National agreements Commissioner points to alleged democratic deficit inherent in the process, writes Martin Wall, Industry Correspondent.
In a book to be published next week EU commissioner and former minister for finance Charlie McCreevy fires a warning shot about the direction in which the social partnership process may be heading.
Mr McCreevy speaks about "the trade union movement trying to establish that the partnership process would become the process where all kinds of decisions would be made.
"You can't take away the rights of Dáil Éireann and the Government to make the big decisions," he says, in Saving the future - How social partnership shaped Ireland's economic success, by Tim Hastings, Brian Sheehan and Pádraig Yeates.
Although Mr McCreevy is a supporter of social partnership and as minister for finance was involved in negotiating a number of national agreements, in his book interview he goes, perhaps with characteristic bluntness, straight to the heart of the debate over the alleged democratic deficit inherent in the process.
Is it right, critics ask, that key economic and social decisions can be taken by government in agreements made behind closed doors with employers' representatives, trade unions and other unelected groups. And if partnership is to continue, what political oversight should there be of the process?
Most commentators agree that social partnership has played a significant role in the economic successes of recent times. However, it is not without its critics, on both the left and the right, while the main Opposition parties have called for reform of the process.
Some employers' representatives have contended that there is a cosy consensus between the unions and big business and that, in an economy at virtually full employment, some firms are having to make their own supplementary pay arrangements with staff outside of the process. The strongest supporter of the partnership process in the Dáil is Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and he has rejected the notion that it is anti-democratic.
In a trenchant speech in the Seanad in June last year, Mr Ahern argued strongly that negotiations with the social partners are carried out on the basis of the programme for government and that there is close ministerial oversight of the talks.
He said that in implementing the current agreement, Towards 2016, the Government would be fully accountable to the Oireachtas and that all spending implications would be addressed through the usual budgetary and estimates process.
"We are invited to believe that social partnership is a dangerous conspiracy, subversive of democracy and empowering vested interests with vast control over public policy, while, at the same time, it is an outdated and empty ritual which makes no practical difference to the world in which we live and work.
"I can resolve this contradiction by stating that both criticisms are incorrect", he stated.
Social partnership was not anti-democratic, he said, because it was based on "a recognition of the proper and distinct roles of government, on the one hand, and the legitimate contribution to public life of the social partners who, entirely in their own right, exercise very significant influence over the economic and social life of this country".
Mr Ahern has said, however, that he would welcome greater parliamentary engagement and he wished that Oireachtas committees would take a greater interest in the substance of social partnership. He has also suggested that the Seanad could play a role in providing political oversight.
In a document published in September 2005, Fine Gael and Labour argued for reform and said the "democratic deficit" in the process could not be resolved until a new relationship was forged "between the Oireachtas, which represents broad civil society and the individual interests which are represented in the partnership process".
Fine Gael and Labour complained that the Government regularly used "the existence of partnership agreements to circumvent its obligation of accountability to the Oireachtas for economic and social policy. Issues raised by the Opposition are frequently dismissed on the grounds that they fall within the remit of partnership agreements," they stated.
The Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association (Isme) also contends that the partnership process is undemocratic.
Isme chief executive Mark Fielding says his organisation is outside the process as it is not allowed a place at the top table where wage negotiations are carried out.
He says that 98 per cent of Irish enterprises are characterised as being small or medium in size, with fewer than 250 employees, but many have to deal with the impact of decisions, relating for example to the minimum wage, which come out of a process in which they have no voice.
Mr Fielding claims the employers' group Ibec, which is involved in the social partnership process, represents big business and the semi-State sector, while the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is dominated by the public sector unions.
"More than 90 per cent of public sector workers are members of unions. The figure for the private sector is around 25 per cent. It is crazy to think that the unions have such a say when they represent so few," he argues.
Mr Fielding also maintains that many staff in the small and medium sector have received pay rises higher than those set out in the national agreements.
In a tight labour market, firms that did not offer higher increases than those set out in the national agreements would lose staff, he suggests.
Ictu president Peter McLoone does not accept there is a democratic deficit in the social partnership process and says he is amused that the criticism frequently comes from quarters who have equal access to the government of the day.
"If you look at the various social partnership programmes, they all come before the Dáil. There is no mystery about what we do," he says.
Ictu general secretary David Begg also strongly defends the role of the trade unions in social partnership and their right to participate in it.
"We are, first of all, the largest civil society organisation in the country. We have 825,000 members operating on both sides of the Border. There is no other organisation comparable," he says.
Employers have a number of representative bodies, as do farmers, while there are about 26 organisations in the community and voluntary sector, Mr Begg points out.
He says the trade unions are the only single homogenous voice in the entire process.
"The role of civil society is fairly well documented in literature as fulfilling a pretty important role in democracy," he adds.
"Anybody who thinks democracy is just a parliamentary democracy and nothing else, not mediated by any civil society organisation, has a very limited view of what is involved in it."