Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Feb 1984

Vol. 347 No. 10

National Social Service Board Bill, 1983: Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 29, to delete "1983" and substitute "1984".

Section 1 defines the terms used in the Bill and it contains the standard interpretative provisions. The amendment updates the definition of the financial year, namely, to delete 1983 and to substitute 1984.

The fact that the Minister has to change the date is an indication of one of the problems we mentioned in relation to this Bill when we were discussing Second Stage, namely, why the Minister did not allow the National Community Development Agency to function. The fact that we are changing the date to 1984 is an indication of failure on the part of the Government to bring forward legislation to deal with problems that may arise.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

This section contains a standard provision empowering the Minister to appoint by order an establishment day for the purposes of this Bill. It is a routine provision.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

This provides for the establishment on the establishment day of the National Social Service Board to perform the functions designated to it under the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following new paragraph:—

"(g) to foster, assist and aid projects of community involvement and activity, and to facilitate the mobilisation of self-help particularly in communities in which there is a high degree of poverty and social deprivation.".

A somewhat similar section was included in the National Community Development Agency Act. For a Government, and particularly the Labour Party, who say they are committed to the socially deprived and to those who suffer poverty, I am surprised this section was left out in the legislation before the House. I am asking the House to agree to have this section included in the Bill because it will help different groups, for example women's groups, those who wish to organise play groups, personal development, it would help youth involvement, itinerants and so on.

I regret I am unable to accept the amendments proposed by Deputy O'Hanlon for the reasons I have already given during the Second Stage debate. I explained that the National Social Service Board was intended specifically to assist the development of social services and I strongly feel we need a new separate statutory body if we are to work in the specific direction of developing our social services structures. As I have already indicated in relation to the combat poverty question, I am in the process of re-establishing the combat poverty organisation. Deputy O'Hanlon's amendments come more appropriately within the ambit of that body and a memorandum has been circulated to various Government Departments in relation to the combat poverty organisation and final observations are being received. I will be going to the Government with these observations within the next few weeks and I hope to have this cleared in the very near future. For these reasons, and bearing in mind that the thrust of this legislation is to establish the National Social Service Board on a firm statutory basis, I regret I am unable to accept the amendments.

The Minister said he intends establishing the combat poverty organisation. We know from experience that there was an appalling overlapping of the work being done by the local community associations with the result that a number of associations were in complete disarray. When we are talking about the National Social Service Board we are mainly concerned with the community associations rather than the poverty association. I served on the National Service Council, which was more or less working in an advisory capacity rather than giving directions to various community associations. In Cork we had sad experience with the poverty group overlapping and interfering with the work of the local community associations. Deputy Desmond was not Minister at that time, but he must have some information of the number of representations made from local community associations, together with the central community association, about this appalling overlapping and obstruction of the work of the local community associations. I would like to hear the Minister's views on this.

I strongly hold the view that there is a need for a separate role for the National Social Service Board. Deputies are aware of the specific functions of the board as outlined — questions of accessibility to social services, the co-ordination of social service delivery, the development of information and advice in relation to social services giving assistance to other local communities to help them in setting up voluntary social services. All these aims are quite specific but the broader question of alleviating poverty and doing research into poverty in the community in any part of the country is a separate question.

The National Social Service Board never intended to get into the area of pilot projects or research projects on poverty questions, for example, dealing with the international aspects of poverty, matters of emigration, poverty among certain groups within the community and so on. All those issues are not germane to the functions of a National Social Service Board. Under section 4 I have provided reasonable expansion of the functions of that board in relation to other voluntary agencies, and that is as far as we should go.

I do not want to sound unduly caustic about the previous body but it was a bit of a hybrid. It attempted to do everything and ended up being responsible for virtually nothing. It encompassed too great a range of activity. For some reason which I have never been able to fathom, the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesman, Deputy Woods, had a terrible aversion to combat poverty questions, probably because they emanated from this side of the House, particularly the Labour Party. To overcome that aversion the National Community Development Agency was proposed. I do not think it was particularly successful or if there was any real heart behind that approach. I have spoken to people in this area who have no axe to grind or who are not politically motivated, and they assured me that what most people want is to see the National Social Service Board established on a statutory basis, to give it a chance to get its life together and to get the staff working delivering information services, setting up local community social service councils, assisting them and so on. They will have additional functions now. I would hope that the agency would be able to give considerable assistance to the National Council for the Aged. I have asked them to help out and co-ordinate the work of that body. The Bill is very specific and does not lead to any confusion.

I listened carefully to the Minister but he did not explain why it was necessary to delete these sections from the National Community Development Agency Act. The Minister went on to talk about his view and that the Leader of our party was not committed to the Combat Poverty Agency. It is important to recognise one or two facts. The first is that the EEC-aided Combat Poverty Agency was complete in 1977. It was funded by the Fianna Fáil Government when the Leader of our party was then Minister for Health. That is an indication of his commitment, as indeed is all the social legislation he introduced in this House during the time he was Minister and did something positive for the less well off in our society.

I do not want to go into the features of the present Government's commitment to the less well off, with this latest 7 per cent increase for those in receipt of social welfare benefits and assistance this year and the 8 per cent VAT imposition on clothing which will affect the poorer sections of our community. I do not want to go into that line of argument now. But I should have liked the Minister to have given us some reasons why this paragraph should not be included in the Bill, as to why a combat poverty element should not be incorporated. After all two years ago this House passed the National Community Development Agency Bill. Last year £2,250,000 were allocated to be spent on this specific work to alleviate poverty in the community and in helping community development. It should be pointed out that £1.8 million of that amount was left unexpended. Five hundred thousand pounds of it was given to voluntary bodies through the health boards. The Minister has not advanced any good reason today why these amendments should not be incorporated in this Bill. Had he allowed the National Community Development Agency to function for one or two years and then come in and said to the House, "Look, I have seen this agency in operation and I am not satisfied with the way it operates", he could have confidently stood up and told the House that he had a certain view on it. The National Community Development Agency was in existence all of last year, it was not allowed function. Now the Minister tells us it was a hybrid organisation. We do not know how it would have turned out. I hold the view that it would have turned out very well.

The Minister talked about poverty, about pilot projects on poverty, about research into poverty and then particular groups that suffer from poverty. Let us take the elderly as an example. Apart from all of the statutory bodies involved in the care of the elderly, there is the National Council for the Aged and the National Social Service Board. The National Council for the Aged will be independent of the National Social Service Board. Now the Minister tells us we will have further legislation to deal with the combat poverty element. Surely the point Deputy Wyse made earlier about overlapping is an indication to us in this House of good legislation not being allowed to work. Now we are introducing further legislation which, in all probability, will have the effect of overlapping with existing legislation. I see no reason why this amendment should not be accepted.

I support the amendment put forward by Deputy O'Hanlon which would meet the needs the Minister seems to feel exist. I was questioned in the House in the early days of the establishment of the Combat Poverty Agency. That agency did achieve many satisfactorily results on some of the projects they initiated. Certainly one would have to question some of the activities of the combat poverty group when one sees them involved in schemes encouraging farmers to fatten lambs down in Castletownbere, or involved in projects organising the setting up and selling of newspapers and newsletters in certain areas. The importance of such projects would have to be justified in the combating of poverty if one were to be satisfied that a combat poverty team was to be successful. It is important that we identify the problems obtaining. There is nobody better qualified to do so than the people involved in community activities already, people involved in the existing social services arrangements or those with the statutory responsibility in health boards.

The amendment put forward by Deputy O'Hanlon will meet what the Minister is trying to achieve and, at the same time, avoid any overlapping. This will ensure that we will not have, as in many aspects of industry, numerous bodies promoting the same projects and ideas and endeavouring to tackle the same problems. We can have an effective National Social Service Board which, in conjunction with voluntary organisations, can identify the areas most in need of attention. We do not want to have a repetition of overlapping and added bureaucracy onto an already over-burdened bureaucracy. This amendment can meet the needs of this situation.

I am afraid I must labour this point with the Minister. I do not think the Minister replied to the point I was endeavouring to convey to him. We should examine the basic principle of community services councils and how they commenced from their inception. They were people getting together, carrying out a proper assessment of the needs of their community. Once established then they set up a structure to cater for those needs. That is the basic principle of such community services councils in our part of the world or, indeed, anywhere such services operate. We have agreed on this. The Minister tells us then that, with the aid of the National Social Service Board in helping people to establish this structure, there is another structure which we might call the combat poverty one. It is difficult to understand this.

Every Minister, since the inception of community services council boards has had experience of the two bodies working against one another, the cost involved, with a complete overlap of their respective functions.

Here I am not being political because we should forget about political involvement — I am not indulging in any political dialogue this afternoon; I am endeavouring to say to the Minister, in the interests of all concerned to please forget about establishing a structure if he intends establishing another one later. It will lead to utter confusion. The people best able to serve their communities are those living within those communities. As the Minister knows, there were people operating this combat poverty project who were not members or had not come from a given area. For example, in Cork I understand there was one person from Dublin. One might well ask what on earth would he or she have in common with the needs of a community in the city of Cork? However, that is beside the point.

I ask the Minister to let me know now what he has in mind regarding the combating of poverty. We are now talking about a second structure and we have already enough confusion about the many existing structures. Not alone are we going to have a National Social Service Board, but later on another similar organisation under a different name. I fear no contradiction in advising the Minister in his own interest to contact the various health boards on the whole question of the two structures we are now discussing. They will know from their experience of the two groups working against one another and depriving of important services the community they are supposed to be serving. What exactly has the Minister in mind as regards the terms of reference of the combat poverty group which he promises to establish later on?

I both agree and disagree with the last speaker. I would not fault the proposed amendment. The Deputy is confusing two very different jobs. I welcome the proposed legislation to establish statutorily a National Social Service Board which is doing excellent work of a particular kind, of which a great deal more is needed. In their task of developing an extensive social services network throughout the country they have much to do and would benefit from being statutorily established.

The kind of work needed in the poverty area must be undertaken by a separate organisation in a wholehearted, concentrated and full fashion. This is a problem which is radically different from being involved with the surfaces of the problem in our society and needs a deep examination of root causes. There are areas which need national policies.

Deputies underestimate the work which is needed if they see the National Combat Poverty Agency as simply a repeat of the activities undertaken by the National Social Service Board. One of their most important roles must be a fundamental examination of Government policy areas such as accounting policies and educational policies, which need to be examined from the roots, and for overall changes to be made in how money is spent and how many areas are approached. As well as work being needed on the ground there is certainly work needed at Government level. The National Social Service Board have a different job to do and they have been setting about it very well in their informal existence. I hope that they will continue to expand and develop. The Minister has shown wisdom in ensuring that the chairman of the National Social Service Board is now chairman of the Review Body from which the proposals will come for the programme to combat poverty.

The previous speaker's comments about duplication are valid and there is a lot to be learned from the experience of the previous pilot programme. It is important that those lessons be learned and the same mistakes not made again. Nobody is more suited to being aware of those pitfalls than the person who was head of the National Social Service Board and who would have been aware of the problems of individuals with whom the council were experiencing difficulty in working on the pilot projects. In learning from that experience the Minister is going about things in the right way and we need separate organisations. The problem is too big and essentially too different to be tackled by the National Social Service Board which has a particular and important job to do.

Finally, I totally agree with the last speaker concerning local activities and local projects. There are local needs and there should be, perhaps not absolutely local people to deal with them but certainly the aims and the targets of local projects should be decided by local people and as far as possible run by local people.

Briefly, it is fair to say that when the National Social Service Board were in their former state of existence prior to the setting up of the National Community Development Agency the old Combat Poverty Agency was not in existence. Despite whatever elements of confusion developed at that stage and whatever criticisms might have been levelled at the work of that agency — and undoubtedly there was some degree of confusion and lack of co-ordination — nevertheless, even with those defects it could hardly be said that they cut across the work of the National Social Services Board.

I can assure the Deputy that I, perhaps more than any other Minister so far with this portfolio, am adamantly opposed to setting up quangos either on the economic or on the social side. I shall ensure that there are quite clear functional and operational differences between those bodies in their work. I consulted with the Commission on Social Welfare prior to the setting up of the proposed combat poverty organisation, have received their views and have taken these into account in the preparation of the memorandum to Government. I share the view that we should go ahead and establish the National Social Service Board on a separate statutory basis with the limited specific functions they have here. I say to my colleague, Deputy Wyse, as a Corkman who came to Dublin and has worked here since 1957, that I see nothing at all wrong with a Dublin man going to work in Cork. A bit of cross-fertilisation in this country might eliminate a lot of our present parocialism.

We fit them into the community, not dictate to them.

I see no reason why we should withdraw our amendment. Indeed, nothing that the Minister or Deputy Flaherty have said suggests that the National Social Service Board would be better without this amendment included in its legislation. I believe that there will be overlapping in the coming legislation. I agree with Deputy Flaherty about the excellence of the chairman of the National Social Service Board. This is another very good reason for including the poverty element in that board rather than having separate legislation. I ask the House to accept our amendment.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 75.

  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Seán.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Cathal, Seán.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzsimons, Jim.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gregory-Independent, Tony.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • O'Dea, William.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Edmond.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • Ormonde, Donal.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Myra.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bermingham, Joe.
  • Birmingham, George Martin.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Conlon, John F.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • Cosgrave, Liam T.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Martin Austin.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Glenn, Alice.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McLoughlin, Frank.
  • Manning, Maurice.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Molony, David.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Naughten, Liam.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Brien, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Prendergast, Frank.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
  • Skelly, Liam.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Briscoe and V. Brady; Níl, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following new paragraph:—

"(h) to draw on and evaluate research on self-help, poverty and social deprivation by third level educational and other bodies, and to promote, and with the approval of the Minister, to engage in, such research from time to time on specific projects.".

I do not understand why this paragraph cannot be included in the Bill. A similar paragraph was included in the National Community Development Agency Act. It is unfortunate that the Government did not allow that Act to operate over the past year. If the Government were not satisfied with the way in which that body were working the Minister should have come into the House and told us that he would like to propose some amendment to the Act. A sum of £2¼ million was allocated to the National Community Development Agency. The personnel of that agency are excellent but they were not allowed to operate.

This paragraph and the paragraph in the previous amendment have been taken out of the National Community Development Agency Act. A new Social Service Board are being set up and we are promised another Bill setting up a Combat Poverty Agency. In other words, we will have the expense of two bodies and we believe one body would be well competent to carry out the functions of the National Community Development Agency. If the proposal contained in the amendment applied to the National Social Service Board, I have no doubt that the board would be competent to evaluate research on self-help, poverty and social deprivation.

The broad objectives behind the amendment are entirely laudable but the functions outlined in the amendment are not within the framework of the objectives of the board. I have no doubt that the general operation of the board will highlight a number of the issues raised by Deputy O'Hanlon in the amendment but to give it a formal statutory function would be unwise. While I accept that there is a need to evaluate research on poverty and social deprivation by third level education institutions and other bodies, that work should be done by those bodies without specifically having a formal function under the board. For those reasons, and those outlined in my reply to the first amendment, I regret I cannot accept that the amendments should be incorporated in section 4.

There will be a lot of overlapping if we have the National Social Service Board and an agency to combat poverty. The National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty recommended in their final report that a national agency should be established. They suggested it should have similar functions to those proposed in the amendment, the co-ordination and dissemination of relevant information to deprived groups regarding their rights and entitlements on a range of issues. That body suggested the provision of specialist resources, advice and assistance to such groups and others engaged in self-help activities, including priming grants and training. We are anxious that the Bill should have a combat poverty element in it. If the combat element did not function — I have no reason to believe it would not — the Minister could tell the House then that it was necessary to have two groups. I cannot see any reason why there should be two statutory bodies dealing with this matter.

The National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty suggested the establishment of a national agency. They did not recommend two bodies. The Minister has not given us any reason why two bodies should be set up. He should accept our amendment. The National Community Development Agency should have been allowed function to see if it would be a hybrid organisation, as the Minister described it. I do not accept that. It would have been a very effective agency and would have avoided overlap. The elderly are catered for already by the National Council for the Aged and now the National Social Service Board will look after some of their needs. We have been promised further legislation on a combat poverty agency. They will function in addition to the Government Departments. It is unnecessary at this stage to establish two bodies when it is possible to do the job efficiently with one.

I fail to understand why the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment. There is no question of giving the board a statutory function. The board will act in an advisory capacity disseminating information throughout the country. Statutory bodies are involved already in local community associations. The Minister is asking the board to see how best they can involve the different associations in this work. He has a golden opportunity to improve their position because he has a wealth of information in his Department on the development of community councils. The Minister has an opportunity to perfect the work of the board and the various community associations. He should not introduce another structure that will cause further confusion and put all the good work done down through the years in disarray.

Community associations want to be linked to the Department of Health. It is important that the Department are aware of their needs, their plans and their financial position. The Minister should not consider a second structure. Once it is known that there will be a second organisation there will be a complete lack of interest in the various community associations who are doing tremendous work for the old, the physically handicapped and others. All services are being provided for these by local people. There is a need for greater recognition of their work. Our amendment is a guideline for the new board. The board could not be considered a statutory group because they will act in an advisory capacity to help local associations. I have had long association with community work projects in Cork City and from my experience it is important that the proposal contained in the amendment is adopted. The Minister should do everything possible to involve community associations in this work.

In a debate of this sort we may tend to talk to each other and to be at cross-purposes. I share some of the sentiments expresed by Deputies Wyse and O'Hanlon but I would refer them to paragraphs (d) and (e):

(d) to promote, encourage and assist, whether by means of the provision of financial or material aid, personnel or services or otherwise, in local communities the establishment and development of voluntary social services for those communities,

(e) to promote, develop, encourage and assist, whether by means of the provision of financial or material aid, personnel or services or otherwise, co-operation in relation to social services between boards, and other bodies, established by or under statute and voluntary organisations.

The board will encourage and assist and promote. They will have an opportunity to provide money and therefore to assist some of the desirable objectives outlined by Deputy Wyse in relation to local bodies doing local work well. When it comes to doing fundamental research on poverty and social deprivation and other broader social issues I am anxious that the board would not be engaged in those areas. That is work for the proposed combat poverty organisation. It would be work requiring great intensity and exceptional expertise. It will be quite separate from the valuable work of the National Social Service Board.

However, it will be part of the board's work to create more public awareness and to disseminate information with that in view. The board will advise on existing social services. They will have their hands full in the years ahead. The work of the board will remove the considerable uncertainty which has bedevilled our social service structure in the past 18 months or two years. They will be on a firm footing and should quickly be able to settle down to do their work quickly and effectively.

The amendment, I suggest, would be more appropriately aimed at the combat poverty organisation and I assure the two Deputies that I will be doing my utmost to ensure there will not be duplication and consequent waste of resources because all these issues are widely understood in the Departments of Health and Social Welfare.

The Minister quoted paragraphs (d) and (e) and said they were in line with the sentiments expressed by Deputies Wyse and me. That just indicates how close the relationship will be between this board and the combat poverty organisation which the Minister intends to set up: indeed he has made a good case in favour of having just the one organisation. Is the Minister satisfied with the words "to draw and evaluate"? If so, would he accept the words, "to promote"? We would go along with that. We insist that there is not a need for two organisations, because one would do. We have many skilled people in the country who would be prepared to serve on such an agency but I doubt if we would have enough of them to staff two agencies, in which case we would lose the benefit of the work of both agencies. If the Minister accepts the words "to promote research" rather than "to draw on and evaluate research" we would be happy.

I would have difficulty in accepting such an amendment at this stage. The Deputy appreciates that I am anxious to expedite the establishment of the board for a variety of reasons. Its setting up has been delayed and in fairness to the National Community Development Agency I do not think there should be further delay.

Would the Minister be prepared to insert "to promote as far as possible"? He could give the board a 12-month trial and then consider it further.

Much as I am tempted, I could not accept it. I do not want to devolve research functions on the new board. If they were to engage in research a whole new function would be opened up for them.

The Minister seems to be misinterpreting what I said. I am not talking about involving them in research work. I am suggesting that they would recommend to the various organisations that they embark on that work. I would not like the board to be bogged down with research. All I am suggesting is that they be empowered to encourage existing structures to embark on research work.

I am not being obdurate, but I would have great difficulty in accepting such an amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Section 4 (1) (c) states:

to promote . . . the development of services and schemes in local communities for the dissemination of information and advice in relation to social services,

What is the difference between information and advice in so far as it affects that section? I have in mind the possibility of overlap with health board functions.

It is largely to strengthen the section. Basic information and data are extremely useful but very often there are subjective matters in the delivery of social services and as such giving advice would be of value. In one of the board's publications, Relate, there is often an interesting analysis of what the services entail and how they might be changed. It is not as rigid as information might appear to be.

It is important to be clear on what advice means in the context of the section. One would not want to see overlap with the functions of the health board or the services they provide at present. We would not want to see community information service centres in competition or conflict with the health boards who have a statutory responsibility to provide such services.

I accept the Deputy's stricture in that regard.

Section 4 (2) states:

The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by regulations, confer on the Board such functions (in addition to the functions conferred on the Board by subsection (1) of this section) in relation to social services as the Minister thinks proper or withdraw from the Board any functions conferred on it by the said subsection (1).

When speaking on the National Community Development Agency Bill, 1982, the Minister was concerned about a similar section in that Bill. He believed it would interfere with the freedom of the agency. On that occasion he stated:

The Bill seeks to give the agency powers to engage in programmes and in research, with the approval of the Minister. This differs greatly from what we propose. We speak about consultation, not approval, because we believe it is necessary that the agency would have freedom. Of course we agree they should consult with the Minister, but it is necessary for the agency to have maximum freedom to embark on schemes and programmes without being forced to go to the Minister for approval on all occasions.

Will this section curtail the freedom of the National Social Service Board?

One merit of that section, taken in conjunction with section 25, is that any regulations made under the subsection must be laid before the Oireachtas. This will give us an opportunity to comment on any changes which the Minister might propose subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance. That enabling section will obviate the necessity for constant return to the House with a new Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

I thank Deputies O'Hanlon and Wyse and their colleagues for their co-operation in ensuring the speedy passage of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share