Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002: Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 8, after "AS" to insert the following:
"OIFIG NÁISIÚNTA D'FHORBAIRT EACNAMAÍOCH AGUS SHÓISIALACH, OR IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE".
The amendment seeks to insert the Irish title of the office into the Long Title. The Minister may recall that it was accepted on Committee Stage to include Irish in the body of the Bill. However, the Minister did not change the Long Title.
It is not proposed to amend the Long Title of the Bill as this only details the scope of the Bill. This is on the basis of advice from the Parliamentary Counsel. The Irish title is in the text of the Bill, as suggested on Committee Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, to delete lines 4 to 7.
The amendment to delete these definitions, for example, the definition of functions, is required because the definitions are already contained in the Interpretation Act 2005 and are, therefore, not required in this Bill. This amendment is being made on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, to delete lines 21 to 32.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, lines 35 and 36, to delete "section 7, 17 or 35” and substitute “this Act”.
This amendment arises from discussions on Committee Stage. Its purpose is to provide for the laying of all draft orders proposed to be made under the Act before each House of the Oireachtas. I undertook on Committee Stage to examine this matter on Report Stage and I am happy to propose this amendment.
I welcome this amendment. It is important that all areas where the Taoiseach has powers to make changes in respect of the scope of this Bill should come for approval under this reduced form system. I am glad the Government has accepted this approach.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, to delete lines 39 to 44.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 8, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"(2) The Council shall, prior to the commencement of negotiation of agreements between the Government and the social partners, present to the Oireachtas an assessment of key strategic challenges relating to the efficient development of the economy and the achievement of social "justice" and set out a strategic framework for endorsement or amendment by the Oireachtas before the negotiations commence.".
As I stated on the Order of Business, it is extraordinary that the last social partnership agreement never came before the House in any shape or form. It did not come before the House at the stage where we could influence the agenda to be discussed by the social partners, during the negotiations so that we could be updated on developments or at the end so that we could secure democratic approval for the deal. Why has this approach been adopted? Not only has it been adopted for many years — although this agreement came before the Dáil in the past — but under the current regime, this complete insulation of social partnership from the Oireachtas has been an unhealthy development. It is being copperfastened in this Bill which makes no provision for the type of participation the Oireachtas ought to have in the development of social partnership discussions. It provides solely for a token membership of the Oireachtas in a research group looking at social justice. I have no problem with the Oireachtas having representation on a research group on social justice. I have been a member of that in the past and it does useful work. However, that is not a substitute for a proper and mature relationship between the social partnership process and the Oireachtas.
It can come as no surprise that the shortcomings in the social partnership mechanism have focused on issues where there is no representation. These areas include the needs of consumers, the growth of a rip-off culture in Ireland, the role of parents, the lack of attention to the needs of children in a mature approach to economic and social policy and the ignoring of environmental issues. The latter issue is highlighted in the National Economic and Social Council's report as an area where we have not developed an understanding of the issue or an adequate system of governance in respect of it.
Social partnership has failed to deliver in respect of these issues and failed to address important challenges coherently. It is not good enough that we make arrangements today which exclude the citizen's representation from these important debates. It is not acceptable for us to make arrangements which slam the door in the face of representation for consumers, parents or those who use public services in the social partnership process. The reform of public services to deliver high-quality services has been poorly handled within the social partnership process and people recognise that. Even Ministers now concede that the way in which benchmarking was handled was inappropriate.
We need to learn from what is going wrong and we need to make social partnership a more open, transparent and legitimised process by having genuine links with elected representatives, as well as representing important interests within our community. We must combine these processes to strengthen both. It is a mistake for the Taoiseach, in both this legislation and in practice, to insist on insulating social partnership from the Oireachtas. A fair observer could not fail to notice the dramatic contrast between the public accountability of Government to the social partnership process and its public accountability to the Oireachtas.
In the case of the social partnership process, there are two implementation bodies, four research bodies and ten high-level policy committees working on issues of concern to the social partners. Ten progress reports have already been produced on an agreement which was only negotiated in the middle of 2003. There is, correctly, a very high level of accountability in this area. Contrast this with the rusty and creaky systems of accountability in this House. We produce Estimates in November which do not contain any information about what they expect to achieve and we are expected to approve them on the nod. We have no serious scrutiny of Estimates under the current process and the investigative powers of the Dáil have been severely clipped. On social conflicts one would expect the Oireachtas to resolve, the Oireachtas has been virtually eclipsed and has less and less of a role to play in this regard.
We need to reconnect social partnership, which is a crucial part of governance in this community, and the Oireachtas and strengthen both areas. The links can be mutually beneficial. I was pleased to participate in discussions with the Labour Party to produce an agreed new departure for social partnership. This new departure must recognise new challenges, introduce greater accountability in respect of the partnership mechanism and involve the Oireachtas on a more central basis. If we do that we will move forward and achieve more from social partnership than we have in the past.
Sadly, I do not see any new departure reflected in this Bill. This Bill cements a flawed system instead of examining how we can overcome these flaws and build on successes. The Bill is disappointing. The Taoiseach will have his 118 representatives and a range of different councils and groups but the dynamism needed between the citizen and social partnership will be missing. My amendment would, in a minor fashion, begin this process. If we were to go down this route, it would need to be reflected in many other amendments to this process and many ongoing changes in the way we do our work in this House and the links we have with the important social partnership process.
I support this amendment. This Bill has been around since 2002. I presume it was taken out of the Taoiseach's cupboard and given an airing this week because we are about to embark on another round of social partnership discussions. In many ways, the purpose of this Bill is to set up the quango of quangos. It is the über-quango. It will unite all the other quangos which deal with social partnership. The new body will be a combination of the National Economic and Social Council, the National Economic and Social Forum, the National Centre for Partnership and Performance and related bodies. There are many bodies operating in this sphere, as well as those yet to be established, which the Taoiseach may deign to add.
I agree with Deputy Bruton's arguments in support of this amendment. Certain elements of social partnership have been extremely successful and have served the economy well. However, in terms of the social fabric and the type of issues the Taoiseach purported to address at the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting in County Cavan, about Robert Putnam and "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community", our country is at severe risk of becoming unhinged from the issues that face many people in terms of their struggle for a decent life for themselves and their families.
The key failure of the social partnership process is that a plethora of issues are being addressed, but in effect the progress on many of these is more apparent than real. At the time of the previous social partnership, many promises were given on social housing initiatives, for example. The new body, when established, will probably have a whole section or group devoted to research and action on housing. The reality, particularly in working class areas of our cities and towns, is that social housing as a concept has collapsed, killed off by this Government. The amount of social housing is a fraction of what it once was. Tens of thousands of families are on waiting lists, and an initiative on affordable housing is good but limited. Whole sets of families and communities are effectively excluded from housing provision in the future.
This is a critical issue for the people, and I presume this to be one of the issues that the set of quangos, either now or in future, could be expected to deal with. These bodies will not be accountable to the Dáil on the issue, however. We will not even get the figures. What we will get are high-priced consultants' reports and aspirational documents indicating new improvements but absolutely nothing in reality.
We have had very important research carried out by the National Economic and Social Forum on the treatment of older people. It has been reflected in many Government statements that we only want a limited percentage of older people, who have no other choice, to end up in nursing homes. We all agree on this point. There has, however, been almost no provision in many counties for sheltered independent housing for people through local authorities which would enable older people to live independently with some community support.
I agree with Deputy Bruton that there are whole areas of absolute importance to our national well-being as a cohesive society, and not just as an economy, which are apparently dealt with at partnership level. However, people feel badly cheated after nine years of this Government. One reason for this is an almost total lack of information. It is Government through public relations and quangos operate through a similar method. People who are ripped off, be they consumers, people on the housing list or others excluded from the workings of these important quangos, including the very powerful quango I referred to previously, feel they have no recourse. It is part of a growing fissure in society that is not conducive to any type of social growth leading to people having a sense of well-being and ownership in their society.
I strongly support this amendment put forward by Deputy Bruton. Although he did not speak to me beforehand about proposals regarding the social partnership process, he might be pleased to know I agree wholeheartedly with what he suggested in his opening contribution.
I speak as someone who, prior to election to this House, was a participant in the social partnership process. I was a member of the National Economic and Social Council for four years, having had my nomination endorsed by the Taoiseach. I served on the body with a degree of interest and frustration, as there is frustration in the manner in which social partnership worked. On the other side of the fence, here in the Dáil, that frustration is compounded by a system that is not working because it does not involve all the democratic actors it should to serve the interests of citizens. Any suggestion that would make this system work better should be listened to and the Government should respond to it.
My amendment, which will be addressed later, works on a similar principle, albeit under a different set of circumstances. It is frustrating as a Member of this House to see political issues being discussed and decided upon without any reference to this House. Deputy Bruton's amendment is excellent, but it probably needs to go even further. A debate and vote of this nature at the beginning or end of a partnership process should also have intervals of ongoing inspection of the process itself. The social partners are given regular updates regarding the commitments entered into by the Government in the social partnership agreements. This House is not.
Any analysis of those agreements would show a specific bias in how the Government chooses to implement certain aspects of the partnership agreements and allows other parts wither on the vine. This could be particularly true of agreements that have been entered into with the community and voluntary sector, which I had the privilege of representing on the National Economic and Social Council. There appears to be a hierarchy, not only in terms of some partners being more equal than others but in the agreements entered into with each and the priorities given with regard to how these are implemented. There are political realities in this. Wage elements and issues concerning IBEC in particular are given some precedence.
The Government has not followed through on many points of agreements in successive social partnership processes. Ironically, these would mainly fall under the social justice element, which appears to be the only area in which Members of the Oireachtas have a peripheral involvement in terms of making a comment. However, they have little influence on it.
A real social partnership agreement should contain the actors mentioned by Deputy Bruton in his opening contribution. I make a special case for environmental actors. The hoots of derision coming from the Government benches during Leaders' Questions shows the degree of ignorance that exists on many of the important environmental issues that we face as a society and economy over the next few decades. The absence of people interested in those issues who have a relevant expertise is leading to flawed national policy making. This is why we as Members of the Dáil need to be more involved in this process. Without this involvement, bad policies and decisions will become apparent.
In terms of the information made available on the partnership process, I ask that we not only have the normal distribution of information on how a social partnership agreement is proceeding, but that we adopt the same mechanisms as the social partners. A vote must occur within the ICTU, IBEC and individual organisations of groups before any agreement is reached. This applies to the community and voluntary sector as well.
The one place where no vote occurs on social partnership agreements, especially in recent years, is in this Chamber. How can any agreement with such an enormous impact on economic and social policy in this country be allowed to develop without being discussed in the Dáil and being subject to a vote? It is a nonsense. If the Government wishes to treat this House seriously, it must put in place mechanisms leading to the Dáil being intimately involved in the workings of social partnership. It is in the nature of democracy that those on this side of the Chamber will, on another day, be on that side and the business of Government requires that everybody be involved and informed so that decisions are made in the national interest on the basis of that experience. The Government prefers to hold on to the levers of power and information and to control interaction with the social partners, which is not a good system. We must do better.
I add my support to the amendment proposed by Deputy Bruton. It is a welcome amendment which I hope the Government is prepared to accept. It seeks to place within the functions of the NESC the responsibility of presenting to the Houses of the Oireachtas an assessment of the key strategic challenges relating to the economy and the achievement of social justice. It offers an opportunity for Members of both Houses to properly impact in the resultant debate which they may choose to endorse, but it is equally likely they may wish to offer key and critical amendments. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Members of both Houses, given their extensive experience and broad sense of what constitutes social justice, would identify areas that were being overlooked.
Such an exercise is imperative. It presents an opportunity for transparency and, most importantly, for accountability in the process. Real accountability is not achieved by the current relationship between Government and the various acronyms that exist. We are discussing a Bill that is creating yet another acronym, the NESD, to add to the already confusing array of acronyms such as the NESF, the NESC and the NCPP. In this instance we are being afforded an opportunity to create real accountability, which can only be achieved through the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is an important final assessment before the real work of negotiation on future social partnership arrangements gets under way.
I support the amendment. We have to view it against the background of the relationship heretofore between Government and the NESC, as that is the body which is specifically the subject of the amendment. There is a serious dichotomy between the NESC strategy report, An Investment in Quality: Services, Inclusion and Enterprise and the Government's own self-congratulatory, back-clapping spatial strategy report. Similarly, the NESF report on health services shows the Government has a very poor record in adopting the wise and carefully considered proposals of these important bodies, which are there to inform and assist Government to better carry out its task. That will not be done by continually ignoring the best recommendations and most carefully considered positions these bodies have taken.
Accountability is required. It will not be the panacea for all the ills and deficiencies that I have recounted but unquestionably it would be a good step. I commend the amendment.
I thank Deputies for their contributions. Like others here I also spent some time on the NESF so I am aware of the background to the various points made and understand where they originate. However, we are dealing specifically with the relationship between the National Economic and Social Council and the Government
I cannot agree to the amendment and will explain why, in the hope of achieving a degree of consensus as we do in the process of partnership. Deputy Bruton formerly served in Government in the key economic post of Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, but made no changes to the role of the NESC which, as now, was to advise Government. The distinction must be made between a Government seeking advice from the NESC, which is a representative organisation, and acting on it. As we are often told, we are here to govern.
Broader issues concerning the nature of democracy were raised and, as Chief Whip, I have endeavoured to encourage more debate on a variety of issues, which Opposition Whips will confirm. At the moment a line of reporting exists from the NESC to Government but the Deputy suggests there should be another line to the Oireachtas. I cannot agree to that but the Oireachtas can debate any reports published and express its views, and the material in reports is not binding. However, we cannot involve the Oireachtas in a process before a report is finalised because of the responsibilities we have as a Government.
My party was heavily involved in setting up the process of social partnership and saw it as a good idea though other parties, including Fine Gael, did not agree at the time. Since then, however, it has embraced social partnership, as have all parties. The NESC produces important documents and strategies, and all bodies, such as the NESF and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, are very important for this country. The newest one, the NCPP, is looking closely at how we operate our workplaces from the point of view of innovation, work practices etc. The amount of work it has on stream will be helpful to whichever Government is in power.
The NESC has completed its three-yearly strategic overview of Irish economic and social policy entitled the NESC Strategy 2006: People, Productivity and Purpose, paving the way for negotiations on the successor to Sustaining Progress, in which context it is timely that we are discussing it today. In May 2005 the NESC completed a study entitled The Developmental Welfare State and, in December 2004, a report on housing in Ireland, entitled Performance and Policy. The coming months will see the completion of a study on migration policy, which is well advanced. The NESC will also complete a report on the Lisbon strategy, focusing on the open method of co-ordination, and further studies nearing completion include a study of child poverty and child income support. Work should also commence in 2006 on the Council's first periodic social report and it will make a significant contribution to the knowledge society foresight exercise. The Council will also consider this year how best to address other items in its current work programme, including taxation policy and competition and regulation in networked sectors.
I refer to those examples to emphasise that there are useful reports and strategies to debate. To address the points the Deputy has made I would be more than happy to talk with Opposition Whips and collectively select a number of strategies and reports to debate here in the months ahead. Governments, irrespective of their hue, are there to govern. This body exists to advise the Government and, while I strongly disagree with putting in another layer, I do not suggest that the Members of this House, as public representatives, should not discuss these reports in plenary or committee session.
Having listened to Leaders' and Ministers' Questions, I disagree with the points raised because there are plenty of opportunities for accountability. It is important that this structured issue, which specifically concerns the NESC, goes to Government. That is not to say it should not be debated in this House and I would support such a measure.
I do not know whether the Minister of State is being deliberately obtuse in failing to address the issues raised by the Opposition or if his head is so buried in the sand that he cannot see them. This amendment does not require the NESC to report to the Dáil and that is not at stake. The crucial matter is that, prior to the commencement of negotiations on agreements, a debate should be held in the Dáil on the agenda for social partnerships, a key ingredient of which is the NESC report. We have that report, so there is no question of interfering in its work but we do not hold debates on or bear responsibility for shaping the way in which social partnership develops, even though we have been elected by the citizens and have a genuine mandate which should influence Government policy. Ministers want to ignore the Oireachtas to continue dealing with these issues behind closed doors by means of an unaccountable system.
I agree that ten years ago we might have changed this but, while the past decade has seen dramatic transformations, we have not effectively addressed partnership in areas of change. Ten years ago, people believed social partnership was successful because it focused on a narrow range of matters, such as, employment, public debt and competitiveness. However, current issues are much broader, concerning the environment, consumers and public reform. These are areas in which the Government has failed to deliver and in which partnership has not had the necessary impetus for reform. A mature change is needed in terms of the way this system operates so that we can build on the strengths of partnership and give a real role to the people who are elected with a mandate. The Minister of State deliberately chose to ignore all those issues in his reply and is pretending that we are trying to interfere with the way the NESC produces reports.
We can have a debate. The Deputy is misreading what I said.
That is not the intention of this amendment. The Minister of State deliberately ignored all references to social partnership and pretended that the debate here merely concerned the relationship between the Government and the NESC. We have been debating the need to change the way in which partnership works through making it more dynamic, answerable to the people and willing to confront difficult issues. If the Minister of State thinks the Government is confronting these issues, I would ask him to look at this document. I do not believe he has read it because, if he had, he would see the sorts of challenges that face us, challenges which the Government is not addressing. The Oireachtas could have a real role in creating a more dynamic process.
The Minister of State let himself down in his reply to this debate and I wish he would reflect on the matter. There is no point in the Government sending in a Minister of State who has no capacity to make changes. He may have been given certain directions and instructed not to concede this point. If this Oireachtas operates in that manner, he is not responding adequately to the Dáil. We cannot have Ministers of State who do not have genuine authority to debate the issues put before them because that is not good enough.
With all due respect to Deputy Bruton, I have attempted to meet him half way by suggesting that this side of the House has no difficulty with holding debates on specific strategies arising from any NESC report. I referred to some of the important work being done by the council and I have no problem with that. Short of putting this into legislation, we have a process for agreeing Dáil business and, if in terms of holding debates, I have no difficulty with that.
If he read the legislation, he would know it does not merely concern holding debates about NESC reports. It is about shaping the way partnership develops, not about debating reports.
If, in my capacity as Government Chief Whip, I can help this House by giving it greater involvement in some of these issues and by allowing public representatives to debate them here or in committee, I will do so. I am not in such a position because, as the Deputy is aware, the reports are not binding but represent viewpoints which act as a background to negotiations. A committee of the Dáil can, obviously, express its views but that is as far as I can go. I acted reasonably by going some way toward addressing the concerns expressed by the Deputy. If he wishes to push it, that is fine.
Of course I will push it. We are not trying to hold another debate on the NESC strategy on housing. We are not looking for another debate on the reports on the welfare system or on the housing system, even if they are exciting and raise important issues that are not addressed by Government strategy, nor on the reports challenging the way we think about the environment and our capacity, as governing entities and communities, to address issues. I want serious efforts to be made by the partnership to address those challenges and to put them up in red lights. We are here with a mandate and I do not want to leave this House at the end of my career knowing that these issues exist but were ignored by the Government and the social partnership.
The Oireachtas has a role in creating the impetus because we represent citizens rather than interest groups and our job is to hold the Government accountable for the way in which it does its business and the partnership accountable for the issues it addresses. That is our role. We are seeking to exercise our rights, not to hold debates on a Friday afternoon about worthy reports which will have no influence on Government or the partnership process. We want to stake out ground for the Oireachtas by shaping the development of partnership. We want a proper and mature relationship with the social partners which benefits those who partake in the partnership, as well as our electors. Let us not forget that many people are disillusioned with partnership. Small businesses feel they are not represented by IBEC. Rank and file union members feel disenfranchised. Consumers, users of public services and environmental interest groups feel that their voices are never heard.
The Minister of State, by attempting to deflect these real issues into a few more debates on a Friday afternoon about NESC reports, has deliberately misinterpreted the remarks of speakers from this side of the House. I will not delay the House because I do not believe he has the authority to concede on this, even if we succeeded in persuading him on it. It is not acceptable to conduct debates in such a manner. These are important issues and someone should be present who has the capacity to make decisions when we want to put forward amendments.
I thank my colleagues on the Opposition benches for their support of this amendment. It is an important one but, as others have noted, it represents the start of a process and will need to be complemented in many other ways. This issue is of sufficient importance to require a division of the House.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 72.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, James.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Gormley, John.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Gerard.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Malley, Tim.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Neville and Broughan; Níl, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 11 is an alternative to amendment No. 10 and they will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 10, lines 9 and 10, to delete all words from and including "chairperson" in line 9 down to and including "appointment" in line 10 and substitute the following:
"chairman of the Office shall not be less than 2 years and not more than 5 years".
The purpose of the amendment is to make the term of office for the chairperson of the office, as defined in section 13(3), consistent with that of the chairperson of the other bodies. The chairperson may be re-appointed after his or her term is completed.
I accept the amendment. The Labour Party amendment sought to ensure limitation on the time of office of the chairman but this amendment has limited it to five years.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 10:
In page 10, line 9, to delete "chairman" and insert "chairperson".
Amendment to amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 10, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 11 to 13, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 15 is an alternative to amendment No. 14 and they will be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 13, line 6, to delete "1963 to 2003".
This amendment was proposed on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel. Following the enactment of the Interpretation Act 2005, it is not necessary to be specific in terms of defining years in the Companies Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 13, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"(8) A disqualification pursuant to an order of a court referred to in subsection (7)(d), (f), (g) or (h) shall not take effect until the ordinary time for appealing against any such order has expired, or if an appeal is lodged within that time, until any such appeal, or a further appeal therefrom is determined.”.
This amendment would permit the usual opportunity to appeal a decision that would disqualify a person from membership of a body. The Minister of State said the paragraphs referred to final situations anyway but this is wrong in law. A clause similar to the amendment is set out in other legislation, such as the Electoral Act 1992. This clause was necessary as a conviction stands pending an appeal. The Minister of State's comment in committee, therefore, was misleading if it suggested that a disqualification would not operate even though an appeal was pending.
The official position is that all the situations in section 18(7)(a) to (h) deal with circumstances that have occurred and are regarded as final solutions. I would not consider that the section needs to be amended in the way proposed. If a matter has not been resolved and an appeal mechanism is still in operation, the matter is not finalised and the section would not come into effect. It is not drafted as in other similar legislation because it is taken in these cases that the full legal procedure has taken place. I will take the Deputy on good faith and ask my officials to check the Electoral Act 1992. I have no difficulty in accepting the amendment because it does not make any substantial difference to what we are trying to achieve.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 13, to delete lines 30 to 32 and substitute the following:
"(13) Not less than 40 per cent of the members of a Body shall be men and not less than 40 per cent shall be women.".
This amendment will ensure there is equality of representation between women and men so that at least 40% of members of the body shall be men and 40% shall be women.
This is the quango of quangos, it brings all the other quangos involved in social partnership together, and it is extraordinary that the Government would not rush to embrace a situation where, given the bodies and people party to the partnership process, we would not need to keep an eye on the number of women to be on these bodies, and we could look naturally for strong representation from men and women, with at least 40% of each.
The Government has a poor record of promoting equal participation of women in bodies under its control. Following long arguments with the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, the position in the financial sector improved marginally. However, the proportion of women on many bodies is 20% or less. We are still at a stage when Ministers seek to appoint to bodies a couple of women who may have come to their attention through party organisations. It is unacceptable that this should be the case in the type of economy we now have and at a time when women participate at every level of society, whether at home, in the workplace or through caring agencies.
It is difficult to argue for this amendment in the House given that it ranks close to the bottom of the international league in terms of the proportion of women in Parliament and that the major Government party, Fianna Fáil, has few women in its ranks. Unless women are strongly represented, one will not enjoy the full benefit of their participation, advice and expertise.
In commenting on neglected areas of public policy such as the crisis in the provision of housing, particularly for those who could traditionally acquire social housing, I was not trying to start a debate. The quango structure the Taoiseach is establishing to facilitate social partnership is meant to be representative of the whole population. There is no reason at least 50% of the body's members should not be women. It would be a cause of considerable surprise if only four or five of its members, who will number approximately 100, were men. People would sit up and ask what was going on, while Kevin Myers would have a rush of blood to the head and worry that men were losing out in society.
The amendment seeks only that the quango structure include a critical mass of women from all strands of life. I cannot understand the reason the Government will not agree to this proposal. While I accept it could cause some soul searching and necessitate looking beyond the party lists to find candidates, there are many lists of non-affiliated women who are available and willing to assume such roles. Why should candidates have party affiliations when women are involved in many organisations throughout the country?
Although the Minister of State is undoubtedly sympathetic to the objective of the amendment, it is time to recognise in legislation the need for significant numbers of women to be active in the policy formulation process.
I support the amendment and Deputy Burton has articulated the reasons for tabling it. The Deputy has consistently introduced amendments to provide for the introduction of similar arrangements to apply to various bodies which come before the House. Although the Government should accept these kinds of provisions, it has consistently failed to do so.
I support the amendment. Unfortunately, those elements of nominating bodies, including the Government, which should be most flexible in achieving the goals set out in the proposal tend to be the least responsive. I was a member of the National Economic and Social Council, which is composed of five nominees from each of the five representative pillars, namely, IBEC, ICTU, the farming sector, the community and voluntary sector and Departments. From my recollection, the representatives of IBEC and the farming pillar were all male, those of the ICTU pillar were 80% male and those of the community and voluntary pillar were 60% female. As there are only two female Secretaries General in government service, just 20% of the Government representatives were female, with the sole woman representative an assistant secretary general in the Department of the Taoiseach. The Government was invariably represented by Secretaries General from key economic Ministries. Strangely, the community and voluntary pillar came under the greatest pressure to increase its female membership as a means of boosting the overall proportion of female members on the NESC, despite the fact that three of its five representatives were female.
Not only should the figure set out in the amendment be attained for the new body but the social partners and, specifically, the Government must provide evidence to show they are prepared to meet gender balance targets such as that set out in the amendment. Perhaps the amendment needs to be strengthened in some respects given that the experience to date has been that these sectors have not been prepared to work towards this goal.
I support Deputy Burton's amendment. The arguments for moving towards and accepting gender equality have been articulated in the House time and again. The Government has continuously kicked to touch, showing a sympathy with the aspiration but no willingness to take on board the concrete, practical stepsthat would facilitate such a transition. The House has an opportunity to address the matter with regard to the various bodies to which the Bill refers. The Government should grasp this opportunity to ensure that men and women make up at least 40% of the membership of any and all of the bodies in question. If it transpires that 60% of the membership of any or all of them are women, all the better.
We need to create opportunities and platforms to give people access and allow them to play their part to their full potential in the broad interest of civic society. That can best be reflected in terms of the roles envisaged for the various bodies, not only in the interest of civic society but in helping to guide Government in the broad interest of society and its needs.
While I agree with the sentiments behind the amendment, as I indicated on Committee Stage the difficulty with the proposal is that it is not practical. I am confident, however, that we can work towards achieving the excellent balance referred to in the Bill. As Deputies will be aware, appointments to a body may not always be at the discretion of the Government because they may be nominated by representative bodies. I have encountered such cases in other Ministries and Deputies with experience of ministerial office will have been in a similar position. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.
I undertook on Committee Stage to ask the Taoiseach to write to nominating bodies to convey the views of the select committee on the matter of gender balance. A letter to this effect issued on 31 August 2005, a copy of which I will make available to any Deputy who wishes one. I have endeavoured to follow up on the comments made on Committee Stage when the amendment was not pressed. I hope we will achieve gender balance as a result of the initiative taken by the Taoiseach.
While I thank the Minister of State for following up on the matter, it is not acceptable that it should almost unthinkingly be the case that, as Deputy Boyle described, many of the key participating bodies have low female representation or no women members on their delegations.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.