asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of the reported robbery of files from the office of the Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty and the possibility that confidential information may be leaked, he will make a statement on the overall implications of the present dispute affecting the work of the committee.
Private Notice Question. - Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty.
I am informed by the acting director of the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty, Mr. Hynes, that on Monday evening last he became aware that files were missing from the committee's offices. These files had been in the custody of and appertained to the work of Mr. Malcolm Bryan, whose employment as director was terminated last week by the committee in accordance with the terms of his contract. The acting director immediately, by registered letter, wrote to Mr. Bryan, inquiring if he had any knowledge regarding the removal of the files from the premises, and later on the same evening, Monday, verbally inquired of Mr. Bryan if he had any knowledge of the whereabouts of the missing files. Mr. Bryan denied that he knew the whereabouts of the files or that he had removed them from the office. The matter of the missing files was again raised verbally by the acting director, Mr. Hynes, with Mr. Bryan on Tuesday morning and he again denied that he had taken the files or had any knowledge of their whereabouts.
As the House may be aware, entry by unauthorised persons into the premises of the committee occurred sometime between the night of Monday, 14th February, and Tuesday morning, 15th February. Acts of vandalism took place, resulting in considerable damage. The acting director, Mr. Hynes, informed the Garda on Tuesday of the unauthorised entry, of the vandalism and of the fact that files were missing. I am not aware whether in the course of this unauthorised entry other documents may have been removed from the premises but all the foregoing is the subject of continuing police investigations.
In relation to the files which were discovered to be missing on Monday, I was informed at approximately 1.15 p.m. today by the acting director, Mr. Hynes, that he had received a phone call from Mr. Bryan at approximately 12.15 p.m. today to the effect that the files had been located and were being returned to the committee's offices. At approximately 1 o'clock today the files were returned by another member of the staff who, on being asked by Mr. Hynes where they had been located, replied that he would sooner not say.
Unfortunately, I am not in a position to give an assurance to the House that copies of these files, which were missing from sometime on Monday until 1 o'clock today, were not made. Nor can I say to what use they may have been put, or if, in fact, all the files have been returned, but I expect that these matters will be part of the continuing police investigation.
With regard to the overall implications of the present dispute affecting the work of the committee, as the House may be aware a ballot of members of the staff was conducted yesterday. The committee have not as yet been officially informed by the trade union representing the staff as to the outcome or implications of any decisions that may have been made.
I am keeping myself fully informed of developments and, while I have total and unreserved confidence in the committee and its chairperson, Rev. Sr. Stanislaus, I regret that it is not possible for me in this developing situation to give any assurance regarding the future of the pilot projects.
I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the extensive reply he has given the House and for the forthcoming manner in which he has met my question. There are a number of matters which arise from the reply. It has been suggested that, if the staff go on strike, the programme in its present form will be closed down. In relation to Mr. Bryan's dismissal, I understand that that decision was taken by the staff of the executive committee and the committee itself. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether he approved the appointment of Mr. Bryan and whether he approved his dismissal? I should like to have these matters clarified.
May I ask for brevity?
I took no part in the employment of any member of the staff, including Mr. Bryan. I set up the committee. I had confidence in the committee. The recruitment of staff was included in their terms of reference. I did not meet Mr. Bryan until his appointment had been made. I was aware of the developing situation which led to the committee terminating Mr. Bryan's appointment.
Did the Parliamentary Secretary approve of the termination?
That is implicit in the statement that I made, that I have full and total confidence in the committee and its chairperson.
By implication, the Parliamentary Secretary approves of his dismissal. The Parliamentary Secretary recently stated that he did not intend interfering, or that he intended adopting a position of non-interference in this dispute. If the present difficulties continue and if the poverty programme is in jeopardy, surely the Parliamentary Secretary would have an obligation in those circumstances to take some initiative? I understand the sensitivity of the situation. Nevertheless, the concern of this House would be for the continuation of the six pilot projects.
It is important to correct the first part of the Deputy's statement. I did not say that I did not intend interfering. I stated that I did not intend intervening at that point. As the Deputy may be aware, and as I replied to the original question, the matter has been the subject of a ballot by the staff. The staff are members of a union. I would consider it appropriate that any dispute which may arise would be the subject of discussions between the committee or their representatives and the appropriate trade union.
With regard to the future of the project and of the pilot schemes, I could not sufficiently express my admiration and appreciation of both the quality and amount of work done and the time that has been devoted to these schemes by the present committee and the chairperson. I do not think Deputies would for one moment question either the individual or collective commitment of this committee.
The Parliamentary Secretary may have overlooked a supplementary question I asked in relation to the staff going on strike. As I say, it has been suggested that if the staff go on strike the programme in its present form will not be continued. That would be the first part of the question. The second part is, if the Parliamentary Secretary considers it his function and duty to intervene—and I apologise for the use of the word "interfere"—then in those circumstances will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House that he will ensure that the programme will continue in its present form?
As I said in my original reply, the matter has been the subject of a ballot. We have had no official communication from the union and it is not possible for me to deal with what is, at the moment anyway, a hypothetical situation. Naturally, as I also said, I will keep myself fully informed of the developing situation and will have to make any judgment in relation to the future of the scheme in the context of the situation at the time of decision-making. It is not possible to project what the decision would be in the future because it is not possible at this stage to see precisely how the situation will develop. I appreciate and share the Deputy's concern for the future development of the schemes. They are extremely important, and I would hope a situation would not arise that would make it impossible to continue with this project.
One appreciates that the Parliamentary Secretary would not concern himself with individuals to be selected for appointment to the staff for this project, but does he have any control over the total level of staff employed? I think he will agree it came as a surprise to many to learn there is a staff of 40 employed by this committee. Furthermore, in view of the apparent disagreement that has arisen as to the nature and the work of the project, would he consider at an early date making a statement to the House about the project in general, about the objectives and the progress achieved to date?
As regards the first part of the Deputy's question, recruitment, interviewing and appointment of staff were matters for the committee in which I played no part whatsoever. Naturally the committee, before appointing staff, had to get sanction through me from the Department of Finance as to the remunerations and also the number of staff that were employed. As regards the stated objectives of the committee I have not got them here with me, but they were very clearly set out by the committee before any recruitment of staff took place. I can forward to the Deputy a copy of that statement. I am satisfied, although only a short period has elapsed since the projects went into the field, that there is no departure on behalf of the committee from their stated aims and objectives.
It is reasuring to know that a bureaucracy has not been created unnecessarily in this field and that the numbers of staff are controlled by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department of Finance ultimately. I was not so much concerned in my supplementary with the objectives, but would the Parliamentary Secretary not avail of some early opportunity to make a statement to the House—I think there is widespread interest in this project—so that the House would be informed what progress is being made towards the objectives and would have the Parliamentary Secretary's opinion about such progress, and also, if there was a dispute about methodology and so on, the House would be aware of it.
As I said earlier, the objectives are very clearly set out in the initial statement of the committee. When the Deputy asks for my opinion on what progress has been made, I think that also is implicit in my statement, that I have total and unreserved confidence in the committee, in their dedication towards their stated aims. A reasonable amount of progress has been made in this regard. From the very outset it was clearly pointed out that this was not a short-term project, that it would be an on-going project, that certain information that would be helpful in formulating policy in regard to the elimination of poverty would come up during the course of the project, but that the overall assessment could only be made over an extended period. That is the view taken not only here but by the Council of Ministers when they adopted the scheme on a community basis.
What about an interim report?
The question of an interim report is one for the committee.
For the information of the House.
As I say, it is a matter for the committee and I will undoubtedly convey the Deputy's interest in that.
It may be too early; on the other hand this might be the juncture to make one.
I accept that, and I will convey it to the committee.