Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

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.

See this speech in context