Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

The amendments are largely technical in nature and there is no reason for the House to divide. They will be widely accepted but they show, as other speakers have said, a continuing flaw that lies at the heart of the Bill and the structure that is being proposed in that the proper involvement of the Members of the Oireachtas in the partnership process is not being properly acknowledged in legislation. I speak as one who was a member of the National Economic and Social Council. My last meeting was on the day of the general election in 2002 and because I was elected that day, I was obliged to resign. I did not have a choice in the matter.

It is curious that the main set of amendments arising from the Seanad, as the Minister of State has acknowledged, came from Senator Ryan who recognised the huge dichotomy that existed between clauses that restrict Members of the Oireachtas from being involved in bodies such as those mentioned in the Bill, while at the same time there is one body, the National Economic and Social Forum, that is very much part of the Bill and of which Members of the Oireachtas are a constituent part. While that kind of double-think is going on, this is a structure that will continue not to interact properly with elected representatives.

There is a job of work to be done in explaining all the constituent parts. Even after my own membership of the National Economic and Social Council, I am at a loss to know what the Centre for Partnership does. It has never been properly explained in all the debates in this House or analysed in subsequent committees of the House. We are very clear on what the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum are about and they play valuable roles in informing debate. That debate could be better informed and wider and more interactive if more actors were involved.

The only other point I would make in this limited debate is that there is Dáil acknowledgement of the national partnership agreement. We have been promised a debate in the House and that there will be a motion surrounding such a debate. As legislators we should insist that such partnership agreements can only come into effect after a vote in this House, that it is not only a matter for the Executive, especially when there are areas in this agreement that are meant to be binding for ten years, which potentially and most probably will cover the lifetimes of other Governments. On those grounds all Members should be involved in such decision making. It is not likely we will have such a debate until October, by which time the main social partners, ICTU and IBEC, will have had their decision-making processes. It is a matter to which the Government should give consideration as the first business of the House when it returns at the end of September or early October, namely, a formalisation of the role the House should play in such agreements in the future.

See this speech in context