I remind Senators they may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Also, on Report Stage each amendment must be seconded.
National Disability Authority Bill, 1998: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 11, line 33, after "Authority" to insert "(not being a person engaged in or employed by a person or body engaged in the provision of services to persons with disabilities)".
The Labour group proposes the amendment of section 20(2)(a) so that when the Minister appoints 20 persons and the chairperson to the authority, the chairperson should not be engaged in or employed by a person or body engaged in the provision of services to persons with disabilities. The reason for this is clear. Somebody who is already a participant in or employed by a private or voluntary company — and I understand the Rehabilitation Foundation is the major provider of services in the area of disability in the voluntary and private sectors — would have a conflict of interest if appointed as an interim or future chairperson in that respect. How can someone be employed in a private capacity and be chief executive officer of a body providing these services and not be in a difficult and compromising position as chairperson? Do not forget the chairperson has the casting vote.
I would like the Minister to take this amendment more seriously. There will be plenty of opportunities when he goes to the Dáil to include an appropriate provision or he could accept our amendment. We are seeking to ensure the membership and chairperson of the authority are above reproach and are seen to be impartial and, by nature of their composition and the person employed as chairperson, to be carrying out their duty without fear or favour.
For clarification, perhaps the Minister could indicate the term of office of the present chairperson. Does it continue when the current non-statutory body becomes a statutory body? When will the next chairperson be appointed? Will the next chairperson and other members of the body be appointed by the Minister?
May I speak on another amendment when I second this one?
The Senator should second this amendment and we will deal with the other amendments in turn.
Will that preclude me from contributing on other amendments?
No.
I second the amendment. Senator Costello has clearly explained the reason for this laudable proposal. At a time when accountability and having matters above board are salient, it is important that nobody is in an invidious position and that a conflict of interest does not arise. In this House we regularly have debates, which may lead to a conflict of interest. This is a precautionary amendment and its insertion is desirable. It should not cause any difficulty to the Minister or his Department. It would ensure difficulties or questions which may arise in relation to conflict of interest are prevented. I second this amendment and I recommend the Minister takes it on board.
This amendment appears to be based on the principle that National Disability Authority Board members engaged in service provision are somehow incapable of discharging in an unprejudiced way the statutory obligations imposed on them by section 8 of the Act. In contrast, recipients of the service are characterised as incapable of any bias. The truth is that both service providers and recipients are capable of distinguishing their roles as service providers and recipients from their roles as members of the National Disability Authority. As a result I have no difficulty in principle in appointing a service provider or recipient as chairperson of the authority.
The chairperson of the interim authority who I appointed last July comes from the service sector. With a chairperson and other members drawn from the service sector and the majority of members drawn from people with disabilities, their parents and carers, a sufficiently broadly based group has been appointed to meet the challenges which may lie ahead, in a balanced and reasonable manner.
Senator Costello asked whether the chairperson will continue as chairperson following the expiry of the interim board. Once the legislation is in place, the statutory board will take over and the chairperson will then have to be re-appointed or a new chairperson will be appointed. The term of office is four years in accordance with the legislation before the House.
From Senator Taylor-Quinn's statement, there is an underlying implication in the amendment that a conflict of interest may arise when the chairperson is directly connected to a service providing body. In that respect, I draw the Senator's attention to section 31 of the Bill which provides for disclosure of interests by, among others, members of the authority. It is not just Members of the House who will have to declare their interests in the future, those on the authority, inter alia, will have to declare their interests.
As a result, any member of the authority engaged in or employed by a person or body engaged in the provision of services to people with disabilities must disclose this interest when and where it is relevant to the business of the authority. They must not influence, or seek to influence, a decision in this regard or take any part in its consideration. I would expect any board appointed to an organisation to have the potential for conflict of interests to arise. At the same time, the knowledge and experience of board members in areas allied to the work of the organisation makes their contribution to the deliberations of the board invaluable. If this were not the case the board would be disconnected from the organisation concerned. It is a standard practice to put safeguards such as those in section 31 into the rules governing the operation of a board. For these reasons and those to which I have already referred, I am satisfied that the fears of the two Senators which gave rise to this proposed amendment are unfounded.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the day is the appointing authority. He or she is required to have regard to certain criteria in making the appointment of the 20 ordinary members. Section 20 provides for the appointment of the chairperson and the 20 ordinary members of the authority. That section makes it quite clear that there are particular requirements that have to be followed in assessing who is or who is not suitable for appointment. These requirements were borne in mind when the interim board was appointed. The result is that the majority of the members of the board — 65 per cent — are people with disabilities or families and carers for people with disabilities. The criteria were adhered to without any statute being in place.
The legislation states it is desirable that a majority of the authority be people with disabilities, their representatives, families or carers, and that it is desirable that not fewer than eight members be women and not fewer than eight are men. Incidentally, the interim board also fulfils this requirement. There is to be one officer of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and a representative of any other Minister directly concerned with or responsible for activities which are relevant. There is also to be one staff member. We have already had a long discussion on the fact that there will be one staff member; I would have two were it not for the fact that the number of staff is considerably reduced from the days of the National Rehabilitation Board. There will only be 35 staff, and in those circumstances I thought one representative fair.
It is also important to adhere to the requirement that those concerned have knowledge or experience either directly or indirectly of matters pertaining to disability or any other subject which, in the opinion of the Minister, would be of assistance to the authority in the performance of its functions.
The criteria set out for the formation of the board in section 20 were developed in light of the recommendations of the establishment group and with the help of the Seanad in the case of the gender criteria. It would have been open to the establishment group to recommend more restrictive criteria in the case of the chairperson, for example, but such criteria would not be desirable. They would impact on the principle of balance, which the new authority must be seen to have in discharging its functions under section 8 with regard to service providers and recipients.
I hope Senators will accept from that outline that the situation is as it should be.
The Minister said he is simply not prepared to consider having any restriction on his sole right as Minister to make appointments. He quoted section 31 on the disclosure of interests, but this indicates there are automatic areas of interest where there may be conflict. If one is in a senior position in an existing service provider, there has to be a question mark about such a person being perceived by service providers and recipients as fair and impartial. I am not saying that that has been the case, but it does raise the possibility of that perception. The Minister owes it to the House to put a mechanism in place to ensure that a person in that position does not become chairperson. Such a person could quite properly become a member of the authority, as they would have areas of expertise to represent, but a chairperson must be seen to be impartial at all times. If the chairman is the chief executive officer of a major service provider — in rehabilitation care in this case — he or she would find it difficult to present that position to the board, public and the disabled people who are recipients of the provision. The Minister is saying that there has been an inbuilt protection in the declaration of interests, but that relates to the financial aspect of members' interests. It does not address our concern that the person appointed to this very sensitive position is clearly seen as a person who can conduct business in the fairest and most impartial way possible.
The Minister has responded as he did on Committee Stage, but I would prefer him to withhold final judgment on this issue until he has had the benefit of a debate in the other House. The clear view of Opposition Senators is that it would be preferable if the chairperson was appointed with this caveat to ensure impartiality at all times.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and are to be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, to delete lines 46 to 53 and in page 12, to delete lines 1 to 5 and substitute the following:
"(3) 15 members shall be appointed by the Minister from persons nominated to the Minister by organisations representative of persons with disabilities, their representatives, families or carers; and the remaining 3 appointed members shall be chosen by the Minister from persons appearing to the Minister to have relevant knowledge and experience.".
Senator Norris indicated that he might not be here for the debate.
Senator Taylor-Quinn's wishes to have her name added to amendment No. 3.
I, too, would like my name to be added to it. I am delighted to be associated with it.
Amendment No. 2 has been moved; we are discussing amendment No. 3 with it.
This section is quite laudable as it provides that in appointing members to the authority the Minister will have regard for persons with disabilities, their representatives, families and carers. This amendment proposes tightening up that provision so that at least some of the bodies with nominating rights can be identified. This is the norm in legislation. This sector that has been a minority area in the consideration of society. Many people with disabilities want to be taken seriously, to have an opportunity to live independently and to speak for themselves.
I will give an example of how this was done in other legislation. When the Dublin Institute of Technology and the Regional Technical Colleges were established in 1992, the then Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, agreed to a provision whereby the Dublin Institute of Technology board would be established with various nominating bodies, including the ICTU, the staff, the VEC, business interests and various educational establishments which certified qualifications. These bodies made nominations and within that there was a 40 per cent gender quota. It worked and the body is constituted in that manner at present.
The main players were identified and given nominating rights. Those nominations were then approved by the Minister. At one point the gender balance was not correct so the Minister returned the nominations to be corrected. That is the proper way to deal with the matter. If this is the Minister's vision of how the governing body is to be established then it must be done so in a representative fashion.
This amendment includes the main players, all of which are substantial umbrella organisations in the sector. Some of these bodies should be given nominating rights and the Minister could then exercise the right to make the appointments. It is not fair that a Minister should make the totality of the appointments, except where another Minister with a relevant responsibility might make an appointment. In this case the Minister calls the shots.
There is only one exercise in democracy in these provisions, where one member of the staff of the authority shall be elected by secret ballot. Why should the nominating bodies not be allowed to elect a representative person to the authority rather than giving the nominating power to the Minister? That is not the way to go. Our proposals would produce a better balance and would generate the perception among the organisations who provide and receive services in this sector that the legislation will ensure they get a fair deal.
I second the amendment. These amendments are straightforward and should pose no problem. They are clear and specific proposals. The Bill deals with a specialised sector and those working in the sector have specialised knowledge and appreciation of what is involved in the nature of the many disabilities that affect people. It would be wise that people appointed to the board had expertise and experience in varying capacities in the sector.
If one considers any specialist organisation it would be pointless appointing a person to the board if they have not got experience or knowledge. Such a person would be on such a steep learning curve that it would only be at the end of their term of office that they would begin to have an appreciation of what is involved. However, if people with experience and knowledge are appointed they can make a greater contribution to a board.
The amendment is a common sense proposal. It would involve nationally recognised organisations — the Disability Federation of Ireland, the National Association for the Mentally Handicapped, the Mental Health Association of Ireland and a member from the Council for People with Disabilities — which would provide a good cross-section of people from a variety of bodies in the sector. They could bring specific knowledge, experience and understanding of the sector to the authority. Their contributions could not but be positive. That these organisations could nominate a person from their sector would be worthwhile because such organisation would know who best to put forward.
This common sense proposal would resolve difficulties that might arise for a future Minister who would simply have to seek nominees from the various organisations. It would save the Minister the trouble of wondering who from within the various political parties might have some expertise or be suitable to be put on the board. Our proposal would be far more open and democratic. Rather than looking for specific political affiliations a Minister could look for particular expertise.
I impress on the Minister the necessity and the wisdom of taking this course of action. It should not cause complications. It would make life easier for future Ministers and would satisfy the various organisations and those for whom we wish to provide the best possible service. The bottom line is that the fundamental reason for this Bill is to do whatever is possible to empower disabled people to manage their lives and allow them to make decisions. They must have a strong say in what happens in their lives. The legislation must serve them and this amendment is a positive step in that direction.
I am sure the Minister will see the wisdom of this proposal and if he cannot accept it this evening, it may be taken on board in the other House.
I wish to move amendment No. 3 in my name——
Amendment No. 2 has been moved and amendment No. 3 is being discussed with it. When amendment No. 2 has been disposed of the question of moving amendment No. 3 will arise.
I wish to address amendment No. 3 which fits in with the thinking in the Bill. I see no conflict between it and the Minister's thinking. It comes after a paragraph which speaks of the desirability of having not fewer than eight women and not fewer than eight men on the board. Sadly, this is necessary. I am not suggesting for a moment that being a woman is a disability but it is a disadvantage because everywhere there are procedures discriminatory against women. On the wireless recently, Ms Bríd Rodgers said that of ten speakers at a recent conference on discrimination and equality, none was a woman. That is the context into which this amendment, if accepted, would fit.
The amendment indicates it would be desirable if the board included members of the Disability Federation of Ireland, the National Association for the Mentally Handicapped, Mental Health Association of Ireland and the National Council for People with Disabilities. The amendment cannot be said to tie the Minister's hands because it merely talks of the desirability of including such representatives; it does not force him to do so, it simply recommends that he do, providing a context in which he can take an informed decision.
The selection of the board has already been commented on. It is in existence — I am not sure if the full board has been nominated but I imagine it has, in which case this provision would have to apply to the future. It is a good idea that a statutory instrument should provide that it is desirable that these named organisations should be considered. The current thinking on the provision of services for people with disabilities is to empower such people to take control of their own lives and to allow their choice to reach its full potential. The slogan employed is "Nothing about us without us" and that seems perfectly fair. The Minister and other Members will remember the visit of people from the Centre for Independent Living who courageously challenged a lot of presumptions about people with disabilities and wanted to be empowered to take control of their lives. I am sure the Minister and his advisers are aware that internationally it is common for organisations for persons with disabilities to be run exclusively by people who are themselves disabled. The amendment is not as radical as that but it suggests we make at least the modest advance that people from these named organisations should be considered in a positive context by the Minister.
In choosing the board the Minister has picked some people with disabilities, and they come from an environment in which they deal all the time with people with disabilities. This is to be welcomed but are these people and their representative groups being treated as adults if the Minister chooses their representatives? It is a cardinal element of democracy that people be allowed to choose their own representatives. This happens all over the world — the South African authorities wanted to pick the black leaders with whom they would negotiate; similarly, in Northern Ireland the British Administration wanted to pick the republican leaders with whom they would treat; and the Indonesian authorities wished to pick representatives for the East Timorese people. Obviously this legislation does not go that far but — with the greatest respect, because I know the Minister is a humane man — there is an unwitting degree of patronisation in this, as if we know the best people to represent someone else. They may know themselves and may have a different view. In selecting a person to represent another group — telling one person to represent them in one field — there is always a temptation to pick the person who will give the least trouble. That is only human — no one wants to invite trouble — but sometimes, particularly in organisations like this, it is good to have vocal people who might cause abrasiveness.
The suggestion is that of the board of 20 people, who will have the ultimate say on many matters to do with disability, it should be recognised as desirable that four people, only one-fifth of the board's membership, be nominated from these umbrella organisations. The Minister has not yet indicated whether he will accept the amendment but I hope he will because he generously accepted the substance of another amendment the other day, and he could do this without prejudicing the interests of himself, the Department and his successors, because the amendment only speaks of the desirability of these organisations being represented. Sometimes Ministers answer that they cannot mention one organisation without mentioning another, and that soon we would have a list as long as one's arm but I do not believe that, as one will find if one talks to people with disabilities and their organisations. I do not mind if the Minister includes additional organisations to be considered.
If we want to empower people with disabilities, this is a critical area where the Minister can show good intentions and good will. I hope he will accept at least the substance of the amendment, as it would show good faith and a commitment to liberate people who have these disadvantages.
I believe section 20(3) as drafted meets the need of the board of the National Disability Authority to be truly representative of people with disabilities, their families and carers while at the same time ensuring it includes a wide range of interests and represents a balance of key stake holders as recommended by the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. The commission also recommended that at least 60 per cent of members of the authority should be people with disabilities or their families. The consultants to the commission made reference to this delicate balance, advising:
If the board is dominated by Government Departments and statutory agencies it may lack courage in challenging current practice. If, however, it is dominated by service users and carers it may lack the knowledge, leverage and legitimacy necessary to achieve real change.
The establishment group's recommendation for the membership of the authority was made with due regard to the need to achieve this balance. It recommended that account be taken of the following groups: people with disabilities; their representatives, families or carers; service providers, both statutory and voluntary; relevant Departments; the social partners and the staff of the National Disability Authority. Section 20(3) provides for this recommendation. It succeeds in achieving this balance while adhering as closely as possible to the recommendations made by the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities in this regard.
In appointing the members of the interim authority I took account of, and found most useful, the many nominations I received from disability groups. It is standard practice for interested parties to make nominations and for consideration to be given to all such nominations. This will no doubt continue to be the case as the provision in section 20(3) stands. It would not, however, be the case if I were to accept amendment No. 3. As Senators are aware, a large number of organisations represent the disability sector but just four are mentioned in the proposed amendment. There are other organisations which, in the view of many, would have an equal interest in having nomination rights to the authority.
The Minister could include them.
In the circumstances I believe it equitable to provide, as section 20(3) does, more general criteria for appointment to the authority.
An interim authority has been appointed to the National Disability Authority. These appointments have been made with full cognisance of the recommendations for its memberships, as reflected in the provision in section 20(3). The representative nature of the interim authority is borne out when one looks at the credentials of the members appointed. Senator Taylor-Quinn was anxious that the people on the authority should have expertise and that is something I ensured because I do not believe anyone has greater expertise on disability that those who have disabilities. For that reason, I ensured that the majority of board members, 13, were people with disabilities, their families or carers. Nobody could know more about disabilities than a person who has lived with disability. Seven board members come from organisations representing disability, including the Irish Council for People with Disabilities, the national representative council, the Irish Wheelchair Association, the Mental Health Association and the Disability Federation of Ireland. One must agree that this composition reflects a broad spectrum of disability groups and organisations without any of the rigidity which would arise from an amendment such as that proposed by the Senators.
It is not, of course, my function as Minister to determine what groups shall be deemed to be representative of people with disabilities. Many groups are in existence which intend to provide for or promote the interests and welfare of people with disabilities. My Department has had direct contact with 100 disability groups. In this context, I note that the forum for people with disabilities and the national representative council of people with disabilities have not been considered in the amendments. The disability sector is emerging and evolving and the legislation to establish the new Authority must be able to keep pace with developments in the sector as they occur. The amendments would be detrimental to the overall balance of the structural arrangements for the Authority and I am not disposed to accepting them.
I am very proud of the board which I put in place. When the chairman of the Kerry county board saw the list he felt that perhaps I should be taken on as a selector for the Kerry football team during the coming season.
They need some inspiration having won only one All-Ireland in 12 years. That is bad for Kerry. Perhaps the Minister and Deputy Healy-Rae could advise the board.
That would be a flashpoint combination.
The Senator was out of the country when Kerry won the All-Ireland football final last.
I do not accept what the Minister said and he does not believe it fully when he reflects on it. I cannot see why any Minister should jealously hoard the responsibility and privilege of making appointments of this nature. The Minister should go out of his way to devolve this responsibility in a democratic and representative fashion. The legislation is more watered down than I thought. The Minister said that 11 out of 21 members of the Authority would be representative of disabled organisations, disabled people and their carers. The legislation allows him to appoint the remaining ten people without reference to criteria or guidelines relating to the disabled, recipients or providers. The Minister can merrily look into his heart and write down the names of ten good, staunch representatives of whatever cumann or body he thinks.
I will not.
I am sure the Minister will not do that. That was a throwaway remark. However, it can be done by the Minister of the day under this legislation every four years. Why can the Minister not build in the entitlement for certain representatives to be nominated as is commonplace in other legislation? There would then be procedures and mechanisms in place which would not leave the appointments entirely to ministerial choice.
How can any Minister see himself as the appropriate person to make appointments to a board comprising 21 people? I do not understand why the Minister is not prepared to go out of his way to divest himself of that appointment mechanism. He can give his imprimatur to the appointments but should he be the nominating individual? That would be improper, and remarks by previous speakers recognise that. We should look for what is clearly perceived as an exercise in democracy and not ministerial dictat.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 12, line 12, to delete "one member" and substitute "two members".
We have been over this ground and I do not intend to delay unduly on this. The Minister stated that because the staff number is only 35, there should not be two worker-directors on the board. It should not be forgotten that the board is a substantial size with 20 members and a chairperson and it is a difficult role for one member of staff to play. The norm is that at least two members of staff are on such a board. The danger is, of course, that somebody could be appointed as a staff representative and cease to be a member at any time. There is no mechanism for a substitute to be put in place or for somebody to be elected instead of that individual. Currently, an individual who no longer works for the NRB still retains his position as a board member.
There should be a mechanism for replacement if that member is supposed to be representative of the staff. The fact that there is no scope for flexibility is disappointing. The Minister should reconsider this matter. The amendment would simply add one member to the board, satisfy the wishes of the staff and ensure that the Minister would not find himself in a situation where the staff would not be represented on the board, for example, if the representative were seconded to do further study or work somewhere else or resign to take up another job. One could end up with no staff representatives on the board for a number of years.
I second the amendment.
Section 20(4) provides for the appointment to the authority of an elected member of staff. The amendment seeks to increase the number of staff representatives that are required to be appointed to two. The concept of worker participation on the boards of State bodies has evolved in recent decades and reflects the current partnership approach to social and economic issues. A particular approach is evident in large corporate bodies, such as Aer Lingus, An Post, the ESB, Telecom Éireann, etc. These bodies have substantial numbers of employees, often involving diverse groups which may have different concerns. The boards of these organisations are generally management boards, with major responsibility for overseeing the functioning of a big commercial organisation.
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which has responsibility for the Worker Participation Act, has encouraged the development of staff representation in this context. That Department also recognises the differing needs of non-commercial State organisations in regard to staff representation. For this reason, it advocates that a case by case approach be taken in making legislative provision for staff representation on the boards of new organisations.
In a number of recent cases, legislation has been enacted to establish new State bodies without reference to staff representation on the board. This is the case with Enterprise Ireland, the National Standards Authority of Ireland and the National Social Services Board. Each of these organisations has one staff member on its board on an administrative basis. Nonetheless, I am convinced it is appropriate to make provision for a staff representative in the legislation establishing the National Disability Authority. As a small expert body, I envisage a close working relationship between the board and staff which will be facilitated by the inclusion of this representative.
I have already outlined the reasons I do not propose to accept this amendment. I have indicated that the issue of staff representation on the board of the National Disability Authority must be evaluated on the basis of the approach most appropriate for that particular body.
There are many examples of State boards for which there is no provision for staff representation. These include An Bord Pleanála, Bord na Gaeilge, Bord Fáilte, CERT and The Blood Transfusion Service Board. The board for the employment of the blind is another non-commercial State body which provides, like the NDA, for one staff representative to be included on the board. The authority is to be established as an expert body. The arrangement for one staff representative in the Bill is fully in line with existing practice and policy in this regard.
I have said that the NDA will be a small organisation with an expected staff complement of 35 employees in total. It would be disproportionate, in my view, to provide for more than one staff representative on a body of this size.
This rationale was adopted by the Department of the Marine when it provided in the Harbours Act, 1996, that the level of staff representation on the harbour authorities would depend on the number of employees of each authority. Where an authority has fewer than 30 employees, there is no provision for a staff representative on the board. There is provision for one staff representative on medium sized harbour boards and for two staff representatives only in the case of the biggest harbour boards.
The provision in the Bill with regard to worker participation is fully in line with best practice in State enterprises. As a result, I am not disposed to accede to the Senator's proposal to increase the number of worker representatives on the authority.
My objective is to try to ensure that this authority is as inclusive as possible. I have absolutely no interest in having an authority which is not fully representative because it is too important an issue for that. I have the greatest respect for the staff of the National Rehabilitation Board, which has done outstanding work over the years. I have no doubt that the 35 staff who are now moving to the National Disability Authority will continue with that excellent work. I would like to have more staff representatives but I must ensure the legislation is proportionate and that those who serve on the authority are representative. In this context, I believe that, by providing in the legislation for the appointment of a staff representative, I have been more than fair and that my approach is correct.
I cannot see myself being successful in convincing the Minister at this stage that there should be two staff members. However, what provision is there to replace a member elected to the board who ceased to be a staff member, because there would then be no member of staff on the board? Has the Minister considered that eventuality?
A staff representative who takes up a job elsewhere would, in the normal course, be expected to resign as a member of the board. In that event, a new election would take place under section 20(4)(b) and related regulations which will be made.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 5 is out of order.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister and his staff for their good work and for the detail and courtesy with which all the replies were given. Anything we did was with the intention of improving the legislation. I hope the Bill will be effective and of substantial benefit to those at whom it is directed.
I thank the Minister for his kind attention to the House during the debate on the Bill. I said at the outset that this is one of the few Bills that has been initiated in the Seanad. We thank the Minister sincerely for the recognition he has shown the House in that regard. I also thank him and the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, for their ongoing commitment to people with disabilities. Today marks a major step forward in terms of what we can do in this regard. I wish him and his staff a happy Christmas.
I also thank the Minister for initiating this Bill in the Seanad and for the detail which he and his staff have put into it. This is detailed, progressive legislation which is long overdue and is very welcome. Undoubtedly, the Minister, being a man of common sense, will reflect on the amendments which were tabled and he might take them on board in the Lower House and ensure they become part of the Bill. I wish him, his staff, the Leas-Chathaoirleach and all Members and staff of the House a happy Christmas.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I remind Members we are sitting tomorrow.
I thank you, a LeasChathaoirligh, the Cathaoirleach and all the Acting Chairmen who presided over the various Stages of the Bill. I particularly wish to express my thanks to the spokespersons of each party and the Independents who contributed to the debate.
We have had a very constructive debate and the legislation has been substantially improved as a result. At least one substantive amendment was accepted, in principle, so the legislation is not leaving the House in the form it arrived; it is much improved, which is a very good thing. That does not surprise me, and should not surprise anyone else, because some amendments tabled in this House — although not all of them — can be very worthwhile. I thank Senators for that.
I wish to pay tribute to my staff who have worked extremely hard on this legislation over a protracted period and have been so courteous and helpful here. I also wish to thank the staff of the Seanad for being so efficient and courteous throughout.
Question put and agreed to.