Deputy opposition leader calls for reform of social partnership system

The deputy leader of Ireland’s main government opposition party, Fine Gael, has strongly criticised Ireland’s 20-year old social partnership system, arguing that it needs to be radically reformed if it is to remain relevant to the country’s needs today. However, a spokesperson for the government coalition Fianna Fáil party has strongly defended the social partnership process.

Richard Bruton, the Deputy Leader of Ireland’s second largest political party, Fine Gael, claims that the country’s social partnership process has lost its way. He argues that the process is now dominated by producer interests in what he referred to as ‘a Byzantine institutional environment that has slowed down rather than accelerated much-needed reforms’.

Mr Bruton, who is also the Fine Gael party’s spokesman on finance, claims that the current Fianna Fáil-led coalition government seems content to ignore what he says are the limitations of the social partnership model, ‘because it gives them cover for their own ineffectiveness’. The deputy leader made the comments as part of a speech on 11 February 2008 in advance of a formal meeting of the social partners who were reviewing the 10-year [Towards 2016 (2.86Mb PDF)](http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf files/Towards2016PartnershipAgreement.pdf) framework social partnership agreement.

Differing views of social partnership

The government coalition parties made no comment in response to Mr Bruton’s criticisms on this occasion. The Fine Gael deputy leader has made similar criticisms in the past, most notably however at the February 2007 industrial relations conference organised by the specialist publication Industrial Relations News (IRN). At the conference, the Fianna Fáil Senator, Martin Mansergh, strongly defended social partnership on behalf of the government. Mr Mansergh played a key role in the Northern Ireland peace process and acted as a political advisor to the former Fianna Fáil party leader, Charles Haughey, who was the principle political architect of social partnership at its inception in 1987.

In his latest speech on the issue, Mr Bruton’s criticisms were more severe, perhaps because his previous comments in 2007 were made in advance of the Irish general election. Mr Bruton does not advocate the dismantling of the social partnership system; instead, he calls for major reform, insisting that:

Social partnership needs to rebuild its legitimacy. It will not be sufficient for the government to put a few more stools around the table of partnership so that people who have been left out, like consumers, families or environmental interests, are given a place. It is about creating a new sense of purpose, a sense of urgency. It is the task, not the process which must triumph, if social partnership is to have a future.

Echoes of former taoiseach’s criticisms

Mr Bruton’s call echoes the criticisms of his own brother – the former Fine Gael party leader John Bruton – who expressed his reservations about the social partnership process in the early 1990s. The former leader was elected as Ireland’s prime minister (taoiseach) from 1994 to 1997 and opposed social partnership prior to taking up office. However, during his term as taoiseach, he changed his opinion and negotiated the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) for the period 1994–1997, expanding the partnership process to include, for the first time, community and voluntary groups in a new tier known as the ‘social pillar’.

Apart from initial hostility in the Irish parliament (Dáil) to the first social partnership agreement – the Programme for National Recovery (1988–1990) – it has been a feature of Irish politics since 1987 that all of the major political parties have ‘bought into’ social partnership when in government.

Weaknesses of partnership process

Deputy Leader Bruton highlighted that the social partnership process ‘must now urgently reform its nature by putting the client at its heart, setting out a new and radical reform agenda, involving the Dáil more directly in its deliberations and focusing its energies on accelerating changes, not slowing down reform to the pace of the slowest mover.’

He added that the conditions which led to the establishment of social partnership 20 years ago have changed radically: ‘Its sense of vision has been lost. Process has taken over from purpose. There is lots of activity but much less constructive action.’ Mr Bruton contends that partnership is dominated by producer interests, is ‘a highly centralised, top-down process’ and operates within the ‘comfort zone’ of what consensus can achieve. The deputy leader claims that social partnership has failed in the way it has:

• distorted reform in key markets and watered down policy to confront anti-competitive practices in the private and public sectors;

• prevented the emergence of strong models of accountability within the public service;

• failed to forge a connection between the pay-setting mechanisms in the public service and the delivery of reform;

• curtailed the development of new ways of delivering public services that empower the user with real choices;

• obstructed the development of strong consumer laws;

• neglected connected lives for families and communities;

• shelved genuine devolution of power;

• weakened political accountability.

Brian Sheehan, IRN Publishing