Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jun 1985

Vol. 108 No. 9

Combat Poverty Agency Bill, 1985: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Leary

When we were discussing this on the last occasion we got a lot of very valuable information from the Minister on section 5 and indeed the preceding sections, but specifically on section 5, on the matter of strategic plans and reviews of the new Combat Poverty Agency.

Is it the Minister's intention that this strategic plan which under subsection (2) is to be drawn up in respect of the period to 31 December 1987 should be a static thing? In other words, should there be a strategic plan for the period to December 1987 and no strategic plan then and that stretching until 1990? Is it a rolling plan that the Minister has in mind? Is it a three-year plan or is it a rolling three-year plan that the Minister has in mind? The Minister has adequate power under the section to make it a rolling type of plan, in other words, a plan for a three-year period ending 1987 and during the following 12 months extending that to 1988 and in the following 12 months extending that to 1989, so that you have three years ahead at all times. I wonder which one the Minister has in mind in this regard?

Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare (Mr. Pattison)

I would like to comment on the points raised by Senator O'Leary and other Senators who have already contributed to the debate on section 5. In principle, Senators are agreed that the idea behind this section is a good one. While a provision on these lines is not to be found in similar legislation relating to other agencies, it is, however, in line with Government policy on the monitoring of the activities of State bodies.

The existence of a strategic plan will be of considerable benefit for the agency itself and for the responsible Ministers in that once the plan has been agreed the agency will be in a position to operate within an agreed framework and the performance of the agency can be evaluated within the framework. It is in everybody's interest that the relationship between the parties concerned is an orderly one and that the agency develops in a planned and not in an ad hoc way.

A number of Senators expressed concern about the situation which would arise if either of the Ministers concerned did not approve the agency's plan or did not do so within a reasonable period of time. Obviously, the Minister cannot be required to approve the plan as submitted by the agency. In the normal course what would happen would be for the Departments concerned to enter into discussions with the agency with a view to reaching a consensus on the plan. The plan will naturally incorporate an operating budget for its main activities detailing proposed expenditure, projected staff resources, etc. These matters will have to be agreed with the parent Department and the Department of Finance. There is no point in pretending that it will always be easy to reach agreement.

The financial contraints which apply elsewhere will also affect the operation of this agency. It would probably be too much to hope that the resources would be available to enable this agency to do all that in its view needs to be done. The benefits of the plan will be that it will enable the agency to plan for three years rather than for one year ahead as would be the case in the absence of a provision on the lines of that contained in the section.

It would not be possible to place a requirement on the Ministers concerned to approve the agency's plan within a certain time limit. If the plan were not approved it would not, as has been implied, mean that the agency would have to come to a full stop. It would continue to carry on its functions within the limits of the financial resources available to it. The existence of the strategic plan is not a pre-requisite to action. It is an added benefit inasmuch as it enables the agency to plan ahead rather than to operate on the more ad hoc basis which would otherwise be involved.

A number of Senators were concerned about the time scale for the first strategic plan as contained in the section. The first plan which would cover the period up to 31 December 1987 must be submitted by the agency within six months of its first meeting. Subject to the speedy enactment of the legislation I would hope that the first strategic plan would be drawn up by early 1986 and, allowing for the constraints which the new agency will inevitably be under in the first few months of its existence, I consider it reasonable that the first strategic plan should be in respect of a shorter period, effectively two years rather than three years.

Senator Fallon wondered about the extent to which the preparation of the strategic plan would be affected by the EC poverty programme. He was concerned to ensure that Ireland is in a position to benefit to the greatest possible extent from that programme. I can assure the House that preparations are already being made for the Irish input into the EC programme which was agreed by the Council of Ministers in December of last year. The interim board of the Combat Poverty Organisation are advising the Minister as to the projects which should be submitted to Brussels for inclusion in the programme. It is expected that the programme will commence later this year. The Combat Poverty Agency, when established, will obviously have a central role in the implementation and monitoring of the Irish element of the programme.

Senator Robinson raised the question of the reviews of the agency's purposes, functions and activities which are to be carried out from time to time by the Minister under subsection 3 of section 5. She was concerned that no time scale was set out for the preparation of these reviews. The legislation is designed to allow flexibility to the Minister in determining the period of the reviews and the time at which the reviews should be done. It would seem logical that a review would cover the same period as the agency's strategic plan, but this need not necessarily be the most desirable approach. The Minister might consider a longer period to be more appropriate. As far as setting the time at which reviews should be carried out is concerned, it is considered that this also should be at the discretion of the Minister. The agency will also be constrained by the availability of the necessary resources or the professional expertise necessary for this purpose. It is worth mentioning, of course, that one of the agency's own functions as set out in section 4 (2) (f) of the Bill will be the evaluation of its own activities, and this will also be relevant in the context of an overall review of the agency under section 5.

Mr. O'Leary

We are all grateful to the Minister for his careful explanation of the intention behind section 5, and there is a great deal of logic in what he has said. There are just one or two tidying-up points that I would like to ask the Minister about. Under section 5(1) there is provision whereby the agency shall draw up and submit to the Minister and to the Minister for Finance for their approval a programme outlining the agency's projected activities. Why is it intended that there should be a system of dual reporting? Why is the Minister for Finance being drawn into it at this stage? Why is it necessary to get his approval? I understand that where money is being spent the approval of the Department of Finance is necessary, but a lot of the programme outlined by the agency might not, indeed, involve the expending of any money other than the money which they had available themselves by way of a grant-in-aid — if that is the way in which they intend to finance themselves. Why, then, in the event of what you might call free money being available is the approval of the Minister for Finance necessary for their work for their programme as well as the approval of the Minister who is responsible for the agency, who is defined in the interpretation section as being the Minister for Social Welfare? Why has the Minister for Finance to give his approval also?

Mr. Fallon

That is a question that occurred to me and perhaps to the Minister. I would like to thank him for his honest and long reply to the many questions asked here the last time we discussed this matter. He himself referred to the financial resources, and I think we can be happy that we have made as much progress as possible on the EC side. The Minister has confirmed that. Is it envisaged that there should be — Senator O'Leary touched on this also — any input, if you like, from the Department of Social Welfare? Obviously, that would need the Department of Finance approval in some way. Could I ask what is the intention towards the various health boards? Are they expected to contribute from their capital allocation or will they be getting, as Senator O'Leary said, a grant-in-aid for work of this nature in their particular areas? The health boards will be saying at this point in time, with the kind of money they have at their disposal, that they might not be able to afford to spend any money on this important problem. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.

Mr. Pattison

On Senator O'Leary's point about the Minister for Finance being mentioned in subsection 1 of section 5 I do not think it would be appropriate to limit the subsection because I do not think it would be appropriate to assume that the programme outlining the agency's projected activities would not include aspects of financial consequences that would need the approval of the Minister for Finance. I agree with Senator O'Leary on the point that perhaps many parts of the programme may not need financial approval, but to rule out that possibility would be unwise. It is appropriate that the reference to the Minister for Finance should be included in this particular subsection for that purpose.

The section as a whole provides for three-year plans, each plan to be in respect of a three-year period. The second plan, however, would have to be drawn up and submitted before the end of the relevant three-year period. I consider the provision as it stands a reasonable one. The Minister will, under section 5(3), be reviewing the activities of the agency on a regular basis, and I am satisfied that the arrangements provided in section 5 will ensure continuity in the activities of the agency.

Again, on Senator Fallon's point, I would also submit that until the actual plan is available it would not be possible to know what details would be in it. It could happen that in the first plan there might be, for argument sake, no part for the health boards to play in it. If there is a part in the plan, I am sure there will be proposals in the plan to deal with any expenditure the health boards may have to incur. I would submit that Senator Fallon's question would have to wait possibly until the various plans would be available.

Mr. O'Leary

I would like to come back to this question and I think the Minister should give further consideration to it either before Report Stage in this House or in the other House. There is really a point at issue here as to the extent to which the Minister for Finance is going to get himself involved in the detail of the programme of the agency. As I understand it section 9 of this Bill deals with the question of grants to the agency and that, putting the matter very simply, says that, subject to what conditions the Minister may apply the Minister would pay to the agency each financial year out of money provided by the Oireachtas, a grant and may seek the consent of the Minister for Finance and after consultation with the agency. That is fair enough. I think it is up to the Minister involved to negotiate with the agency on one hand and the Minister for Finance on the other hand. It is reasonable that the Minister should exercise that overall control. Here we are asking the Department of Finance to do more than that — I think there is enough control in that for the Department of Finance. We are asking them to approve strategic plans, and are we not in effect asking them to give approval to a plan to spend money for three years ahead?

If I know the Department of Finance, they do not like doing that. They do not like giving approval for items of expenditure and programmes of expenditure more than one year at a time. One will find that the Minister for Finance will not be geared to approve these plans. I certainly have no objection to the Minister for Finance being kept aware of what the plans are so that he can include them in his budget option. The section is very clear, and says it must be drawn up subject to the Minister's and the Minister for Finance's approval. Would it not be better if a programme outline were submitted to the Minister for his approval and to the Minister for Finance — in other words, not looking for the approval of the Minister for Finance for the strategic plan but just providing information. This is a recipe for inter-departmental memos at a great rate. We are involving the Department of Finance — because effectively, it is the Department of Finance, not the Minister for Finance — in an area of activity in which they have no expertise.

I cannot say what the Minister would think about being released from the constraints of the Department of Finance but I can say that, by and large, the Department of Finance tend to try to control things very tightly indeed, to the annoyance of other Departments and to the Ministers responsible for other Departments. I think in these circumstances there appears to be a case for the Minister to look again at that aspect of this section.

Mr. Pattison

Again, I would like to make the point to Senator O'Leary that I am sure that the Minister for Social Welfare would be only too willing and pleased to pass many or all of the plans but that would be a useless exercise if the necessary moneys were not made available by the Minister for Finance. That is the whole relevance of having the Minister for Finance mentioned in this subsection. The agency will probably not be financed by a grant-in-aid but rather by an annual grant and that will, in effect, be their only source of income. Any expenditure will therefore be subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance. That is why the Minister for Finance's involvement in the section is necessary in order to approve the strategic plan. Approval by the Minister for Social Welfare only could, in effect, be meaningless if the necessary funds were not going to be made available by the Minister for Finance.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Fallon

Section 6 (1) says that the Minister shall appoint two members of the agency to be chairman and vice chairman respectively. I know this is done, but in a committee or an organisation such as this obviously one could say that it smacks of ministerial intervention. I realise it is the Minister who selects the committee but the committee themselves should have the choice of selecting their own chairman and vice chairman. That might have worked better. It would seem to me to have been a fairer way of doing it, keeping away from the realms of political intervention, as it were, and you might at the end of the day have a better organisation.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Fallon

On section 7(1), I had considered putting in an amendment here but perhaps we will discuss it in some way. I honestly feel, and perhaps the Minister agrees — I hope he will — that for a major national organisation such as this a small committee — which it will be — will be too small to really operate very effectively. I hope I am wrong. I think it would be preferable if you had a bigger committee, a committee of 12 to 15. Furthermore, in the composition of that agency it would obviously be desirable as we have said in the past, and I know that the Minister would be aware of this, that the people who would form the base of this committee would be expert in the field and would have a great knowledge of this area of combating poverty. I would hope that the agency would not just be Dublin-dominated, that they would extend right across the country. Preferably what I would like to see, as I said— and perhaps the Minister would comment, or consider it later on another stage of the Bill — is an extension of the agency to 12 or 15. Rather than a Dublin Pale area the whole nation should be considered in the selection of that agency.

Mr. O'Leary

I would like to ask the Minister to explain, in addition to the points raised by Senator Fallon, what subsection (4) means and particularly the later part of subsection (4) of section 7. Subsection (4) says that the Minister when appointing a member shall fix such member's period of membership, which shall not exceed three years and, subject to this section, membership shall be on such terms as the Minister determines. I wonder what that last section means. Is it a standard procedure that is used in other pieces of legislation or is it quite exceptional, because it appears to be quite unusual to have a situation where the Minister can actually determine the terms of membership and can impose conditions in regard to membership which are not specified in the Act. I would like to ask the Minister's advice as regards the extent of this subsection and in particular that part of the subsection which starts at the comma and which continues "membership shall be on such terms as the Minister determines".

Mr. Pattison

On the point raised by Senator Fallon, about the membership of the agency, the subsection provides that the membership of the agency shall be not less than eight and not more than ten. It is considered that while this is a much smaller number than under the old Combat Poverty Committee — there were 25 members in that committee — what is now proposed is about the right size to ensure adequate representation while at the same time enabling the business of the agency to be conducted efficiently. This provision, significantly enough, is in accordance with the specific recommendations by the former Combat Poverty Committee which, as I said operated with a membership of 25. They have made a specific recommendation for the smaller number. The interim board of the Combat Poverty organisation also recommended a smaller number. Those are the people who have been involved with the work of the old committee and with the work of the interim board, and I am sure they have very good and sound reasons for recommending that the committee should be of the size now mentioned in the subsection.

On Senator O'Leary's point on subsection (4), under this subsection the Minister will determine the period of membership of members of agency, with the proviso that the period may not exceed three years. Members whose terms of office expired could be eligible for reappointment under subsection (7) of the section. Subsection 4 also provides that membership shall be on such terms as the Minister determines. This is a standard provision. There is nothing sinister about it. Somebody must determine the terms of membership of the committee. The most appropriate authority to fix the terms is the Minister, I know in committees like this it is not the same as terms of employment but it is kind of a parallel I would imagine. I would also point out that it would not be appropriate for members to sit according to their own terms, to lay down terms under which they would act. There is nothing sinister in it. It is a common provision. It is to clarify the minds of the members of the committee on the broad terms under which they act. The Minister is the only authority to decide on that. It is not for curtailing activities or limiting their work in any way. It is just to set down terms. Any member who is invited to serve on the committee would want to know the terms.

Mr. O'Leary

I would have thought that the purpose of the Bill which will eventually be an Act is that it lays down the terms of the appointment. I understand that when the Minister appoints a person to any committee obviously the Minister is the person who determines the terms of the appointment. Here we have the situation where the Oireachtas is setting up a structure under which people will be appointed and it is giving the person appointed by the Minister certain statutory duties and responsibilities with regard to the carrying out of the duties and functions of the Combat Poverty Agency. I do not understand the superimposition on top of that function of an additional series of conditions which are not laid out but which the Minister can apply. While it is obvious that the Minister is free to determine the terms of an appointment to a body which is within his control this body and its terms of reference are being established by the Oireachtas. The section would be improved by the addition of an additional number of words along the following lines: "Membership shall be on such terms as the Minister determines subject to the Act." All it says is "subject to this section". It is not subject to the Act; "subject to this section, membership shall be on such terms as the Minister determines." Surely it should read "subject to this Act...". If we make membership only subject to the section it appears to me that the only rules which the Minister can change by way of additional rules or terms are the rules which fall within section 7. I should like to ask the Minister whether he might be assisted in his objective by changing the section to make the appointment subject to the Act rather than to the section.

Mr. Pattison

The actual subsection is subject to the section. For example, subsection (5) reads:

Any member of the Agency may, at any time, be removed from membership of the Agency by the Minister if, in the Minister's opinion, the member has become incapable through ill-health of performing his functions, or has committed stated mis-behaviour, or his removal appears to the Minister to be necessary for the effective performance by the Agency of its functions.

That is the context in which the power is given to the Minister within that section. Section 4 is subject to the full contents of section 7.

Mr. M. Higgins

I am reluctant to add any words to this exchange except ones that would be of some assistance. Perhaps I am over simplifying the point made by Senator O'Leary. The thrust of it would be to remove any suggestion of arbitrary interpretation. The point he is making is one I would support and urge the Minister to think again about is that it goes without saying that where determinations have to be made it is obvious that the Minister would be the person who would make such determinations and it is equally in the interests of the Minister in any actions that he may take, in any determinations he may make, to be doing so explicitly within the terms of the Act rather than implicitly by some other criteria. The wording before us creates at least that suspicion as a possibility. It would strengthen the Bill if the Minister acceded to Senator O'Leary's request. Subsection (5) to which the Minister addressed our attention is one which is quite explicit on the grounds on which the Minister would act. There is a problem if you take subsection (4) to be read with it that there are over and above the grounds of subsection (5) other grounds which cannot now be stated. It is to the protection of the Minister of the day if you use Senator O'Leary's formulation or some such in which this will be exercised subject to the Act.

Mr. Pattison

Section 7 is the section which refers to the members of the agency. The other sections deal with other matters. It is felt that this is the correct procedure for dealing with membership and the terms of membership. I would not regard it as appropriate to connect other sections of the Act with the section that deals with the membership of the committee.

Mr. O'Leary

May I help the Minister further in this regard? For example, if of the ten members of the agency two were civil servants from his own Department, one person, on the basis of this, could be appointed on the basis that he would always support the other in any vote in the agency. That would be within the terms of the Act. This is a more real problem than the Minister might imagine. Very often with appointees of Ministers, particularly where there is more than one appointee, people of different levels of administrative authority acting as independent members of an agency or a State-sponsored body, the policy of the Minister as determined by the mind of the most senior civil servant present becomes automatically the minds of both civil servants or the three civil servants as the case may be. That is something of which I have personal experience as a member of a State-sponsored body. The mind of the Minister magically transferred itself not only to the most senior man but through him to all the other civil servants. You found they were all acting in accordance with the Minister's wishes, but they also happened to interpret the Minister's wishes in the same way at precisely the same time. If on the following day the Minister changed his mind or the senior man said the Minister had changed his mind, they all changed their minds too. This is a real problem.

I am not suggesting that the present Minister would impose any such unreasonable conditions but it is important that those people who are appointed should be appointed subject only to the fact that the Minister can, at any time, under subsection (5), remove them. That is only right and proper. We should leave people as free as possible to act as freely and as independently as possible, subject to the ultimate sanction of the Minister, which is a two-edged weapon. No Minister likes to remove somebody, and that imposes a brake upon the Minister's impatience with the individual actions of a member of an agency or a member of any board. On the other hand, the member knows that he can only go so far. We should retain the maximum amount of independence possible.

One of the ways to do that is to make membership subject to such terms as the Minister determines which are in conformity not only with the section but with the Act in general. It is a drastic matter, but these things do form a very important background to the way in which legislation subsequently affects the independence of members and affects the independence of thought. If anything came out of our detailed discusion of this Bill on the last occasion it was that the independence of thought of the members of the agency was going to be most important. They are going to be saying unpopular things, things that I will not like, but I want them to say them and if I do not agree with them I would like the freedom in this House or somewhere else to disagree with them. It is important that that freedom would be maximised. Their contribution to our society will be enhanced by their greater freedom. In those circumstances I would like the Minister to have a look at it between this and Report Stage and see if he would, having reflected on the matter, accept some amendment which would have the effect I suggested at the earlier stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 8 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. O'Leary

On section 14, which deals with superannuation, could I ask the Minister whether it is intended that the superannuation provisions which relate to the public service in general are to be extended to the employees of the Combat Poverty Agency or is there going to be a more realistic scheme devised which will not have the grosser excesses of the present public service pension scheme which is imposing tremendous strain on our resources? I am not suggesting that there should be changes in respect of anybody already in the public service, but here is an opportunity to break away from that mould. I would like to ask the Minister what is the present intention with regard to superannuation. For example, are there to be very big tax free lump sums? Are there to be inflation proof pensions? Is it his intention to use the superannuation provision being enacted here to add to our problems or is it his intention to propose, subject to the concurrence of the Minister for the Public Service, a more realistic system of superannuation?

Mr. Pattison

This section requires the agency to prepare and submit to the Minister a superannuation scheme for its employees. As the House is aware there are a number of superannuation schemes operating in the public service area — there is a difference between the State bodies and the public service as such — so that it will be a matter for the agency, in the first instance, to prepare a superannuation scheme for its employees. Such a scheme would fix the time and conditions of retirement for those to whom the scheme applies. The other subsections deal with the working of such schemes. Subsection (4) reads:

A scheme submitted to the Minister under this section shall, if approved of by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for the Public Service, be carried out by the Agency in accordance with its terms.

Section 14 (6) prohibits the agency from granting pensions and gratuities except in accordance with the scheme submitted and approved under this subsection. Every scheme submitted and approved under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and may be annulled by resolution of either House.

Mr. O'Leary

I would like to say to the Minister that I appreciate the fact that it is a little early to ask for a definitive decision from him with regard to the type of superannuation scheme involved. However, it is also wise that the Minister should be aware that there will be at least one Member of the Oireachtas — if he is still around — who, when the scheme submitted and approved under this section is laid before the Oireachtas, if it includes the type of provisions which have become normal, the opportunity will be taken to object to that on the basis that the further extension of this very expensive scheme cannot be in the national interest. I am not trying to take anything from anybody who has it already, but it is important that these things should not be extended further. In considering any proposal from the Combat Poverty Agency the Minister should bear in mind that there is a limit to the public purse. Certain changes in the area of pensions in so far as they relate to public employees and to employees of State sponsored and similar bodies, some changes with regard to new employees and some changes with regard to new agencies, might well be in the public interest. Automatic approval of all the Members of this House should not be assumed to a scheme which is identical to the scheme at present operating in the public area.

Mr. Pattison

I have taken note of the points made by the Senator. As I said it is a matter for the agency to submit their own scheme for the approval of the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 15.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendment No. 1 is related to amendment No. 2. Nos. 3 and 4 are consequential on No. 2 so we will take Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 together.

Mr. M. Higgins

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 10, subsection (1), lines 6 to 8, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:—

"(b) elected as a member of either House of the Oireachtas of of the Assembly of the European Communities, or"

Thank you for facilitating the putting together of these. It is a most useful way of debating them. I will be as brief as possible because I think they are self evident. An important principle is at stake. In relation to the first, it is an extremely harsh provision if a member of the agency who has been nominated by the Minister had to lose his place on the board because he was nominated for election to either House of the Oireachtas or of the Assembly of the European Communities. It may have the effect of losing a person needlessly from the agency. As we all know there is a great gap between nomination and election. There is quite a gap between the expectation of election and the enjoyment of it. It is a needlessly harsh provision to want to lose somebody from the agency.

As well as that, the kind of person you are likely to get on the agency may very well be somebody who has had both a professional role and a political role or a person who has had a professional role and a community activist role and so forth. It is requiring too much that, from the moment of nomination, you would lose such a member. Looking at the equivalents of the Combat Poverty Agency in Britain and in the United States, under the Johnson administration there were many people who moved between the administration and active political life. This is a needless restraint. The amendment states where a person is "elected as a member of either House of the Oireachtas or of the Assembly of the European Communities...". In the case of nomination to the European Communities any number of people can be nominated as ancillary candidates and so on. It is needlessly wasteful of perhaps a good member's contribution. In relation to amendment No. 2, the case is even stronger here. It is that a person who spent his life, for example, in setting up and evaluating schemes of direct intervention in relation to poverty, inequality and so on wants to move into the political realm with different options, it is needlessly harsh to ask the person from the moment of nomination to pull back and it is equally wasteful of a person's perhaps very valuable contribution.

I take the point that Nos. 3 and 4 are consequential on No. 2. The point is made that the net consequences of accepting the amendment which would substitute the point of election for the point of nomination would be that it would have these consequences in relation to remuneration or allowances. Overall, the notion is that by mere nomination you are contaminated, to use an unfortunate word, and that it makes your services suspect. It is ridiculous to imagine that a person would not have some orientation. In fact, it would almost disqualify him from being a very valuable person if he were not inclined towards some options in relation to the political, social and economic worlds. It would encourage more people into the political process if you allow, up to the point of election, people to be nominated. It would be far more open.

If a person is on the agency or is working for the agency, why lose that person because he has been nominated? It makes sense if you are arguing the point that there is a conflict of roles involved between a legislative function and an administrative one. There is no legislative function until after the person has been elected. It cannot be argued that he is crossing over the ground there. I urge the Minister to think again about the question of the point of nomination and the point of election. If there is any conflict involved, it is purely from the point of election and it is needlessly restrictive and needlessly wasteful of contributions people have to make.

Mr. Fallon

I strongly support Senator Higgins. This type of problem arose on at least one other occasion and I think Deputy Barry Desmond was the Minister involved. As far as I can recall, the Minister supported this view and said he hoped to look at it in the future.

Senator Higgins has made a positive case as to why the amendments should be carried. For example, on the administrative panel of the Seanad, to which there are seven members elected, the people who are involved in this type of work are targets to be candidates for the panel in question. There is much merit in what the Senator said and I agree totally with his sentiments.

Mr. O'Leary

The Minister will be aware that there is a general view in the House that restrictions like this in quite a number of matters should be swept away. There have been many views expressed down through the years with regard to many different types of agencies, companies and State-sponsored bodies, that a nomination as a member of Seanad Éireann or a nomination as a candidate in respect of either House of the Oireachtas should not automatically disqualify from membership. I am speaking from the point of view of membership of the body and leaving aside the question of employees. I support what Senator Higgins has said.

It is ludicrous to make candidature for Seanad Éireann a disqualification for membership of an agency such as this. The parliamentary draftsman, who is including this type of condition in draft Bill after draft Bill, will have to be taught a lesson. Senator Ferris and I promised that we would teach him a lesson some time. We have not found exactly the right Bill yet but we will and we will teach him a lesson that membership of Seanad Éireann is recognised as being less political. It is less political. A Seanad election is less overtly political. There is no reason why membership of these kind of agencies could not continue during the course of that process.

Senators may be interested to know that during the course of the 1982 Seanad election I was an outgoing Senator and I acted as an agent for a series of candidates who were being put forward at that time. An issue arose regarding a particular candidate who was seeking election to this House. The difficulty arose with regard to the question of that candidate having been nominated by a nominating body and wishing also to be nominated by a panel of four Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. A dispute arose as to whether the person was nominated without her consent as a candidate by a nominating body. For the purpose of the examination by a High Court judge it was assumed that she was nominated without her consent; the judge held, as a matter of law, that a person can be nominated for Seanad Éireann without his or her consent. The consent of the candidate is not a necessary prerequisite for candidature. This is an important distinction between Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. The consent of the individual is not a necessary prerequisite to be a candidate for Seanad Éireann. It is possible in theory — I accept that it would not happen in practice — for a person who is a member of an agency such as this to be removed from membership of that agency by his or her nomination as a candidate for Seanad Éireann by a group of individuals without his or her permission. The judicial referee, who was a High Court judge, held that it was within the authority of the nominating body to nominate somebody without his or her permission. This alone must distinguish candidature for a Seanad election from the situation which appertains in Dáil Éireann.

I suggest to the Minister that between now and Report Stage he should look at the amendments that Senator Robinson suggested and which Senator Higgins proposed and that he should look in particular at how the Bill affects membership of this House and candidature for membership of it and introduce the necessary amending legislation in view of the decision of the judicial referee with regard to the question of a person being nominated as a candidate without his or her permission. That decision could have been appealed to the High Court. It was not appealed to the High Court because there is no doubt that the decision of the judicial referee was, in fact, the correct decision. The Minister should reconsider the matter particularly with regard to being nominated as a candidate for election to this House. Having dealt with that matter we can deal with the wider matter in some later legislation which comes before the House. I would recommend that the Minister would do that.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended at 5.30 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.