John Bruton
Question:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date in implementing the legislative priorities of his Department for 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11521/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Proposed Legislation.
The legislative priority of my Department for 1999 is to publish a Bill to place the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum on a statutory footing. The heads have been approved by the Government and are with the parliamentary draftsman's office. It is anticipated that the Bill will be published later this year.
What mechanism will exist for changing the representation on these bodies on a non-statutory basis subject to the passage of the legislation given that creating a statutory entitlement for particular organisations to representation can create difficulties because some organisations will wax and others will wane? One needs to have flexibility in the matter of the attribution of the seats.
Deputy Bruton raised this previously. Many of the new and old organisations of the various pillars may not exist in five or ten years. Others will change their names and structures. It may not be necessary to name them in the legislation but to do that by order. It would be undesirable to build them into legislation. I accept that point.
What is the benefit of the legislation? Is it simply for the security of the staff concerned, that they will be in a statutory body which in some sense gives them greater rights, or is there something wrong with the way the NESC and the NESF work which necessitates legislation and which cannot be dealt with otherwise?
There are a number of reasons. The purpose of the legislation is to secure the independence of both the NESC and the NESF by placing them on a legal, statutory and accounting basis. At present, they operate on an informal and non-statutory basis and that has created a number of difficulties in the past. Over the years their membership, particularly that of NESC, has highlighted this point.
What difficulties?
They could not hold staff on the basis that they were not offering permanent or contracted posts and people moved on. That created difficulties for them for a long time. In all of the agreements, the Programme for National Recovery 12 years ago, PESP and the PCW, they had these staffing difficulties because the organisations were run on an informal, non-statutory, non-accounting basis.
The Deputy is correct that the staff will benefit. For the first time these organisations will be in a position to offer solid, legal employment contracts. Good quality economists, legal people, researchers and sociologists involved in NESC have not been satisfied with the way this has been. They will now be in a position to establish their own pension scheme. People who have worked there and stuck with it down through the years had no proper pension scheme. This case was put forward for all of those reasons.
In what respect has the independence of NESC been threatened by not being on a statutory basis? Can the Taoiseach outline one recent example of where NESC's independence was tainted in the slightest by it not being a statutory body? Aside from making NESC a statutory body, is there any other mechanism through which the Department of Finance could offer people longer-term contracts? Surely other non-statutory bodies could make a similar claim. If these bodies are established on a statutory basis, does that mean the bulk of staff will be employed on a permanent basis? Would there not be risks associated with that, given that needs will change? While we might have needed financial experts in the 1980s when there were financial problems, we might need IT experts in the 1990s to deal with IT problems. In the next decade, we may need an entirely different set of expertise on the bodies. The idea of freezing a particular staff structure under the umbrella of legislation is not necessarily in the interests of the positive flexible development of these bodies.
I did not have a particularly strong view on the legislative basis of these organisations. However, the view was held by all other staff and the staff of the boards that people should be given solid, legal employment contracts; it was not a question of giving people permanency. Over a period of time, the staff of these bodies took up alternatives such as more stable employment or jobs in which they were guaranteed long-term contracts. We saw that in the NESC secretariat which operated on an answer phone basis. I answered questions on that in the House last year. The entire staff was employed either on short-term contracts or on secondment from the Department and other agencies. That was entirely unsatisfactory. NESC made a strong case that the council should be established on a statutory basis, as is the position elsewhere. I do not believe permanent employment contracts should be issued, but people should receive more solid contracts. The idea of giving permanent employment would work against flexibility in the future and I am opposed to that.
On the make-up of NESC, is the Taoiseach aware that when the issue of institutional abuse was debated in this House last week, I raised the continuing institutional abuse in our prison system? The Taoiseach will be aware that approximately 75 per cent of prisoners in Mountjoy Prison come from five identifiable areas in Dublin, crossing his constituency, my constituency and Deputy De Rossa's constituency.
This is a separate issue; the Deputy should relate it to the question.
It relates to the make-up of the board. When the Taoiseach is considering the make-up of the board, he should consider appointing people who will be able to assist us, not just in addressing prison reform, but in addressing the social inadequacies which exist in the areas in which these people live. Those inadequacies contribute to the problem. Many people go into prison without a drugs problem but come out with one. We need to address this issue in a more broadly based manner than we have to date. Will the Taoiseach consider this when reflecting on NESC membership?
I will reflect on that, but the new make-up of the council, which came into existence before Christmas, is far better. NESC now comprises five nominees from each of the social partners and four pillars, five representatives from Government Departments and five independent members. NESF comprises 15 Oireachtas members and nominees from other areas. The bodies are more representative than they were.