During the debate on section 4 Senator O'Toole suggested the insertion of the word "educational". There are good reasons for this and I have no difficulty in inserting it. Indeed, it would be anomalous to omit such an important area of Irish society from the Bill given the relevance of mapping and geographic information to the education system. That meets the requirement sought.
Ordnance Survey Ireland Bill, 2001: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 5,subsection (2)(c) line 38, after “legislative,” to insert “educational,”.
I thank the Minister of State for responding to the issue on Second Stage by bringing forward this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 5 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, subsection (1), lines 11 and 12, to delete "at all reasonable times" and substitute "after 7 days notice in writing".
The amendment relates to the entry on land by a member of the staff of OSI at all reasonable times. I want to put it in definite terms that notice be given to landowners before a member of Ordnance Survey Ireland enter their lands. I ask that seven days notice in writing be given to farmers or landowners.
I support Senator Doyle's amendment. It is right and proper that landowners be notified before staff members enter their property. A number of Bills have gone through the House in relation to occupiers' liability and so on. It is only right that Ordnance Survey Ireland, which is a national body, would notify the landowners or the property owners.
The proposed amendment would place an additional administrative burden on OSI which would add to its cost and reduce the operational flexibility of its field staff. What is proposed in the Bill is essentially a continuation of arrangements which have been in place since 1854 and which have proved to be workable and acceptable to landowners. At present OSI staff enter private lands only where absolutely necessary and conduct their work as unobtrusively as possible. There will be no change in this approach following the enactment of this legislation. Obviously there will be communication between the OSI and anybody affected. No concern in this regard has been raised with me when drafting the Bill and bringing it forward. The position that pertains at present is well tried and trusted. I see no need to tie it down in the way suggested by the Deputy. What is done in practice more than meets what Senators are asking me to do. The amendment is not necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 9, subsection (2), line 2, after "Minister" to insert "provided that at least one member so appointed shall be nominated for the purpose by election of the employees of OSI".
This amendment is designed to meet the main issue raised by unions representing workers in Ordnance Survey Ireland. The issue raised on Second Stage was the absence from the legislation of a provision providing for the appointment of a worker director to the board of the new Ordnance Survey. This is a major deficiency which the amendment is designed to remedy. There are similar amendments from other Members. It is a major issue.
I note from correspondence from the IMPACT trade union and other contacts with individual workers in the Ordnance Survey that while the Minister for Finance originally promised full consultation on this matter, it was not undertaken. Concern has been expressed with regard to the speed with which the legislation has been brought forward, although its principle is not contested.
I urge the Minister to take this important principle on board. The practice of having a worker director on the board of State companies is a long established and successful one. In an era of participation, partnership at workplace level and consultation between unions and employers, the appointment of a worker director should have been an automatic inclusion in legislation such as this. It is disappointing to see it omitted and I wonder to what extent it marks a new departure by the Government in terms of policy on this important matter.
I hope the Minister will give a positive response on this issue. It is, probably, one of the most critical issues in the Bill.
While I have received no representations in relation to this matter, I have no difficulty agreeing with the principle of the amendment.
While there is no specific provision in the Bill for the appointment of worker directors, this does not reflect a rejection of the concept of worker directors in so far as the Bill is concerned. When it was being drafted it was considered that the hands of Ministers for Finance should not be tied with regard to the composition of the board and that he or she should have the freedom to make appointments to it, in accordance with Government policy of the day on such matters, and include one or more worker directors or representatives if he or she sees fit. That is the current practice.
The OSI has partnership structures in place which include management, staff and trade union representatives. These will continue to be developed and should ensure staff interests and concerns are discussed and brought to the attention of the board. It would not be appropriate, therefore, to accept the amendment. It is open to the Minister to make such appointments, as is the case in many other board appointments.
It is also open to the Minister not to do so. It is at the discretion of the Minister as he or she "sees fit", to use the Minister of State's phrase. This is not a satisfactory situation. A future Minister could take the view that he or she will not appoint workers' representatives to the board. The structure contained in the Bill is too loose. Discretion remains entirely in the hands of the Minister of the day. This is unsatisfactory.
I welcome the Minister of State's comments with regard to Government policy. Given that the tradition of worker directors is well established, it should be enshrined in legislation. It is at the discretion of the Minister because, according to the Minister of State, the Minister's hands would otherwise be tied. That suggests that the Government sees such a provision as an unnecessary stricture. It is possible, therefore, that the appointment might not be made. It is not sufficient, simply, to have partnership structures within an organisation, although they are welcome and where they are in operation they do excellent work. However, the Minister is not going far enough with partnership structures within the organisation. They are non-statutory. The issue must be dealt with through legislation. Otherwise, too much discretion will be left to the Minister.
I invariably agree with Senator O'Meara; a great deal of what she says makes sense. On this occasion, however, the Minister of State's case makes more sense. It is good management practice to find a way to involve everybody in ensuring an organisation succeeds. I am not sure that it would be wise to tie down an organisation by insisting that it have certain people on the board. On occasion the best people for the job might not, necessarily, come from the workforce. If the objective of the organisation is correct, its mission statement is moving in the right direction, but if the best people for the job are elsewhere, I would prefer not to tie the hands of the organisation by insisting that it have a certain number of representatives on the board. On the other hand, if the organisation is to succeed, it would be unwise to ignore the huge fund of information and commitment that can be secured by involving those who work in the organisation.
I support the Minister of State on this occasion with regard to providing in legislation that there must always be a certain number of worker directors. There could well be a greater number of worker directors in an organisation such as the Ordnance Survey since it is likely that people from within the organisation will play a better role than those from outside it. However, I would prefer not to tie the organisation's hands.
There is much wisdom in what both Senators said. I do not disagree with the principle they outlined. I addressed the issue on Second Stage. I do not wish to prescribe one organisation because we will then be obliged to prescribe other organisations and build all of them into the legislation. That is not the way forward.
The way forward in an organisation is to have a well structured and ordered working relationship. I am not suggesting that worker directors would not be included in this instance, but there should be flexibility in the configuration of the board, regardless of whom the Minister of the day might be, for many obvious reasons. It is not necessary to enshrine the amendment in the legislation. The approach adopted with this and much other legislation is the correct one.
I wish to bring some issues to the Minister of State's attention in case he is not aware of them. They were brought to my attention by the trade union representing the workers. There has been a certain degree of trauma within the OSI on the industrial relations front in recent times resulting in a deterioration of previously good industrial relations within the organisation. It centred on the suspension of staff. I am informed that the suspended staff enjoyed widespread support from colleagues who collected substantial sums to support them throughout the suspension.
I do not wish to go into the details of the case, but the provision of a directly elected workers' director is seen by the staff as important in rebuilding good industrial relations within the OSI, particularly in developing a proper partnership relationship in the new body. I hope the Government will listen carefully to that argument. The representatives of the workers are saying that they see the appointment of a worker director as an important goodwill gesture, particularly given the recent background of bad industrial relations.
The Government puts great store by partnership, consultation and so forth. There have been calls for partnership in recent industrial disputes, something on which the Government should act at every available opportunity. This issue is, probably, more important than just a general principle because of the recent history in this organisation. The trade union states that when the issue was first brought forward in the deliberations with the employers no indications were given that it would be problematic. The conclusion that workers will inevitably come to, therefore, is that it is problematic. While a request was made, no indication was given that there was a problem, which was not acted upon. That is not the way to build good relations.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
The inclusion in this Bill of provisions for worker participation on the board of Ordnance Survey Ireland is important when one considers the relationships within the organisation and their background. In that context I urge the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, to take on board the points I have made. I ask him to look more positively on my amendment as the organisation needs it.
Are we dealing with amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together?
We are dealing with amendment No. 3 only, as amendment No. 4 is out of order.
That is terrible. I cannot imagine how it can be out of order.
Acting Chairman
It is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the State.
I received a polite note from the Cathaoirleach this morning to advise me of that. I support Senator O'Meara's amendment as it fulfils the same requirement as the amendment I put forward. We need to take a broader look at this issue. At the lowest point in our recent economic history, 13 or 14 years ago, which was the high point of the recession, those in charge of various areas realised that a new synergy could be released and a new energy created by asking workers to bring their brains to work. Companies realised that those working in their industry, or their representatives, might have something valuable to contribute to move forward their products, markets or services. That idea evolved into the concept of social partnership which was born in the late 1980s.
There were many different manifestations of this, including industrial relations legislation in the early 1990s which allowed for worker-directors in certain semi-State companies. Some years later, this was further developed by the Government of the time which proposed to allow sub-board representation for workers in various industries. That development was significantly driven by an acknowledgement of the importance of involving workers in a company's decision-making process at sub-board and board level. I recall the then Minister for Labour and current Taoiseach outlining in this House his commitment to the idea of worker directors and worker representation at board level.
The role of the board of Ordnance Survey Ireland is not broad, as the organisation must be run in a clear, focused and directed way. Its objectives are precise and will be fulfilled with the skill, expertise, talent and professionalism of people on the ground. It is crucially important that we ensure these qualities are recognised and valued by amending this Bill to allow worker representation at board level. That is what I was trying to achieve in a slightly different way in my amendment which was ruled out of order. In supporting Senator O'Meara's amendment, we will send a message to public service workers, including those in OSI, saying that they are held in high regard by the Government.
This measure costs us nothing and adds to the cohesion of the board. It gives the organisation a greater sense of direction and ensures that workers have a voice at board level. It is in line with Government policy and the partnership model and is commercially important. Those who are closest to an organisation are often those who can see the value of their own work. By putting them on the board, with those who are far from the work, the cohesion which is necessary to provide the comprehensive overview required will be achieved. For that reason and related reasons, I strongly support Senator O'Meara's amendment.
I dealt with this amendment at some length in the House this morning when I stated that I am not without sympathy or understanding for the position outlined by Senator O'Toole. This Government has been extraordinarily committed to the principles that have been enunciated in the House, a commitment which has been demonstrated over and over again. The Government agrees with the argument put forward by various Senators this morning and by Senators O'Toole and O'Meara this afternoon. I am not prepared to prescribe these issues in legislation in this or any other Bill. Notwithstanding the arguments that have been made, flexibility is built into this Bill and it will be open to the Minister of the day to make a decision based on the issues of the time.
It is important to state that I am not indicating that the Minister for Finance will not appoint a worker-director. He has met representatives of Ordnance Survey Ireland and fully understands their issues. As a result, and because of the way the Bill is drafted, I am not prepared to accept the amendment. I understand the arguments being made and we should wait until the board is appointed to see if the requirements of Senators have been met.
I accept what the Minister of State says and that he says it in good faith. As I stated earlier, it is important that this provision is enshrined in legislation. While the current Administration has quite clearly indicated its support for the representation of workers on the board, a future Administration may not share that view.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Coghlan, Paul.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Doyle, Joe.Hayes, Tom.Henry, Mary. |
Keogh, Helen.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Meara, Kathleen.O'Toole, Joe.Ross, Shane.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. |
Níl
|
Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cox, Margaret.Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Fitzgerald, Tom.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Gibbons, Jim. |
Glennon, Jim.Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Leonard, Ann.Moylan, Pat.O'Donovan, Denis.Ó Fearghail, Seán.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Quinn, Feargal.Walsh, Jim. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators O'Meara and O'Toole; Níl, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons.
Amendment declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 4 has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.
Did the Acting Chairman say that our amendment was out of order?
Acting Chairman
It is out of order.
I find that extraordinary. Is there a reason for that?
Acting Chairman
Acceptance of it would involve a potential charge on the Exchequer as the amendment proposes to increase the number of members on the board.
Given that we are setting up a non-State body, it is difficult to understand how that could pose a charge on the Exchequer, but I accept the Chair's ruling.
Acting Chairman
This ruling is in accordance with numerous previous ones.
I do not believe it is.
Acting Chairman
As the amendment is also in my name, the Senator can understand my distress that it has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 9, subsection (3), line 4, after "members" to insert "of whom at least 40 per cent. shall be women and at least 40 per cent shall be men".
This amendment seeks to ensure there is a gender balance in the appointment of the new board. The practical implementation of gender balance on State boards was only ever properly implemented during Mervyn Taylor's tenure as Minister for Equality and Law Reform. It has been a source of great disappointment not only to the female Members of the Oireachtas but to many women that the principle of gender balance on State boards has not been upheld by the current Administration. I tabled this amendment in an attempt to ensure that would happen in the future. The amendment seeks to require that at least 40% of the members of the board will be female.
I am disappointed a gender balance is not being upheld on the board. In view of that, I support Senator O'Meara's amendment.
I will not say anything as I am sulking because my amendment was ruled out of order.
I was trying to resolve a matter for the Senators and my attention slipped in another direction.
We are talking about gender balance on the board.
We discussed this issue on Second Stage. It is my strong view that the 40% target should be reached. It would be in everybody's interest if it was achieved. It is not always possible to achieve it, but there are strong guidelines on gender balance on State boards providing that 40% of members of boards should be women.
It may be of interest to note that the interim board of the OSI, set up by the previous Government, includes two women out of a total membership of seven, which is a female representation on the board of 29%. I am not saying that as a criticism. That was a positive step forward in that regard. While it is desirable that women should be adequately represented on all State boards, it is not appropriate that a percentage representation of men and women should be fixed in this Bill. I do not consider that would contribute anything to it. A future Government may want to appoint more or fewer women to the board. The issue of gender balancing is a genuine one. It is something to which we all aspire. I take the view that one does not have to go over the top. There are good people, men and women, who are suitable for certain appointments and that is the basis on which it should be done. I cannot accept the amendment in the context of the Bill.
We constantly hear expressions of a "sincerely held view" or "genuine belief" that there should be a gender balance on boards. In practice, however, it does not happen because the women cannot be found. I would love to know where they are, considering the balance in the population. Unless it is actually tied into the legislation, it will still not happen. Clearly, the Minister of State will not support this amendment. I fully accept that he believes there should be a gender balance, but the proviso "where possible" will always be there. We know from experience that unless it is put into legislation, nothing will change. Aspiration is one thing, reality is another.
I understand the absolute honesty of what the Senator has said and I do not disagree with it. However, putting something in legislation does not necessarily deliver the best results. There are occasions – I speak from experience – where the quality of the people available cannot deliver on the aspiration. That does not necessarily undermine the intent of all Governments, political parties and Independent Members of the House on this issue. We achieve our aspiration on many occasions, but it does not achieve anything to force the issue, nor is it in anybody's interest to do so, in situations where it will not be delivered anyhow.
I have heard so many times the same statement as the Minister of State has just made. Unless there is a legislative basis and specific arrangements, such as quotas in relation to candidates for election, for example, nothing will change. Aspirations alone are not enough to achieve results. Only legislation can make it happen.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 11 agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 12,subsection (13)(d), line 11, to delete “section (2)” and insert “section 11(2)”.
This is a correction of a reference to the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993. It is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 12, subsection (1), line 28, after "designated" to insert "with his or her consent".
The amendment seeks to insert the words "with his or her consent" into the section to allow staff to opt out of a transfer. It is an important principle in relation to what this Bill is intended to achieve. I hope the Minister of State will agree that staff should have a choice in such an important matter and that he will accept the amendment.
I hope that, on this occasion, the Senator will agree with me. Discussions on the change of status of OSI and the implications for the staff have been taking place in the partnership framework against the background of the guarantees in the Bill. The terms and conditions of employment of staff will be no less favourable in the new body than at present. The staff of OSI have welcomed the proposed changes in OSI status. Any issues affecting staff due to such changes are best dealt with through direct negotiation with the staff representatives rather than through legislation. I believe that is something to which the Senator will subscribe. Putting such matters into legislation would negate the role of legitimate negotiations and good faith on both sides. Notwithstanding the Senator's good intent, the amendment would be unwise.
I do not accept that the effect of my amendment would be to prescribe a particular situation or tie the hands of the staff or the board in that regard, rather it would retain the element of choice. However, it is important that the Minister of State has put his views on the matter on record and, accordingly, I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 12, subsection (1), line 30, after "OSI" to insert ", provided that thereafter a person so transferred shall continue to be eligible for transfer or promotion to another agency or Department of State in like manner as a civil servant in the service of the Government".
This amendment provides for retention of staff rights to transfer or promotion within the Civil Service.
These matters are not appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. They are best dealt with by direct negotiation between OSI management and the various staff representatives concerned. Such negotiations are already well under way. While I do not wish to prejudice the outcome, I think it is fair to say that the negotiation of transitional arrangements, whereby transferred staff remain eligible to compete in Civil Service promotion competitions for a period after establishment day, is a fairly normal occurrence in similar situations. I expect such an arrangement to be agreed in the OSI context. Accordingly, I do not accept the amendment.
Does the Minister of State accept that this right does not exist ad infinitum, but only during a transitional period?
Yes, but in the context of the present negotiations, staff have welcomed the change. I believe they rightly see the future of the OSI in a strong and expanding role. There is a wider argument, which I will not open up now. We are trying, collectively, to give people in the public sector and the Civil Service much greater career opportunities. Developments such as that in OSI create that kind of opportunity and it is important that the negotiations are well handled by the staff representatives. I do not recall any recent similar case in which there has been a residual difficulty and I believe that all such negotiations have been very successful.
I accept what the Minister of State has said and I have no evidence to the contrary. He may be totally correct in his reference to satisfactory progress of negotiations. However, I repeat my point that the right of transfer to the Civil Service is only provided for a limited transition period.
I am trying to reassure the Senator but of course we cannot get involved in this House in negotiations on behalf of others or prejudicing what people may or may not say. A transition period could conceivably mean a few years, until matters have blended in. However, in all our lives we reach certain stages and move on to new opportunities. People should be committed to their new situation rather than looking back. There is enough scope in the negotiation process to cater for the point which the Senator has made. I expect that the staff will negotiate on the basis of a few years rather than months.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
Sections 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 14, subsection (1)(b), line 42, to delete "nominated to stand as a candidate for election" and substitute "elected".
This has been a standard insertion in Bills setting up State bodies. It is time for the phraseology to be changed. The note in the Bill in relation to section 19 refers to membership of the Houses of the Oireachtas or the European Parliament and I accept that. I have no difficulty with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) referring to a person nominated as a member of the Seanad – one of the Taoiseach's 11 – a person elected to fill a vacancy in the European Parliament, or a person is elected to a local authority. I have difficulty with the pro vision that if one is nominated to stand as a candidate for either House, one ceases on nomination to be a member of the board. That is unfair and unjust. There is also discrimination in that compared with the next section which deals with employees of the board. They are dealt with in a totally different way. I ask that the word "nominated" be replaced by "elected". If a person is elected to the Dáil or Seanad then they would cease to be a member of the board.
I am delighted Senator Doyle has raised this issue. I have raised it many times, including on a Bill here three weeks ago. I believe that what is provided is unconstitutional. It is only right if there is some form of conflict of interest but there is no such conflict. I support the amendment but I have even stronger views than those put forward by Senator Doyle.
I am an Independent and since I was elected to this House I have never made distinctions as I do not believe that Independents are any way purer than members of parties. Every party has difficulty recruiting people to stand for election at any level. I recognise that even in recent times members of the Government and I as a trade union general secretary have supported arrangements whereby people can be seconded. That issue is covered in section 19(2).
However, staying with the amendment, I do not believe there is any conflict in a person being nominated to stand for election. That person should not be deprived of the right to remain as a member of the board. That is unacceptable and I do not believe it is constitutional. It is an impingement of constitutional rights which make it very clear who is entitled to stand for election. I know that being a member of the board does not prevent anyone from standing for election but there is certainly an infringement of the liberty to do so if a person has to choose between remaining a member of the board and going forward for election. It is hard enough to get people to stand for election but if they have to pull down the shutters on important aspects of their lives, paid or unpaid, it becomes even more difficult. It is a constitutional issue and I do not see any conflict in a person standing for election and being a member of the board. If a person works for RTE and stands for election—
I was not working for RTE when I stood for election.
Sorry, I did not intend that but as it happens it is a case in point. If a person employed by RTE stands for election they work until the day of their nomination. They are not sacked then but are not allowed broadcast during that period. The same applied to Members of this House and it is understandable. There are other examples. This proposal is wrong.
Another factor is the participative aspect of our democracy. We should not do anything in our legislation that makes it more difficult for people to become involved in public life. I am still unhappy with the section but I do accept Senator Doyle's proposals and I ask the Minister to accept this amendment. Acceptance of this amendment would take the dirty look off the section and I appeal to the Minister, in the interest of public life and democracy, to accept it.
Members of both Houses should question every occasion where people gratuitously – I do not mean that as a reflection on the integrity of the draft persons of the Bills – decide to impinge, restrict or constrain the rights of Members of the Oireachtas. I have made this case on every occasion it has arisen over the last 13 or 14 years but with little success. On the odd occasion we have succeeded in getting change. People should not be restricted from greater participation because of their decision to get involved in public representation.
I support all Senator O'Toole has said. There is potentially an element of the word processor working here in that some elements seem to be lifted from one piece of legislation to the next. We must resist that kind of activity. There are a number of professions or careers where people should be limited in relation to when they can run for election. One of these would relate to national broadcasting stations because an obvious conflict does arise. A conflict would also arise in the Civil Service but I cannot see where the conflict might arise in relation to the Ordnance Survey of Ireland. How could being on the board of the Ordnance Survey be in conflict with running for election? I ask the Minister to consider all the points made by Senator O'Toole and to take a broad view of what we propose here.
I would have great difficulty in not accepting the logic of what other speakers have said and particularly what Senator O'Meara said in relation to the word processor. I also see where this proposal comes from and I understand that it may be difficult for the Minister to agree with the amendment today without full investigation. Many people nominated to stand for election never make it and are never heard of again, particularly capable people who are headhunted for Oireachtas elections. I remember a number of people who had no great activity in politics previously who were headhunted, defeated and never heard of politically again. I accept that they should step aside for the period of the election campaign. I understand that if they have an interest in politics possibly that is how they will be from then on, but many people disappear from the scene and they have no further political involvement. They have not come from the grassroots political scene and they have never been involved in parish pump politics. I feel they should be asked to step aside for the period of the election.
They must step aside if nominated for the Oireachtas or the European Parliament. They must do so if elected to a local authority, but not if they are nominated to one. Most people selected to stand for local authorities are active, and will continue to be so, whereas people standing for the Oireachtas or the European Parliament often fall by the wayside. We are trying to attract good people into politics but this could turn them off. Many State boards are composed of people nominated by the Minister of the day who are active in politics even while on the board.
Now we are hearing it.
I support the amendment although it is up to the Minister. We will hear what he has to say.
I will support the Minister's decision. Senator Doyle made a valid case. I felt gutted – that is the only word I can use – when for almost the first time in the State's history I became a victim of this policy. I was a member of the board of the BIM from 1979 to 1982. In 1981, I was elected to the Seanad while another board member, G. V. Wright, was nominated and we were both disqualified. What is here is different. It is now accepted that elected Members should not be on boards like this. I know people who were nominated to stand in the past 12 months and that includes people on both sides of the House. As Senator Bonner stated, some people nominated will never be heard of again.
I support the amendment but will accept what the Minister says. There will be reasons for his answer and the parliamentary counsel must be taken into account also.
Come off it.
I support Senator Doyle's view but it is up to the Minister.
Being in the Seanad is always interesting. The quality of the arguments is good. They are fair and reasoned right across the House.
They are also accurate.
Yes. I listened carefully to what the Senators said. As I thought about it, I saw anomalies in the way this matter could evolve. As an aside, on a point of principle, I personally dislike the whole section. I do not agree with the notion that a person in public life is a lesser being, less honest, caring, or committed than people from other walks of life. It is a professional career like any other. I say that for what it means. The difficulty is that in present times of accountability and transparency public perception forces things on us. As Senator Fitzgerald and others said, this is accepted.
I have decided not to read the note on this section. Bearing in mind what the Senators said, I will change it, although I might have to answer to others for doing so. I ask the House to bear with me on the wording, but my word is good here. I am a person to make decisions. I agree that exclusion for nomination to stand is unacceptable. I feel strongly about that. While I cannot word it here because of the technical aspects, the Seanad—
Acting Chairman
The Minister could do so on Report Stage.
I have other things to consider. I may not have time to do it this evening. I am giving an absolute guarantee that this will be changed because of the Senators' comments. If I cannot do it here, I will do so in the other House. I was convinced by the arguments put today. I give my word on that on the basis of Senator Doyle's amendment and what others said that it is wrong. I am uncertain about the constitutional issue – I am not a legal person – but I suspect that Senator O'Toole may be right about that. However, I am not doing it for a legal reason but because I believe it is wrong. I do not mean to criticise my officials, but as the debate evolved I felt that I should make this decision.
I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to amend the section. To take him at his word, the next time it comes up, we will delete the section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."
I am delighted with the Minister's decision and his extended comments on the issue. We need to address this matter. I raised often in recent years the right of public representatives to be members of boards while involved in other areas. The difficulty in making the case is that one always has to make clear that one has no interest in being a member of a board. I am concerned about the signals we are sending.
The problem is, as the Minister said, the issue of openness, accountability and jobs for the boys or girls. There must be a way of dealing with it. There should not be a restriction as is in the Bill, but, instead, if any member of the board is a current Member of either House of the Oireachtas or whatever else, their approval should be required by a particular committee. That need not be a committee of the House but a body above reproach or reproval. It would give its seal of approval for someone's appointment.
The Constitution's wording on requirement for election to the Seanad is for the person to have knowledge and experience of an area. To get on the agricultural or fisheries panel, for example, a person must show knowledge and experience of that area.
It should also be noted that a person can be nominated by a body without his or her know ledge. A member of OSI's board could be nominated for the Seanad by a well-meaning supporter without his or her knowledge and suddenly be taken off the board.
Before anyone stands for a Seanad Éireann panel, he or she must have relevant knowledge and experience. A requirement similar to that could be included in this Bill. A person could be appointed while being a Member of the Oireachtas but would need the endorsement of a committee of the House or another body. It would be a step away from the perception of a person being appointed because of political affiliation.
I wear many hats and hope I do my job well. We could have a far more productive country if more people did more jobs.
I will quote the Senator on that some day.
The Minister of State may do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 20 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 18, before section 23, to insert the following new section:
23.–The Freedom of Information Act, 1997 shall apply to OSI.".
This amendment seeks to insert a new section in order that the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, would apply to the OSI. I should explain my background, rather than declare an interest, in that I worked as a special adviser to the former Minister of State, Eithne Fitzgerald, when the legislation was drawn up. I am a major supporter of the Freedom of Information Act and its operation in terms of the effect it has on the organisations to which it applies. Am I correct in thinking that the Minister of State has responsibility for freedom of information?
Correct.
I do not, therefore, have to overdo the argument. I am asking that the Act be applied to the OSI.
I thought there was a Schedule to the Freedom of Information Act which determined the bodies which come under it.
It is constantly being updated.
I do not have the Senator's great sense of overpowering enthusiasm for the Freedom of Information Act. I am in favour of transparency and openness, but they can go too far. I note the issue of confidential information arises, in which I strongly believe. I spent my lunch hour trying to deal with a problem arising from the Act which can cause difficulties. I am not 100% sure that I like the amendment as the Act outlines the method by which it can be extended. In the past six months one of the sub-committees of the House has examined how it applies in certain areas and taken advice from the Departments and agencies required to conform with it. I want to be assured that the amendment is necessary. Such a provision should not be included in this way, rather the Act should be extended at the end of each year or two year period when each Department must produce a full report which is then considered by a committee of the House which makes a report available to both Houses of the Oireachtas. That process was completed in recent months. I prefer it to the piecemeal approach.
I am responsible for the Freedom of Information Act, 1997. Senator O'Meara raised an important point. The Ordnance Survey is listed as a public body for the purposes of the Act. Section 32(2) of the Bill provides that all references to the Ordnance Survey shall be construed as references to the OSI. A specific reference to the Freedom of Information Act is not necessary as it will automatically apply to the OSI. There is, therefore, no need for the amendment. I will table an amendment on Report Stage to deal with the matter.
I thank the Minister of State for his clarification, on the basis of which I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 23.
Amendment No. 12 is an alternative to amendment No. 11. They may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 18,subsection (1), line 3, to delete “A person” and substitute “Save as otherwise provided by law, a person”.
This is a very simple and straightforward amendment. I accept the thrust of the amendment in the names of Senators O'Meara, Costello and Ryan, but for the sake of clarity of prose I propose my amendment.
That is entirely acceptable.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."
According to the explanatory memorandum, this section provides that the Minister may make an agreement called a service order with the OSI related to the performance of its public functions and that funds shall be advanced by the Minister out of moneys voted by the Oireachtas to perform these functions. It deals with the functions of the Ordnance Survey and the way in which it performs its duty. I have some criticisms of it and take the opportunity to make them.
The Ordnance Survey is the national mapping agency and while some of its maps are up to date and have been revised in recent times, there are entire areas where there has been hardly any revision of either the 1:10,000 or 1:2,500 maps. Given that we are voting public moneys to its functions I hope the areas which have had no updating of data on their maps will be attended to. I come from a rural part of County Roscommon. The first Ordnance Survey map for the area was published in 1837, revised in 1885 and again in 1914. There has, however, been no revision of the 1:10,000 map since 1914, which, frankly, is unacceptable. There have been huge physical changes in the countryside in the intervening period. Modern and up-to-date Ordnance Survey maps for an area must be to hand for new roads or infrastructure. Maps for many areas, particularly rural areas in the west, have not been updated since 1914 while the 1:2,500 maps have not been updated since the 1920s. I accept that in areas around Dublin, for example, updating does take place and understand a new series of colour photographs of the country has been taken and will be published next year. In 1995 a black and white series was produced, but it is prohibitively expensive to get a high resolution copy from the Ordnance Survey or its few agents throughout the country.
The Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development employs a private map digitising company to digitise land areas to cover, for example, the extensification scheme, a very important income supplement for farmers. On applying for area aid, a farmer must provide an accurate area map of the land which is related to the subsidy available and, in turn, stocking density. Farmers are very well aware of the area of their farms. Part of the pride of owning land is knowledge of the area down to the last half perch. Farmers take the information they supply to the Department from their folios and OSI maps. The old maps had a scale of 25 inches to one mile and the area of every field was measured to three decimal points. This information is submitted to the Department. Land Registry and Valuation Office maps are also used. These digitising com panies have reduced the size of many farms. I wonder if they will reduce the size of the country from the 32,000 square miles that this island represents.
Farmers are aggrieved that there is no single agency with which to deal. They must deal with Ordnance Survey Ireland, the Land Registry and the Valuation Office, stating to them that the area of their land is X number of acres or hectares, and the new digitising company based in County Louth and operating through the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development tells farmers that their land area is less. As a result, many farmers have suffered severe penalties in relation to the amount of money they can receive. There should be a single agency – Ordnance Survey Ireland should be that agency – to determine exactly what is the area of any given townland or parcel of land. This would be preferable to having a private agency albeit employed by a Department. Ordnance Survey Ireland should be the arbiter.
I have an interest in maps, particularly old maps, and they are very important tools in the study of the social and economic history of the country. It is amazing to see what an area contained in the 1830s and 1880s, and the changes that had taken place by 1914. Indeed other changes which have taken place since that time have not been recorded in maps.
The point made by the Senator on the section is an interesting one. The first part of his argument in the context of up-to-date mapping is important. The mapping of rural areas of the country is very much out of date and requires to be brought up to the current standards of technology application. The rural mapping database is now being undertaken and it will take about four years to complete the entire programme. Equally important in that context is that there will be a rolling cycle on the database of not more than three to five years between updates. I am dealing with the Valuation Bill in the other House and that also has no current or continuous valuation.
There is a range of private companies in the business of providing maps. OSI depicts de facto the area that is surveyed. It is not up to me to comment on what a private company may say, and a judge in a court of law will make his judgment if it comes to that. The Bill deals with most of the Senator's points. OSI recognises the expanded role it must fulfil and this is why we are creating a new structure for Ordnance Survey Ireland so that it can do what the Senator wishes and compete in the marketplace for private business. That will bring consistency into the system. The quality of the work achieved by OSI is excellent and it is hoped to maintain that. The Senator can be assured that the rural mapping question is being addressed. It will take about four years to complete and it is long overdue.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Amendment No. 13 is in the name of Senator Quinn. Amendment No. 14 is related so they will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 19, subsection (2), line 15, to delete "three months" and substitute "one month".
These amendments speak for themselves. I think that this House should make an effort to enhance good management practice by putting a sense of urgency and speed into how things are done. Deadlines are now being put on reports. I would like to see them being issued more speedily. Most of the bigger banks now publish their accounts within days of the end of the financial year. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 do not deal with publishing but rather with reporting of accounts. The United States public companies which report on a quarterly basis also have very strict time deadlines. We in Ireland have a bad history of not reporting regularly enough or early enough. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are separated from amendments Nos. 13 and 14 and amendment No. 18 is a different topic altogether.
About three years ago I requested the RTE annual report for the previous year in the first week of December and I discovered that it had not yet been published. I asked RTE for a publication date and was told that the Minister of the time had received the report some months earlier and it had not been published. When I was involved with An Post, we set a standard of ensuring that our reports could be handed to the Minister within three months. We then discovered that the Minister would not necessarily publish the reports immediately. There are two points here. I wish to put pressure on State organisations to adopt good management practices which ensure that they report to their shareholders and to the Minister within one month. I want to put pressure on the Minister to then publish those reports within three months. I believe that is good management practice. I will speak about amendments Nos. 15 and 16 later.
Amendment No. 14 states:
In page 19, subsection (3), line 20, after "Oireachtas" to insert "as soon as may be after receipt and in any case not later than three months after the end of the financial year to which the accounts refer".
I believe that is good management practice and it would be a good discipline to instil in any organisation, not just OSI.
I support Senator Quinn's amendment. All too often by the time reports are received, they are historical documents. Efforts have been made during this Government's time and the previous Government's time to make reports relevant to decisions we are trying to make for following years. I suggest to the Minister that it would be well worthwhile accepting these amendments. Similar amendments have been accepted in the past regarding other reports.
I thank the Senators, particularly Senator Quinn, for the amendments. I understand the precise point the Senator is making. He will be well aware that there has been a huge improvement in this area in the very recent past when there was no timeframe in existence. That might also have been the time when the Senator was involved in the other organisation he referred to. Since that time, the whole question of introducing a timeframe has become part of the general approach. The three month span is a reasonable time. I do not think it would be realistically possible for OSI to have accounts ready within a month of the year's end. It will probably happen that the one month timeframe will become the norm. It does not have to be three months, it can be three weeks. Three months is just the outer limit, not the minimum required. I think that is working reasonably well.
To try to submit all the accounts to the Oireachtas by mid-March is unrealistic. As the Senator will be aware, all the audited accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General have to be submitted by 30 June. That is an enormous volume of work and I would not like to prescribe specific timeframes. Given the volume of work the Comptroller and Auditor General has to do, the importance of his role and the scrutiny which is expected of his office, six months is a short time.
A major improvement has been made. It would not be appropriate to introduce more sudden changes. I would rather wait and see what happens. We should bear three things in mind. Three months is the outer limit. The current requirement is a substantial improvement on the previous situation where there was no limit whatsoever, and the technology which is now available will probably further reduce the time taken to one month.
I accept that there has been a considerable improvement in recent years and I recognise that this is a step in the right direction. I will continue to push very hard to instil a sense of speed and urgency into State organisations. It has not been there in the past but it is developing now.
The largest company in the world at the moment is Walmart. It publishes its weekly sales figures every Monday at 12 noon. This gives an idea of the ability of modern technology to publish. If we are determined to do something, it can be achieved. I merely want to instil a sense of urgency. I accept what the Minister says and I will not press the amendment.
I will give an example of how things can be speeded up. I repeatedly asked that the report of the Inspector of Mental Hospitals be published more speedily. The first year Deputy Cowen was Minister for Health and Children the report was published almost 15 months after the end of the year in question. The Minister said the report would have to be produced more rapidly and the next year it was published nine months later. Last year the report was published six months later. That report is most complicated because it includes a report from every mental institution in the country. If people are told they must produce reports more rapidly, they will do so. In general they are pleased to do so because they realise that more notice is being taken of what they are doing.
I do not understand subsection (2). In the private sector accounts are not usually approved by a board until they have been audited, but subsection (2) refers to the approval of reports by a board before they go to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
I appreciate Senator Quinn's point regarding subsection (3). I also appreciate the Minister's acknowledgement that there have been vast improvements. The reports of other State bodies such as Údarás na Gaeltachta and IDA Ireland often arrived two years late when the figures they contained were obsolete.
I would be more inclined to support Senator Quinn's amendment if he proposed a limit of six months. It would be impossible for the Comptroller and Auditor General's office to have accounts available for submission to the Oireachtas within a three month period.
The usual deadline for the publication of reports of State bodies is six months after the end of the financial year. It is important that accounts are done within three months. I do not wish to create difficulties.
I agree with the principle enunciated by Senator Quinn. The entire Civil Service and public service must take their part in driving the economy forward. They must be as keen as the productive sector in using technology to deliver information into the marketplace as quickly as possible. To that end the Office of Public Works, which is a huge office, has been divided into six business units. Although I am not required to do so I now produce accounts for each business section. I benchmark my architects against the best architectural practice in the private sector. I request information on costs, benefits, delivery and quality. The State has a right to know this and my staff support me in doing so. It is the first office in the Civil Service, not alone in Ireland but almost throughout the world, to have achieved ISO 9000 on project management. I expect that by the end of the summer we will have achieved ISO 9000 on our architectural practice and we are aiming for ISO 9000 on the six business units.
The Senator is aware of my approach to business and my understanding of what is needed. I appreciate his point of view and I agree with everything he has said. However, I do not wish to impose unnecessary frameworks which cannot be achieved. Everyone is beginning to understand what must be achieved. These time limits will become irrelevant because systems will deliver as one would expect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Amendments Nos. 15 to 18, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 19, subsection (1), line 41, to delete "6" and substitute "3".
The Minister has worked very hard since taking responsibility for the Office of Public Works and the result of that work is evident, particularly in the achievement of ISO 9000. I like to hear him speak about benchmarking, transparency and the use of technology. This is exactly what I am referring to in amendment No. 18. This amendment deals with a different topic from amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 and it should not have been grouped with them.
Amendment No. 18 proposes that the OSI publish its report by electronic means. This would ensure that the report is made available to everybody. Most Bills which come before the House fail to recognise that the world is changing in that a large number of people do not use paper for communication. Those of us who have children in other parts of the world know they communicate electronically and no longer write letters. Given my former involvement with An Post, I am saddened by that. Young people use e-mail to communicate and use the Internet for information. I want to see every State company acting like a private sector company and making sure that information is available to people without having to buy a paper copy of it.
Yesterday's debate on waste management was particularly interesting when we talked about the amount of paper Members receive on our desks, 90% of which goes into the bin unread. The sensible, rapid and most efficient way to gain information is through electronic means. I want to force every company to publish its accounts electronically – I use the term "electronic means". When I tabled similar amendments to a Bill a year or two ago I used the word "Internet" and it was pointed out to me that the Internet was less than ten years old and might not last another ten years. The term "electronic means" is wider and includes various means of publication.
The Ordnance Survey Ireland office probably publishes all its documents electronically already. I want to be sure it recognises that those who want information should not have to take a bus to the city centre to buy a paper copy of its report but should be able to get it at home.
We have already discussed the importance of speed. Where the speed of publishing is concerned, reports are sometimes made that sit on a Minister's desk and are not published there. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are to urge their publication rather than have them sit on a desk.
Amendment No. 18 is on a different topic. It is to urge publication by electronic means. That is an amendment that the Minister will be able to accept even if he has problems with some of the others. It has a worthy objective and is a means of achieving that regarding which the Minister has set a good example. He spoke of transparency, using technology and benchmarking standards in the private sector and that is exactly why he should accept amendment No. 18.
As Senator Quinn said, amendments Nos. 15 to 17, inclusive, have been well covered. When we were discussing the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2001, over the last few days with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, Senator Quill and I, along with other Senators, addressed the serious problem of the number of copies of reports that are produced and are never read by Members of the House. This is the kind of copy that could be easily produced by electronic means and would be available to all Members of the House and the public.
We said it was important that the Houses of the Oireachtas try to take the lead in reducing the amount of printed material that goes into various dumps. As the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, stated, the accumulation of paper in landfills is one of the most difficult things we have to deal with. We can avoid the production of more printed material because many people only need to look at a specific part of a report. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.
Amendments Nos. 15 to 18, inclusive, have been well covered. I ask in amendment No. 17 not only that it be put before the House but published as well. The argument that many reports given to Members of the Oireachtas are probably never read does not apply to the general public. Many of the reports that are made in relation to semi-State and public bodies are of great interest to the public, and therefore annual reports should be published. They should be published in two forms because we are all up to date with the new technology.
On the point made by Senator Doyle, when I get a report on my desk, I invariably have some supporter or acquaintance interested in it. I immediately put it in the post and send it to them. There is an automatic assumption that reports, such as annual reports, should be available immediately on the electronic systems. People who read of a report in the media will want to know the website address so they can gain access to it without difficulty. Senator Quinn is correct in saying that the younger generation communicates using only electronic systems, such as e-mail—
Text messages.
—and text messages on mobile phones. We have to ensure that every agency and board is meeting its public requirements in this regard. I am sure the Minister will say that it is happening already, and I hope he is correct, but we have to go further than we need to in order to make sure of it.
I thank the Senators for raising an important point, but we should understand that this Bill is giving the OSI the means to do a lot more than it can within the constraints imposed upon it by the Civil Service structure. It is already at the forefront in using electronic means. It will clearly need to be if it is to win customers in the marketplace, which is the whole point of the new status it is getting. It will have to earn income and set up companies. It will not be given State money to do so. It will be subject to market forces and will use viable business plans in partnership or on its own. It will go to the financial institutions in the same way as anybody else to raise funds.
One of the shop windows for the whole thrust of the development of the OSI will be its annual report. It is clearly in its own interest to get it to the market as quickly as it can, and to do so in all forms that it can. That will, and already does, include all electronic means available to it, which it shall continue to develop. In answer to Senator Doyle's point, publishing its report will be an important issue for the OSI because it will be a marketing tool to demonstrate to the public the quality, range and speed of its services. The annual report will become something very different from what it was in the past, which was just a piece of paper to be laid before the Oireachtas. It may have been important, but was probably ignored by most.
Concerning amendments Nos. 17 and 18, the OSI is already publishing by electronic means and there is no need for me to amend the legislation to bring this about. It is not known what forms of electronic forms of publication will be available in the next ten years, but the OSI is already using whatever ones are available. It is common sense to do so.
I thank the Minister. If only to remind the OSI that it is common sense, it is precisely for that reason I am moving those amend ments to the Bill – and in almost every Bill setting up organisations that comes through the House. It would be wise to accept them and make sure that somebody does not slip up in the future for want of being reminded. If the OSI is to be as commercially driven as the Minister says, it will have to continue publishing electronically. I want to make sure this is stitched into the legislation, but I will not push it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 16 to 18, inclusive, not moved.
Section 28 agreed to.
Sections 29 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 19.
In page 20, lines 27 and 28, to delete subsection (1).
This amendment to delete subsection (1) is put forward because I am advised that there is no need to dissolve the OSI. It has no corporate status, certainly none made available to it by any Act passed since 1922. Therefore, it is effectively a branch of central government and consequently transferred adequately by section 32(2). The amendment is largely a technical one.
Where amendment No. 20 is concerned, the schedule to the 1924 Act sets out the areas for which the Minister for Finance is responsible. As the Minister retains the function to give directions to the OSI under section 5 of the Bill, why is it necessary to retain the OSI in the 1924 Act? I am advised that there is a second reference to the OSI in the 1924 Act that is not being deleted. I wonder why this is the case.
I dealt with this at some length at Second Stage and I disagree with Senator O'Meara. It is clear that if the OSI is to function in a commercial sense it must move outside the Civil Service structure. OSI will now have the ability to set up commercial companies under its aegis, not funded the Exchequer – that is, the taxpayer – but with moneys raised in the marketplace to develop new services etc. Under its present structure it cannot do that. If OSI were to remain in the Civil Service it could not have this freedom and so its capacity to meet its customers' demands and exploit new opportunities in the marketplace would be severely limited.
The Government has accepted this view as one of the reasons from it to move forward. It was validated by the interim board, appointed by the previous Government, which came to the same conclusion. The effect of the amendments would be to keep OSI within the Civil Service structure which is contrary to what we are trying to do.
While I do not necessarily agree with what the Minister has said, I will not press the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 32 agreed to.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
Sections 33 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.
TITLE.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 4, line 7, after "AS" to insert "SUIRBHÉIREACHT ORDANÁS ÉIREANN OR".
It occurred to us in light of the judgment in the Supreme Court last week about the use of Irish that it would be useful to insert "SUIRBHÉIREACHT ORDANÁS ÉIREANN" in the Long Title. I would have no difficulty with a shortened version being inserted. The amendment is merely an attempt to be useful.
We frequently have complaints from the courts that we take no notice of judgments made by them. This amendment would show that the Legislature is trying to take some notice of what happens in the courts. This small gesture might show that.
The amendment is unnecessary as the Irish language equivalent of Ordnance Survey Ireland is provided for in section 3. It is essential from an historical and commercial point of view and in view of the fact that the new body will retain its traditional role of providing a national mapping service for the State that the words Ordnance Survey be retained as the new body's title. Ordnance Survey is a title that has been used for 177 years and is familiar to everybody. It would not make sense to risk losing this high degree of public recognition by changing or diminishing the use of the name Ordnance Survey. The Irish title will continue to be used. Having built up a clearly defined grand name over 177 years we do not want to do anything that would undermine it. In any event its Irish title is contained in the Bill.
I know it is in the Bill but it would be no harm to insert it in the Long Title.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.