Tom Morrissey (Progressive Democrats)

I thank the Taoiseach for appearing before the House this evening and I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Treacy, to the House for this debate. This opportunity to discuss the recent proposals is a timely one and I commend Fianna Fáil for employing their Private Member's time for this purpose. There has been plenty of commentary in recent days, and indeed almost every time social partnership is assessed, about a democratic deficit and about how the partnership process diminishes the role and input of the Oireachtas and public representatives. This is a concern.

For my part and that of my party, this is an opportunity to set out what social partnership is and what it is not. At the outset, I will state that we are firm supporters of agreement between Government and the social partners. When the Tánaiste addressed the plenary session on social partnership earlier in the year, she said:

The central core around which partnership was built was the belief that a strong, growing, and dynamic economy was the key to providing job opportunities, rising living standards and improved social provision for our people. It recognised that as a small country our prosperity depended on our ability, as a people, to embrace change.

This brings me to the nature of social partnership. Since 1987, social partnership has been a welcome formal interaction between the Government and the social partners. The fundamental objectives of the process, namely, implementing agreed change and providing a process for resolving difficulties have played no small part in bringing Ireland to where it is today. People often speak of partnership as the critical and necessary element in Ireland's economic transformation in recent decades, but we must remember it is just one element. We must look at other factors such as Ireland's provision of some of the world's lowest corporate tax rates and the adoption and meeting of the Maastricht criteria. We must recognise that in 1987, a strong social desire for change existed. The ordinary people of Ireland knew that things had to change. Crippling unemployment and mass immigration persisted and the country was described as an economic basket case.

Simultaneously, there was a strong desire for political change. When the Progressive Democrats was formed in 1985, its purpose was to break the mould of Irish politics and give the Irish voters a new and real alternative. it aimed to give political expression to the desire for change. The political party system at that time, which derived from the Civil War, was failing society. The move toward social partnership and pursuit of its objectives married well with the view espoused by my party and continues to do so.

My party's view is that the best defence against poverty is a job. The Government must ensure an environment wherein economic progress can be made. People must have the incentive and opportunity to generate their own wealth. With more jobs comes more revenue to improve existing public services and create new ones to help the vulnerable in society. This is the Progressive Democrats' idea of social justice.

Social partnership is a process to provide the environment wherein that idea of social justice can become a reality. Social partnership is a mechanism to provide the necessary environment, and competitiveness is the motor that keeps everything moving. This is our view of social partnership. It is an alternative to previous ill-defined and badly-structured settings for a sustainable economic and social environment. It made development possible, not automatic.

In the run-up to the most recent proposals, my party colleague, Senator Dardis, stated the following in the House:

The partnership approach has served this country well, as we all know. Much of the basis of this success has been partnership's ability to adapt flexibly to changing conditions. However, in the same way a one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate for a group of states facing varying challenges, the same partnership approach that served Ireland well in the past might not be the most appropriate model for other countries. If it were, it would not need to be renegotiated. We must not pursue social partnership at any cost.

Senator Dardis went on to say that the notion of core work as currently defined and outsourcing "could indicate that what went before might not be the right approach in certain sectors now."

Look at the shocking example of more than 100,000 people, the majority of whom are young, waiting to sit their driving tests. Some have been on the list for more than a year. During a long period, the Minister for Transport tried to implement a scheme that would have involved outsourcing driver testing to reduce the backlog, which would have been a reasonable and necessary action. Earlier this year, the Civil Service arbitrator scuppered those plans on the basis that Sustaining Progress, specifically paragraphs 21.8 and 21.9 thereof, precluded the outsourcing of so-called core work. Those provisions hampered the delivery of these services. Thankfully, talks between IMPACT, representing the driver testers, and Department officials produced a solution earlier this month, but not before a drawn-out and agonising process was inflicted on young people.

Social partnership is not a straitjacket. It is a commitment, but not a defined space, a box within which each and every social actor must limit his or her actions. The Progressive Democrats will continue to pursue our policies and objectives with our consistent vigour and determination before and after the next election.

There are concerns about the democratic deficit arising from the partnership process, but social partnership is not a barrier to policy on, for example, taxation. Notwithstanding the proposals under the next agreement, the Progressive Democrats are committed to using some of the benefits of economic growth to significantly reduce the tax burden on low and middle-income taxpayers. I have outlined what social partnership is and is not. It is not a straitjacket on policy, nor will it be a barrier to our determination, under the next programme for Government, to see 90% of the gains from economic growth dedicated to public spending and the other 10% to tax cuts.

Towards 2016 refers to building an equitable tax system that encourages economic growth to ensure employment growth and continuing improvements in living standards for all. It correctly refers to taxation policy designed to maintain and strengthen the competitive position of the economy and to foster improvements in productive capacity, economic and social development and equity, while maintaining a sound fiscal stance.

Taking capital and current spending as examples, my party's plan forecasts approximately an additional €30 billion available for public spending. By 2012, and based on current spending patterns, that amount could provide for additional investment of €7 billion in health services, €8 billion extra for social welfare services, €4 billion extra for education and €1 billion extra for justice matters. These are indicative figures, but Senators will agree they represent a significant financial commitment to these illustrative policy areas.

On reading the social partnership agreement, one might believe policy has been defined for the next ten years and it will not matter for whom one votes. It does matter, as the agreement covers areas in which people must still make up their minds. Should they ensure that the path we are on continues or should we change in mid-stream?