Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)

Is mian liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit agus buíochas a ghabháil leis toisc an léirithe a thug sé dúinn ar an mBille seo. Ní gá dom a rá go n-aontaím go hiomlán le gach rud a dúirt sé. Tá sé ciallmhar, bunúsach agus níl aon amhras faoi ná go mbaineann sé leis an stádas atá ag an tír seo i láthair na huaire ó thaobh cúrsaí eacnamaíochta agus sóisialta de.

There are many in this House who are old enough to remember the bad old days. When we travelled abroad, the perception of us was that our begging bowl was seldom far from the table. We should not forget that people threw around labels such as "banana republic" and "deprivation."

Last year, I visited Shanghai where together with our consul general I met with a top local official who had high praise for Ireland. Shanghai has a population of 20 million people, yet the chairman of its foreign affairs office, a position which is almost the equivalent of prime minister, told us that the city had much to learn from Ireland. On St. Patrick's Day, I visited Latvia, where the Irish ambassador and I held an open session with the mayor. Shortly after our welcome, we were told that, as a new EU member state, Latvia has much to learn from Ireland's accomplishments. On Easter Sunday, I met with 300 members of the Irish community in New York. I remember going to America in the late 1960s, when dollars were being collected to send to Ireland. The debate on my most recent visit, however, was about Ireland's economic success and what the change in the country's image means for the Irish in America.

That success does not pertain only to economic or social affairs. Our international status has become what it is today because we have proved ourselves. That has impacted on many aspects of Irish life, none more so than the Northern Ireland situation, which was our Achilles heel on many occasions. If we had not taken centre stage in world and, especially, European affairs, the President of the United States would not have had a hands-on role in trying to bring about a solution to the Northern problem. Those problems also had economic aspects because, as anyone who dealt with foreign tourism bodies could explain, an incident in the North of Ireland could undo an advertising campaign just as progress was about to be made.

Today's Bill is another milestone on a phenomenal road of success and progress. I accept Senator Brian Hayes's argument that its passage has been slow but that has not detracted from the work of the three constituent bodies in any way. It is important to remember this Bill fulfils a commitment given under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. I was interested to hear the points made by Senator Hayes, some of which were also raised by Senator McHugh on the Order of Business. They implied that the job of Government is not to govern but governance is fundamental to democracy and is the reason Governments and taoisigh exist. It would be wrong to suggest that interaction does not take place because hardly a week goes by in which Senator Ross does not expound on many of the ideas raised by Senator Brian Hayes. In turn, Senator O'Toole, who represents the trade union movement, puts the other side of the argument. These issues are discussed in virtually every Bill pertaining to the economy that comes before the House.

It is not right to use the word "quango" in the way it was used by Senator Brian Hayes. When the National Economic and Social Council was established in 1973, the Government took an important step in terms of engaging on a broader basis with people who were focused on the national economy. The advisory body employed people who were in touch with reality and were the best in their fields. That did not detract from the role of parliamentarians in any way and actually extended the role of the Oireachtas. Had the partnership model not been developed, the country would have experienced constant industrial strife. What investor would be attracted to a country riddled by strikes?

I come from the small town of Cashel, which has a population of 3,000. Every time the opportunity arose of attracting a new industry to the town, we put together a business formula. After a while, I discovered that prospective investors knew more about us than we realised and subsequently learned that they studied local newspapers to investigate whether Cashel's environment was fertile for their industries. Wherever there was an overemphasis on industrial action, they fought shy because they realised that problems would arise down the road. Investors no longer have to buy local newspapers because modern technology allows them to receive reports on a minute-by-minute basis. However, it is still the case that prospective investors will not risk their money if the environment is not conducive to growth.

We have succeeded in that strikes are virtually an issue of the past. When threats of strike action previously arose, everybody went to the wall but these threats are now dealt with through the structures we have developed. While we all knew that a solution had to be found, we only did so after the damage had been done. Invariably, workers suffered because strike pay did not compensate them for loss of money. Generally, they returned to somewhat improved employment conditions but the damage done by the strike meant the workplace was less able to cope. Through our structures, the confidence we built and, above all, the trust that currently exists, the bad old days are in the distant past. I give credit for this to the visionaries who established the first body.

The establishment of the National Economic and Social Forum in the 1990s sent out the statement that great progress had been made but that more people had to be brought into the process. Contrary to the arguments of Senator Brian Hayes, the net has in fact been spread to allow more people to interact with each other within the forum. This step favoured the worker by supporting the changes needed within the workplace. Progress was made, people were given opportunities to interact and the process reached ground level. Changes have taken place in all Irish workplaces at all levels. For example, aberrations in health and safety, which are fundamental, make the headlines because they are so few and far between. Issues such as sexual harassment and equal opportunity have been addressed. The new body, the NCCP, will address the few issues remaining on the priority list. Not only have these three elements contributed to our current affluence but they also ensure that the social element will at all times be to the fore.

I do not know how many people go back on bóithrín na smaointe and compare like with like. We are pushing out the parameters from a base of unprecedented success but when we look back at ten or 20 years ago we do not compare like with like. With the new body bringing the three constituent bodies together into one office I can understand why that commitment was sought at the time and why it was readily provided.

According to economic forecasts we look forward to another three or four good years, but nothing remains static. There will be new competition from eastern Europe and others. If we remain static and just pat ourselves on the back we will not see the dangers and opportunities that might arise in a year or two. We have not lost many industries as a result of the opening up of the EU but we have lost some and may lose more, largely due to our success, the level of wages and work conditions available.

It is important we take account of our situation. While I do not suggest the three constituent bodies have not interacted, there is a need for co-ordination, pooling of resources and a totality in the work they do. I cannot see how anybody would suggest we do not need the bodies. It would be like a layman saying he would take the stones from the foundation of a house and expect it to stand. It will not. If any of the bodies, quango or otherwise, is removed, we would endanger the process.

The Bill allows the Taoiseach to be Taoiseach. He is the Leader of the Government and the country. Members of the Houses and the media hold taoisigh to account for everything they do, and rightly so. To suggest, as it would mean, that he should abdicate his responsibilities and powers, which he has by mandate from the people through the elected representatives and the creation of the Government, would be a negation of democracy. That is why I refer to what Senator McHugh said this morning about the Progressive Democrats having the Ministry for health and children because it is a small party. That is not how government works. It is not about numbers but the responsibility placed on them by being in government. The only way the Taoiseach can govern is by ensuring he has full accountability and responsibility.

Let us examine the Oireachtas committees. This is important. The powers, responsibilities and opportunities of the Oireachtas committees are possibly the most expansive in the world. Many a country, those with existing as well as developing legislatures, will study our model in the future. Every day of the week the committees sit and deal with Government business handed down to them by the Houses of the Oireachtas and they have the power to invite witnesses to appear before them. Any of the bodies listed here can be asked to come before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

It has been suggested that trade unionists and businesses are under-represented. The democratic structure has always been that one joins an association, elects a leadership, agrees a constitution and tells the organisation what are one's views. The leadership of the organisation takes a consensus and promotes that. This is what IBEC and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions do. There is no other way except to go back to the fair day when one raises one's hand to say one agrees. We have gone beyond that and it is particularly important not to underestimate how the structures operate.

The Houses of the Oireachtas have a direct input if there are issues in the Bill with which we do not agree. Senator Brian Hayes has proposed some good points. I would not take them from him and I am not trying to score political points. This is not the sort of Bill on which to score political points as fundamentally, we all agree. We have to say something to use up our 15 or 20 minutes and get on the record of the House.