John Bruton
Ceist:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the reason for the reduction in the 1999 Estimates for his Department in the allocation for the National Partnership Centre; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26413/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - National Partnership Centre
The year 1998 was the first full year of operation of the National Partnership Centre and the budget was estimated in advance of the completion of a detailed work programme by the board. In the event, expenditure was lower than originally envisaged in the 1998 Estimates.
The 1999 Estimate provision of £415,000 for the National Partnership Centre is based on the projected administrative and programme costs which are likely to arise in the course of the year. This Estimate will allow the centre to progress its work programme and to achieve its objectives, as agreed by the board, in the course of the year.
What was the reason for the lesser level of activity than was anticipated when the Estimates were set?
It is not a question of there being a lesser level of activity, the work programme had not been prepared when the Estimate was prepared. A provisional sum was included and when the programme was prepared it was evident that the full amount of the Estimate would not be required.
Will the Taoiseach give a breakdown of the expenditure of the centre?
In terms of what it is used for?
Yes.
I do not have that information before me.
Could the Taoiseach get it?
I will not have a problem getting that information, but I do not have it before me.
As a famous Minister said on one occasion "There is nothing about that here."
Given that in most cases Estimates for any area of Government activity tend to be conservative and that there is no unforeseen expenditure in this area, does the Taoiseach not consider it unusual that the Estimate for this area was not reached? Is the National Partnership Centre located in his offices? If it is and has not been given the factual and physical independence which it manifestly requires, that is perhaps one of the reasons for the underspend in the last year's Estimate.
Deputy Quinn raised that matter with me previously and I put it to the board. It believes its location in my offices enhances its role. It suits it to be based in that location and use the meeting rooms and facilities and it wants to continue to be based there. I do not have any dealing with it on a day to day basis. Any time I meet its members is at an arranged meeting.
This year the board spent a good deal of time in its work around the country. It promotes the involvement of partnerships, monitors developments, provides technical assistance and support to organisations involved in partnership arrangements, disseminates best practice and provides training for management, union and the employer in the workplace. It has held a number of exhibitions and conferences around the country. It has spent £400,000. Its projected outturn at this stage is £397,000 and its estimated expenditure for next year is £414,000.
Would it be fair to say the main function of the National Partnership Centre is the promotion of virtue?
For a relatively cheap operation, the National Partnership Centre does a very good job. There is best practice in a number of industries. The board has taken the best practices used in a number of industries as models and developed them throughout the country, which is a good way to proceed. The proof of such exercises is in the result. Best practices are being picked up and the attendances at the conferences held by the board throughout the country have been higher than it anticipated. I appreciate the effort put in by Evelyn Owens, Peter Cassells and others who have given of their time because this entails additional work for them.
The Leader of the Fine Gael Party and I were involved in negotiations for Partnership 2000 which provided, inter alia, for the establishment and allocation of resources for this centre. Will the Taoiseach agree that one of its primary functions was to measure and quantify the effectiveness with which the concept of partnership was being embedded in the body politic and in our workforce? If he accepts such an analysis among the other roles the centre has, does the National Partnership Centre communicate with him or has he or his Department a view on how they might measure how successfully the principles and philosophies of partnership have taken root? If we are to get a fifth successive agreement under social partnership, does he recognise that the measurement of the performance and outturn of the fourth agreement is critical notwithstanding the other three agreements? Are there any proposals on his desk or that have been put forward by the centre that would suggest it is engaging in that type of exercise?
It is doing that. It has endeavoured to disseminate best practices through studies of those organisations which have successful partnerships. It has done that. Where it is in operation and lessons have been learned, it can be accommodated in both the public and private sector. The monitoring of the development of partnership, including the putting in place of a national benchmark survey — the point Deputy Quinn is raising — which it can use as a test of whether people are using best practice is very important.
It has spent a great deal of time this year doing that in conjunction with ICTU and IBEC. It is developing the training and management programmes to achieve that, again in conjunction with the relevant organisations. While it is a small organisation, it has secured the co-operation of the Irish Productivity Centre, the Labour Relations Commission, the Departments of Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, ICTU and the universities. It is a good idea and the centre has done excellent work.
What role is the centre taking in the vexed question of trade union recognition? If this is not resolved we will simply not have a fifth agreement. Are any of its activities concerned with this sensitive area?
That matter is being dealt with by a separate working group. While the National Partnership Centre has views on the issue, it is not directly involved in the discussions to reach a conclusion on the matter, or in the work done last year when a report was almost agreed.
The question of trade union recognition is an integral part of partnership. We all know from the last two agreements, and the agenda for the present agreement, that the National Partnership Centre has no role in vindicating the legitimacy of one of the partners to the national agreement regarding the recognition of trade unions. Why has that been taken off its agenda?
Because the matter was almost concluded before the centre was set up. It would not be a good idea to give something which is almost concluded to a body which has just been set up.
That is not smart.
The question is smart. The Deputy knows that matter was concluded in November last year.
The Taoiseach knows what happened.
Not everyone could deliver what was agreed. There was a separate group involved which had nothing to do with this body.