Joe O'Toole (Independent)

The most important aspect of social partnership is that it has delivered. I agree with the points made by speakers about how much it has delivered and that questions arise. However, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves, particularly at a time when people criticise society and what we have achieved, of where we were in 1987 before this process began. In 1987, we had a debt to GNP ratio of 150%, emigration was running at 40,000 a year, there were no jobs for people here and approximately 18% were unemployed. We talk now about the cost of houses. People were struggling with mortgage interest rates of between 14% and 15% at a time when inflation figures were astronomical, sometimes in the high single figures, and strikes were running at something like one day per year for every three workers, which is now one day per year for one in every 20 workers. There is no comparison.

We can argue the rights and wrongs. Senator Ross will stand up to speak shortly and rant about how bad social partnership is but he will not answer the question as to how we should share the wealth in this country. It is the one common denominator between the hard right and the hard left. We can ask them how we should share the profit or the wealth we have created but we will not get an answer.

Senator Ross will tell us all that is wrong with social partnership. However, he will not tell us how we should share the wealth because he comes from the time before social partnership. At that time we had all the bad news I have just outlined. We have now discovered that the people for whom those opposed to social partnership will speak had their offshore accounts and were moving money in all directions. We were being screwed left, right and centre by the people who were supposed to be the models in our society at the time. We should remind ourselves of that fact.

Within an economy there must be a beginning and an end. The beginning is the creation of wealth and the end is the sharing of the wealth. How can we do that in a fair way? What is the rule or the formula? How do we move it forward? That is what social partnership is about. When we create the wealth, for whom is it created? Who gets the money we create in the economy? If we get richer, how do we share the wealth? Should it stay with the entrepreneurs, the marketeers, the bankers, the builders and all those important people whom we could not trust all those years ago or do we look to the common good?

We must look to the common good where the entrepreneur, the banker and the marketeer will get their share, as will the people in our society who are dependent and in poverty and who need support. Finding that balance is what social partnership is about; it is not rocket science. It is a question of looking at people who cannot get houses or jobs and looking at those who have houses and jobs and marrying them together in a fair and equitable fashion. That is what social partnership is about and it is no more than that.

In terms of how we deliver on that objective, the Government is elected to govern. One of the great conundrums in the area of social partnership has been the so-called democratic deficit. There is no democratic deficit. What happens in social partnership is a model people talk about time and again, namely, real consultation.

I will tell the House what happens in social partnership. We were all brought into a room last Thursday in which there is a big, wide, square table. Along one side of it sit the industrialists and the business people. Along another side sit the members of the farming community. The labour and trade union representatives sit along another side and the voluntary and community groups sit on another side. They are the people who work for nothing in many cases and who support those who need help. They do everything from dealing with people with disability or special needs to problems of poverty, housing, unemployment, etc.

All those people sit around the table and the Government representatives listen to them but the crucial point that is always missed is that the others have to listen to each other also. The hardline trade unionist must listen to the industrialist or the small shopkeeper. The small shopkeeper must listen to the views of regulation from the other side. The farming community has to listen to comments about pollution from the trade union side or the voluntary and community sector. All three have to listen to the farmers talking about their plight in these hard times. They are forced to listen.

The Minister of State should know — I should have welcomed him at the outset — that what is important about this approach is that those four groups are used to being in their own meeting rooms talking to their own crowd about their own issues and getting wild applause for saying what everyone in the room agrees with. This is the first time they have had to listen to the rest of the people. That is what is good about social partnership. It is a civic forum where people are forced to listen and engage in argument with those who have a completely different point of view. That is what we need to do. It is then about fairness and how we move that on.

In terms of doing that, how do we approach the process? We have to examine the economic indicators. We have to convince people on the labour side who have a strong view that anybody who creates wealth is not to be trusted. We have to convince such people that unless wealth is created, there will be nothing to share out and to do that the economic indicators have to be right. To do that we have to take certain measures and examine issues like inflation, the creation of employment, regulation, taxation, etc.

Somebody like me, therefore, would make the argument, as I have done across the table to the Government side, that corporation tax is too low in terms of what we need to deliver for education and health. I have to listen to the other side telling me that since it was reduced, the tax take has been increased and we have managed to invest it here, there and elsewhere, and we argue out the point. That engagement must take place because it is crucial.

In terms of what we are looking for, what will we pay people out of this process? It is not rocket science. Let us say annual inflation will run at approximately 3% and growth at approximately 5.5%. Eventually, the figure for a salary increase will be somewhere between 3% and 5% and that figure will determine the share out. Inflation erodes the gain in wealth, so that it is how one determines the share-out and what is helpful, good and useful. This can only be achieved if people talk to and engage with each other in terms of ensuring there is fairness. I just want to put matters into context to allow Senator Ross to have his injection of negativity.