Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I have listened to the debate with great interest and wish Members would have the same interest in the social partnership process as they always have when it comes towards a conclusion.

I have raised this issue time and again and during peace time while no negotiations were taking place. On at least three occasions in the past year I asked in this House for a process to be established whereby the Houses would have an involvement in the process of national partnership negotiations. The matter was considered by the Seanad reform committee and is currently under consideration by the committee established by the Government to examine the implementation of Seanad reform. Both committees wrote to the Department of the Taoiseach on the issue and we have had three communications from that Department, all affirming that the Department would be more than happy to facilitate whatever level of discussion Oireachtas Members require on the social partnership.

I also raised the issue of regular reports as a member of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. This too was brought to the attention of the Department of the Taoiseach and Dermot McCarthy, the Secretary General of the Department, replied in positive and open terms that it was prepared to do that.

Senator Ryan's suggestion that the members of the forum should form a committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas is interesting and makes sense. However, the reality is — this will not suit anybody outside the Government parties — that when an agreement in which people have played a part is made, it is written in blood and everybody is tied into it. That would not be of much help to Opposition or non-Government Members.

It is no party defending a national programme or partnership, as generally a programme will find more opposition than otherwise. Members were in a comfortable position in terms of defending the issue of benchmarking, although it was criticised at all levels, particularly by those benefiting from it who were barely convinced they should accept it. Convincing people of the benefit is one of the great difficulties.

Senator Ryan made the point that it was not the beneficiaries, the unions nor the negotiators who wanted to keep the basis on which benchmarking was done a secret. The private sector, which provided the information to the benchmarking body which enabled it to establish the benchmarks, did so only on the basis that it would not be made available to anybody else. It was not made available to the trade union negotiators. I tried to get and argued for access to those papers many times, but they were not made available. One of the problems of negotiations is that there is always this cloak of confidentiality.

I have raised this issue with the trade unions and with the farmers' representatives. They are happy, and I am sure IBEC would be too, to come and discuss their issues at the start of a programme. I agree with the point made by Senator Brian Hayes about the Government setting out its strategic objectives. That would be useful and helpful.

Something which is not understood about the partnership process is who is represented at the talks. Perhaps Deputy Kitt should arrange for a photograph to be taken of the different groups represented before they leave. I defy anybody to name a voluntary, social or community group not represented at the talks or without a strong voice there. However, the only people the media and politicians in general are interested in are the trade unions, IBEC and the Government. The other groups are represented and need to be there.

Everybody I know involved in partnership, the Government, the trade unions, the social and community pillar, the farmers and IBEC, is in favour of involving the Oireachtas as far as possible, but nothing comes of that. If people are involved, they are tied into the outcome to some extent. There is nothing wrong with the points put forward by Senator Brian Hayes, but when people go to Government Buildings to discuss the issue, it is not just Oireachtas Members who are not involved. Every shop steward in the country would also like to be there to represent his or her union. However, the reality is that trade union members elect their representatives and it is they who go to the talks. The same is true for the business and farming communities and the many bodies in the social and community pillar. These groups elect people such as Fr. Seán Healy as their spokespersons. These various groups say that we do the same, and that we elect the Government and send it to the talks on our behalf. They would argue strongly that the strongest representation is the representation by the Members of these Houses. Senator Brian Hayes's argument, which is not without merit, is that only the Government side is represented. That is a fair point.

There should be discussion in these Houses on partnership issues as they arise and develop. I would be in favour of being involved in such discussion. I have pleaded for it time and time again. Nobody is opposing it, but it just does not seem to fit the business of the Houses or the committees. It is not very sexy to be dealing with an issue that is not the subject of significant media interest. I do not know where we can get to. I completely agree and have no problem with the strategic framework, which is normally very public anyway. The process is built on that basis.