National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Connolly

The Celtic tiger has become virtually extinct and marginalised people would not recognise the animal unless they had the wherewithal to visit Dublin Zoo or Fota Wildlife Park where they may conceivably glimpse this mythical animal. Social partnership should not merely embrace the interests of those at the negotiating table. There is little doubt that the poor need clout and influence to address the untenable social conditions which are constantly being endured by those unfortunate enough to be on the fringes of society. Accordingly, in recent years the main voices raised in their support have been CORI and the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed.

Partnership should be about the whole community and, in particular, those who are in need of special consideration. In the context of social partnership, an opportunity existed to address the problem of unemployment, which the previous Government refrained from taking. Nevertheless, the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen and, even though evidence of unprecedented gains in wealth are visible throughout the country, the poor continue to be with us.

Unfortunately, the Celtic tiger has a soft under-belly in that social exclusion was, and continues to be, experienced, by large numbers of people and long-term unemployment is rife in urban black spots Waiting lists for housing are growing at an alarming rate, soaring property prices are putting homes out of people's reach and major issues of equality, health care, disability and environment have yet to be addressed. The case for the redistribution of wealth and a more even balance in Ireland's social equilibrium is irresistible.

Before last year's general election, the Taoiseach said that one of the Government's main objectives in the national anti-poverty strategy was to reduce consistent poverty to 2% and ideally to eliminate it, together with the elimination of long-term unemployment, by 2007. With that policy in ruins, the establishment of a new National Economic and Social Development Office is timely if it serves to improve the lot of the marginalised in our society.

Dr. Cowley

This Bill is about developing and enhancing the capacity of three bodies, the National Economic and Social Forum, the National Economic and Social Council and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, which are coming together in the National Economic and Social Development Office to advise the Government on measures which can fulfil Ireland's need for innovation, competitiveness and inclusion.

The National Economic and Social Forum was established to contribute to the formation of a wider national consensus on social and economic policy initiatives, particularly regarding employment. I ask the Minister what it has done for the west. The answer is very little. In Mayo a sad situation is happening today. We have had some terribly sad scenes in Mayo in the past, including the Famine and everything else. Today, juggernauts packed with machinery are leaving the unemployment blackspot of Ballinrobe in that county. With the departure of those trucks go the hopes, dreams and aspirations of thousands of people in the Ballinrobe area. Some 75 jobs were promised over the next four years, with 25 jobs to start next month, but that is not to be. It was supposed to be a manufacturing facility to produce silicone housing for sports cars. The factory has been vacant for 20 years, and that represents 20 years of neglect and failure on the part of successive Governments to find employment for the people of Ballinrobe.

The Welsh company that decided to pack up could not hold on any more. It had done so to date because it thought that something would happen. It says that it is not getting enough money from the IDA to allow it to go ahead. It had hoped that something was going to happen by today. I hear that the IDA is paying €100,000 per annum for an empty factory. It says that it can offer no more because it is not possible under EU law. However, where has all that money that came from the EU in the form of Structural Funds gone? It has certainly not gone west, for we do not have the roads, the infrastructure or the telecommunications.

Those people going on the dole would otherwise have been employed and off the dole. Half of our graduates will have to go to Dublin to get their first jobs, and that is ridiculous. Is it not time to shout stop? What will this Bill do for Ballinrobe? So much for balanced regional development and the national spatial strategy – what do they mean? Half the population of Ireland is in the Dublin commuter area. The CSO is setting off alarm bells about this. Dublin is so congested, and the traffic is so slow that it seems about to stop, having only the pace of an ass and cart. It takes three hours for people in Dublin to get to and from work. Where will it stop? Is it not time that something was done for Ballinrobe? Is it not time that those partners who are supposed to be so powerful – the Government, the unions and the others – did something for County Mayo?

The partnership is doing little for Ballinrobe. Is it not time that something was done? Where is the Government's commitment to our county? Gas is going out from Mayo with no commitment to any town in it. Is that balanced regional development? Where is the hope for our future? Instead we have despair in the worst socio-economic area in Ireland, something well recognised by Dr. Seamus Caulfield. In that area we need a tax incentive scheme. The Minister for Finance was there a moment ago. I will ask him whether it is not time that we get a tax incentive scheme in Mayo. The gas will leave our county. By the grace of Almighty God, we have all that wealth off our shore, but it will not help us in Mayo, for we will not even get a smell of it. It is truly an Irish joke. Is it not time that we called a halt to what is happening?

Objective One status means nothing unless one is getting grants. What good are higher grants if one is not receiving them in the first place? We are not getting them. Is it not time for the Government to recognise that one part of Ireland is so developed, with so many people, that it is falling into the sea and say that enough is enough, not giving any more grants to industries in Dublin but concentrating them on the west and the people who need grants, infrastructure and roads? However, we know from the national development plan that it is not happening, for our centralised Government does not give a damn about the west. It is time that it did.

The juggernauts are leaving Mayo today. Is it not time to put a halt to that? I appeal to the Government to do something about a tax incentive scheme for Mayo. We have gas and wind power. Let us go the whole hog and do something for our area, being logical. The NESDO could do all that. If there is a will, there is a way, so let us shout stop and hope that the Government is listening.

Mr. Sargent

I dtús báire, ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil le mo chomhghleacaí neamhspleách as a chuid ama a roinnt. Chomh maith leis sin, ba mhaith liom a rá, ó thaobh an Bhille um an Oifig Náisiúnta d'Fhorbairt Eacnamaíoch agus Shóisialach 2002 de, gur droch-chéim é, mar tá sé ag gearradh siar ar na heagraíochtaí atá bunaithe chun smaointe nua agus tábhachtacha a iniúchadh, a fhorbairt agus a chur ar aghaidh mar pholasaithe Rialtais.

This Bill is regressive in that it cuts back on bodies that are there to be innovative in how they respond to major issues in society. Social inclusion is set out as one of the objectives in the establishment of this new office, but to bring that about requires far more radical policy changes than are currently under way from this Government. There has been much talk about social inclusion. It has become a verbal stick for parties to beat each other about the head with, regarding who is more involved or more interested in social inclusion. However, it is unfortunately a long way from becoming a reality. Although the policy talks of the need to achieve greater equality and social inclusion, the reality is that we are living in a society where the gap between rich and poor is growing. Of the 17 industrialised countries, the United Nations human development report ranks Ireland sixteenth on the poverty index. Only the USA was worse, with the UK not much better, in fifteenth position. Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands have the lowest levels of poverty.

The report used variables that do not get a look-in in the terminology of our economic measurements. The UN was not merely looking at GDP or GNP but at the percentages of people likely to die before they were 60, who were functionally illiterate, who had disposable incomes less that 50% of the median, or who had been unemployed for more than a year. In reality, those criteria should be part of our daily economic measurements in the same way as GDP, being announced in parallel so that we can have a more realistic measurement and avoid getting ourselves into the problems of gross inequality which is currently the case.

The Celtic tiger has been mentioned by previous speakers, and there were rising numbers of jobs, although that has turned around now. However, the number of people living in relative income poverty is still rising steadily, now standing at over 20%, compared with 17.4% in 1994. That is a shameful reality for a country that boasts of its economic performance, maintaining that its economy is the envy of other countries. That is not the case if one is affected by the levels of poverty indicated by those figures.

There is no doubt that poor people do not have enough income to provide for basic necessities. Almost six out of every ten people living in relative poverty are in a household headed by a person not in the labour force, either retired, ill, with a disability or on home duties. Failure to raise social welfare payments in line with improving living standards is a major factor in those groups being in poverty. The gap in disposable incomes between a person earning over €50,000 and a long-term unemployed person was widened by €243 a week by the present Government during its first term in office. Other impacts on poverty – two-tier health care, housing waiting lists, low pay and persistent educational disadvantage – all mean that the Government needs the organisations that it is considering amalgamating into one through this Bill. In the face of those problems, it is a backward step to try to hide them away under the remit of one office. The problems need considerably more resources than are currently being made available and that needs to be changed through our tax system. I realise that the Government would have to get the money from somewhere but at the moment those on very high incomes are benefiting most from the policies that are in place.

We have debated but not acted on the issue of establishing a radical review of our tax and social welfare system. I acknowledge that there has been more integration of the tax and social welfare systems but it has stopped short of its logical conclusion which is to put in some form of guaranteed basic income so that people might be recognised and valued as members of society in their own right, not unlike shareholders in a company. We might call it Ireland Inc. but in this case it means that somebody is being valued and it recognises the nature of the labour market which involves changes in employment from job to job, more than in previous times. It also recognises the need for somebody to have some stable income when that person does voluntary work, home care, parenting, caring for the elderly and so forth. That issue needs to be revisited. The Government has looked at it and produced a report on it and I call on those involved in, and appointed to, this office to act on it. The choice between the basic income system and the conventional tax welfare options is a trade-off between greater equity and a possible risk of slightly lower economic growth. However, that can be contrasted with the current situation where economic growth is the absolute goal and less equity is therefore unfortunately a result. At a time when so much concern is expressed about the country's failure to use its recent economic growth to build a fairer society, the argument in favour of introducing a basic income is further strengthened. I ask the Government to look at that seriously.

The social partnership model has achieved a certain amount – although we do not know what might have been had it not been there. We suspect that there would have been greater social unrest – although it has failed to deliver on its promise of social inclusion and prosperity for all as evidenced by the figures.

There is an additional looming problem that I will talk about again because I do not think the Government hears it. Apart from its preoccupation with the current growth model, which hides a reality in that it measures only spending, the Government needs to put in place quality of life indicators. Ironically, because it does not have these, the devastation and tragedy of people losing their lives in car accidents as documented on a recent television programme, "Crash", is measured as a benefit in the economic system. This is because it involves increased spending, replacing a car, increased health costs, even the cost of funerals which is regarded as a benefit to GDP. That is perverse. Likewise, the more people who are sick the more money needs to be spent and that is a boost to GDP as well. We import €100 million worth of oil which is money leaving the country but it counts as expenditure and therefore is measured as GDP benefit.

That brings me to a final point because social partnership is blind in not realising that by 2010 there is going to be an international peak in oil production. This country is over 90% dependent on oil imports but we have no control over the price of oil. This is the view of the petrologists, Dr. Colin Campbell and Hamish McRae, who have warned of 2010 as a time when there will be a peak in production. Currently, for every five barrels consumed only three are found to replace them and we are in for considerable oil shocks which will affect us more perhaps than any country to which we compare ourselves.

On top of that we have the budgetary land mine of the Kyoto Protocol kicking in. According to the Department of the Environment and Local Government, that will cost us €1.3 billion per annum. Let us put people with an environmental qualification into the partnership process so that we can really plan for the future rather than trying to avoid this elephant in the middle of the sitting room, which is the attitude at the moment. This is not just a case of climate change, of the Taoiseach in his wellingtons in the floods in Drumcondra or of its effects on the many people in poorer countries already affected by it. This is about minding our budgetary situation responsibly otherwise we will end up paying the UK for emissions trading, paying Germany, Denmark and those countries that are more responsible and organised in dealing with their environmental responsibilities. I ask that social partnership realises that it is missing a vital link in its operation if it does not have environmental representatives around the table. That is a mistake and it is going to cost us dearly in many ways, particularly financially. My wish for this Bill is that the Government, if it does pass it and it probably will, would recognise that social partnership needs to include environmental expertise in the next round.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

This Bill re-establishes on a statutory basis the National Economic and Social Forum, the National Economic and Social Council and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance and places them in the new National Economic and Social Development Office. Now, on top of the NESF, the NESC and the NCPP we have the NESDO. For ordinary citizens and for many legislators this mushrooming of acronyms is bewildering. However, these bodies do useful work, especially in researching and evaluating Government policies and strategies.

Sections 8, 9 and 10 set out worthy objectives. The new office will advise the Taoiseach on strategic matters relevant to economic and social development. The NESC will report to the Taoiseach on the efficient development of the economy and the achievement of social justice. The NESF will advise the Taoiseach on policies to achieve greater equality and social inclusion, all in the context of social partnership.

While these are worthy objectives they cannot be taken at face value without looking at the recent record of this Government regarding NESF and NESC reports presented to it. Take, for example, the NESF report on equality of access to hospital care. This was a revealing report which clearly demonstrates the failure of this Government's health policy. The NESF report states that structural change is necessary to address the two-tier public/private system in hospital care and most significantly it states that this system is left unchanged in the Government's health strategy. The harsh reality behind the statistics is that elderly people, children and people with disabilities who depend on the public system wait for months or years in pain and distress while those who can afford expensive private care can receive it almost at once.

The NESF report shows that private use of public hospitals is much greater in this State than in other EU States. It highlights the inequity between public and private patients in the waiting times for initial specialist appointments. The Government's health strategy makes no reference to the time spent waiting for the first consultant appointment after referral by a GP. One of the most serious aspects of the NESF report is the fact that it calls into question the Government's waiting list initiatives. It points out that there has been no formal evaluation of the value of these initiatives and questions the criteria for evaluating patients in order of their clinical priority. These are important points. It is imperative that the Government heeds the recommendations and findings of the work of these bodies. We are dealing with legislation that rightly lauds and applauds that work, but the Government is ignoring much of the work presented by these important bodies.

What has happened to that NESF report? Since it was published we have seen the crisis in our health services deepen and have also seen the public-private division in those services widen. The deterioration in the public system is forcing people into the private system, people who cannot afford to access the private system but who are being forced, out of health care considerations, to end up in quite serious financial circumstances, unquestionably borrowing in order to meet the quite high demands of private health care companies in this country. The main concern they have is for their own health and for the health of their families. We must recognise that as a fact of life.

The Government should have taken the NESF report more seriously, most especially reflecting, as it does, the call from the vast majority of people – this must have been noted by all elected opinion – in this country that they want to see an end to the class division in the provision of health care. The NESF report focused very particularly on all of that. It made it absolutely clear that the Government's health strategy must be radically changed. I join in that recommendation.

What has happened to the report? Is it lying on a shelf and will it be joined by other major reports on health, including perhaps the Brennan report, which was mentioned earlier and of which the Government is also in possession, as are members of the media, but not this Deputy? It is important, therefore, in addressing this Bill to address the Government's failure to listen to the NESC and the NESF in the past. There is no commitment in any of the commentary from Government or in the Bill before us to change the stance that Government has taken heretofore.

The second report to which I want to refer is the National Economic and Social Council report entitled An Investment in Quality: Services, Inclusion and Enterprise which was published around the same time as the Government's spatial strategy. While the spatial strategy report is looking towards a bright future and praising past achievements, the NESC report, on the other hand, paints a very different picture and a past littered with failures. It states that Ireland is currently facing an infrastructural deficit, identifiable through the absence of a road network of sufficient quality to link major settlements, the possibility of future electricity generation shortages and a low level of communications connectivity within the country. The report refers back to the NESC 1999 strategy report which identified five areas of crucial importance in Ireland's infrastructural deficit. These were housing, public transport, roads, culture and recreational infrastructure and telecommunications infrastructure. The NESC has since added two further priority areas to that list – energy and waste management – bringing the number from five to seven.

This report is in sharp and distinct contrast to the Government's spatial strategy report which, in its conclusions, includes much self-praise. It states that the remarkable transformation of the Irish economy in the last decade came about because crucial, strategic, long-term and far-sighted policies were put in place. The NESC report is clearly in direct contravention of that claim. It is not good enough to move towards the establishment of the National Economic and Social Development Office and its three important component parts – I focused particularly on the NESF and the NESC – and to ignore the industry, work and report findings presented by these earnest bodies, which I hold in high regard and respect as does the overwhelming body of our citizenry. I strongly urge new thinking and respect for the productivity of these bodies on the part of Government.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Fahey)

I wish to share time with Deputy Tony Dempsey.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Fahey

The National Economic and Social Development Office Bill emphasises the Government's continued strong commitment to pursuing our nation's well-being and prosperity through the process of social dialogue by putting in place, on a statutory basis, the key institutional framework that underpins the social partnership process.

The series of agreements we have had since 1987 have played a very significant role in the radical transformation of our country's economic and social fortunes in the recent past. The latest agreement, Sustaining Progress, provides the environment that will allow us to take advantage of the upturn in the world economy when it comes and to continue to progress economically and socially. In the agreement that has been ratified by the social partners, we see a focus not only on wages and the labour market, but a continued framework for consistent policies to regain our competitiveness and our productive capacity, while also progressing our social agenda.

Sustaining Progress also seeks to engage Government and the social partners in a new and dynamic way on a range of special initiatives, which have a high priority in terms of social inclusion and quality of life. Together, we can make real progress in areas such as housing, homelessness, child poverty, literacy, early school leaving and improved infrastructure. Within Sustaining Progress it is clear that we now have a coherent and well developed policy framework to progress the issues of national importance. The priority now must be to secure progress on implementation.

The new office, the National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO, and the three constituent bodies, the National Economic and Social Council, the National Economic and

Social Forum and the more recently established National Centre for Partnership and Performance provide an institutional framework to support the implementation of Sustaining Progress while also examining the more medium-term strategic issues that Ireland will need to address as a society moving forward.

That the social partners are continuously engaged in this framework provides a basis not only for achieving consensus but for ensuring implementation. Perhaps the most enduring feature of social partnership agreements has been their ability to evolve and adapt to address emerging economic and social needs. In Sustaining Progress the Government and the social partners have attached a central importance to the ten special initiatives on the basis that all are major cross-cutting issues that require the mobilisation of a range of resources across sectors, organisations and individuals at different levels of Government.

The new social partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress, also recognises the importance of deepening partnership and improving performance in the workplace and the key role the National Centre for Partnership and Performance has to play in supporting this. Good progress has been made in carrying forward the work of the centre which published its strategy and operational plan for 2002 to 2005 in March last year.

Preparations for the establishment later this year of the forum on the workplace of the future are well advanced. A consultation paper is being prepared setting out the main themes for discussion at the forum and a survey is about to be conducted of employee attitudes to changes in the workplace, their experiences in the workplace and their expectations in respect of a future workplace. A similar survey of employer attitudes is also planned. The consultation paper and survey will help focus the work of the forum. The Government attaches particular importance to the establishment of the forum and will facilitate in-depth discussions on how workplaces can best adapt to competitive pressures, improve the delivery of services and respond to the changing needs and preferences of employees. This, in turn, will enable us to take a holistic approach to improving partnership and performance in the workplace in both public and private sectors.

In addition to creating a vision of the high performing workplaces of the future, the NCPP is tasked with developing models of good practice and promoting the benefits of the partnership approach. Examples of the centre's activities in this area include the preparation of best practice guidelines for the Civil Service following on from a seminar in Dublin Castle in February and a consultative workshop held on 2 May. This will complement the guidelines for companies involved in change through partnership which were published last July. The centre is also finalising prior to publication, a major review of international as well as Irish studies establishing the benefits of the partnership approach.

As well as this type of promotional activity, the NCPP has been engaged in developing tools to assist organisations in managing change through partnership. Last March the centre launched a competency framework designed to help organisations attract and develop highly skilled and motivated employees. In April the centre launched the learning by monitoring project which is designed to support organisations in developing partnerships into something integral to the way they do business rather than something they simply do. The centre is also continuing with the development of an interactive website to help organisations, agencies and individuals in the private and public sectors in undertaking change through partnership.

The NCPP's work has the potential to make a significant contribution to organisational change and modernisation in the years ahead. I commend the centre on the progress it has made to date in carrying out its remit and call on employers and employees in the private and public sectors to listen to what the centre says, apply it to their workplaces and embrace change as the key to the continuing development of our society and economy.

Mr. T. Dempsey

Ba mhaith liom comhghairdeachas a ghagháil leis an Taoiseach agus na daoine éagsúla as ucht an Bhille seo a chur ós comhair na Dála. Don chéad uair, cuirfear struchtúr ceart ar dul chun cinn agus ar na grúpanna éagsúla a bhfuil baint acu leis agus le feabhas sóisialta agus fás eacnamaíochta. Tá sé sin riachtanach.

I congratulate the Taoiseach and the Ministers involved in bringing the Bill to the Dáil. The National Economic and Social Development Office will comprise three bodies: the National Economic and Social Council, the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance. It may include other bodies from time to time as the Government of the day decides.

Good government in a democracy depends inherently on different groups within society having expression given to their hopes and aspirations by way of politicians. I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, on his comprehensive speech in which he included reports of negotiations at different levels. That is the subject matter of the legislation. It will become an umbrella group of statutory importance which recognises and places in law the role different constituent bodies have played in aiding economic growth and the achievement of social justice. I know politicians from every party would have that aspiration and none of us will ever be happy that we have achieved Utopia. The Bill at least allows a recognition of how we go about that.

The new umbrella group, because of the constituent bodies involved, will allow for a review of economic performance. It will help analyse and report strategic issues and, it is hoped, achieve economic progress and social justice. For me as a new TD, all these things are very important, especially social justice.

Having spent many years in teaching, I compliment the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, for making €42 million more available to assist people from poorer and socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds to access third level education. For too long, that area has been denied to too many and the increases that those of every colour in politics would have liked to have seen were not achieved. I hope the €42 million will go some way towards achieving a level of social justice for these people.

I also congratulate the Taoiseach because he has been exemplary in recognising the need for team work. I do not aspire to a specific ideology. For me, the different players in economic growth, be they entrepreneurs, workers, the unemployed or civil servants, must be brought together if we, as a small economy, are to continue to achieve the levels of economic success we achieved in recent years. Maintaining that is the challenge of the future. Under the terms of the Bill, the council will continue to have functions of analysing and reporting on our progress.

I direct attention to the Taoiseach's recent comment that the new umbrella group will add value to the work of its constituent bodies by creating the conditions under which synergy can be released, joint projects pursued and the potential for duplication minimised. That potential has existed before and different groups may have attempted to reach the same aims. I think we would agree that duplication has occurred.

The NESDO will promote the development of a shared vision for meeting goals and targets. It will encourage the three constituent organisations to optimise their influence and effectiveness and adopt a collaborative policy. For this reason, this is one of the more important Bills that will come before the Dáil. Who are the main players? Employers, civil servants, entrepreneurs and workers are all important as are groups that have sometimes been unrepresented, such as the unemployed.

I can summarise my ideology by saying that if we are to help the poor it can only be done by allowing entrepreneurs to make money, otherwise money will not be there. This is where partnership comes into play. Without partnership Ireland would not have achieved the levels it has reached in recent years.

I return to pre-partnership days. In the bad old days of 1987 the International Monetary Fund was circling our economy. The series of national partnership agreements, beginning with the Programme for National Recovery in 1987, have made a major contribution to our success. The agreements brought together the Government, employers, trade unions, farmers and representatives of civil society. To appreciate the effect social partnership has had we can look back to 1987. In 1987, the debt to gross domestic productivity ratio had risen to almost 117%. Our overall gross domestic productivity per capita at that time was around 70% of the EU average. Ireland and our European partners saw the economy as being peripheral and suffering due to its distance from the centre of European market activity.

The NESDO is about facilitating partnership. It is about Government not acting in a dictatorial way, but representing the interests and needs of those that elect us to this House. Growth averaged 7% per annum in the period 1999-2001, peaking at 11% in 2000. There has been a rapid rise in the rate of female participation in our economy and women have become an important driving force in it. This is one of the advantages of this umbrella as it allows for areas to be represented in different ways and for various groups to be represented.

Partnership and the NESDO must promote local and community enterprise. I will be delighted to launch an enterprise centre project in Taghmon, County Wexford, tomorrow night. We must recognise the need for communities to come together. Partnership reminds me of the Gaelic word "meitheal". Meitheal was best exemplified by the threshing days of old. The threshing machine would arrive and the local farmers exercised their different skills in reaping the harvest for the farmer whose threshing day it was. This is what partnership is about. It is about responding to the needs of many different people.

The Taoiseach has proven to be an able leader in bringing together the different groups and in organising team play. The challenges we now face probably result from the economic growth we have had that has resulted in infrastructural bottlenecks on our railways and particularly our roads. The challenge for the NESDO will be in addressing this. It must also seek to improve access to hospitals and the take up of third level education by socio-economically disadvantaged groups.

I compliment the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Fahey, and the Minister, Deputy Harney, on the redundancy payments Bill. I see this as a real exercise in partnership. It is an exercise in representing what is sometimes termed "human capital". In the old economic textbooks, the factors of production were seen as land, labour, capital and enterprise. Human capital was not often recognised. While entrepreneurs were recognised, workers were not. I am glad the redundancy Bill gives some recognition to workers that are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs.

I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, on his efforts at insurance reform. We all need to work together to make sure the difficulties people face in acquiring insurance and paying increasing premiums are tackled in a sincere way. I am glad to see that the premiums for road insurance may come down because of the penalty points system.

Ní neart go cur le chéile. Ligeann an Bille dúinn agus tugann sé seans dúinn teacht le chéile chun feabhas eacnamaíochta agus fás sóisialta a chur chun tús agus chun na cuspóirí atá ag gach uile polaiteoir a gcur i gcrích. Caithfimid an plean a chur i gcrích chun an todhchaí a láimhseáil.

The challenge for the NESDO will be more a challenge for the future than looking to the past. The long-term unemployed, women and others who have previously had little expectation of finding meaningful well-paid work have been able to play their role because of partnership. Partnership has produced tangible rewards for ordinary people. The tax burden has been reduced, particularly for the PAYE worker. While it may not have been reduced by as much as I and other Members would like, nonetheless, it has been reduced. Social housing has also been put in place.

The developments have come about because of partnership. The onus is now on elected representatives to ensure we improve social justice and economic activity. I believe the NESDO is the way forward. Gabhaim buíochas leat, a Cheann Comhairle, agus tá áthas orm cabhrú leis an mBille a chur os cómhair na Dála.

Mr. Perry

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. When looking at the development of partnership one must look at cultural, economic, political and social issues. Regrettably, we are going back to the future and returning to 1992. One could judge the success of partnership as having the world's best health care, education system, housing and welfare. We have failed dismally in each of those categories. In many ways, the boom has been wasted. The health system is in disarray, our housing policy is one of the worst in Europe and it is hard to see the effectiveness of partnership if one were to adjudicate on the current economic and social well-being of the country.

The Government has to seek to achieve value for money. There is a huge tax take in the State and we must ask how effectively is that money being spent on our public services. Is the consumer getting value for money? We often hear talk of competitiveness. It is important that we have a competitive public sector. When one sees the Estimate voted in the Dáil for each Department and the huge waste in the economy, one can see that this problem needs to be addressed. There are very few people who can effectively police this to ensure that taxpayers are getting effective value for money. There is huge waste. Although the health budget alone is €9 billion, waiting lists have become longer and the level of satisfaction with the service is evident from last week's opinion polls. It is unbelievable that this has been allowed to happen through mismanagement.

We need a clear political vision for the future. It is important that we have very strong leadership to make the hard decisions required to save the economy. We hear about inflation and how Ireland is now the second most expensive country in Europe in which to live. There is no point in resting on our laurels; we must be very careful in the future to pay heed to the lessons we learned in 1992 when it comes to direct taxation. VAT has come down, as have the numbers of people employed in private enterprise. It is important that recognition is given to private enterprise, which was quite excluded in this deal. The small firms have a seat at the partnership table, but the people who take risks are under-represented. We cannot redistribute wealth unless we take it in. We should take into account the current tax intake. Some people who took risks were not given any credit but were penalised in many ways. It is very important that the clear message from partnership is that risk-takers will be rewarded. This should be promoted.

The whole economic well-being of the country can be affected by cultural diversity in the economy. As a nation, we must be much more tolerant. At the moment we are not tolerant enough. The enlargement of Europe will have a huge impact on this country in the future. It should be considered in terms of redistribution of wealth and the level of cultural diversity. We need a clear vision and we need more tolerance. We are developing a culture of welfare dependency and we should be careful about this. It is a question of how it is promoted. Obviously, there is a huge welfare obligation for people who are in need, but private enterprise and the concept of partnership has been effective.

Fine Gael welcomes this Bill. It will provide a statutory foundation for three bodies who have played a vital role in ensuring that the process of partnership worked well and helped the economy grow and prosper. It was very easy to do this during the good times of the Celtic tiger, when there was a massive amount of spending. Now, however, the economy is different. The special savings incentive scheme is taking money out of the economy. That scheme was definitely geared towards a different time. The system is taking money from the economy because people are not spending it. They are locked into the scheme because they will be penalised if they leave it.

Fine Gael has always believed in the principle of partnership. From the time of the Tallaght strategy that the party adopted in the late 1980s, through the rainbow Government led by Deputy John Bruton and to the present day, we saw that co-operation and consensus was the only way to go to ensure that we would be spared the industrial strife and tension that could so easily relegate us to the status of economic basket case. Looking back over our history, for example in 1987 and 1992, we have sometimes not been far from such a situation.

Looking at the voted Estimates for each Department, the level of taxation and the huge commitments agreed to by the State, it can be seen that we need careful management over the next few years. There is benchmarking and additional costs as well as the high expectations created by the Government in its lead-in to the partnership deal. It said we would never see a poor day again, that we should get out the bottles of champagne, that we should let the good times roll, so it is hard to come back and tell people that things have changed. The success of partnership is decided by how it is sold to people. People judge its success when they are on hospital waiting lists and when they see schools that are clearly disadvantaged and cutbacks in every Department. It is hard in times such as these to sell the message advocated by the Taoiseach that we have one of the best economies in Europe. The level of unrest is due to pressure on people who are obliged to live on two incomes to pay for housing, for example, the price of which is affected by inflation.

The first partnership agreement was in 1987. Even the name, the Programme for National Recovery, signalled the mess we were in at the time and indicates the level of spending in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Now we have Sustaining Progress, but this programme does not maintain what we have. It is difficult to do so. In the past five years, during the last Government, spending was at such a high level that people find the new arrangements very hard to take. When there has been a massive spend of 35% to 40% above the usual level, it is hard to bring people back to a modest 10% or 12%. A better name for the programme would be "Telling it as it is." In the lead-up to the last election the figures were so mind-boggling that people clearly did not know what was really happening in the economy, including the need for serious cutbacks. In 2001, €2.5 billion in revenue was left over. A total of €50 million per week was coming into the cash tills of the economy in 2001 and people knew this. Even taking into account current economic trends, the cash intake is considerably less than was initially projected.

We must also consider the level of borrowing within the State and the infrastructural deficit. The national development plan and the new health strategy document were launched recently. We must tell people the truth. They will respect us more for it. The Government has a huge obligation to let people in partnership know that the cash intake is not so good. How is the national development plan to be funded? There is no point in building up people's hopes for a huge amount of spending.

Partnership should be tempered with an understanding that the institutions in which we place our trust for economic growth must continually evolve so they can meet the needs of the economy. There are huge changes in the economy at the moment. Ireland is changing; unemployment has fallen, but the pressure is still huge. The Minister will be aware that a year or two ago, thousands of people were receiving work permits. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has changed the system only in recent weeks, but there is still a skills shortage. The downturn in the private sector and the tourism sector means that by all indications it will be a confined market. Consumer spending has certainly reduced – I know this from talking to people in the trade. This is true even in the vintners' trade. Many places are extremely quiet mid-week. We heard an announcement about closing time on a Thursday night – but very few people are out on a Thursday night anyway. Real change will hit at the weekend when most people visit licensed premises.

There are many more women in the workforce; emigration has been replaced with inward migration. These are all welcome developments, but the partnership model does not seem to have noticed these sweeping changes, which are important. We must remember that the success of this economy has been dependent on small companies who employ 10 people or fewer. They took a huge risk and have not received any recognition from the State. They built their success on taking this risk.

As we debate this Bill, it is worth considering whether this partnership is in need of a refit. It was effective in the 1980s and 1990s but we are in a different era now. It was originally intended to be inclusive in practical and difficult economic times. Such times are again emerging and it is important we examine the role of enterprise, small companies and the marginalised in our economy. It is hard to sell partnership to people on low incomes. While we have introduced a minimum wage, it is wrong that such wages are taxed. We must look again at our taxation levels. We have a new poor in this country such as those who are trying to educate their families. I welcome the Minister's attempts to increase benefits for those in receipt of the minimum wage. The system of basing educational entitlements on a person's gross salary is an unfair one. There can be a considerable difference between what people get in their gross and net salaries. This area must be looked at again.

This deal is now somewhat exclusive and outdated. Televising people going into Government Buildings for talks means nothing to those who find it difficult to educate their children and are on hospital waiting lists for treatment. The partnership will be judged on the economic well-being of this country, its cultural diversity, political leadership, which is lacking, and the social challenges facing us. We are going back to the future, back to 1992 when a new form of management existed. Inflation was low in 1995-97. We are now dealing with high inflation and looking at ways of dealing with it. Our insurance costs are also high. People are focusing on the soft touches in relation to reducing inflation. We are faced with the Government's inability to deal with the high cost of doing business in this State. Examples were given earlier of the situation in other European countries. We are faced with an unequal playing field in terms of doing business in this economy.

Industrialists coming to Ireland are facing the stacked up costs of employing people here. PAYE and PRSI contributions provide a massive contribution to the State. The Government's take per salary is considerable. We must provide incentives for employers who are prepared to take risks in business. This partnership has not given credit to the risk takers. One cannot redistribute wealth unless it is generated. I am concerned at the level of indirect taxation and value added tax. The take from value added tax has reduced considerably.

Everyone is aware that costs are rising. I have spoken to my colleague, Deputy Hogan, on numerous occasions about enterprise and trade. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy. The most successful companies in the State are those which employ fewer than ten people. Yet no arm of the State provides incentives for them. In regard to enterprise boards, a total budget of €24 million is allocated for 26 boards, effectively allowing them to deal only with administration, and they have little resources for grants and so on. Small firms receive no incentives but have to deal with a great deal of red tape. Far from encouraging local enterprise, this process will erode it. The number of community-based economic partnerships has fallen. Small businesses benefit from not having the industrial relations problems faced by larger firms.

We are dealing with a competitive market and the valuation of currency in Europe is placing enormous pressure on exports. Despite our progress in more recent times, Ireland still has poor infrastructure. We are becoming a high cost country. We have all heard of the difficulties experienced on the east coast. Border counties on the west coast are also experiencing difficulties doing business. IDA Ireland has, in the past, encouraged multinationals to set up business in Ireland. Such companies used to ask, "Why should we set up in Ireland? That question soon changed to "Why are we not in Ireland?" The question now is, "Can we afford to stay in Ireland?" We have reached a crossroads in our economic and industrial history.

Fine Gael welcomes this Bill but we cannot continue believing that the current model of partnership is conducive to a vibrant economy. I do not think we have a buoyant jobs market or a sustainable future. It is time for change. The partnership talks should not be focused in Government Buildings, they should take place in the regions among the people discussing with them how effective the partnership has been and what it means to those on low salaries and those on hospital waiting lists. People view this partnership as for somebody else. We have all heard of the benchmarking review and the cost to the Exchequer, for which the State has not yet made provision. Partnership in local authorities and communities has been excluded, as it has in small enterprise – I have experience of this and those who take risks get little or nothing in return. Such people often work a 40-hour weekend rather than a 40-hour week.

We must examine the role of private enterprise. Another area which provides value for money – I am involved in it – is the area of public accounts. It is critically important that we provide a competitive public service. We have all heard of competitive partnership. It is important that the State, our biggest employer, provides effective services and value for money. There is enormous waste in every Department with unnecessary duplication and over-staffing. These issues drastically affect the effectiveness of the service. It is outrageous that there is no accountability among the thousands of people employed by the State. I doubt if anyone has ever been sacked from the public service for not doing his or her job. People in private enterprise who do not do their job get their P45 very quickly. That is how private enterprise works. We must seek more accountability in the public sector.

I am delighted to have contributed to this debate. We need to re-examine partnership in the context of where we are now. We are, regrettably, back to where we were ten years ago. Fine Gael left the State in good shape in 1997 but, regrettably, it is now in deficit. Those at the lower end of the economic scale deserve better in terms of partnership. The outlook for them is exceedingly bleak. I appeal to the Minister to look after the less well-off who have not benefited to date.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Kitt)

I wish to share time with Deputy Ó Fearghaíl.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kitt

Deputy Perry made a very interesting contribution. This debate is about social partnership. I am particularly pleased to have served as a Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in the previous Government as labour, trade and consumer affairs Minister. Deputy Perry and I had many discussions during that time, at committee level and in this Chamber. There is no doubt in my mind. I agree with the approach in some of the ideas to which he alluded, regarding a partnership at grass root level ensuring that those have been excluded are brought into the process. One of the great successes of partnership, by its nature, is that it is flexible.

I hope the powers that be, and this new National Economic and Social Development Office, are listening carefully to this debate and will take account of the many important points made, including Deputy Perry's. No doubt the Taoiseach will agree this is an important debate and it is certainly one in which I am glad to be involved.

The Taoiseach outlined the purpose of this Bill, which is to establish the National Economic and Social Development Office. That is an important development but the debate is about social partnership. The Taoiseach outlined the political, social and economic context for the establishment of this office. Deputy Perry also mentioned that we are living in changing times. We are living in changing times, with the global economy changing dramatically on almost a weekly basis. We were never more in need of a robust partnership process and those involved in the process, including the Government, should be willing to look at the need to be flexible on that very issue. Therefore I welcome some of the points which have been made.

Successive partnership agreements negotiated by governments since 1987 have sown the seeds for exponential growth in the Irish economy over more than a decade, and this same partnership between government, employers, trades unions and representatives of the agricultural sector have ensured that as the economic climate became more overcast, our economy has been well placed to withstand the worst effects of a global slowdown. In short, social partnership has served Ireland well over 15 years.

Engagement with the social partners has made a significant contribution to the formulation of economic and social policy in that time and, in doing so, has allowed Ireland to follow the European social model that has always promoted such a partnership engagement. It is an engagement, to which I have a strong attachment especially during my term as Minister of State in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and which I have had no hesitation in advocating as the primary means to developing not only a strong and vibrant economy, but a fair, just and caring society.

Since 1987 the partnership agreements have become more sophisticated, more inclusive, and have embraced a wider economic and social agenda. Our system of partnership is the envy of many of our EU partners. We have, effectively, a unique system of running our affairs on issues such as unemployment, inequality, social inclusion as well as incomes policy and this approach has expanded over the year.

We have also been determined to broaden our approach to see how we can do things better. A very exciting development has been the third strand feeding into the National Economic and Social Development Office, that is, the National Centre for Partnership and Performance. This centre was launched last year with a remit of driving change in the workplace. Its job is to look at the workplace of the future to support and facilitate organisational change based on partnership.

I am convinced that much work needs to be done on issues like management systems, human resources, how people are treated in the workplace, the very serious problem of bullying which I endeavoured to address during my time as Minister for Labour. Health and safety in the workplace is too often seen in merely physical terms. It is obviously essential that workers are provided with proper safety equipment, that the physical environment in which they work is safe and secure, but I hold that it is of equal importance that they are treated with respect and dignity when they go to work. When it comes to dealing with workplace issues the psycho-social environment is just as important as the physical environment. Ensuring a healthy working environment is not just a crucial health and safety prerogative for management, but it is a very important business issue. A well-treated and respected workforce is a loyal and productive one, which will no doubt go on to achieve greater output, results and profits for the enterprise in which they work.

The establishment of the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, NCPP, which is examining in detail issues of this nature, constitutes a most innovative development and I look forward to its contribution in supporting and facilitating organisational change and innovation.

The theme of partnership is one that has been used liberally by all of us who have been involved in this debate over the past decade. It is vital that we mean what we say when we talk about partnership. Real partnership can achieve so much. I might mention here an initiative which I undertook as Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs. In the light of serious health and safety concerns in the construction sector, in consultation with the Health and Safety Authority, the trades unions and the construction industry, I established the Construction Safety Partnership Plan. I am convinced this plan, agreed by both sides, has lead to a considerable reduction in injuries and fatalities on building sites. I am also aware the operation of the plan continues to be under review and that more work needs to be done in this area, but that plan is a very good example of how partnership can be very beneficial to working people.

On the general success of the economy since the initiation of the partnership process, the latest report of the NESC, one of the bodies directly affected by this Bill, outlines three principal factors that have been responsible for the dramatic transformation of our economic and employment fortunes over the past decade: a national policy and institutional framework which was consistent, highly focused on competitiveness and employment-creation, innovation and problem solving; an export sector that was greatly expanded and increasingly concentrated in high-value, high-growth market segments; and the European Union, because it increased market access, created a level playing field through regulation, provided a relatively stable monetary environment and supported Ireland's infrastructural and social development.

Change, however, has come not just in purely economic terms. Dramatic growth in employment has had the consequent positive effect of drawing not only the unemployed, in particular, the long-term unemployed, but women and others into the workplace, many of whom had little expectation of finding meaningful, well remunerated employment with quality working conditions.

Perhaps one of the most illustrative indicators of success lies in the fact that many of those who found work were those countless emigrants of the 1980s who returned to participate and build the new Ireland.

Therefore the various partnership agreements since the inaugural Programme for National Recovery have changed with the times to encompass a wider social and economic agenda. The latest programme, appropriately named Sustaining Progress, sets out new goals capable of being realised and represents and reflects the reality of the current economic environment.

Social Partnership provided the common dynamism and shared interest that was necessary in dragging Ireland out of the doldrums of the 1980s. Critically, partnership enabled and empowered the whole nation, from the wealthy to the poorest in society, to participate in the transformation of society in the knowledge that each individual had a positive contribution to make and that sectoral and group concerns and anxieties would be articulated at the highest levels. Partnership was and is about shared interests, and that shared interest is the continuing economic and social development of the country in a manner that enables all of our citizens to avail of the benefits of a growing economy.

We should never be complacent about the process and should continually be willing and able to accept that we have not got it right and review it. I suppose, in reality we never will get it totally right because there will always be people who will miss the efforts being made, whether that be in education or elsewhere. We should certainly, through this process, make a huge effort.

That is why now, more than ever, partnership under Sustaining Progress is critical. If we can be partners in building success and if we can be partners through booming economic times, then it is critical that we exercise that same partnership in a period of economic unpredictability.

In this context, the three constituent organisations of the new National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO, have continuously pushed out the boundaries of social dialogue. The primary objective and role of this office is to add value to the work of these constituent bodies by creating the environment and conditions where co-operative endeavours can be pursued and maximised and the potential for duplication minimised.

I hold the strong view that as a result of many years of successful partnership programmes, we have developed a partnership philosophy in Ireland that has grown in sophistication, both within the partnership agreements and outside of those structures. I sometimes question some right-wing economic journalists or observers who deride the partnership process. They have a complete lack of understanding of how sophisticated is the process. What has developed here, this whole partnership philosophy, is really central to our success and to our future, our way forward. This system has grown, both within the partnership agreements and outside of those structures.

Within Sustaining Progress, the latest partnership programme, new and even more sophisticated mechanisms have been included that serve to reinforce and support the partnership process and that were probably never envisaged by the originating partners in 1987. These include the Public Transport Partnership Forum, the Housing Forum, the National Anti-Poverty Strategy Consultative Committee, the Public Private Partnership Advisory Group, the National Childcare Co-ordinating Committee, the National Rural Development Forum, the Standing Committee on the Labour Market, the Forum for the Construction Industry and Comhar, the National Sustainable Development Partnership. That bears out how sophisticated the process is. The spirit of partnership is beginning to be engendered in many of the initiatives we take outside of the present boundaries of the partnership process.

As Minister of State with special responsibility for overseas development and human rights I have found myself in close consultation and partnership with many NGOs and regarding the preparation for the WTO meeting in Mexico next September. The House will be aware that this will have a development agenda. I have regular consultations with NGOs. In my time as Minister of State with responsibility for trade I had consultations with IBEC, ICTU and the farming organisations, sometimes in robust circumstances. The farming organisations should become more directly involved regarding the forthcoming meeting. That process of partnership happens in a very natural way throughout Departments and the work of various Ministers. It is part and parcel of what I term a partnership philosophy that has developed. In recent times I set up a task force on information technology to examine how Ireland can share its expertise in this area with the developing world. Representatives of NGOs, Departmental officials, academics and the private sector are all involved in the task force. This kind of initiative has great potential. We can share our expertise and our success story on the ICT agenda with the developing world.

We can make great use of the talents available if we apply the partnership principle in detail. I will do everything possible to ensure that. Ordinary citizens could use their talents to contribute to policy formation. The informal system outside the formal structured social partnership could be used. I accept what has been said by other Deputies that we should be willing to be flexible regarding partnership. The more sophisticated, inclusive and embracing our process and partnership becomes, the stronger it becomes and the more difficult it will be for any partner to walk away.

Mr. Ó Fearghaíl

I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002, and I wish to thank the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, for sharing his time with me.

In bringing forward this legislation, the Taoiseach is honouring a commitment given in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, that the NESC, the NESF and the NCPP would be located within the framework of the National Economic and Social Development Office, with each of the constituent bodies now having a statutory basis.

There is good sense in this initiative, which involves bringing together three bodies whose work is mutually complementary and whose future effectiveness can be enhanced through the development of a shared vision for meeting goals and targets. The fact that the bodies are not just statutorily linked but are in addition, housed in the same building with shared resources, will inevitably lead to a more co-ordinated, collaborative approach.

This legislation has its origins in social partnership and the component bodies whose future role it addresses have themselves played a major role in informing and developing the social partnership process. It is generally accepted that social partnership formed the basis for economic recovery which began in 1987, that it contributed enormously to the unprecedented levels of economic growth and activity that we have enjoyed over the last number of years and that it will sustain our progress into the future.

The concept of partnership and public participation has permeated every aspect of Irish life in the years since 1987 to the extent that no major local or national initiative may be progressed without consultation and agreement with all potential players, whether it be a safety initiative in the construction industry as alluded to by the Minister of State, or something such as a local village plan.

The process of partnership building and the effort to achieve consensus may often be slow, tedious and painstaking but the benefits of a successful outcome are manifest. In a small open economy such as ours, the benefits of partnership are particularly significant. The successive agreements which began with the Programme for National Recovery in 1987 and which brought together Government, employers, trade unions, farmers and representatives of civil society, have delivered real benefits in terms of increased employment, record low levels of unemployment and a significantly higher standard of living for all.

History will show that those groups who have opted out of the process to pursue their own sectoral or individual agendas have found themselves isolated from the decision-making process. The experience of the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland would be a case in point. In this regard, I welcome the fact that at a time of critical importance to Irish agriculture, farming organisations have now returned to the social partnership stage. Facing as we do into vital negotiations on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the world trade agreement, it is more important than ever that we have a clear national consensus on the progress that needs to be achieved in the national interest.

It is appropriate to pay tribute in this debate to the three component bodies which on foot of this legislation, will be dissolved and reconstituted on a statutory basis. The longest established of those bodies, the National and Economic Social Council, can be proud of the manner in which it has fulfilled its remit in advising Government on the development of the national economy and the achievement of social justice. NESC has produced over one hundred reports, some of which have provided the framework for the negotiations of national agreements, most notably, A Strategy for Development 86-90, published in 1986; A Strategy for the 90s: Economic Stability and Structural Change; A Strategy for Competitiveness: Growth and Employment, produced in 1993; A Strategy into the 21st Century, published in 1996; and Opportunity, Challenges and Capacities for Choice which was produced in 1999. I pay tribute to all those involved in those highly significant publications.

In its 30 years of existence NESC has undertaken important studies on a range of issues affecting economic and social policy. Its published research series has studied issues as diverse as the Irish dairy processing industry and the Irish modern music industry.

Established 20 years after its sister organisation, the National Economic and Social Forum has done valuable work in evaluating the implementation of policies dealing with equality and social inclusion. As social inclusion and the drive to combat poverty and marginalisation are at the heart of the social partnership process, it is entirely appropriate that policies aimed at achieving those objectives be monitored and critically analysed on an on-going basis. I wish success to the NESF as it takes up this challenge under the new arrangements.

The National Centre for Partnership and Performance evolved in 2001 from the previous National Centre for Partnership, established in 1997 and has as its objective the provision of institutional support for diffusing work place partnership across the public and private sectors. The establishment of the centre was prompted by concerns that although social partnership was successfully evolving at national level, work place partnership and advanced forms of work organisation were not widely evident at local level. Research findings were available in 1997 to bear this out. Since the establishment of the NCP however, a survey published by Industrial Relations News in early 2000 examined nearly 70 examples of local partnership arrangements and found that progress had been achieved in terms of finding out why and under what conditions work place innovations succeed. Now established on a statutory basis, the National Centre for Partnership and Performance will continue to focus on improving institutional support for enterprise partnerships.

For Ireland to remain competitive in all types of international economic environments, every sector of our economy, the public and private sectors, employers and employees, business interests and trade unions must continuously develop new approaches to change and adaptation.

We must continue to develop new models of partnership so that through flexibility, increased productivity can be achieved thereby raising living standards, bettering the delivery and quality of services and improving the overall quality of life in Ireland. Under the terms of this new Bill the National Economic and Social Development Office will develop as a centre of excellence in the area of social dialogue, analysis and reporting and will contribute in a significant way to ensuring that we maintain our competitiveness in an ever-changing world. We have successfully met the challenge of reducing unemployment in Ireland in the last decade. In the years ahead the challenge is to sustain and consolidate our economic achievements so that we can continue to dispense the proceeds of our increased wealth among the ranks of the less well-off.

Since his days as Minister for Labour in 1987, no one has done more or been more successful in the task of building consensus and progressing social partnership than the Taoiseach. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that it is he who brings this Bill before the House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Hogan

I support the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002, which will bring together the National Economic and Social Council, the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance. These bodies have been doing excellent work since the commencement of the partnership process in 1987. Times were much different, economically speaking, when the process was commenced by the then Taoiseach, Charles Haughey. The excellent work that was being done by the social partners at that time was brought together in the National Economic and Social Council. The levels of unemployment and emigration were high at that time and the debt-GDP ratio was at an unsustainable level. We were pricing ourselves out of the market in the late 1980s and our opportunities for expansion and market share were limited.

The partnership that was brought about at that time was a structure within which stakeholders in society, such as farmers, business interests and unions, could join the Government in mapping out the path ahead. The Programme for National Recovery, which was the first partnership agreement in modern times, set out exactly what needed to be done. It was supported by the Fine Gael Party, which was led by Alan Dukes at the time, by means of the Tallaght strategy. Everybody knew that the country could not continue to sustain the levels of debt and taxation in the system that were stifling economic activity and growth. We have seen improvements in the public finances, improved economic growth, increases in living standards, higher employment and less emigration over the years. The various partnership agreements have tried to sustain the development that started in 1987. The national condition is much different now. Many positive economic aspects of the economy have arisen as a result of partnership over the years.

The changing economic circumstances we face in 2003 require the same partnership of business, unions, farmers, the Government and the Oireachtas if our levels of economic growth and activity are to be sustained. There are many warning signs in the economy, for example, our competitiveness is slipping rather quickly. The objectives set out in the late 1980s and early 1990s and achieved since then could be frittered away if we do not achieve partnership and if we do not work together as a people to sustain employment. We need to keep costs down so that we can compete effectively and face the challenges of other markets in eastern Europe and the Far East.

It cannot be doubted that there were improvements in the education system in the late 1960s, following the introduction of free second level education and improvements in access to third level education. Investment in education at all levels is crucial if we are to have a well-maintained and skilled workforce available for employment at all times. It is important that we do not place a financial burden on families, ensure that the best possible potential and talent is managed throughout the economy and provide a skilled workforce.

Circumstances have changed, as I have mentioned, and the partnership agenda which is discussed in the most recent programme, Sustaining Progress, should change as well. I am disappointed by the manner in which the partnership process has developed in recent years. A veil of secrecy is placed over what takes place in partnership discussions and the Oireachtas has no input. A very centralised system, which does not take account of the views of ordinary people who are part of the partnership process, has developed over the past 15 years. It does not take into account the need for democratic accountability in the Oireachtas, the Members of which are elected by the people. We are charged with ensuring that the services that are deployed throughout the economy for the benefit of consumers and the people as a whole provide value for taxpayers' money. Sustaining Progress has failed to address these issues. It is largely a pay document, nothing more and nothing less. The 18-month period it covers is a very short timeframe.

If we are serious about getting better value for money and having good, reliable and quality public services, it is extremely important that the democratic deficit that has built up in the Oireachtas is addressed. Partnership should be made meaningful in terms of the flexible approach that is required to deal with the deteriorating level of service we are getting for the vast amount of money that is going into our public services.

I do not have to remind any Member of the House of the mantra we hear on a regular basis in relation to the amount of money going into the health service, for example. The Minister for Finance appointed a group of consultants to develop the Brennan report so that the Minister for Health and Children can be told what to do and what not to do in relation to achieving better value for money in the health service. I would have thought that the Minister, Deputy Martin, would have achieved value for money anyway. It is rather peculiar that the Minister for Finance felt obliged to draw up a report to help the Minister for Health and Children to achieve better value for money. Taxpayers expect accountability and value for money. They expect us to make the necessary changes in flexible structures to give them value for money and to deliver a better quality of service. The Government unilaterally decided to allocate an enormous amount of resources to certain health service personnel in recent years at the expense of nurses, doctors and patient care, which is what the health system should be about.

There is no strategic management initiative. We are told that the plans to give us better value for money and accountability in the public services, particularly the health service, will be revealed in due course. There are 11 health boards to deal with a small population, equivalent to that of greater Manchester. This issue has been hanging around for a considerable period of time, waiting to be tackled by the Government. Rather than praising itself for putting such a large amount of money into the system, the Government should outline how better value for money will be achieved as a result. Waiting lists should be reduced, instead of allowing them to increase. It is ironic that the success of the health system, according to the Minister, can be determined by the amount of money he has put into it rather than by the throughput of activity or the patient care that is being provided. The administrative developments in the health care system need to be examined as a matter of urgency and I hope the Minister for Health and Children will not delay any longer in ensuring that it happens. I hope he receives the necessary support from the social partners to make sure it happens.

Similarly, there is an enormous number of problems in the education system, such as people dropping out of school and the standards of numeracy and literacy. We have had a number of initiatives over the years that are now being reduced in terms of expenditure. Those initiatives have worked, such as the one to combat early school leavers, the home tuition scheme, the school completion programme and initiatives for people in disadvantaged areas. Such schemes should be sacrosanct if we are serious about bringing people along with us and giving them an opportunity. The most important thing we can give people, in order to alleviate poverty and disadvantage, is the opportunity to better themselves in society. The first prerequisite of that is equality of opportunity. I regret that the Government has targeted fewer resources in educational disadvantage than it has in previous years. These issues should be revisited in the 2004 Estimates to ensure that the good work that is being done in partnership by home-school liaison people, teachers, parents and pupils to secure a good education is continued from the point of view of any future partnership agreements. Such funding should be ring-fenced.

There is no punctuality, reliability or quality service in the area of public transport. A great deal of money is being spent through the national development plan on rail and bus services. There have been new initiatives such as quality bus corridors in our capital city and taxis have been deregulated. While a number of actions have been taken people are still alarmed and appalled by the amount of money going into the system. There is no movement of personnel, particularly in the monolithic structure of Córas Iompair Éireann in order to free up some of the routes and the services that could be ripe for privatisation or competition. The problem with partnership at the moment is that a degree of inflexibility is developing which is ensuring that we are not getting the type of competition for services in the transport area, for example, that people ultimately want – a better quality service. One can have all the partnership in the world but the Government must act. It must take responsibility if no action is being taken at a partnership level. At the end of the day, Governments are responsible for making things happen. There is no point to the grandiose statements made by the Minister, Deputy Brennan, in recent times about the possibility of deregulation in regard to transport services, breaking up CIE or Aer Rianta or any of these matters if there is an inflexible attitude in regard to the partnerships that are involved in making that happen. Flexibility is very important nowadays in regard to the issues of deregulation and competition if we are to ensure that we have what the consumers of our public services want and what the working people who are paying taxes want, namely a good quality, reliable, efficient service.

There have been many reports over the years on various aspects of our public services – many of which are gathering dust. We never had as much money or opportunity as we have had in the past five or six years in order to bring about genuine reform. Money has been thrown at every problem in order to try to solve it. If there was a gap in any market or a problem to be resolved, it was always solved by throwing money at it. That is no longer acceptable, nor should it ever have been acceptable as a way of solving a problem. We must have reform in the context of putting resources into an area, particularly our public services, to ensure that we get proper accountability and value for money.

A work programme is required in the context of where we are today in terms of partnership and in bringing these three bodies together on a statutory basis in order to get better value for money and better access for consumers to many public services. Our competitiveness is slipping and inflation is not being tackled. The anti-inflation package that was promised in the recent partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress, is paying lip service to the issue while there are no proposals to implement a package of reform that will bring about meaningful changes in work practices, give greater flexibility and help to reduce the level of costs that have increasingly become an issue, particularly in the non-traded services which was highlighted in the recent Forfás report.

The Minister should not forget that the Houses of the Oireachtas have an important role to play. We are the guardians of the purse strings. We have a very centralised system of Government with 15 members of Government deciding everything and expecting some 150 others to follow through the lobbies for and against those proposals. I submit that the type of Government we currently have in this jurisdiction is probably akin to the most centralised system of government that existed in eastern Europe. We have just got rid of it beyond the Berlin Wall. Our system is in urgent need of reform. One cannot expect that the people will continue to engage and be deeply interested in the political process unless they are able to see that we have properly accountable Government, a properly accountable system and meaningful debate in the Houses of the Oireachtas on a huge range of issues that are costing enormous amounts of taxpayers' money to sustain our public services. Work could be initiated in terms of a work programme in which the Houses of the Oireachtas could become involved. The amalgamation of these three bodies through the National Economic and Social Development Office is an important step forward.

Most Oireachtas Members would agree that they would like to become more actively involved through a proper committee system, or in the Houses of the Oireachtas generally, with the National Economic and Social Development Office. In this way we could relay the work that is being done to the people in a meaningful way in order to sustain economic progress and employment and keep us competitive. This will give our services a radical shake-up in terms of reforming them to give better value for money and greater efficiency in order that people will get good quality service for the taxes they contribute, a contribution which can at times be painful. If people continue to want the low tax economy which has been important for the economic growth of the country, we cannot fritter away money on public services without that reform and without greater accountability.

Mr. Carey

I understand I am sharing time with Deputy Conor Lenihan.

The economics editor of The Irish Times writes today as follows:

For some months now, many Irish businesses have been looking at the euro's rise and keeping their fingers crossed that it would soon peter out. But the euro just keeps on going – or perhaps more accurately money keeps flowing out of the US dollar – and the implications for exports and growth this year now look likely to be quite serious. The euro's strength makes life harder for exporters as they must either accept lower profit margins or persuade their customers to live with higher prices.

As Deputy Hogan said, we are talking about a world economy which is in a state of flux at a time when we need to remain competitive. The ESRI in its quarterly economic commentary states:

The terms of the new social partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress, should reinforce the disinflationary trend in the economy. We estimate that the terms of the agreement, including public sector benchmarking provisions, provide for wage growth of approximately 4% and 3% in 2003 and 2004 respectively. These terms should move the economy closer to sustainable, productivity-justified pay rates. Given the tighter public finance position, a more focused sense of national investment priorities is needed to ensure that necessary investment is not restricted given its importance for the economy's long-run growth. The low interest rate environment creates opportunity for economically justifiable investment to be undertaken while respecting the constraints of the Stability and Growth Pact.

This is the context in which this Bill is being introduced to the Dáil. The National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002 provides us with an opportunity to give an overview of our position through social partnership and various initiatives undertaken in the past ten years, certainly since 1987 when social partnership was first mooted by the then Taoiseach, Charles Haughey – a process pioneered, of course, by the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern.

The strategy has been effective but it is clear that if we do not remain competitive we will lose all the advantages we accumulated in recent years. I am not calling for widespread deregulation but certain areas need to be examined in this regard. For example, deregulation of the taxi industry was not done in the most efficient way. Paradoxically, we have now reached the stage where the industry will have to be regulated if we are to provide a competitive and efficient taxi service.

The cost of insurance is driving small businesses out of existence, many of which I am aware of in my own constituency. Premia are so high that two or three members of a small workforce may have to be let go to avoid closure. In some cases workers are let go while in other cases businesses have to close down. We need to tackle the insurance industry's monopoly more seriously and it is not tenable to long finger any such proposals. While I welcome the working group's proposal, I would also welcome greater initiatives to tackle the real costs of insurance.

A few weeks ago, I was visiting some people in the United Kingdom and I was astounded to discover that the cost of public liability and employer's liability insurance is a fraction of what it is here. Clearly, that is making us uncompetitive. The cost of services has rocketed in the last few years and, while I may not be popular for saying this, there is a rip-off mentality which needs to be curbed. Unfortunately, we are ripping each other off and unless we realise that we are in this together, we will all sink together. It took much hard work and painstaking development for Ireland to become the most successful economy in the world at one point and we have the capacity to regain that position.

There used to be a State telecoms monopoly but now we virtually have a private monopoly in that sector, which is untenable. Sometimes we pick on soft targets and I am not persuaded that either the groceries order or the retail planning guidelines ought to be changed. I am not certain that such alterations would achieve anything at a macro-economic level, although perhaps I could be persuaded otherwise.

The nub of the Bill concerns the issue of social partnership. As other speakers have pointed out, this particular model for industrial peace and development, employment creation and support for the less well-off, is quite unique. We started off with the Programme for National Recovery, which was modest enough, but it was developed at a time when we were the economic basket case of Europe. That programme demonstrated what co-operation, co-ordination and a little bit of economic pain being suffered by everybody could do for the country as a whole. The new programme, entitled Sustaining Progress, is a refined and sophisticated version of what was originally a rather rudimentary approach to solving our economic problems. The various programmes have delivered economic stability and a large measure of industrial harmony.

It is interesting to note that any current industrial disharmony seems to be happening in the public sector rather than in the private sector. Perhaps we need to explore why there is such emerging disharmony in the public sector. I heard that question being debated on the radio today. Wage increases have been delivered that were beyond what anyone could have expected in years past but we will now have to cut our cloth according to our measure. The partnership programmes have protected the most vulnerable, including young people. This Government and its predecessor have delivered significant increases in child benefits and child care supports generally. The amount of money that is being put into child care, admittedly from a very low base, is quite significant, so we are making progress in that area. The partnership programmes have also supported the elderly who will acknowledge that the improvements have gone beyond pensions to include day care and other services. In addition, despite the many criticisms of our health service, if one talks to anybody who has received treatment, they will say that once one gains access to it, the care is second to none.

Our partnership model is unique, although hitherto my colleagues on the Convention on the Future of Europe and I thought that this sophisticated model of social cohesion and development was widespread in Europe. People talk about the economic models of Boston versus Berlin, but I thought that Berlin had a very sophisticated social partnership model. It was only when I sat on the working group on economic governance that I found to my horror that the traditional partners representing the trade union and management interests on the convention were quite determined – and, in fact, they seem to have succeeded in their determination – to ensure that any extension to the model of social partnership that we recommended as Irish delegates, should be resisted. They certainly had no great interest in ensuring that farmers and voluntary or community sectors were on board; it was going to be trade unions and management, full stop. That is something the rest of Europe can learn from us, however.

The draft constitutional treaty on the future of Europe, which has emerged into the public domain in recent days, will underpin much of what we are doing here. Various elements of EU legislation have been available to us in supporting workers and combating social exclusion. I was pleased to be able to support the report of the working party on a social Europe, as were the other Irish delegates, which recommended: the promotion of full employment; social justice leading to social peace; sustainable development; economic, social and territorial cohesion; a social market economy; quality of work; life-long learning; social inclusion; a high degree of social protection; equality between men and women; non-discrimination on the basis of racial or ethnic origin, religious or sexual orientation, disability and age; children's rights; a high level of public health; efficient, high-quality social services; and services of general interest.

Although I did not have an opportunity of analysing it in great detail, I was pleased to note that Part Two of the draft constitutional treaty has come through today. The preamble to section 2, Article III-98 states:

The Union and the Member States, having in mind fundamental social rights such as those set out in the European Social Charter signed at Turin on 18 October 1961 and the 1989 Community Charter on the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, so as to make possible their harmonisation while the improvement is being maintained, proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment, and the combating of exclusion.

To this end the Union and the Member States shall act taking account of the diverse forms of national practices, in particular in the field of contractual relations, and the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Union economy.

Once some people hear of a new treaty emanating from the EU they will jump up and say they are not supporting it. Anyone who analyses what is being said in that preamble, however, will recognise that no attempt is being made to introduce a uniform arrangement across all EU member states. In fact, the contrary is the case because models that are appropriate to a particular member state can be continued. That is as it should be. We are discussing the principle of subsidiarity, which has worked well. As part of the partnership model, we need to plan and work together. I listened earlier to the leader of the Fine Gael party, Deputy Kenny, saying that the social partnership model adopts the top down approach. I would have thought the case was the reverse where a diverse range of participants work together, painstakingly and carefully, to ensure that in a given set of economic and social circumstances, the best possible outcomes can be achieved for everyone, ranging from the quite well-off to the not so well-off.

The social partnership model here is rather unique in that elements of civil society, who are emerging as an important sector, have a role in developing social partnership and economic and social strategies. For example, the work area-based partnerships have done since they were established is remarkable. I concur with Deputy Hogan that initiatives in the area of education ought to be ring-fenced from any serious cutbacks in funding. The RAPID programmes – there are not many of them in the country – and CLÁR programmes, which target social exclusion in marginalised areas, are unique. They do not have extra money to spend but they are in a position to advance strategies more quickly than statutory bodies normally can. These bodies ought not to be unduly interfered with. Some of us will be involved in city development boards which have evolved partly as a result of the reform of local government and the partnership process. Reform of local government is an initiative of the previous Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey. There is a new range of participants involved in community development who had not been involved hitherto, which is welcome.

The National Economic and Social Forum is one of the elements proposed as a participant in the National Economic and Social Development Office. It has done significant work since its foundation. It has examined a number of important issues, ranging from the labour market for older workers, access to hospital care and the whole issue of early school leavers. It had a seminal report published on the issue of early school leavers. I agree that the amount of money being spent on early school leaving initiatives for the educationally disadvantaged has increased dramatically in recent years, particularly with the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, heading up the Cabinet committee on social inclusion. Breaking the Cycle and school completion programmes are important initiatives which have arisen as a result of the support partnership has given to them.

The affordable housing initiative has been examined carefully by the National Economic and Social Forum. This area could be usefully revisited because the cost of housing is getting out of the reach of many average income earners. Reports have been published on the level of welfare payments available to people who are unemployed, those working in the home and those who want to return to education. If it were not for the partnership process, I am not certain the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands who have availed of vocational training schemes and back-to-education schemes would have benefited and changed their lives through a return to education.

Community employment schemes are being debated at the moment. I am concerned that there is not a widespread understanding of the value of participation in community employment schemes for participants. It has a significant pay-back in terms of support for communities. It is penny wise and pound foolish to cut down on the numbers who can participate in community employment schemes. There are a number of people who are so old at this stage that they cannot return to the workforce. Having enjoyed working for approximately 20 hours per week, and socialising with fellow workers, it is unreasonable to expect them to return, in many cases, to the loneliness and isolation of their homes. Equally communities will suffer, whether in the delivery of community and social services or support for sports clubs and so on. Unfortunately, it is a retrograde step – I will not be popular for saying this – and it is time we considered what we are doing in terms of implementing social policy.

The functions of the forum as outlined in the Bill are to monitor and analyse the implementation of specific measures and programmes identified in the context of social partnerships, especially those concerned with the achievement of equality and social inclusion and a new function, which will be reflected in a Government amendment in due course, and to facilitate public consultation on policy matters referred to it by the Government from time to time.

Perhaps it is time to look at the key participants in the whole social partnership model. I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, for the work he has done on their behalf. I welcome the inclusion of the elderly as participants in social partnership discussions because I believe they bring a unique perspective to bear on discussions. In Dublin we are well aware of the work the Council on Ageing and Older People and the Senior Citizens Parliament are doing. These groups are doing valuable work.

Mr. Callely

Hear, hear.

Mr. Carey

In my area the elderly population is in excess of the total population of County Leitrim, and they have a significant role to play. The emergence of civil society groups ought to be looked at and the emergence of civic fora in Dublin are an important new initiative.

The Bill should ensure that the complementary roles of the NCC, NCPP, NESC and NESF will develop policies and propose strategies which will help support the economic and social fabric of our society. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Crawford

While my party supports the Bill, it does not curtail us from raising questions on how the whole partnership issue works. I must say at the outset that I am pleased Deputy Carey put a few issues on the record from a Fianna Fáil backbencher's point of view. He referred to the rip-off culture which currently exists. Having travelled with him in recent weeks, I concur with him that we are pricing ourselves out of the market. Some of the prices charged in this country are questionable. It is difficult to see how those involved can expect to have a future in the economy, be it in the tourism sector or elsewhere. The euro enables us to easily compare prices in this country with those in the eurozone. It is an issue that must be addressed, as much by the private sector as the Government. In saying this, I do not detract from the importance of the Government's involvement in the area of insurance or elsewhere.

I also welcome Deputy Carey's comments on the Groceries Order. I hope it and the retail planning guidelines will be maintained. It will be interesting to see what the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment proposes in this area. My background is in farming and the co-operative movement. I declare my interest as a dairy farmer. My family farm produces quality milk for the liquid milk market through the Town of Monaghan Co-Operative. Through my involvement in the IFA and the European Union committee for beef and veal, of which I was chairman for five years in the early 1980s, I learned at first hand the benefits to be gained from discussion and partnerships at every level, including at home, within the European Union and at the WTO talks.

Fine Gael led the debate on the country's entry to the European Economic Community and the party's former leaders returned to the public domain to campaign in favour of the Nice treaty referendum. One former leader, Mr. Alan Dukes, led the partnership approach with the Tallaght strategy, which was the start of a new beginning that has greatly benefited the country.

Fine Gael also led the first partnership type talks on Northern Ireland. The former Taoiseach, Liam Cosgrave, with Brian Faulkner, established a partnership agreement of a kind; the former Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald and the former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, formulated the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and, as former Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, played a major role during a difficult period of the peace process. His recommendation of the appointment of Senator George Mitchell was typical of his approach. Senator Mitchell played a major role in the Northern Ireland peace talks.

All other parties followed what Fine Gael started in the 1960s and 1970s. Fianna Fáil questioned the Anglo-Irish Agreement but later worked it, while Sinn Féin at last realised that talks and partnership were a better means of solving our national problems. This illustrates how far we have come and indicates how, with commitment, partnership talks can help, especially in the context of my small farming background.

This important Bill brings together three different bodies under one workable structure. It will ensure that regardless of party or politics, the right personnel are in place to lead the country in its long-term interests. Partnership was established in an attempt to curtail social unrest, at which it has succeeded, and contain wage increases. I am not sure of its achievements on this aspect because with all awards made on a percentage basis, those on higher incomes have gained dramatically. By contrast, those of us in the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan and the Border region have, unlike others, not been fortunate enough to attract high paying industries, such as IT. More usually, workers in this area earn wages of between €200 and €300 per week in factories in the food and timber industries. These industries are under pressure, with the prevalence of two and three day weeks.

Partnership must take account of the weaker members of society and in this regard, I am not sure if it has been as successful as it should. While more jobs have been created in the Pale and the Dublin area, a better spread of job creation is required. The 30 years of the Troubles in the Border region have not helped as it was not considered to be a suitable area for investment. Nevertheless, a small number of factories had the courage to invest and have done very well. I hope that in the context of the Good Friday Agreement, the Border region will be seen as an area where partnership can work and bring benefits.

Since the launch of the various partnership agreements, a number of initiatives have been taken to address the problems in the health area. In this context, the national health strategy was launched before the last general election. I would do my constituents a disservice if I did not raise the issue of Monaghan General Hospital which is approaching its first anniversary – on 2 July –of being off-call. The Minister promised to do his best to have the problems at the hospital addressed within a short period of time. While some thought he would deliver in a couple of days, I did not believe it was possible. However, I never dreamed that 12 months later, the hospital would still be off-call.

Yes. The number of home-help carers has been halved in the North-Eastern Health Board region. Those in need of a bed in a nursing home are finding it difficult to find one. Although it is a little easier now in the summer months, the problem will return to haunt us shortly. A two-tier health service is something that none of us wants, but that is what we have at present. Someone who can pay can get service, while those who cannot must wait, and the waiting lists issued recently prove that. If one pays, one gets health care quickly.

What annoys me most is the fact that, under the special initiative for waiting lists, people can be treated, be it at home here in some private area or in England or elsewhere, with all sorts of grandeur. However, back at Monaghan General Hospital, a theatre, nurses and top-quality surgeons are sitting there without being given an opportunity. It does not make sense that someone with varicose veins or some other reasonably simple complaint must go to a private hospital in Westmeath where services are available and paid for by the State, albeit through the health board or whatever. Others have been sent to Birmingham or elsewhere. That issue must be sorted out in partnership.

The issue of insurance has already been mentioned by my colleague, Deputy Hogan, Deputy Carey and others. It must really be tackled. Small industry especially is being hit seriously. Through my travels, I have learned that 11 September, those big words that encompass almost everything in this country, which caused our problems and made our insurance more expensive, did not do so. It did not cause problems in the UK, Canada or other places. We must ask major questions about what the Minister, Deputy Harney, has been doing on insurance for the last six years, for this is not a Government of one year, as some people try to make us believe, but a partnership of the last six. If that partnership is to work out in the long-term, insurance must be tackled realistically and properly. It is disturbing that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment does not seem able to give us a date at this stage for an important Bill to introduce an independent body to deal with that. That was promised and we understood there was a commitment.

It is vital that such things be dealt with realistically. Small companies are going to the wall, while others are taking the gamble of not insuring, which is even more difficult and serious. Small builders are going out of business because they cannot get cover. I am saying clearly to the Minister that, if insurance is not tackled quickly, we will have a serious problem.

I hear many people mentioning that the penalty points system will do miracles as far as car insurance is concerned. I hope that it does, for Fine Gael supports the effort to ensure that lives are saved on the roads and elsewhere. However, it seems, unfortunately, that the points system will be used against drivers rather than for them. I have no problem if someone has 12 points and loses his or her licence, or that, when he or she goes to get insurance the next time, it will cost more. Surely, however, those who have no points should be getting some benefit from the savings which accrue to insurance companies because of there being fewer accidents. There is no point in an insurance company saying that prices are high because of the high level of accidents if, when they are curtailed, there is no commitment to bring premia down.

I touched on the area of jobs at the start. It must be examined seriously if partnership is to benefit the whole country. When one looks at the experience of the outer counties in recent years, one sees jobs being created in Galway, Athlone, Dublin and sometimes further south, but how many are created in the Border region as a whole? If partnership and the peace initiative – which, in spite of everyone's comments about its difficulties, I believe is here to stay – are to mean anything, the Government, through the IDA, must take concrete steps to ensure that jobs are created. I speak not just of Cavan and Monaghan but about the entire Border region, for we have suffered dramatically. Due to the fact that we have suffered in jobs, education structures have been taken away from us rather than being created for our benefit. In Cavan, there is a very good college, but it was not allowed any building this year. In Monaghan, St. Patrick's Agricultural College was sold off, though it was possibly the best site in the county for a third level college. Those issues must be dealt with under partnership. There must be equality.

One of the ways in which the Government may have direct control in creating jobs for the Border region is decentralisation. One day, sitting where the Minister is or perhaps just to one side, his colleague, the Minister for Finance, explained that there were some difficulties and that it was not easy to create decentralisation where the infrastructure was poor, there was a lack of sports facilities such as swimming pools and where there was poor access to broadband. Those are all issues about which something must be done if partnership is to mean anything to people in the more rural areas. I was equally interested to hear Deputy Carey talking about community employment schemes, and it is vital that they be considered again. I hope that he will speak as loudly, if not even more loudly, when he gets an opportunity to speak to his parliamentary party or the Minister.

I will return to the issue of farming, if Members will excuse me. At the moment farmers are not being paid the full rate of farm development grant or anything else in County Monaghan or County Cavan. However, there is very little in the partnership for farmers in general, and I am worried about Deputy Harney's idea of doing away with the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order 1987 and retail planning law. The problem of inflation has its roots not there but in insurance and all the other issues, many of which can be controlled by the Government, for example, increased VAT.

I have letters from a local supermarket in Monaghan town, Fleming's, which is having a major extension built. It is extremely worried, for it has located its business in the centre of town and done a good job at serving the public. It uses Irish products, whereas many of those outside supermarkets at the edge of towns are interested only in pure profit. They have no interest in the economy or anything else. I wish to question the Minister and beg him to ensure that the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order 1987 is not repealed for the sake of being seen to do something or that the retail planning guidelines are amended to allow the big multiples in. Fleming's in Monaghan and other similar stores throughout the country have employed local people and used local products, without any abuse. It is impossible to understand why some of those outside retailers wish to use milk as a lead product sold at minimum cost when at the same time they are selling water that has just come up out of the ground at no cost whatsoever for nearly nothing.

The fact that my dairy herd must be keep in at night due to the weather conditions is costing a fortune. Many dairy farmers are being forced out of business because of economic pressures and it seems the only benefit that this Government can give through the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, is to consider removing the Groceries Order. If partnership is to work for the disadvantaged, whether at rural level or in the centre of Dublin, farmers, the elderly and everyone else must be treated equally and taken into account.

Mr. Kelly

I wish to share my time with Deputy Andrews.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kelly

I welcome the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill. This office will comprise three bodies to be known as the National Economic and Social Council, the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance. This Bill, when enacted, will for the first time set each of the constituent bodies on a statutory basis. The National Economic and Social Council was established in 1973 with a brief to advise the Government on the development of the national economy and the achievement of social justice. In addition to advising the Government, the council provides a forum in which views can be exchanged between people who have a common interest in the development of the economy and the pursuit of social justice. Since 1986 the National Economic and Social Council has undertaken a three yearly review of economic and social policy. Previous reports published by the National Economic and Social Council have informed the series of national agreements that have been negotiated since 1987 between the social partners. Under the terms of the new Bill, the council will continue to analyse and report on strategic issues connected to the effective development of the economy and the achievement of social justice.

The Government established the National Centre for Partnership and Performance to support and drive change in the workplace and enable organisations in the private and public sectors, through partnership, to respond to change, build capability and to improve performance. For Ireland to remain competitive in all types of international economic environments, every sector of our community and economy, public and private, employers and employees, industrial groups and trade unions, must develop new approaches to change and adaptation. Together we must find new models of partnership for increasing productivity and flexibility, raising living standards, bettering the delivery of services and improving the quality of life. In 1993 the Government set up the National Economic and Social Forum to achieve consensus on as wide a basis as possible on major economic and social policy issues. Since 1998 the forum's work has focused on evaluating the implementation of policies dealing with equality and social inclusion.

The National Economic and Social Development Office will promote the development of a shared vision for meeting goals and targets. It will encourage the three constituent organisations to optimise their influence and effectiveness by means of a collaborative policy approach. The series of national partnership agreements, beginning with the Programme for National Recovery in 1987 have made a major contribution to our success. These arrangements have brought the Government, the employers, the unions, the farmers and representatives of civil society together in support of a multi-annual programme covering pay, fiscal policy, social welfare provisions and other important areas of economic and social policy.

Partnership is especially important in small open economies, those most exposed to the challenges and opportunities of international trade and investment flows, the economic impact of rapidly evolving technologies and the fundamental need to remain competitive. These challenges and opportunities require both long-term economic strategies and the flexibility to make adjustments to take advantage of new opportunities for small economies. A broad national agreement around the central objectives of economic and social partnership helps Ireland to compete in the modern globalised economy. No party is more closely identified with social partnership than Fianna Fáil. The Taoiseach, in particular, made a remarkable contribution to establishing social partnership when he was Minister for Labour in 1987. Without partnership we could not have prepared to adapt to the changing nature of our economy and to international circumstances.

Although there has been much essential liberalisation and deregulation in our economy, the continuing important role of Government in driving forward infrastructural investment must be emphasised. The area in which most people have witnessed the dramatic input and impact of partnership is employment. This took time to filter through but when it happened the results were spectacular. Team effort is essential. It is important that we all work together not for, but with, one another. Partnership has produced real and tangible rewards for ordinary people. Social partnership and past performance are no guarantee of future success. As a small global economy we cannot isolate ourselves from adverse economic surroundings. The recent National and Economic Social Council report stated that we need to respond to that vulnerability through rapid and widespread adoption of policy, laws, regulatory regimes and structures in the traded, non-traded and public sectors while retaining a predictable long-term economic strategy and policy framework.

There is no alternative to partnership. The effect of a free-for-all would be immediate and severe. As the National Economic and Social Council has put it, and as those who can remember the pre-partnership era know only too well, policy errors will be punished severely. It is an economic and social imperative to continue with the partnership process over the challenging period ahead. No one can be certain about the future as political and economic crises are all too possible. We need a measure of certainty in a very uncertain world. The County Longford Development Board is a model of partnership working for the benefit of all to promote economic development, urban and rural renewal, cultural and recreational policies. In conclusion, this Bill is to be welcomed for putting on a statutory footing those organisations that have served us so well since 1997.

Mr. Andrews

I ask Deputies to consider the time wasting that is occurring in this Chamber. The Order of Business could be dealt with in half an hour, but it took two hours to deal with it today. This is something about which all Members must question themselves. I am sure Fianna Fáil did this before I became a Member of this House and I am sure it will happen in the future, but some focus on what particular business is intended for might be profitable.

I want to respond to another criticism made earlier in the debate, namely the allegation that Fianna Fáil is a right wing party. I did not join a right wing party, I do not believe I am a member of a right wing party and I certainly would not continue in a right wing party.

Having read the Bill, nothing particularly jumps out in terms of worthiness of debate. I apologise if I moved away from the Bill at times during my contribution. Section 17 refers to the requirement that there should be an equality of men and women on each of the fora that are statutorily set up under this Bill and that is welcome. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Healy

I wish to share my time with Deputies Boyle and Morgan.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Healy

I have listened to a good deal of this debate. We have been told on numerous occasions that social partnership has given real and tangible rewards to ordinary individuals in pursuit of social justice. This Bill is a formalisation of the social partnership model that has been in existence here for quite some time. We need to examine the effects of that partnership, whether it has resulted in real and tangible rewards and social justice for ordinary men and women.

I believe that this model of partnership is a cover for cutbacks, increases in existing charges such as refuse charges and waste water charges and the reintroduction of other charges such as domestic water charges and that over the past six years it has resulted in a widening of the gap between the rich and the poor to a great extent. The accepted figure in that regard is that a gap of approximately €350 per week has emerged since 1997 between a person earning an annual income of €40,000 and a person in receipt of unemployment assistance. The current position leaves a lot to be desired. The Celtic tiger has been used to benefit those who are already wealthy, but it certainly has not benefited to the same extent those people in receipt of social welfare incomes, low wages or the minimum wage.

One of the attributes of social partnership we heard about at an early stage was that it was a real partnership and that workers would have the legal right to be represented and be members of a trade union. We have not even got that far. Neither have we managed to ensure that those on the minimum wage are outside the tax net. Instead, workers have no legal right to be members of a union and those on the minimum wage are still not outside the tax net.

Partnership has been a cover for significant cutbacks and I will refer to some of them. We all know the situation in the health services. It is discussed in the House regularly. Irrespective of what Deputy Andrews said, it is right that these matters should be dealt with in the House. It is the place to deal with them. The past six years have brought about a situation which reminds me of the late 1980s when I worked in the health service as a hospital manager and the services suffered significant destruction in the form of closures of beds, hospitals and capacity of the services provided. That has lasted to this day and has bedevilled the health services. We have a two-tier health service with long waiting lists for those with medical cards or who cannot afford to pay for private treatment. If one can afford to pay, one will be seen at the drop of a hat.

Is it a real and tangible reward of so-called social partnership that elderly or sick people should be on trolleys or beds in corridors, that people should be on waiting lists for anything up to two and three years, or that people with a disability have no place to care for them once they are 18? They could not be described as tangible benefits of social partnership.

I find it impossible, as I am sure do other Members, to get health boards to provide home helps for ill, elderly people who want to be cared for at home, something that would save the State significant amounts of money. Not one additional hour of home help can be obtained now. Instead, there is a reduction in hours and a cutback in the service. In the circumstances, if elderly people are admitted to nursing homes, a significant cost is involved. The subvention payable is ridiculously low and families must effectively pay a second mortgage to keep their elderly relatives, be they parents, uncles or aunts, in nursing homes.

Is it a real and tangible benefit that children must be educated in schools that are effectively falling apart or leaking and that many children leaving primary school have a difficulty reading and writing? I could refer to many other issues, but I will leave it at that.

Mr. Boyle

I have had the privilege of being a representative of the community and voluntary sector on the National Economic and Social Council for a four-year period, from 1998 to my election to the House. I have seen at first hand the value of the work it does and the restrained circumstances in which it does it. I have heard many remarks in this debate that show that Members could be more informed about the nature of the council's work and how it does it.

In many respects, the NESC has been an under-resourced organisation. It has never had more than three to four researchers and two to three administrators working for it. In the most recent Book of Estimates, the money provided under the Department of the Taoiseach for the National Economic and Social Council has been reduced, and this is also the case for the National Economic and Social Forum. This is the context in which we discuss the Bill, namely, the real value we attach to economic intelligence which is vital towards sustaining progress, growth and competitiveness in society.

When I was a member of the council, the main work in which we were involved was drafting the strategy document, Opportunities, Challenges and Capacities for Choice. I feel proud to have contributed to that and to see in its text some of the contributions I made as a member of the council.

Much of what has been said about how such documents have been treated by the political process deserves to be challenged. It is not necessarily accepted that they become Government policy. Many of the proposals in successive NESC reports have been wilfully ignored. They constantly said that the degree and areas of tax cutting by successive Governments were wrong-headed and economically flawed. We are beginning to pay the price for that in how resources are collected because we have misrepresented how much tax is collected in the system and how resources are allocated to social services.

The NESC has constantly called for the introduction of an energy tax as an environmental measure, something that has been persistently ignored by the Minister for Finance. In fact, he has been one of the greatest enemies of the NESC. He has gone out of his way to ignore many of the recommendations made by the council. Another long-standing measure proposed by the NESC that I have never seen any political party having the courage to adopt, is an equality measure that would see child benefit being taxed so that the wealthy would only receive a proportion of the benefit. This is the type of thinking that takes place in the NESC, the type of ideas thrown into the political process and how we, as part of the political process, respond to it.

I am dubious about the motivation behind the Bill because, from my peripheral role in the partnership process, I did not see the demand for it coming forward. I can see nothing other than a reorganisation of resources as part of a cost-cutting exercise. I am only partially familiar through its reports with the National Economic and Social Forum but I believe it also does valuable work that is complementary to the work of the NESC and in a different context. The work of the council is long-term whereas that of the forum is short-term, reactive and takes place in a more open setting. The value of the NESC is that it takes place behind closed doors and people can speak freely.

I am at a loss as to what the National Centre for Partnership and Performance represents. It is a recently formed body and its functions are to contribute to national competitiveness, better public services, higher living standards, a better quality of life and development of the workplace of the future. However, we already have a National Competitiveness Council. Part of the brief of Forfás and the Industrial Development Authority is the need to pay attention to competitiveness issues. I do not know why the National Centre for Partnership and Performance exists. However, I know that the NESC and the NESF have been under-resourced and I do not see an increase in the Bill in the availability of the type of resources that would allow them carry out their work more effectively.

On the issue of partnership, my experience is that it has never been real and functioning. It has always been a case that some partners are considered more equal than others. The layout of tables at meetings has the chair flanked on either side by employers and unions with farmers and the community and voluntary sector in the far corners. I saw the previous partnership agreement being negotiated in Government Buildings. I saw the side bars, the meetings behind closed doors, who had to be mollified most, and whose assent was more prized than others. When that exists, we do not have real partnership. This is a Bill that only entrenches bad practices that exist.

I would also like to raise the role of elected public representatives in the decision making that comes about through partnership. I cannot understand why this House has not yet debated the Sustaining Progress agreement. I cannot understand why part of the ratification process does not involve a vote of this House as to whether we feel it is a document worth progressing as a national policy for the next three years. Until we arrive at a stage when the partnership process fully involves the political process, Bills such as this, and the establishment of such an offices, is simply an act of window dressing that the Government should be given little or no credit for.

Mr. Morgan

I am delighted to hear the previous contribution and I could not agree with it more. At first glance, the establishment of the National Economic and Social Development Office may seem to be an admirable objective. Consulting the social partners on all strategic matters relating to economic and social development also appears laudable. Will this body have any real input into the Government's policies on taxation, health, education and social welfare? Is the Government likely pay any attention to recommendations made by this new body? I suspect it will not have the slightest impact on Government policy. It is another mudguard for the Government to deflect criticism from where it rightly belongs.

I would like to take this opportunity to make a number of points regarding the ideology that drives the social and economic policies of the PD-Fianna Fáil Government and the motivations behind its advocacy of social partnership. The Government has used social partnership as a tool to silence dissent on social and economic matters. It has also used it to silence dissent in the face of wide-ranging cutbacks in health, housing, education and a deterioration in the quality of life of the working people of this State. We must see social partnership for what it has become. The Government brings the voices of the disadvantaged to the table, pays lip service to them and then delivers almost nothing. Government policy is then justified on the basis that the Government has consulted with the social partners. Social partnership has allowed the Government to evade accountability for its failure to deliver on the range of issues to which I have alluded.

Social partnership has widened divisions in Irish society and has done nothing to tackle disadvantage. Social partnership would be great if it were a partnership of equals. We have just heard an example of the classical style of the meetings that are anything but reflective of partnership. The current agreement represents a poor deal for Irish workers and the low paid. It offers nothing on headline issues facing workers such as health, child care and education. Social partnership has represented an attempt by the Government to co-opt those who have been most marginalised. Their role in the process is a largely token one. This is particularly evident from the inclusion of the community and voluntary pillar. Despite a failure to deliver on demands made by the community and voluntary sector, it is being used by the Government to give the appearance of consultation and consensus. We heard from a Deputy that has been involved at the coalface and he confirmed that it was totally marginalised.

Social partnership has become nothing less than a cosy club of big business, politicians, landowners and trade union bosses. The Government and employers organisations are increasingly forcing workers to bargain for rights that are rightfully theirs as part of the wider social partnership deal. These should not be seen as concessions. There is the issue of employer recognition of unions. Imagine trade unions having to negotiate for recognition in this day and age. There is also the issue of compliance with labour legislation. What is the point in having labour legislation if employers are not obliged to comply with it? The fulfilling of statutory redundancy rights is a basic workplace right. These issues should not even be on the negotiating table yet they are part of the bluff that is going on. It is most unfortunate the trade union bosses have allowed this to happen.

The Government is opposed to the very concept of trade unions and has used the partnership process to create an obedient trade union leadership by making the leaders part of the establishment, therefore creating a gulf between them and the grassroots membership. The prosperity that has been created is the prosperity of big business and multinational companies. They have exploited workers and maximised profits during the economic boom. Ordinary people have not prospered. What is prosperity when one cannot access a bed in a public hospital, when one's child attends a grossly overcrowded and usually dilapidated school and when one has little hope of ever owning one's own home? Let us face facts once and for all and admit that social partnership has delivered nothing for ordinary people.

The Progressive Democrats and their cohorts, the mega-rich are probably laughing at this very moment at the gullibility of those ordinary people who took social partnership at face value and did not realise it is a con job. The smug right wingers that lead the PD-Fianna Fáil Cabinet are laughing because they have duped the ordinary people into believing they are being consulted on socio-economic issues when it is not the case. The workers of this State must overthrow the economic tyranny the Government is perpetuating.

So-called social partnership is being used to facilitate the privatisation of essential services in this State. Privatisation of public utilities is central to the right-wing ideology that is driving the Fianna Fáil-PD Government. It is also notable that privatisation has been a feature of the period since the adoption of the social partnership model of industrial relations. Public utilities such as the telephone service, electricity, waste collection and transport have been or are due to be privatised. These utilities have been built using public money and therefore belong to the people. Sinn Féin is opposed to privatisation of national industries and services. We do not see why essential services should be sacrificed to private corporations interested only in profit and who would lay off thousands of workers and cut services.

I ask Fianna Fáil backbenchers not to stand back and allow this to happen. I know they are worth more than that collectively. They should stand up to what is going on in Government and call a halt to it. After all, they also represent the workers of this State.

Mr. Curran

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill. I have listened to the contributions of other Members and many of them have referred to the current state of the economy and the quality of life. I listened to the last contribution where the Deputy spoke about cutbacks in health and education. The Deputy can say such things as often as he likes; he can say it while swinging from the rafters. The reality is there are no cutbacks. The money spent on health this year is significantly – not marginally – greater. The Deputy did make one factually correct point. There are queues in hospitals and there are problems. The Deputy called on Fianna Fáil backbenchers to address the issues. We would gladly engage with him if he were prepared to talk about factual issues.

Mr. Morgan

I did not ask Fianna Fáil backbenchers to engage with me, I asked them to engage with the Cabinet.

Mr. Curran

The issue of health does not relate to funding or cutbacks, it is more profound than that. The health system has evolved over a long period of time and is in need of major structural change. The Deputy and other Opposition members have said again and again that the problem with health relates to cutbacks and spending.