Too many policy decisions are now being made at the partnership talks, rather than in the appropriate forum, writes Séamus Ó Cinnéide
The "social partners" are still locked in discussions about a new "national agreement" to follow on from Sustaining Progress. Next year, during the second year of the new agreement, there will be a general election, which could lead to the formation of a new government.
Would the new government be bound by the terms of the agreement now being drafted, ie, would new parties in government be bound by the political commitments made by the present, different, parties in government? There is an apparent conundrum here. On the one hand if a new government, democratically elected, could not change the policies agreed by its predecessors, the parties that had been rejected by the electorate, then what would be the point of having a general election at all? On the other hand, if a new government could and did change the policies agreed on in a national agreement, would the whole agreement fall apart?
The apparent solution of the conundrum is very simple, and it is this. Political parties may have radically different policies on some issues, but the policy issues covered in national agreements are not politically controversial: they are policies on which all parties agree. Therefore, an agreement entered into by a government consisting of one combination of political parties can be guaranteed to be supported by a government consisting of an entirely different combination of parties. The last time these conditions obtained was when the rainbow coalition, which negotiated the partnership 2000 agreement covering 1997-99, was defeated and succeeded in the first year of the agreement by the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats government.
This apparent solution is increasingly difficult to sustain in the light of certain developments. First of all, there has been a tendency since the process began 20 years ago for each succeeding national agreement to cover a wider and more diverse range of policies. Secondly, the partnership system and process have a rationale and dynamic of their own which are shaping more and more the overall process of policy-making, and the policies themselves, without regard for politics. Thirdly, far from the policies of parties all converging in the political centre, the differences across the spectrum are as significant as ever.
National agreements have got more extensive and more detailed. The last one, Sustaining Progress covering 2004-06, is over twice as long as any of the first three programmes. There are three elements in all the programmes. First, and most importantly, there is the national pay agreement hammered out mainly between employers and trade unions, but with the Government as referee as well as having serious interests in relation to public sector pay and conditions.
Second, there are work-related policies and provisions covering both productivity and working conditions. Again the two main parties to this element are the employers and the trade unions, and concessions by workers in relation to productivity and working conditions are seen as the quid pro quo for wage increases.
Thirdly, there are the wider policy fields and issues. For instance, half of Sustaining Progress is devoted to macroeconomic policy, infrastructure and the environment, and poverty, health and equality, as well as 10 "special initiatives".
Some of the policy objectives are in bland general terms that would command acceptance by the great and the good across the political spectrum, and all are presented as being agreed or adopted by "the partners", ie, not just the Government but the employers, the trade unions, the farmers and a selective group of community and voluntary organisations.
However, it is well understood that negotiations on specialised policy proposals involve the relevant Ministers and/or their officials. Insofar as they reflect preoccupations and choices of the government in power they cannot be expected to be politically neutral.
Secondly, the national agreements, and the negotiations leading to them, are but one element in a wider partnership system that involves, for instance, a congeries of three permanent specialised representative agencies under the Department of the Taoiseach. These are the National Economic and Social Council (NESC), the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance.
These are not big organisations (costing only €3 million a year), but they exercise a disproportionate influence on Government policy. Every three years, in advance of the negotiation of the next national agreement, the NESC publishes a detailed strategic analysis of Government policy.
This is intended as a scientific or professional analysis and a more-or-less objective starting point for the negotiations. This document itself is agreed by the NESC council, which is, of course, representative of the diverse partners. And so last December or January saw the publication of NESC Strategy 2006: People, Productivity and Purpose.
This 300-page document is intended to shape the next national agreement and, in effect a substantial proportion of Government policy, for years to come. However, its last-minute publication means it is read only by partnership insiders. It is not widely discussed in political circles and certainly not in the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is, of course, far from neutral.
The NESC, now in existence for over 30 years, has agreed a whole new approach to social policy that seems to be influenced by changing ideologies and that is very much at variance with earlier formulations.
Third, the notion that there are no major policy differences between the political parties would be depressing if were true.
But it is contradicted, and rightly so, by a Minister in the present Government, Michael McDowell. In his Waterford speech a month ago the Minister argued that the junior party in a coalition "defines the direction" of the government, and went on to show that governments of different composition pursue different policies.
It was reported in The Irish Times on February 14th that "a new care package for the elderly will be included as part of a final partnership deal" this year. Given the range of views on policy options, it is reasonable to assume that such a package might not be acceptable to a different government.
The partnership process in its present form, outside the provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann, was begun in dire circumstances 20 years ago.
It is totally anomalous that nowadays important policy documents should be published and important agreements should be entered into by the State without the benefit of discussion of significant national issues by politicians generally.
In these more propitious days it is time to review "partnership" and to knit it into the democratic process.
Séamus Ó Cinnéide is Jean Monnet Professor of European Social Policy at NUI Maynooth. seamus.ocinneide@nuim.ie