Vol. 495 No. 2
14 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach whether the review, in conjunction with the social partners, of the roles and functions of NESC and NESF has been completed; and if he will make a statement on the institutional and administrative arrangements that are likely to emerge. [17577/98]
On 17 December 1997 I informed the House that in accordance with a Government decision taken in October 1996 the future of social partnership structures has been reviewed in consultation with the social partners in the context of Partnership 2000. The review had taken account of the views of both the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Economic and Social Council which are representative of all strands of social partnership. Based on the outcome of that review and in response to the views put forward by NESC and NESF and in particular the NESF report No. 16, A Framework for Partnership, I informed the House on 4 February that the Government had announced on 19 December its decision to reconstitute both organisations on a statutory basis. In the interim both NESC and NESF were reconstituted on a non-statutory basis and I understand their inaugural meetings are due to take place in the near future. With regard to legislation, the Government recently approved the drafting of a Bill to place both on a statutory footing.
The terms of reference of both bodies have been revised to ensure that their activities are fully complementary. NESC will continue to provide strategic analysis to its reports and will develop a framework within which discussions on future national programmes will take place. NESF will focus on the detailed monitoring of initiatives taken in the context of social partnership especially with regard to social exclusion and long-term unemployment. The membership of both bodies is being changed to reflect more fully the various strands of the social partnership process.
The composition of the new bodies is as follows: the NESC comprises five nominees from each of the four social partner pillars, five representatives from Government Departments, one of whom will be a county manager representing local government interests and five independent members, one of whom will represent local government interests. The NESF will comprise 15 Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, five nominees from each of the business, trade union and farming pillars, 15 representatives of non-Governmental organisations, five representatives of Government Departments, five local government representatives and five independent members.
The main changes in composition relate to the inclusion of local government representation and community and voluntary representation on the NESC and the inclusion of Government Departments and local government representatives on the NESF. The terms of office of members of the NESC and NESF will be for a period of three years during which time members may nominate alternates.
As regards administrative arrangements, the Office of Public Works is seeking a premises where both the NESC and NESF can be accommodated. This will be a requisite for facilitating better co-operation and sharing support services between both bodies which is being investigated by my Department.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the NESF and NESC have worked quite well up to now without being put on a statutory footing?
I assured Deputy Bruton a long time ago that I would examine that issue. I did so and spoke with both organisations and with officials dealing with them. The primary reason for putting the organisations on a statutory footing is that it had been indicated that the non-statutory basis of the organisations presented difficulties for the staff and for the structures. There was much discussion of this problem before my involvement and it had continued over a period. It was recommended that as long as they were on a non-statutory basis their existence was temporary and this created staffing difficulties. There were other reasons for placing the bodies on a statutory basis but that was the main one.
This rigidity in social partnership is being driven by the demands of staff.
It is being driven by a concern for the security of the entire system. If there is to be a proper structure and the required support, our advice is that the organisations must be placed on a statutory basis. Otherwise there would be an insecurity for those involved and for their structures and terms of reference. This was set down some time ago and it was on that basis that the outgoing NESF and NESC wished to place the bodies on a legislative basis.
Does the Taoiseach agree that social partnership is a living thing which changes and that the partners which are relevant at a particular time may not be relevant five years later? Would the Taoiseach agree that it is most unwise to put these bodies on a statutory footing if that means that changing the representation of social partners will require legislation each time it is done? Is the Taoiseach aware that the Government has promised approximately 100 Bills? Does he not agree that every time the representation on the NESF and NESC is changed primary legislation will be required? This will build a deep and unnecessary rigidity into the system. Does the Taoiseach further agree that any problems concerning staff should be dealt with separately as a staff matter by some enabling legislation governing staff? It should not be necessary to create an institutional, statutorily based dinosaur which cannot be changed readily. That is contrary to the whole idea of social partnership. The Taoiseach should look at the economic and social council in France to see an example of a good idea gone wrong because it was put on a rigid statutory footing.
When Deputy Bruton raised this matter I did not disagree with him. In the interests of stability the people who worked in both these organisations sought to clarify the position but neither their staff associations nor unions could do that for them. They had sought legal advice and were told this was the only way of resolving the issue. That is what the people associated with these organisations requested and we went along with that.
On the other issue, the legislation should be framed in such a way as to allow maximum flexibility. I agree with Deputy Bruton that as we move on the concept of social partnership will develop and different organisations may be added or removed, but this House should not have to amend primary legislation every time that happens.
