Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

I understand we are taking all the questions on social partnership together. We have asked for the Taoiseach's views on social partnership. I have listened carefully to what the Taoiseach has said and I believe it represents a significant departure from the concept of social partnership as we have known it in recent years. Is the Taoiseach saying today that the concept of social partnership is essentially abandoned and that we are going to evolve to a situation of what we term "social dialogue", the phrase the Taoiseach used in his response? If this is the case, then we need more transparency on this and a clear statement, from a policy perspective, of the new Government in respect of social partnership.

Social partnership is not only a social dialogue with trade unions. It involves a more comprehensive round table approach involving agricultural interests, employers, trade unions, the community and voluntary pillar and contributions and submissions from others. People can argue the merits or de-merits of it. Some people would argue that from 1987, during the last recession, it was a key factor in supporting the recovery of the economy. It is equally arguable that it was not fit for purpose in the latter part of the economic growth period we had prior to this recession. However, if it is the case that a policy departure of some significance is taking place then it should be articulated clearly and comprehensively by the Government. There may be sensitivities with the Labour Party members of Government in this regard.

The Taoiseach used some significant phrases. For example, he stated that the Department of the Taoiseach is no longer solely responsible for social partnership. The Department of the Taoiseach was the cradle of social partnership and it was where social partnership resided in previous Governments in central policy terms. Has this changed now? Is the new Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and the public service now assuming responsibilities in respect of aspect of that? Could we have some clarity on this point? It seems that a significant departure is occurring on a creeping basis but it is not being articulated in any clear way.

See this speech in context