Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 24 May 2000

Vol. 519 No. 6

Ceisteanna–Questions. - Legislative Programme.

Ruairí Quinn

Ceist:

1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach when he will publish the long-promised legislation to establish an office for Economic and Social Development to co-ordinate the activities of the NESC and the NESF; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12753/00]

John Bruton

Ceist:

2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach when the activities of the NESC and the NESF will be brought together under one single body; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13380/00]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.

The drafting of the Bill to place the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum on a statutory basis is at an advanced stage. These bodies will be located within an office for National Economic and Social Development, as I indicated on previous occasions.

Arising out of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, which has been recently negotiated, it has been agreed that the National Centre for Partnership and Performance will also be located within the proposed office for National Economic and Social Development. Discussions with IBEC and ICTU on the detailed arrangements to be put in place to give effect to the strengthened institutional structures required are taking place and proposals will be submitted shortly. Following on from this process, the parliamentary draftsman's office will be asked to incorporate amendments relating to the NCPP into the draft legislation. It is still expected that the Bill will be published this year.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. This Bill is a year late but I accept its drafting has probably been delayed because of the decision to include the NCPP in it. However, there is not a substantial drafting load in the Department of the Taoiseach. Is the Taoiseach aware of the concerns of the social partners about the possible loss of independence of the NCPP and that it is essential that when incorporated into this office, away from its current location in the Department of the Taoiseach in Government Buildings, the structure of the board of the NCPP will be autonomous in terms of the Executive of the day? Does the Taoiseach share the view that if partnership is to take on a life of its own and be advocated and implemented in all sectors of our economy, it is essential that the NCPP be seen as an independent and autonomous body?

I share that view. Deputy Quinn knows that when he raised on a number of occasions the question of whether they should be in the Department of the Taoiseach because of their independent role, I said it was a matter for the organisations. If they are to have the advantage and the drive to influence companies to consider and adopt best practice and the new range of ideas on which they have worked, to deepen partnership arrangements through deliberation, consensus, discussion and the dissemination and monitoring of information, they need to be independent. I will ensure that remains the case. I discussed it directly with IBEC and ICTU representatives during the partnership discussions to ensure that what was happening was not at variance with what they wanted to do. That is the right way forward.

Does the Taoiseach agree that one could characterise or present the National Centre for Partnership and Performance as the pro-active component of our industrial relations system as distinct from the reactive component, which is the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court? In other words, we have the institutions of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court when there is a breakdown in the operation but we have the National Centre for Partnership and Performance to promote best practice. If the Taoiseach accepts that characterisation, will he further accept that the NCPP should have an autonomy not dissimilar to that of the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court?

It will retain its independence. As regards the three organisations working together, in the new national agreement the Government and the social partners agreed a new framework to further improve enterprise partnership and the organisations' capability and performance and to do all the things I mentioned. They built and structured many new ideas under Partnership 2000. The Deputy is correct that it is a pro-active component. They recently produced an excellent video of what has been achieved in recent years and it is now being used for shop stewards, employers and managers. This small group of people has done a great deal in the past three years, including case studies. I do not want to do anything to affect their independence. Continuing progress in all these areas is essential to maintaining our competitive advantage while, at the same time, implementing the strategic changes they have identified.

The three organisations, which are not the same but complementary, will be in the same office in the same building and they will be able to use the administration and research facilities, but they will retain their independence as three separate bodies. NESC will continue to provide the strategic analysis which has given us national agreements in the past 12 or 13 years, NESF will continue monitoring initiatives which take account of social partnership and unemployment schemes and deal with the disadvantaged and the marginalised and NCPP will continue to develop partnership arrangements in a pro-active way.

What relationship will this body have with the employer labour conference?

It will not have any relationship with the employer labour conference. These bodies will continue to do the work they have been set up to do as three separate organisations. They did not and will not deal with the employer labour conference in their day to day work.

What relationship will they have with the body which exists to monitor implementation of the existing agreement?

NESC's analysis set up the agreement so it will continue as it has under all previous agreements to monitor what has happened and to issue reports from time to time. NESF is active in the agreements, as it was in Partnership 2000 and since it was set up in the early 1990s. It will continue to monitor the value of the schemes that have been established, indicate which schemes should be co-ordinated and ensure that consideration is given to the 25 new areas of disadvantage. The NCPP obtained a new remit under the programme and it will deal directly with the central review committee in respect of what it has achieved.

What provision will be made in the legislation for new social partners whose interests are not currently represented? I refer here to women in the home, who were adversely affected by this year's budget, and the elderly. Neither of these groups are represented in the social consensus. What provision will be made in the legislation to include new representative organisations in negotiations with the NESF, the NESC and the other bodies with which the Government will be obliged to consult when drawing up a new partnership agreement when the current agreement has run its course?

The Deputy and I are talking about two different things. The legislation deals with the NESF, the NESC and the NCPP. It has nothing to do with the four pillars of the social partnership process. I answered a question on that matter last Wednesday and I stated that the organisations to which the Deputy referred should consult the relevant pillar. If they obtain acceptance – I am sure they will if they pursue it – they could seek membership as long as the balance between the pillars is not changed. They are the organisations of social partnership; they do not involve the staff of the three organisations catered for by the legislation. It is a different matter.

What provision will be made for increasing the representation of some organisations or reducing the representation of others where changes occur in the demographic composition of particular groups or where new economic interests come into existence which require representation? Does the Taoiseach agree that economic development and social partnership are dynamic not static processes? Does he further agree that the precedent of vocationalism as contained in the electoral college for the Seanad is an example of rigidity and is out of date? For example, there are bodies which barely exist which retain nominating rights in that area which cannot or have not been stripped of them while three other organisations that would be entitled to hold nominating rights have not been granted them because there is no effective means to change levels of representation.

Given that the NESC and the NESF are being placed on a statutory footing which will create a certain rigidity in term of their structures, what arrangements will be made to alter the balance of organisations involved in the partnership process? What mechanisms will be put in place to remove organisations which are no longer in operation and include new organisations?

That can happen at any stage. Under the legislation, provision can be made by order to institute changes. For example, the composition of the NESC, which has five representatives from each of the four social partnership pillars, five representatives from Government Departments and five independent members, could be changed by order. The composition of the NESF has changed since it was first established. That organisation has 15 representatives from the Oireachtas, five representatives from each of the business, trade union and farming pillars, 15 representatives from non-Government organisations, five representatives from Government Departments, five representatives from local government and five independent members.

Deputy Bruton is correct in assuming that someone may state that perhaps the composition of these bodies should change or that new groups should be included. Provision would have to be made in the legislation for making a simple order to introduce such changes, which would not fundamentally alter the tasks or terms of reference of these bodies. Deputy Bruton raised this matter on a number of occasions and I have informed the parliamentary draftsman and those respon sible for developing the legislation to avoid creating a rigid system.

It is necessary for a number of reasons other than questions of staff permanency and the sustainability of the organisations involved that the legislation should be introduced. However, I do not want the legislation to be so rigid that nothing will ever change. I accept that the NESC has not changed but the composition of the NESF has changed from what was originally envisaged. The chairperson of the NESF, Maureen Gaffney, has put forward many imaginative proposals which have all been taken on board. The composition of the NCPP has changed under the two most recent programmes. This shows that as each programme is completed, the models are extended and developed. This happened in other countries with social partnership models. The Nordic countries have employed social partnership models since the early 1950s and these have changed with the passage of time.

The Taoiseach should consider the example of France which created the Conseil Économique et Social and located its headquarters in a huge office building which I have had the opportunity to visit. The Conseil, which is recognised not only in legislation but also in the French Constitution, does absolutely nothing and is utterly useless.

I am of the opinion that including something in legislation puts a hex on it. I do not favour rendering the proposed single body into legislation. The NESC and the NESF are working well, they are not broken and there is no need to fix them. However, if the social partners want them to be amalgamated, I suppose the Taoiseach is obliged to agree with their request. I see no added value in introducing the legislation in question.

Deputy Bruton has made it clear that he does not favour this course of action. However, at the end of 1998, I answered questions in the House regarding the lack of staff in the NESC. Members of the Deputy's party complained that they were transferred to an answering machine on each occasion they contacted the NESC because there were no staff to answer telephones. At that stage, no one wanted to work with an organisation which employed staff on a contract basis with no possibility of permanency.

The situation has become worse.

I was careful not to include France in my consideration of models of social partnership.

The Taoiseach should visit the headquarters building to which I refer. It is massive and nothing happens there.

I have not ever favoured the French model.

Given the environmental con sequences of economic growth, does the Taoiseach agree that the concept of sustainability should be written into the legislation? Is he aware that in the Nordic countries to which he referred, environmental NGOs are included in the partnership process?

I will let the Minister for the Environment and Local Government answer such questions because I do not intend to cover every area of concern.

Deputy Gormley's point is valid.

It is not.

I beg the Taoiseach's pardon—

I must remind the House that this is Question Time.

The Taoiseach's answer was disgraceful.

He did not understand the Deputy's question.

Deputy Gormley must ask a question.

My question was totally valid. I asked whether the concept of sustainability would be written into the legislation, given that we are experiencing phenomenal growth rates which have huge consequences for the environment.

These questions involve the amalgamation of the NESC and the NESF into a single body, they are not concerned with the involvement of NGOs in the social partnership process. On the question of sustainability and environmental matters, all legislation is environmentally proofed in this regard.

Is it not the case that the legislation governing the amalgamation of the NESC and the NESF will state what will be the purposes of the new organisation? If so, would it not be reasonable to include, as Deputy Gormley suggests, the concept of sustainability among those purposes? Without its inclusion, nothing can be sustained.

CORE is the organisation with responsibility for environmental sustainability.

The Taoiseach is missing the point.

The legislation dealing with the amalgamation of the NESC and the NESF will deal with the terms of reference of the new organisation, it will not be concerned with including eco-auditing under those terms of reference. All legislation is eco-audited.

We must proceed to Question No. 3. We have devoted 17 minutes to this question and there are other questions on the Order Paper.

It might assist the drafting of the legislation, which is over one year late, if we clarified a number of points. Do I take it that, as would be the case with similar legislation placing non-statutory boards or councils – the composition of which include representative members – on a statutory footing, one or other of the Schedules to the legislation would name and identify the bodies that will be component parts of that board or council? Do I understand that a mechanism for selecting or deselecting, adding or substracting possible new members to the NESC, where there have been changes of membership over time, or the NESF would be created? That would enable the legislation to address the problem to which Deputy Bruton referred by creating a mechanism to take away members who are no longer considered pertinent and to add new ones. Presumably the legislation provides for that.

Such issues are normally dealt with by way of regulation. We do not want a situation to arise where it will be necessary to amend legislation. I do not accept that the legislation is a year late. Under the work on Partnership 2000, the social partners wanted to review their achievements at the end of the period and consider how they could best deal with the NCCP. They have done that successfully. It is important for the staff that this issue is dealt with; it is not possible to keep good people in these positions if the appointments are not made on a statutory basis. People will merely leave and take up full-time jobs, now more than ever before.

Barr
Roinn