Some time ago the membership of the National Economic and Social Council (NESC) was widened: it is no longer confined to Government nominees and the three "social partners" - business, trade unions, and farmers. It now includes community and voluntary organisations. Bodies representing the interests of women, young people, the unemployed, as well as the Conference of Religious in Ireland, have joined the traditional interest groups on the council.
For a decade or so the NESC has been paralleled by a not dissimilar body: the National Economic and Social Forum. This forum includes a similar range of interest groups, but with much stronger representation of voluntary and community bodies - and, significantly, members of the Oireachtas.
Because of its broader representative character, the reports of this latter body have concentrated mainly on social issues, thus usefully offsetting the more economic and industrial relations bias of the NESC.
It is difficult, however, to resist an impression the NESF owed its existence to a concern on the part of the three main interest groups in the late 1980s to retain their control of economic policy advice, deflecting pressure for representation of both voluntary and community bodies and politicians within the NESC - unsuccessfully, as it turned out, in the former case. The Oireachtas rem ains excluded from the NESC.
Because the NESC operates by consensus, and because in addition to four independent members the Government representatives include the secretaries-general of four major Government Departments, it can be taken that its reports contain nothing that would positively conflict with Government policy - nor, indeed, anything seriously contrary to the perceived interests of the business community, the trade unions, or the farmers.
It might seem that reports prepared in these circumstances would be of little or no value. But that is not the case. In the process of debate between these groups, carried on within an overall public interest context promoted by the representatives nominated by the Government, the rough edges can be knocked off sectional interest stances, and a sometimes surprising measure of common ground can often be found.
The overview, conclusions, and recommendations of this latest NESC report, (the full text will be published next week) illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of its approach.
On the one hand, it is heartening to find that management and employers are committed to social justice and inclusion, to lifelong learning, and to the need for economic development to be environmentally sustainable.
On the other hand it is impressive to see trade unions committing themselves to an entrepreneurial culture and to successful and continuing adaptation to change. Finally, it is good to see these groups are committed to the development of the EU.
Cynics will dismiss this as mere verbiage, arguing that the NESC commits none of these interest groups to anything specific. But even if some of those involved have private reservations on some of these points, the broad commitments given in this document will make it psychologically more difficult for any of the interests concerned to oppose future concrete steps designed to advance these objectives.
On the other hand, the weaknesses of the NESC concept are clearly visible in Padraig Yeates's revealing and incisive report in this paper last Wednesday which contrasted the proposed wording in the secretariat's final draft of this report with what survived from this draft after the council's final session.
Employer representatives appear to have failed to secure agreement on pay increases related to productivity, while the trade unions failed to get agreement on national pay increases being topped up by local bargaining.
These are issues to be fought out in the forthcoming pay negotiations.
However, the report contains a useful set of semi-quantified policy targets, including such social objectives as ensuring that every child leaves primary school literate and numerate, completes a second-cycle programme appropriate to the individual's capacity and interests, and later has access to lifelong learning.
A problem with the report is that most of the assumptions upon which its fiscal objectives are based - GNP and inflation targets excepted - are expressed in terms not easily comparable with the recent ESRI Medium-Term Review projections.
It is reasonable for the NESC to adopt proposals for resource utilisation differing from those in the ESRI Review. But it is surely surprising that it has based its projections upon an inflation rate barely half that projected by the ESRI - 12.5 per cent to 2005 as against 23 per cent.
A more general issue, raised by the very wide range of policy areas covered by the NESC and proposed to be dealt with in the context of the impending pay negotiations is the impact of all this on the working of our parliamentary system.
The parameters and priorities of public policy, including fiscal policy, are increasingly being determined by negotiations among the interest groups represented in the NESC - and, at intervals of two or three years, in the course of pay negotiations between Government, unions and management.
If the Oireachtas sought to vary any part of the agreement such an action could destabilise our society and economy. The Oireachtas has come to accept this and wastes little time debating matters it can no longer influence.
It may be said, and with some truth, that the Oireachtas was never much disposed to serious discussion of policy issues of this kind. But the scale and magnitude of the issues now decided in these extra-parliamentary forums has grown to a degree that damages the credibility of parliament in the eyes of the public.
Against this background of de facto corporatism, one should not wonder too much at the declining proportion of the electorate who vote. Leaving aside such matters as the sleaze problem, and the grossly inadequate and in many cases mocking reportage of parliamentary debates, the fact the Oireachtas visibly has no role in, and does not even seek to discuss, the major policy issues shaped by Government in dialogue with interest groups, makes it seem irrelevant to many.
Moreover, during the past 10 years a new dimension of futility has been added to the democratic electoral process. Up to the late 1980s voters knew what kind of Government they were voting for: Fianna Fail or Fine Gael/Labour. Today, when they vote for a party, they have no idea in what kind of government that party will participate when the Dail meets after the election.
Thus, Fianna Fail voters may find their votes helped elect a left of centre FF/Labour coalition (1992) - but it may also have helped create a right of centre FF/PD government (1989 and 1997).
As the principal purpose of voting is to choose a government, the effective withdrawal of this key function has clearly devalued the process of voting.
None of the problems raised by these developments for our parliamentary democracy is easy to resolve. But at least they could be discussed and debated in the public interest, rather than, as has hitherto been the case, being brushed under the carpet.