Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 May 1989

Vol. 389 No. 7

Private Member's Business. - Public Offices (Privacy of Interviews) Bill, 1988: Second Stage.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Privacy is something which the Government goes to great lengths to provide for themselves. All too frequently individuals in their dealings with Government and their agencies are required to discuss very private, even intimate matters, within earshot and within view of other members of the public. This is not as a result of deliberate policy; it merely arises from a lack of thought. The problem is that lack of thought at the critical time when particular office accommodation is being designed and planned or acquired frequently makes it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to reverse the physical arrangements which occasion the invasion of privacy.

The intention of this Bill is to give all relevant Departments of State and agencies, local authorities and health boards one year to ensure that interviews of a personal nature should be conducted in a manner and at a place which guards against overhearing or visual observance by other members of the public. Because of the passage of time since the circulation of the Bill it will be necessary on Committee Stage to amend the date of implementation from June 1989 to June 1990. However, in recognition of the physical difficulties, it allows the Minister for Finance to exempt specified offices for one year thereafter or, in very special circumstances, for two years thereafter. In other words, even where there are special difficulties all designated public offices would have to meet the requirements of this Bill, without exception, within three years.

The Bill covers offices of (a) the Revenue Commissioners, including PAYE inspectors and offices of the Collector General; (b) social welfare offices, including labour exchanges and Garda stations acting as labour exchanges; (c) health centres and health board offices; (d) local authority offices, including rent offices, rent assessment and loans and grants repayments offices, offices involving complaints between neighbours, and offices dealing with housing and housing transfer applications; (e) ESB payments offices and (f) any other public offices designated by the Minister in regulations. The Bill also provides power to extend its provisions to private agencies providing public services, for example, sub post offices, banks and credit unions.

The rights of members of the public in their dealings with the public services, have steadily improved over the years. The reform of the public service was initiated by my colleague, Deputy John Boland, during his term as Minister for the Public Service. The improvements which he introduced have been followed by further improvements introduced under the present Government. I think it would be worthwhile to list the sort of improvements that have taken place in the past five years: (1) in 1983 the then Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Boland, required all public servants, serving at hatches, to wear name badges so that members of the public knew the official with whom they were dealing so that they could report any hostile treatment or when they came back for further dealings they knew for whom to ask; (2) Deputy Boland also required all public servants in communication with members of the public, by letter or on the telephone, to give their names and rank; (3) Deputy Boland also introduced the Ombudsman's Act which has given considerable protection to members of the public against maladministration in the public services; (4) the Data Protection Bill was introduced by the present Minister last year — now the Data Protection Act — to protect personal information about members of the public in data banks; and (5) the Revenue Commissioners in recent weeks have published their Charter of Rights for taxpayers.

These are most welcome developments and in a sense what this Bill seeks to do — although its publication long pre-dates it — is to extend that charter of rights to all public offices. The Revenue Commissioners' Charter of Rights sums up the situation under the following headings: (1) courtesy and consideration; (2) presumption of honesty; (3) information; (4) impartiality; (5) privacy and confidentiality; (6) independent review; (7) compliance costs; and (8) consistent administration.

The overall objective of this charter is for the Revenue Commissioners to discharge their public duty in a manner which fosters the highest degree of public confidence in their integrity, efficiency and fairness. I believe the Revenue Commissioners are to be commended on their initiative in this respect, and I hope that they and all other public Departments and agencies will speedily embrace the letter and the spirit of the provisions of the Bill now before the House. This would be an important step as it is normal practice in Ireland for taxpayers to discuss their private tax affairs at a hatch right beside the queue for the hatch. There is a double embarrassment involved, first, those in the queue are frequently embarrassed by having to listen to the personal affairs of others being interviewed at the hatch and, secondly, they do so in the knowledge that when their own turn comes their business too will be overheard.

Similarly, local authority tenants are usually required to discuss their rent arrears — and the reasons for them — in front of a queue of people within three or four feet. This is especially the case in the new civic offices at Dublin's Wood Quay which only opened in the past year. When the reason for the arrears arise from problems of an intimate nature within families, for example, alcoholism, incest, desertion, moneylending or bereavement, it will be readily appreciated how extensive and how humiliating the invasion of privacy can be.

It should be emphasised that it is not merely the hard case which is affected by the invasion of privacy. In the main, ordinary individuals, even without the stressful circumstances which I have just exemplified, who have cause to discuss in public offices matters of a personal or confidential nature will be guaranteed the right of privacy. This is a two-fold right, first, against overhearing and, secondly, against visual observance.

Overhearing arises frequently because of the use of hatches in public offices. There are several examples, even in hospitals where cubicles or offices partitioned by thin walls or curtains can allow overhearing of very private business. Likewise, individuals in stressful circumstances who can be observed visually may have their privacy invaded in like degree. I have very frequently, in the course of my duties as a public representative, witnessed situations in which members of the public broke down with emotion when discussing their problems with officials in situations made much worse by the fact that a queue of people had observed their distress. Moreover, where members of the public strongly dispute official rulings they are put at an enormous disadvantage if they are being visually observed, and even more so if they are being overheard.

In recent years these problems have been greatly exacerbated by security screens now so ubiquitously necessary. These screens usually make it necessary for officials and public alike raise their voices so that they can be heard, hence a wider overhearing has now emerged. This is a regrettable but necessary development. We have now in public offices the necessity for security screens because of the way in which law and order has broken down and because of the physical abuse to which many public officials have been subjected. The presence of those screens has added to the problems. Public Departments, like banks and like petrol filling stations, have had to respond to the growing crime and assault problem so in post offices also these security screens have had to be provided. That was a quick and ready response to a very real problem, but it has worsened another very real problem of invasion of privacy.

This Bill empowers the Minister for Finance to make regulations to guard against this infringement in public offices. It is deliberately drafted in this way so that the Minister has the power to take on board any practical difficulties which may arise from place to place. I acknowledge that in some places, especially older offices, there may be some physical difficulties, some particular difficulties in particular offices. It is only right that the Minister should have the power, under certain circumstances, to delay full implementation of the provisions of the Bill for a further year, or, in exceptional circumstances, a further two years. Three years is sufficient time to give all public offices the opportunity to adjust. People may ask what the cost will be and that is a very fair question. By its nature, it is a very difficult question to answer. It is like trying to answer the question: "What is the length of a piece of string?"

From my own observation in Dublin, it would cost very little to make the sort of provisions in our public offices and public Departments that have been made in the United Kingdom which I visited before I circulated this Bill last year. For instance, in the United Kingdom in every labour exchange there are private rooms for in-depth interviews with applicants. Those interviews are not conducted at hatches which, unfortunately, is all too frequently the case in this country. I have had many complaints from individuals on unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit about the humiliating embarrassment to which they were subjected in front of queues impatiently waiting for their turn to be reached. I have had many complaints from people in those queues who have been embarrassed by having to listen to the explanation from an unemployment assistance applicant of why he and his wife are on separate payments, why he and his wife separated and when, and when they came back together again and why. This is the reality in many of our labour exchanges.

It is not part of my contention that that was deliberate, manifestly, it was not. There is nobody in the House, in this or in past Governments, no senior civil servant who, with malice aforethought, designed our labour exchanges, our rent collection offices, our rent assessment offices and tax offices, but the end result of the design, of the lack of thought, is that there is widespread infringement of privacy, so much so that many people would rather forego their rights than suffer the humiliation and embarrassment that they have observed being inflicted on others.

Even if there is a good deal of cost, this is a proposal which must be taken on board. I do not believe there will be considerable cost. I believe that reasonable arrangements can be made very easily in most public offices. I have in mind, for instance, the new civic offices in Dublin, on the famous Wood Quay site, designed and built in recent years and only open about a year or two. If you are unlucky enough to have a rent assessment or rent arrears problem, or a problem in relation to a housing application, a housing purchase, a loan or grant application, a loan and grant repayment, loan and grant arrears, you must discuss your problem at a hatch, through a security screen in most places, out loud in front of people within a few feet of you.

Mrs. Barnes

So it has not even that saving grace.

Mr. J. Mitchell

In that same building there are large public areas which are not used. These should be converted into waiting areas so that where the interviews actually take place is distant from the queues and can be separated from visual observance from those queues where necessary, by mobile screens. There would not be an enormous cost.

In the course of preparing for this Bill, I have visited not only the United Kingdom but several of our own tax offices. I must say that we had great sport in getting through security, but we did, just to prove the point of the total lack of privacy in so many of our tax offices. Down in Hawkins House, for instance, on several floors, one gets out of the lift, turns right and there is a long corridor of hatches. The corridor is about four foot wide and there are about 25 or 30 hatches; they are every few feet. Three feet away along the wall are seats where people sit waiting. These are partitioned, long offices. It may mean moving the partitions around a bit. It is certainly not a very thoughtful, considerate arrangement.

While the cost overall is hard to quantify, it is one of these things that has to be taken on board. Certainly the principle has to be taken on board. We have to set out on the road to implement this reform. If the Minister is prepared to accept the principle of the Bill on Second Stage, I will, of course, be open to accepting reasonable amendments on Committee Stage. Given the Minister's record and that of his Minister of State, they are likely to adopt that approach and I have every confidence they will do so. Likewise I have no doubt that all the other parties in this House will support the principle of this Bill on Second Stage and I am prepared to discuss on the later Stages any amendments which may be necessary to provide against excessive cost or to graduate the cost over a longer period than is proposed by the Bill, provided it does not lead to excessive delay.

What prompted this Bill was an experience I had regarding a woman who became a deserted wife. After years of harassment, beating and neglect by her husband who provided very little out of his income for the support of her and of their several children, he eventually deserted her and she was left with enormous arrears of local authority rent based on his total income which she never saw, and she was now the subject of a court order for eviction arising out of those arrears. The court case had already taken place, the sheriff's pink notice for eviction had issued. This was to take place within weeks. The purpose of the visit was to go in and discuss with the rent supervisor in his new, beautiful civic offices, which are a great improvement on the offices that went before, this woman's dilemma and difficulty and the reasons she should not be levied with all those arrears or, if she was to be levied with them, at least why she should be given a reasonable time to pay them having regard to her present income. I am not going into the more specific details of the case but they were harrowing, intimate and offensive. We went to look for the supervisor, a very considerate man. I asked if there was nowhere we could discuss this problem except in front of the queue at this hatch and through this glass screen. He said unfortunately there was not. I refused to discuss the individual case in front of the queue two feet from us because of the circumstances, so we had to leave the queue and let the supervisor get on with the rest of those waiting there. It was only when the queue was ended and the doors already locked, that we could discuss the lady's problems. However, that was not before we had heard unwillingly and observed unwillingly the harrowing details of the problems of those other people in that queue. What is more, alongside that queue were four or five other parallel queues at four or five parallel hatches. I invite any Member of this House who is not familiar with the Dublin civic offices, sometimes called the bunker, to go and visit the rent assessment office, the rent collection office and the "homeless" office where people have to come in to talk about their homelessness, what accommodation might be available to them and explain the reason for their homelessness. Nobody who has observed what happens there could but strongly support the Bill now before us.

However, the problem is not confined to Dublin Corporation civic offices. It is extensive. I was at the funeral this morning of the late and revered Deputy Frank Cluskey and afterwards several colleagues and former colleagues came to me and said, "I heard you on the radio this morning describing your Bill" and I found myself nodding in agreement: "That is just the way it is in Limerick" or "that is the way it is in Cork" or "that is the way it is in Galway". That is just the way it is in so many public offices. Obviously it would be an exaggeration to say that is the way it is in all public offices. That is manifestly not the case, but I decided that day in those offices which had been open for only a few months at the time — this was the first rent arrears case of a serious nature that I was dealing with since their opening — to do something about it. I made inquiries as to the provisions of the law and the practice in different Departments and in other countries. I decided then to propose to my colleagues on the Front Bench and in the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party that we should promote a Bill, which turns out to be the Bill before the House, the Public Offices (Privacy of Interviews) Bill.

I know we can be emotive about issues and in our emotion magnify the problem and get it out of context. I know also that to generalise from a specific case is often dangerous, but I am satisfied, having gone around many tax offices, labour exchanges and local authority offices in this city and having spoken to many of my colleagues from around the country, that the problem is significant, that its resolution would be widely welcomed by people of all classes, social status and political persuasions. That is why I am absolutely confident that the principle of this Bill will enjoy the widespread and, I hope, unaminous support of the House.

We cannot ignore the fact, as I have said, that there has been significant progress in the last five years both under this Government and the last Government. It is right to give credit where credit is due. The Data Protection Act enacted under the present Government is an advance, a protection of rights. It is a guarantee of confidentiality to persons, many of whose personal details are in data banks. Likewise the initiative of the Revenue Commissioners is a development which is and should be warmly welcomed by all concerned. The Ombudsman Act preceded it, as I have said. The right of individuals to know the name and rank of the public official with whom they are dealing is also a very welcome development. This Bill can be seen as the next step in that progress all of which has enjoyed the support of all sides of this House. It is not a party political Bill; it is a non-political Bill to protect all of us and all those we represent. Usually people go to public offices only when they have a problem. Frequently that problem is tricky, difficult and personal. Nobody would begrudge the expenditure over a period of whatever money is necessary to provide the minimum amount of privacy to which people are entitled. It is in that context that I strongly recommend this Bill to the House.

If you are agreeable, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to share the rest of my time with my colleague, Deputy Monica Barnes. I ask the Minister and all the other parties to support the Bill. I would certainly be open to constructive amendments on Committee Stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

I should have much preferred the Deputy to intimate at the commencement of his speech that he wished to share time with another Deputy.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I beg your pardon.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would have wished to have notice earlier. However, I presume the House will agree that the time be shared. Agreed

Mrs. Barnes

I thank the House for agreeing to allow me to contribute on this fundamentally important matter. It may be a small Bill in terms of its size and complexity, although I am sure the Minister believes it is not a small Bill in regard to its financial implications. If we really want to work towards a society where there are egalitarian standards and which allows dignity to the individual, regardless of class or financial independence, we have no option but to take up this Bill and work towards its implementation.

I will have occasion at another time to decry the building of the new civic offices in Dublin. Despite the damage to the history and foundations of Dublin, it is a great disappointment to learn that these civic offices did not take into account at the planning stage the needs of the people going there. Most of those people go in desperation with deep personal problems. It is not simply a matter of ensuring that we change conditions in the present offices. The Minister is not directly responsible for environmental matters, but perhaps planning permission should not be given for civic and public offices dealing with the people's problems unless private facilities are built into them. We are not talking about some privilege or some extra luxury facilities. We are talking about the fundamental rights of a democratic society in which the two basic tenets are the right to information and the right of the individual to human dignity and personal privacy when some of that information is being passed on, particularly when it is of a personal and private nature.

Most of the Members present come from smaller communities outside urban Dublin. The last thing we want in small communities is for everybody to know everything about us. In rural areas there is not the crowed anonymity which one might get in Dublin. I come from a rural background and there are very proud people in those communities who, rather than allow themselves to be embarrassed in front of neighbours, will not seek the rights and facilities which they desperately need.

I pay tribute to the reform which has taken place in the Department of Social Welfare. However, there is no way we can build a fairer society than by giving dignity and support to social welfare recipients if there is embarrassment, humilitation and an exposing of people's most personal and painful problems. Dignity and privacy must be an integral part of the reform of health care and social welfare.

We are aware that in Dublin and some rural areas there are law courts where important consultations about the future of a person's life have to take place in front of family members, even children, on footpaths or in the toilets because no other facility is available. On the one hand we say we are building a just and caring society, yet on the other hand we have built into the system a disparaging of people's feelings and a loss of sensitivity about what people have to go through, particularly in these devastating and traumatic cases. If we are saying that we cannot afford dignity and full rights we are saying we cannot afford a real democracy. It is as fundamental as that.

The staff cope with an inadequate system which must put huge stress on them. This at times must force them into being unnecessarily curt or frustrated and impatient because of their difficult working conditions. Two things must happen. One of the reforms brought forward by the former Minister, Deputy John Boland, was that the responsibility of information and the counselling needed by people in a distressed state should not lie on the shoulders of young, inexperienced and unskilled junior clerical staff. It is totally unfair to put a burden on them which would be demanding and draining for people in more senior positions, mature people who have a sense of wisdom, compassion and experience of life. Staff with skills in conflict resolution who can deal with a very angry or frustrated person must be available as well as facilities for private discussion in the type of offices described. We should also take into consideration the special training and the status to be accorded to the staff who are dealing with that because if we denigrate that job we are denigrating the people who are looking for the service. This is all tied up with the basics of human rights. Under this Bill a great number of our citizens because they would get the private and confidential information they seek in those offices, would not have to have recourse, as they do at this stage, to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman and his staff would not be as overburdened as they are if we provided the privacy and the facilities to deal with these problems at base. In regard to the disadvantaged, who are the majority of the people who have to have recourse to offices and information like this, the provision of these facilities would be an investment that would pay off, and it must start now. The fact that these facilities do not exist now shows a lack of insight and sensitivity to the people we have been dealing with up to now. If we feel that what is available at the moment is good enough for such people, we are really saying that is all they deserve. The vulnerable in our society need more support, privilege, luxury and privacy than those of us who have the independence, the self esteem and the pride not to be overcome or to feel threatened by circumstances that would embarrass others. I know and expect that the Minister, when he has taken all this into consideration, will respond positively to this Bill tonight.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. N. Treacy)

A Cheann Chomhairle, the Government, while subscribing fully to the motives which inspired Deputy Mitchell's Bill, cannot support the proposed legislation for the various reasons which I will outline to the House.

The Government readily accept the general principle of ensuring privacy for individuals being interviewed on matters of a personal nature at public Department and offices. Progress is being and has been made in public authorities around the country and I will outline in more detail examples of the type and scope of private facilities available later on.

It is also accepted that in many instances more remains to be done particularly in the Department of Social Welfare. However, the Government believe that the best way to approach the issue of privacy in public offices is in the context of a general on-going improvement in the quality of service to the public. This will have to be achieved in the context of its policy of giving Departments and agencies more not less, discretion in the management of their own budgets for running costs to which the Minister for Finance referred in his budget speech.

Local managers are in daily contact with their client groups and as such are best placed to determine the facilities required in Departments and local offices consistent with efficiency, courtesy and confidentiality.

The introduction of legislation along the lines proposed by Deputy Mitchell would have the effect of forcing local management to devote resources to privacy facilities at the expense of expenditure on other operational requirements to which they might accord a higher priority.

Because of its broadness, the measures in the Bill would also be likely to raise general expectations and encourage frivolous demands for privacy which, although ultimately unsustainable, might well create delays and general inconvenience. This would be particularly true in Revenue and Social Welfare offices which have large client groups. The Bill acknowledges this dilemma. By requiring that agencies need only comply with the proposed legislation "as far as practicable", it gives rise to risks of further confusion and delays for the public which, I am sure, were never intended.

Most day-to-day business conducted between members of the public and public authorities can be described as personal, private or confidential in nature. While much of this is routine and might be outside the scope of the proposed legislation, there is still a substantial number of contacts which would fall within the terms of the Bill. Within the context of the Bill, the Departments with the largest numbers of daily clients are the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare.

I propose now to outline the background against which these agencies operate, the measures they have taken to date in regard to privacy and their plans for future progress.

In the case of the Revenue Commissioners, it is particularly true to say that nearly all personal callers wish to discuss personal, private or confidential matters. However, let me put the implications of the Bill in perspective as regards the Revenue Commissioners.

The Revenue Commissioners have 270 public offices throughout the country dealing with tax and customs and excise matters. On the tax side alone there are more than one million employees paying PAYE, about 100,000 registered employers and 115,000 VAT traders.

In addition there are approximately 180,000 self-employed persons on the record and 60,000 companies. In the Dublin area, more than 450,000 employees call regarding their personal income tax to the tax office every year. The Collector General deals with another 150,000 personal callers every year. It is important to remember that the great majority of these callers come in without appointment and are dealt with on the spot. This is the level of service the Irish taxpayer has come to expect and which he-she is entitled to receive.

Clearly the procedures and facilities for dealing with such numbers have to achieve a balance between conducting the business with privacy and confidentiality and providing a fast, effective service which disposes of the taxpayer's problem while he-she is at the counter.

In the generality of cases, this is achieved to the satisfaction of the taxpayer.

Most callers are dealt with at the public counter but where more complex or sensitive matters have to be discussed, or where the taxpayer requests it, interview facilities away from the public counter area are generally available.

I now wish to outline some of the developments that the Revenue Commissioners have already undertaken, and will undertake in the future, which will maintain and improve on the high level of service provided to taxpayers.

In 1988, the Revenue Commissioners initiated an innovative means of dealing with 165,000 PAYE taxpayers with the opening of a PAYE local inquiry office in Mount Street in Dublin. The office is open all day from 9.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. including lunchtime. There are special facilities for the disabled. The use of modern technology and the highly developed computer systems of the Revenue Commissioners make it possible for most queries to be dealt with at the computer terminal before the taxpayer leaves the office.

I had the opportunity of opening that office. I was able to quote my own tax number and have my information given to me there and then at the counter, and I was very impressed indeed. This local inquiry office in Dublin has been recently supplemented by a similar inquiry office in Kilkenny. It is the intention to establish more and more of these "high-tech" local inquiry offices with the twin aims of improving service to the public and the efficient use of scarce resources.

In the Collector General's office in Dublin, a centralised inquiry office is being set up which will meet the needs of personal callers, who are mainly employers and traders, where all questions relating to payment of PAYE-PRSI, VAT, income tax or corporation tax will be dealt with in a "one-stop-shop".

The establishment of a central inquiry office where all aspects of a taxpayer's business can be dealt with, has been under consideration for some time. However, due to the current difficult economic circumstances and because of the very high cost involved, the implementation of this project has been, regrettably, deferred.

The Revenue Commissioners and their staff have always been conscious of, and have provided for, the entitlement of taxpayers to privacy and confidentiality. The recently launched charter of rights for persons in their dealings with the Revenue Commissioners contained a formal acknowledgment of this entitlement and a commitment by the commissioners that their staff would continue to observe this right in dealing with taxpayers' affairs. The relevant section of the charter reads as follows:

Privacy and Confidentiality — (In your dealings with the Revenue Commissioners) you are entitled to expect that personal and business information provided by you will be treated in strict confidence and used only for purposes allowed by law.

This statement is an earnest of the Revenue Commissioners' and the Government's commitment to privacy and confidentiality for persons in their dealings with public organisations.

The charter of rights was welcomed by the major bodies representing those who have a lot of dealings with Revenue. The vast majority of staff and the trade unions have also welcomed the charter of rights. Poster versions of the charter in Irish and English are on display at Revenue's 270 public offices throughout the country — 106 tax offices and 164 Customs and Excise offices. Leaflet versions of the charter are available in dispensers to members of the public in all public offices. Full page newspaper advertising was used to promote the message of the charter. Training courses are being provided for staff within the Revenue Commissioners and Customs and Excise in all aspects of the charter.

In short, the Revenue Commissioners are taking all steps open to them within the financial constraints of the current difficult economic circumstances, to ensure that members of the public in their dealings with the Revenue can conduct their business expeditiously, with complete confidentiality, with full respect for their dignity and in a pleasant and friendly atmosphere.

The position in the Department of Social Welfare is that members of the public have access to officials of the Department to discuss matters arising from services provided by the Department at 50 employment exchanges and one control office, 79 branch employment offices, 101 offices of social welfare officers, five public information offices and 113 signing centres and Garda stations around the country.

At employment exchanges alone, the Department of Social Welfare see around 110,000 clients on a weekly basis. Offices accept new claims, decide claims, carry out signing functions, pay unemployment benefit and assistance and review claims. Much of the work at the exchanges could be considered to be of a routine nature and as such might be exempted under the terms of the Deputy's Bill. However, taking new claims, review interviews, etc. Would definitely fall within the scope of the Bill.

Overall at the present time, only the offices of the 101 social welfare officers and a limited number of exchanges provide the type of privacy facilities which I think Deputy Mitchell has in mind, that is, facilities which protect against overhearing or visual observance by other members of the public. A massive capital investment would be necessary if Social Welfare were to attempt to fully meet the terms of the Bill and even then there are offices, for instance some branch employment offices, where it would just not be feasible to provide the facilities required.

Having said this, however, improvements are being made in all new offices and where possible in offices being extended and refurbished. I recommended to Deputy Jim Mitchell, and indeed to any other Member of this House or the Upper House, that they visit the new exchange in Nutgrove Shopping Centre in Rathfarnham or, when he is next in the west, the new exchange in Galway city to see what is being achieved. Indeed, the new exchange in Ballyfermot in the Deputy's own constituency, which is due to be completed this year, will incorporate full privacy facilities.

The programme of improvement of social welfare offices is a long term programme and the Government are satisfied that the Department of Social Welfare, together with the Office of Public Works as appropriate, are making every effort within available resources to improve the overall level of service, including the provision of privacy facilities, to the public. I should point out, however, that there is no prospect of the type of improvement sought by Deputy Jim Mitchell being introduced within the timescale envisaged in the Bill.

For the benefit of the House, let me briefly run through the arrangements for privacy which already exist in some of the other agencies specifically mentioned in the Bill. In the Department of Health, the office of the general registrar of births, deaths and marriages is the principal office to which members of the public attend for services. The main requests are for copies of births, deaths or marriage certificates. These are dealt with at public counters. These requests are, in the main, of a routine nature but where cases of a confidential nature arise, facilities are available for private discussion.

Any confidential matters which a caller to the Department may wish to discuss, e.g. cruelty to or sexual abuse of children, may likewise be discussed with an official in complete privacy.

In the health boards routine matters arising with members of the public are dealt with at public counters or hatches. Confidential matters are dealt with in complete privacy.

Overall, the Government are satisfied that the existing arrangements in force for dealing with confidential matters arising from the provisions of the health services are more than adequate and consider that a statutory framework to govern these matters is not warranted.

The Department of Labour operate an information unit to deal with inquiries from the public about their rights under legislation administered by them. A large percentage of inquiries in 1988 related to redundancy and holiday entitlements and dismissals. During 1988, there was an average of 166 inquiries each day. Of these about 15 per cent were from personal callers. Given the personal nature of the majority of these inquiries, the Department of Labour have a facility whereby personal callers can conduct the inquiries in total privacy — the need for such a facility was recognised by the Department at an early stage in the operation of the information unit.

With regard to An Foras Áiseanna Saothair, members of the public will generally approach FAS for information by calling to their training centres or employment services offices. In most cases the initial inquiry will simply be seeking information in regard to training courses, job vacancies or temporary employment schemes. Such inquiries can be dealt with without the necessity to conduct matters in private. In the event that a private interview is required, there are facilities in all FÁS training centres to conduct a private discussion. The same situation prevails in the FÁS employment services offices.

On the establishment of FÁS, it was recognised that many of the employment services offices needed to be upgraded in keeping with the direction given to FÁS by the Minister for Labour to develop a more client-centred orientation for all their services. Many of the poorer quality offices inherited by FÁS have been replaced by more suitable premises and/or will be modernised and refurbished. This is the case right across the country, both in Dublin and in all the provincial centres. In all instances the prime objective of FÁS in this regard is to enable FÁS clients to transact their business with dignity, efficiency and in circumstances appropriate to the situation.

In the larger offices of the ESB, a private room is provided near the customer contact area where sensitive matters are dealt with in confidence. In their smaller offices, sensitive matters are attended to in the local supervisor's office and, generally, arrangements are in hand to ensure that full privacy facilities will be provided in areas where they do not already exist.

During this debate, my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Connolly, will outline to the House the measures in force to ensure privacy in his Department and in local authorities. I am sure that he will inform the House of his Department's plans, which are well advanced, for the provision of a major new driving test centre in Dublin. I understand that when it is completed, it will provide top class facilities for driver testing and will relieve any overcrowding at the other two test centres in the city.

There is no doubt that the introduction of the legislation proposed by Deputy Mitchell would involve extra costs for the Exchequer. I have already referred to the significant costs which would undoubtedly arise for the Department of Social Welfare. The Deputy's definition of the nature of the business to be covered in the Bill is so wide that even taking account of his provision to exclude business of a routine or perfunctory nature, the attendant costs are likely to be very significant indeed.

While the bulk of these costs are likely to arise in relation to the Department of Social Welfare, other Departments and agencies are likely to incur heavy expenditure as well to ensure that the potential demand could be met. To take one small example, where privacy facilities are provided away from the main area of activity in an office, it will be necessary, under section 5 of the proposed legislation, to install security features such as alarms to provide for the safety of staff.

In addition, the Bill also makes provision for an appeals mechanism. This proposal would undoubtedly involve the provision of extra staff across the public service to process appeals. As such, it is completely at variance with Government policy which is aimed at reducing public service numbers. The Deputy's Bill makes no reference to these extra costs.

The Government believe that it would be quite wrong and indeed inconvenient to the general public, to give individuals a statutory right to conduct certain business in private without taking account of the degree to which financial resources were available to facilitate the exercise of that right.

This Bill as presented to us proposes to do just that and in effect would compel the Government to increase public expenditure. Coming from the Opposition side of the House, the Government find this proposal to increase expenditure, in what is essentially an administrative area which is already receiving attention, wholly unacceptable.

Looking at the text of the Bill, I also conclude that, as drafted, it is totally unworkable in practice. Subsection (1) of section 4 gives a right to privacy to any caller at a public office in respect of business "of a personal, private or confidential nature" while subsection (2) expresses the intention that business of a routine nature be excluded. How could any public official manning a public office be expected to comply with such vague legislation? The official would have to exercise discretion. Such discretion would, of necessity, be exercisable by busy junior officials. It would make no material change in the present situation and would therefore be unworkable.

Mrs. Barnes

They should not be junior officials.

Mr. N. Treacy

They must be junior officials.

Mrs. Barnes

Making mature decisions?

Mr. N. Treacy

Surely an official answering a call at a hatch must be somebody on call to service the caller and respond immediately. Surely that official by virtue of the job he does must have to exercise discretion as to whether that client can get immediate service or is entitled to a private interview, as is the position at the moment. Flexibility and discretion must be available to all officials, junior or senior, in responding to the public.

Mrs. Barnes

They should be senior.

Mr. N. Treacy

We cannot have senior officials in every office.

Mrs. Barnes

That was a particular point I made to the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair cannot close its ears when Deputy Barnes interrupts the Minister of State. Having lost her great reputation for not interrupting pro tem, is the Deputy satisfied that it was worth while? Did the Deputy elicit the information she required?

Mrs. Barnes

No, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I am afraid that the Minister has not taken up a very important point I made. I had hoped he would have given some consideration to my point in his response.

Mr. N. Treacy

I appreciate what the Deputy says and the spirit of what she says. It would be wonderful if we could have senior officials to deal with every individual who comes to the hatch. The Deputy will agree that on many occasions people come to the hatch looking for application forms. Surely we must have a system whereby people are trained to respond to the public and if necessary a senior official can be called. As in any organisation, public or private, senior officials have responsible duties and have to make decisions. They can be on call when needed but cannot always be available.

Furthermore, section 4, subsection (3) (a) only obliges public agencies to observe the guidelines on privacy — I quote —"as far as practicable". How can such a provision be construed as an obligation? It would not improve the present situation in any way. In these circumstances, the cost of implementing the bureaucratic procedures involving the making of regulations, exemptions, appeals, monitoring, etc. which would be required to give effect to this Bill otherwise would be nugatory and difficult to justify at any time for such a dubious return. Such additional costs are unthinkable at this time.

I note that in the media publicity surrounding this debate, it has been suggested that this Bill, if enacted, will remove hatches in public offices. Let me make it quite clear to the House that the proposed legislation will not have this effect.

The Deputy's colleague, former Minister for the Public Service in the previous Administration, Deputy John Boland, sought to remove hatches in all public offices as part of the campaign to provide a better service to the public — a campaign which is still in operation. I commend Deputy Boland for the work he did in this area. For very good reasons of security, Deputy Boland was forced to accept a situation which fell short of his original plans and the relevant section in the White Paper on the Public Service reflected that position. It said:

Where possible, hatches are being removed in public offices. Where it is necessary to retain them they will be improved and modernised to ensure efficiency, courtesy and confidentiality.

This is still the position and provisions of the Deputy's Bill would in no way alter the situation.

Deputy Jim Mitchell in his opening address acknowledged that the work initiated by Deputy Boland is still continuing under the present Government and will continue. Where new facilities are being provided, be they purpose built facilities or renovated office facilities, we are striving to provide the best modern facility possible in the most private environment and atmosphere.

In fact, if anything, section 5 of the Bill would have the effect of reinforcing the hatch system since it would oblige Departments or agencies to have regard to the safety of their personnel and requirements of security.

Mrs. Barnes

Our clients are usually not a guerrilla war force. That is an indictment of the trust we have in our people.

Mr. N. Treacy

The Deputy's interpretation of what I say is very harsh. I am making the point that the Bill makes it mandatory that these security obligations would be carried out. I am saying that we cannot sustain that kind of extra mandatory expenditure.

In summary, much progress has been made in recent years in upgrading the general level of service to the public by our public service agencies. This having been said, however, the situation in relation to privacy is not perfect, nor does the Government claim that it is. However, it is worth noting that all the measures I have mentioned have been introduced without legislation and with minimal disruption of service to the general public. These improvements will continue as resources permit.

The best way forward on this issue is through the normal administrative processes of public authorities and indeed this debate will serve as a further reminder to Departments and their agencies of their obligations to pay particular attention to the privacy issue in their public offices. Whatever the outcome of this second reading debate, I will be pleased to bring the views expressed by Deputies in the House to the attention of all Ministers with a request for a renewal of efforts to improve customer service at public offices across the public service as resources permit.

The Government believe firmly that legislation to achieve these very desirable improvements is simply not necessary. We are convinced that the same objectives — to which, of course, we fully subscribe — can be met by other means. I would like to pay tribute to Deputy Mitchell for his initiative and commitment. He has highlighted the situation that exists in certain offices and has brought it to the attention of this House. We will strive with might and main and with all the resources at our disposal to improve facilities for the public at large but we cannot make it mandatory to incur expenditure out of resources that presently do not exist. Accordingly, and regretfully, we oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Wyse

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will be very brief. I would find it very difficult to oppose the principle of the Bill. Those who have to frequent establishments as mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill are obliged to declare, under appalling conditions in both Government and health offices throughout the country, matters which they consider private and confidential. People are hesitant to go to such places, knowing that their business transactions are exposed to everybody, are within easy earshot. This is humiliating. It often causes people who are in real need of help not to seek that help. Of course, the real problem must be attributed to Governments down through the years who embarked on the practice of renting rather than erecting purpose built premises, specifically designed premises to bring about more efficiency, to facilitate staff and to ensure that the interview area is planned to allow for confidentiality. When I was Minister of State at the Department of Finance and assigned to the Board of Works I availed of the opportunity to have erected at Sullivans' Quay in Cork Government buildings which were planned and designed to bring all Government services under one roof, thus facilitating the general public as far as possible.

I never agreed with the practice of Government buildings at exorbitant rents, not to mention the substantial sums of moneys spent in altering these various premises which were never to the satisfaction of the staff and general public. I want to emphasise this point because, having been a Minister assigned to the Office of Public Works, I know that a Government Department would ring and say they were in urgent need of a premises in order to facilitate a particular service. Immediately the Office of Public Works people would drive around in search of a suitable premises. What a waste of taxpayers' money. I can well appreciate what the Minister has said tonight, that because of financial restraints it is not possible to erect purpose built premises but we should look to the future. I hope the mover of the Bill will give this matter consideration.

Privacy in Government offices is nil. At this stage no matter what efforts are made by the staff concerned we cannot alter existing buildings. However, I make a very special appeal tonight to the executive officers in Government offices that in so far as it is possible they should try to facilitate people where they have to make a statement outlining their financial position or matters of that nature. An effort should be made to provide an area within the premises where people can discuss confidential matters with officials.

The Minister read a fairly lengthy script which was hardly necessary. The principle of the Bill is to try to bring about an awareness of the importance of providing the facilities necessary to ensure confidentiality at Government offices. If one were to go into the economics of providing Government offices, one would find that there is an abuse of taxpayers' money in that area. We are renting premises knowing that they have not the necessary facilities for administering the services. When I was assigned to the Board of Works I saw the opportunity of providing the Revenue Commissioners in Cork with a suitable premises when they were seeking accommodation and I took the opportunity to prove to some people the importance of building office accommodation where we could house all Government services under one roof rather than saying to somebody to go half a mile down the road to another office. This arrangement, as well as bringing about more efficiency, lends itself to the principle of this Bill which is the question of confidentiality. I appeal to the Government to proceed in this way in future.

I was frustrated on a number of occasions when Ministers of my own Government were screaming out for premises, telling us to find them urgently. We were investing money in something that would never belong to the State and we could be there for the best part of 30 to 40 years. In fact, we should have been building our own premises which would now be an asset to the State. I am saying this because of my convictions on this issue.

People have come to me complaining about the lack of any possibility of confidentiality. Deputy Mitchell outlined the case of the unfortunate woman going to a Government office where everybody could listen to her business. The older generation are not used to this kind of thing and rather than have to go to a building where hundreds of people could listen to what they have to say, they would deprive themselves of some essential service. We have to face this matter in a realistic fashion. It is not possible to provide them in any of the buildings I know of where Government services are provided. I have been through them but I believe that executive officers should try to make some part of the premises available when a person seeks privacy. This can be done even if it means a bit of tightening up here and there. That is what the Bill seeks.

To be honest the Minister went to unnecessary trouble in preparing his brief. What we are talking about is the principle of trying to meet a need which has existed down through the years. It cannot be met in the way the Bill envisages, but I have no doubt that we can go a long way in meeting it. That is why I make a special plea to those in charge of Government offices to try to comply with the Bill as far as possible. Let no one say tonight that we can enact a Bill which we know cannot be complied with. I am in total agreement with the principle of the Bill. Anyone who has experience of working in the Board of Works and being told about certain things happening in certain offices throughout the country knows how frustrating it is trying to meet this need in buildings which were not designed with this need in mind.

I hope everyone agrees with the principle. The Deputy who moved the Bill tonight said that he was prepared to facilitate the Minister in every way possible on any amendments he may table on Committee Stage. That is only fair but we have to be sensible and realistic. At this stage we can only talk about making the best out of a bad job and try to facilitate those unfortunate people who have a right to meet officials to talk about their problems in the strictest confidence and not in the presence of others who may go on to the street afterwards and talk about what Mrs. So-and-So had to say at the office. This need can be met if people bend and say we should try to meet the principle. Not everybody wants to talk about their problems in strict confidence but quite a number do and we should try to meet their needs by making some area available within buildings.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Connolly)

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill which aims to provide a statutory basis in relation to privacy for members of the public during interviews of a personal nature in specified offices of public Departments and their agencies. This Bill cannot be commended to the House as it is totally unnecessary legislation. I firmly believe where particular problems arise in matters such as this they should be dealt with in a common-sense way without recourse to the law. We would all accept that there is an obligation to provide for privacy in certain dealings between the public and public servants. However, this obligation can be met by good manners, a civilised approach to human relations and an understanding by public servants of the obvious requirements of privacy based on mutual respect.

I have to say that in my time in O'Connell Bridge House — and this is my third term — I have received no complaints from the public in regard to the transaction of the business of that office. Everybody will realise that this is a pretty busy office dealing with thousands of applications for grants and other relevant matters. Credit must go to the staff in the building who have handled all of these cases as far as I know in a most humane way. I am very pleased to know that. If we were to provide private accommodation it would slow things down and if the numbers were big I would not have as much space as I would like to have. I am glad to say that the officials of my Department have treated people with serious problems with sensitivity.

It is not a matter for legislation which would have the effect of imposing unnecessary obligations on a number of Government Departments, including my own, local authorities, health boards, FÁS, the Electricity Supply Board and such other offices as may be designated. If the provisions of the Bill were to be fully implemented I have no doubt that considerable additional staff and accommodation costs would arise and at the same time the rigid procedures required would increase the time for dealing with individual cases and possibly lead to unnecessary delays also. I have long experience of serving on my own local authority and the constituents I represent, both in Laois and Offaly, have never complained to me about the county councils, the health board or any official.

Mrs. Barnes

What about employment exchanges?

Mr. Connolly

They have been treated in a very humane way. In relation to the labour or employment exchanges in my area, I have received no complaints, only requests for additional accommodation. I have received no complaint from any constituent of mine about the way they have been treated but I agree with the Deputy when she says there may be problems in the larger urban areas. Where improvements can be made I have no doubt that the Departments involved will be favourably disposed to making them.

Section 4 states that, from the commencement date, any person who has called to engage in business of a personal, private or confidential nature at any of the offices covered by the Bill, shall have a right to insist that such a discussion shall be protected against overhearing or visual observance by other members of the public. There is no legal definition in the Bill as to what constitutes business of a personal, private or confidential nature and, naturally, individual members of the public could put their own interpretation on these terms. In these circumstances, it would be open to each and every individual who has dealings with the bodies specified to demand a totally private interview room.

Mrs. Barnes

The Minister could always put in an amendment to define that.

Debate adjourned.