Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Jun 2006

Vol. 184 No. 4

National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Sections 15 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Mr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 13, lines 9 to 11, to delete subsection (14) and substitute the following new subsection:

"(14) Not less than 40% of the members of a Body shall be men and not less than 40% shall be women.".

The Cathaoirleach is proceeding very fast. In Ireland we always aspire to what is regarded as the best. We are discussing a series of bodies that to a large extent, though not exclusively, will ensure we have a society in addition to an economy, with all that implies in terms of family, free time, leisure, education and so on. Yet, we are prepared to contemplate a position where a minority, or perhaps none, of the members of any of the bodies would be female. This is unacceptable to my party and to myself. Incidentally, what is acceptable to my party and what is acceptable to me do not always overlap. I am disappointed that no reference is made in the Bill to a particular percentage of women that must be members of each body and so we move this amendment.

One of the most peculiar decisions of recent times was the omission of women from the original board of supervisors of the national pension fund, despite women needing pensions more than men because they tend to live longer. I do not believe this was because there were no suitably qualified women, it was because the area of high finance is a macho, male-dominated area of society. More business deals are probably struck in men-only golf clubs than anywhere else. It is a pity that something as soft-focused as this, however important it might be, does not provide for specific quotas. I look forward to the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Tom Kitt, explaining why women are important and should be on these boards but do not require a quota guaranteeing a certain level of presence.

Mr. Bradford

I support Senator Ryan's comments. In a sense this amendment highlights the disappointing lack of progress on broad issues of equality. It should not be necessary to prescribe quotas, but appointments across a range of boards and bodies indicate that women are not receiving a fair allocation of such jobs. This type of amendment should be considered and enacted as an interim measure and to set down a marker. If we seek to create a fair and equal society women must play a full part. We celebrated 1916 in a formal fashion some weeks ago and we cannot avoid the fact that the State had founding mothers and founding fathers. We must ensure the role of women is fully recognised and Senator Ryan's proposed amendment to this Bill is reasonable and fair. I look forward to the Minister of State's response because it will be difficult to justify ruling out this amendment and to do so would almost rule in discrimination.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. T. Kitt)

I understand the points of view expressed by the Senators and this issue has arisen before. I agree with much of what has been proposed however the problem is it may be somewhat impractical. I am confident we can work towards the equitable balance referred to in the Bill.

Appointments to a body may not always be at the discretion of the Government as they may be nominees of representative bodies. Given those circumstances I cannot accept the amendment. When this issue was raised on Committee Stage in the Dáil, I undertook to ask the Taoiseach to write to the nominating bodies to convey the views of the select committee on the matter of gender balance. I wish to advise that such a letter issued on 31 august 2005. I note that the board of the National Economic and Social Development Office consists of three women and three men which gives 50% representation to women. Not all bodies are as good as that. In my time as Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, with special responsibility for labour affairs, consumer rights and international trade I had a role in making appointments and I endeavoured to work towards gender balance. To the best of my knowledge every Minister or Minister of State who is in such a position does that. In some areas one is effectively asking a nominating body to nominate a person. It is difficult to deal with that issue. Does one ask one body to nominate a female member and another body to nominate a male member? That is one of the practical problems. I cannot go any further than to reassure the House that the Government is aware of the position. The Taoiseach has written, as requested by Members of the other House from the Senator's party, to the nominating bodies to convey the views of the select committee on gender balance.

Mr. Ryan

I am not addressing this issue to the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, with whom I get on well, but I am always amazed at the way in which the Government can understand the positions of the powerful but as one moves down the chain of power in society can go into a position of absolute rigidity. I recall the Government's decision to exempt itself from any of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act while insisting that everybody else at lower levels in the food chain was subject to the full rigours. The amendments introduced were entirely about the inconvenience to Government of aspects of it but everybody else had to accept the full rigours. Some years ago the staff of the Cork Institute of Technology were allowed to elect two members to the board of management. At that time the staff was approximately 95% male and 5% female — the gender balance has since improved — and the Department of Education and Science instructed that of the two members to be nominated to the board of management one had to be a man and one had to be a woman. There was no understanding of the complexity of the difficulties. It would be a shock to IBEC and ICTU if they were told to sort out the matter among themselves and ensure they had an arrangement whereby at least 40% of the board was female. This matter will continue until somebody says there is one major teacher union where the membership is probably 75% female and the national executive is approximately 75% male. It may be that women have more sense than to become involved in this area and sometimes one suspects that is the reason, but at the same time it is disappointing. While I do not believe in quotas, there are areas of society, particularly in the ranks of the employers' group, where women are excluded. A significant part of the real business of organisations such as IBEC is done outside of the official boardrooms and, perhaps, in golf clubs where women are not permitted to be members. Let us talk through the implications of this. It means they have places they can meet where they will not have to meet women and where there are people with whom they want to deal as equals. I will not make a huge song and dance about this because the point is well made and I do not want to embarrass a decent man further.

It is entirely wrong in respect of a body which is meant to focus on the future and provide an image of how we want to use our prosperity that we cannot say that 40% of the membership of the various bodies mentioned here should be female. That is the issue. We know there is no prospect of its being 75% female although perhaps it should be. Many of the issues that are most pertinent in Irish society are issues that are pertinent to women, particularly child care and work-life balance which are two of the biggest social issues facing the country.

Mr. Moylan

One could agree with much of what Senator Ryan said. However, the matter is spelled out as clearly as one can spell it out in the Bill. The Minister of State said that the Taoiseach said that in so far as practicable, having regard to the relevant experience, one must ensure that an equal balance between men and women forms the composition of the body. It is important that people take on board what the Minister of State said in regard to nominating bodies. If he were to spell out to nominating bodies that they were to nominate three females, two females, or whatever, people would get on their high horse and say they should not be told who to nominate because they would nominate the best people for the board. There is much in what Senator Ryan has said and he put it well. However, it would be difficult to put it into a Bill. The best balance is contained in the Bill.

Mr. T. Kitt

In a spirit of——

Mr. Ryan

Partnership.

Mr. T. Kitt

——openness and the debate so far I genuinely empathise but empathy is not great is this case. Certainly I can stand over decisions I made in the area of gender balance in previous Ministries. Following on from what Senator Moylan has said the Taoiseach's letter, which can be accessed by Members, refers to a requirement on all nominating bodies to State boards to nominate both male and female members for such appointments. The letter ends by stating that the Government is committed to a policy of gender equality in making appointments to State bodies and State boards. In the letter, which was written by his private secretary, the Taoiseach has asked that a nominating body, under the NESDO Bill, wherever possible one would take this as well as the views of the select committee and the Government decision — and obviously the debate here — into consideration when nominations are sought in due course. This objective has the support of the Taoiseach's message as a result of the debate in the Dáil, which has been replicated here. I am confident this issue will be taken seriously and we will certainly monitor it.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Ryan

We will come to that and decide on it. Perhaps the Minister of State will indicate the gender balance of the NESC, the forum and the other bodies?

Mr. T. Kitt

I had asked to see the percentages. The NESDO board has 50% female representation, the NESF board has 43.5% female representation, the NESC board has 18.75% female representation, the NCPP board has 35.7% female representation and the NESDO staff has 48% female representation. In summary female representation on the NESC board needs to improve.

Mr. Ryan

This country was embarrassed approximately two years ago when we were de facto suspended from the parliamentary forum of the Council of Europe because there was not a single female member on the delegation. The more enlightened European view was that we would not be allowed to vote. We acted because we were told to not because we were asked as I am sure this did not arise out of the blue. It was decided there were other reasons to ignore it. All the political parties ignored it. My parliamentary party is 40% female which is unique in Irish politics and we did not nominate a woman. I am not making a party political point but it was done because that body is regarded as one of the rewards for silent backbenchers or disappointed frontbenchers, I am not sure which.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 18 agreed to.

Section 19 agreed to.

SECTION 20.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 4a and 4b are related, and amendments Nos. 4c to 4e, inclusive, are consequential on amendment No. 4a. Therefore, amendments Nos. 4a to 4e, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 4a:

In page 13, subsection (2), lines 40 to 42, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following new paragraph:

"(a) paragraphs (a) and (b) do not apply to a member of the Forum to whom section 15(3)(a) applies who is nominated as a member of Seanad Éireann or is elected as a member of either House of the Oireachtas, and”.

Mr. T. Kitt

Are all the amendments grouped?

An Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Mr. T. Kitt

I thank Senator Ryan for bringing a particular matter to my attention, and my officials have done some work on it. I hope what we have done will be to the Senator's satisfaction. Some of the amendments brought in are minor, but one is substantial and came about as a result of what Senator Ryan highlighted.

I thank the House for the opportunity to make these amendments. Before I go on to deal with the individual amendments, it should be explained that they all deal with section 20 of the Bill. This section disqualifies persons who are Members of the Seanad, Dáil or the European Parliament, or a local authority, from being members of the council, forum or centre. It also requires that members of these bodies who become public representatives must cease such membership on being elected or nominated.

An exception must be made in the case of the forum, as section 15(3) of the Bill requires that 15 members of the forum shall be Members of either Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann, and also that between three and five must be representatives of the local government system. That exception is contained in subsection (2) in the case of persons already Members of one of these bodies and in the new subsection (5) in the case where a person is being nominated for membership.

With regard to the individual amendments, amendment No. 4a proposes a small but important change to section 20(2)(a). This subsection makes an exception in the case of the forum to the requirement contained in section 20(1) that a member of the council, forum or centre who becomes a public representative must cease to be such a member. The amendment in question is required to include Senators who are nominated, in addition to those who are elected. That is relatively straightforward.

The purpose of amendment No. 4c is to delete the words “member or” from subsection (4). The Parliamentary Counsel has advised that these words are superfluous.

Amendment No. 4d is required to refer subsection (4) to a proposed new subsection (5). This is the more substantial amendment. This new subsection is proposed in amendment No. 4e. The proposed new subsection makes an exception for persons who are for the time being entitled to sit in either House of the Oireachtas, and to whom section 15(3)(a) applies, from being disqualified from membership of the forum. This is an important amendment, as otherwise there would be a contradiction in the Bill between section 15(3), which defines the composition of the forum and requires that 15 members of the forum shall be Members of Dáil Éireann or the Seanad, and section 24, which would otherwise disqualify elected Members from membership of the forum.

I again thank Senator Ryan for bringing the matter to my attention. I am bringing forward a comprehensive amendment to resolve the issue. In addition to Senator Ryan, I thank Senators O'Meara, McDowell, Tuffy and McCarthy for tabling their amendment. I hope they will withdraw the amendment in light of my comprehensive amendment.

Mr. Ryan

I did not think this was a confrontational issue, and that is the reason I brought this matter to the Minister of State's attention before we began. The whole system involved is very central to our attempts to institutionalise partnership. It is a matter about which much debate is still required. I did not want to begin an argument. I appreciate the thought. Circumstances outside our control intervened to give some more time for reflection. I have no problem in withdrawing my amendment. Who am I to argue with the wisdom of the Parliamentary Counsel?

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 4b not moved.

Government amendment No. 4c:

In page 14, subsection (4), line 20, to delete "member or".

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 4d:

In page 14, subsection (4), line 21, to delete "Forum" and substitute "Forum (subject tosubsection (5))”.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 4e:

In page 14, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following new subsection:

"(5)Subsection (4) does not apply to a person, who is for the time being entitled under the Standing Orders of either Houses of the Oireachtas to sit therein, to whom section 15(3)(a) applies being appointed under section 15(2) as a member of the Forum.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

SECTION 23.

Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ryan

I accept this body is covered by the Freedom of Information Act. All the bodies will be covered. I am not happy that the definition of "confidential information" contained in this section is "information that is expressed by the Office or the Taoiseach to be confidential either as regards particular information or as regards information of a particular class or description". I believe it should state "Office of the Taoiseach". I do not wish to be pedantic about such matters.

This is an issue worthy of a little debate. I am not happy that the bodies are set up to report to the Taoiseach. It would be much better if they reported to the Oireachtas through the Taoiseach. Does this mean that if the Taoiseach did not like the contents of a particular report, he or she could classify it as confidential? It would therefore be delayed at least until a freedom of information request was made, and the usual three months or so go by.

I have no problem with confidential information being kept confidential, and nobody else would have either. I am not very happy that confidential information is information defined as such by the Taoiseach's office. Perhaps it is another office. I apologise, I am wrong. The Bill refers to "the Office or the Taoiseach". Both can state that information is confidential. I presume the Bill is referring to the National Economic and Social Development Office, which can express information as confidential. The Taoiseach can do likewise. I am mistaken.

I do not like the idea that anything stipulated by these two entities would be confidential. I will not make a big issue out of the matter. I wish we could provide something better. Subsection (2)(b), referring to commercial information, clearly has a good reason as such information is often confidential. Any other type of information should be subject to some test. Any material which is clearly covered by the Freedom of Information Act should automatically not be confidential. There should be no blanket capacity to express any information as confidential.

Mr. T. Kitt

There is no mistake.

Mr. Ryan

I accept that.

Mr. T. Kitt

The Bill should read as it is, namely, "expressed by the Office or the Taoiseach to be confidential". I realise the Senator has no amendments tabled on this section. Similar language applies to other such initiatives. The section states:

. . . a person shall not, without the consent of the relevant body, disclose any confidential information obtained by him or her while performing, or as a result of having performed, duties as—

(a) a member of a Body,

(b) a member of the staff of the Office (including the Chief Officer and Director),

(c) a member of a committee,

(d) an adviser or consultant to a Body.

It also defines "confidential information" and sets out the level of fine payable on summary conviction. It is designed to prevent the improper disclosure of information to ensure confidentiality in the workings of the office. I presume these conditions would apply in most similar organisations.

Dr. Mansergh

It is an interesting point worth discussing. In the past, we have had the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum which have comprised civil servants and nominees. In practice, the likelihood of an agreed report emerging which is totally objectionable to the Government is very slight. If it is creative, it may go beyond Government policy. It may be beginning to push out the boat. A number of speakers have recalled, for example, that the NESC report of autumn 1986 set out a type of blueprint for what subsequently became the Programme for National Recovery. A great deal depends on the word "confidential". People who are involved in the forum may have other roles and some information may come to their attention which they did not know but which may not be confidential, that may be from the CSO or hidden in some report, and presumably it is possible to use that.

It is not especially helpful on many occasions to have reports leaked in advance. I do not think there is any precedent whereby reports by the NESC or the NESF have been sat on and not published. It is certainly the case sometimes that consultancy reports to Ministers which have come up with findings that are not acceptable or palatable have not always been published. Sometimes they also contain confidential commercial information. The fears expressed by Senator Ryan do not really apply to this body, as composed, and given the track record of its predecessors.

Mr. Ryan

I do not wish to hold up the House unnecessarily but this is almost a standard clause which appears in every item of legislation I have seen for the past 25 years. Let us suppose the office decides that a certain matter is confidential, does that mean the Taoiseach's nominees cannot discuss it with the Taoiseach, and if it does not mean that, what does it mean? I use the Taoiseach as an example, it could also be ICTU or IBEC.

Dr. Mansergh

Surely "disclose" means publicly disclose? Confidential information is discussed all the time between members of bodies and with taoisigh, Ministers and so on. "Disclose" must be clearly understood as publish.

Mr. Ryan

Then why does it not state publish?

Mr. T. Kitt

To add to what Senator Mansergh said, there is another safeguard. The section states: "Save as otherwise provided by law", which also covers the Freedom of Information Act. Other protections exist but, as Senator Mansergh stated, in this case the reference is to public disclosure.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 24 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 35.

Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ryan

I oppose the section. The rhetoric of partnership involves consensus, consultation and everybody holding hands and being sweet with each other. Therefore, it is surprising to come across a section which states "The Taoiseach may, after consultation with the Office and any relevant Minister of the Government who has representation on the body concerned, by order dissolve the Council, the Forum, the Centre or any body." Section 35(2) states "An order...shall contain such provisions as the Taoiseach thinks necessary."

The proposed legislation comprising 42 sections has taken four years to pass through the Houses of the Oireachtas to set up three or four bodies — I can never figure out how many — plus any other bodies, yet the Taoiseach can dissolve any of them by a stroke of his pen. I do not suggest malevolent intent but I would like the Minister of State to explain why this must be done by order rather than by amending legislation. I can understand procedural issues may arise or there may be a need to replace members and so on but at the very least we ought to have a statutory instrument which would require the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas to do this.

The measure is probably legal and constitutional but it is dubious in terms of the spirit of the Constitution to have a series of bodies set up by statute that can be abolished by order of the Taoiseach.

Dr. Mansergh

Is "dissolve" the same as "abolish"? When one dissolves the Dáil, one does not abolish it, one simply sets in motion a procedure viz., a general election to provide one with a new Dáil. Does "dissolve" mean to dissolve the existing membership in order to put in a new membership?

Mr. T. Kitt

I thank Senator Mansergh for clarifying one aspect of this matter. We are talking about dissolution. There is nothing unusual about this measure. Section 35 states "The Taoiseach may, after consultation with the Office and any relevant Minister of the Government who has representation on the body concerned, by order dissolve the Council, the Forum, the Centre, or any body established under section 7.”

It is entirely appropriate that the Taoiseach shall have the right to dissolve a body if the circumstances altered its role or if agreement to this effect were reached in the context of social partnership. As the bodies will all have a statutory basis following the enactment of the Bill, there is a need to have a section which would facilitate their dissolution, otherwise they would exist indefinitely and, in any event, an order to dissolve a body would require the prior approval of each House of the Oireachtas under section 4 before it could be adopted. Accordingly, I cannot accept the proposed deletion.

Mr. Ryan

All right.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 36 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.

TITLE.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, are related and, therefore, will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 5, line 8 after "AS" to insert "OIFIG NÁISIÚNTA D'FHORBAIRT EACNAMAÍOCH AGUS SHÓISIALACH, OR IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE".

Tá súil agam go bhfuil a fhios ag an Tigh go mbím dáiríre i gcónaí faoi thábhacht na teanga agus faoin tábhacht a bhaineann leis an tsiombalaíocht a théann leis an dóigh a láimhseálann muid í. De ghnáth, the tradition and the practice is to insert the Irish title of the office into the Long Title. I am somewhat confused as to what is the Government's position because the Long Title of the National Sports Campus Development Authority Act contains both the English and Irish names. In the Registration of Deeds and Title Act, the Property Registration Authority, An tÚdarás Clárúcháin Maoine, is also mentioned in the Long Title as well as in the text of the Act and the Road Safety Authority Act also refers to the authority in both languages in the Long Title as an tÚdarás um Shábháilteacht ar Bhóithre. I am at a loss as to what is the policy, or does it depend on the peculiar mood of a particular person in the drafting office?

It would be useful to establish a standard practice in this regard. There is no convincing reason not to adhere to best practice, which is to refer to both of our constitutionally recognised languages in the Long Title, for which there appears to be plentiful precedent. It is a pity this is not the case. Any Minister in this or any alternative Government would agree with such an approach but it seems some unknown person has advised it is not necessary. Although I accept this is the case, it is nevertheless appropriate. Tá dhá theanga aitheanta ag an mBunreacht sa tír seo a ndeirimid go dtabharfaimid tacaíocht dóibh. Part of this is to give the Irish language appropriate acknowledgement.

Although I hesitate to mention his name given the mayhem he brought on the Government some weeks ago, Mr. Justice Hardiman has pointed to the need to have legislation translated expeditiously into the two languages. It is an excuse I rarely use when discussing legislation but I point out that I am not a lawyer as I wonder what is the legal basis for the inclusion of a Long Title. If there is such a legal basis, the Long Title should include a reference to the two official languages. I hope the Minister of State can offer some reason for this omission other than the mere observation that the inclusion of such a reference is not necessary. I do not have the legal knowledge to say it is necessary but I believe it is profoundly appropriate.

Mr. T. Kitt

Níl aon ghá glacadh leis an leasú seo a bhaineann leis an Teideal fada. Tá sé ar leathanach 6. The advice from the Parliamentary Counsel is that the reference made to the Irish Title on page 6 is sufficient. It is not proposed to amend the Long Title as it merely details the scope of the Bill. That is the advice from the Parliamentary Counsel.

The Senator made some interesting observations in regard to other legislation. We have debated consolidation Bills and other legislation in this House where we have tried to achieve uniformity. The advice I have, however, is that the reference in section 6, on page 6, is sufficient.

Dr. Mansergh

I presume the purpose of a Long Title is to enable persons consulting a volume of legislation to see at a glance the purpose of a particular Bill.

Mr. Ryan

I do not wish to be pedantic or silly about this but in the context of the Official Languages Act 2003, it is offensive that the Long Title does not include a reference to the Irish language Title of the Bill. This means the people of the Gaeltacht and others in the Irish speaking minority must search through the Bill for it.

I do not wish to be rude in making another point in this regard. If the Government Chief Whip cannot ensure that the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel adopts a consistent position on the use of the Irish names of State bodies, he should reconsider his role. An instruction from the Chief Whip with the authority of the Taoiseach to the effect that all Long Titles must include both the English and Irish versions of the names of the agencies to be set up would finally resolve this issue. As I said, I cannot argue that such an inclusion is necessary, but its omission is extremely inappropriate. It is a great pity that some unelected person has made this decision.

Dr. Mansergh

As King Lear said, "reason not the need". The point is that the Short Title on the front page of the Bill is paramount; the Long Title is merely a subsidiary title. That much should be said in defence of the Minister of State.

Mr. Ryan

I do not wish to delay the House. I only want to make the point that there should be consistency in this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, not moved.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Mr. Moylan

Tomorrow.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 21 June 2006.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Moylan

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.