Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 are being taken together and Deputy O'Keeffe had just started to make his second contribution.
Comhairle Bill, 1999: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:
In page 5, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(a) to consider the establishment and maintenance of a nationwide network of accessible offices providing all necessary and relevant independent information, advice and advocacy for individuals with disabilities,”.
–(Deputy J. O'Keeffe).
The amendments were discussed previously so I will not delay the House unduly. Amendment No. 3 seeks to encourage the establishment and maintenance of a nationwide network of offices, not just offices in the main cities. The emphasis in the amendment is on accessible offices which should provide all necessary and relevant independent information, advice and advocacy for individuals with disabilities. That is the purpose of the amendment. Apart from hearing the views of my colleague, Deputy Broughan, which are similar to mine, I await a final word from the Minister.
My amendment, No. 7, is similar to that put down by Deputy O'Keeffe. We have already argued for the necessity of having an accessible, nationwide network of offices. Given the fragmented nature of the structures which Comhairle will take over and the many voluntary sector groups it will support, it is essential that the Minister give an indication that he will be committed to assisting the new agency to have a truly accessible network.
With the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's indulgence, I will refer briefly to the recently concluded Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. The agreement was signed 24 hours ago by the ministerial team led by the Taoiseach and I am anxious to find out the full details of pillar four, the negotiations regarding the social partners. I applaud the voluntary sector for the gains it has made but, on cursory examination, there appear to be many elements with which I am unhappy and which need to be developed further. When will the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs be able to give the House a detailed briefing on these issues which deeply affect the people we represent?
The Deputy has made his point. The debate is moving away from amendment No. 3.
I can guarantee that all efforts will be made to ensure accessibility, physically and otherwise, to all our services. That will be one of the key objectives in the strategic plan which the board will bring forward. There is no need to emphasise the fact that the board includes more members representing people with disabilities than is required by the legislation so there will be an insistence that this be the case.
The Deputy referred to the excellent partnership agreement which has been put together. I vividly recall the acrimony between the then Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, which resulted in Deputy Quinn being faced down by his leader in relation to a number of issues which were conceded in the previous agreement. Suffice to say that this Government has been happy to be able to bring—
The Minister should write his memoirs.
—forward an agreement which will be in situ for a shorter time than the previous agreement but which will deliver three times—
They would win the Booker Prize for fiction.
—the amount of funding.
The Minister should come back to the Bill before the House.
The Deputy raised this matter. The agreement will deliver three times the amount of social inclusion finance that the previous agreement delivered.
When will we be given a briefing?
A total of £525 million was put in by the previous Government for a three year period and we more than doubled that for two of the years we were in office.
We must come back to the Bill. I should not have allowed Deputy Broughan to raise the matter.
Since the Deputy raised the partnership agreement and in the context of the amendment before the House, there is a section referring to accessibility of public services and a commitment that each Government Department will take reasonable steps to make all its services and those of the agencies under its remit accessible to people with disabilities. The issue is well taken care of and I guarantee that, particularly in relation to the strategic plan, we will endeavour to ensure it is a key objective. Basically, we are pushing an open door in this respect.
I am prepared to accept the Minister's good faith on this issue. We are at one on it. I have no doubt the board will be in favour of the type of approach we have advocated. I hope the Minister will have more support from the Government for social inclusion measures than has been evident in recent budgets.
The Deputy has his tongue in cheek.
I have always supported the Minister in his efforts but he has been getting little support from the Government since its formation. I am hopeful, but we will make our judgments on the results.
On this issue I am prepared to accept the Minister's good faith and to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(a) to consider the development of a personalised one-to-one information, advice and advocacy service for people with disabilities,”.
Both amendments refer to section 7, which deals with the functions of the board. Having studied the section and consulted many of the interests involved, I believed the functions should be clarified in relation to some of the concerns expressed by people in the sector, such as the NRB. There was a feeling that the most important aspect of the support necessary for people with disability who wanted to go into the labour force is a personalised, one-to-one approach.
This type of approach began in recent years in the local employment service. A person seeking to enter the workforce would have a mentor who would evaluate the person's educational abilities and needs, look at their training and then decide the steps by which the person could re-enter the workforce. A number of steps might be involved, including going to one of the training companies which a number of partnerships have established. That approach is particularly important for people with disability who, because of the inaccessibility of the educational system, might have an educational deficiency or might not have been able to finish first or second level education or had an interrupted education. Some might have some type of third level education or vocational training but they still need a deep support mechanism. A few months ago when the Minister first published the Bill, trainers and people in the sector who work with people with disabilities were concerned that this matter was not stated sufficiently clearly in the section in the Bill dealing with functions. The guidance that people will receive has been couched in general terms such as "support" and "promote". There is a general feeling that it needs to be stressed that people can expect a personalised, one-to-one information, advice and advocacy service.
Cognate with amendment No. 4 is amendment No. 5 which refers to the idea of a one-stop-shop for access and that would accord with the recommendations of the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities of a few years ago, subsequent reports and an interdepartmental committee on this matter. A key aspect of support for people with disabilities wishing to re-enter the workforce is the necessity of a location where everything could be accessed at once.
We discussed at length with the Minister's officials at a meeting last week of the Joint Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs the extent of the liaison between the Department and FÁS and the local employment service. There is concern that people would have to go to three, four or five different places to access the necessary information to enable them enter or re-enter the workforce and to obtain other information they need to lead a useful life as a citizen. It is in that context I asked the Minister on Committee Stage to consider strengthening the functions and the direction to the board for its first mission statement by including an amendment such as this.
I support the spirit of the amendments and the views expressed by Deputy Broughan. We discussed physical accessibility under the previous amendment but the spirit of these amendments is concerned with another form of accessibility, the form and basis on which information is given. They are concerned with a one-to-one approach and a one-stop-shop, which means all information is available in one place.
We should not assume that people wishing to access information are always literate and that has consequences in terms of the benefit of the personalised, one-to-one service which Deputy Broughan outlined. It also has consequences in terms of forms and documentation used in offices. Studies show, unfortunately, that a sizeable proportion of the population is functionally illiterate. We must take that into account, especially when we deal with the disadvantaged section of the population.
On that basis, the spirit of the amendments deserves to be supported. It is a matter for the Minister whether he agrees to include them in the Bill or in the strategy approach of the board. I am sure he will accept the spirit in which the amendments are tabled and supported but I await his views on how they should be dealt with.
I thank Deputy Broughan for tabling the two amendments and thank the Deputies for their comments. I agree with the spirit of the amendments. Given that the recommendations on the establishment of Comhairle are that people with disabilities would be mainstreamed into the existing service, thus creating a better service for all, and given the increase in funding for the National Social Services Board in past years and in the coming year, I would like to think that, no matter whether people have a disability, they would be dealt with on a one-to-one basis.
Having travelled throughout the country visiting and opening offices – I opened a Citizen's Information Centre in Ballyshannon yesterday – I am aware that there has been a greater move towards making the offices one-stop-shops. With the improved technology available and the computerisation programme undertaken at the NSSB, now Comhairle, the service provided will in effect be, and has been for a number of years, a one-stop-shop for accessing information. The board of Comhairle is conscious that people accessing its service require one-to-one contact and need all the information to be in one location. I would say that is happening in this area. Such a requirement is not included in the functions in the Bill because they are explicit and the strategic plan would be the way forward whereby the board can decide, given its resources, where best to deploy its resources. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendments but assure him that what he said will be taken on board in the strategic plan.
I accept the Minister's good intentions but I hope the board of Comhairle would have an absolute commitment from the outset to implementing the strategy of equality as it relates to information and advice. It was not always the case, even in larger agencies, that one received a one-to-one service. It is through developments in the past decade, especially through partnership and leader companies, that such an approach has been developed and has been successful. We must bear in mind that many people still need intensive guidance in terms of training and work, especially for those trying to enter or re-enter the workforce – recent unemployment statistics bear this out for many areas, including my area of Dublin where 45,000 are still on the live register. I hope that will be borne in mind by the new agency. I accept the Minister's good intentions in this regard.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 5, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(a) to consider the development of appropriate training for its own staff and service providers in connection with the provision of independent information, advice and advocacy services to people with disabilities,”.
This amendment arose from the same basis as the previous four amendments, which is that the staff of the new agency would be given the necessary training to deal with people with disabilities who approach the agency seeking information and services. Doubts and concerns were expressed in this regard when the Bill was published. Given the work done by the National Rehabilitation Board in the area of information provision and that Comhairle would comprise staff from both agencies, it was considered necessary to ensure training would be provided for all staff giving independent advice and advocacy for people with disabilities.
The area of functions should be included in the Bill, which is the charter of the new agency, so that people with disability can expect to meet staff who are fully trained in this regard. Many of the staff of the new agency might be primarily information providers for other agencies and not all will be familiar with the deep needs of people with disability. We should have regard for this in the establishment of the new agency.
This amendment is largely aspirational but the aspiration is one with which I fully agree. Deputy Broughan argues very well for the need for proper training and development and I am sure the board of Comhairle will agree with him. Will the board have sufficient funding and resources to provide the necessary training? If we are assured that resources will be made available to the board, are given an outline of the board's training plans and an assurance of the Minister's support for them, our case will have been met. We have highlighted the need for train ing. If the Minister can confirm that resources will be provided for training, we will have achieved our objective.
I thank the two Deputies for their comments. I agree with the sentiment of the amendment. Funding has been increased in the recent budget by £750,000 to £5.2 million. The chairperson of the NSSB, which is soon to be Comhairle, and the board are very conscious of the need for extra training for the staff, given the new responsibilities they are taking on. There is reference to training in section 7(1) (e), which states that it shall be a function of the board to “promote and support the development of voluntary bodies providing social services, including, where the board considers it appropriate, the provision of financial or other resources such as integrated information, training and development services”. Over the years the NSSB has provided a range of these services to the voluntary social services sector. It operates a training and development service which delivers a general training programme to the whole range of organisations in the social services sector, including community information centres and organisations dealing with people with disabilities. These include courses on basic information and interpersonal skills required for the delivery of a quality information service. In 1998 alone over 1,500 people working in the area of social services received training from the NSSB and I have no doubt that service will be further developed by the board. In my dealings with the chairman of the board I will keep a very close eye on staff training in this respect.
I accept the Minister's assurances. I hope this aspect of training will feature in significant detail in Comhairle's first strategic plan and that the concerns of people in the voluntary sector, particularly those who work with and represent people with disability, will be allayed. I hope the high standards shown by the NRB and NSSB will continue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are related and amendment No. 10 is an alternative to amendment No. 9. All three may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, line 15, to delete "to directly provide" and substitute "to provide directly".
Having consulted with the parliamentary draftsman, I propose to correct the split infinitives in amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
We must be careful not to split our infinitives. On this issue we can certainly support the Minister.
I am happy to support amendments Nos. 8 and 9. We discussed this matter on Committee Stage. We should have grammatical correctness.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 5, lines 43 and 44, to delete "to directly provide such services" and substitute "to provide such services directly".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 6, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
8.–Within 3 months from the establishment day, the Board shall prepare and publish a mission statement which shall set out the overall long-term vision of the Board as distinct from any short-term objectives.".
The Bill proposes that a strategic plan be published as soon as shall be practicable. This plan would encompass many of the issues we have raised today and in our previous brief debate on Report Stage regarding the policies and functions of the new agency. It is important that a clear mission statement on the long-term objectives and vision of the board is made as soon as possible. The amendment proposes that this be done within three months of the setting up of the board.
In framing this amendment I was considering the concerns of people who work in the area of disability regarding the structures of the agency and its ability to deliver information, support services, supportive technology and advice. The questions which we were asked three or four months ago have not been answered in the Bill. They should be answered clearly soon after the agency begins its work. There must be a clear statement of the agency's objectives and policy as soon as possible. The amendment proposes that this will happen within three months of the establishment of the agency.
Will the Minister tell us the timeframe for the establishment of the new agency? How long does he think it will be before the nationwide agency is in operation and fully discharging the objectives outlined in the Bill?
Deputy Broughan argues cogently for very worthy objectives. His only way to have these issues debated is to table an amend ment. Whether the issues he raises should be included in the Bill is a matter for debate. I support the spirit of the amendment and the views expressed by Deputy Broughan. I will leave it to the Minister to indicate what will happen in reality, and if we are satisfied about what will happen we can be satisfied with the wording of the Bill.
Under the provisions of the Bill the Minister has the power to issue directions to the board from time to time and I will be requesting it to include a mission statement in its first strategic plan as quickly as possible. The three year strategic plan devised by the NSSB in 1996 included such a statement. It is envisaged that Comhairle and the NDA will be established by the end of March. The transfer to FÁS will also take place before that date, within six months of which the strategic plan will be brought forward. It is a tight timescale.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
We now proceed to amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 13 is an alternative. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 6, lines 29 and 30, to delete "and submit to the Minister, for approval with or without amendment by the Minister,".
Under the Bill the strategic plan will be submitted to the Minister for approval with or without amendment. He will, therefore, play a significant and extremely powerful role. It is important, however, that the board of Comhairle is fully independent in framing objectives and policies on the provision of information and support services for people with disabilities. While I accept that there is a precedent for strong ministerial input in other State agencies and semi-State bodies, it is critical given its purpose that the new agency is fully independent.
This amendment goes to the core of the Bill under which the Minister has the power to issue directions as he considers appropriate from time to time. He will effectively be able to amend it by making orders, under section 7 in particular. It is important that the board of Comhairle has a degree of functional independence. In this context the question of the strategic plan is relevant. There is a tendency in establishing allegedly independent boards, if not on the part of Ministers, on the part of civil servants, to retain strong control, over financial resources in particular. I accept the need for this from the point of view of public accountability. There is no bottomless purse. The question of control is, however, taken a step further in the Bill under which the strategic plan prepared by the board of Comhairle must be submitted to the Minister and the Department for approval with or without amendment. This is a source of concern as I can envisage a situation where the Minister will not be directly involved given that discussions on issues such as these are conducted at Civil Service level. To a degree this diminishes the quasi-independence of the board. While the Department should have a view which should be discussed with the board, the provision under which the Minister has the power to amend the strategic plan tips the balance too far.
As I said on Committee Stage, this is a relatively common provision in cases where a State board produces strategic plans. Recent examples include the Irish Sports Council, Act, 1999, and the National Disability Authority Act, 1999. Lest my silence is taken as acquiescence, my officials would not wish in any way to spancel the strategic plans of the board of Comhairle. Deputy O'Keeffe said on Committee Stage that he had no problem with the Minister approving or, by extension, not approving them. A decision not to approve them could result in a Mexican stand-off. This could happen where there is a glaring omission. Deputies Broughan and O'Keeffe highlighted a number of issues which ought to be dealt with to provide for greater access. It is, therefore, best to leave the provision in the Bill as it stands as it is tried and trusted. The Department has had a good relationship with the NSSB, particularly in recent years when there has been a dramatic increase in funding.
As Deputy O'Keeffe said, under the Bill the Minister has significant powers. The Bill states that a strategic plan shall be prepared in a form and manner in accordance with directions issued from time to time by the Minister. That was the rationale for hoping that we did not need to insert a further check by the Minister on the operation of the organisation. Having said that, I accept the Minister's good intentions and hope that the agency, as established, will be as independent as possible.
I hope our concerns will never be realised. The Minister is quite right to uphold the position of the civil servants currently in his Department. However, when we make law, we make it for the future as well as the present. I know the last thing the departmental officials would want to do would be to spancel this new organisation and, to be fair, there is no evidence of any such attempt in regard to the NSSB. I am not overly concerned that any practical problem exists at present although we must look to the future.
It seems somewhat odd that the board would prepare a plan which the Minister must essentially approve. If the Minister were not to approve of a plan, the plan should go back to the board for further consideration and it should make necessary amendments. As currently drafted, the section not only gives the Minister the right to approve of the plan but it is also the Minister and, by extension, his departmental officials who make the amendments. The proper course is that any such amendments should be agreed or made by the board following discussion with the Minister and his officials.
I accept that this provision is relatively common in legislation although the fact that it is does not mean it is right. The Minister is not prepared to change the provision at this stage and as I do not anticipate a practical problem arising, at least in the short-term, from the manner in which the legislation is framed, I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurances. If difficulties arise, we must return to the House at a future date and address them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 7, line 11, to delete "one member" and substitute "4 members".
The Labour Party and the entire labour movement believe it is critically important that workers would be strongly represented in the administration of bodies for which they work both in the public and private sectors. In recent years the labour movement was instrumental in developing the concept of ESOPs, employee share ownership programmes, both in regard to recently privatised companies and throughout the economy. It is a fundamental belief of the labour movement that workers should have key representation in regard to the administration of any company, a belief which truly distinguishes the Labour Party from other political parties.
Section 9(4)(c) proposes that one member of the staff of the board shall be elected by secret ballot of the staff of the board in such manner as the board, with the agreement of the Minister, may determine. There has been a growing perception within the State sector and throughout the economy that workers' rights and abilities to be part of management structures are being increasingly eroded. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions discussed this issue at length when IMPACT proposed that Comhairle should have worker-director representation in full accordance with worker participation legislation. We should not allow any further rowing back in this area. IMPACT and the trade union movement generally are gravely concerned that a new national body is to be established of which only one member at board level will be a worker-director.
I note that the issue of Comhairle's structure was discussed extensively at the AGM of the worker-directors of all State and semi-State bodies held last year in Tralee. The general feeling was that it was critical that staff would be adequately represented from the outset of any organisation. Such representation informs people's ideological viewpoints of the economy. Given that Comhairle is an agency with such a specialist and sensitive remit, it is very important that there would be perhaps as many as four worker-directors on the board. That would ensure that some of the areas we have discussed, such as adequacy of training and capital provision for Comhairle's network of sites and personalised one to one service could be addressed. There is a strong feeling among many members of the workforce that these objectives could be best realised by ensuring significant workforce representation on the board.
When the Enterprise Ireland legislation was being debated, at which time I was the Labour Party spokesperson on enterprise, trade and employment, it was found that there was an attempt to row back on workers' rights. It is all very well for the Government to engage in elaborate signing ceremonies for national partnerships and so on, but the really important issue is what happens at the level of the shop floor. A deeper commitment to worker representation at the highest level is required. Worker representation, where it exists, operates very successfully within the semi-State sector. Indeed, it has also operated successfully within the private sector in the past and has allowed companies and agencies to perform to their optimum capacity. I urge the Minister to re-examine this provision and to allocate four places on the board for the workers.
I am generally in favour of worker representation on State boards and I am in favour of procedures being put in place whereby staff of commercial companies are provided with the opportunity to purchase shares in the companies. From that point of view, I support the views expressed by Deputy Broughan. However, I would not go to the wall on the numbers involved. I appreciate we are dealing with a board where there is a strong case for general equality and I am glad the Minister has agreed with the amendments in that regard. People with disabilities must also be represented on the board, of which I am in favour. Gender and disability must be taken into account and we cannot restrict the board too much. I am glad the Bill provides for staff representation on the board but I can see the practical difficulties with a statutory provision that this number must be four. I am supportive of staff representation but I would not press the matter of the number, particularly because there must be gender equality and disabled representation on the board.
There is no statutory provision for staff participation on the board of NSSB, although that is normally the practice. This practice is being followed by including the provision for one worker-director. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment recommend that each case be looked at on its merits. This is a non-commercial body which specialises in delivering information to the wider public. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe put his finger on it by referring to the importance of gender and geographical issues as well as representation of the various groups, such as those with a disability. I appointed someone to represent the elderly to the board. I cannot recall the particular groups but there was good representation in each case.
In certain instances there may be a requirement for more than one worker-director. My party, like that of Deputy O'Keeffe, is in favour of that. There are examples of how we legislated for greater worker participation when we were in office previously, mainly in commercial State sponsored bodies. However, as regards non-commercial bodies, if I accepted these amendments the board would be top heavy. We increased the representation on this board from 15 to 20. I was advised that 20 was unwieldy. Looking at the spectrum of issues in this huge area, if another three representatives were added some people representing certain specialities and in contact with CICs around the country would have to be removed from the board. If worker-directors were to be represented, the number would have to be increased to 23 which would be totally unwieldy, or existing representatives would have to be removed.
The staff of the NSSB have always been at one with the board regarding the development of the NSSB and the preparation of its strategic plan. I have no doubt that will continue. There is worker-director representation on the board which is sufficient to look after the needs of staff.
Practically every Member of this House has been a board member of community and local organisations or commercial and national enterprises. Individually representing a key interest can be extremely difficult and being able to share the burden with one or two other people tends to make this easier. In this case when matters relating to training etc. arise the worker-director will have the specialist knowledge, with the chief executives, of how programmes will operate. It could be valuable to have more than one person representing that interest.
There are other precedents – for example there is generally more than one staff representative on school boards, health boards and bodies under the aegis of health boards. They usually perform a valuable role. I ask the Minister to think about this again and to adopt a more generous attitude to workers by enabling them to have more than one worker director representing them. I ask him to accept our amendments. There are concerns in the trade union and labour movement that there is an attempt to erode previously clear policy measures laid down by my predecessors, Michael O'Leary and others, including the Ceann Comhairle, when in Government in the 1970s. The rights of workers established then are being diminished in this Bill.
Question, "That the figure and word proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 7, line 14, after "determine" to insert "in accordance with the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 to 1993".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 8, to delete lines 3 to 6 and substitute the following:
"(12) In making appointments to the Board the Minister shall have regard to the objective of there being not less than 8 members who are women and not less than 8 members who are men.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 8, lines 9 and 10, to delete "the gender balance determined by the Minister pursuant to subsection (12)” and substitute “the objective referred to in subsection (12)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 12, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"18.–Paragraph 1(2) of the First Schedule to the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, is hereby amended by the addition of 'Comhairle,'.".
On the operation of the agency, it is extraordinary that the information agency is not included in the organisations to which the Freedom of Information Act, 1997 applies. It seems almost comical that the Minister has chosen not to include it given that section 18(1) lays down stern ground rules on how employees of the board should behave. While the Minister would make the point that much of the information serviced by the new organisation would be of a confidential and personal nature, it is fitting that the general performance of the board should be covered by the Freedom of Information Act and that an agency which specialises in dispersing information might be accessed through the Act. There have been complaints recently that the Act does not apply to some bodies in the public sector. However, it seems the performance of the agency, given that its speciality is information, could be best monitored and evaluated if it is covered under the Freedom of Information Act.
Generally the Freedom of Information Act has been a success. It has brought many benefits from the point of view of transparency. Having had reservations about the Act initially, I am now a great supporter of it and this is why I support the amendment. It seems extraordinary, when dealing with a body whose primary function is the provision of independent information, to exclude that body from the operation of the Freedom of Information Act. The Minister has some explaining to do in this regard. He touched on this on Committee Stage but I was not convinced. Deputy Broughan has made a very compelling case and I await the Minister's explanation to the contrary.
While I accept the Deputy's point, the Government made a decision approximately one year ago to extend the remit of the Freedom of Information Act to take into account the NSSB, now Comhairle. The Minister for Finance will be making regulations in June to bring the new body under the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. I assure the Deputy this is the reason we did not include it in the Bill. The same applies to the ombudsman's remit.
I am pleased to receive the information the Minister has given in relation to the Minister for Finance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 12, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
18. – The First Schedule to the Ombudsman Act, 1980, is hereby amended by the addition of 'Comhairle'.".
Given that the same will apply to the Ombudsman Act, I will withdraw my amendment. Recently we discussed the situation where the ombudsman played a valuable role in monitoring the performance of the Minister's Department in relation to widows' pensions and so on. I hope the ombudsman's remit will include monitoring the operation of Comhairle.
The new organisation, Comhairle, will come within the remit of the amendments currently being drafted in relation to the Ombudsman Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 21 to 25, inclusive, are alternatives and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 12, to delete lines 31 and 43.
I tabled this amendment to get a discussion going on this provision at this stage. When I first read the section, I was absolutely amazed. I find it outrageous that someone would be precluded from disclosing any information obtained by him or her while performing duties as a member of the board, a member of staff, a member of a committee or a consultant or adviser to the board. This seems a draconian section, therefore I oppose its inclusion.
On Committee Stage we argued against this section. I moved an amendment to limit the provision to information that could reasonably be regarded as confidential or of a commercially sensitive nature. Given that the Minister has tabled an amendment which effectively confines the provision to the disclosure of confidential information, my view on the section has changed. I would like the Minister to outline fully the thinking behind his amendment. It deals largely with the point I raised on Committee Stage and, in effect, confines the provision to the disclosure of confidential information. On that basis, we may have found a solution to the problem highlighted on Committee Stage and, if so, we can dispose of the issue.
I echo Deputy O'Keeffe's comments. Section 18 covers an enormous remit and introduces an almost draconian approach to the governance of the new agency, Comhairle. It seems to be out of line with precedents in other areas, given that the basic work of the board will be dealing in information, often of a sensitive nature. I understand the necessity for the protection of information but that this draconian measure should apply to the general performance of the board or to aspects of its work is out of line with the assurances needed in relation to confidential information. This is why I tabled amendment No. 25 categorising information as confidential, personal information relating to an individual. I wel come the fact that the Minister has taken on board our concerns and tabled amendment No. 24.
The provision in section 18 is a standard provision in a number of Acts. The Acts relating to the National Disability Authority and the Food Safety Authority and the Pensions Act all have similar provisions. One of the principal functions of Comhairle, as set down in section 7, is to ensure that individuals have accurate and clear information and that its confidentiality is maintained. The provision was included to ensure that people accessing the service may be assured that their circumstances will not be divulged. The provision must be included in the Bill to ensure that would not happen.
The terms "save as otherwise provided by law" and "with the consent of the Board" allows the staff of Comhairle to provide this information service to the public. This provision prevents the disclosure by staff of, for example, confidential information with regard to a client or other information relating to the board's activities which is regarded by the board as sensitive. It would not apply generally with regard to issues relating to the board, which probably would not be sensitive. However, sensitive matters may arise occasionally if difficulties arose. The provision is targeted at the disclosure of personal information.
I have taken on board the concerns expressed by the Deputies on Committee Stage in the amendment which restricts the non-disclosure of confidential information as determined by the board. I hope the provision satisfies the concerns expressed by the Deputies.
I am satisfied the Minister has met us fairly in the matter and has dealt with the concerns we expressed on Committee Stage. On that basis, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 12, line 32, to delete "any" and substitute "confidential".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 12, after line 43, to insert the following:
"(4) In this section ‘confidential information' includes information that is expressed by the Board or a committee of the Board, as the case may be, to be confidential either as regards particular infor mation or as regards information of a particular class or description.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Deputies for their diligence and hard work on the Bill. I also thank my officials and the people from the NSSB and the NRB who were involved. I appreciate the views expressed by Deputies on all sides in relation to what is a major move. I, my staff and the board of the NSSB, soon to be Comhairle, appreciate the path that lies ahead and we will endeavour to ensure that it is as smooth as possible.
I thank the Minister for the fair way in which he dealt with the issues raised on Committee Stage. I also thank his officials for the assiduous manner in which they dealt with the Bill from the start. Any comments I made in the course of the debate do not in any way cast aspersions on the current officials in the Department. I wish Comhairle well for the future. The establishment date will be soon.
March.
It is next month. It has a hugely important function and a major task to undertake in the future and I have every confidence that the board and staff will do their jobs well. I wish them well in that task and I have no doubt that they will make a major contribution to the country in the years ahead.
I thank the Minister for his fair reaction to the amendments drafted by the Labour Party. I also thank his staff in the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs for their advice and assistance on aspects of the Bill. In common with Deputy O'Keeffe, I join my colleagues in wishing the new organisation well. Comhairle's role in society will be critical and I hope that, as time goes on, its resources will increase and it will be able to liaise and work closely with the local action groups and information services.
Could the Minister arrange for me and Deputy O'Keeffe to be briefed on the fourth pillar of the new partnership agreement in relation to the social welfare aspects and the plans which have been agreed with the social partners up to 2003? We would appreciate such a briefing.
Question put and agreed to.