Joe O'Toole (Independent)

There is a great deal of merit in the points which have been made by Senator Brian Hayes. I would like to point out, for the information of the Minister, that I raised this issue the last time we discussed this matter, which I think was in January. I spoke in the House at that time about the issues to which Senator Hayes now refers, namely, strategic economic and social justice challenges. I explained how that is done, how the partnership process is kicked off and what happens on the first day.

The answers are contained in a public document and I asked that it be discussed in this House. I refer to the NESC report, which contains the strategic objectives which have formed the basis of every agreement in which I have been involved. I raised this point in the House four or five months ago and asked for a debate on the report, which subsequently took place. The next step to take place in the first days of the partnership process, during which partners meet in full plenary session, is a presentation by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance regarding the more narrow economic objectives.

Senator Brian Hayes is correct to suggest this issue should be debated and I have asked for such debates in this House. I cannot recall whether the presentations made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance at the early kick-off sessions are publically available. As they are not confidential documents, I suspect they are. From the Government's perspective, these constitute the three documents in which its strategic objectives are set out. This took place in 1987, the early 1990s and throughout the period.

While this Bill has plans for the NESC and the NESF, this is why the NESC report is the basis on which the partnership process is carried out. It is not a three-card trick. However, what happens subsequently is hard to describe because, as Senator Brian Hayes has noted, everything changes, even as one looks at it. It is like a three-card trick, in that while one sees it happening, one cannot see what is happening.

I accept the Senator's point. Although the House has already had a debate on the NESC report, I would welcome a debate on the report, as well as the other two documents. Moreover, the other social partners make their presentations available and they are worth hearing.

However, this boils down to a simple issue regarding the nation's wealth. While I do not wish to coin a 200 year old phrase, this concerns the redistribution of wealth. I have seen a million different ways to approach this issue. I recall discussing a simple way to do so with a former Taoiseach and a former Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach. Can a formula be agreed as to how the wealth of the country should be distributed? In other words, if there is 5% growth, where does it go to? Of course no one wants to get into that. It would be many bridges too far for all concerned and will not be done.

This suggestion does not require an amendment and could and should be done. This House has already had a debate on the NESC report and there could easily have been a debate on the other two documents to which I referred. They do not differ greatly from the Minister for Finance's budget speech. While I have not sought access to them, I do not believe they are confidential documents and they do exist.

I am unsure whether this would advance the cause of transparency very far because after the presentations, everyone gets to grips with the different issues. In one sense, the documents are simply for guidance purposes and in another, they constitute the opening gambit in negotiations. There is no comparison between the original documents and what emerges subsequently. While I do not know how this would help the Houses, I would welcome any debate on any aspect of social partnership. The more people who are involved in such a debate, the greater the visibility of social partnership.

Senator Brian Hayes correctly referred to the nonsensical discussion as to whether we should have social partnership. The issue is not whether we should have social partnership, but concerns its contents. Does it have any benefits? I will repeat a point which I have made three or four times in the House. In simple terms, to see its benefits one should re-run television images of Brussels, Paris, Rome and parts of Germany in the past year, showing public service strikes which entirely closed down all those countries for one to three days. As an aside, the issues involved were the same as those which are under discussion in Ireland today. Members may recall that the issue was pensions in Germany and Italy, while in France the issues concerned pensions and other matters. There were also a variety of other issues such as workers' rights, the protection of workers and the quality of public services. That is how it should be.

All Members agree with a point made by Senator Brian Hayes before I entered the Chamber as to who monitors what is happening. Committees have been established to deal with sectors such as education, health and the Civil Service, in order to monitor the review. Their function is meant to be to prevent payment of the money in the absence of delivery. For example, one month ago, the relevant committee spoke out when it was suggested that the INTO would not support whole school evaluations. The union was immediately told its members would not receive the 2.5% salary rise. Hence, the process works and the connection is clear. This also happened in the health service. Two months ago, people decided not to co-operate with a change and were told that the money would not be forthcoming. It was not the Minister that spoke, but the group that evaluates quality in each sector.

What has partnership achieved? I will give one example, because people assert that our public services are backward and have not done this, that or the other. While it is true that major reforms must be made, in the area of education a completely new curriculum has been introduced at both primary and post-primary levels, with full co-operation and agreement. This has not happened in any other European country, although all have tried to do so. While they have introduced such reforms, they have resulted in war and spilled blood in every one of them.

Moreover, there has been a reorganisation of the school year at both levels. While this may not have been to everyone's satisfaction, it was done. Ministers and secretaries of state for education in other European countries have been unable to introduce whole school evaluations. Some have introduced measures which have caused problems at all levels. Hence, progress is being made.

I accept the point made by Senator Brian Hayes. Matters such as proposed developments and what people get back for their money should be spelled out. Undoubtedly, some people would then assert that having spent €1 billion, we were not getting enough back. However, when €1 billion was spent on benchmarking, the prize, in the words of the previous Minister for Finance, was that there would not be strikes and industrial disputes within the public service. That was the desired prize and the most significant goal. This explains why everyone was rather annoyed and upset by the unofficial rail strike that took place in recent weeks. Members should recall that the first groups to state that such action was wrong and unacceptable were the unions of which those people were part. That is the price of partnership. It is difficult to achieve it and I do not have a problem with Senator Brian Hayes's proposal. However, I wish that a full House discussed such matters.