Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Mar 1998

Vol. 489 No. 1

Adjournment Debate. - PCW Agreement.

Mr. Kenny

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this matter and the Minister for coming in to reply.

I have great respect for the staff, professional and otherwise, who work in the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and the Office of Public Works. This matter arises from claims made by the public sector trade union, IMPACT — the Minister was kind enough to meet representatives of that union yesterday — and refers in particular to architect, archaeologist and ecologist grades in the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands.

IMPACT claims the level of recruitment of permanent staff has been practically nil and that no architects have been approved in more than 20 years. It also claims that up to 100 professionals are employed on a contract basis in the two Departments and they have no basic employment rights, job security or access to paid holidays. They have no entitlement to sick leave, maternity leave or occupational pensions. Many are on rolling contracts which last for a number of years. It also stated that the law regarding rights for contract workers centres on whether they have a contract for service or a contract of service. Under a contract of service, the worker enjoys the full protection of employment legislation, but a contract for service effectively gives the worker the status of a supplier.

Ministerial replies to Adjournment debates are prepared by staff in the Department before the Minister hears what the Member has to say. It is difficult, therefore, for the Minister concerned to answer questions. However, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who is currently in the House, may have a different outlook and answer off the cuff from time to time. I have a number of questions to put to the Minister. If she does not have the answers in her script, will she submit them to me in writing in the next few days?

Is it true that no architect has been employed on a permanent basis by the Office of Public Works in the past 20 years? If it is not true, how many have been employed during that time? How many people are employed in the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands on contract work of six months or less and 12 months or less duration? Will the Minister supply me with the same information for the Office of Public Works? Were there discussions with the unions involved prior to such recruitment, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4.2 of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work? It states:

It is agreed by both sides that discussions will take place on a local basis with the union to discuss (a) the circumstances other than the above where temporary or contract working is required; (b) the numbers of temporary or contract staff which it is proposed to recruit; and (c) the maximum duration of such employment.

Is it true that the Office of Public Works refused to attend the Labour Relations Commission when IMPACT referred the matter to that body and, if so, what was the reason for non-attendance, given that the Taoiseach stressed the necessity for harmony between management, union and staff when he launched the document, Working Together for Excellence in the Public Service, on 5 March? He said the promotion of partnership in both the public and private sectors underpins Partnership 2000. Shared objectives and harmony between management, unions and staff at the workers level is crucial to sustaining economic growth, job creation and consequential social development.

Is it true that the contracted personnel are deemed to be holders of a contract for service as distinct from a contract of service? The contract of service gives the worker protection under the appropriate legislation.

Is it true that the Department and the Office of Public Works continue to offer short-term contracts to people on some schemes, that is, for six months or less or for 12 months or less in the knowledge that these schemes are funded by the European Union for periods of three years or more? If these allegations are true it would appear the Minister is presiding over a modern day lump system similar to McAlpine Fusiliers where the best is got from young qualified people and all they gain is valuable experience but they lose out in terms of the benefits and facilities available to permanent staff.

If it is the case that rolling contracts are being offered, the Minister should abide by agreements laid down in the PCW, discuss them with the unions, where necessary, and give those people the benefits available to permanent staff.

I note the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is smiling. If he is amused at what I am saying that is a matter of concern to me, given that many decent people from South Kerry went on the lump with McAlpine Fusiliers when he and I were children.

Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (Miss de Valera)

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. He is correct in saying I had the opportunity to meet with the unions yesterday afternoon. This meeting was both useful and helpful. I do not accept there has been any breach of the PCW by my Department. My Department has shown a great commitment to the PCW over its lifetime, having reached many satisfactory local pay and flexibility agreements within its parameters with various grades in the Department.

Although my Department has across its spectrum many people employed on temporary contracts where necessary, in view of the recent developments, I am taking the Deputy's motion to refer those specifically engaged on contract for services in Dúchas, the Heritage Service.

When the Heritage Service was transferred from the Office of Public Works the number of civil servants — administrative, professional, technical and industrial — which was deemed appropriate for the work being transferred were moved to my Department which has not changed the nature of the employment of these staff.

Certain tasks of Dúchas are contracted out. This has been the practice in the Office of Public Works prior to the transfer of the Heritage Service to my Department. The tasks in question were considered appropriate for contracting out and this Department has not changed that practice. The contractors involved are mainly self-employed professionals, registered with the Revenue Commissioners. They provide tax clearance certificates before being engaged and withholding tax, as appropriate, is deducted from them. In general they would hold similar entitlements to benefits as any self-employed person.

In the central agreement adopted under the PCW by IMPACT on 27 November 1996, that union accepted there were cases where the most appropriate way certain tasks could be carried out was by contract. The tasks in question in my Department were being carried out on contract long before that agreement was signed. The agreement also states that the union, IMPACT, has co-operated with such arrangements in the past and will continue to co-operate with such arrangements in the future where similar considerations apply. Since the transfer of the Heritage Service to my Department there has been little, if any, change to the original considerations which had given rise to the engagement of these people on contract. My Department has simply continued what had been a long-standing practice in the Office of Public Works. I cannot accept therefore that my Department has breached the terms of the PCW agreement.

Since my appointment as Minister, wherever a new body of work is allocated to or arises in my Department, I have always sought additional staff resources to meet that extra workload. Examples of this are the staff who will shortly be recruited to meet the extra demands placed upon the National Parks and Wildlife Service by the proposed designation of the special areas of conservation, and also the additional staff secured to carry out the work associated with the islands. The reason for giving these examples is to demonstrate my commitment to ensuring that where there is a clearly identified need for staff, I am not slow to take positive action to address the situation. In this case however, the situation is different in that there is no "new" body of work in question, merely the continuation of a long-standing arrangement.

I met with representatives of the IMPACT union yesterday and they explained their concern about the number of contractors in the Heritage Service and their desire to have the number of permanent civil servants in professional grades increased. I explained that my Department was examining the position and will take into account, inter alia, the points raised by IMPACT at that meeting. I am committed to maintaining communication with the union in this regard. This is the position and I assure the House of my continued best efforts in this regard.

When the Deputy refers to the Office of Public Works and Dúchas it is important to make the proper distinction. Unfortunately, there is still some confusion with regard to the responsibilities of both. If there is an understanding of the different responsibilities of the two, the Deputy may be in a position to agree with the reply.