Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)

I move:

That Seanad Éireann welcomes the proposals for the new social partnership agreement.

On behalf of Senators, I welcome the Taoiseach to the debate on this important issue. The motion is simple, that Seanad Éireann welcomes the proposals for the new social partnership agreement. I am pleased the Taoiseach has come to this House first to debate the agreement. I am sure there will be occasions to discuss it in the other House also.

This is the seventh such agreement. We well remember the first agreement in 1987. The Cathaoirleach will remember we had a mini-debate about it on the Order of Business last week. We recalled the perilous and parlous situation in which the country then found itself and the determination by all, especially the trade unions and the Government, that we would devise a strategy to chart a way forward. The Programme for National Recovery emerged from that process.

Things got a bit sparky last week and when we said we "rescued the country", we also said Alan Dukes had a role to play with the Tallaght strategy. So he did. When talking last week about the achievement of the Taoiseach of the day, Charles Haughey, in putting forward this agreement, speakers did not omit to mention that it was supported by Alan Dukes through the Tallaght strategy. That is on the public record and should be said.

The year 1987 was an extremely difficult period for the country financially and it is not an exaggeration to say we faced certain peril. In addition to other people, the Taoiseach and I were around the table at that time. It was a difficult time to manage, especially in a spending Department. Be that as it may, the agreement was achieved. There is no point in always looking back, we must look to the future. That first agreement was followed by a series of agreements. At each stage, a new agreement was never a given and one never envisaged that they would be easy to achieve. Far from it. As each three-year period came to an end the circumstances changed. The first agreement led to an improvement which coincided with a decrease in interest rates and a general uplift in economic activity, which gave rise to a general amelioration in the situation.

Each agreement brought its own distinct difficulties and challenges. In time, the process broadened to include more than just the trade unions and the Government but they were the only parties to the first agreement because it was a matter of the utmost urgency to address the problems and a rigorous approach was required in order to reach an agreement. The partnership process has been extremely effective. The fact that a better climate of industrial relations was achieved meant firms wishing to locate here, especially from the United States or other areas, were assured that, by and large, the industrial relations climate would be peaceful.

This did not prevent the odd hiccough — in some cases significant hiccoughs from time to time — in the public sector and various other areas but it was possible to overcome them which had not been the case previously. Disputes and work stoppages were no longer as bitter or protracted as in the past. The consensus that emerged did away with the old days of a confrontational, adversarial approach to dealing with industrial relations.

In time, farmers became an important element of the partnership approach. The community and voluntary sector also became involved under the leadership of our friend from Inchydoney, Fr. Seán Healy, who became its main spokesman. Partnership became an all-embracing process that included the trade unions, farmers and the disadvantaged pillar. "Pillar" is the preferred term for each sector involved. In this way the process widened its influence and effect, which has proven to be very much to the good because people in each sector could bring their issues to the talks and hopefully find a resolution. The partnership process has become a way of life.

From time to time doubts set in as to whether we should embark on another agreement but if we were to dispense with them it would result in a free-for-all at local level which would be a disastrous outcome. We have had plenty of that in the past. Wisdom prevailed and those who are in charge of implementing the agreement embarked once again on this process with stout heart. I accept the agreement is not yet concluded. The officials present are well aware of that. I pay tribute to them for their work. We are not allowed to refer to them by name but they know who they are. The Cathaoirleach is indicating that I should behave. The officials concerned have put their hearts into the work and given of the great experience and expertise won by them over the years.

I understand the representatives of the farming community are still engaged in talks. It is expected they will work through their remaining concerns by the weekend. I hope fervently this will happen. In addition, I am aware that, among the teaching community, the TUI has severe difficulties and concerns in regard to a particular aspect of the agreement. Experience shows that TUI members are not unreasonable and I hope wisdom will prevail in regard to their deliberations. TUI members from the institutes of technology, in particular, are very exercised by this issue.

In the past 12 months, there have been significant upheavals regarding the working conditions of immigrants. This has necessitated that particular emphasis be placed in this programme on the obligation of employers to ensure compliance with standards relating to their rights. I welcome plans to establish an office to ensure compliance with legislation on working standards for those who come to work here. It is all very well to say we have opened our doors to welcome the Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians and so on. What should ensue from this welcome is a certainty that they will be treated in an acceptable fashion and will enjoy satisfactory working conditions. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

We have had many passionate debates on this matter in the House. Everybody is appalled at the prospect that immigrants might not be afforded decent working conditions. The office of employment rights compliance will guarantee the necessary strong protection for employment standards. I also welcome the provisions on a national skills strategy, new employment permit measures and measures to ensure social inclusion.

The substance of the Opposition amendment relates to an issue that is often raised in this House and upon which I hope we can reach agreement. This is the need to ensure there is adequate debate on the issues in question. There has been much comment that the entire negotiations process was secretive. Not everybody can be brought into the closet but I accept there should be a far more open way of conducting these discussions. It is desirable that a debate should take place within the Houses of the Oireachtas, as is happening in this Chamber today. At the request of Senator O'Toole, we had a debate on this matter four or five months ago because there was disquiet among some Independent Senators about it.

It seems there is not a full appreciation among the public of what it means to have successfully secured a national consensus among trade unions, business interests and others. Perhaps the Government needs to conduct some public relations exercises to this effect. Last night, I was invited to a meeting in Athlone Institute of Technology where I met some 50 young people from the United States who are studying there. They had all done significant research on Ireland and several of them asked me to explain social partnership. They were keenly interested in the process and particularly impressed with the minimum wage rate.

We all accept that our current economic success is built on the efforts of preceding years. We also accept that educational provision and social partnership have played a particularly significant role in securing that economic success. We should all take great credit for this. There has been much criticism of the benchmarking process but those who criticise it are never willing to forego the benefits they have received through it. It requires public service workers to satisfy measurable standards of performance efficiency. It was a necessary exercise because public sector workers had fallen behind their counterparts in the private sector. The former have now properly come to the forefront. If we are to have an effective working democracy, we must ensure both the elected heads of Departments and those who work within Departments are rewarded satisfactorily for their work. I often observe that those who needlessly criticise standards and work practices and the consensus that has been reached in this area should come in and experience the system for themselves.

I thank the Taoiseach for coming to the House and I commend those who worked so hard and diligently in bringing forward this programme. I expect the Taoiseach will tell us its name presently. We will run out of names shortly and the Secretary General, Mr. McCarthy, will have difficulties in devising more. I wish the programme every success. I agree with Opposition Members on the need for debate on this matter — that is why we tabled this motion. I see nothing adversarial about the Opposition amendment in its call for ongoing debate on the issue. I welcome such a process, which will allow us to mark and record progress. I have great pleasure in proposing this motion.