Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Feb 2000

Vol. 162 No. 10

Comhairle Bill, 1999: Committee and Remaining Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

Mrs. Ridge

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following definition:

"‘appropriate gender balance' shall mean as close as possible to a minimum of 50 per cent. women;".

This amendment relates to the gender balance provision, the wording of which is quite strange, as it refers to 40% women and 40% men. Balance surely means achieving a middle ground. Given that women comprise 51% of the population, we should strive towards 50%. Disability and inequality affect both sexes. There are no statistics to prove that men are more affected than women. It is more sensible to have 50% women.

Ms Leonard

I have a problem with insisting on a 50:50 balance. While I agree with gender balance, we must be more constructive and there must be flexibility. I would prefer if we appointed people to such a board who were aware of the conditions and were geographically spread so that they would have a greater input. That is more important than the actual gender balance. It is not a good idea to insist on a 50-50 balance; there has to be some flexibility. I would not like to be appointed to a board because of my gender rather than my ability. I would agree with the 40% minimum gender balance requirement.

Mr. Costello

I support the amendment. The wording is not as clear as it might be in that it seems to suggest that it would be appropriate to have a balance of more than 50% of women. A 50% balance should be the thrust of all legislation, but 40% as a minimum is desirable. It would be better, however, if it were as close as possible to a 50-50 balance of both genders.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Miss M. Wallace)

In March 1993 the then Government set the objective of achieving gender balance in direct appointments to State boards at the level of the minimum target of 40%, as referred to by Senator Costello. The important issue is to ensure that all boards endeavour to comply with the 40% minimum. Difficulties often arise, however, with regard to those who are nominating people to boards, but at the time the 40% minimum was agreed there was much talk in the Oireachtas about the issue. The flexibility referred to by Senator Leonard was seen as important because nominations could be received from various bodies in respect of people who would be the best man or woman for the job. Not all the nominees are directly appointed by the Minister to many of the boards. Currently there are 18 members of the NSSB – the board was re-appointed by the Minister last year – ten of whom are men, which is 55%, and eight of whom are women, which is 45%. That complies with the minimum 40% gender balance requirement.

To address the point made by Senator Leonard, the issue was debated extensively in the Dáil and the Minister, in endeavouring to recognise the concerns of Deputies, modified the legislation and brought in the amendment. The Minister will now have regard to the objective of having a minimum of eight men and eight women to ensure that there will be a gender balance on the board. The legislation is strong in ensuring the participation of both men and women and, as a result, I will not accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2 agreed to.

Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 7.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 3 is in the name of Senator Costello. Amendment No. 4 is related and we will take amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together, by agreement.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(a)to consider the development of a personalised one-to-one information, advice and advocacy service for people with disabilities,”.

These two amendments are intended to improve the services being provided by the Bill, first, in the development of a personalised one-to-one advice and advocacy service for people with disabilities and, second, by providing a one stop shop for access to independent information. Both of these are needed because a one-to-one personalised service is probably the only way we can deal with the provision of information for people with disabilities, and it is desirable that the information would be available in a readily accessible fashion. The one stop shop concept is one of access to information and it is recommended in the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities.

In the integrated area plan for the development of the north-east inner city, produced under the aegis of the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the local authority, there is provision to relocate the social welfare services in Cumberland Street to what was the old convent on Sean McDermott Street, along with Eastern Health Board, corporation, ESB and gas board services. They are, in effect, providing a one stop shop in that area. That should be encouraged. Where the State is providing services in diverse buildings with diverse ranges of access and difficulties for people with disabilities, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs should take the initiative and progress the concept of one stop shops for people who are in receipt of State services, particularly in this category. I suggest that the one stop shop concept should be introduced in this legislation, as is recommended in the Report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities.

Mrs. Ridge

I support the amendment and the comments of Senator Costello. There is a motor taxation office in our council area, and a social welfare office will soon open beside the new civic offices, providing a comprehensive service accessible to people with mobility problems. There is nothing further I can add to the debate other than that it would be contradictory to the whole meaning of "comhairle" if the services offered are not accessible on a one stop shop basis. I imagine that is the whole purpose behind bringing the agencies together in the first place.

Ms Leonard

I understood this Bill was aimed at mainstreaming the services for people with disabilities. I expect that the people currently involved in the NSSB provide a one-to-one service for the people with whom they come in contact, but to include such an amendment in the Bill would be to suggest that people with a disability are different and should be treated somewhat differently. This amendment is not necessary because if we are trying to mainstream such a service, these people should be entitled to the same service as everyone else.

Miss M. Wallace

The establishment group of Comhairle recommended that the information, advice and advocacy service proposed in the Report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities should be mainstreamed as a principle, with no diminution of service. On the points raised by Senators Costello and Ridge, a one stop shop for information for people with or without disabilities is what Comhairle is all about. That one-to-one service should be available through the Comhairle offices for all people. The key issues in regard to the points made in the amendment are whether we should specialise services for people with disabilities or mainstream them. When someone visits a Comhairle office, regardless of whether he or she has a disability, the office should be accessible and the information should be available on a one-to-one basis. The key to mainstreaming, if it is to be a success, is that there should be no diminution of the existing services for people with disabilities where they are provided in specialised separate circumstances and they should be available on a one-to-one basis. People with disabilities will be treated the same as their fellow citizens in terms of access to full information at the Comhairle office.

We are concerned about the wording of the amendments and that if they were accepted, they would result in a move away from mainstreaming back to specialisation. We do not want to do that. Our objective is to ensure that if two brothers, one with a disability and one without a disability, go to the Comhairle office, they will be given their information in a mainstream way, will be given a one-to-one service and that the brother with the disability is treated the same as, not different from, the brother without the disability. It is our expectation that the Comhairle office will provide such a service.

I will not accept the amendments because they would lead to a rolling back from the mainstream approach.

Mr. Costello

I accept the Minister of State's point in relation to the first amendment. The thrust of the policy is to institute mainstreaming and to avoid differentiation. This amendment was put down to ensure people are treated according to their needs because some people will require personalised, one-to-one service.

I do not understand why the Minister of State will not consider the second amendment. The thrust of her policy is that there should be a one stop shop. We are not saying that it must be the function of the board but that the board would consider the development of a one stop shop. It seeks to bring it to the attention of the board that this is a desirable policy element and that it should, in the fullness of time, try to establish it throughout the country to ensure access to independent information. It would be a worthwhile element to include in the functions of the board.

Miss M. Wallace

I agree in principle with Senator Costello. In essence, we expect the Comhairle office to be a one stop shop for information for people with and without disabilities. Obviously, in the context of mainstreaming, there will be other information available. People with disabilities, for example, will go to the FÁS office if they are seeking information on training and employment. That is what mainstreaming is about. We want to ensure that when people with disabilities seek training and employment information they will get it in the same way as their colleague who does not have a disability and that they will get it at the FÁS office.

I agree with the principle of the one stop shop. It should provide as much information as is readily available for everybody, regardless of whether they have or do not have a disability. However, we do not want to state that information for people with a disability should be segregated in that shop because they will probably get more substantial information with regard to FÁS services, for example, at the FÁS office. It is the principle of mainstreaming that is important here.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(a)to consider the development of a one-stop-shop for access to independent information, advice and advocacy services for people with disabilities in accordance with the Report of the Commission on the Status of People with disabilities,”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(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 is similar to the other amendments in that it provides that the development of appropriate training for staff and service providers in connection with the provision of information should be included in the functions of the board. This is a complex issue. It is important that staff are appropriately and sensitively trained on the requirements for the job. Public representatives often get complaints in this regard. This should be included as one of the functions of the board and it is a matter it should continuously bear in mind.

Mrs. Ridge

I support the amendment. With staff coming from different backgrounds there will be a need for retraining if this mainstream service is to be provided. I cannot see how people who formerly worked with Rehab would have the skills of those who worked with NSSB and vice versa. The body is to deal specifically with people with disabilities and there would be a need for specific retraining if the Bill's provisions are to be implemented in a realistic way.

Ms Leonard

I have an opposing view. Anybody who is working in this sector, be it with the NRB or the NSSB, would be particularly sensitive to and focused on the people they are dealing with. The addition of this amendment will not improve an individual's sensitivity to a person with disability. I agree that people must be sensitive. Senator Costello said he received complaints about individuals and how they treat people. Regardless of how well trained or qualified an individual is, if the individual lacks basic manners no amount of training will deal with it.

Mr. Costello

It would help.

Ms Leonard

The amendment is unnecessary. Manners are necessary but, unfortunately, not everybody might have them. However, anybody who is working with the NSSB or the NRB is probably sensitive to the needs of an individual with disabilities.

Miss M. Wallace

I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Senators. It is important that appropriate training is provided for staff and I agree that people should be sensitive to the clients. There should also be training for staff in the new organisations.

It should be noted that Comhairle will be the mainstream support agency for information services for all people, including those with a disability, and this will be one of the main objectives in its strategic plan. The provision of appropriate training for the staff will be a task for the management of Comhairle. With regard to training for service providers, I refer Senators to section 7(1)(e) which refers to training and development services for the voluntary social services sector.

It is important to note that over the years the NSSB has provided a range of services to the voluntary social services sector. It operates a training and development service which delivers a general training programme to a range of organisations in the social services sector, including CICs and organisations dealing with people with disabilities. This includes courses on basic information and interpersonal skills required for the delivery of a quality information service. In 1998, over 1,500 people working in the social services area received training from the NSSB. I have no doubt the services will be developed further by the new board.

It is difficult, no matter how much training one gives, to deal with all the personalities employed in the various shops but appropriate training for the staff of Comhairle will be a management task and Comhairle will take that on board.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 7 is related to amendment No. 6. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(a)to consider the development of an accessible network of nationwide independent information, advice and advocacy services having regard to the desirability of having accessible public offices in each Dáil constituency,”.

This amendment falls into the same category as the previous three. It provides that the board will consider the development of an accessible network of nationwide independent information, advice and advocacy services having regard to the desirability of having accessible public offices in each Dáil constituency.

Access to public offices is always queried by people with disabilities. It should come within the remit of the board and there should be a constant monitoring of such access. First, the board must ensure there is an accessible network to provide independent information and, second, that all public offices are accessible. Each Dáil constituency is presented as a satisfactory unit of operation, and obviously so from a public representa tive's viewpoint. The idea is to progress access for the disabled to all public utilities and offices.

Mrs. Ridge

I am concerned that many of the smaller citizens' information centres are not accessible. I do not know if the proposal is to retain these or to upgrade them. Senator Costello spoke in his amendment about each constituency. That might not work in Cork, for example. It depends on the size of the constituency. Obviously that would not be a problem in cities. The Minister of State is well aware of the thrust of our argument in all these cases. We are pleased that this merger is taking place; it should be positive. I am anxious that we should be able to live up to what is provided in the Bill and that we have this specific reference to access. We will make fools of ourselves if we provide a service which will be accessible in premises in some parts of the country and not in others. I am anxious that we stitch in that word which means so much to people who are not as fortunate as we are with regard to our mobility. That is the thrust of the argument.

Ms Leonard

If we are to provide a mainstream service for people with disabilities, we must obviously provide the facilities. The Minister indicated on Second Stage that there would have to be an assessment of all CIC offices to discover which are accessible and which are not and to deal with them accordingly. If we are to mainstream the service, a basic requirement will be that individuals can access the facility. That is something which must be taken on board and which must in time come into vogue. We should recognise and welcome that all public buildings must from this year be wheelchair accessible. In light of the Bill, we must ensure that each office is accessible.

Miss M. Wallace

The amendment raises two issues regarding access to information, advice and advocacy. On the one hand is disability access and, on the other, nationwide access. I agree with Senators on both issues. The issue of offices being disability-friendly is uppermost in the minds of the National Social Services Board, which includes five members from the disability sector. The development of a national telephone based citizens' information service is being explored through a pilot project in Cork.

With regard to the nationwide spread of offices and the concerns of Senators about the existing position, the NSSB network consists of 35 key full-time CICs at one per county. Of these, 27 are fully operational but all are accessible. Of the remainder about which Senator Ridge was concerned, about 50% of the 50 part-time or mobile centres are accessible. It is the other 50% which need to be addressed by the board. Furthermore, the National Rehabilitation Board has 18 offices throughout the country, all of which are accessible and 11 of which are being transferred to Comhairle. Therefore, the 11 new offices Comh airle will receive from the NRB will be accessible, its 35 key offices are accessible and 50% of its part-time mobile centres are accessible. The other 50% will be addressed by Comhairle and it is a matter which is on the agenda.

The addition of the new NRB offices will enhance the network. The mobile centres allow CICs the opportunity to bring their services into their local communities, especially rural communities. It is important, as Senators have said, that accessibility is assured as we try to reach out throughout the country. Explicit and implicit in the functions of the board as outlined in the Bill is the objective that all information, advice and advocacy is accessible in every sense of the word. There are other issues for the blind and for people suffering from various other sensory difficulties. We intend services to be accessible in the broad sense. To perform these functions effectively, there must be an available network of disability-friendly offices and any strategic plan the board produces would have to include this as a key objective. I understand the board has been requested to ensure the first strategic plan will include it.

On the broader issue of accessibility to public services which is also covered by the amendment, a specific commitment has been agreed in the context of the new partnership agreement, Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, with regard to the accessibility of public services to people with disabilities. The new National Disability Authority will have an important role in monitoring this objective. Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the new Programme for Prosperity and Fairness state:

Each Government Department will ensure that reasonable steps are taken to make its services and those of agencies under its remit accessible to people with disabilities. To facilitate effective action and acceptable standards in this regard, the National Disability Authority will issue guidelines in accordance with international norms and will award an accessibility symbol to compliant public offices. Government Departments and agencies will take all reasonable action to qualify within five years. [There is a timeframe on it in the agreement.]

Adequate resources will be provided to the National Disability Authority and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to monitor, guide and audit progress towards the achievement of this commitment.

There is a strong commitment in the partnership agreement, Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, with regard to the important issue of accessibility to public offices for people with disabilities.

Mr. Costello

I take on board everything the Minister of State has said. Considering the commitment she has outlined in detail, the fact that it has been stitched into the new agreement and the importance she attaches to it, would it not seem pertinent and appropriate to include in the legislation as a function of the board the issue of the development and monitoring of the network of accessible offices?

Mrs. Ridge

The Minister of State is well aware that we are all at one on this issue. This is my third time to say this. The figures she gave for inaccessible offices are high and obviously many offices are not ready. Is the funding for Comhairle sufficient to reach the target of all offices being accessible? Will that information be contained in the reports of Comhairle? Our interest is to ensure that there is access for users.

Miss M. Wallace

Regarding the 50% of local offices which are not accessible, many are rented locally. They could be upstairs in a St. Vincent de Paul building or whatever.

Mrs. Ridge

Exactly.

Miss M. Wallace

Sometimes the issue may not be about funding but about relocation in terms of the local committees. They will all have to be assessed by Comhairle. What is important is that the strategic plan of Comhairle must address this issue within its first six months. It will have to be dealt with on an office by office basis.

Regarding Senator Costello's important point, the function is one for the National Disability Authority as distinct from Comhairle. It is important to note that someone has responsibility for it as per the partnership agreement, the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. It is a function for the National Disability Authority to monitor, guide and audit progress towards the achievement of that commitment as distinct from a function for Comhairle.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.

Section 7 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 6, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

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 purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the board manages existing services properly and that it has a broader vision in terms of policy so that it operates from a broader agenda. That would be a more desirable way for the board to operate. The mission statement should enable the board to focus on its agenda and on the services it provides.

Mrs. Ridge

I support the amendment.

Miss M. Wallace

Section 8 provides that soon after establishment the board is to prepare and submit a strategic plan for the ensuing three years. The Bill also provides that the strategic plans should be prepared in accordance with any directions issued from time to time by the Minister.

I agree with the Senators in so far as it is correct that there should be a mission statement. In order to meet the Senator's request, the board will be asked to ensure that the strategic plans, while focusing on the ensuing three year period, shall include a mission statement which will encapsulate the remit of the organisation. This will mirror the current arrangement with regard to the NSSB's three year plans which include a mission statement. There will also be a mission statement in future plans.

Mr. Costello

Is the Minister saying that section 8 encompasses a mission statement? Section 8 states that the "Board shall prepare and submit to the Minister, for approval with or without amendment by the Minister, a strategic plan for the ensuing 3 year period". I do not interpret that as a mission statement. A mission statement outlines the direction in which a body is going rather than being a strategic three year plan. The two should be kept separate.

Miss M. Wallace

I reassure the Senator that strategic plans normally include mission statements of the organisation. I have no difficulty assuring Senators that the board will be asked to ensure that a mission statement is included in the strategic plan, which is the norm. The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, gave the same commitment to Deputies in the other House. The Senator should not worry because a mission statement will be included in the strategic plan.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SECTION 8.

Mrs. Ridge

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 30, to delete "with or without amendment by the Minister".

I do not understand the need to include the phrase "with or without amendment by the Minister" in section 8(1). I do not understand what difference this will make. Perhaps the Minister might clarify that.

Mr. Costello

I support the amendment.

Miss M. Wallace

Senator Costello proposed that the strategic plan should specify only long- term objectives and Senator Ridge is proposing that the strategic plans of the board should not be submitted to, approved of or amended by the Minister and that the Minister should not have the power to amend the plans. This is a common provision in cases where a State board produces strategic plans. Recent examples of this are the Irish Sports Council Act, 1999, and the National Disability Authority Act, 1999.

This is a key aspect of ministerial powers in relation to the development of budgetary policy. If budgetary policy is to be controlled, the Minister must be in a position to influence the key objectives, outputs and related strategies in relation to the functions which he has assigned to the board.

During Committee Stage it was conceded that the Minister should have the power to approve and, by extension, not to approve the board's plans and that this allows him or her the last word by rejecting plans and returning them to the board. This seems to be a less than open way to achieve the same objective. If a Minister refuses to approve plans, a stalemate stand-off could develop with the board and presumably the board must deal with the Minister's concerns at some stage in order to move forward.

Budgetary policy must be controlled by the Minister. The tried and tested mechanism to achieve this is the provision now under debate and, for this reason, I cannot accept the Senator's amendment. It is also important that people know that the Minister's policy is in line with Comhairle's strategic plan for the next three years. There is no point in having a plan sitting on a shelf. It is important that the Minister puts his stamp on the strategic plan in terms of powers, budgetary policy and co-ordinating information if we want to make a difference, particularly for people with disabilities.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 8 agreed to.

Sections 9 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 12, before section 18, to insert the following new section:

18.–Paragraph 1(2) of the First Schedule to the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, is hereby amended by the addition of ‘Comhairle,'.".

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, applies to the new board from the outset. While it is possible for the Minister to apply the regulation subsequently, this would have to be done with the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It would seem appropriate, therefore, to include it in the legislation.

Ms Leonard

I understood the service provided by the NSSB would be coming on stream within the next year. That would make it unnecessary, therefore, to amend the Bill.

Miss M. Wallace

I accept Senator Costello's point and I agree this is a sensible proposal. I am pleased to assure Senators that Comhairle will come within the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, in the near future.

As the amendment suggests, the NSSB does not currently come within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. However, the Government decided recently to extend the list of bodies to which the Act applies and the NSSB is among the bodies to be added to the list. The Minister for Finance will make regulations later this year setting out the commencement dates for the various bodies. At that stage, Comhairle, rather than the NSSB, will be included in the regulations.

Mr. Costello

All legislation should be included within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997. I do not understand why a ministerial regulation must be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It does not matter to what group of bodies the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, refers. They should be included from the outset.

Miss M. Wallace

The Freedom of Information Act, 1997, is sponsored by the Minister for Finance so he will add the various bodies to the list.

Mr. Costello

We should not wait for the Minister for Finance. He has enough problems.

Miss M. Wallace

If the NSSB were still in existence, the Minister would introduce an order to add it to the Freedom of Information Act, 1997. He will do that for other bodies at various stages. He will also do that for the Comhairle. Not all bodies will have new legislation attached to them. In future the Minister will regularly make regulations with the new list brought in under the Freedom of Information Act which is sponsored by the Department of Finance. That Department will produce the ministerial regulation. All Senators want to ensure that the Freedom of Information Act will apply to the new Comhairle, as it will.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 12, before section 18, to insert the following new section:

18.–The First Schedule to the Ombudsman Act, 1980, is hereby amended by the addition of ‘Comhairle'.".

My amendment seeks to ensure that the Ombudsman Act will apply to Comhairle from the first day and that any complaints made could be dealt with by the Ombudsman. As regards the Ombudsman in this area, legislation was prom ised over the years but it has not been delivered. We should insert here that ab initio the Ombudsman Act will apply to anyone tendering a complaint.

Mrs. Ridge

I support the amendment.

Miss M. Wallace

This amendment proposes that Comhairle should come within the remit of the Office of the Ombudsman. I agree that it would be a good thing. In January 1999 the Minister of State at the Department of Finance announced that the Government had accepted proposals to extend the areas which may be investigated by the Ombudsman. Under the new proposals the powers of the Ombudsman will cover a number of significant new areas including non-commercial State bodies. These proposals will bring the new Comhairle organisation within the remit of the Ombudsman. They are currently with the parliamentary draftsman and he will draft the necessary amendments to the Ombudsman Act, 1980.

Mr. Costello

I am not sure whether the Minister of State said the Government accepted proposals in January this year or last year.

Miss M. Wallace

Last year.

Mr. Costello

It accepted the proposals a long time ago yet nothing has been done about it. The Minister of State said they are with the draftsman. Perhaps she could give us some idea when the draftsman will send them to the Houses. This promised legislation has been in the pipeline for the past five years yet there is still no sign of it. Perhaps she would satisfy me by indicating when we will see the legislation.

Miss M. Wallace

I can find out the time it will take for the parliamentary draftsman to deal with the amendments to the Ombudsman Act, 1980, and let the Senator know the position. My Department is not the sponsor. The Department of Finance is in touch with the parliamentary draftsman's office on a regular basis with regard to the drafting of these amendments. I will find out from the sponsoring Department what the position is and inform the Senator.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 18 agreed to.

Sections 19 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Ms Leonard

I thank the Minister of State for taking Committee Stage of this Bill. She has played a huge part in improving the lives of people with disabilities, a fact widely recognised throughout the country.

Mrs. Ridge

I also wish to thank the Minister of State. On many occasions we have been of a similar mind and some of the Opposition's amendments would make better sense than what is in the Bill but that is democracy. She is the Minister and I am a Senator. However, I appreciate her input.

Mr. Costello

I wish to be associated with the remarks made about the Minister of State and her staff. I know from previous experience that she has a tremendous interest in the whole area of disabilities and I have never doubted her commitment to it. I thank her for replying to our amendments and questions in such a courteous and informative manner.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Miss M. Wallace)

The passing of the Comhairle Bill is an important day for me because it underlines the mainstreaming of services for people with disabilities and access of information. Over the years one of the big issues for parents of a new born child with a disability or an adult who has acquired a disability is access to information, a matter which Senators debated today. The passing of this Bill is a great achievement for the Oireachtas. I thank Senators for their involvement and endeavours to improve this Bill and the lives of people with disabilities.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 11.50 a.m. and resumed at 1.30 p.m.