I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach and his officials.
SECTION 1.
National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002: Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I was Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs and the Bill is very much concerned with promoting innovation and partnership in the workplace. For example, it will place the National Centre for Partnership and Performance on a statutory footing. This body provides support for change and innovation through partnership in the workplace. It is ironic that we are discussing the Bill on the day revelations were made about the Aer Lingus business plan and human resource strategy for 2004 which was put in place to deal with voluntary redundancies at the company. Its intent is to force employees to take redundancy. I hope those who drafted that document will study the research being carried out by the bodies under scrutiny by the committee, which are doing tremendous work.
The strategy outlined in the Aer Lingus document amounts to making life so difficult for employees, particularly those with families, that they will quit. This approach is nothing short of despicable and it has no place in the modern workforce, nor had it a place in the workplace of the past. The proposals outlined in the document fly in the face of the partnership model of the workplace we are all trying to promote. I am shocked by these revelations. I welcome the initial comment by the chairman of Aer Lingus on "Morning Ireland" in response to the publication but there is an onus on the management of the company to reassure staff that this disgraceful, so-called human resource strategy will be binned. As one who formerly had responsibility for labour affairs, I never thought I would live to see such crude inhuman proposals being contemplated by the management of an Irish company.
I hope we can agree on the legislation. When a respected semi-State body is involved in such a practice, however, it is important that I should make my views known.
I welcome the Minister of State. Most of us were dismayed to read the reports of the approach being contemplated within Aer Lingus to secure the proposed redundancies. The company went through a difficult period and it had to engage in serious restructuring. However, it would be expected, in the spirit of the partnership approach developed during the years, that a more open approach to dealing with workers would be adopted so that management and the workers could adapt together to the challenges faced by the company rather than it being a case of going behind people's backs to manipulate them into decisions without their being properly informed about the complete picture. This was not a proud day for Aer Lingus. What discussions has the Minister of State had with the company's board and chief executive to establish the background to the document?
The Minister of State cannot appear before the committee to selectively deal with a particular case without examining the bigger picture at Aer Lingus. The Government's approach to Aer Lingus has not been at all of the standard we expect. It postponed a decision regarding the company's future access to capital, which was required, for a long period. Restructuring decisions were made more difficult as a result of Government inactivity. Most of us were dismayed that the Taoiseach accused the former chief executive and his senior management team of being motivated by greed. The decisions taken by these senior executives turned Aer Lingus around from a position where it faced collapse and where it was impossible to provide State aid. However, to accuse them of greed and to set about undermining their position in the way the Government did adds another dimension to this debate.
While I do not support the tactics under consideration within the airline, even though they were only part of a discussion paper of options, a little balance is needed in the approach to this issue. The Government's record in handling its responsibilities as a shareholder in Aer Lingus has been poor. The Government has undermined the airline and has made it more difficult for the company to compete in a difficult marketplace. This has resulted in the loss of the airline's senior management team and has required the airline to engage in a recruitment campaign when it ought to have been seeking to position itself for the future.
I refer to the National Centre for Partnership and Performance and have made my contribution as someone who previously had responsibility for labour affairs. The statement by the chairman of Aer Lingus and his intention to communicate with staff should be welcomed. I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to make this contribution as we discuss the partnership model. I support the calls of trades union representatives, in particular, that management should reassure its staff that this strategy will be pursued. While it is one of the main issues of the day, it is not the time for a lengthy debate on the matter.
Why has the Minister of State made no contact with the airline?
The Minister for Transport is the relevant Minister to deal with the issue. My focus is the legislation which is being discussed today.
It undermines the value of the Minister of State's statement to some degree.
It does not.
It smacks of megaphone diplomacy. This is a company which the State owns. The Government has direct access to both the board and senior executives.
The fact that we are having this debate today gives me an opportunity to make known my views on the matter.
At this stage the important issue today has been discussed. There are no amendments to section 1.
Is there a guillotine?
There is no guillotine but I hope we will conclude the business this afternoon. As the Dáil has not imposed a guillotine on the Bill, I hope we will move promptly.
It is remarkable that the Bill was presented on 18 December 2003 and 18 months later it is being considered on Committee Stage. It is proposed to establish on a statutory basis a 118 person body comprising four different units. It is reminiscent of a camel being the horse devised by a committee because instead of having a number of bodies with a clear mandate, we are now ending up with three bodies with someone else to co-ordinate them.
What evaluation has underpinned the decision to cement this network into law? Has there been an evaluation of the work of these bodies to determine if it is the right way to proceed? It is my understanding that partnership bodies have in the past evolved on a much more ad hoc basis and we have not seen the advantage of trying to cement them in this way. I wonder whether an evaluation has taken place because I do not recall such an evaluation having been presented to the committee as a background for why we should go this route.
It is also strange that the Taoiseach is taking on the role of appointing the 118 people to the various elements of the structure and that he will be the conduit for all the advice. This is very much a Taoiseach-centred operation.
His recent appointments have not been great.
No. It creates some doubts about his decisions.
Sour grapes.
Why will the structure have just a token relationship with the Oireachtas? The Oireachtas is ultimately the key body that makes decisions on economic and social policy. A research network is being established which is designed to provide research back-up to partnership discussions, yet its contact with the Oireachtas is tangential with just a few Members on one of the bodies and no obligation to report. The Taoiseach has been in the habit of portraying any questioning of the social partnership infrastructure as some sort of heresy. The Oireachtas is entitled to examine this issue and it is unhealthy for the Taoiseach to feel the structure should not be open to proper democratic scrutiny.
It is remarkable that when social partnership was being signed up to, each body went back to its constituent assembly. IBEC and ICTU went back to their membership, the various subsidiary groups went back to their membership to sign off on the agreement, but the Taoiseach did not come back to the Dáil on the matter. There has never been a debate, discussion or approval in the Dáil of Sustaining Progress, which is a new departure. In the past agreements were debated in the Dáil. Even though the issues were debated at a time when there was very little opportunity for the Dáil to influence the decision, at least there was a token attempt to get approval from the Dáil. This has now been abandoned by the Taoiseach.
Perhaps I am jumping on the bandwagon, but the contrast between public accountability of the Government to the Oireachtas and the accountability and access granted to social partnership is striking. Social partnership now has two implementation bodies. Under this legislation, it will have four research agencies. It has nine high level policy committees and priority access to the development of Government legislative proposals and policy. It has received eight progress reports since mid-2003 on different priorities identified by the partners.
If we contrast this with our position, we are running the most rusty and creaky system of public accountability of any parliament of which I am aware. The Estimates procedure here is a joke. It is devoid of any information about outcomes or performance. It is conducted in an archaic manner and there is nothing like the reports the social partners get on the objectives they have set. We have no investigative or research powers commensurate with the four bodies that will now inform the deliberations of the social partnership process. The expenditure review process that was supposed to present independent assessment of spending programmes has imploded. As fewer than one in five of the Government's commitments have been delivered, there is no public review of spending programmes and Ministers do not bother to publish key performance indicators.
Those of us who are supposed to be holding the Government accountable are spancelledin our work. Given that the social partnership has access to reports and research back-up which is second to none, which I do not begrudge, it is strange that we are not developing some sort of sensible relationship in the Bill between the Oireachtas, which is the democratic institution of the State, and the social partnership, which is growing and burgeoning in terms of institutional structure. Is there an obligation to create a relationship where there is robust debate on issues that really matter instead of the Taoiseach trying to create a sense of dismay if anyone questions what is going on in partnership? We are grown up and it is past the time for just polite and phoney consensus on tough issues we must face.
How much real discussion was there before the Bill was introduced? On the previous occasion, when a number of agencies in the partnership process demurred and did not sign up, they were completely cut off at the knees. The National Women's Council and the community forum got no access to any of the monitoring committees and were taken out of the structure. Groups who examined the issue of equality received no representation from women. The so-called social partnership group examining equality had no representation from women because the National Women's Council of Ireland had not signed up to the agreement. This is sending out a message that if one is a "yes man", one will get to participate but if one questions what is going on, one will be pushed out. I am not sure this is a healthy way to proceed.
We need to have a more robust discussion with the social partners and listen to some of the voices that are excluded, including the voices of consumers, users of public services, people concerned about the environment and parents and families. The interests of these people have not been represented in an open way in the partnership discussions. It is not surprising, therefore, that we have seen the rip-off of consumers, poor delivery of public services, despite huge spending in the area, parents and families losing out in regard to home care, child care and the extent to which their needs are accommodated in the workplace and environmental protection being put on the back burner.
We need a new framework for social partnership. Even though it is 18 months since the Bill was first presented, it is not squaring up to the challenges that need to be met by the social partnership. Social partnership can and should be a very vibrant part of the future development. However, if it is kept in a cotton wool process, so to speak, people who demur from any of the decisions get shafted and the Oireachtas is kept out of the picture, it will struggle to continue to have authority, legitimacy and a sense of purpose. I am interested in the thinking behind this legislation, other than getting through the next hour or so in order that we can go home.
I do not disagree often with Deputy Bruton, but historically it is the prerogative of the Government and the Taoiseach to make appointments. I am sure that when Deputy Bruton's party was in government, it made appointments. It is important the Government puts the right people in place, but all things being equal people always look after their own. That is how it is done. I am not the first to say this. The late Donogh O'Malley who did so much for Irish education often said the same.
Deputy Bruton ranted on about a variety of issues. We must consider the current confidence in the economy. One leading institution pointed out in recent days that 100% mortgages are available for house developments. I might not agree with 100% mortgages, but when a lending organisation gives out that kind of money it shows confidence in the economy. I will be and have been as critical as anybody of the Government. However, the Government has given good leadership in the social partnership area and we are seeing a change in the status of what we had——
Why is the Government afraid to bring its agreement back to the Dáil where it could be debated?
Bring what back to the Dáil?
Sustaining Progress.
I am not afraid of it. We are changing the status to a new organisation——
Why was it not brought back? The Government did a deal in mid-2003 on sustaining partnership. Now in the middle of 2005 two years have passed and that deal is almost finished. The Government is about to start a new agreement but it has not yet brought that agreement to the Dáil for approval. Who mandates the Taoiseach to negotiate, if not the Dáil? Why does he not come back to the Dáil and get endorsement of his mandate?
We have a mandate from the electorate to govern this country and it is the Taoiseach's prerogative——
No, that is not right. No previous Taoiseach failed to bring back the social partnership agreement for approval from the House.
I disagree with the Deputy.
Tell us which one did.
What did Fine Gael do when it was in power?
The Deputy said he disagreed. Which other Taoiseach failed to bring the agreement back for discussion?
I am here to defend the situation. What we are doing here is a good move and there is no point in the Opposition trying to hijack and criticise it.
I am not trying to hijack it. I want to know why——
The Deputy made a statement over ten to 15 minutes on it.
I pointed out what is missing from the Bill and what ought to be in it.
As a member of the Opposition, the Deputy would find something missing anyway.
Will Deputy O'Keeffe explain why the Government is doing it this way?
I take the Government line on this and believe we are going in the right direction.
Uncritically.
I welcome the Minister of State. He is doing a good job and I welcome his remarks on the Aer Lingus issue. Aer Lingus and its chairman were high-handed in dealing with that situation. We thought from the first press announcement by Aer Lingus that the decision was a fait accompli, but now we have found out that it was only another statement, which does no good for the confidence of the workers. The Aer Lingus statement damaged the economy by raising the normal severance and redundancy payments. Now we have a new situation.
The Minister of State should respond on section 1.
The danger is that we will start a debate on social partnership, as has happened before. I have no problem with having a debate because partnership is a crucial aspect of Government. Social partnership is a process that my party introduced when I was elected in 1987. I understand Deputy Bruton's party was not very enthusiastic at the time. The job of parties is to come up with new ideas and I appreciate that is what the Deputy is doing with the new ideas he has put forward in regard to the partnership process.
I remind the Deputy that we are talking about NESDO. The broader issue of social partnership involving Government, trade unions, business, farmers and voluntary pillars is an important element of the way we run the country. The Taoiseach has in that context asked the social partners to examine new programmes for discussion over the coming months. The points made by the Deputy can be fed into that system.
Today we are discussing the statutory establishment of NESDO. Deputies are aware that we are bringing together the various bodies, the National Economic and Social Council, the National Economic and Social Forum in which I was proud and privileged to participate some years ago, and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance which is an excellent new body. These bodies are being brought together in one office.
Deputy Bruton asked about analysis. There are plenty of experts involved in these bodies. It is logical that if we bring these bodies together in a single office that the new synergies and efficiencies created will lead to better work and research. The NESC has been in existence for approximately 32 years, the NESF for approximately 12 years and the NCPP for approximately five years. These bodies are well established and do particular work. We are trying to bring them together so that they can help each other in planning for the future.
On the issue of accountability to the Oireachtas, there are many opportunities to bring back the published reports to committees or the Dáil and this is a matter for the parties. In my area as Whip, I would be happy to look at any proposals the Fine Gael Whip has in this regard. There is no big mystery about what we are doing today. We are bringing together established bodies that do important work. The NESC published a study entitled The Developmental Welfare State on 19 May 2005 and completed its report, Housing in Ireland: Performance and Policy, in December 2004. The NESF has three priority work topics, including creating a more inclusive labour market, care for older people and early childhood care and education. These are vital issues that will help us as policymakers and help whatever Government is in power. There is no huge mystery about this work.
The Deputy raised the matter of appointments by the Taoiseach. Many of these appointments are made by the social partners. They put names forward and these are formally processed and agreed by the Taoiseach. We are putting forward a certain model today, but it is based on work that has already been done by three established bodies. We are simply trying to bring it all together. Some of the points made by Deputy Bruton are the subject of some of the proposed amendments and I will be happy to deal with them then.
Was there any evaluation of the efficiencies that will result from bringing these bodies together and, if so, can we see it? Why was Sustaining Progress not brought before the Dáil and why does the Government believe the negotiated agreement should not come before us for approval? Why has the Oireachtas been frozen out of the process?
On the Deputy's first point, it was agreed as part of the social partnership discussions that this would be done. An analysis was done of the shared costs of a shared office and of the savings that would be made. On the second point, what we are doing today, apart from making greater efficiencies on these bodies, is confirming that the reports go to the Taoiseach and Government of the day. Then — we can deal with this later — the reports can be brought to the attention of committees for the attention of Members of the Oireachtas. The reports are particularly focused.
I do not wish to hold up the business of the committee but the blunt answer is that no reason is being given as to why Sustaining Progress was not brought before the Dáil. There is no evidence of these shared costs. The Chairman has seen the Estimates showing the cost of NESDO with its subsidiary bodies is now substantially more in 2005 than it was under the old structure. There is no saving and it will cost more. The members of this committee are not fools. If the Government has an idea, it should provide a proper brief as to why this is happening.
I have seen the figures. The Deputy will know there may be a short-term increase in costs in the initial stages of bringing these bodies together. One does not have to be an economist, a mathematician or a statistician to realise that three research bodies brought together into one office will mean the creation of natural synergies. I have visited the NCPP and the other bodies will now be located with it. The cost is not just a monetary cost. The value of the work done by these bodies must be considered. If the Deputy agrees with me that it is very valuable work——
I agree with the Minister of State but I still expect some form of proper evaluation to be carried out to show that some thought has gone into this. The only justification should not be that the social partners agreed this. We are independent and are not part of the social partnership with the Government — clearly it does not wish us to be and it does not involve us. If decisions taken by that body are being put forward to this committee, we are entitled to a proper evaluation and analysis of the reasons, the costs and the benefits of this decision. My point is this was not presented to us.
I will share all those facts and figures with the Deputy. The committee members have seen some of those figures. I acknowledge accommodation-related and other setting up costs will arise. These figures will all be available in due course when the committees of the Houses examine the Estimates.
We have already examined those Estimates.
I am aware of that. The Deputy is missing the point. The value of the work——
The Minister of State is missing the point I am making. We are not part of social partnership. Just because the social partners make a decision does not mean the Minister of State does not have to offer a proper reasoned explanation to this committee. We should be able to see the basis on which this decision is taken. We have seen too many decisions made without proper analysis, such as pools and what not. We are entitled to better. Our job is to hold the Minister of State accountable for the expenditure of public moneys and for decisions from wherever they come, be they partnership endorsed or not. We are a different body and we are entitled to ask these questions and have proper answers.
There will be an opportunity in the months ahead to discuss these issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
What is the proposed appointment date?
The three bodies involved, NESC, NESF and the NCPP, will become the National Economic and Social Development Office. On the question of an establishment date, the normal procedure is that the Taoiseach may appoint the day. I do not have a date but I am as keen as anyone else to see this Bill proceed through Committee Stage and through the Seanad. Once the legislation is completed, the Taoiseach will move without delay.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
As amendment No. 2 is an alternative to amendment No. 1, they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, subsection (1), lines 34 and 35, to delete “section 7 or 34” and substitute “section 7, 17 or 34”.
The section needs to be amended to allow for the inclusion in the Bill of the new section, section 17, covering draft orders being laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is also contingent on the new section being passed.
I will respond to Deputy Bruton's amendment No. 2.
My amendment proposes the only orders that would come before the House are orders under section 7 dealing with the establishment of new bodies. With regard to section 34, this is to do with the dissolution of such bodies. The Taoiseach takes on to himself other powers such as to change the functions of these bodies, yet he is not proposing to come back to the Oireachtas for any of these other orders which he can make under the Bill. The Oireachtas should have the right to see any decision made by Government about changing the functions of these bodies. The decisions should be laid before the House and what is proposed is not the right way to go about this.
I can see the logic of Deputy Bruton's proposal. We have discussed this matter with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. The advice is the Government may have to delete subsection (2) as part of this process. I will look as positively as I can at the Deputy's proposal and come back on Report Stage with an amendment on this point. I am not being negative about the Deputy's proposal.
Is amendment No. 1 agreed to?
My amendment No. 2 is different.
We are dealing with amendment No. 1. If amendment No. 1 is agreed, the Deputy's amendment No. 2 cannot be moved. Both amendments have been discussed. Amendment No. 2 cannot be moved because it was an alternative to amendment No. 1.
I still want amendment No. 2 to be discussed on Report Stage.
I will agree to it being discussed on Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 3 is in the name of Deputy Burton. As amendments Nos. 4 to 10, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 29 to 32, inclusive, are related, they may all be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 4, after "as" to insert the following:
"Oifig Náisiúnta d'Fhorbairt Eacnamaíoch agus Shóisialach, or in the English language".
The Taoiseach's amendment No. 4 is similar.
Amendments are grouped for discussion purposes.
The amendment is being tabled on foot of a suggestion from Deputy Burton for which I thank her. The title of the bodies will appear in English first. This is not a slight on the Irish language but because these bodies are primarily known by the English form of their names. For this reason and on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel, this wording was agreed. On the advice of the parliamentary counsel it is not proposed to amend the Long Title as this simply sets out the scope of the Bill. The Government's amendment No. 4 will satisfy the requirements of Deputy Burton's amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 5, after "Office" where it firstly occurs to insert the following:
"or, in the Irish language, an Oifig Náisiúnta d'Fhorbairt Eacnamaíoch agus Shóisialach".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, subsection (2)(a), line 9, after “Council” to insert the following:
"or, in the Irish language, an Chomhairle Náisiúnta Eacnamaíoch agus Sóisialach".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, subsection (2)(b), line 11, after “Forum” to insert the following:
"or, in the Irish language, an Fóram Náisiúnta Eacnamaíoch agus Sóisialach".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, subsection (2)(c), line 13, after “Performance” to insert the following:
"or, in the Irish language, an tIonad Náisiunta Comhpháirtíochta agus Feidhmíochta".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
This structure has 118 appointees and the Taoiseach seems to envisage that it will be expanded further with new bodies tacked on. Will the Minister of State give the committee some idea of what he has in mind? Why does he want this new power to create bodies at will?
This is simply to legislate to cover the possibility that a new body would be required.
Do more friends need to be accommodated?
This is a tidying up operation in case a future Government decided that a new body was required, or even if it decided that some bodies needed to be wound up. It is quite sensible to do this.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 8, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following 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."
One of the key functions of the NESC is to analyse and report on strategic issues and to present a framework for subsequent partnership discussions. The purpose of my amendment is that before those discussions begin, the framework document would be presented to the Oireachtas for endorsement or amendment in order that the Oireachtas could have a role in shaping the type of discussions that subsequently take place. Most inside and outside the partnership network and the Oireachtas feel the Oireachtas ought to play a more central role in a process that is key to many of the economic and social decisions we take. The notion that the Oireachtas is entirely air-brushed out of this process is not good politics and is not good partnership. This is a minimal suggestion. Before discussions start, we should at least have an opportunity to put some sort of a shape on what we believe are the priorities, the challenges and how they should be addressed.
The function of the council, under section 9, is to analyse and report to the Taoiseach on strategic issues. It is appropriate that this should happen before reports are discussed in the Houses of the Oireachtas. It would not be appropriate for it to report to the Oireachtas in advance of this reporting mechanism. Clearly, the Government can make arrangements for discussion of the reports by the Oireachtas when they are published. I am not in a position to move on this issue.
Has any discussion taken place at the NESC on why its ideas for the strategic challenges should not be shared with the Oireachtas? Why does it feel it must be exclusively via the Government? People such as Peter Cassells who have been involved in the partnership process are of the view that there has been a certain deadening in the process as it has tended to focus too much on consensus. There is a need to create democratic legitimacy in the process, as that is a missing element in it. If one goes to any discussions of outside groups about the partnership process, which include players within the system as well as those who would like to be in it, there is recognition that there are serious democratic deficit issues in this process. The Minister of State has just said the minimal element of addressing the democratic deficit in this amendment is something he cannot contemplate. Why can he not contemplate it?
I have no direct contact with NESC on the issue, but I am more than happy to make the point Deputy Bruton has made. In the past his party has made the argument he pursues.
Social partners who represent the core of the process also make that argument.
The Deputy claims he supports the partnership process but finds that it has been dumbed down because of over emphasis on consensus. I accept that there is a need for robust debate, but I do not see any major difficulty with reports and with more debate going on at this level. For practical purposes, it would be difficult to tie in the Oireachtas in the manner suggested by the Deputy. In some senses, the hands of Ministers would be tied.
Not at all. The chief researcher, Mr. O'Donnell, and his chairman could come before this committee and present his report. We would have an opportunity to discuss it and we could amend the framework for partnership discussions before the thing started. It is meat and drink for committees.
We are trying to bring greater synergies to these bodies. I do not see any problem with some of the bodies coming before committees and doing what the Deputy suggests. However, I do not see any difficulty in leaving the fundamental basis as it is, whereby the bodies report to the Taoiseach and the Government. If these bodies are more inclined to meet committees, I do not see why that cannot happen without putting it into legislation as the Deputy wishes.
The reason it cannot happen is that the Minister of State is not willing to allow the Oireachtas shape the negotiation framework. The point of this amendment is that we get access to the NESC and that, as elected representatives, we have some chance to shape the framework for discussion. These are crucial issues that deal with agriculture, industrial development and with child care provisions. These are things for which we are answerable to the electorate, yet the Minister of State is not willing to allow key strategic challenges researched by a reputable body to be brought before the committee. Why should we not get this information? Why should we not be able to create some shape around it? I do not know what other committee members feel, but I think this is a joke.
Members have an involvement in the NESF.
This is the NESC. This is the key document. This is the key to partnership. This document is the starting place for partnership.
I am happy to look at this and if I can do anything between now and Report Stage, I will. It would be a fairly fundamental change in how the NESC has operated to date. The body has been in place for many years. It would certainly make for a greater debate in the Oireachtas, but I am not sure if it would be efficient to do it. I will look at it between now and Report Stage.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I would like a proper response to this, rather than a quick look on Report Stage. I would like someone to examine whether this is something we should do and outline the reasons we should not do it.
I will do so. The NESC has been reporting to successive Taoisigh for 30 years on this basis. I need to give it some thought and will come back to the Deputy as soon as possible.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 8, lines 37 to 41, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"10.—(1) The functions of the Forum shall be—
(a) 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
(b) to facilitate public consultation on policy matters referred to it, from time to time, by the Government.”.
This amendment allows for public consultation by the NESF on matters referred to it by the Government. This was not in the original text when drafted and it has now been extended to cover this point and broaden the forum's terms of reference.
What is the change?
The change is to facilitate public consultation on policy matters referred to it from time to time by the Government. It relates to the NESF.
This Oireachtas committee has no means to facilitate public consultation. There is an issue about who does what with regard to the development of public policy. We are elected to engage in public consultation on policy.
We have members on the National Economic Social Forum.
We have token membership. No Minister has yet brought the heads of a Bill before the Oireachtas in order that it could facilitate the consultation process on the Bill, yet the Minister of State says he will give statutory powers that the Oireachtas does not yet have to a new body, even though Oireachtas Members have been elected to be responsible for such matters. I do not object to this, but does the Minister of State not recognise that there is something inherently strange about the difference between the Government's attitude to the Oireachtas, which has been elected to do certain things, and to the partnership bodies which have not been elected in the same way?
I and my fellow Whips are pursuing and championing the issue of public consultation on legislation introduced by Members of Dáil and I will continue to do so during the next session. I agree with the Deputy that we should do everything possible to involve public consultation through the use of modern technology such as the Internet.
Government Whips have stated this as their objective for the past ten years, yet it has never happened.
I am very confident that we can make this happen.
Will heads of Bills be put before committees so that the Oireachtas can shape consultation on important and controversial legislation?
I have already consulted the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, regarding a Bill from his Department. One must time the consultation process to ensure members of all parties can be involved in the process along with the public. The ideal situation would be that members of the public with a particular interest in certain areas would consult the committee through the use of modern technology and that they could have an input. Members of the Oireachtas would also play a part in such a consultative process. I am confident that we can put this mechanism in place. The fundamental issue is consultation and we can achieve it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 8, lines 46 to 49, to delete subsection (3).
The Minister of State has not responded to this amendment.
The purpose of this subsection is to enable the forum to identify problems and issues which arise in the achievement of Government policies. It can do this by obtaining from the social partners practical insight into the particular initiatives.
This is, therefore, not an obligation. The words "that shall have regard" do not require the forum to accept the views.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 9, subsection (3), line 43, after "term" to insert "not exceeding five years".
It is intended on Report Stage to amend this section to be consistent with the terms of office of other members of the bodies and will not prevent such a person from being reappointed.
This matter will be considered on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Amendment No. 15 is out of order. It involves a potential charge on the Revenue of the State and the Deputy has been given a note to this effect.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 10, subsection (3)(d), line 18, to delete “Taoiseach” and substitute “Oireachtas”.
This amendment deals with the Taoiseach's role in appointments. In respect of the community and voluntary sector, the people who will be nominated are from organisations which the Taoiseach considers representative of the community and voluntary sector participating in social partnership arrangements. Part of the committee platform did not accept the previous negotiated agreement and the Taoiseach decided it would be frozen out. It was not allowed any further participation in the structure of partnership.
This is a very questionable provision. The Oireachtas and not the Taoiseach should make the decision to withdraw people because they decide not to sign up and to disallow them from participating in the process. Otherwise it is not appropriate. The Taoiseach is a negotiator in this process and he is also the person who issues penalties. That is a strange form of negotiation if one party can penalise others for not agreeing. We would consider it wrong if this were a trade union negotiation and employers were allowed to undermine the position of workers who happened to join a union and decided not to accept an agreement. There is something wrong with this and experience has borne out this assertion.
The Taoiseach and Government would prefer people to opt in rather than out. This is an executive function under the Bill and one to be carried out by the Taoiseach.
It will not be an executive function if we do not give it to the Taoiseach. If the Minister of State gets his way, then it will be. This is wrong. It should not be the Taoiseach's task to make an executive decision to freeze somebody out if he or she does not sign up. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions or IBEC would not be frozen out if they did not sign up, but the Taoiseach knows he can get away with it because it is the community and voluntary sector. This would not apply to first division players but the Taoiseach is happy to freeze out third division players in the community and voluntary sector. This is about equity and partnership. What is fair for one must be fair for all.
Involvement is a two-way process. The Taoiseach clearly wants people to opt in and we appeal to people to be involved. It is a very difficult situation if they choose not to do so. The Deputy is suggesting that we delete the word "Taoiseach" and substitute it with the word "Oireachtas". This is an executive function and this is how we want to do it. It is carried out by the Taoiseach. We can only do so much with regard to broadening the process and we must leave some responsibility for this area in the hands of the Taoiseach. It is to be hoped people will choose to opt in.
It is not that people did not want to opt in, rather they did not sign up to a particular agreement. We could easily have a situation whereby ICTU or IBEC would not sign up and decide that, having reached the end of the process, they did not endorse the result.
Under this section, if one follows the Taoiseach's logic, ICTU or IBEC could be dropped. They would no longer be part of the partnership forum and would be removed from all the committees and steering groups. While I do not think that particular scenario would come to pass, the Minister of State is happy to permit it because bit players did not sign up. Consequently, they were frozen out and were removed. The Government used its executive function in a discriminatory way to remove those particular groups. Does the Minister of State not see that this is discriminatory? What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
In what way does the Deputy envisage the substitution of the term "Oireachtas" for "Taoiseach" to be an improvement?
The Government would then at least be obliged to secure a vote in the Oireachtas. The removal must be done in public and the decision must be justified. Members on both sides of the House must be able to see why the Government has decided to eliminate and expel from the process certain groups that had previously been participating in it.
As stated, the Government is approaching this from a positive perspective. We want people to opt in and I am not in a position to move on this matter. The Deputy wishes to shift the responsibility from the Taoiseach to the Oireachtas. We must, in this instance, leave some responsibility to the Taoiseach, who is well known as someone who does his best to ensure that everyone participates. That underpins the whole approach of partnership which has developed and grown since 1987. I do not have any other option but to leave the Taoiseach with this responsibility.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
In respect of section 14, what is the rationale for having the Oireachtas represented on the forum but not on the council? What is the rationale for not including representatives from the organisations I have suggested? I refer here to those who represent consumers, users of public services and environmental protection groups.
This has been the position for more than 30 years under successive Governments. The Deputy is aware of the kind of work performed by the NESC and he and Members of the Oireachtas have been brought into the work of the NESF which deals with the more social aspects of the overall strategy. It is a question of where Members of the Oireachtas can best add their voices to the process. This has been the situation for 30 years and the NESC performs detailed work. Some of the studies it has carried out recently are specialist in nature, covering issues such as migration policy, child poverty, child income support, Ireland's first periodic social report and the taxation system. Hence, this particular expertise——
It would be too complicated for mere Members of the Oireachtas.
I am not suggesting that. Deputies find their existing work — I refer here to what they do in the Chamber, on committees, for their parliamentary parties, etc. — to be difficult enough. I speak personally from my observations of the system, while trying to get around to the various committees. Those who participate in the NESF can make a valuable contribution and there are opportunities through that particular arm of the process. That is my rationale for what is happening but this has been the case for more than 30 years under successive Governments.
What is the attendance record of Deputies and Senators at the NESF?
I do not have the attendance records to hand. In my own time, there was always a good presence of Deputies and Senators at the meetings I attended.
That was not the case in my time.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 11, before section 17, to insert the following new section:
"17.—(1) Notwithstanding sections 14, 15 and 16, the Taoiseach, where he or she considers it appropriate in the circumstances, may by order alter the composition of the members of—
(a) the Council, in lieu of all or any part of its composition referred to in section 14(3),
(b) the Forum, in lieu of all or any part of its composition referred to in section 15(3), or
(c) the Centre, in lieu of all or any part of its composition referred to in section 16(3).
(2) The Taoiseach may amend or revoke an order under this section.".
This amendment will allow the Taoiseach, by way of an order, to alter the composition of the council, the forum and the centre. It is appropriate for the Taoiseach to have this option should the opportunity arise to assign new members to any of these bodies, all of which report to him through his Department. The Taoiseach may do so where he or she considers it to be appropriate, in the circumstances.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendment No. 19 is in the name of Deputy Burton. As amendments Nos. 19 to 21, inclusive, are related, they may all be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 12, subsection (7)(a), line 8, after “her” to insert the following:
"and where such cesser has been duly notified to the Taoiseach by the relevant body or interest group concerned".
I accept this amendment in the interest of the section's clarity.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 12, subsection (7)(h), line 20, to delete “2001” and substitute “2003”.
I thank the Deputy for this correction, which I accept.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 12, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following subsection:
"(8) A disqualification pursuant to an order of a court referred to in subsection (7) (d), (f), (g) or (h) shall not take effect until the ordinary time for appealing against any such order has expired, or if an appeal is lodged within that time, until any such appeal, or a further appeal therefrom is determined.”.
All the situations outlined in section 17(7)(a) to (h) deal with circumstances which have occurred and are regarded as final solutions. It is not considered that the section requires amendment in the manner proposed. Clearly, if a matter has not been resolved and some appeal mechanism is still in operation, the matter has not been finalised and the section would not come into effect. In similar legislation, it is taken that, in cases of this nature, the full legal process has taken place. Essentially, due process would prevail in any case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 12, lines 44 to 46, to delete subsection (13) and substitute the following:
"(13) Not less than 40 per cent of the members of a Body shall be men and not less than 40 per cent shall be women.".
While I agree with the sentiment behind this proposal, it may be somewhat impractical. I am confident that we can work towards the equitable balance referred to in the Bill. Appointments to bodies may not always be at the discretion of the Government because appointees may be nominees of the representative bodies. Members are familiar with the situation. In the circumstances, I do not accept the proposed amendment. However, the Government accepts the sentiments behind it.
If this amendment becomes part of the legislation, the bodies concerned will be obliged to adapt their nominations to meet this requirement. One cannot laud the objective and then not accept the amendment. If we want this to happen, we should accept the amendment and let it happen.
Deputy Burton is not here. Her amendments should not be put forward if she is not present.
If they are not moved——
Amendments are notified by the person who tables them or by his or her party. Can all Deputy Burton's amendments be taken at once?
No. Any member of the Opposition can move them on behalf of the Deputy.
Deputy Burton cannot be present today and she asked me to move her amendments.
The amendments may be moved on the Deputy's behalf, if so requested. It occasionally happens that amendments are not moved because no one chooses to do so. However, today they are being moved.
To return to the point, this is not the first time for this issue to emerge. As Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, I had the privilege of making many appointments. When he was a Minister, I presume that Deputy Bruton also made many appointments in his Department. I always found that one of the practical issues regarding gender balance is that, in many cases, particular bodies nominated representatives. Deputy Burton's amendment proposes that this be placed on a statutory footing. Everyone agrees that, ideally, we should try to secure a proper gender balance on bodies. I always tried to do so. However, it would be legally problematic if it was included statutorily because a case might arise where a small group is exclusively composed of women or men, when one is looking for the last man or women to make up the body. Many female nominees have agreed with me that it is best that bodies pick competent people who can do the job and that ideally we try to work towards gender balance in these bodies. It will be problematic to try to endeavour to put this in statute. There are practical situations where bodies nominate and we cannot control this.
It will certainly create a difficulty but it is not a major one. These bodies are comprised of 32 members, 62 and 18. In the other case of the oversight body, a chairman and vice chairman are being appointed. What is required is that each body would have a member gender balance between the chair and deputy chair and that there would be gender balance in bodies with size 32, 62 and 18. This leaves reasonable scope for negotiation. In the spirit of partnership, they will have to sit down and say who they are nominating and change these nominations if they do not achieve gender balance. There must be some horse trading in reaching this gender balance. The trouble with all these issues is that if one does not provide for them, they will not happen. A person will have no authority in his or her own right if he or she is the person who must point out an imbalance. That person will have no authority to do this, while this measure would give him or her that authority.
I am obviously taking this legislation on behalf of the Taoiseach and will ask him to write to all of the nominating bodies conveying the views of the committee on this issue that we endeavour to get proper gender balance with regard to the make-up of these bodies. I take Deputy Bruton's point so I assure the committee that we will pursue the matter on that basis. The Taoiseach will communicate with all the various nominating bodies. The difficulty lies in signalling to these bodies the view of the Taoiseach and the Government that we should endeavour to get gender balance. I can go that far with it.
I will not press the amendment at this stage but perhaps the Minister for State would return and let the committee know what the existing gender balance of the nominating bodies is?
I will do so.
The chairman and vice chairman will ex officio become the overseers.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."
This freedom to establish committees which will have their expenses appears extraordinarily open-ended. I know it is out of their budget but will this structure grow like Topsy?
The section applies to the right of bodies to establish committees to advise them with regard to the performance of any of their functions. This was the body to determine the terms of reference of the committee as well as the number of members as the body thinks proper. It also allows a body to dissolve a committee established by it and to appoint a person to be chairperson of the committee established by it. Again, I think these are fairly normal procedures in this case.
Normally, if one is establishing a committee, one would have to return to the sponsoring Minister to get some sort of a sign that this was a good idea. The Taoiseach is the sponsoring Minister here so I would expect, in accord with general legislation, that it would be subject to some sort of sanction. One does not want to be unreasonable with bodies but if they are on the public payroll and their decision to establish a committee involves, as it does, additional expense, there should be someone to whom they tell their proposals because we will have to vote on them at the end of the day.
I take the point made by Deputy Bruton but I suggest that the particular competence of the chairpersons involved would ensure that this would be done properly, efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. I know that in some cases there are provisions to revert back to the Minister, but not in all cases.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 21 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Amendments Nos. 23 to 26, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 18, subsection (4), line 45, to delete "with the consent of" and substitute "after consultation with".
Amendments Nos. 23 to 26, inclusive, relate to this suggested proposal to delete "with the consent of" and substitute "after consultation with". This proposal cannot be agreed to as it fundamentally alters the thrust of this section regarding the involvement of the Minister for Finance. We regard the Minister for Finance's role as important and appropriate and will, therefore, not accept these amendments. Again, this would be the normal procedure with the involvement of the Minister for Finance. I regret that, in the absence of Deputy Burton, I cannot accept these amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.
Section 26 agreed to.
Sections 27 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 20, lines 26 to 29, to delete subsection (2).
We can agree to this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 32.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 20, after line 48, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) The office and each body shall submit each year to the relevant Oireachtas Committee a report of progress in relation to their strategic plan, and shall make themselves available to present it to the Committee for examination.".
At this stage, I am merely looking for a crumb. The amendment would ensure the Oireachtas would at least get a report of progress with regard to the strategic plan each year. I am sure the Minister for State would agree it would be a fairly small concession.
Let me consult my own briefing note. Under the Bill, the office and bodies submit their strategic plan to the Taoiseach and this would obviously continue. They could subsequently be available or requested to come before a committee of the House to discuss the plan. Does the Deputy have a problem with it going to the Taoiseach first?
No, I do not have a problem with that. It can go to the Taoiseach. We will get an annual report of progress.
We will agree to that.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 33 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 29 to 32, inclusive, not moved.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.