Deputy Noel Dempsey was in possession. Deputy Dempsey has some 13 minutes left of the time allotted to him.
Private Members' Business. - Public Offices (Privacy of Interviews) Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
With your permission, and with the permission of the House, I would like to share the remaining time with Deputy Tom Kitt.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Basically all I want to do is summarise my views before I hand over to Deputy Kitt. I agree with the principle of the Bill and I think most people in the House would agree that it is a basic right of our citizens to conduct their business with public departments privately without being overheard or seen.
I have some reservations about the Bill, the main ones being as to the costs and the time span involved in the legislation. It is suggested that this would take effect within one year. I would have reservations about that in the context of particular Departments. However, I feel that the legislation is basically sound and I am pleased that all sides of the House seem to be in favour of it.
At the outset I would like to thank Deputy Dempsey for allowing me to share his time. I, too, would like to applaud the Bill. I am pleased that many speakers in this House have been very positive with regard to it. We are all very much aware of the problems that have arisen with regard to employment exchanges, tax offices, health boards and FÁS offices. There is nobody more aware of these problems than the Dáil Deputies who are in close contact with these agencies in the course of their work. They are also in contact with their constituents who have problems with these agencies from time to time.
The debate has broadened somewhat. That is to be welcomed because basic reforms are required. Minister Leyden said he would bring many of the points raised by Deputies on all sides of the House to the attention of the various agencies, and I know the Minister for Social Welfare will do likewise. The debate has focussed the attention of the public and the officials on this whole question of privacy and confidentiality in our public offices.
The crucial aspect is the dignity of the person. The person who has to queue for unemployment benefit, for medical cards or whatever, does so as of right and should not feel under a compliment. That is the thinking behind this Bill and that is why I welcome this debate.
We must also ensure that we get value for money. I am one of the many Deputies who would welcome the establishment of more community advice centres and support structures locally. Many Deputies have come across expanding areas of Dublin where new council estates are built, thankfully not as large as they used to be, with roads, houses, open spaces and local infrastructural requirements in place; but what is missing, in many cases, is a local health centre or social welfare office. I would like to see a greater availability of these services locally.
To give an example: in my own constituency of Ballyboden in Rathfarnham, many single parents in particular have to walk a considerable distance to the village of Rathfarnham, in many cases bringing a baby in a pram, and queue up for various health care services or social welfare services, when these services could be provided locally. In many cases the local community get involved, as happened in that area, to try to accommodate some of these basic services, for example, in the local school. We could get greater value for money if we used the facilities that are already in place.
Reference was made to payment by cheque. This is something we should consider. I appreciate that there may be difficulties with that, but the Minister should think about it and try to improve the whole system.
I would like to say that many positive things are happening in this area. Many of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare have been put in place by the Government. Only today the Minister for Social Welfare announced the setting up of social welfare service viewpoint groups to give a formal opportunity for direct feedback to management in the Department of Social Welfare on the delivery of the social welfare service. I understand the viewpoint groups will be set up in the four main regions of the country and members of the public who receive social welfare payments will meet with the managers of the Department of Social Welfare and the Department's information service to discuss such topics as their experience of claiming and receiving social welfare and access to social welfare information. That is a very positive development.
I would also point out that 11 new employment exchanges have been built since 1985 and five new ones are planned over the next two years; seven employment exchanges have been renovated and there are restoration plans in relation to five more. There is a new computerised self-service information service which provides general information on social welfare entitlements at everybody's fingertips which was launched recently.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is preparing proposals aimed at reforming the appeal system, in particular emphasising that the system will be perceived to be fair because that is a real problem, and Deputies in this House have pointed out again and again that there are many people out there who feel that the system is not fair. The Minister has announced that these proposals will include the setting up of a separate social welfare appeals office and measures to improve information to applicants will be taken.
All these developments are part of a plan to provide one stop shops which is the ideal structure we would all like to see, and this would allow the public access to the complete range of social welfare services at one location. I am aware that nine local social welfare offices now have a computer link with headquarters which enables staff to key in information from sickness certificates at local level. Tremendous moves have been made in decentralising so as to bring the services to the localities. I am aware that the Bill refers to the type of measure that will bring the services to the people in a more personalised and confidential way.
It is important that information be made available in the most simple and direct form so that people will not have to queue up as often as they do now looking for advice and assistance. The fact that the Minister has introduced a series of fact sheets on the improvements in social welfare in 1989 is a significant improvement, a major step forward. People can now have the facts in a more direct and simple form.
This Bill is welcome. It is a good example of how Private Members' time can be used positively and it is a good example of how the consensus in this Dáil can be used in a positive and constructive manner. I commend Deputy Mitchell for introducing this Bill. It has broadened the debate about the dignity of the individual who in the past has felt under a compliment, coming with a begging bowl looking for assistance. We should put the emphasis on the right of the person to these services and on his right to be treated with respect.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Jim Higgins.
That is satisfactory? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Since I came into politics in 1974 I have been very conscious of the fact that generally people do not want to discuss personal matters in public. Unfortunately they have had to do that. I compliment Deputy Mitchell on this Bill and on the thought and time he has put into bringing this Bill before us. I support the Bill.
I am glad the Government are prepared to accept these proposals and I would echo the sentiments of Deputy Kitt in that the consensus in the Dáil is working in a positive manner. It would be a pity if that consensus were brought to an end when such good work is being done.
The Bill covers offices of the Revenue Commissioners, including PAYE inspectors, and offices of the Collector General, Social Welfare offices including labour exchanges and Garda stations acting as labour exchanges, health centres and health board offices, local authority offices including rent offices, rent assessment and loans and grants repayment offices and offices dealing with complaints between neighbours and dealing with housing and housing transfer applications, ESB payments and any other public office designed by ministerial regulations. That covers a wide range of offices with which the general public deal every day.
When I came into public life the first thing I noticed was that people were reluctant to communicate problems. People have a great pride and have great difficulty in saying that they are not aware of benefits to which they are entitled or that an application form is giving them difficulty. How much more difficult is it then for these people to discuss these matters in a semi-public or public area? They do not want to queue up at a local authority office and discuss a rent repayments problem at a hatch. I am confident that by and large officials are concerned people but they are in an awkward position because of accommodation. Officials realise the sensitivity of the problems and sympathise with people having to look over their shoulders to see if anybody is listening.
The Minister referred to the cost of improvements but I am not talking about vast expenditure. The banks are not slow to cue in to public perception and how people are thinking. They brought in a relatively cheap means of controlling the public. In any of the banks one can see a decorative rope barrier pointing people to where they should queue and it is obvious that people must stand a certain distance away from the counter so that they cannot overhear a transaction. This system is not 100 per cent satisfactory because people are still visible when handling cash and when making statements but it is a vast improvement on people crowding up to the counter overhearing and overseeing everything.
The health boards are an even more sensitive area because here we are dealing with people who are concerned about medical cards, about family difficulties and so on, and who are looking for help or are complaining about the manner in which they were treated perhaps in the local hospital. These are all sensitive matters. It would be quite simple to reorganise any of our offices. Generally speaking, a small room could be made available so that people could do their business in private. The fact that the person taking particulars will pass them on to somebody else does not arise. What is important is giving privacy when a person is first communicating his problem to the authorities and breaking down the barriers.
In many towns that I pass through I have noticed long queues outside social welfare offices and Garda barracks where people queue to receive their entitlements, sometimes in dreadful weather conditions without shelter. These people have to wait there sometimes for an hour or two. This is wrong. It is unacceptable. People should not be degraded in that way. After all, they are human beings; unfortunate people who have no work. I have no doubt that 99 per cent of them are anxious to work and to have their dignity like most other people. If these conditions are intended as a means of embarrassing people to try to drive them from the dole queues, that will not succeed. It will only create a sense of grievance and annoyance among the people and it will be hard to remedy that. It might drive some people to commit acts which they would not normally commit. The majority are honest, decent, hardworking people who would work and provide for their families if they could get jobs.
Now that there is a consensus that it is necessary to make improvements we should take a look at the position in Leinster House, in particular at the interview room at the main gate which is probably one of the busiest interview rooms in the country. Literally hundreds of people pass through this room each week. In order to gain access to the House one has to call into this little office. The most amazing thing is that a person comes in at the top of the queue. The ushers ask them who it is they wish to see and then try to contact the person in the House. If the Dáil Deputy or Minister who they wish to see is not available and their secretary is not aware of who they are, questions will be asked. Perhaps these people are coming just to visit the House or to discuss a problem. They do not want to air that problem in front of between 30 and 40 people at the front gate of Leinster House. Making improvements there would be an indication that we are concerned and will do something about the problem.
I understand that Deputy Boland, when Minister, introduced a regulation that people in public offices would have to wear a name badge. To my knowledge this regulation is not adhered to. Even if no regulation had been introduced people in public offices should wear a name badge so that when a person arrives at a desk they know immediately with whom they are dealing and will be on first name terms with them. If they have a complaint to make about that person's attitude then they would have the name of the person concerned. I am not saying that this would be the case. I have found people in the State and semi-State offices and courteous. Occasionally we will come across one who is not and there come across one who is not and there may be misunderstandings. Nevertheless it is only right and proper that these people be asked to wear name badges.
It might be noted that the banks and various lending institutions have such a regulation. They realise that if a person, on coming to a desk, sees the person they will be dealing with is wearing a name badge they are immediately put at ease. Obviously they see this as a means of coaxing people into the bank. In many of our public offices the attitude may be that they do not want people coming in. Whether they like it or not, these people have to come in as they have business to conduct and they should be treated in the same way as any other person seeking a service. For this reason I again compliment Deputy Mitchell for bringing forward this Bill and compliment the Minister and the Government for accepting it. However I hope that this will not be the end of it, unlike other Bills and regulations we have taken on board. I believe that some improvements will have to be carried out within 12 months and the more difficult improvements within three years. That is only reasonable. Some improvements may be made by making some minor alterations at little cost. This would be a step in the right direction. I understand that finances are tight at present but this is no excuse for doing nothing. It does not always cost a great deal of money to bring about improvements.
From time to time people express dissatisfaction with the condition of our roads and water and sewerage services and ask if money could not be spent on these services. I agree with them but these people need a place in which to make their complaints and I am sure they would not like to do so in public. They would be quite happy to say that they could go in to see the county secretary, the county manager or the engineer and speak to that man quietly and in private. If they have a complaint to make about pollution I am sure they would not wish to do so in public as if they had to do so generally it would get back out that so-and-so was in to make a complaint. Privacy should be afforded to them so that they can give information and have complaints investigated.
This leads me on to the position in our Garda stations. The building in my home town of Cavan is totally inadequate. Forty men are based in what originally was a private dwellinghouse. Literally, they are living on top of each other. If we wish people to co-operate and help the Garda in carrying out their duties and provide information on road accidents or break-ins we should provide private rooms in which they can have a face-to-face chat with the garda on duty or with a sergeant or a superintendent. I am sure that I am not being parochial and will not be seen as moving away from the terms of the Bill in calling for a new Garda station for Cavan town. One has been promised. I hope that in the design for the new station provision will be made for a room in which members of the public may discuss a matter with a member of the Garda Síochána.
This may be of interest to the Minister for Social Welfare: at one stage the House agreed that 3 per cent of places would be reserved for physically handicapped people. However this direction has not been adhered to. State bodies and local authorities were requested to adhere to this direction but they have not done so. I hope the present proposal will not be disregarded and that the various bodies concerned will adhere to the recommendation put to them and the necessary improvements will be carried out.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Higgins.
I will be very brief. I wish to support and commend the measure before the House. It is a timely, fundamental and simple measure. Its aim is to set a wrong right and one wonders why such a Bill has not been introduced before now. What we are talking about is the provision of proper accommodation and the creation of the proper environment to enable John Citizen to discharge his business with the institutions of the State in a civilised and confidential way.
One of the basic rights in the Constitution is the right to freedom of speech but one often feels that the atmosphere prevailing in public offices is so intimidating that people are denied freedom of speech. It has rightly been pointed out on both sides of the House that because of the lack of privacy and confidentiality in some public offices one can take it for granted that many people walk away from their entitlements. I do not believe that it is the intention that their business should be conducted in such an atmosphere. Nevertheless, I believe there are people who have been thwarted from seeking their entitlements.
Anyone who has stood in a bank queue, irrespective of modern queueing arrangements, such as cord systems, and the efforts to have distance between the person at the end of the queue and the person transacting their business at the hatch, has felt self-conscious at some stage. Irrespective of the state of one's bank account, people feel self-conscious and feel no matter what distance is involved the discussion is audible to the next person in the queue. Therefore we can empathise and identify with the person who has to visit a labour exchange, a Garda barracks or a housing office to seek their entitlements. What we want is for the weakest people in our society to know that when they go into a public office they can discuss their business in private.
I welcome the initiative taken by Deputy Mitchell. This is a long overdue measure. I also welcome the decision of the Government, after one or two hesitant speeches, to accept this measure and to examine whether it would be feasible to make the necessary improvements within the timescale laid down. We share a common determination to provide the facilities in which the citizen can look for his rights. We share a common determination on all sides of the House to put in place the type of institution where the citizen can look for his rights without a feeling of deprivation.
I have visited a number of labour exchanges. Some of them are models in relation to layout but, unfortunately, the vast majority are far from ideal. This may be due to the antiquity of the building or crowd pressures. Due to lack of finance, business is carried on in rented premises which is not the solution. I pass through Lexlip on a fairly regular basis and I see a long, winding, snakelike queue of people waiting for their unemployment benefit and assistance.
Dole day, no matter when it falls, witnesses some 240,000 people taking their place in long queues, winding their way to hatches and, by virtue of the regulations determining eligibility for unemployment benefit or assistance, having to divulge certain facts or answer questions from the officer involved. I do not seek to compromise the right of those officials to seek this information. One recalls that according to the conditions governing the entitlement for unemployment benefit or assistance one must be available, ready, willing, fit and able to work. Therefore, it is the right and duty of the person giving out the necessary claim form to find out whether the applicant fulfils the necessary conditions. However, that very often leads to a sense of aggravation and frustration on the part of the applicant.
In response to numerous questions there is very often a degree of adversarial exchanges between the questioner and the applicant. In such conditions the least the client is entitled to is a degree of privacy in establishing that he fulfils the necessary conditions. It is right and proper that the applicant should satisfy the conditions and ensure that the official is satisfied in relation to his eligibility.
The interrogation, by its nature, must be probing and in-depth and one needs a private room in which to conduct it. One can readily sympathise with the feelings of a first time applicant who has been self-employed or working for somebody else when he encounters the labour exchange system. Often he feels intimidated and conscious of his reliance on the powers that be for his benefit.
One must also be conscious of the fact that many elderly people are unused to the whole routine of form filling and the system that applies in a post office or labour exchange. They feel justifiably intimidated by the atmosphere prevailing in them. They are very conscious of the fact that other people are privy to the ensuing conversation. This is not major legislation and would not be hard to implement. Of course there will be physical difficulties but we welcome the fact that the Government will consider whether it can be achieved within the necessary timescale.
I do not share the degree of apprehension on the other side of the House, particularly that expressed by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Noel Treacy, that the cost would be prohibitive. There is nothing prohibitively costly in putting in place temporary shutters and ordinary glass partitions. However, they will give the applicant the privacy which this measure seeks to achieve. I welcome the measure and I honestly believe that when we look back at this Bill we will see that it was the instrument which stimulated all Members to ensure that we had the will, the way and the wherewithal to put in place long overdue measures which are contained in the Bill.
I am standing in for the Minister for Finance because, although he would like to be here, he is engaged in the Seanad and cannot be with us. Nevertheless, it is quite appropriate that I should be here because I am very much involved, through the Department of Social Welfare, in the whole question of the provision of privacy for our clients which was mentioned by the last two Deputies. Sometimes when Deputies talk about these things they forget that we might have tried to do something they had in mind and that it might not be as simple as it appears at first glance.
Deputy Boylan spoke about the changing of cheques in the banks. The banks will take pensioners' cheques, but they will not go to the banks with the cheques because most of them did not have that tradition and prefer to go to the post office. We did surveys to find out what our clients were interested in, not what we thought they should be interested in. There was a substantial difference between the different groups of our clients. In that survey only 6 per cent of pensioners wanted to go to banks, the bulk of them preferred the post office and the way in which the scheme operates at present.
We also did a survey among the unemployed and found that fewer than 40 per cent wanted cheques. They preferred cash in the hand from a local exchange. The youngest people were interested in the credit card system and would be agreeable to the transfer of cash to an account. Of course, we would be very happy to facilitate that and all the developments within the Department are geared to that kind of operation. We can now produce cheques — even if people do not want to bring them to a bank and prefer an employment exchange — and we will have all the mechanisms ready to ensure that the facilities will be there to deliver a very efficient service.
Just under 70,000 cheques per week are sent to people on disability benefit. I can see the difficulty for the banks. They will not take cheques from the unemployed because there are 230,000 people involved. Actually, there are fewer involved because some of the people signing on do so for credits only. We did some experiments in relation to taking cheques directly to the bank but only something in the order of 1,500 are going through the banks. We are very interested in increasing that number but there is a certain reluctance on the part of our clients to go along those lines and there is also a reluctance on the part of the banks to take them.
I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to address the House on this Bill. I have been following with great interest the various contributions from Members of the House and I must congratulate all the participants for the quality of the debate. In particular, I would like to compliment Deputy Jim Mitchell for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House, for his hard work in preparing the Bill and for investing his valuable time in research into the background to this matter.
One thing which has become very clear from this debate is that there is overwhelming support across the House for the principle of Deputy Mitchell's Bill. I was interested to hear Deputy Jim Higgins ask what was missing. He wanted to know if the will, the way or the where-withall were missing. I should like to assure the Deputy that as far as I am concerned there is no lack of will and I am pleased to be able to report that that is true of all Members. We know many ways of dealing with the problem and the biggest hurdle we have to face is the size of a problem that has grown over many years. The principle that, where necessary, all individuals should be able to conduct their business in private in public offices of Departments and State agencies is one to which the Government are fully committed.
Indeed, the principle is invariably taken into account during the building of new premises and the improvement and renovation of existing offices. There have been many improvements in the general level of service being provided to the public in Government Departments and State agencies over the last number of years including the provision of privacy facilities. This is very apparent in my own Department of Social Welfare. It is not enough to have a wide variety of schemes delivered to the client quickly, efficiently and with due regard to his or her dignity and rights. Our services must be geared towards the needs of the client and not for the benefit of the administrators. People should know that the service is there for their benefit. This boils down to a greater emphasis on better delivery of services, better and more accessible information, better trained and caring staff and, of course, better accommodation with privacy facilities where necessary. In general, I am talking about a more client orientated approach. I should like to tell the House that we have give a great deal of attention to training our staff and we have established a modern training unit. The results of that programme will be seen in the years ahead.
At present many of the services which my Department administer are, in a physical sense, too remote and distant from the clients, especially those who live outside the main population centres. This barrier between the Department and their clients is often accentuated by administrative practice such as the centralisation of decision-making in headquarters in Dublin.
I am developing a strategy aimed at delegating more authority to the network of local offices which are already in place around the country. A key element of that strategy is the facility which I have called the one stop shop. The object is to provide a comprehensive service to social welfare clients by bringing together the personnel and agencies involved to meet all the needs of the client quickly and in a more co-ordinated manner at the one location. The client will have available to him or her current information on their claims, general information on the full range of services available and 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. These facilities have already been successfully piloted and we have identified a number of towns around the country where they could be introduced on a progress basis as resources permit.
I am convinced that the quality of the service which my Department provide — and I believe the same principle applies to all other Departments and State agencies having direct dealings with the public — will be judged on the success we achieve in bringing our services to those who need them in an efficient, caring and dignified way.
I would like to draw the attention of Deputies to a further measure announced earlier this week which is aimed at continuing the substantial progress made in improving the delivery of services in my Department. In association with a forum on the delivery of social welfare services which I chaired on last Monday, and which was attended by representatives of the main voluntary organisations involved in the social welfare area, I launched a new pilot scheme in my Department which will involve setting up a series of social welfare viewpoint groups in each of the four main regions of the country. For the first time members of the public who receive social welfare payments will have a formal opportunity to give direct feedback to management in the Department of Social Welfare on the delivery of the social welfare services. Participants in the project will be able to discuss such topics as their experience of claiming and receiving social welfare payments and the question of access to social welfare information.
These viewpoint groups are part of our strategy of ensuring that the social welfare services remain in touch with those who are using the service. The information coming from them will be of great assistance to us. Without wishing to anticipate the types of issues likely to arise, I have no doubt that the participants in the viewpoint groups will avail of the opportunity to highlight any deficiencies which they perceive in relation to the delivery of social welfare services generally with particular regard to the question of privacy. In due course, the study will be evaluated to examine the potential for this kind of formal discussion with the public and the format most likely to produce useful feedback.
I would like to take this opportunity to assure the House of my determination to continue the programme of improvements currently underway at my Department's local offices until all those offices measure up the highest possible standards in the service of the public. With particular regard to privacy, the necessary levels will be provided at all new offices by virtue of being incorporated at design stage and, as far as possible, in existing offices being extended or refurbished.
Already 11 new employment exchanges have been built over the last four years and five new ones are planned over the next two years. In addition, seven employment exchanges have been renovated and five more have restorations planned. The levels of privacy required are being incorporated in all new offices and as far as physically possible in offices being extended or refurbished. We are spending £3.7 million this year on new employment exchanges and on improving others. They will all have privacy facilities. Notwithstanding the current financial difficulties we are investing in improvements of the type sought by Deputies. The improvement of privacy facilities in all offices will be continued as quickly as possible. This will involve considerable cost in that structural alterations are necessary and some of the offices will have to be replaced.
I would like at this point to respond to some points made by Deputy Hegarty in the course of his contribution. Deputy Hegarty claims that social welfare administration costs are far too high. Let me put him straight on that point. In 1988 the cost of administering the social welfare services amounted to approximately £125 million which represents 4.8 per cent of total social welfare expenditure in that year. That proportion has not changed much over the years. I am sure Deputies will agree that administration costs are not excessive having regard to the extent of the services provided and the fact that the number of people being provided for has increased greatly. At the same time, I assure the Deputy that every effort is made as part of continuing policy in my Department to keep administration costs to a minimum.
Deputy Hegarty also referred to the practice of queueing outside local offices, as did Deputy Boylan and Deputy Higgins. Deputy Higgins told us of long queues on dole days outside offices. There is rarely any need for queueing of that kind. Each of the 50 employment exchanges around the country operate a timing system whereby applicants attend at a specified time on their signing day. The purpose of this is twofold; to ensure an even distribution of claimants during opening hours and to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for queueing.
The experience of a number of local offices is that on pay-out days there is a tendency for applicants to form queues outside the premises before opening hours and to attend well in advance of their specified signing times. This, of course, only serves to hinder the effective operation of the office which depends very much on the co-operation of its claimants. Officials in the local offices do, however, continue to encourage attendance by applicants at their designated time so as to avoid unnecessary queueing. I appreciate that very often people who are unemployed have somewhere they want to go during the course of the day for one reason or another and, consequently, they will come along at a different or earlier time. That is one of the factors which leads to this queueing. Indeed the Deputy mentioned that he sees people queueing in the morning when he is on his way to the Dáil, which fits in exactly with the pattern found by officials where there is a tendency by people to queue and to come before their specified time or even before opening time.
On Tuesday last my colleague, Deputy Noel Treacy, Minister of State at the Department of Finance, recommended to Deputy Mitchell that he visit my Department's new employment exchange in the Nutgrove Shopping Centre and the exchange in Galway to see the type of customer facilities which are being incorporated into new social welfare offices. I would extend that invitation to all Deputies in the House. I would be very happy to make arangements for Deputies to come and see the changes and designs which are the current practice in a number of offices throughout the country at this stage.
Another area where major improvements have taken place is in the public offices of the ESB. On Tuesday, 2 May, my colleague, the Minister for Energy, officially opened the ESB's most up-to-date customer service centre at their Fleet Street office in Dublin. This centre, a model for future developments in the company, reflects the ESB's concern for good customer relations. Its features include tasteful decor and well signposted services, new queueing arrangements which result in a shorter waiting time and a more confidential service, on-line computer systems to respond quickly to customer queries and a special room for more private discussions. I might say that in modern social welfare offices and exchanges special separate rooms are provided apart from special separate cubicles which allow for private discussions.
Using the latest customer service technology, the ESB have pioneered a new concept in customer service which reduces the trauma of the personal visit. Customers are no longer faced with the fuss associated with paper intensive systems and masses of files which made the gathering of the information required to clear queries time consuming. In fact, you could say that all the apparatus of bureaucracy is being dismantled to provide for the customer a greater feeling of privacy and confidentiality.
At this point I would like to set the record straight on a matter which arose during the debate last Wednesday. Deputy Michael Bell expressed concern that social welfare recipients who had difficulties in meeting ESB payments had to explain their position in front of other customers. While this may have occurred in the past, let me assure the House that it is no longer the case. The factual position is as stated by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance last Tuesday, that in the company's large offices, 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.
There is no need for the type of issue mentioned by Deputy Bell to be discussed at a public counter within earshot of other customers. As a matter of policy, ESB customers who experience difficulties are treated with sensitivity by the company and all staff in public offices are aware of their responsibilities in providing help and assistance in confidential surroundings.
All the improvements which have taken place to date in my Department, the ESB and elsewhere around the public service, have been introduced in the absence of any legislative framework. The improvements have taken place primarily because local management in the various Departments and offices have identified deficiencies and have sought as far as possible within available resources to remedy the defects.
This is not to say, of course, that we should let the matter rest here. As speakers on this side of the House have already acknowledged, the situation is far from perfect and much remains to be done. Let me assure the House once again that the Government are fully committed to the progressive improvement of facilities where there are real shortcomings within the limitations of available funding. The social welfare viewpoint groups initiative is but one example of this continuing commitment.
As the Minister of State, Deputy Leyden, and Deputy Bell rightly pointed out to the House, it is difficult to legislate for privacy in public offices. Despite the best efforts of the proposer of the Bill, Deputy Jim Mitchell, to come up with a workable formula, the result has severe limitations and could be unworkable in practice.
Some Opposition Deputies have expressed the view that the attendant costs associated with implementing legislation in this area would not be significant.
As Minister of a Department with a nationwide network of public offices, I can assure the House that the costs associated with compliance with any such legislation are substantial. The House should not forget that in addition to the costs of providing physical accommodation, there would also be other costs involved in making and enforcing regulations, deciding on exemptions and staffing an appeals mechanism. Expenditure of this magnitude is not warranted at present.
The Government's position on this issue is a reasonable one. We fully subscribe to the motives which inspired the Bill and to the principle that members of the public should, where necessary, be able to conduct their personal business with Departments and State agencies in a private and confidential way. Many improvements have already taken place in the office of the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Finance, the Health board, the Department of Labour, FAS offices, local authorities, the ESB and social welfare offices — all areas specifically designated by Deputy Mitchell in his Bill.
Throughout this debate successive Government speakers have applauded the principle underlying this Bill. We have assured the House of the Government's commitment to improve facilities in public offices where necessary and where funds can be made available. We recognise that there may be many offices which do not measure up to the high standards of privacy to which we all aspire.
As I have indicated already, the major inhibiting factor in today's circumstances is the availability of resources to enable all desirable improvements to be made. In deference to the views expressed on all sides of the House in the course of this debate and as an earnest of the Government's goodwill in this matter, the Minister for Finance proposes to quantify the full extent of this problem.
The Minister for Finance will shortly initiate a general examination of the needs of all public offices in order to establish the dimensions of the changes which would be required to bring all offices up to a fully acceptable standard.
The Government are still of the view that Deputy Mitchell's Bill may prove to be unworkable in its present form. However, should the outcome of the study now about to commence suggest a need for legislation to copperfasten privacy standards, the Minister would not wish to rule out the option of Committee Stage amendments to Deputy Mitchell's Bill. In this connection, I am glad to note the offer made by the Deputy in his introductory speech to consider any reasonable amendments.
In these circumstances, the Government will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.
Tá mé an-bhuíoch de na Teachtaí a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht seo.
I am grateful to the Deputies who participated in the debate on this important Bill. I am also grateful to the Minister for Social Welfare for his participation and for his confirmation of Government acceptance of the principle of the Bill on Second Stage.
At the outset of this debate I said I would be prepared to accept reasonable amendments on Committee Stage. That offer still stands. I should say I have carefully noted the points made by successive speakers. It would be ungenerous of me not to comment on the fact that the Government sent in two Ministers of State and a member of the Government to participate in the debate which I take to be an indication of the seriousness of their approach to the subject matter. I feel I should make known my appreciation of that fact.
The Bill is principally one of exhortation. It gives the Minister for Finance wide powers to define, by regulation, the standard of privacy and confidentiality that should be provided in public offices. That was a deliberate provision in recognition of the fact that public offices, almost by definition, are very diverse, are of all shapes and sizes, sited in very different locations for many different purposes. It would be unrealistic to set out in detail in a Bill of this nature very strict provisions which might turn out to be impractical. Nonetheless, it is important that this House, the elected Assembly of the people, should provide by law a right of privacy and confidentiality for our citizens. We should, by law, at least exhort all public Departments and agencies to make adequate provision for that purpose as far as is reasonably practicable.
I want to express my gratitude for the interest taken in this Bill not alone by members of the Government but by so many Members of all parties including Independent Members. Every single speaker welcomed the principle of the Bill. Indeed everybody who participated in this debate, through their experience in public life, will have encountered several incidents of gross infringement of privacy at public offices when dealing with constituents. Every Member of this House, every member of a local authority, will have felt a bell ringing in their ears on reading the contents of this Bill because they will know instinctively, from their experience, that its provisions are correct. They will know also that it is a matter that should have been addressed long ago. Many of the reservations expressed about the Bill had to do with the cost of meetings its requirements. At the end of the day I do not honestly believe the cost would be huge; rather it might well be minimal.
I think it right that we should have Committee Stage when the Minister for Finance has conducted the investigation the Minister for Social Welfare has just announced, that is the investigation of public offices and the extent of problems obtaining in them throughout the country. I very much welcome the announcement of that investigation. In the pre-Christmas session I hope we will be able to have Committee Stage and have before us a report from the Minister for Finance of the actual extent of the problem and the costs involved in putting it right nationwide.
The Minister for Social Welfare made the point that the ESB had already responded to the exhortation implicit in the provisions of the Bill which, remember, has been published for almost a year. The ESB have already taken steps in their main offices to provide private rooms suitable for the type of confidential, personal, private interviews described in the Bill. They have taken that initiative before enactment of the Bill on which I warmly congratulate them. However, it would be a mistake to think that those facilities are in place in every ESB office. But we must welcome the progress made and urge them to ensure that the same privacy facilities are made available in all of their offices. If the ESB can do it so can the local authorities and so can the employment exchanges without incurring enormous costs.
While the study promised by the Minister for Finance is being conducted over the summer months I would hope that the Government would appeal to all public Departments, all local authorities, all health boards and all other relevant public agencies to take all possible steps within their budgetary constraints to meet the principles laid down in the Bill which have enjoyed the unanimous support of all sides of the House. That need not await the passage of this Bill nor indeed the study offered by the Minister for Finance which I applaud and welcome. That would be a very reasonable and appropriate response to my initiative in having introduced this Bill.
Almost every contribution to this debate was worth while. I was very interested to hear some although I could not be present for all of the debate. Those for which I was not present I have read in the Official Report with a great deal of interest. Many Members made the point that many of our public offices are of a design, age and condition which seem almost to be calculated to degrade and denigrate those who must use them frequently. Certainly that was true of the Dublin Corporation offices in Jervis Street, now thankfully closed. They were seedy, filthy, degrading offices. Whatever was one's opinion about the building of the new civic offices on the site of Wood Quay, whatever was one's opinion of the outward design of those buildings, anybody who had frequent cause to use the old offices in Jervis Street could only applaud the fact that some new offices were being provided.
Those new offices are loud testimony to the fact that new offices, per se, will not solve the problem which this Bill seeks to redress. In those public offices the waiting areas and the interview areas in general — there are one or two exceptions — seem to be designed to make sure that there is an audience for every private and confidential interview. It is as if they were designing a new Gaiety Theatre. It is a fact that if you go to the rent collection supervisors' section of Dublin Corporation — and you have a problem about rent arrears, as that is the only reason one would go there — you will sit at a hatch in front of a glass screen, which is there for security purposes, but the presence of which requires that you raise your voice so that you can be heard behind that screen. But two feet away is the first row of seats where people can watch straight in to the interview; it is as if it was being televised publicly. It is humiliating. They are new offices. The double embarrassment — as I said in my opening speech — is that before you got to that hatch you had gone through the same experience listening to other people explaining why they had rent arrears.
Most Members of this House will know that where there are significant rent arrears there are usually complex social problems to explain what is causing the arrears. The citizen visiting the rent collection supervisor has to explain to him in front of an audience the complex social problem of his or her family and how they have got into this difficult problem.
New offices will not of themselves solve this problem. What we need is new thinking, people to be alert and to be sensitive to the rights of citizens, especially when they have problems. In the case of the Dublin civic offices one would think — and I say this with great regret as a former Lord Mayor of the City — that the offices were designed with one purpose in mind, that of humiliating and embarrassing citizens with problems. New thinking is what is required and that does not cost money. That is why I would ask the Minister for Finance who is also the Minister for the Public Service and through him other Ministers, particularly the Ministers for the Environment, Social Welfare and Health, who between them are responsible for local authority offices, health board offices, labour exchanges and social welfare offices, to take the initiative now to write to all Principal Officers of their Departments or agencies asking them to be sensitive and to see if, without any further ado, they can improve the arrangements for interviews of a private, personal or confidential nature. All it would cost would be the price of the stamp on the letter to be sent to those officials. I have no doubt that by being so alerted and being so exhorted the improvement that could be brought aboutwould mean a great step forward and there would not be any significant cost worth talking about.
As I said when introducing this Bill, most of this problem arises not out of callousness or indifference or contempt — even though some people have that impression — but out of thoughtlessness. What we need is to show all the public officials, in the relevant Departments, that this House unanimously urges them to think afresh, to think sensibly about the provision for interviews of this kind and to take a leaf out of the book of the ESB who have not awaited legislation, or the passing of this legislation, but acted following the publication of this Bill some years ago.
In the course of his contribution Deputy Roche who, as the House will know, has a certain expertise in social research, highlighted the fact — among other very valuable points — that if people are to be treated to low level, seedy, badly lit, badly decorated public offices, that in itself causes a reaction. It immediately is taken to imply contempt, indifference, and it elicits from many such people not only depression but anger and reciprocated contempt. Many industrial psychologists have recommended to employers who have had persistent industrial relations problems that frequently the source of these problems is the degree of brightness and freshness provided in the accommodation for their employees. A similar case can be made for those who use public offices. This requires thought rather than a lot of money.
I was very interested in the reaction of Deputy Bell. He is a Socialist Member of this House. He is a person for whom I have great respect, but in his opening remarks on this Bill he made the point that there was no need for legislation. He did not think that the time of the House should be wasted on legislation of such little importance. He went on to speak very eloquently for about 20 minutes, describing his own experiences and he gave an account of the position in his own constituency and, in particular, in the town of Drogheda where he resides.
I do not know if Deputy Bell changed his mind in the course of his contribution. Certainly, the opening paragraphsthe importance of this subject and saying that it was not a subject worthy of legislation are at odds with everything he said subsequently. I do not know if the explanation for that is electoral jitters in the Labour Party. That is one possible explanation. I prefer to believe that Deputy Bell and his constituents want to put right all the ills which he so well expressed in the rest of his contribution last week. I would also bet that most of his constituents would agree that it would not be good enough just to leave it, in the hope that public officials and public Departments would, in their own good time, make such provisions without legislation but rather that legislation is required, even if the time scale for its implementation would be a little more extended than we would like.
I said at the outset of this debate that I did not consider that this Bill was of a party-political nature and that the problem which this Bill seeks to remedy would be commonly acknowledged by all sides of this House; so it has turned out to be. We would be doing a very good year's work if, by the end of this year, we could have this legislation in place. I do not pretend that the legislation is perfectly drafted, or that as drafted it might not lead to some problems. I am perfectly ready to accept that that may be the case. Indeed, when I was Minister I always approached legislation in that context. Our purpose in laying down five Stages of a Bill in this and the other House is to enable Parliament to improve the law. Too frequently, Bills are rushed through this House with inadequate consideration and too frequently Bills are brought before the House — by all Governments — where the Minister is not prepared to change one dot or comma because his Bill is right. In recent years there has been a better approach. I remember one very extensive Bill which I brought before the House and on which I accepted 30 amendments. I was criticised for so doing. It was taken as a sign that the Minister had come in ill-prepared and that the Bill was hastily cobbled together, criticism which was unworthy. The very purpose of bringing Bills through five Stages of Parliament is to improve them, to spot the defect, to refine them. It is in that spirit that I have brought this Bill before the House.
I fully acknowledge that Committee Stage of this Bill will not take place in this session but I do hope that we will be in a position to take Committee Stage in the very early weeks of the next session, by which time the Minister for Finance's report, which he has undertaken to seek on the general condition of public offices, will be available.
It would be a nice Christmas present for those on the unemployment queues, those old age pensioners who have to queue at social welfare offices, those who have rent arrears or tax problems, that in future years they will be guaranteed privacy and courtesy at public offices. If we can do that before the end of this year, it will be a very nice present from all sides of the House to our citizens for the nineties.
In conclusion, I want again to thank the Deputies who took part in the debate for their contributions. Certainly, some of the points made will be taken into account on Committee Stage. I want to thank the Government for facilitating the passage of the Second Stage of this Private Members' Bill. It is only the third Private Members' Bill in recent history to get past Second Stage, all of them in this session. That in itself is testimony to the continuing efficacy of the Tallaght strategy. Long may it continue.
Question put and agreed to.