Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

I thank the Taoiseach for bringing this document to the Houses. It is extraordinary that we are setting out programmes for the next decade when the Dáil never had any role in Sustaining Progress. There was no prior debate on the framework within which it should be negotiated, no discussion on its proposals, no adoption or ratification by Parliament and no monitoring report of the numerous commitments and programmes agreed. There is an unhealthy relationship between the social partnership foundation that is so important to the economy and the parliamentary system, which is equally vital. Anyone who has looked at arrangements over the past years will notice the dismal failure to create a bridge between social partnership and the Oireachtas.

Social partnership was born out of crisis and has been an important vehicle for unity of purpose across employers and trade unions and, gradually, a wider initiative. This was underpinned by the political initiative of Alan Dukes, the Tallaght strategy, which offered a level of social partnership within the political system to a Government dealing with intractable problems. At its birth, Parliament had a role in social partnership but this has decreased. The Oireachtas has been entirely eclipsed in its role in contributing to decisions on the distribution of scarce resources and legislation. Very few interest groups will approach parliamentarians for assistance with a major struggle about an important decision. Instead, they will go up the back stairs to meet Ministers and use monitor groups and steering group meetings within the partnership system. That is an unhealthy development. Major decisions on the distribution of available resources should be resolved primarily in these Houses. This is not a criticism of social partnership but of the way it has developed.

The basic institutional framework of social partnership provides an example. There are two implementation bodies, four research agencies, nine high-level policy committees and four major progress reports delivered each year. That presents a stark contrast to the support available to the Oireachtas for democratically elected representatives to deliver their mandate in crucial areas of decision making. We must examine developing a proper relationships between the institutions of social partnership and the Oireachtas.

I am disappointed the Taoiseach did not take this opportunity to do so. This debate is welcome but is merely a debate of one hour at the end of the process. It offers no real basis for participation by the Oireachtas in the next ten year strategy. We need a role in how the agenda is set. It is predominantly set by the NESC, which does much good work. As elected representatives we should be able to shape the agenda of partnership.

We must also have a role in the development proposals. The heads of Bills are supposed to be presented to Oireachtas committees so they can have an input at an early stage. This has been done in only two cases. There is no sense that the Government shares with Parliament as it does with social partners. This was clear in the debate on employment protection. No attempt was made to reach consensus in this House on the matter. All debate took place between employers and trade unions.

Members of the Oireachtas represent civil society in its broadest sense. Those at social partnership talks represent vested interests. This term may imply criticism but they come from a particular angle and represent a particular group of people. We must make sure those with a broader mandate have greater participation.

Social partnership has been successful in many areas and was important in dealing with runaway debt and leapfrogging pay claims that caused inflation when Ireland was losing jobs hand over fist. It had a strategic role at that stage but has been less successful at dealing with the current reform agenda. It comes as no surprise that the social partnership model dominated by producer interests, namely Government, trade union or employer interests, has not addressed the needs of consumers. At a basic level, we see this where consumers feel disenfranchised and ripped off. We have been slow to open markets and the interests of those in markets have dominated public thinking rather than the interests of consumers, who are not represented at the social partnership table.

This Government resorted to stealth taxes after the last election. Consumers were seen as the soft touch because they were not represented in the partnership model. It was easy to impose higher charges on them. The Labour Party recently produced a document detailing 50 examples of stealth taxes.

Our pattern of housing development has been described as dysfunctional by the NESC. The interests of producers and developers have had an influence rather than the consumer, the first-time buyer or the family seeking housing with decent facilities such as schools and health services. The special development zone, a good concept of balanced development, has been used only once, in Adamstown, to achieve balanced housing development. Our dysfunctional housing system is vulnerable and is not providing the standard of service we require. We cannot blame this on social partnership but the ears of this Government are open only to some.

In the privatisation of Eircom, the interests of the workers and the State were looked after but those who had retired were given no recognition for building up the asset. The consumer was forgotten and the punter who bought the shares failed miserably. The scheme may have served some insiders and the Government but it did not cater for the national interest. Members on both sides of the House agree this was badly planned. We must learn from this and ensure we do not hear only those represented at the table.

It is disappointing that social partnership has not focused on public service reform. Everyone knows this is a key issue. The Government has spent a considerable sum on health but people feel discontent. Many of the working practices in the health system must change. They are holding back capacity to deliver to the front line. Partnership, however, has stepped back and not addressed them. It has not helped to create the momentum.

The Taoiseach correctly said recently that consultants are tough negotiators and will not give up contracts. If we accept that this is a key obstacle that must be moved, we must enlist the support of the broadest base to insist that this change and to face down the vested interests wherever they are found. That has been missing in social partnership. We have not faced down vested interests in the public service to ensure we get delivery to the front line. That is why people have been disappointed. They still see laboratories working for only certain hours of the day and consultants not being in accident and emergency departments when they are needed to make critical decisions about discharge, retention or admission. These issues afflict our capacity to deliver services.

We still have not put performance accountability into the public service systems. The unions in the education sector, for example, have not yet conceded the obligation to have proper accountability at school level. We are moving away from the level of accountability that must be in place to achieve best practice standards in education and other areas. The key issue in this regard is public service reform.

Fine Gael was first to point out that benchmarking would be paid without getting the reform to match it. We urged that it not be paid until that reform was in place. Looking back on that process many people now agree that we were absolutely right. The Government had not pushed the reform agenda. No union was forced to go beyond any difficult existing position. One did not hear screams from any group that benchmarking was asking it to deliver too much change. If it was a serious programme of reform, it would have caused that. We must ensure that we create a public service that is achieving the highest professional standards and is seeking to achieve best practice.

That is what benchmarking is about — achieving best practice in the delivery of education, health and so forth. Personnel are then paid because they are delivering best practice. That was the hidden ingredient. It was not simply a dead process of looking at comparative pay, estimating the gap and paying it. It was supposed to be about examining what is done in successful organisations and moving the public service organisation to do the same. That is what benchmarking must be about if it is to continue.

Under this agreement, it is due to continue. I welcome its continuation but it must be based on the Government establishing a real agenda of reform. Scarcely was benchmarking paid on the last occasion when we heard the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform state that the way prisons were run had to be reformed and the Minister for Health and Children saying that the administration of hospitals had to be reformed. However, those reforms were not included in the benchmarking negotiations to secure such change when the opportunity presented, an opportunity with a €1.3 billion price tag.

We must develop social partnership so it has the opportunity to confront the serious challenges we face. Those challenges must be put on the agenda and the voices of consumers and users of public services must be heard. We must also hear the voices of families who are being squeezed, whether they are first-time buyers or are trying to cope with child care or the many other pressures families must endure. We must hear the concerns of communities. The Taoiseach correctly pointed out that community is struggling to survive in the new, dysfunctional housing environment that has been created. That must be addressed but it is not being addressed sufficiently through the partnership process. I believe we must retain and develop partnership and make it confront the greater challenges that exist.

I welcome the life cycle debate that has been opened in this partnership agreement. I have long believed that we do not take note of the pressures on people. Our welfare system has largely been based on the old set up of the breadwinner being a man, the woman being at home and all the State had to deal with was unemployment and sickness. The truth is, however, that for families trying to cope with the difficult task of rearing children in the current tough environment, we must develop far more sophisticated interventions and supports. I welcome that element of the agreement and the NESC has been far-seeing in pushing for it.

My time is concluded. Fifteen minutes is not enough to do justice to what is supposed to be the start of a ten-year strategy but I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on it.

See this speech in context