I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:
Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Order, 1990
a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Éireann on 1 June 1990.
Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Order, 1990: Motion.
The motion before the Seanad today seeks the approval of the Seanad to a draft order to increase the board size of the National Rehabilitation Board from an existing membership of 15 to 20. The Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1988, designated the National Rehabilitation Board as a body to which the provisions of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, would apply.
Section 23 of the 1977 Act as amended by section 21 of the 1988 Act provides that the Minister for Labour, after consultation with the Minister for Finance and the appropriate Minister in this case the Minister for Health, may by order fix the number of member directors of a designated body including the number of worker directors. The Acts require, broadly speaking, that elected representatives make up one third of the membership of each board. In the case of the National Rehabilitation Board, however, there is provision for elected representatives to make up less than one-third membership. The reason for this is that membership of the National Rehabilitation Board must be sufficiently large to allow for representation of a variety of specialist expertise and is, therefore, large in comparison with the size of the organisation. Before the enactment of the 1988 Act appointments to the National Rehabilitation Board were governed by Article 5 of the National Rehabilitation Board Establishment Order, 1967, which stated: "the board shall consist of not more than 20 members appointed by the Minister for Health."
The practice, however, within the board was to restrict the composition of the board to 15. Since 1983 onwards three worker representatives were included among the 15 board members. Following the enactment of the 1988 Act an order setting the size of the National Rehabilitation Board at 15 to include three worker representatives was made after the approval by both the Dáil and the Seanad. Following the expiration of the term of office of 12 of the 15 members of the board on 28 February 1989, the Minister for Health had the position regarding membership of the board examined to ascertain whether an increase in membership from 15 to 20 was warranted. Having considered the matter in great detail the Minister for Health came to the view that having regard to the particular functions of the National Rehabilitation Board, a board membership of 20 would be more appropriate and would bring the board size to that originally provided in a National Rehabilitation Board Establishment Order, 1967.
The Minister for Health has had consultations with the various representative bodies and the unions representing employees and their response to the proposed change has been favourable. I, therefore, ask the House to approve the draft order which proposes to increase the size of the vote of the National Rehabilitation Board from 15 members to 20 members. The new board of 20 will include four elected worker representatives.
As my party spokesman, I would like to support what the Minister has said. He outlined the reasons the membership of the board should be increased to 20. Obviously with specialised individuals being involved there is merit in that. The fact that worker participation is still only at 20 per cent would give certain cause for concern as on many other boards it is one third. We should welcome worker participation on these boards but I suppose theory is one thing and how it works in practice is another, and exactly what do we mean? For the successful functioning of boards and in relation to organisations in general, it is important that as far as possible problems are cited in advance than being reactionary. In relation to the National Rehabilitation Board particularly, how it has developed and how we hope it will develop with the introduction of new work practices and methods and various developments that are to take place, it is important that there be full participation and full consultation between all concerned. I suggest that at some future stage we should have a report back from the board which should say how effective the worker participation element has been. I would like to know if the worker participation element has been. I would like to know if the worker participation end will be at the same level as the other members of the board. Will they serve for the same length of time? Will the elections be on term basis, the same as the other? The Minister when replying might like to expand further on how he sees the board functioning. This is an inherent part of how the board has developed in relation to the Department of Health. It is important that all progress should be to the workers benefit. Coming into 1992 it is important that the workers benefit and that they have a key role to play in consultations between unions and management. There should be full consultation. The theory is grand but in practice it is another thing. Hopefully we are going to see developments. It might be interesting to have a debate at some stage in this House on how the Act has worked in practice. It sounds great for solving a lot of our problems but I wonder how it works in practice. We support this measure. We recognised the need to have specialised people on the board; I suppose 15 or 20 is not a very big number in this day and age. We would not like the board to become too cumbersome. We support the motion.
I, too, support the motion. It is very appropriate that the National Rehabilitation Board should be one of the State bodies that comes under the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act. This is an opportunity to pay tribute to the National Rehabilitation Board for the absolutely marvellous, outstanding and excellent work it does on behalf of the disabled. There are people who do not have day-to-day association or close comradeship with disabled persons. It is only those who have the experience of dealing with disabled persons who really appreciate the work of the National Rehabilitation Board.
The operations of the board fall into three principal categories. It has an advisory role, a co-ordinating role and a services role. Its main aim is to enhance the lifestyle, both physical and psychological, the well being and economic independence of disabled persons. It is important also to acknowledge that the board works in very close co-operation with a number of voluntary organisations.
Again, this is an opportunity to pay tribute to those voluntary organisations who give time and effort and a lot of their own money to providing a variety of services for the disabled. They do absolutely marvellous work. I wonder at times where exactly we would be without the help of those organisations.
The board is also Ireland's principal link with the ESF in the context of financial support for the disabled. They provide counselling and a guidance service for the disabled and, very importantly, they provide a counselling and guidance service for parents. There are two different categories of disabled persons; there are persons who are disabled from birth and persons who are disabled through some misfortunate accident or something like that. In both cases the trauma for parents is absolutely horrific.
I have close association with the National Rehabilitation Board and I can say the board does fantastic work counselling and guiding parents as to how to deal with the problem. The initial reaction of parents where a child is born disabled is of horror. Subsequently the child becomes most affectionate and becomes the most prized possession of the parents. Disabled children bring a sense of achievement and satisfaction to their parents and enrich their quality of life. The parents of a disabled child regard it, not as a cross they have to bear, but rather as a gift which tests their resilience and makes them all the better. It is in that area that the National Rehabilitation Board can do so much.
There is the trauma, on the other hand, of persons who are in full health and are disabled through some unfortunate accident. Their lifestyle is totally changed. It is an absolutely horrible experience. They have enormous difficulties trying to cope with their changed circumstances. It is in catering for that category of disablement that the National Rehabilitation Board comes into its own and does enormous work.
The general public are not closely identified with the disabled. We tend to forget. There is a great deal that we can do. It does no affect us directly and, therefore, it does not concern us. The National Rehabilitation Board tries to encourage people to recognise that there is a problem and that any difficulties put in the way of disabled persons should be removed, specifically in relation to the workplace. It is important to remember that we are talking about disability and not inablility as has been proved time and time again where a disabled person gets the opportunity to do a particular job. There is a multiplicity of suitable types of work. There are very few types of work that a disabled person is not able to do.
The general public feel somewhat uncomfortable with a disabled person, for instance, a blind person. Blind persons are quite amused at times when they come in contact with members of the general public who start shouting at them. They feel that because a person is blind he is not capable of doing anything. That is absolutely ridiculous.
The National Rehabilitation Board is trying to encourage industry to provide facilities where disabled persons can be employed. As I said, when they get the opportunity they prove in no uncertain terms that they are as efficient, and in a lot of cases even more efficient, than others who are not disabled. The board tries to ensure that disabled persons can be independent.
I would say to the general public, to organisations, communities, clubs, hotel owners and so on, that it does not cost a great deal of money for an employer to take on a disabled person. In the general public arena, facilities should be provided so that disabled persons can have access. Lack of access can mean that disabled persons cannot attend functions or events. They are entitled to have the same access as the general public. Where a new hall is being built it takes very little to include a ramp for wheelchairs in order to provide access. It is not that people do not care; it is just that they do not think.
I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the National Rehabilitation Board on the absolutely marvellous work they are doing. Long may it continue. I also welcome the fact that the board membership is being increased. I wish it well in the future.
The real lesson to be learned from this order is the absolute and abject failure of the private sector to follow suit in the area of worker directors. That really is the message that goes through this debate. This is certainly the second, maybe the third, order under this legislation over the last couple of years. It certainly is a progressive order and I welcome it. I welcome it because I have long been committed to the concept of worker directors. For many years I have seen the benefit that semi-State companies have gained from the involvement of worker directors on the boards whether in Aer Lingus, Telecom, An Post or wherever it happens to be. It has been extraordinarily successful.
It has long been an objective of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to develop the whole concept of worker directors. Certainly, modern development in industrial relations is leading to more and more involvement of the workforce in the operations of the company. Modern development in companies is to establish a partnership between workers, management and proprietors, because those people would find at least some coincidence of aims and objectives, possibly not at all times but certainly in many of their objectives. It is this coincidence of aims and objectives that comes together very clearly and very definitely in the order before us this morning.
The National Rehabilitation Board deals with a very specialised service indeed. The employees of the board will of necessity be persons with a broad range of expertise and specialisation which are and clearly will be extraordinarily important in taking decisions at board level and in deciding policy for the future of the board and indeed in making decisions arising from ordinary day-to-day problems.
The difficulties which have very often arisen in large companies arise from the fact that the workforce is not kept informed of develoments in the company. I want to deal with that in two days. These might be positive developments or negative developments. Let us take the case of a board trying to establish their service or trying to market their product, that is running into financial difficulties and needs to consider the dreaded word "rationalisation". Difficulties always arise if the first the workers here about this is a notice in the newspaper or a note with the wages slip at the end of the week indicating that the company is now insistent on having redundancies. This is where the problem is always created.
Very often management, and those directing the operations of the company keep it from the workforce, when the reality is that given the same set of circumstances anybody, whether the managing director or the ganger on the shop floor, would probably come to some conclusions on which they would agree. They might not necessarily agree on how to deal with the problem but they certainly would have to identify that there was a problem and recognise that a solution had to be sought. People might find different ways of reaching a solution to such a problem but at least there is a coincidence of minds that at some stage that the matter has to be discussed. The involvement of worker directors gives a responsibility to both workers and management to address the difficulties, the policies and the progress of the company in this particular case the National Rehabilitation Board.
It seems to me that it leads to an inbuilt continuation of consultation, because the worker director will be representing the views of the workforce of the organised unions and will be insistent that this point of view is also considered when the board sets about taking decisions. It is the proper development for industrial relations and it ensures there is a free flow of information.
On the question of information, I would refer back to many of the discussions that took place when the Bill was going through the House in 1988. During the discussions at that time this question was one of the main reasons people opposed the idea of worker directors on the basis that one could not trust the workers to retain confidentiality on sensitive matters. Attempts were made to introduce changes in the legislation in order to exclude the worker directors from certain aspects of the decision-making functions of the board. This, of course, is utter nonsense. The question of confidentiality is a matter of honour for the members of the board and one is as much likely to find leaks on the management side as on the worker director side.
In the period since worker directors were set up I would certainly believe that they have been a tremendous force for good. Certainly, speaking to the heads of many of the semi-State industries who have worker directors, they are more than pleased with the flexibility it has given them, because it allows them at board level to see what way things are going with the workers, what is likely to run as a proposal, what is likely to be resisted but, more importantly, what is likely to work. If the workers do not have an input into decisions, the likelihood is that mangement can take decisions which turn out to be incapable of being implemented.
In welcoming this order this morning, I would say it is completely in line with the policies of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It also is in line with the agreement worked out between the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and Government on the basis of seeking to extend worker directorships in semi-State companies and beyond. Once more it points to the total lack of ideas and imagination in the private sector which still retains the old view that the workers' place is on the shop floor and they should never see the inside of the boardroom. This is an opportunity which I hope the Minister will take when replying to make it clear to the private sector that they also have responsibility, not just for the broad general reason that it is positive or progressive to involve workers in the operation of the company but because it is a sensible to do and also improves industrial relations.
Just this week there was a comment in newspaper editorials about the increase in strike days in 1989. This, of course, is inevitable in a booming economy where wages are still being repressed and suppressed. This is bound to happen. I do not want to get into that particular debate now but I want to use it as an example to point out that if the workers are aware of the state of the company it imposes whatever restraints are necessary in terms of wage claims on those workers when they are deciding what is an appropriate claim to lodge. On the other side, it also shows that if the company is doing well the workers should be entitled to share in the benefits and in the expansion of the company. In those cases they should also be beneficiaries.
It brings expertise to the board, allows the specialisations of the workforce to be part of the decision-making role of the board, allows workers to have a commitment to the operation of the board. Remember, whereas other members may be able to walk away from the operation, the workforce have a commitment not just to their work, but to their families. They have personal commitment with regard to their homes, to a mortgage, their total livelihood and future is invested in the board. Taking all these points together it is quite clear that there would be no sense of irresponsibility at any time as far as the workers are concerned. It also leads us to a more acceptable kind of future in industrial relations which should develop into a partnership between the workforce, management and ownership. It also allows us to use this opportunity to point again to the private sector and ask them what are they doing about increasing the involvement of worker directors. Do they not trust the workforce? Why do they not take the lead from the semi-State bodies? Why not move forward in line with the views of the social partners and develop the concept of worker directors?
I welcome this order and look forward to further debate on this and similar matters in the future.
I welcome the Workers Participation (State Enterprises) Order, 1990. Appointments to the National Rehabilitation Board were originally governed by Article 5 of the National Rehabilitation Board Establishment Order of 1967. However, the enactment of the Worker Participation State Enterprise Act, 1988, ruled in respect of the designation of the National Rehabilitation Board as a body to which the provision of the worker participation legislation shall apply. Section 23 of the Worker Participation State Enterprise Act, 1977 provided that the Minister for Labour may after consultation with the Minister for Finance and the appropriate other Ministers — in this instance it is the Minister for Health — fix the Order.
Section 23 of the Worker Participation State Enterprise Act, 1977, as amended by section 21 of the 1988 Act, provides that Article 5 of the National Rehabilitation Establishment Order 1967 shall be construed and shall have effect in accordance with the order made under section 23 for so long as the order is in force.
Finally, section 4 of the Worker Participation State Enterprise Act states that where an order under this Act other than an order under section 3 is proposed to be made, the draft order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and therefore we have this order before us this morning.
The term of office of 12 of the 15 members of the board expired on 28 February 1989. As three of the worker representatives were outgoing members, an election had to be held among the staff of the National Rehabilitation Board to elect their replacements. The three elective representatives plus nine nominated by the Minister for Health were duly appointed to the board with effect from 6 October 1989 for a period of four years.
During the period between the expiration of the term of office of the 12 and the appointment of the new members, the Minister for Health had the position regarding membership of the board examined and decided to increase the membership. Having considered the matter in great detail, the Minister for Health took the view that he would now increase the membership to 20. I worry about increasing any board to a larger number if a board of 15 has worked well but that is just a personal opinion. Consultation took place with all the various representative bodies on the proposal to increase membership of the board from 15 to 20 and the response from these bodies was favourable. They stated that the increased membership should be matched by a percentage increase in the number of worker representatives on the board and this I certainly welcome. Senator O'Toole mentioned how successful worker participation has been on boards and I certainly would endorse that view. Senator Cosgrave asked had the NRB board with the worker participation worked and certainly the answer to that is that it has and worked well.
The bodies consulted also suggested that, given that one of the functions of the National Rehabilitation Board is to promote access to and placement in employment of disabled persons, consideration should be given to the inclusion of representatives of the social partners: the ICTU, the CII, the FIE, Department of Labour, on the extended board. A delegation from the ICTU union group of the National Rehabilitation Board have been met by officials of the Department of Health and this discussion has taken place. The delegation was informed that their views would be conveyed to the Minister who has responsibility for the choice of the ordinary members of the board. Consultation with various representatives bodies has shown that there are no objections to the proposed increased number.
I would like to make reference here to consultation and to pay tribute to the Minister for Labour Deputy Bertie Ahern. I have watched former Ministers for Labour and I have watched the present Minister and I realise that he firmly believes that talking through problems and consultation is certainly the best way to run the Department of Labour. He is an example to all of us of how successful talking through problems is and he certainly has had problems since he became Minister for Labour.
Given the need for representation of a wide range of specialised expertise in medical, paramedical and other relevant fields, the expansion of board membership will give the Minister for Health an opportunity to appoint to the board additional members with the required expertise. I certainly hope the Minister would take a close look to see if there is somebody who has been very closely associated with disabled persons.
I want to say how important his order is where I am concerned. The Minister present in the House, Deputy Daly, is most welcome here. On a local national level he has seen at first hand how important voluntary groups and statutory bodies are when dealing with the mentally handicapped and disabled persons. I would hope that if there is an opportunity somebody who has common sense and who has given good service to the disabled will be appointed. I am not looking for an appointment on this board just in case I sounded as if I were.
Would you accept, if nominated?
No, no I have plenty to do. I am fine. I understand the composition of the board at present to be: a person from the Department of Health; three members of staff and that number will be increased to four; a chief executive — I presume of the Eastern Health Board; three disabled persons — that number probably will be increased. I would like to put on the record of this House my personal acknowledgement of the excellent work of the National Rehabilitation Board and its staff. It is a clear cut example to all of us. After consultation has taken place Minister Daly with the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Health will see to it that there is proper representation on this new board. I welcome the order.
I, too, welcome the motion and fully support it. I would like to take this opportunity to pay my tribute to the National Rehabilitation Institute who are doing excellent work for the disabled, the deprived section of society. I am glad to say that I have done some work with them organising fund raising activities. It is very rewarding to work with them. Maybe at some stage the whole funding for the National Rehabilitation Board should be looked at to ensure that their work is completed as effectively as is expected of the board.
In welcoming the worker directors it is timely to look at the whole area of participation and how effective it has been since the Act was introduced in 1977 and the more up to date Act of 1988. It seemed for some time, probably because of the economic climate, that worker participation was going out of fashion. Many people, especially the private sector, often saw it as a time wasting pursuit which consumed resources they felt were best applied to other areas of activity. In looking at participation at board level we are looking at a very small area of the whole participative approach through worker involvement.
Participation is an evolving and dynamic character and if you do not have a climate of participation in an organisation you do not have real participation. Participation must include more involvement of the employees in all aspects of the work of the organisation. It requires an openness from management, a confidence by management, in the workforce and an onus on management to communicate the activities and plans of the organisation to the workforce. There are not enough participative activities in some organisations. I am speaking about participative activities like briefing groups, quality circles, employee shareholding, work councils and so on. While these are good in their own right, if there is not a culture of involvement in an organisation and a culture of participation by the workforce, these activities die and are often seen as sops to the whole concept of worker participation. If the culture of communications and involvement is not there, it can often create frustration because expectations are not met.
Worker participation and involvement of employees has become recognised internationally as a key element in competitive advantage. We cannot overstate this; the more involved the workforce, the more information they have in the areas of activities, plans and success of the organisation, the more successful the company will be. Worker participation is far advanced in countries associated with competitive excellence — like Denmark, Japan and Sweden. We should aim to emulate their approach to worker participation in the expectation that we will reach the same competitive excellence and success as organisations operating in the private and public sectors in those countries.
For proper worker participation it is important that an educative approach be taken to the workforce. Responsibility is on management to ensure this. Economic literacy by the workforce is necessary if only to understand, read and interpret a simple thing like the balance sheet, which often is quite complex to people who are not used to reading financial statements. Maybe the Minister would comment on the success of the semi-State organisations' approach to the greater involvement of the workforce at all levels and their educative approach to the workforce to allow them to fully understand the success, the difficulties and the financial returns of the organisations.
The dominant form of employee relations in Ireland, of course, is collective bargaining. This is based on the adversarial system. I know that the Acting Chairman is very aware of the intricacies of that system. In essence, all participative developments in Ireland are, in effect, filtered through the system. It would not be an exaggeration to state that both the employer and the trade union institutions would, in reality, have a veto on any particular developments because of our system. It is a moot point whether this situation actually benefits the participative process. On the one hand, the system ensures that any participative initiatives agreed by the social partners will subsequently stand an excellent chance of being introduced because of the agreement of both sides to having it introduced. On the other hand, however, this adversarial or collective bargaining system tends to place worker participation firmly within the industrial relations arena and consequent on growing tensions between the participative and adversarial models.
Management and unions are conscious of their roles within the organisation and often feel that if a development of participation develops outside that arena, it places under threat their role in the collective bargaining position. This is one of the areas that inhibits the natural progression of worker participation between management and the trade unions. It is unlikely, I believe, that we will witness any spectacular or dramatic progress on worker participation in Ireland in the very near future. On the other hand, pragmatic and gradual gains will be made in the public sector especially and also in the private sector.
Legislation has facilitated the developments in the public sector and, hopefully, it will be a headline for the private sector. What may be particularly unique is a further polarisation of activities within the public and private sectors, the public continuing to be underpinned, as I said, by legislative developments leading to structural initiatives, the private sector reflecting individual workplace activity and a strong bias towards the end result. As has been the case in most European countries it is likely that we will witness a move away from ideological and philosophical considerations towards practical action backed up by a new armory of techniques and strategies. I again welcome the motion and I am glad to have had the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Rehabilitation Institute.
I, too, welcome the motion before us this morning. However, there are one or two items with which I am concerned. First, proportion of the board, which is made up of worker directors, is 20 per cent as against 33 per cent in other semi-State organisations. The changes which are being made simply keep that ratio of 20 per cent. In other words, it will be four worker directors out of a total membership of 20 on the new board compared with three out of 15 on the old board. That is a matter of regret to me particularly when we realise how successful workers directors on the boards of semi-State companies have been.
I take the broad point the Minister made in relation to the necessity for specialists and experts on the boards of an organisation such as the Rehabilitation Institute. On the other hand, one can make the point that in many ways the workers are specialists in their own field. They have an expertise gained from years of experience dealing with day to day matters. I am certainly not satisfied that the ratio here should be 20 per cent compared with 33.3 per cent for other semi-State companies. I welcome this initiative and I support what has been said about the success of the introduction of worker directors onto the boards of semi-State companies.
There is one other point I would like to mention as the Minister is in the House and that relates to the facilities for the disabled in this House. I plead with the Minister to take a look at the facilities and, if it is possible within the constraints of his budget, to make some changes because the facilities in this House for the disabled are unacceptable in this day and age. I appreciate the problems the Minister has. I imagine he will do what he can but this is a good opportunity to take some initiatives on the facilities which are available here in this House.
I would like, first, to thank the Senators who have contributed for their very constructive and positive comments and I will endeavour to reply to the points made by the various Senators. Could I express my deep appreciation for the work which has been done by the Nationala Rehabilitation Board over the years. When you recognise that they train in the region of 4,500 people and have a small staff and a limited budget — they have about £3.5 million — you realise the amount of work they have done. Many Senators have commented from their own personal knowledge on the work of the board and their achievements. By any standard one would have to say that the board has been very successful indeed.
Senator Cosgrave mentioned the appointments on the board and whether the term of office of the worker directors will be the same as the ordinary members. The term of office of the worker directors will be for a four year period, the same as ordinary members. There was a general theme running through the whole debate. On the one hand people commented on the general operation of the worker participation legislation and, on the other hand the very valuable work which has been done by the board in this particular area. Senator Honan, whose comments are based on a very long and deep understanding and involvement in the voluntary efforts of people dealing with problems, not only the physically handicapped but the mentally handicapped as well, demonstrated very clearly her deep understanding of the problem and the need to do further work in this area.
The Minister, at the end of the term of office of the board in 1989, reviewed the operation of the board and had consultation and discussion with the various interests involved and with the people employed in the board. He came to the conclusion that it was necessary to make these changes. Senator Honan made the point that she favoured smaller boards. Many people would be of a similar view. In this instance the special circumstances of the National Rehabilitation Board, and the point I made earlier on the necessity for representation from a broad area of people with expertise and specialist interests, had to be taken into account. It was fully taken into account by the Minister for Health when the review was undertaken.
Senator O'Toole spoke at length about the general operation of the worker participation legislation and its effectiveness and commented on the fact that the same drive and the movement forward that had taken place in the semi-State area did not appear to be applicable in the private area. This is a matter for the employers and their workers in the first instance. The 1977 legislation was put in place to deal with about 35 designated companies in the semi-private area and the semipublic area.
I am satisfied that the success that has been evident from the review which was undertaken by the Minister initially in relation to the 1977 Act, which brought about the 1988 Act, and the review of the 1988 Act demonstrates very clearly the success of worker participation in State enterprises. That success must nudge people in the private area to take a similar line. All we can do here is to encourage the private area to look at the success of the worker participation in the State enterprise area, and to examine very carefully how it has succeeded. Any impartial assessment of the legislation would have to come down on the side of being successful. There are some tentative discussions taking place between the employers and the Congress of Trade Unions and that is to be encouraged. I would like to avail of this opportunity to encourage the people in the private area to look at the success of the operation which has taken place since the 1977 legislation was introduced. I was in the Department of Labour during 1979-80 and was involved in the review of the operation of the 1977 legislation. I see the desirability of this trend, in future closer management worker participation and, of course, closer Government participation, which is what we have had in the Programme for National Recovery and co-operation we have had between Governments and trade unions and employers over the past couple of years, which brought economic success which is very important and significant. I have replied to most of the points raised by Senator O'Toole.
The initial worker participation legislation was reviewed and as a result the new legislation in 1988 was brought in. That has been looked at again and has been seen to be successful. Senator Upton raised the question of facilities for disabled persons in the House of the Oireachtas generally. I am not in a position to deal with that, at the moment, but I will make some inquiries and some representations in that regard and report back to Senator Upton and others on how we can improve the situation. Certain minor changes have been made but as people know, in a building like this it is not easy to make the changes that are desirable. I will certainly look at that and communicate then with Senator Upton.
Senator McKenna spoke about the voluntary effort in this area. I know from his deep understanding of the problem that he is fully aware of the contribution the voluntary organisations have made to the care, provision of employment and opportunities for handicapped, disabled and mentally handicapped people. Everybody here will agree that no Government, no State agency, no board, can achieve what is desired on its own. Success in this area, as indeed in many other areas, depends on the amount of voluntary effort that can supplement and support the State involvement. Anyone who would not know this, recognise it and encourage it, is certainly not living in the real world.
We have to support in a positive way the work of the voluntary organisations. I would like to pay tribute to people like Senator McKenna, Senator Honan and others who have been to the forefront of the drive for more involvement in the community area and to get more voluntary effort working with State agencies. Travelling the country, we can see what has been achieved through the co-operation of voluntary efforts and State agencies.
The question was raised about the representation of the Department of Health. I have the names of the membership of the board here which I can circulate if any Member wants them. The Mid-Western and the Midland Health Boards are represented on the National Rehabilitation Board in the person of Denis Doherty, the Chief Executive Officer of the Midland Health Board. Mary Aylward Executive Officer at present of the Mid-Western Health Board. Mary Aylward represents the Department of Health. When this order goes through one more person will be elected, and four will be appointed by the Minister.
I have covered the main points raised by the Senators in the course of the discussion, which has been very useful and worthwhile. I would like to avail of this opportunity to thank Senators for their very positive and constructive contributions which we will take into account and which I will convey to the Minister for Health and the Minister for Labour.
Question put and agreed to.