I understand Deputy Barnes wishes to make a sad announcement and a request.
Private Members' Business. - National Social Service Board: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Howlin on Wednesday, 25 November 1987:
"That Dáil Éireann notes that the range of services provided by the National Social Service Board is managed by a total staff of 20, operating with a budget of £475,000. Dáil Éireann considers that continued operation of the NSSB would be the most cost effective and efficient way of providing the essential community services involved. Dáil Éireann also believes, that it would be counter productive to disperse the experience accumulated within the NSSB, and that it would be disastrous to attempt to distribute the services provided among different sections of the Department of Health, health agencies and other Departments. Accordingly, Dáil Éireann instructs the Government to rescind its decision to abolish the NSSB; and further, to provide sufficient resources to enable the NSSB to continue to function as efficiently as heretofore.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann", where it first appears, and substitute:
"endorses the decision of the Government to provide £1 million from funds made available by the National Lottery for further development of the services provided by the community information centres and for the support and development of voluntary community effort."
—(Minister for Health).
Last week it was agreed that Deputy Flaherty would speak for the first five minutes and that I would speak for the second five minutes. Because of a family bereavement Deputy Flaherty cannot be present in the House this evening and I ask the permission of the House to take her five minutes with my own, making a total of ten minutes speaking time.
We all regret the sad circumstances which prevent Deputy Flaherty from being present. I think it is unnecessary for me to put the request you have made to the House.
I hope this debate on the National Social Service Board will remind us of something we all need to be reminded of, namely, the incredible success of the National Social Service Board within their terms of reference. Although this country is besieged with agencies which need to be examined in regard to wastefulness, inefficiencies and cost effectiveness, the one thing which is clear from this debate is how successful and effective has been the National Social Service Board. As a result of an increased awareness there is an even greater demand for their many services and that is a compelling reason why the board should continue in operation.
The National Social Service Board did not receive the support they deserved. That is what this debate is about tonight and, hopefully, even at this late stage the Government will give them due recognition. The National Social Service Board received the support of up to 300 separate organisations who have demanded that for their survival and continued effectiveness the National Social Service Board should continue in their present structure and under the present management. Those support organisations not alone acknowledge the work which has been done efficiently by the National Social Service Board but they also recognise the need for the board and their independent role.
I wish to refer to the speech which the Minister made in this House during this debate last week. He said:
An enhanced fostering of community voluntary effort will be developed and specialist training will be made through health boards by the Institute of Public Administration, for example, regional technical colleges.
The Minister spoke about a fostering of community spirit and voluntary effort which had already been brought about by the National Social Service Board and which had been developed through the specialist training they had made available without having to sectionalise or centralise it in the health boards or institutes which were already overloaded over with work.
I recently spoke to a person who is involved in one of the community information centres, who was involved in the training programme and who is aware of the kind of training and support which the National Social Service Board give not alone to community information centres but also to other voluntary organisations. He said the spirit and idealism that is infused in and which is part of the training of the National Social Service Board could not be replaced in any other group and certainly not in a group which would be more official, which would have to be more careful and which already had enough work to do. Are we going to allow the knowledge and information which poor and disadvantaged people need to come through in the same clear, direct, careful, caring and compassionate way or are we going to allow it get bogged down with red tape, with Civil Service discretion and bureaucracy which strangled and is still strangling every directive in regard to public information? The National Social Service Board slashed through this Gordian knot but we are now seeking to put them back into the centralised bureaucratic tangle from which they emerged and for which so many people are grateful.
My colleagues have put forward the argument that it will not be cost effective to abolish this board and that is the central issue. We, as legislators, must insist on maintaining the independent services which are provided by the National Social Service Board to those in poverty, to those with no voice, to those who feel powerless and to those who do not have control over their own lives. They were able to avail of the services of the board and receive their magazines and information. They saw them as their entitlement. I am sure the Minister of Social Welfare would agree with me when I ask how can we attempt to put a further burden on the clinics of Deputies? These people have a right to receive their entitlements through an independent agency. Why should they be forced to line up, confessional-like, in the overcrowded clinics of Deputies, thus reinforcing the dependency from which our people are only now emerging?
It is not only socially or financially criminal but also morally criminal to attempt to put the clock back in that way. I am speaking not alone on behalf of the many women's organisations who have only been able to survive because of the training which they have been able to receive from the National Social Service Board but also on behalf of the many women who on training programmes found themselves in a ratio of 20: 1 with men. I have received representations from women who make up half the population and who are among the most vulnerable and most powerless but who also make great sacrifices and are among the most generous people in our society. Nothing less than the retention of this board will do. The funds from the national lottery must be channelled only through the National Social Service Board. This is the one board we should fight for to the last and it one of which we should feel very proud. It is incredible that the Government should attempt to remove one of the few successful, flourishing and independent agencies.
Deputy Barnes, I know you have not exhausted your thoughts but the time has been exhausted and I ask you to conclude.
Thank you. I look forward to the Opposition being successful.
With the agreement of the House I would like to share my time with two of my colleagues, Deputies Dempsey and Wright. I welcome the opportunity tonight of speaking on this motion. The Minister for Health in his contribution on Wednesday last outlined the proposals which had been approved by the Government for the continuation of the services, heretofore, carried out by the National Social Service Board. He indicated that responsibility for developing voluntary services would be taken over by his Department and future activities in this area would take place in conjunction with the health boards. He also said that his Department would assume responsibility for co-ordinating the training needs of those involved in the voluntary services area.
The Minister for Health also indicated that responsibility for the community information centres and the training needs of those involved in these centres would become my responsibility as Minister for Social Welfare. It is with this aspect of these services that I would like to concern myself mainly to-night.
The people who operate the community information centres do so voluntarily. They give of their time and energies in performing a very worthwhile and important community service and they deserve our admiration, gratitude and support for this. We are indeed fortunate that so many in the community are willing to give of their time in this way. I know that recently many of those volunteers have been concerned about the future of their centres notwithstanding the assurances already given by the Minister for Health. Tonight I want to reassure members of the community information centres that the Government proposals in relation to the NSSB will not affect the quality of the service they provide nor the independent and impartial manner in which they provide it. Furthermore, I want to assure them that the new arrangements will enable the centres not only to continue to provide the existing services but also to expand and develop those services.
In 1985 over 110,000 inquiries were dealt with by the community information centres. These inquiries included tax, housing, health services, employment, family matters and social welfare. It is perhaps relevant to mention here that at least half of the inquiries relate to social welfare matters. These figures underline the important role that the community information centres play in the life of the community. They also illustrate the great need that exists among the general public for first-hand information about the services which affect them or which are available to them when they run into problems in their everyday lives.
If one also takes into account the fact that, during the last year, local information officers of my Department dealt with over 300,000 queries, there can be no doubt that there is a growing need for the dissemination of information about the social services. I regard the growing demand for information as a fundamentally important function of the modern democratic socially concerned state. To be effective such an important service must meet all the essential requirements of its clients. It must be flexible and adaptable to meet their changing needs and it must have the capacity and resources to anticipate, to the maximum extent possible, those needs.
The Government's proposals for the reorganisation of these functions will give a new dimension to the provision of information on State services to the individual. They will also set new parameters within which local communities can develop the capacity to meet their needs from within their own resources with immediate backup and support from the State.
Since their development in the seventies community information centres have played an important part in providing information to local communities on a wide range of services including those for which my Department are responsible. Through this network my Department distribute booklets, leaflets and other items of information about the social welfare system, schemes and services. As already mentioned, some 50 per cent of the inquiries dealt with by the community information centres relate to social welfare matters. In addition to giving information and advice, volunteers in the centres also help claimants to fill in forms accurately and fully. As Deputies will appreciate, this greatly facilitates the speedy determination of entitlements as well as taking the pressure off my Department by resolving problems there and then. I accept that the centres have an important function to fulfil and I find it difficult to understand suggestions that have been made to the effect that the Government are in some way or other attempting to downgrade them or diminish their role. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Deputies can see from what I have said that my Department have a keen interest in the future of the community information centres. I am pleased that the Government have acknowledged that situation and have allocated to me responsibility for the support and further development of the centres.
As Minister for Social Welfare, I am keenly aware of the need for people to have easy and quick access to information. Despite all the efforts that are made to inform people, we still come across cases where new claimants for social welfare schemes have a particularly poor knowledge of their entitlements. In this country we can be proud of our wide range of social welfare schemes and services that cater for a wide variety of needs. However, this is not enough. A survey carried out by the Commission on Social Welfare pointed to a general lack of awareness of the services among potential users and to the need for local access points where information would be available from an official source. We must ensure that the services we are providing are delivered to the client quickly, efficiently and with due regard to his or her dignity and rights. We must at all times keep the needs of the client uppermost in our minds, and that includes their information needs.
I am at present developing an integrated approach to the delivery of the social welfare services, including information needs, through the introduction of "one stop shops" around the country. What is involved here is the development of a comprehensive service to social welfare clients by bringing together the various personnel and agencies involved so that all the needs of the client can be met more quickly and in a more co-ordinated manner under the one roof.
The aim is that the clients will have available current information on their claims, general information on the full range of services available, on the spot means assessments for social assistance schemes as well as current information on job opportunities, placements and training courses which are available locally. I am convinced that the quality of the service we provide will be judged by the success we achieve in bringing our services to those members of the public who need them, where they need them. An essential element in the better delivery of services is better and more accessible information, better trained and caring staff in general, a more client orientated approach.
The Government's proposals for continued State support for community information centres will, I believe, enhance and add to those objectives. Here we have the development of a greatly improved social welfare delivery on the one hand making information available throughout the country. Indeed, we have the largest network of computers in the country and we are making our information available through this network. Our information there is exceptionally good and we intend to develop and improve the services we provide particularly through the "one stop shop" mechanisms. Notwithstanding that, we recognise fully the function and part to be played in co-operation with the work of social welfare by the community information centres.
In common with the views expressed by many who have spoken publicly on this issue I accept that it is most desirable that the community information centres should have operational independence. This would enable them to provide services and articulate the needs of the people they serve.
In line with this objective and the responsibility which has been entrusted to me in relation to the former NSSB I am proposing that the community information centres will in future operate as a unit from within the Combat Poverty Agency, which as Deputies are aware, is a statutory body under the aegis of my Department.
Another turn.
Because the agency are a body constituted on broadly similar lines to the existing NSSB they will I believe serve the function of providing an independent framework, within which the community information centres can continue to function and expand.
Is the Minister not embarrassed?
I could be embarrassed if I listened very much to the Deputy here tonight. I will take no guff from him on community services or information. I have a long experience and knowledge of the area and the Deputy should wait his time and come in afterwards.
That is the fourth suggestion the Minister and his Government have made.
I am telling the Deputy the arrangements I am making as Minister for Social Welfare.
There will be another proposal tomorrow.
What other arrangements did the Deputy expect me to make?
In effect, the Minister's courtesy should not extend to answering interruptions.
Thank you a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I believe, therefore, that the proposed new arrangement will provide an ideal and positive framework within which the information services to the community can continue to grow and expand where necessary.
To enable the Combat Poverty Agency to carry out these additional duties an extra ten to 12 staff will be assigned to them. These posts will be available to existing staff in the NSSB who will be able to transfer to the agency on similar terms and conditions to those they currently enjoy. The experience, commitment and expertise of this staff would be a significant asset to the agency. I hope that they will respond positively to the opportunity to serve under the new arrangements.
In order to take into account their new expanded role it may be necessary to modify and extend the present statutory functions of the Combat Poverty Agency. I will be looking at this matter urgently to see whether the present functions are adequate to meet the role I envisage for the agency in the area of social services information and publications. I would like to give Deputies a brief overview of the general direction I expect the agency to follow in this area.
First, I think it is important that they will continue to promote services and schemes in local communities for the dissemination of information about social services. Secondly, they will also develop contacts with statutory and voluntary organisations and co-operate with those bodies in order to improve the provision of social services information to the public. They will provide support for the training of volunteers for the information centres and will act as a resource centre for them. The support may take the form of either financial aid or the supply of materials as suits the situation.
Thirdly, the information bulletins and other newsletters currently published by the National Social Service Board will continue to be published. In particular, I would like to mention Relate which was first published in October 1973. Since then, it has come to be recognised as an invaluable and reliable source of information on a wide range of social issues and entitlements affecting members of the public. I am glad to be able to ensure that publications like Relate will continue under the new arrangements. Deputies may not be fully aware of the extent of the co-operation which exists at present between the publishers of Relate and the other publications of the National Social Service Board and the information section of my Department but I can assure them that it is regular, continuous and very heavy in volume.
I am particularly concerned that information services should be as widely available as possible throughout the country. Where the agency bring to my attention areas where no service currently exists or where the service provided is inadequate, I will be glad to have proposals for further developments and improvements.
Fourthly, the agency will also be responsible for looking after the financing of the community information centres and I will expect them to examine the adequacy of financial arrangements and to recommend any changes they consider necessary in this area.
In the long term I feel that the whole question of information needs in the social services area should be subject to a detailed scrutiny with a view to closer co-ordination and closer co-operation between local voluntary services and those of the State. Finally, therefore, I will be asking for plans to be prepared for a new comprehensive information service which will build on the structures currently in place and show how these structures might be developed in the future.
As an indication of their interest in this whole area the Government decided to allocate £1 million from National Lottery funds towards the continuation and development of the services formerly performed by the National Social Service Board. Out of this a sum of £500,000 will be made available to service the new arrangements by way of the Combat Poverty Agency. The NSSB had a budget of £578,000 for 1987. This included £100,000 for the National Council for the Aged which will continue to be provided separately. The £500,000 which is now being made available to me is, therefore, greater than the whole budget which was available this year for specific NSSB purposes. It is clear, therefore, that substantial additional funds are being made available for continuing on a national basis the community work of the former NSSB and for its further development.
Finally, I would like to say that the arrangements I have outlined will not only ensure that the very worthwhile services of the community information centres will be maintained but allows scope for significant development and improvement of those services. Sufficient resources will be available to enable the centres to carry out their functions and to enable the role of the centres to be developed substantially.
Overall the Government's proposals provide for a well co-ordinated approach to the services provided by the community information centres and their further development. In these circumstances I urge Deputies to support the Government amendment to the motion and endorse the Government's plans for the future of the community information centres.
I want to speak in support of the Government's decision to provide £1 million for the further development of the services provided by the community information centres and for the support and development of voluntary community effort. The Government propose to dispense with the board of the NSSB and to leave their services totally in place. Not only will they leave them in place but they will be more secure, expanded and enhanced with increased funding. The proposal is designed to give a more extensive service to a wider public.
Let us look for a moment at the service at present. It is a good service. Why is it so good? It is so good because the people who serve the offices of the community information service are people of the highest calibre. It is so good because these people serve a vital local need in the information area and do it diligently, faithfully and intelligently. They are not dependent for the quality of their work on the NSSB: the same people would do the same job irrespective of who sits at the top table or if no one in particular was left to bask in their reflected glory. I know the excellent teams who serve the centres in Malahide, Swords and Skerries. Their quality as community volunteers is an essential ingredient in their success. I suggest that it would be insulting to them and less than truthful if I did not say emphatically that these people are the reason the community information centres are so successful. It is their success that we see in measure. The information comes from the Departments of Health and Social Welfare for the most part.
Would these people be less effective if the information came via one channel rather than another? The answer, in my view, is "no". The volunteer workers in the community centres are the service and they are indispensable. I would be the last one to say that the National Social Service Board did not do its work well. I am happy to pay tribute to those who served on it and I am pleased that deployment to the new service is an option for NSSB employees. I hope they take up the option. I would not be so naive or so singularly lacking in developmental thinking to concede that the former board is the only body that could deliver this service. The system now proposed by the Minister has the capacity and the potential to do an infinitely better job. It will not be unmindful in its day-to-day operations of the valuable lessons that have been learned through the work of the former board.
All functions of the NSSB will be replaced and enhanced considerably under the new arrangement. We are guaranteed an expanded and enhanced service, a service that will feed directly from the information services that are its life. More and better services are assured. The National Council for the Aged will continue as before. The volunteers at local level will have access to training programmes. This will be provided via the Department of Health and the health boards. This training will enable an expansion of the service in the area of voluntary community care. Each centre will identify local needs which they can service over and above what they provide now and which can be accommodated within their remit. Special needs are required to deal with social deprivation. Services for young adults with special needs require counselling and specific interactive skills. In my view the involvement of the Institute of Public Administration and the regional colleges in training programmes is a bold and imaginative step. The idea of providing training at this level for voluntary field staff could be a pilot for the updating and enhancement of skills right across the frontier of voluntary community associations.
The community information service will become more and more an integral part of the basic community service. The new proposals will provide a challenge and what the Minister is really saying is, "let us change to meet the challenge." One of the greatest fears of those who have approached me on this issue is that under the new scheme the community workers will lose their independence. It has been said that the Minister's scheme will result in that loss of independence to the community information network because the new centre of operations will exist under the Department of Social Welfare. I was glad to hear the Minister say tonight that there will be an extension of that programme to ensure that the new unit will work within the Combat Poverty Agency. We all know that the former board was a statutory board. The parameters of its independence are clearly defined as are those of the new unit under the Department of Social Welfare and within the Combat Poverty Agency, no more and no less.
The field workers are independent volunteers, have always been independent volunteers and will, under the new scheme, continue to be independent. Their independence will be enhanced by the confidence they will gain from the new training proposals. The new unit within the Combat Poverty Agency will be created specifically to meet the purposes of the Minister's scheme. It will be readily accessible at the end of a phone or otherwise. It will be staffed adequately with experienced personnel, will provide an ongoing and fully updated service and will produce bulletins — the Minister has mentioned that those that are in place will be continued, in particular the publication Relate— and circulars. The major difference will be that the funding will be increased generously up to £400,000. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he is still open to suggestions from other units.
The expansion of services within the community, especially in relation to the disadvantaged, can best be facilitated by a direct contact with those agencies which have a specific responsibility for the disadvantaged. The Departments of Health and Social Welfare have a major role to play which could be shared effectively with voluntary movements and by working directly with them. By trimming the linkages between the agencies and getting rid of what would seem to be superfluous the Government are adhering to their central policy of rationalisation. It is a challenge to both politicians and people.
It would seem, however, that many in this House want neither change nor challenge. The development of a service, and the raising of it to a new plane of effectiveness, would seem to be a worthwhile goal.
What is wrong with the NSSB?
Opposing a measure so intrinsically sound smacks of opposition that is obstructive rather than constructive; it speaks more of devilment than development with its objective designed to wrong-foot the Government.
That sounds good but what does it mean?
If it is the view of this House that a sound and better service is to be denied to our citizens after extra funding and rationalisation has taken place then it may be that it is a community information service we need to set up in the House to show our honoured friends on the Opposition benches how to resolve their shortsighted interpretation of the Minister's proposals.
The decision of the Government to incorporate the services provided by the National Social Service Board in the Department of Health and Social Welfare must be seen as part of the Government's determination to provide the best possible service for the people who need it. There have been numerous misconceptions in relation to the decision by the Government, the chief one being that the Government were attempting to abolish the services provided by the NSSB. That is not true. Indeed, as we learned tonight the opposite is the case. Not only will all the services be maintained but they will be expanded, as the Minister indicated tonight. The reason the Government decided to discontinue the funding of the NSSB at the end of the year was not for any small-minded or petty financial gain, as was alleged by Members of the Opposition. It was to provide a service which would be better, more co-ordinated and broadly based. That is clearly illustrated in the Government's provisions for an expanded framework for social services as announced by the Minister.
Rather than describing the Government's decision as socially regressive it should be regarded as socially progressive. Surely it is progressive to maximise the availability of the services to as many people as possible. In view of the statement last week by the Minister for Health and the statement by the Minister for Social Welfare tonight that to pursue this motion would be a serious mistake, I should like to state that if the motion is carried it will have the opposite effect to what is intended by its proposers.
It could give rise to a general election.
The Government have shown their commitment to voluntary social services by providing £1 million from the National Lottery this year. Are the proposers of the motion now suggesting that we should reduce the funding to the level of previous years? Are they saying that we should use up a substantial portion of that lesser amount of money that they are seeking in administrative costs and the other costs associated with running the NSSB? I am surprised that a party that continually advocates increased State involvement in every aspect of the lives of our people should now be screaming for less State involvement and participation in the delivery of essential services to the weaker sections of the community.
We are calling for an independent voice.
I am surprised that a party which advocates cutting out bureaucracy and excessive administrative costs should lend their name to a motion such as the one before the House. There are some strange bedfellows involved in this motion. With regard to the community information centres I should like to state that like most Members I would be very concerned if there was any threat to the services being provided by those centres. I am pleased to note that the Minister proposed to strengthen the role of those voluntary organisations. I sincerely hope that those involved in the research unit that serviced the community information centres up to now will remain in the reorganised unit announced by the Minister. I appeal to them to participate fully in the revised arrangement so that the best possible service can be delivered to those who need it.
I would like to put on record the fact that one of the big worries people had in relation to the abolition of the National Social Service Board was that the insurance scheme operated for voluntary organisations through the NSSB would be abolished as well. I am pleased to note that the Minister announced last week that that would be continued.
Like previous speakers I want to take this opportunity to compliment the volunteers who work in the community information centres for the valuable work they do for the community.
I second the motion in my name and in the names of other Deputies and which was moved by Deputy Howlin. With the permission of the House I should like to share my time with Deputy Colley.
The decision to abolish the National Social Service Board is politically motivated. It has no administrative merit and as has already been seen, bringing their work into a Government Department is resulting in a doubling of the cost.
The approach of the Progressive Democrats is to encourage personal initiative and voluntary effort and we laud the work of the National Social Service Board in the development of so many voluntary organisations, in improving their efficiency and effectiveness in disseminating valuable information to the most needy section of our community and for acting as a watch dog against bureaucratic indifference and, indeed, even mistakes. It is this independence of action that has won such recognition and respect for the National Social Service Board and is mainly the reason all Opposition parties are united to defend this valuable organisation and to demonstrate that the wishes of Dáil Éireann supersede the narrow political objective of this minority Government.
To illustrate the importance of maintaining the National Social Service Board as an independent information service, I would refer to their August information bulletin, Relate where the National Social Service Board highlighted how the Department of Social Welfare misinterpreted the 1987 Social Welfare Act and underpaid large numbers of claimants between April and August 1987. Even after the error was pointed out, the Department appear to have decided to do nothing to correct the many illegal underpayments to disability benefit claimants which they made, and may still be making, in cases where their staff failed to correct manually the computer programme which the Department know to be incorrect.
No sound logical reason has yet been advanced by Government speakers to justify the abolition of the National Social Service Board. If the Minister stands back and examines his decision, he may recognise how utterly unjustifiable it is.
Fianna Fáil, with a large number of backbenchers, many of whom will never achieve ministerial office, need desperately to preserve the illusion that TDs have great powers in decisions affecting entitlements to social welfare and health benefits.
(Interruptions.)
Nonsense.
No better man than the Deputy——
No better man than myself to know about this. The successful work of the National Social Service Board in establishing community information centres is seen by Fianna Fáil as a very real threat to the role and influence of their backbench TDs——
Grow up.
——and they see it as essential for the future of their party that the threat be removed.
The Deputy is here long enough to know that is not true.
Hence the abolition of the National Social Service Board. In previous years the Combat Poverty Agency were seen as a similar threat, and they then suffered the same fate as the National Social Service Board face now.
Where was the Deputy for 21 years?
I consider this move a gross abuse of power, one the Government mistakenly thought they would get away with. There would be a similar tendency in the Fine Gael Party, and maybe Fianna Fáil thought they could bring them with them on this issue. Indeed, initially that seemed to be the case when Fine Gael refused to sign this all party motion but, hopefully, they have been persuaded at last to join with us in blocking this retrograde step.
The Deputy's party joined with us.
It must be a matter of great concern to this House that this Government are committing themselves to changes in the administration of important services in an ad hoc fashion, little or no planning having been undertaken beforehand and no real examination of the long term effects of such arbitrary decisions.
Every week we see evidence of this Government's hamfisted approach. Last week it was the infamous Education circular 20/87 which because of the ambiguity of the Fine Gael Party still remains in force. This week it is the National Social Service Board. Next week it could be ACOT/An Foras Talúntais, and the following week An Foras Forbartha; the list gets longer.
The Progressive Democrats will support well thought out improvements and rationalisation measures but we must have the facts. III thought out moves for politically vindictive reasons cannot claim our support. Already we have heard of new alternatives to what was earlier proposed by the Government for the National Social Service Board: firstly, it was a cost saving exercise, secondly, it was to eliminate duplication and to ensure rationalisation; thirdly, its functions would be transferred to health boards by 31 December 1987; fourthly, an all party committee was suggested to review the work of the Departments taking over NSSB functions; fifthly, it was proposed that community information centres be transferred to the Department of Social Welfare and sixthly, now today, we are hearing another proposal, that these functions be transferred to the Combat Poverty Agency. Let us now look at cost cutting. In the Estimates debate on 23 October the Minister stated——
Does the Deputy realise that the Combat Poverty Agency are under the Department of Social Welfare?
I want to quote from the Minister's speech on 23 October. He said:
the Government were not primarily concerned with cutting costs but rather with reorganising the services in a more effective manner so that the best use is made of available resources.
In answer to two Dáil questions on 28 October the Minister stated:
It was considered that the services could be provided at less cost without diminishing the quality of the service.
In exchanges in the debate on 25 November 1987, the Minister complained that "the problem in the House is that everybody is in favour of correcting the imbalance in payments, in controlling Government expenditure but as soon as the Government move to do it in any one area there is concerted opposition."
In his speech in the debate on 25 November 1987, the Minister said "some savings will accrue in the area of administration."
In the light of the provision of a sum from the lottery money, almost twice as large as the annual NSSB budget, it seems obvious that the measure is not a cost-cutting one, although there has been confusion in the Government's statements on this point.
It is implied nonetheless in some of the Minister's statements that the NSSB are top heavy with expensive administration which is now to be replaced by more generous direct aid on the ground. This is absurd if one looks at the NSSB's budget, staffing and more importantly, their record. The lie is given to any such suggestion by the rejection of the Minister's current approach by hundreds of voluntary organisations who quite obviously do not see things the Minister's way.
The Minister has presented the NSSB abolition as the result of an overall consideration of resources with a view to cutting out duplication and achieving rationalisation. In his speech of 25 November it appears that the NSSB abolition is something carefully planned.
It is obvious, however, from the confused references to cost-cutting earlier, and from the six week delay between the announcement and the Minister's justification of it, that no such plan exists. The Minister and his colleagues are reacting to the pressure exerted by the voluntary sector nationwide. This is proved by comparing the Minister's plans as outlined on 25 November to the circular his Department sent out to all health boards on 27 October which told them that NSSB functions, including the support of the community information centres, would be their responsibility in 1988. The community information centre's support is now apparently to be provided by the Department of Social Welfare through the Combat Poverty Agency. There was, and is, no grand plan for rationalisation because the game changes day by day.
In the course of his speech, the Minister outlined a number of bodies which would take on functions at present carried out by the NSSB: two Government Departments, eight health boards, nine regional technical colleges, the Institute of Public Administration and now the Combat Poverty Agency. Twenty organisations in all will be given the functions at present performed by a staff of 20 in the NSSB.
This dispersal, according to the Minister, means that the services will be expanded and enhanced and that duplication will be done away with. While a variety of proposals have been considered and even canvassed by the Government over the past few weeks, and indeed over the past 24 hours, they appear determined to ignore the simplest and most straightforward one: leaving the existing body to carry on the work, the NSSB.
What is wrong with the NSSB? Why have the Government attacked it? The Minister for Health said on 25 November:
There is no suggestion — and I want to emphasise this strongly — that any of the functions prescribed for the NSSB is redundant nor, indeed, that the discharge of them has been defective.
No criticism has been made of the way the NSSB carry out their functions. Indeed the recognition of the value and importance of their services is also a recognition of the judgment and flexibility of their staff, who have, for the most part, initiated and developed these services in response to the needs they perceived and the requests they received, rather than as a result of explicit detailed statutory provision. So why abolish it?
While the Government have tried out various proposals in the wake of their hasty and ill thought out, unplanned decision on the NSSB, they appear unwilling to recognise the importance of the independence and flexibility of the organisation. While there may now be some recognition of these qualities in relation to the information services of the board, the Minister's speech showed us no such recognition in relation to the development and training functions which the Minister for Health wishes to disperse among so many statutory bodies.
The insurance scheme for voluntary organisations, which the Minister has promised to maintain, is a good example. While the Minister has promised to keep this particular service, he has not recognised that the way it came about is important. It came about because voluntary organisations, both national and local, had a problem, and had a national body which was in a sense "theirs" with which they could discuss it and with whose assistance a solution was arrived at on a national level. Under the Minister's new scheme of things there will be no such body. There will be no national body charged with assisting and responding to the needs and requests of the voluntary sector.
It is this loss that has the hundreds of voluntary groups that use the services of the NSSB's development and advisory section still protesting despite the Minister's promises about funding; this, plus the recognition that in the area of training the Institute of Public Administration and the health boards will have priorities of their own, as will the Combat Poverty Agency. Indeed, it is ironic that health boards and the NSSB have liaised quite effectively in developing training services and in fostering voluntary-statutory co-operation, something which would hardly have been the case if the NSSB were "superfluous" as the Minister suggests.
The Minister changes his position by the hour; the latest is the appointment of community development officers in each health board area. That was not suggested in the House but it was one of the numerous suggestions which the Government have been making to Opposition parties but, interestingly enough, not to the Progressive Democrats. We have had no approach from the Minister, despite the fact that today and yesterday on several occasions he made approaches to two other parties who have amendments or motions tabled. I refer to Fine Gael and the Labour Party.
A variety of suggestions has been forthcoming from the Minister, all of which only goes to prove how little planning was involved initially when this decision was made. This reflects very poorly on both Ministers who have taken on responsibility here, the Minister for Health — who spoke last week — and the Minister for Social Welfare who came in here tonight with the latest peace offering from the Government. In my years, I have seldom seen such pathetic attempts made by a Government to save their skin by making such fundamental changes in what they had originally proposed. That is all being done because the objective of destroying a threat to their party, namely the NSSB, is no longer their priority. Their objective and priority now, of course, centres more on the survival of their Government and that is why they have demonstrated their willingness to do an about-turn in so many of the proposals which had earlier emanated from them.
Where will all this end? Why is there such confusion and panic in Government thinking? How could any Opposition party be expected to support this move when the Government do not know exactly what they are proposing? I only have to quote the Minister for Social Welfare tonight. He does not know yet what is involved by the decision he announced. He said that in order to take into account their new expanded role — he was referring to the Combat Poverty Agency — it may be necessary to modify and extend their present statutory functions. The Minister proposes to transfer all these functions to them but he is not even sure what statutory changes will have to be made. He went on to say that he will be looking at this matter urgently to see whether the present functions are adequate to meet the role which we envisaged for the agency in the area of social services information and publications.
The role which he envisaged only dawned on the Minister today or yesterday because there was no proposal last week from the Minister for Health who spoke on behalf of the Government. Two Ministers spoke in this debate and the man who spoke last week had a completely different set of proposals from the Minister who spoke tonight. It is stretching the imagination to think that any group of Opposition parties could offer their support for Government proposals when the Government themselves are not clear what exactly is involved. The truth is that the whole thing was ill conceived. It was motivated by political vindictiveness. It should be roundly condemned and immediately thrown out by those who wish to preserve the good name of democracy. We will be voting against it.
I wish to state at the outset the bare facts about this because with all the wriggling that has gone on on the far side of the House some facts may have become somewhat clouded. The National Social Service Board were set up by statute, the National Social Service Board Act, 1984. They consist of a board and a small number of employees operating on a small budget, providing back-up for the community information centres, training development for voluntary organisations and a link and a co-ordinating role between many voluntary organisations.
Their independent status ensures that a broad base of information flows to the people in need of these services rather than confining it to one particular Department or under their aegis. Without consultation or consideration of the implications involved, when the Estimates were published some time ago it was found that there was no allocation for the board. The Minister did not even have the courtesy to have consultations with the board or the chairman and the chairman received a telephone call 20 minutes before the Estimates were published to let him know what was happening.
The Government assumed that because it was a small organisation there would not be much noise about it, that nobody would kick up about it but they could not have been further from the truth. It was an unthought out decision which had absolutely no regard to the consequences throughout the nation.
I should like to take up a point which the Minister for Health made today on RTE's radio programme "Day by Day". He referred to Opposition parties responding to street politics. I am quite appalled by his remarks. The Minister may be dismissive of the wishes of the people who have expressed views on this subject but I will put the record straight regarding my views and those of the Progressive Democrats. At our party's annual conference on 9, 10 and 11 October, I referred twice in speeches to the abolition of the National Social Service Board and I also referred to our opposition to it. Our party leader, Deputy Des O'Malley, also did so on a number of occasions over that weekend. That was before there was any public move to counter this Government decision. Now the Minister finds himself in a very awkward situation, having to hastily cobble together some kind of rationale to the own goal he has scored. I referred earlier to the suggestion re the Combat Poverty Agency with regard to the community information centres. I understood that that was perhaps the fourth suggestion from the Government but I believe now that it is the sixth. That merely underscores the unthought out nature of the whole decision. As Deputy Molloy said, it was a barely disguised political attack on a statutory body operate independently of the State in favour of the most needy in our society.
We have a growing number of people for whom the only lifeline is through State services. It is very strange that if one provides a thorough and widespread State service in terms of social welfare, one does not provide a proper information service. By doing that one is minimising the effect that those services may have on the needy in our society. There is obviously in innate lack of tolerance on the part of the Government for any usurping of what it may regard as the stock-in-trade of politicians, that is the gift of so-called favours. Parallel moves have occurred against the Ombudsman and his office. It is clear where the Government are moving in terms of independent agencies operating in the State.
These are very difficult times for many people and they are now forced, with the reduction of services in the Ombudsman's office and if this goes ahead, to seek their rights through the medium of a TD who is not supposed to act in that capacity but who is supposed to be a legislator. Some small moves had been made to give people information in an independent fashion as to their rights and to give them a chance to pursue those rights on the failure of the State to deal fairly with them. These moves are now being dispersed in the case of the NSSB and denigrated in the case of the Ombudsman. There is a real danger that both bodies and the services they provide will become meaningless. I see this decision along with a number of others as an onward step towards centralism. The voluntary sector has had a lot more pressed on its shoulders because of problems in State finances. That would be all very well, to a certain extent, if they were given the support they should have but the State has decided that the voluntary sector must take on the burden and seeks to remove the supports it has and its tools to operate with.
I strongly believe in the development of communities and the development of independence from central Government as much as possible so as to leave as much decision making as possible to those on the ground. This depends on State encouragement for those willing to work voluntarily for their community. What kind of encouragement is this decision supposed to give? What kind of encouragement is indicated by this Government's decision to cut by 50 per cent the grant to Muintir na Tíre, a body who are also engaged in developing community organisations and self determination on the ground?
I want to put a point to the Minister in relation to his right to frustrate the will of the Oireachtas as expressed by the passing of the NSSB Act in 1984, by denying the board the funds to carry out their functions. If the Taoiseach wishes the board to be abolished he should say so, and he should move in a legislative way to give effect to that. If the Taoiseach brought in any amendment to the legislation to repeal the board he would not get the support of this House. If a Minister can abolish statutory bodies in that manner what would be the point of obtaining the support of the House for the legislation in the first place? The legislation that this board operates under did not envisage the Minister withdrawing all of their functions. Such an interpretation would involve the Act itself in seeking to negate the very purpose for which it was passed. The Minister has not the power to do that.
Will the Minister say what is the status of the NSSB Act of 1984 after the board have been abolished? Has the Minister made any regulations under the Act? Does the Minister intend to do so and if so when? There has not been a board in existence for some months now because the Minister failed to reappoint the members. That board bears the responsibility for appointing or dismissing their employees. In the absence of a board how, legally, is the transfer of employees to any new body to be achieved? What will happen to the pension rights of the employees of the board? Has anyone given consideration to the people involved and to the rights they have built up and will possibly lose?
As for the supposed munificence of this Government in allocating £1 million from the national lottery for this year to the functions the NSSB carried out, a number of points occur to me. The national lottery is purely a temporary phenomenon. This is the first year of its operation. It has taken off fairly well which is a very good thing as it is benefiting many organisations which need funds. However, it is fleeting. Who knows what will happen next year? Will people subscribe to the lottery in the same way as they have this year? What about the year after next? Is there any commitment to the whole idea of providing these services? I maintain that there is not. What about the effect of any other lottery, including the one recently launched, on the national lottery?
Will the Government and the Minister say why we should abolish a body who have been acknowledged to have worked effectively, who have shown their ability to expand and take on new challenges? According to another Fianna Fáil Deputy here tonight, part of the reason they are being replaced is because they could not take on new challenges and rise to the new ideas that are floating around the minds of the members of Government. This body have obviously worked well. They have co-ordinated, with a small staff, a lot of voluntary work in the community. Rationalisation loses the meaning normally attributed to it, in the way in which the Minister for Health used it in his speech last week. One board's functions are to be divided between about 20 other bodies including the one suggested tonight, the Combat Poverty Agency. I reserve the right to oppose Government decisions made for base motives with no rational basis and with no knowledge of and even less regard for the consequences of the decisions. This is one of those.
It would be appropriate to remind the House, particularly Deputies Molloy and Colley, of the remarks of the Minister for Health when he spoke in this debate last week. I shall quote from his remarks as follows:
Fifthly the Departments of Social Welfare and Health——
Is this not repetition?
I shall continue the quotation:
and the health boards will, in a co-ordinated way, be charged with the responsibility for the development and enhancement of their information services. Similarly they will have responsibility for the fostering of voluntary effort within the community, particularly in areas of social deprivation, to fill gaps in the social services provided countrywide.
The Minister clearly stated the position last week which gives the lie to the statements of Deputies Molloy and Colley.
Is there any reference to the Combat Poverty Agency in the speech of the Minister of State?
Deputy Molloy had a very good, attentive hearing and he should allow the same good hearing to the Minister of State.
I cannot understand the attitude of the Progressive Democrats to this debate. Of course they have performed so many somersaults since their inception it is not surprising that in this regard as well they are trying to get on every bandwagon.
The Minister should be dizzy from all the somersaults he has done.
If Deputy Molloy persists in interrupting I shall have to deal with him. If the Deputy persists I shall have to ask him to leave the House.
A Cheann Comhairle, please do not deprive Deputy Molloy of listening to the facts of the situation. The community information services will continue and will be strengthened. I should like here to pay a compliment to all the volunteers throughout the country who work on a voluntary basis providing——
What about the employees of the board?
Deputy Colley, please.
They will receive the same support——
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Colley, I will not call the Deputy a third time.
I have had personal contact with their outlet in my constituency, in Boyle, County Roscommon. There is one community information centre there. They will continue to provide services in that region. They received the grand sum of £450, it would appear, from the National Social Service Council for the work they are doing. I can assure the House that the work of the community information services will continue, that those volunteers will continue their work. In fact we will provide a much stronger service than they are now receiving.
They are changing their minds.
I want to nail a couple of the more serious deceptions which have been foisted by Deputies on the other side in the course of the debate. First, on the issue of independence, I should say that the National Social Service Board was a statutory body appointed by the Minister for Health under an Act of the Oireachtas with defined functions and is no more or less independent than any other State body supported fully by tax-payer's money. The National Social Service Board is no more independent than the self-contained unit in the Department of Social Welfare which will have the exclusive function of providing an expanded and authoritative information service on the same range of services the National Social Service Board undertake at present. Also, the same style of publications will continue to be distributed.
The Minister of State should leave the script.
The job of the National Social Service Board was to provide factual information in a helpful and easily understood format. This is a most desirable type of service. Indeed, I should say that every State agency has a duty to communicate with the public in this way. If necessary, such agencies should be equipped with the necessary skills. As the House has been told, the Government propose to review this aspect of State services generally quite apart from their plans for the community information service's specifically.
(Interruptions.)
However, where full and accurate information is concerned, the concept of independence is quite irrelevant. If the thinking behind the argument is that Government policy needs to be challenged, I suggest that such challenge is a matter for political action or the Ombudsman.
Deputies
Nonsense, rubbish.
That proves how the Government want to wipe out an independent voice in social services.
It is not a function of a statutory agency or its officials.
They have wiped out the Ombudsman.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies, the Minister's time is almost up. Please allow him one minute.
To imply that the board and its officials are in the same category as the local community information centres, staffed by volunteers, is both misleading and harmful. There are many members of the Progressive Democrats who never heard of the National Social Service Board before this debate.
That was an ad lib.
They are well aware of that. Any such implication is harmful inasmuch as it seeks to foster the notion that the Government have some idea of taking over these centres, that they are bent on stifling independent advice. That is totally wrong. The local community information centres will continue in existence with the volunteers. They will work in harmony with the new organisation we are establishing. Any such implication is unfair and distressing to the great number of people who give of their time so freely and generously to local voluntary services.
I must now call another Member.
I want to say to the Deputies opposite that they achieve nothing by their attitude in this debate. The community information services will continue despite Fine Gael, the Labour Party, the Progressive Democrats or The Workers' Party.
With your permission, Sir, and that of the House, I seek your leave to cede the first five minutes of my time to Deputy De Rossa as a signatory to the motion.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I thank the House While I very much appreciate Deputy Howlin's generosity in allocating me five minutes, I still maintain — as I said previously — that it is an unsatisfactory way of allocating time to The Workers' Party in Private Members' Time. Before too long I hope we can devise a better way of allocating time——
A few more seats.
It does not matter. There is a party in this House with only one seat. I contend that that party should also be given time to contribute on these matters but as I have five minutes only available to me I will not get bogged down on that subject this evening. It was somewhat disquieting to discover at 5.30 p.m. this afternoon that negotiations of one kind or another had been going on for the past two days or so in relation to the matter before this House.
Not true.
Despite the fact that I signed the motion when it was presented here I was not informed that these negotiations were taking place with both the Fine Gael and Labour parties. It is quite unfortunate because I am sure that had the Minister adopted the same approach before announcing the abolition of the National Social Service Board, had he approached the board to discuss how best these services could be provided, the board would have assisted him by way of providing an even better service. Indeed, had the Minister offered £1 million to the National Social Service Board I am quite sure they would have provided an excellent service, far superior to that which will be provided henceforth because the services are being divided between so many agencies.
The decision to abolish the board does not appear to withstand scrutiny even on the basis of saving money because, clearly, that was not the aim of the decision. We are now told there is £1 million available as distinct from a figure of less than £500,000 to the National Social Service Board. Neither does the decision hold good in regard to rationalisation. Clearly it does not make sense to take services from a body which has provided them on a satellite basis in a very effective way for a small amount of money and spread them across a whole range of agencies.
Clearly there is no rationale to the decision taken. It would appear to me that initially there was a deliberate decision taken to eliminate the idependence of the services being provided. The Government now appear to have backed off that and are offering money to the Combat Poverty Agency to provide some semblance of independence in relation to the community information services centres. That is not the only service the National Social Service Board provided. I do not have sufficient time to go into the whole range of services they provided, and could continue to provide in a most effective manner.
The reality is that another mess has been made of a decision, of a service and a body which was providing a good, independent means of people obtaining information. It is important to note that the whole philosophy behind the community information services was to ensure that people could go to a body with no political taint whatsoever, that they could obtain information and advice which they knew would be independent of any political persuasion. They knew that had they wanted to appeal they could go to that body, knowing that their appeal would be dealt with independently. They knew they did not automatically have to go to their local public representative, of whatever persusion, in order to obtain their rights.
The Government have to accept responsibility for what they have done. It is unfortunate that they took the view it was more important to fatten up the constituency services they provided for themselves in their own ministerial offices rather than maintain the independent community information services and all the other services which the NSSB have provided and have had experience in the last 14 years in providing. It is unfortunate that the fairly soft position which is being adopted tonight by the Government in order to attempt to avoid a defeat in this House was not adopted before they announced an arbitrary decision in October to abolish the NSSB. They should have negotiated with the NSSB and I am quite certain that had they done so, that body would be retained. We would all have been delighted if they got £1 million to maintain and develop the service which they have provided so well over many years.
In introducing this motion last week I set out in detail the work and services given to the people of this country by the National Social Service Board. No Government speaker has sought to contradict me or to take from a single point I made in support and praise of the work of the board. No Government speaker has put forward a single, sustainable, cogent reason that the National Social Service Board should be abolished. Last week I said I was at a loss to know why the Government arrived at the decision to abolish the NSSB. During this three hour debate I have not been enlightened by any Government speaker.
In winding up the debate I would like, first, to acknowledge my debt to the spokespersons of the other parties in Opposition in this House, to Deputies Molloy, De Rossa, Kemmy and Gregory who have added their names to this motion. I would like also to confirm once again that we are accepting the amendment from the Fine Gael Party and I thank Deputy Allen for his co-operation in this matter. I would like, too, to acknowledge the efforts made by the Government Chief Whip and by the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Welfare to endeavour to find solutions which are acceptable to the Opposition parties and to the NSSB in their contacts with us in the last 24 hours or so.
In the search for solutions those Ministers have today accepted that it is essential that the NSSB retain their statutory base to perform their work. The Government have proposed a mechanism that will go part of the way towards meeting our legitimate objections to what the Minister for Health originally proposed and outlined. It is, however, both ironic and sad that the Ministers could not find it in their hearts to go the whole way towards meeting our legitimate needs and our legitimate objections. The vote which will shortly take place and the defeat of the Government which I hope will be inflicted could have been avoided. The Ministers, having accepted the fundamental principle we were pursuing, would not have had to go much further to accept that the only practical way of operating that principle is the retention of the organisation the Government intend to abolish.
I wish to outline the proposals made to myself and to Deputy Desmond by those Ministers. First, they proposed to subsume the community information activities of the National Social Service Board in toto into a newly created autonomous office of the Combat Poverty Agency which is of course an independent statutorily based body. The financial allocation for the Combat Poverty Agency would be increased by an extra £500,000 to take account of this activity. The net effect, while retaining the independent nature of that aspect of the NSSB's work, would be to transfer it from the aegis of the Department of Health to the Department of Social Welfare. I must enter the caveat that we still regard it as profoundly disappointing that the allocation for the Combat Poverty Agency has been cut to £1 million in the 1988 Estimates.
The second tier of the proposition put to us was that the Council for the Aged would continue as heretofore as an independent body under the aegis of the Department of Health with their own allocations plus £100,000 from the national lottery. The third suggestion was that the developmental functions in relation to voluntary agencies would be divided among the eight health boards, an allocation of £400,000 would be available and the health boards would be instructed to appoint liaison officers within that allocation in order to ensure maximum community activity and coordination of voluntary agencies. That includes an element of training, using the RTCs and the Institute of Public Administration.
The reason I have read these proposals into the record of the House is a simple one. This is a Private Members' motion and it has been suggested that the Government might feel no obligation to abide by it if it is carried by this House. That would be undemocratic and a breach of faith by this House. It is a suggestion which would question the democratic nature of our affairs and the accountability of Government to the democratically elected Parliament of the people. If the Government decide to ignore the vote carried this evening, and fail to accept the fundamental principles of an independent statutorily based body and the continued life of the NSSB, despite the instruction of this House, they will have degenerted the democratic process itself. I would welcome the acknowledgment from the Minister for Social Welfare that contrary to the clear impression given by the Minister for Health in his speech last week, it is clear today that an independent statutory board will be involved in co-ordinating the activities of the community information centres.
Why have we not accepted these new mark six proposals as outlined today? The basic reason is that they do not make sense. It does not make sense to solve the problems created by a silly Government decision, made at the behest of faceless bureaucrats in the Departments of Health and Finance. The National Social Service Board provide a dynamic, efficient, independent, focal point for hundreds of community groups and organisations, all of whom perform essential services to the community. It makes no sense to replace that focal point with innumerable different ones. It makes no sense to dissipate the concentrated energies of a small but hardworking staff in other areas. It makes no sense to run the risk of creating management, organisational training and industrial relations problems for two organisations by trying to solve a simple political problem that the Government have made for themselves. It makes no sense to create a precedent which will have untoward ramifications for the Government's own rationalisation plans in other areas of the public service. It makes no sense to remove an asset whose value can be measured in terms of the lives it has improved and whose cost benefit ratio is very high. We have in the contacts we have had with Ministers in the past day or so pointed all this out clearly. We have also told them their original decision was wrong and any justification it might have had, even in their own eyes, disappeared entirely when additional money from the national lottery became available.
I am aware that certain of the Government's utterances over the past few days have been designed to give the impression that this motion will be seen as intolerable because it represented a chipping away of the fundamental strategy of the Government. To be fair to the Ministers we spoke to in the past day or so, they did not threaten us with the general election. If they had, it would not have deflected us from the view that this was a fundamentally wrong decision. The Labour Party tabled this motion in the first instance and worked assiduously to secure a consensus on this side of the House because this is a basic Labour Party issue. The Bill establishing the NSSB aimed at consolidating the fundamental work undertaken by Deputy Frank Cluskey when he was Parliamentary Secretary to my predecessor, Brendan Corish. For all these reasons I hope this House will now tell the Government they must undo the wrong they have done. I commend the motion and Fine Gael's amendment to the House.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 81.
Tá
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Swift, Brian.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Birmingham, George.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- Boland, John.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Colley, Anne.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCoy, John S.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Quinn, Ruairí
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Wyse, Pearse.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Bell and Howlin.
Amendment declared lost.
We now come to amendment No. 2 in the names of Deputies Allen and Flaherty.
I move amendment No. 2:
To delete all words after "Accordingly" and substitute the following:
"noting that £1 million is being provided for community information and development services from the National Lottery, Dáil Éireann resolves that this allocation should be channelled through the National Social Service Board as presently constituted and instructs the Government to rescind its decision to abolish the National Social Service Board."
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 81; Níl, 79.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Birmingham, George.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- Boland, John.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Colley, Anne.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCoy, John S.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerich East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Wyse, Pearse.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Swift, Brian.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Brien and Flanagan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.