convenience.

The Senator could have taken them separately if he wanted to reply.

In future on Report Stage I will not agree to amendments being grouped.

That is the procedure.

On a point of order, when a grouping system applies it is normal that the proposer of the amendment has the right to reply.

So far as I know when a grouping system is agreed, all the amendments are discussed and the mover of the first amendment replies. That is the position.

Given that the first was a Government amendment——

Unfortunately it is a Government amendment. I know it does not appear right——

The majority of the amendments in the group are in the name of Senator Ryan.

I appreciate that but Senator Ryan could have asked at the beginning that his amendments be taken separately.

May I be helpful?

We learn all the time.

Standing Orders give the Chair absolute discretion in respect of the procedures of the House. Given that the majority of the amendments were in the name of Senator Ryan, I suspect one reply would not be over the top.

He could speak on all the amendments.

No. We agreed to take all the amendments together.

In fairness, it is only one speech.

I will allow Senator Ryan to reply although I do not think it is in order to do so.

I appreciate the Chair's indulgence. I am not trying to turn the Taoiseach into a dictator. What I am trying to do is to reinforce a constitutional order which clearly only applies in the case of the Taoiseach. My own view is that a phrase such as "the Taoiseach, with the consent of the Minister for Finance", is a standard, stock phrase that goes into all legislation where it would be "the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance". I think it is included in this Bill in error because it is the standard way of doing things. I believe it is an error and that it should be amended. That is all I wanted to say. I believe it is an error because of the unique position of the Taoiseach vis-à-vis the Minister for Finance, which is different to that of any other Minister.

I second the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 12, line 9, to delete ", with the consent of the Minister for Finance,".

I second the amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 13, inclusive, not moved.

There is a typographical error in amendment No. 14. It should read, "In page 19, lines 2 and 3...,"

Amendments Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive, not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I thank the Minister of State, in spite of all my grumblings, for responding to a genuine issue. It is not easy to bring back legislation that has been around for four years. If a press release appears from me in which I make comments about incompetence that is part of politics. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of State did respond thoughtfully. In the later part of the debate we dealt with an issue that has interesting constitutional implications.

I wish the bodies well. We desperately need to deepen the concept of partnership. I am extremely unhappy — I have said this over and again — that one of the social partners, namely, the employers' group still has the right to refuse to allow its employees to be members of another one of the social partners and are de facto ensuring that many members are not in a trade union. Some 70% of the Irish workforce would like to be in a trade union but only 30% are in one. That other 40% are deterred, among other things, by the hostility of their employers. That is not a true spirit of partnership.

Arising out of these institutions, I hope people will have the right not to just to tolerate trade union membership but that it will be seen as a good thing for people to be members of trade unions and for trade unions to be involved in all forms of work. If that were the case it would deepen and extend partnership. The idea that a weakened trade union movement is anything other than bad for society, which wants to work by consensus, is a nonsense.

I thank the Minister of State for the various Stages of this debate. This Bill was first published in 2002, and four years later it is finally going through the full legislative process, even though the three offices being established under this legislation have been up and running for some time.

Our deliberations this afternoon had as much to do with the question of the ancien régime and its relevance to the modern republic as the current issue, and the members of the established bodies might question if they are working in the right place. I thank the Minister of State for replying to some of the amendments. Responding to amendments is always useful and shows the importance of this House.

I wish those who work in the bodies every success. The most important factor of this Bill is that these bodies now come under the auspices of freedom of information legislation. This means we will, for the first time, be able to get some of the meaningful information behind many of the decisions made at partnership discussions. That is useful, as the matter was one of the criticisms of the benchmarking component of the last deal. It is useful that freedom of information provisions will be part and parcel of these new bodies.

I wish them well and agree with others in their congratulations on the conclusion of the latest round of partnership. It will be the subject of debate later.

As other speakers have stated, we are glad to see this Bill concluded. It seems to have gone on forever. Second Stage was a long while ago and I remember participating on it. I did not participate on Committee Stage because I could not be here. I am glad the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Tom Kitt, took heed of an issue spotted by Senator Ryan with his eagle eye and which was subsequently reported on. A useful amendment was hence produced.

I have a point which does not relate specifically to this Bill. By chance I was watching BBC on Sunday morning last week. Harriet Harman, the constitutional affairs Minister in the UK, has introduced legislation in plain English. From last week onwards, when a Bill is published in the UK, one side of the page is legalese, while the other side of the page, directly facing, has the content in ordinary English.

Listening to Ms Harman, I thought this to be a good but simple idea. We all talk about this. Sometimes, we lay people can find it difficult to read legislation. For people whom it affects, legislation can be quite incomprehensible. A person would go to a solicitor, barrister or somebody in the legal profession to figure it out.

A person can open any Bill now coming from the Bills Office in Westminster and the left hand page will have legalese — the language of the draftsman, which they love — and the right-hand side has language that anybody can understand.

The Senator should not insult the draftsman.

I am not insulting the draftsman.

He will get upset.

The draftsman loves obtuse language. I recommend this idea to the Minister of State.

Hear, hear.

When I hear the Minister of State speaking about this on the television or the radio, I will label it as plagiarism. It is termed as plain English legislation. Ms Harman introduced the idea three months ago and it is now in force. I realise the issue has nothing to do with this Bill.

I wish the Bill well. The idea of bringing these partnerships together is good. Each individual body carries out excellent work. It coincides with the partnership agreement which is hopefully nearly finalised. There is a bit more work to be done on it. We will debate it here later this afternoon. It is a good omen. I thank the Minister of State for his ever pleasant presence in this House.

It is always a particular pleasure to be here in the Seanad.

We can organise it on a more permanent basis.

We can organise a stay here.

For some reason I feel most relaxed here. We have done some very good work here over the years. With regard to this Bill, we have had differences, in particular with Senator Ryan, as my colleague has mentioned. He did me the courtesy of approaching me with regard to a certain error in the Bill prior to coming into the Chamber. I appreciated that. We sorted out the issue. That is what the democratic system is all about, and I value that greatly. We can now go from here to the Dáil and get through the final leg of bringing this Bill into law.

The work we are doing has been important. It has taken some time. Partnership is something we all take for somewhat for granted. These bodies do tremendous work. We are well aware of the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum, and many of us have served on that particular body. The relatively new National Centre for Partnership and Performance is coming forward with tremendous work relating to the workplace of the future.

There are many sophisticated and complex issues in the workplace as we develop as a modern economy, with less time for those nearest and dearest to us. People are trying to balance the work and life mix, etc. Many complex issues need to be dealt with. These bodies are considering these matters in a detailed fashion, helping us all to chart the future for those who we represent.

What we have done is extremely important and I value it greatly. If something goes wrong with partnership it makes the headlines, but when it works smoothly, nobody seems to take a great deal of notice. I have stated here previously that I value greatly the work done by these bodies.

As Senator O'Rourke has stated, the Taoiseach will be present in the Chamber shortly to debate the new partnership agreement. Senator Brian Hayes and others have rightly asked for as much debate as possible on these issues. There was a request from Members that we would have a greater involvement by them. To be fair to the Taoiseach, he will visit the Seanad first to do what has been suggested.

I wish the Seanad well in its future work and thank it for its co-operation on this Bill. I look forward to bringing it to the other Chamber.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 4.15 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.
Top
Share