Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the names of Deputies O'Sullivan and McManus cannot be moved as neither of the Deputies is in the House.
National Disability Authority Bill, 1998 [ Seanad ] : Report and Final Stages.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"(a) to monitor compliance with the recommendations of the Report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities and the relevant EU and international agreements that have been accepted by Government;".
This amendment goes to the heart of the legislation and will determine the effectiveness of the NDA. A good deal of time and effort was spent by people, the majority of whom are people with disabilities, drawing up the Report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. One of the commission's recommendations is that the NDA should monitor compliance with the recommendations of the commission's report and the relevant EU and international agreements accepted by the Government. On Committee Stage, the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, tried to convince us that the authority's functions are so broad that the function proposed in my amendment is as good as included in them. If this function is included in the authority's remit, why can this amendment not be included? The commission's report was debated in the House and its recommendations were accepted. It was hailed as the bible for people with disabilities. It is regrettable, therefore, that this important legislation fails to include one of its basic recommendations.
In an interview with Insight Magazine in January 1998, the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, stated that monitoring compliance with the recommendations of the commission's report should be one of the functions of the NDA. What has happened since then? While I realise the establishment group did not recommend this function, we must not forget that that group was not made up of people with disabilities. The proposals and recommendations we should honour are those contained in the commission's report. Those recommendations were made by people involved in the disability sector, by people who know what they are talking about. Who will monitor compliance with the recommendations of the commission's report? We are awaiting an action plan from the Department that was promised in February.
The inclusion of this amendment would give the NDA teeth. Its core function is to advise the Minister. How can it advise the Minister if it does not monitor compliance with the recommendations of the commission's report which were agreed by the House? The Minister of State should accept this amendment as it would strengthen the Bill and give clout to the authority. Its acceptance would be in line with the recommendations of the commission's report.
It is soul-destroying for those who spent hours preparing this report, following numerous consultations, to learn that we set up an establishment group – not made up of people with disabilities – and accepted its recommendations rather than those in the commission's report. The amendment is proposed in a spirit of co-operation and its intent is to strengthen the Bill. The most worthwhile thing the Minister could do is to accept it.
What I said during that interview in January 1998 still prevails. It is a function of the National Disability Authority to be involved in the monitoring of recommendations as they will be prioritised in the plan of action. The specific and important tasks identified in the Deputy's amendment can be located under one of the principal functions in section 8(2), which enumerates a range of functions the authority will perform. In particular, the principal function of the authority relates to its role in the co-ordination and development of policy on disability issues. The Deputy can be assured that, as I said in January 1998 and as I have said here, it is a function of the National Disability Authority to be involved in monitoring recommendations as they will be prioritised in the plan of action. That is included under the authority's principal function, which is the development of policy on disability issues.
Regarding the inclusion in the Bill of the function outlined in the Deputy's amendment, as distinct from it being included in the authority's principal function of developing policy, we must be clear that the Deputy's proposal is included under the authority's principal function to develop policy. The plan of action should be finalised shortly after the Bill is signed into law. When the recommendations are prioritised in the plan of action, the NDA will monitor them.
It is also important to bear in mind that we hope this function will be accomplished in the short to medium term whereas this legislation will be in place forever in terms of the authority's work. I am sure the authority will perform this function at an early stage under the heading of policy and then proceed to address other issues under the policy heading. This function applies to the short to medium term and, therefore, does not need to be mentioned specifically in the legislation. The NDA will have that function under its developmental remit. There should be no doubt about that.
Given that the Minister of State had to explain this to me and try to convince me that the function outlined in my amendment is included in the authority's functions proves two points. It proves she believes this function should be stated separately in the Bill. Given that she had to explain that the function is included in the Bill under the authority's functions means it is not outlined clearly. Why should we proceed with this Bill when it has to be clarified that a function of the authority is included in a later section? That is not the way to do business. The amendment I tabled is clear and I know the Minister of State believes this function should be included separately. The Minister has as good as said it should be included. Why not include it rather than defining the functions in such a way that one has to search the legislation to discover if it is there? I conclude that the Minister agrees with my amendment. If she wishes, I would not have a problem changing the wording. However, the Bill does not clearly state that one of its functions is to monitor compliance with the recommendations of the report of the commission nor does it state it should monitor the relevant EU and international agreements which have been accepted by the Government. The Minister of State is saying this is included, but it is not. The only way to clarify this and make everyone happy is to include it.
I will refer to the EU and international agreements which are mentioned in the Deputy's amendment and with which I did not deal earlier. I accept the principle of Deputy Ahearn's amendment. There are important tasks in which the NDA should have an input. I am satisfied that the functions already prescribed for the NDA will allow it involve itself with these tasks which essentially fall within the remit of policy but are not specifically enumerated.
The Deputy says the provision proposed in her amendment should be included in the Bill. I assure her it is included under the heading of policy. It is important to clarify this now because people are concerned about what we understood to be contained in the paragraph dealing with policy. The NDA will monitor the recommendations of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, as prioritised by the plan of action.
The review of EU and international agreements is also provided for in the legislation. If one lists a number of specific tasks under the heading of policy one leaves out others which are not covered. It is better to agree that the National Disability Authority has this function with regard to the development of policy relating to people with a disability, as under section 8(2)(a) which is as prioritised in the plan of action with regard to the recommendations of the commission, and the policy with regard to monitoring EU and international agreements. These are covered under the broader policy which is included in the legislation.
The commission's report is all-embracing and encompasses all aspects of the lives of those who suffer with disabilities. Therefore, an obligation is not being put on the Minister to include something other than this which would make the legislation too long-winded. This goes to the heart of the Bill. If the functions of the NDA are not defined correctly, its effectiveness will be weakened. I accept that the Minister and the Minister of State support monitoring the recommendations of the commission's report. However, this legislation will be in operation beyond a time when the Minister, Minister of State or I will be around. It gives the authority an obligation and a duty. I will press this amendment as it is necessary to include it in the functions assigned to the authority.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Ahearn, Theresa.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Ferris, Michael.Finucane, Michael.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon. |
Gormley, John.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Shea, Brian.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sheehan, Patrick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Níl
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Browne, John (Wexford). |
Byrne, Hugh.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle. Dempsey, Noel. |
Níl–continued
|
Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.McCreevy, Charlie. |
McGuinness, John.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett and Ferris; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"(a) to review and evaluate on a regular basis all legislation in order to assess the effectiveness of such legislation in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities.
This amendment complements amendment No. 3. I seek to include, as a function of the authority, the review and evaluation on a regular basis of all legislation in order to assess the effectiveness of such legislation in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities. This is crucial because it must not be forgotten that the Bill is intended to improve the quality of life and standard of services for those with disabilities. Legislation is one way to protect them. Every Bill passing through the House should be examined, monitored and scrutinised to see if it meets the needs of people with disabilities. If we exclude the terms of this amendment, the Bill will only aspire to improve the standards and services for those with disabilities. People with disabilities are on the agenda now, in every programme for Government and every political party's policy document, but aspirations are not enough. We must have the courage to copperfasten their rights in legislation and if we are not prepared to do so in this Bill, where will we be prepared to do it?
Who will monitor legislation? For example, the Building Regulations Act, 1992, aimed to ensure access to all new buildings for people with disabilities but we all know that the law is being flouted. The regulations are not being adhered to but who is taking action? It would be desirable for a body like the National Disability Authority to be in a position to review how legislation is being implemented and monitored.
The intention of the amendment is to strengthen the Bill and demonstrate to the disabled that we are genuine when we say we want them to have equal rights and to be treated as full citizens. If this legislation is not monitored I can guarantee that, irrespective of all the efforts that will be made it will not meet the needs of people with disabilities. The amendment can only improve the Bill and will also protect the rights of such people.
Opportunities for the younger generation of people with disabilities are very relevant to this debate. If we are to make provision for them we must give them the best possible opportunities. While that is the general intention, in reality it does not take place. We do not have facilities for people with a mild mental disability, who otherwise could attend primary and secondary schools.
I want to make the case for children with a mild Down's Syndrome disability and mild autism. I know of one mildly autistic child of 18, who is currently preparing to sit her junior certificate examination in a vocational school. However, there are no provisions for special correction of such children's examination papers. If I bring this matter up with the Department of Education and Science, I am told that there are such provisions, but in reality there are not.
There is no clear understanding of the special exam correction requirements for children with a disability, even though they are making a gallant effort to the best of their abilities. Their answer to two plus two may not be four, but at least they are trying to express themselves.
The child I am referring to was asked what animals are for. A child without a disability might say that animals are bred to feed people. The mildly autistic child said animals are there to be cared for and fed with milk. It was not a bad expression and she was using her intelligence. In an examination, however, that would be marked as an incorrect reply, even though it is not. That is because there are no examiners with an understanding of what these children are trying to express. That is just one such example.
The same applies to children with physical abilities, who experience difficulty in writing. They find it hard to express themselves because of problems in writing what they wish to write. There is no provision for special marking of exam papers by people with such disabilities, although there should be. If we understood what they are trying to do they could be more fairly marked in exams, thus emerging into the workforce where they could find meaningful employment in the IT and other sectors. However, without the basic leaving certificate they will be hampered in their efforts to find jobs. This will happen because we do not have examiners with the knowledge or experience to give them marks for effort.
The Department of Education and Science means well but it does not have anything in place to deal with this problem. Perhaps the Minister will examine the matter because it is a widespread problem.
In the course of this debate it is impossible to reply to the point concerning the autistic child sitting the junior certificate examination. However, if I can help in any way with regard to the specific case, I will do so. If the Deputy furnishes me with the details, I will talk to the Minister for Education and Science who has a role to play in that matter.
Deputy Ahearn is correct in saying that section 8 involves a similar point to that already discussed in amendment No. 3. Section 8 makes clear that the central task of the authority is to advise and inform the Minister on issues of policy and practice. The core functions of the authority arise from this central task and are enumerated in subsection (2) of the section. Part of this policy remit will be to advise the Minister as regards legislation, especially legislation concerned with service provision. As I have stated with regard to amendment No. 3, I do not consider it appropriate to specify individual issues and tasks which, as a result of its function in relation to policy, will fall to the authority. It is the intention to establish the NDA with a broad ranging remit and, consequently, I cannot accept amendment No. 4.
If we are talking about going into this broader work of dealing with all legislation as it goes through the House, we must be careful and practical in this debate in addressing what the National Disability Authority can reasonably be expected to deliver. If we were to specify in the Bill the functions as outlined by the Deputy, we might tie the hands of the authority into examining all legislation, instead of the broad ranging remit that we are seeking in order to prioritise the authority's work. The effect of the amendment might be to hamstring the authority's work rather than allowing it to cover as many issues as possible.
One of the very important functions of the authority will be to advise the Minister on legislation. It is strange that having advised the Minister, the authority will have no role or function in monitoring legislation to see if it meets the needs of people with disabilities. It is akin to allowing the authority to come up with an idea, but not giving it the freedom to ensure that what it wants in legislation will be carried through. Legislation is only beneficial when it is monitored to ensure that it is implemented. I would therefore have thought that giving the NDA the role of adviser to the Minister on legislation would have been logical. It could monitor legislation to see if it covered the needs of those with disabilities. I foresee much unrest between the NDA and the Minister if its role is to advise the Minister on a particular Bill and no more. The Bill is a contradiction in terms in that it seeks to achieve proper standards and codes of practice while the NDA has no authority to monitor anything. Perhaps the Minister of State has a secret weapon to help it achieve standards without having the authority to monitor what is happening but this is a major omission in the Bill. I understand the Minister of State will not accept the amendment. That is negative because it misses the chance to give the Bill the clout it deserves to help those it is supposed to benefit. I regret that the Minister of State is not accepting the amendment.
We are at one on this in many respects. Deputy Ahearn asked how the NDA is to monitor the effects of legislation. It can do so under section 8(2)(a) in terms of development of policy. However, the difficulty is if we charge the NDA with the responsibility of monitoring every Bill that goes through the Oireachtas it would not have time to do anything else. To take Deputy Boylan's points about education, if an education Bill was going through the Oireachtas which was seen as particularly important to people with disabilities, under the policy area, the NDA could develop the role of monitoring that legislation as distinct from dealing with every Bill. That would tie it up unnecessarily. It is better that we concentrate on the broad remit that comes under the word “policy” and accept that it can monitor legislation as part of its policy brief as distinct from monitoring every Bill to be debated every week. It would do nothing else in that case. I assure Deputy Ahearn that the NDA has a function to monitor legislation.
There is no difference between us but I am a person for clarity in legislation and regulations. What is expected should be stated clearly and one should decide what is to be done according to the desired result. Surely we all desire that all legislation meets the needs of people with disabilities but we cannot guarantee it, though I hope those omissions will be very scarce. Nonetheless, this should be monitored and it would be in keeping with the principles on which the NDA is being established if it had that function.
We agree on the basic principle. The Minister of State is happy this is covered by section 8 but I am not. Many recommendations came from the commission report and one asks why we took the trouble to set up a commission to draw up a report on the needs of those with disabilities when we do not accept its recommendations. We are accepting them in principle but this vague implementation should not be allowed. We want legislation to meet the needs of people with disabilities and we want it monitored. Why is that not included in the Bill?
I support Deputy Ahearn's amendment. Unfortunately, amendment No. 1 was not moved and there is an obvious need for monitoring. We went to the trouble of setting up the commission and its work and recommendations are invaluable and important. As the recommendations are being enshrined in legislation we feel there should be a monitoring procedure included, which was the idea behind amendment No. 1. There is a similar concept behind amendment No. 5, as Deputy Ahearn is seeking an overview of the legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are cognate and are to be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, lines 16 and 17, to delete "Minister" and substitute "Government".
The Minister of State will understand why we seek to substitute "Government" for "Minister". It is important that a Government approach is taken to people with disabilities and their rights. I congratulate the Minister of State on bringing forward legislation in this area but these amendments propose making the matter a Government responsibility. It has been a matter for Government for some time and that should continue into the future.
Section 8 lays down the functions of the National Disability Authority which will report to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on a range of functions set out in this section. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 seek to provide that the authority should report to the Government in respect of these functions rather than to the Minister under whose aegis the authority will operate. Our concerns regarding these proposals are that the Government agenda is a busy one and the amendments would almost certainly lead to a situation where pressure on Government time rather than the requirements of the authority would impact on the reporting arrangements envisaged. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the authority that it would have to wait to report to the Government and await Government decisions regarding what will be largely programme based and operational issues which could be considered more appropriate in another forum.
Functional responsibility for the Bill has been placed under the aegis of our Department and the priority regarding disability issues is underlined by the fact that our Department has established a disability equality unit and the appointment of a Minister of State with special responsibility for the area since the formation of the last Government. Disability is getting a strong focus within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and this is being linked to other Departments. These amendments would cause more difficulties and delays when much can be clarified for the NDA by reporting to the relevant Minister, which is the case with various other bodies. The Minister can then bring appropriate matters to Government for broad Government approval. The method of dealing with this in the Bill is more effective and efficient.
I support Deputy Ferris. It is easy to understand the reasoning behind these amendments; the needs of people with disabilities are in no way confined to one Department or Minister. They span the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Children, Social, Community and Family Affairs, Enterprise, Trade and Employment as well as Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is for that reason that this amendment is tabled. I wonder how effective one Minister can be in ensuring that his or her colleagues are vigilant in meeting the requirements of people with disabilities. For example, Dublin Bus, which comes within the remit of a Minister and received money from her Department, is about to buy 150 new buses, not one of which will be accessible to people with disabilities. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform does not appear to have the power to convince a ministerial colleague of the needs of people with disabilities. Yesterday, they had to take to the streets in an attempt to convince a Minister of their rights. The remit of the National Disability Authority will be limited and its recommendations will be confined to one Department. The implementation of these amendments may be cumbersome and time consuming. Our concern, however, is not with the time factor but with how successful this authority will be. Any measure which supports its power to improve the quality of life and status of those with disabilities should not be compromised. I support the amendment because it recognises the broad needs of people with disabilities.
The previous Government referred to by the Minister of State appointed a Minister with specific responsibility for people with disabilities, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. The Government, unfortunately, has given this responsibility to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We all know how difficult it is to elicit legislation or even a response to a query from that Department. For that reason, we suggest it will be easier to deal directly with Government which has responsibility for the broad range of services used by people with a disability. The responsibilities of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister of State are so wide that the needs of people with disabilities will not be addressed as speedily as we would like.
I accept the Minister does not suggest that the Government would neglect its responsibility. Neither do I believe this to be the case. Given the Government's wide remit, it is appropriate that the authority should be responsible to it. I hope the Minister will re-examine the amendment on that basis.
Deputy Ferris misunderstood me. I did not refer to the previous Government but to the fact that this Government was the first to appoint a Minister of State with special responsibility for disability.
In the previous Government there was a full Minister.
The Minister for Equality and Law Reform in the previous Government held the equality and law reform brief. The current Minister of State has special responsibility for disability. There is a clear distinction there. It is important to take the correct approach in order to get the most done for the National Disability Authority. The approach provided for in the Bill is more effective than that which would result from the acceptance of the amendments. There will be occasions when reports of the National Disability Authority will be placed before Government for consideration. As Minister of State with responsibility for disability, I have attended Government meetings on occasions when disability was discussed at Government. It is important, when reports of the authority go before Government that the occasions are not matters of routine. Such reporting to Government should be reserved for occasions when critical and important issues are to be decided. It is important also that a sponsoring Minister should be at the table with a clear advocacy role. It is my view that the sponsoring Minister and the most appropriate Minister to have the role of reporting to Government and a relationship with the authority is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is appropriate that the authority should report to the sponsoring Minister who would bring matters of critical importance to Cabinet when appropriate. The authority must have regular contact with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform under whose aegis the authority will come.
The Bill provides the best of both worlds. The authority deals with the Minister and when important matters are discussed at Cabinet, the sponsoring Minister will be there, fully briefed by the authority. The approach taken in the Bill is the more effective formula.
Question, "That the word proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, line 35, after "standards" to insert "(including community development plans)".
I am sure the Minister will accept this amendment. She cannot possibly exclude community development plans from this section. The amendment will ensure that an area of inclusiveness is given to community development. I hope the Minister of State will accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is tabled.
Amendment No. 8 provides for the inclusion of community action plans among the functions of the authority. Community action plans centre on the arrangements for service provision and delivery. The establishment group which advised us on the role and functions of the authority recommended that the authority should dedicate itself to policy work and the development and monitoring of standards in service provision. The establishment group specifically recommended that no role be given to the authority in the delivery of services. This recommendation was made because the group saw that any role in service provision for the National Disability Authority would jeopardise its credibility and standing in undertaking its central role of evaluating and monitoring these services. These recommendations have been accepted by Government and are reflected in this legislation.
The functions assigned to the National Disability Authority are appropriate and I cannot accept the addition to its functions sought in amendment No. 8. I hope the Deputy will accept that it has been specifically recommended that no such role be assigned to the authority.
I am shocked that the Minister of State wishes to exclude community development plans from forthcoming proposals. The amendment is a worthy one and I am disappointed the Minister of State has not given it serious consideration. Community and voluntary bodies, which do much work in this area, have come up with many good ideas. Including a reference to community development plans is the minimum requirement.
The intention in establishing the authority is to have a powerhouse dedicated to policy work and developing and monitoring standards in service provision as opposed to being a service provider. The establishment group recommended against the assignment of a role to the authority in connection with the delivery of services.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
We now proceed to amendment No. 9. Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 are related. Amendments Nos. 9, 13, 14 and 15 may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
"(g) to provide a grievance and redress procedure,".
The failure to provide for a grievance and redress procedure is the most serious omission from the Bill. The disability sector is bewildered and astonished at its exclusion. Why was it excluded? The commission recommended its inclusion as a priority. In the interview that she gave to Insight magazine in January 1998 the Minister of State stated clearly that the Bill would provide for such a procedure. It was not recommended by the establishment group.
There is no logic to what we are doing and I am worried about what we will end up with. The main function of the authority will be to monitor standards and codes of practice for people with disabilities. It is illogical, therefore, not to provide for a grievance and redress procedure. It is not good enough to say that the matter is covered in other legislation, for example, the Employment Equality Act or the Equal Status Bill. It should be provided for in this Bill. What happens when somebody is dissatisfied with a service? To whom does he or she turn?
In the Seanad the Minister of State accepted an amendment under which money will be withdrawn from a service provider who fails to provide a quality service. How will this be established given that the authority will not be in a position to receive complaints? Is it the Minister of State's hope that the Ombudsman will inform the authority that the service being provided is not up to standard? It is a contradiction. The people at whom the Bill is directed are not being treated fairly. There should be a grievance and redress procedure.
We know what happens when people have no one to turn to with a complaint. Look what happened to the children about whom we are reading in the newspapers. The reason the abuse is only now being disclosed is that they are adults and have the courage to complain. The reason it was swept under the carpet is that there was no one to whom they could complain.
It is extraordinary that the authority will be expected to monitor standards and codes of practice in the absence of a complaints mechanism. This is not logical and worries me deeply. The authority must be in a position to receive complaints. This will have an effect in the sense that services which are not of the required standard will not be brought to the notice of the authority. This will make it difficult for it to perform its functions.
This is the most serious omission from the Bill. The disability sector is astounded. There is no logical or justifiable reason for its omission. I hope the Minister of State will reconsider.
I support the amendment and agree with Deputy Ahearn that this is the most important issue on which we disagree with the Minister of State. When the Commission for the Status of People with Disabilities recommended the establishment of a National Disability Authority it was indicated clearly that it should be in a position to deal with grievances. An opportunity is being missed to provide for such a procedure. As a consequence the authority will not have teeth.
This issue was debated at length on Committee Stage and in the Seanad where an amendment was made under which the Government will be able to withdraw funding from organisations which fail to provide a proper service. The inclusion of a grievance procedure would enable people with disabilities to seek redress. We have to ensure the legislation we produce, including the Employment Equality Act, the Equal Status Bill which will be debated tomorrow and the legislation which will be presented later, is of use to people with disabilities who wish to be treated as equal citizens. In a sense, all these Bills link up with each other. If we do not have a grievance procedure in the National Disability Authority Bill, a vital link will be missing in that chain of giving people the rights they deserve and to which they are entitled in our society and, indeed, under our Constitution.
I urge the Minister to accept this amendment, which is of most importance to myself, my party, Deputy Ahearn, her party and the people who have spoken to us from the various organisations that represent people with disabilities who are extremely anxious to have strong legislation on which their members and individuals with various disabilities can depend to ensure they get what is their right rather than something given out of a sense of charity. This is a human right to which people in our society are entitled. We can have all the fine words in the world, but if there is no redress procedure, if people cannot access their rights and get redress when they do not receive them, they are not being treated equally and fairly. We feel strongly about this issue and I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
The key point being missed in this debate is that, since the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities was published in November 1996 and the January 1998 interview I did with Insight magazine on the many issues in this legislation, particularly in regard to grievance and redress, the Employment Equality Act has since been passed. There is the infrastructure in that Act to deal with grievance and redress for individuals with a disability. The Act clearly covers nine different grounds, including disability.
We are providing for something which is provided for elsewhere in an Act we passed last June. When the commission reported, the Employment Equality Act had not been passed. After it reported in November 1996, the Employment Equality Bill had been drafted and in May 1997, it was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. For that reason, the Bill had to be redrafted. It was redrafted at the end of 1997 and early 1998 and passed in June 1998. That legislation includes what Deputies are looking for in terms of grievance and redress. People can seek to take their case to the office of the Director of Equality Investigations. That has been missed in the debate.
It is important to distinguish between what we are talking about in terms of grievance and redress for individuals on the one hand and for service providers on the other. While the NDA will not provide grievance and redress procedures in individual cases, because it is already provided elsewhere, it will, however, intervene in regard to service providers to determine that the standard of service provided is adequate and appropriate. The NDA is free to make such interventions on the grievance and redress side where it believes it is necessary as regards service providers.
When the progress we have made since the commission report was published is clearly understood, we will see that, as a result of the passing of the Employment Equality Act last June, the introduction of this Bill and the publication of the Equal Status Bill last Easter, we will have achieved what was sought in the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. We should not duplicate what we are trying to do because it will be confusing.
Deputy Ahearn mentioned the Ombudsman. It must be understood that if people are to take their case to the Ombudsman, they must exhaust all other avenues before so doing. That is an important issue which we need to understand.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 13 to 15, inclusive, include the provision of grievance and redress procedures for individuals as a specific function of the authority. The assignment of such activity to the NDA would also run contrary to its core functions. The role envisaged for the authority by the establishment group is essentially a proactive one. We have already provided for grievance and redress, so what do we want the authority to do? There is no point in the authority doing what the Director of Equality of Investigations is doing. There are so many other things we need to achieve in the disability area.
The authority must have a strong co-ordinating and development role and must discharge a research function. It would not do research if it were hamstrung with all the jobs about which we are talking. It must act as a standards body, develop codes of practice and exercise a support and liaison remit. These are the type of functions which may best be discharged through close co-operation, support and leadership. I am convinced an enforcement role cannot reasonably be exercised side by side with the central remit of the authority without seriously jeopardising that role.
The Oireachtas knows a redress function is necessary but it is being provided by the Director of Equality Investigations. Since it is being provided elsewhere, surely it makes good sense to concentrate the National Disability Authority on the many other functions we want it to carry out. There are many needs in the disability sector. If this matter is being dealt with elsewhere, we should let the authority get on with the other important work it can do in terms of making progress for people with disabilities.
I cannot accept the logic in the Minister's response to the amendments tabled by myself and Deputy O'Sullivan. Taking that logic to its conclusion, the Minister said there should be no grievance procedure in this Bill because it is contained in the Employment Equality Act. Would the same logic conclude that because we have an Employment Equality Act and the Equal Status Bill will be passed, there is no need for a disability Bill and that it is all about equality? It is not logical to conclude that because there is a grievance procedure in the Employment Equality Act, it should not be included in the National Disability Authority Bill. We will not do justice to the rights of people with disabilities until such time as we have legislation dealing specifically, as this Bill does, with people with disabilities and include in it everything which people with disabilities require.
If, as the Minister said, we overload the National Disability Authority with duties and obligations, there are others which I would remove in order to insert this one. I consider it important that there should be a grievance and redress procedure. If the NDA was not able to cope with all the functions given to it, there are functions which could be removed. This function, however, should be included.
A point which is being missed is that there should be a mechanism available to the person who will receive the service to make a complaint and let their grievances be known. Having a grievance and redress procedure will enable the NDA to carry out its functions better. How can the Minister guarantee that complaints received through the Employment Equality Act will be passed on to the National Disability Authority? Will that not be cumbersome? The NDA will have to depend on other sources for information on the high standard of service which it is trying to provide to people. That is cumbersome and inefficient. It is neither good for the authority nor for the person receiving the service that there is no grievance and redress procedure in this Bill. It is important that legislation which deals specifi cally with people with disabilities includes provisions relating to the standard of service they deserve.
The disability sector was ignored for so long because everyone said they would be looked after under certain legislation. The only time people with disabilities will be treated as full and equal citizens is when legislation copperfastens their rights. As services will determine their quality of life, we must do everything possible to ensure that standards are maintained and the only way we can do that is to establish a grievance procedure. Nobody in the services industry would maintain standards only there is a mechanism for dealing with complaints. That is how they know their service is being monitored.
This is one of the most serious omissions in the Bill. I am not prepared to accept the Minister's explanation that there is no need for it to be included in this legislation because it is already in the Employment Equality Act. While we should avoid unnecessary duplication, it will improve the standards of service for people with disabilities.
This legislation deals specifically with service provision. While there is redress under the Employment Equality Act which is linked to the Equal Status Bill, they cover a broader area. People should be able to seek redress under this legislation for any problems with service provision. The Employment Equality Act and the Equal Status Bill will not cover the specific issues which may arise if a person does not get a proper service in accordance with their needs.
I refer Deputy O'Sullivan to section 14 where there is a grievance and redress procedure with regard to service providers. We are specifically dealing with the issue of grievance and redress for individuals.
Deputy Theresa Ahearn wanted to know if a disabilities Bill was necessary. There is need for such a Bill because the Employment Equality Act and the Equal Status Bill are anti-discrimination measures while the disability Bill is a positive proposal. The National Disability Authority Bill deals with the setting up of the National Disability Authority.
I agree with the principle that we should include everything in one Bill. However, that is not how it works. The Employment Equality Act deals specifically with disability and mentions disability as one of the nine grounds of discrimination. It would, therefore, be a duplication to include a separate grievance and redress mechanism in this Bill. It would be different if the Employment Equality Act was all encompassing and covered the wider society than mentioning particular grounds.
The Deputy said we could eliminate other functions to include this one, but she did not specify which functions. It would not be wise to eliminate important functions of the authority to duplicate something else. The Deputy stressed that individuals should have a mechanism for individual grievance and redress. There is a mechanism for individuals via the director of equality investigations which was provided for less than 12 months ago in another Act when the commission report was published. It is important to bear that in mind.
The commission was correct that we should have a grievance and redress mechanism for individuals with a disability who have a difficulty in employment or elsewhere. We have that mechanism under the Employment Equality Act. If we include it in this Bill as a duplication, it would be at the expense of one of the functions of the authority to improve the lives of people with disabilities.
The Minister misunderstood me. I did not suggest that anything should be eliminated or withdrawn. The Minister stated that the authority would be overloaded with all its functions. I suggested that if I had been in her position I would not have left out this grievance and redress procedure, which is what the Minister has done.
I did so because it is provided elsewhere.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Ahearn, Theresa.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Cosgrave, Michael. |
Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.D'Arcy, Michael.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Ferris, Michael.Finucane, Michael.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Michael. Howlin, Brendan. |
Tá–continued
|
Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan. |
Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan. |
Níl
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia. |
Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGuinness, John.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett and Stagg; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 8, lines 13 and 14, to delete "may, and shall if requested by the Minister," and substitute "shall".
The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the legislation and to ensure that the issuing of codes of practice is mandatory rather than discretionary. The use of the terms "may" and "as directed by the Minister" does not place an obligation on the National Disability Authority to produce codes of practice. It creates a position where the authority may or may not produce codes. The amendments seek to strengthen the role of the authority.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to delete "or as the Minister may direct". This is also an attempt to strengthen the legislation to ensure the authority is independent and not subject to the direction of the Minister with regard to these matters. The amendment would ensure it is obliged to issue a code of practice and carry out its other functions without the direction of the Minister.
I support the amendments. The problem is that the Bill as it stands is not strong enough. The purpose of the amendments is to strengthen the Bill. The use of the word "may" gives scope to a person to decide that he or she may not do something. The amendment seeks to delete the word "may" and to insert "shall". This would guarantee that something will be done and remove the scope for a decision to be made that something will not be done. I do not suggest that the function would not be carried out, but the amendments would copperfasten the position.
Amendment No. 10 would impose a requirement on the National Disability Authority to develop codes of practice for all programmes and services provided for people with disabilities. The authority could be involved in almost 5,000 different codes of practice. It is important to be practical and to determine what is workable. In that context, the authority should be involved in developing codes of practice, but it should not be restricted in identifying subject matter suitable for the development of codes of practice or committed by law to promulgating codes of practice over the general comprehensive terms of its remit. However, where the development of a code of practice is requested by the Minister, the provision is mandatory. This will ensure that where the authority fails to identify and prepare a code of practice and a need arises which becomes known to the Minister, he or she will be in a position to ensure the need is addressed.
It would be unworkable to make it mandatory for the National Disability Authority to be involved in codes of practice for all the different services under its remit given the number of codes involved. It is more important that they are identified in terms of priority by the National Disability Authority. In addition, if it is brought to the attention of the Minister, he or she can seek the introduction of a code of practice. This is a more workable way to deal with the issue than changing the term in the provision from "may" to "shall".
Regarding amendment No. 12, I am happy to advise the House that further consideration, as promised on Committee Stage, has been given to this issue. In drafting section 10(2) the intention was to give equal and independent discretion to the authority and successive Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in determining the persons or bodies to be consulted on the drafting of the codes of practice.
I agree with the Deputies that it is important there is complete clarity in the Bill with regard to the authority's discretion in this matter. Therefore, since Committee Stage, the issue was referred for further consideration and possible amendment to the parliamentary draftsman. The advice received is that the provision, as drafted, is explicit in its intention. The phrases "as the authority considers appropriate" or "as the Minister may direct" provide for independent discretion to be exercised in both cases. I am satisfied the provision is correct and appropriate.
The provisions in section 10 follow the approach taken in previous legislation, such as the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, and the Employment Equality Act, 1998. It can be initiated by either side, which is the point the Deputies seek to address. The position has been clarified with the parliamentary draftsman and I hope the Deputies will be satisfied.
I welcome the Minister of State's comments. This issue arose during the discussions on the Employment Equality Act when it was stated that the Minister's views on how the legislation should be interpreted will be taken into account. I hope it works. If the interpretation given is the one used, it will probably fulfil the aim of amendment No. 12.
There should be codes of practice in all areas covered by the National Disability Authority's remit. I hope this will be achieved eventually. For example, in the debates on the industrial schools, codes of practice are most important in terms of ensuring mechanisms work properly. I hope the National Disability Authority will have codes of practice for the various services under its remit. While I wish the Minister would accept the amendment I hope the provision will be interpreted so that codes of practice are put in place. Perhaps the review of the legislation, to be carried out in accordance with the Bill, will look at this matter also to ensure the authority is fulfilling the functions we wish it to carry out and is working properly and effectively.
I thank the Deputy. Last week was disability awareness week and I met many people with disabilities and visited various locations. At one centre I was presented with the recently drafted codes of practice for its training activities and was pleased to see some organisations were developing codes of practice on their own initiative without the involvement of the authority. What is positive about what the Deputy is saying, which we support, is that all places should have codes of practice. The authority would not be able to check all organisations within its first month or even first year of operation but one hopes that all organisations will be committed to standards and codes of practice, stemming from what the authority achieves in its first year. As the Deputy said, this item can then be reviewed to see what progress we are making with regard to standards and codes of practice in places attended by people with disabilities to receive various services.
We have made progress in this debate so I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 8, line 19, to delete "ministers" and substitute "Ministers".
This is a quibble about higher or lower case letters and is not hugely important.
The amendment proposes a grammatical change to the Bill. My advice, which has not altered since the issue was raised in the Seanad and on Committee Stage, is that the lower case "m" is appropriate because "ministers" is a common noun, not a proper noun.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 12 to 15, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 16 to 19, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 9, line 36, after "Oireachtas." to insert "Both Houses of the Oireachtas shall debate the report within three months of it being so laid before them.".
An important role of the authority is the production of its annual report. One thing we are not short of as Oireachtas Members is reports. Many are laid before the House but one might well ask what happens to them after that. For this reason the National Disability Authority's report should be debated in the House. This is our only means of ensuring that what it recommends and the advice it gives to the Minister will be carried through. We have so little legislation for people with disabilities that the annual report will be an important reminder to us as legislators about the standard of services to and the status of people with disabilities in our society.
I realise it is not normal practice for every report to be debated in the House but we should have the courage to pick those which are of sufficient importance to be debated. We are establishing an authority which we hope will have a great positive impact on the lives of people with disabilities. We are all obliged to ensure that the authority is successful. Its annual report should, therefore, be debated. If the House annually discussed what the authority had to say, pressure would be put on Ministers to meet the needs of the disability sector.
We work within a tight schedule and it is difficult to fit in everything which we should debate, although the committee system has eased the pressure. We must be selective and it would be wise and prudent to decide to debate the report of the NDA. If we do not debate the report it will become yet another which is placed before the House and that will be the end of the matter.
Amendment No. 17 proposes to delete the "Minister may direct" and substitute the "authority thinks fit". If the annual report is to be of value it should not be controlled too much by the Minister. The authority should have the scope and power to include in its report what it thinks fit, rather than what the Minister may want, although I have no problem with the Minister advising or seeking information from the authority to include certain matters in the annual report.
It would be wise to provide in the Bill that the authority's annual report should be debated in the House, otherwise it will become one of many such reports and that would not do justice to the disability sector.
Amendment No. 18, in the names of Deputies Ahearn, McManus, Jim Higgins and myself proposes that "the Minister shall cause such report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas". I support what Deputy Ahearn is trying to achieve in the other amendments. I do not know why the phrase "the Minister shall cause such report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas" is not included in the Bill. I thought it was normal for such reports to be laid before the Oireachtas. The point is well made by Deputy Ahearn that such reports should also be subject to debate. On Committee and Report Stages we have sought to strengthen aspects of the legislation. The Minister of State's usual response is to say it is intended that the authority will be strong, will have the power to draw up codes of practice, for example, and to deal with other issues. To ensure that the legislation will achieve its objectives and to ensure it is strong enough to deliver for people with disabilities, who believe there is a need to strengthen service provision, it is important that the House monitors the legislation carefully. That is the objective of these amendments. I hope the Minister of State will accept amendment No. 18 which requires that the reports be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Those reports should be debated.
Each of these amendments is concerned with the reporting functions of the new authority provided for in section 15. Amendment No. 16 would impose a requirement on the Houses of the Oireachtas to debate the annual report of the authority within three months of it being laid before them. It is not normal practice or appropriate to make such an imposition on the Legislature. If it were, one would expect to see such provision incorporated in the legislation governing the work of the Ombudsman or the Director of Consumer Affairs. There will be occasions when the contents of the annual report of an organisation are such as to warrant debate in the Oireachtas. On these occasions, opportunity will be given, either in Private Members' or in Government time, to have the matters which warrant such consideration debated.
Deputy Ahearn's point was that we should have the courage to select the reports that should be debated. That is important but it already happens all the time with regard to annual reports. Instead of debating every report laid before the Oireachtas, the Oireachtas should have the courage to select the debates that are necessary. I have no doubt time will be given for such debates.
Amendment No. 17 seeks to exclude the Minister from any role with regard to the contents of the annual report. It is standard practice to pro vide in legislation governing the submission of annual reports to a sponsoring Minister that the Minister may require an organisation under his or her aegis to put specified information into the public domain through its annual report. The power is one option open to a Minister in the strategic management of bodies which come within his or her remit. A similar provision is common in other statutes establishing independent offices. It is, for example, included in the Courts Services Act, 1998, and the Employment Equality Act, 1998.
Amendment No. 18 concerns the laying before the Oireachtas of additional or special reports of the National Disability Authority. Such reports may result from an intervention by the authority with an individual service provider and, in many cases, aspects of the report may be confidential. It will be incumbent on the Minister to take appropriate action on receipt of a report and to proceed to address the matters raised by the authority in a manner beneficial to all concerned.
Deputies should note that it is necessary and important that the National Disability Authority would be free to report in this way to the Minister without having to make public every such communication. These reports will provide an effective and statute based mechanism through which the authority can channel its concerns directly to the Minister and, through him or her, to all Government Departments and service providers. The authority will be able, through its annual report, to bring the contents of specific, additional reports to the attention of the Oireachtas if it is appropriate to do so.
Amendment No. 19 would make mandatory the inclusion of all recommendations made by the authority in its annual report. In many instances recommendations of the authority on matters which it has raised in special reports to the Minister will be recorded in the annual report. However, it is essential to leave it open to the authority to judge whether it might wish to proceed in this way in each case. Accordingly, I do not propose to oblige the authority to publish all its recommendations on an annual basis. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the amendments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 9, line 38, to delete "Minister may direct" and substitute "Authority thinks fit".
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 9, line 40, after "fit" to insert "and the Minister shall cause such report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 9, line 46, after "recommendation." to insert "The Authority shall note in its annual report all such recommendations made.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 28 is consequential on amendment No. 20 and both amendments may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 11, line 28, to delete "19" and substitute "18".
The purpose of the two amendments is to provide for two worker directors on the authority rather than one. This matter was discussed at length on Committee Stage. The Government's argument was that as the body is relatively small, only one worker director is necessary. Having one worker director on a body is not appropriate, no matter how small the body is. It means there is only one person to argue the workers' case and put forward their point of view. It is possible that the single worker director might be unable to attend certain meetings or be present when important issues are being discussed due to illness or for some other reason. It is sensible to have two worker directors and it should not cause a difficulty with the establishment of the body. The purpose of having worker directors is to ensure that the people who work in an authority have their point of view heard and incorporated in its decisions. It is logical to have a second worker director in this case and that is the purpose of the amendments.
I support these amendments. If we wish to have worker directors on bodies such as this, we should be serious about it. It is not good enough to provide for just one such director and to consider our obligations in that regard fulfilled. We must insist that workers are represented. The way to achieve that is by ensuring there are two representatives rather than one. This proposal requires the co-operation of the Minister. If accepted, it will not change the format of anything in a major way. It will ensure the workers are represented. This comes down to fair play. The inclusion of this amendment would not change the Bill in a major way or how the authority would operate, rather it would show we are serious about the principle of having worker director representation.
Subsections (1)(b) and (4) of section 20 provide for the appointment of an elected worker director to the membership of the authority. The amendments proposed seek to increase the number of worker directors on the authority from one to two employees. We are not disposed to increasing the number of staff representatives to two employees as proposed in the amendment. Given that the NDA will be a small expert body with an initial staff complement in the order of 35 employees, it would be disproportionate to provide for two staff representatives on a body of this size, which has a policy and a non-commercial remit. In the circumstances, I am not disposed to accepting amendments Nos. 20 and 28.
It is useful to consider such representation on other bodies. Enterprise Ireland was established with an initial staff of approximately 100 employees. Legislation was enacted to establish Enterprise Ireland and the National Standards Authority of Ireland without reference to staff representation on their boards. In both cases, one staff representative was appointed on an administrative basis, but neither of the authorities provided for such representation in legislation. In the case of the NDA, provision for representation is being made in statute rather than on a purely administrative basis. The National Social Service Board will become part of the new information service, Comhairle. There was no statutory provision for staff representation, but it has one staff representative on a non-statutory basis. Expert bodies, such as Enterprise Ireland, the National Social Service Board and the National Standards Authority have a parallel role to that which will be played by the NDA. The arrangement for one worker director in this legislation is fully in line with the existing practice in those organisations except we are going one step further by putting it on a statutory basis.
I appreciate what the Minister of State said, but it does not alter the principle that there should be two representatives rather than one. That would ensure workers would be represented adequately on the board and their viewpoint heard at all times. If there is only one representative, there may be times he or she may not be able to attend important meetings. I wish to press my amendment.
Surely the main issue is to ensure 60 per cent of those represented on the authority are people with disabilities. We must also comply with the requirement that the membership of the authority should have a gender balance of 40 per cent. If a worker director is appointed who does not have a disability and that appointment does not provide a gender balance, this will create a further complication. This Bill goes further in terms of such representation than other legislation.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 11, line 30, after "Authority" to insert "(not being a person engaged in or employed by a person or body engaged in the provision of services to persons with disabilities)".
This matter was debated on Committee Stage and in the Seanad. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that the chairperson of the authority is independent and not engaged in the provision of services for people with disabilities.
I know a chairperson has been appointed to the interim authority and I do not mean to take in any way from that person, but we must be aware of the principle involved here. If an issue arises concerning the provision of a service by a body in which the person chairing an authority, such as this, is involved, it is inappropriate that the person chairing the meeting is engaged in or employed by the service provider concerned. I realise an interim board was set up, but I want to ensure for the future that a determination is included in the legislation to provide that the person who chairs meetings is not directly employed by one of the service providers.
This matter relates to one of the recommendations in the commission's report. It recommended that the chairperson should not come from the service provider sector. The most important point is to ensure that the chairperson will be efficient and will enable the authority to work effectively. Given that recommendation in the report, there was a hope that the chairperson appointed would be a person with a disability. As I said on Committee Stage, given that the interim chairperson comes from Tipperary, I have no doubt she will be very effective and will carry out her work in an impartial manner. There is a justifiable fear as to whether a person, who has worked as a service provider, could monitor effectively the provision of services. My remarks about this position do not reflect on the person who is filling it. I am sure she will do a very good job.
The amendment seeks to stipulate that the chair of the authority should be a person who is not engaged in the provision of services to people with disabilities either as an employee or as a member of the board of such a body. As the Deputies said, the interim board has been announced and the members of the board of the National Disability Authority are well balanced. It is important to note that the authority as announced is made up in the main either of people with disabilities who are not engaged in service provision or of the parents or carers of people with disabilities. In addition to the fact that about one third of the membership is drawn from among service providers, acceptance of the amendment would give rise to a position where a significant proportion of the membership of the interim authority would be excluded from serving as chair of the authority. We must consider the people appointed in this instance. They are fully capable of distinguishing their role as service providers or service recipients from their role as members of the National Disability Authority. I am sure the authority will act in a manner that will ensure that the statutory remit of the authority is exercised without prejudice. As a result the Minister would have no difficulty in appointing either a service provider or a service recipient to the position.
The selection of the chair from among members of the interim authority was made with a view to challenging the programme that would fall to be delivered by the authority, with the chairperson and some of the other members drawn from the service sector and a majority of members drawn from among people with disabilities, their parents and carers. A sufficiently broadly based group has been appointed to meet any challenges that may lie ahead.
Deputy O'Sullivan made an important point about an issue arising concerning a service provider where the chairperson of an authority had worked. Section 31 covers that matter. It provides that if an individual has a particular interest in a service provider, he or she should step aside during such debates. That is a general provision in most legislation governing authorities. Irrespective of whether it relates to the food industry or any other area of life, on a rare occasion the chair may have an interest in an item raised. This applies to various food and other boards. It is standard practice that where there is a conflict of interest that person would step aside during that particular debate. This is provided for in section 31.
I accept that the person would step aside if it involved a matter in which he or she had a direct interest. However, because there is a relatively small number of service providers in this area, the chairperson might have to step aside more often than in organisations to which the Minister referred. If it only happened rarely the standard procedure would probably be adequate and there would be no need for this provision. However, because of the nature of the authority it may happen more frequently.
As the Bill will be considered again after a period of time to see how well it is working, this provision should also be looked at. If there is reason for the chairperson to withdraw on a number of occasions, not for any sinister reason, but because one of the organisations he or she happens to work for is one of the service providers, this should be looked at again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are alternatives to amendment No. 22, amendment No. 25 is related, amendment No. 26 is an alternative to amendment No. 25, amendment No. 27 is related to amendment No. 25 and all may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 11, to delete lines 45 to 50, and in page 12, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
"(a) the requirement that 15 members shall be appointed by the Minister from persons nominated to the Minister by organisations representative of persons with disabilities, their representatives, families or carers; and the remaining 3 appointed members shall be chosen by the Minister from persons appearing to the Minister to have relevant knowledge and experience, and".
I thank the Minister for going some way towards meeting what we raised on Committee Stage as regards gender and the point raised by Deputy Ahearn on the desirability of having a geographical balance in the composition of the authority. However, amendment No. 22 is very important as its intention is that the bodies which represent people with disabilities should have nominating rights so they will be able to choose the people they want representing them on the National Disability Authority rather than a Minister deciding for them.
There are precedents for this in other legislation, for example, the universities legislation where different groups with an interest in the composition of a university have nominating rights rather than the Minister selecting who should represent them. The intention of amendment No. 22 is to achieve that in this legislation so the representatives, families and carers of different disability organisations have the right to nominate people.
I welcome the common ground we have achieved as regards some of the other amendments. As regards gender balance, I welcome the Minister's amendment. However, the wording of my amendment No. 26 seeks a requirement of a percentage of women and men while the Minister's seeks an objective. My amendment uses stronger terms which means that one would not just hope to have a gender balance, but that one would be required to have one. This is important to ensure that what we want actually happens.
The common strand in our approach to this Bill is that at every stage we are diluting the recommendations of the commission's report. For example, I tabled amendment No. 24 in accordance with the recommendations of the commission's report that at least 60 per cent of the authority would be people with disabilities, their representatives, families or carers. The Minister has decided to use "a majority". I do not understand why we nit-pick like this. There is a difference between a majority and 60 per cent on an authority of 20 people. I do not understand why we did not have the courage to go the whole way and give some kind of status to the commission's report. I worry about the recommendations made given that almost every one it made concerning the National Disability Authority has been diluted.
I welcome the Minister's amendment No. 23 which deletes "desirability" and substitutes "objective", although I question why we need any of these words. The amendment strengthens the Bill a little but the word "objective" is still weak and I wonder does it copperfasten the aspiration we all want which is that a majority of those on the authority should be people with disabilities. I do not understand why we cannot leave out words such as "desirability", "objective", etc., and just say a majority "will" be persons with disabilities, their representatives and families.
The same applies to gender balance. I wonder where this House would stand on gender legislation if the EU was not our watchdog. We always seem to do the minimum which will get us out of the category where we can be criticised for not ensuring there is some gender balance. We will never go the whole way. I welcome what is the Minister's effective acceptance of my amendment. However, unlike the commission's report the wording had to be changed. I proposed a geographical representation but the Minister has chosen the words "urban" and "rural". I cannot figure out the difference. I do not understand why we nit-pick about this.
I hope the use of these words will give the geographical spread I want because the standard, quantity and quality of services for people with disabilities differs greatly between one area and another. While I accept my proposal is being included in some way, I wanted to ensure the authority would have members from areas that do not enjoy the same standard of services for people with disabilities as others. I welcome the amendment but once again we had to play with words. I will not press amendment No. 27. I accept the Minister's proposal that the authority will include among its members those from urban and rural areas. I hope this will achieve the geographical spread I have sought for justifiable reasons.
The Minister indicated on Committee Stage that he would consider a number of issues raised by the Deputies concerning section 20(3). These issues arise again in amendments Nos. 22, 24, 26 and 27. Having examined the issues, we have responded to several of the Deputies' concerns.The question of making mandatory the criteria of board membership set down in section 20(3) was raised by Deputies. While their views are not fully accepted, we have sought to meet the concerns expressed by strengthening the working of that subsection. The existing text requires the Minister to have regard to the desirability of meeting certain criteria for board membership. The new wording in amendments Nos. 23 and 25 would oblige the Minister when appointing members of the authority to have regard to the objective of meeting the criteria of board membership set out in section 20(3)(a) and 20(3)(b).
Two issues raised by Deputies are dealt with in amendment No. 25. The fully constituted board of the NDA will comprise 21 members, 20 of whom will be appointed by the Minister. One seat on the authority is reserved for an elected representative of the staff and as such will be independent of the criteria provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b). Consequently, to ensure that in all possible cases gender balance of 40 per cent is achieved, having regard to the full number of board members, I am happy to amend section 20(3) to provide that at least nine members of the authority shall be women and at least nine shall be men.
I am also pleased to accommodate the Deputies' concerns that members of the authority should, where possible, come from a broad geographical spread. Deputy Ahearn wonders why we talk about urban-rural balance as distinct from geographical spread. We felt that it was better to approach it in the manner suggested by the Deputy. If there are 26 members on the board, one is not saying that one wants a member from each county but one wants people from rural areas who may not have access to transport etc. along with people with problems relating to taxis etc., in Dublin. That is why there is reference to the urban-rural spread.
Amendment No. 22 concerns board membership, to which I am not in a position to respond by way of Government amendment. It seeks to require the Minister to appoint 15 members of the authority from among the nominees of disability organisations and three from among persons having other knowledge and experience relevant to the work of the board. In appointing the members of the interim authority the many nominations received from disability groups were taken into account and found to be useful. It is standard practice for interested parties to submit nominations for State boards and for consideration to be given to such nominations and this will no doubt continue to be the case according to section 20(3). A large number of organisations represent the disability sector, and in many people's opinion they have an equal interest in having nomination rights to the authority.
There are many organisations representing people with different types of disability. The Department has regular contact with more than 100 disability groups. The disability sector is emerging and evolving and the legislation, which aims to establish a new authority, must keep pace with developments in the sector as they occur. Acceptance of this amendment would be detrimental to the overall balance of the structural arrangements for the authority.
Nominations were received at the announcement of the establishment of the authority. A file was kept on every organisation which made a request to be on it. They were taken into account and felt to be most useful. Interested people who want to be on any State authority should make contact with the relevant Department. I hope Deputies understand that we have endeavoured to deal with the gender issue and the principle of the geographical balance by referring to the urban-rural divide.
I appreciate very much the Minister of State's remarks but I tend to be sceptical. While the Minister of State is exemplary in taking cognisance of the nominations from disability organisations and may be committed to gender balance, we do not know what Ministers might hold office as we approach the next millennium. My amendments seek to provide that the Minister will ensure that these desirable elements are included as objectives in the legislation. We may not always have a Minister who will want to do that and the legislation does not place any compunction on the Minister to accept nominations from disability bodies or to be absolute in terms of gender balance. That is why I seek stronger terminology in the legislation.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 11, line 45, to delete "desirability" and substitute "objective".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 11, line 45, to delete "a majority" and substitute "at least 60 per cent.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 12, to delete lines 3 to 5 and substitute the following:
"(b) subject to paragraph (a)–
(i) the objective that not less than 9 of the members are women and not less than 9 of the members are men, and
(ii) the desirability that the Authority would include among its members persons from both rural and urban areas.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 26 to 28, inclusive, not moved.
Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
We have missed an excellent opportunity to make this Bill strong. I regret that many of the recommendations in the commission's report were not accepted by the Minister. I feel very strongly that there is no grievance or redress procedure and in many ways the Bill lacks teeth and clout. I am disappointed that eventually the Minster will be a watchdog over the authority rather than the other way around. I am disappointed that we missed a valuable opportunity to have an effective disability authority which would ensure the delivery of a better service to people with disabilities.
I agree with Deputy Ahearn. This Bill, more than most, will have to be carefully monitored. I ask the Minister of State, if she still holds that position, to ensure that happens.
This is an important authority. One of my first jobs as Minister of State with responsibility for disability was to read the commission's report and see if a national disability authority could be established which would provide the engine room for all the recommendations in the commission's report. This authority will deal with policy, standards, research, codes of practice, liaison with other bodies and the provision of quality services for people with disabilities. It will make a difference and be a powerhouse for them. The NDA is a positive step and I am delighted to have been associated with it.
Question put and declared carried.