Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS debate -
Tuesday, 27 Apr 1999

Vol. 2 No. 2

National Disability Authority Bill, 1998 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Amendments No. 1, Nos. 25 to 30, inclusive, Nos. 39 to 57, inclusive, Nos. 59 to 70, inclusive, and Nos. 72 and 73 which form a composite proposal may all be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, subsection (1), to delete lines 22 and 23 and substitute the following:

" 'the Director' means the person appointed under section 25 as the Director of the Authority;".

These amendments are technical in nature and substitute the term Director for Chief Executive in each case where it occurs in the Bill. The term Chief Executive appears in sections 17, 19, 25 to 31, 33 and 36. The amendments are proposed for purposes of consistency with the organisational structure that is envisaged for the National Disability Authority. The interim National Disability Authority which I appointed last year is in the process of considering the internal organisational arrangement I will put in place once established on a statutory footing. In the course of that consideration and in the light of recommendations of consultants assisting the process, the authority has decided to use the job title of Director for the most senior officer in the National Disability Authority. I am happy to support this preference by way of the present amendment to the Bill.

Will the Minister explain the reasoning behind this? It does not seem to make a great deal of difference, from the point of view of the operations of the authority. However, does it have any other implications, for example, in terms of remuneration or the job description?

No. Shakespeare's language is apposite - "a rose by any other name. . . ".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, subsection (1), line 24, to delete "substantial".

This amendment proposes to delete the word "substantial" from the definition of disability. It seeks to eliminate and prevent the risk of comparisons within the disability sector. Who will measure the degree of disability? Who will decide whether a particular restriction is substantial? Where are the guidelines to help people to make these decisions? Does it mean that if restrictions on a person's capacity to participate are not substantial, the person does not have a disability? How does one measure a disability?

In proposing this amendment I am seeking to have a broad definition which will not have the potential to exclude anyone who suffers a disability, as we understand it. There are no hard and fast rules to decide whether a disability is substantial. Why include the term when it will cause more problems and has the potential to resolve nothing? The word "substantial" is not needed in the definition of disability. It is unfair to attempt to make comparisons within the disability sector. The amendment is intended to prevent comparisons within that sector and attempts to introduce a practice of measuring a disability to find out whether it is substantial.

The report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities refers, on page 75, to the importance of the way in which the word "disability" is defined. It states it is important to define disability in a very positive way and that the definition should not reinforce dependency or stigma. The word "substantial" reinforces dependency. The report states that any definition of disability should use language which reflects the right of people with disabilities to be treated as full citizens and to be included in all aspects of society.

The term "substantial restriction" reinforces a belief of dependency, which is precisely what the commission report said must not be done when defining disability. It also carries negative connotations, which may be felt very deeply by those in the disability sector. It is very important to them that we define disability in this Bill in a way which has no negative effects on them.

There are many degrees of disability. This Bill raises the question of who will decide whether a restriction is substantial. In accordance with the Bill, if a restriction is not substantial it is not a disability, which could cause problems in various areas. For those reasons the term "disability" would be better defined in the Bill if the word "substantial" were deleted.

I support Deputy Ahearn, particularly in her citation of the spirit of the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, which indicates that positive language and a positive approach to people with disabilities should be adopted. I also concur with her concern that, by including the word "substantial" in the definition section, we may be excluding certain people with disabilities from the scope of the Bill. I would not like to see such a retrograde step. I support the amendment.

I am proposing, in amendment No. 3, to delete the word "impairment" and substitute the word "condition". The word "impairment" has certain negative connotations, which ties in with what Deputy Ahearn said, whereas the word "condition" is a more neutral term. Substituting "condition" for "impairment" would make the language of the Bill more positive. I ask the Minister to consider both these amendments in the spirit in which they are offered, which is to make the Bill's language more positive in terms of the people it seeks to protect.

The definition of disability provided in the Bill is based on the international classification of impairment, disability and handicap devised by the World Health Organisation. A definition along these lines was recommended by the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities when compiling its report, A Strategy for Equality. In choosing an appropriate definition of disability for the purposes of this Bill, I was concerned to ensure the definition captured correctly the intended client base of the National Disability Authority.

The amendments proposed by the Deputies are intended to extend the scale of the definition of disability and, hence, to broaden the remit of the authority. Similar amendments were debated in the Seanad. I said at that time - I have not changed my views since - that the focus of the National Disability Authority must be targeted to address the needs of people with disabilities who, due to their disability, are limited or prevented from undertaking the usual economic, social or cultural activities.

The amendments proposed would broaden the scope of the definition to an unnecessary and unacceptable extent and would result in a dissipation of the work and resources of the National Disability Authority over too wide a remit. For example, were I to accept the substitution of the word "condition" for the word "impairment" - I believe I have dealt with Deputy Ahearn's concerns - the entire definition would be far too broad. For example, one could describe a person as having a disability because he or she had a physical or learning condition but that condition might not limit the individual's capacity. Deputies can see that the scope is far too broad. While a person might be in good or bad condition, his or her learning condition could also be good or bad. The entire scope is far too broad.

To return to Deputy Ahearn's point, the word "substantial" is included in the legislation because it was important that I base the definition of disability on the ICIDH devised by the World Health Organisation, which is internationally recognised. In those circumstances, I trust Deputies understand why I am unable to accept the amendments.

In giving his reasons for not accepting the amendment, the Minister said a disability would limit or restrict participation. That is my exact point. There is a major difference between someone who has limited ability to participate and someone with a substantial restriction. I am worried that the decision on whether someone has a disability will be based on the definitions in this Bill. The Minister described it as "limited participation" but the Bill uses the word "substantial". I am worried that might cause problems further down the line. Who will decide whether a restriction is substantial? How will it be decided whether people come within the scope of this Bill?

The decision on what is or is not a substantial disability would be a matter for the National Disability Authority. The definition of disability is dependent on the purpose for which it is intended. I opted for a broad definition in the Employment Equality Act where the purpose is anti-discrimination. My intention there was to outlaw all discrimination on disability grounds, irrespective of the extent of the disability. In contrast, this Bill is a proactive measure. My purpose is to target scarce resources where there is most need. My approach is widely recognised, for example, in definitions for the Civil Service employment quota and in other areas where finite benefits are in question.

If I delete the word "substantial", disability would be recognised as being of a temporary nature. I do not think that is the Deputy's intention. It is unacceptable because it broadens the definition to a great degree. The definition I have put forward is internationally recognised and is the best way forward in the circumstances. I recognise that the Deputy is seeking to extend the definition of disability across a broad range of categories. However, resources are not infinite, but finite and in those circumstances I must tailor my suit according to my measure. Just as the resources are finite, so too must the extent of the disability.

I take issue with the Minister's response that a learning condition could be positive or negative. A person would be substantially restricted because of that condition. The fact that it could be positive or negative does not matter in the context of the full sentence. Using positive language will not make a huge difference to the effect of the legislation. I ask the Minister to consider this amendment.

Although Deputy O'Sullivan makes a cogent argument, I cannot accept the amendment for the reasons outlined. There isnot much between us so it is not the end of the world.

I agree it is not the most important amendment tabled.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.

Amendment No. 6 is an alternative to amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, subsection (2), between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

"(a) to monitor compliance with the recommendations of the Report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities and the relevant EU and international agreements that have been accepted by Government;".

These amendments deal with the heart of the Bill. The functions we assign to the authority will determine its success. My amendment is in accordance with the recommendations of the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. The report recommends that the National Disability Authority monitors compliance with the recommendations of the commission and the "relevant EU and international agreements that have been accepted by Government". The Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, referred to and seemed to agree with that function of the authority in an interview in Insight. Why is that function not included in the Bill?

We were promised that an action plan would be ready by the end of February, but nothing has been done. It is important that this amendment is accepted because it would give the authority a crucial role in ensuring that the recommendations are implemented. Otherwise the functions of the authority will be watered down and the Bill will not have teeth. We will be doing the disabled a disservice if we do not produce a comprehensive Bill.

The commission's report was debated in the House and accepted by the Government. It is supposed to be the bible on providing equality for the disabled. Yet, the Minister has in the legislation turned down the first recommended function of the authority. This amendment seeks to ensure that the authority monitors "compliance with the recommendations of the Report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities and the relevant EU and international agreements that have been accepted by Government". I cannot understand how it can advise the Minister and monitor standards if it does not also have this responsibility.

Amendment No. 6 is similar to amendment No. 4. The first role defined for the National Disability Authority in the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities is to monitor compliance with the recommendations of the commission and "the relevant EU and international agreements that have been accepted by Government". It seems strange to leave this out of the terms of reference of the National Disability Authority.

There are a number of recommendations in this report. Much time and effort were put into it and a wide range of people were involved in putting it together. It is a blueprint for the future for people with disabilities. A basic role of this authority should be to examine the various proposals and to ensure they are implemented over a reasonable timescale. I expected the Minister to include that in the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 include a specific function for the National Disability Authority to monitor compliance with the recommendations of the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities as well as monitoring EU and international agreements. I assure Deputies of the Government's commitment to implementing progress on all matters relating to disability. The plan of action to implement the commission's recommendations, which is being prepared by officials in my Department, is nearing completion and is expected to be submitted to the Government before the end of this session. These matters would evolve, therefore, in the short to medium term and I do not envisage a long-term statutory role arising from this work.

Amendment No. 4 also seeks to give a role to the National Disability Authority in monitoring and reviewing European Union and international agreements. I agree with the Deputies about the principles behind these proposals. These are important tasks in which it is appropriate that the National Disability Authority should have an input.
I am satisfied the functions already prescribed for the National Disability Authority incorporate these functions and many more specific tasks which, essentially, were put forward in the policy remit but are not specifically enumerated. For those reasons, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 4 and 6.

The Chairman has not explained the reason he left that out. He indicated that a plan of action will be published in the near future regarding the recommendations and that he hopes they will be implemented in the short rather than the long-term. He gave no valid reason it should not be included in the legislation as recommended by the commission. It recommended the setting up of the authority and indicated the various functions it would fulfil. As this was the first function identified, I do not understand why the Minister cannot give this role to the authority as envisaged by the commission. Who will monitor implementation of the recommendations if the National Disability Authority does not?

Our amendment is complementary to the functions given to the authority in the Bill. I do not see where there is conflict. Part of the functions of the authority will be to monitor implementation of the recommendations of the commission report. Entwined in the report is the recommendation that the authority advise the Minister on appropriate standards with a view to ensuring a quality service. We have not been given a valid explanation as to why the first function recommended in the commission report is excluded from the Bill. I believe it would be complementary to the other functions.

The proposal put forward by Deputies Ahearn and O'Sullivan is already included in the legislation. Section 8(2)(a) provides that one of the functions of the authority is to act as a central national body to assist the Minister in the co-ordination and development of policy relating to persons with disabilities. The difficulty is that if I start to enumerate various reports, documents, interdepartmental committees, commissions, sub-committees etc. we could be here forever putting them all in. Rather than delve into the minutiae, which is always a dangerous exercise, I try to keep it general. What Deputies are endeavouring to achieve is already included in the legislation.

As soon as the plan of action for implementing the commission's report is finalised and submitted to the Government it will become long-term Government policy. The appropriateness of that would be decided in each case as it arose. Given that the action plan - long-term and short-term - is Government policy, it goes without saying that the National Disability Authority will monitor compliance therewith. The reason there is no need to refer to the commission's report is as outlined. I trust that reassures the Deputies that what they seek to achieve is already enshrined in the legislation.

I agree we cannot include everything in the functions of the authority nor have we any wish to do so. What is proposed in those amendments is not a minute detail. What we are proposing is to monitor the bible for the future of those in the disability sector. Deputy O'Sullivan and I want to include a document that was debated and accepted in the House, which took three years to compile and involved an enormous amount of consultation. The document is not minute detail. We are not being awkward in proposing that the monitoring of its recommendations be included in the functions of the authority. This is the bible on which we are to work. It is the guide under which the Government is to proceed in ensuring equality within the disability sector. It is a vital part of the future of the development of the disability sector. The Minister may say our concerns are covered in section 8(2)(a) but why not include it, as we propose, as a clear and defined function?

This is not just any old report we are asking the Minister to include in the Bill. This is an important report in the lives of people with disabilities because of its wide remit. We are not asking him to name any other report. Also, this was a main recommendation of the report.

I acknowledge the importance of the report. When I say I do not want to go into the minutiae, I do not want to list report after report in the legislation because it would never end. What the Deputies are seeking to achieve is already contained in the legislation. I accept the argument about the desirability for clarity but in the absence of what the Deputies require I would have thought they would be happy with what I have said.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, subsection (2), between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

"(a) to review and evaluate on a regular basis all legislation in order to assess the effectiveness of such legislation in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities;".

This amendment compliments amendment No. 4. I propose that it be included as one of the functions of the authority to review and evaluate on a regular basis, all legislation in order to asses the effectiveness of such legislation in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities.

When we speak about the disability sector, we can be aspirational. This is an occasion when we can copperfasten those aspirations in legislation. If this provision is not included in the Bill, who will review and evaluate? We will miss the opportunity to ensure that all legislation in future should be reviewed to see if it meets the needs of those with disabilities. The intention of the national disability authority is to improve services and quality of life for those with disabilities. If we are to do that we must be vigilant of legislation passed in the House and ensure that the disability sector is catered for in it. I would appreciate if the Minister were to consider accepting this amendment.

Section 8 makes clear that the central task of the authority is to advise and inform the Minister in relation to issues of policy and practice. The core functions of the authority arise from this central task and are enumerated in section 8(2)(a) to (h). Part of this policy remit would be to advise the Minister on legislation, especially legislation concerned with service provision. I do not consider it appropriate to specify issues or tasks which, as a result of its function in relation to policy, will fall to the authority. It is my intention to establish the national disabilities authority with a broad ranging remit and, consequently, I cannot accept amendment No. 5.

It is a pity that our amendments are not being accepted. Our intention is to strengthen the authority and we are keeping in mind the recommendations in the commission's report. If at least some of our amendments are not accepted the legislation will be weaker, it will not have authority and will not encompass all the functions recommended in the commission's report. This report was made after much consultation and it is a pity that so much of what was recommended is not included in the legislation. The Oireachtas Library is full of reports. The only time a report is useful is when we copperfasten its recommendations with legislation. Unfortunately, we are not doing that in this instance.

It has taken a long time to establish a National Disability Authority in this State, as the Deputy is aware. I am pleased to be the Minister who introduced the necessary legislation. I assure Deputy Ahearn that it is not out of discourtesy to her or Deputy O'Sullivan that I have not accepted amendments so far. This Bill was presented in the Seanad and was considered in great detail there. I acknowledge the work done by political parties in looking at the legislation and consulting interested groups. I assure Deputies that amendments were accepted in the Seanad from spokespersons for the Opposition parties. They were accepted because they strengthened the Bill. That is what we want to do. Some of the amendments considered thus far do not add to the strength of the legislation. That is not to say that the amendments are not well thought out or that there is not cogent reasoning behind them. I cannot accept them for the reasons I have outlined. There is no question of there being a blanket exclusion on amendments. I accepted amendments from the Opposition parties in the Seanad and was glad to so.

I did not intend the Minister to take that opinion from what I said. We welcome legislation to help people with disabilities. We have waited a long time for it and it is important that we get it right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.

Amendment No. 12 is an alternative to amendment No. 7 and amendments Nos. 16 to 20, inclusive, are related. Is it agreed to take amendments Nos. 7, 12 and 16 to 20, inclusive, together? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, subsection (2), between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

"(a) to provide grievance and redress procedures for individuals or groups in accordance with section 14;".

This amendment is important for the strength of the legislation. Before addressing it, I acknowledge the changes the Minister made in the Seanad, in particular introducing a sanction where a service provider was not spending its public funds in an appropriate way. The Minister strengthened the legislation in that area in the Seanad.

This amendment and those related to it deal with the same issues - the provision of grievance and redress procedures to individuals or groups in accordance with section 14. My amendments and the others in this group seek to strengthen this aspect of the legislation. One of the main functions proposed for the National Disability Authority in the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities is to provide grievance and redress procedures.

The Minister argued that under employment equality and equal status legislation people with disabilities will have access to a person through whom redress can be sought. That legislation covers people with disabilities and another eight categories. However, it is not an appropriate grievance procedure in every case for people with disabilities, particularly cases they may take regarding service providers. The commission envisaged a grievance procedure as a central role for the National Disability Authority.

I addressed a public meeting in Dublin on Thursday organised by parents whose children attend St. Michael's House, which provides many of the services in the Dublin area. People speaking from the floor made the point that there should be a mechanism for families and people with disabilities to have their grievances addressed, whether it be in relation to service provision paid for by the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or any other body. If this amendment is not included in the legislation, we will miss the opportunity which individuals with disabilities and their families feel they need to obtain the services they need to play a full part in society. That is a central part of the intention of the establishment of the authority.

I feel strongly that individual grievance procedures should form part of the legislation. I do not accept that the areas covered under employment equality and equal status legislation are broad enough to cover aspects of service provision which would be included if there was such a grievance procedure under this legislation.

I support Deputy O'Sullivan's arguments for the inclusion of this amendment. There must have been a change of mind somewhere on a grievance procedure because it was one of the recommendations in the commission's report.

The Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, said in an interview with Insight that the National Disability Authority will have the power to intervene in cases to ensure equity and that the role of the new authority will be to empower and enable. She said in that interview that it will provide grievance and redress procedures. Why are they not included? It is extraordinary that a Bill to establish an authority to ensure standards has no scope for complaints. Those who drew up the report knew of the other avenues for the processing of complaints. Its recommendation was that there should be a grievance procedure in the Bill. What do people do if they are not provided with a service or are unhappy with standards? Surely a Bill which deals with services and standards should provide grievance and redress procedures. This is an omission.

Deputy O'Sullivan and I feel strongly about this amendment. People in the disability sector are agreed that the absence of grievance and redress procedures is the one area in which the Bill is lacking. They feel it is necessary to include such a provision and cannot understand why it is not included. What will happen if people are deprived of a service or if the service is of a poor standard?

I appreciate the amendment included by the Minister in the Seanad provided that funding would be withdrawn from service providers who did not meet required standards. However, withdrawing funding also entails the withdrawal of a service and the victims will be those who require that service. People in this sector would appreciate the Minister accepting these amendments as this is considered a serious omission. The Minister should give this serious thought.

What was the publication date of the Insight magazine quoted by the Deputy?

January 1998.

Amendments Nos. 7, 12 and 16 to 20, imclusive, would include the provision of grievance and redress procedures as a specific function of the authority. The assignment of such activities to the authority would run counter to its core functions. The role envisaged for the authority by the establishment groups is essentially proactive. It has a strong co-ordinating and development role. It will discharge a research function, act as a standards body, develop codes of practice and exercise, support, liaise and remit. These functions can best be discharged by close co-operation, support and leadership. An enforcement role cannot reasonably be exercised in conjunction with the central remit of the authority without seriously jeopardising that role. Redress functions of the kind envisaged are already available elsewhere.

Deputies will be aware that I set up the establishment group in November 1997 and asked it to bring forward detailed proposals concerning the setting up of the National Disability Authority. The group's report examined the commission's report as the basis of its work and recommended that grievance and redress procedures in individual cases are not appropriate to the National Disability Authority. For these and other reasons I cannot accept these amendments.

With respect to the establishment group, the recommendations of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities would be more significant as it represented a wide range of interests in the area of disabilities. There is a redress procedure involving the Director of Equality Investigations but that is not a wide enough remit to include all the areas envisaged for redress in the commission's report.

Deputy O'Sullivan accepts that the establishment group recommended that this procedure should not be included in the Bill. However, that group did not comprise people with disabilities. It mainly included representatives of Departments and such bodies.

The commission report is far more representative of those with disabilities and we should note its recommendations. We are doing an injustice to the disability sector by not including grievance and redress procedures.

The role of the National Disability Authority will be to advise the Minister of developments concerning disability and issues which impact on policy and practice in the delivery of services to people with a disability. Ancillary to that function will be its role in supporting quality service delivery through co-ordinating and developing policy, advising on standards, preparing codes of practice and monitoring and liaising with service providers.

The authority can best discharge the important role of influence and guidance through the initiation, maintenance and development of an open and supportive relationship with service providers. The authority's credibility in discharging this primary role could be jeopardised if, parallel with its proactive work, it was mandated to conduct redress and grievance resolutions concerning service providers whose services are found wanting.

I would also be concerned about diverting the authority's staffing resources from key tasks to carry out work effectively discharged elsewhere. The Office of the Ombudsman offers the possibility of redress where a public body fails to provide a proper service. That office has shown itself to be an effective reference point for dealing with issues of concern to those with disabilities. This position was highlighted in the report of the establishment group. The report stated that the Ombudsman's office had responded positively, strongly supporting the importance of accessibility to complaints systems and stated that special consideration be given to meeting this need for people with disabilities. It also pointed out that the Ombudsman's office had investigated a number of cases directly involving the provision of services to people with disabilities.

In his 1997 report, the Ombudsman dealt with issues of direct concern to people with disabilities, specifically the issue of a basic income entitlement and eligibility for the free travel scheme. I am sure that he will address other important issues for those with disabilities in future reports.

The new equality infrastructure will provide redress of first instance in cases of discrimination through the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations. The office will deal with discrimination by employers and, from next year, discrimination by providers of goods, facilities and services in the public and private sectors as a result of the equal status legislation recently published. Discrimination on the grounds of disability is one of nine grounds for discrimination outlawed under the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and the Equal Status Bill, 1999.

Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 8.

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Higgins, Jim (Mayo).
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.

Níl

  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • McGennis, Marian.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • O’Donoghue, John.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Wright, G. V.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are cognate to amendment No. 8. Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 can be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, subsection (2)(a), lines 16 and 17, to delete "Minister" and substitute "Government".

The purpose of the amendment is to widen the reporting of the commission to other Ministers. Matters relating to disability are the concern of a number of Departments. The Minister for Health and Children, for example, is centrally involved in much of the service provision for people with disabilities, as is the Minister for Education and Science.

The intent of the amendment is that the commission would not simply report to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform even though that Minister is of central importance. Other Ministers should be involved and that is why the amendment proposes to delete "Minister" and substitute "Government", which would include all Ministers.

I support the amendment. It is most important that this does not become the sole remit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. As Deputy O'Sullivan said, the area of disability involves other Departments - the Departments of Health and Children, Social, Community and Family Affairs, Education and Science and Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It would be positive to ensure the report is submitted to all Ministers rather than to only the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, although I am not implying he would not act on the report. Nevertheless, it would heighten the awareness of the disability sector if we ensure the Government is included by the acceptance of this amendment.

Section 8 deals with the functions of a National Disability Authority. The intention is that the authority will report to me and my successors as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the range of functions set out in that section. Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 seek to provide that the authority should report to the Government in respect of these functions rather than to the Minister under whose aegis the authority will operate. I have concerns about the proposal on several counts. First, the Government has a busy agenda, which is not to say the Minister does not have a busy one. I am not sure with what frequency the authority intends to report to Government each year. It would be unfortunate if pressure on Government time rather than requirements of the authority impacted on the reporting arrangements envisaged.

Second, many of the issues to be reported on by the authority to the Government will be programme-based and operational in nature. I doubt whether it is in the best interests of the authority to burden the Government with issues which could easily and more appropriately be considered in another forum.

Finally, I wonder if the architects of the amendment envisaged that reports by the authority to Government might be without an obvious sponsor or advocate at the Government table, as I would be excluded. While I know the Deputies present would not wish that to happen, there are many Deputies not present who would be delighted. However, I would regard that as a great tragedy. For this and related reasons, the amendments are insufficiently well considered and I cannot accept them.

Far be it for us to try to exclude the Minister in his role as a member of Government. However, I think he understands the intention behind these amendments. For example, many of the services for those with intellectual disability are provided through health boards by institutions who provide long or short-term care. The Minister for Health and Children is directly involved in many of those programmes. The Minister for Education and Science has a role in the delivery of educational programmes and as regards access to schools for those with physical disabilities. This amendment seeks to achieve a mechanism whereby, through the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the advice of the National Disability Authority as regards these programmes could be conveyed to the relevant Minister.

I am glad the Minister assured us reporting to his Department is sufficient and that he will have the capacity and the resources to ensure all Departments respond to issues raised by the National Disability Authority. I have confidence he will do that. Nevertheless, it would not be cumbersome to accept the amendment. We had no intention of excluding the Minister, who is an important element and without whom this would not work.

I am satisfied reporting to my Department will be sufficient. As Deputies know, Deputy Mary Wallace is the Minister of State with special responsibility for disabilities. The function of the Minister and the Minister of State would be to convey concerns or proposals to the relevant Ministers. For example, as Deputy O'Sullivan said, if the Minister for Health and Children is involved in an issue, we will not be slow to bring it to his attention or to that of any other Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, subsection (2)(e), line 35, after "standards" to insert "(including community development plans)".

The purpose of this amendment is to encourage the drawing up of development plans for services in particular communities. This amendment proposes to strengthen the provision of services by ensuring gaps are filled.

Amendment No. 11 provides for the inclusion of community action plans among the functions of the authority, as Deputy O'Sullivan has outlined. The establishment group's report makes clear that the role of the National Disability Authority will be best served if the functions assigned to it are clearly those of a dedicated authority with responsibility as regards policy and the development and monitoring of standards in service provision.

In making its recommendations the establishment group diverged on a number of points including the NDA's role in relation to the development of community action plans, from the original recommendations made in the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. The establishment group's thinking, which I fully accept, was explained at some length in its report. Essentially, community action plans centre on arrangements for service provision and its delivery. As such, they are distinctly beyond the remit envisaged for the authority in the Bill. Any role in service provision for the NDA would inevitably jeopardise its credibility and standing as regards the central role of evaluating and monitoring these services. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 8, subsection (1), lines 13 and 14, to delete "may, and shall if requested by the Minister," and substitute "shall".

This amendment proposes to strengthen the legislation by making the drawing up of plans mandatory rather than discretionary.

Section 10 deals with the development of codes of practice and is permissive in its approach. This approach has been adopted because of the nature of the obligation placed on the authority which is general and couched in broad terms. The intention is that the authority should not be restricted in identifying subject matters suitable for the development of codes of practice and neither should it be committed by law to promulgate codes of practice over the general and comprehensive terms of its remit and area.

However, there is one exception to this permissive approach in the section which relates to codes of practice when they are requested by the Minister. It is mandatory on the authority to prepare a code of practice when requested to do so. This arrangement will ensure that where the authority fails to identify and prepare a code of practice and a need arises which becomes known to the Minister, he or she is in a position to ensure the need is addressed. The provision also ensures the authority will include in its consultations those whom the Minister considers appropriate.

The arrangements in section 10 follow the approach in previous legislation such as the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, and the Employment Equality Act, 1998. I would be slow to depart from such a tried and successful formula. Therefore, I regret I cannot accept the amendments.

Why should the authority be confined to drawing up codes of practice if requested by the Minister? Surely part of its remit is to monitor standards? It should have responsibility for drafting codes of practice without having to wait for a request from the Minister. Section 10 provides that the "Authority may, and shall if requested by the Minister", but the authority should have responsibility for preparing and submitting draft codes of practice. The Minister, not the authority, is the watchdog. Why should the Minister have to inform the authority that draft codes of practice are needed? The Minister is a busy person, so this responsibility should be given to the National Disability Authority. Section 10(1) removes responsibility from the authority to draw up draft codes of practice if they are needed. The Minister must decide whether they are necessary because there is no compulsion on the authority to do so.

I am following tried and tested procedure. It is not a matter of compelling the authority to do something above and beyond its remit but of the authority deciding at its own discretion and within its own competence to draw up codes of practice. I have argued that it would be mandatory on the authority to prepare a code of practice when requested to do so by the Minister. However, I do not want to restrict the authority by imposing a statutory imperative on it to bring in codes of practice. That is not to say I do not wish it to bring in codes of practice, which I am sure it will. However, it should be allowed to identify the subject matter suitable for the development of codes of practice.

If one informs it that it must, as a statutory imperative, bring in draft codes of practice, it must be clear that it would be bringing forward these proposals irrespective of whether it believes they are necessary. That would not be a desirable conclusion to our deliberations. If there was a lacuna which required to be filled, it would be more desirable if the Minister made that clear to the authority, which would be obliged to draft codes of practice. However, it should not be obliged to do so in the first instance. That is not to say it is excluded from doing so because it has discretion. It is within its competence, capacity and legislative remit in accordance with this legislation to do so.

The only difference between us is that the Deputy wishes to make it compulsory whereas I do not want to unless a lacuna is identified by the Minister of the day. It is best in those circumstances if the discretion is left to the authority. I do not want to strangle it or to make a lapdog of it. I want it to give free expression. The best way to ensure its individuality, uniqueness and independence is to allow it this type of discretion. I do not want to put it on a leash.

Does the Minister accept that the word "may" also suggests it may not? We must ensure good standards and quality in the provision of programmes and services to persons with disabilities. There is no compulsion on the authority to draw up codes of practice even when it discovers that standards are inadequate. Section 10(1) states that the "Authority may, and shall if requested by the Minister". The Minister should not burden himself with that role. Why are we setting up the National Disability Authority if it is not to be responsible for establishing a code of practice where services are inadequate? There is nothing in the Bill to ensure it monitors standards and practices. It will have to wait until the Minister requests it to do so.

I accept the Deputy's point that if someone is given the discretion to do something, they may not do it. I have outlined why I do not want the section to impose a statutory imperative. It could be interpreted as meaning that it would have to draw up codes of practice across a spectrum. It is possible that the National Disability Authority would do nothing else but draw up codes of practice. That is why I wanted to allow it to have discretion. If there is a lacuna, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can step into the breach and direct it to draw up codes of practice. It is not as if this particular function is over and above all the other functions it is legislated to perform in this Bill. It must be allowed to carry out its other functions. I would be strangling it at birth if I put a statutory imperative in the legislation in relation to codes of practice.

Section 10(2) states:

Before submitting a draft code of practice under subsection (1) to the Minister, the Authority shall consult such other ministers of the Government, or any other person or body as the Authority considers appropriate or as the Minister may direct.

On the one hand, the Minister says he does not want to strangle the authority but, on the other hand, he may intervene in terms of who the authority may or may not consult. I am not sure the Minister should intervene in that regard because it will remove the authority's independence in deciding with whom it should consult. The subsection states "shall consult", so it must consult with someone. I cannot understand why the Minister would intervene in drawing up codes of practice. The authority should retain its independence in that regard.

It is important that the authority would engage in a consultative process so it would have the best possible information to hand. As regards the consultative process being directed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the legislation states in section 10(2) "as the Minister may direct". That also suggests the Minister may not direct, which comes back to Deputy Ahearn's earlier point. That is a discretionary matter for the Minister of the day; it is not compulsory. The subsection as it stands is as flexible as one could have it in the circumstances.

Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment would delete the words "or as the Minister may direct" and not give discretion to the Minister to intervene if he wishes. This would not be desirable. For example, if the Minister saw a lacuna or a gap and he asked the authority to prepare a code of practice but he did not have the power to direct what consultations should take place, it would defeat the objective of subsection (1) in so far as it relates to the power of the Minister to direct the drafting of a code of practice.

I do not want the National Disability Authority's discretion to be limited in any way. I want to ensure that the discretion is retained. If it will satisfy Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Ahearn, I will consider it again to make sure that the discretion is not fettered in any way by the inclusion of the words "as the Minister may direct" in subsection (2).

The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that we are clear about the authority's job before it gets on with it and to avoid too much interaction with the Minister of the day. I welcome the Minister's response.

The Minister said his concern is that the authority would be strangled. However, the primary purpose of the amendments is to ensure good standards and quality in the provision of programmes and services to those with a disability. This should be our primary objective and we should be prepared to insert in the Bill any measures which would help to guarantee the delivery of quality standards and services to those in the disability sector. This is why I am worried about the amount of discretion and scope that is given to the authority by the inclusion of the word "may" instead of "shall".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 8, subsection (2), line 19, to delete "ministers" and substitute "Ministers".

This is a quibble with the parliamentary draftsman about whether ministers in the plural should have a capital "M". Minister in the singular has a capital letter throughout the Bill. My contention is if it involves more than one Minister, a capital "M" should be used.

Amendment No. 14 proposes a grammatical change to the Bill. My view, which has not altered since this issue was raised during the debate in the Seanad, is that a lower case "m" is appropriate as ministers is a common noun and not a proper noun.

It is not an important issue and I accept the Minister's interpretation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
Section 10 agreed to.
Sections 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 16 to 20, inclusive, not moved.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.

Amendments Nos. 21 to 24, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 9, subsection (1), line 36, after "Oireachtas." to insert "Both Houses of the Oireachtas shall debate the report within three months of it being so laid before them.".

The production of the annual report is an important function of the authority and this report should be debated in the House. Many reports are compiled and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas but there is no follow up subsequently. Given that there is so little legislation relating to the disability sector and the national authority will be the watchdog regarding standards and quality services, it is most important that the annual report is debated in the House. This is the only means of ensuring that attention can be drawn to successes or gaps in the authority's remit.

It would be a pity not to include this provision in the Bill. Otherwise a report will be presented and time will not be provided for a debate. I hope the Minister will consider accepting the amendment because it would do the House and public representatives justice. The Minister's party says that the disability sector is a primary area of concern. Therefore, the Minister should be prepared to ensure that the annual report of the National Disability Authority is debated in each House of the Oireachtas.

Section 15 requires the National Disability Authority to make an annual report to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the performance of its functions and activities in the preceding year. It provides that such reports shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Further provision is made under subsection (3) empowering the National Disability Authority to make such other reports to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform with respect to its functions as it sees fit.

Amendment No. 21 would impose a requirement on the Houses of the Oireachtas to debate the annual report of the authority within three months of it being laid before them. It is not normal practice or appropriate to put such an imposition on the Legislature. If the contents of an annual report of the authority warrant debate in the Oireachtas, I am sure that an opportunity will arise in Private Members' or Government time, possibly in the context of an Adjournment debate, to consider the matter. If annual reports of State bodies were to be routinely debated in the Oireachtas, one would expect that such a provision would be incorporated in the legislation governing such work as that of the Ombudsman. That such a provision is not included is indicative of the inappropriateness of the measure.

Amendment No. 22 seeks to exclude the Minister from any role regarding the contents of the authority's annual report. The provision is a standard one in legislation governing the submission of annual reports to the sponsoring Minister. The purpose of this provision is to allow a Minister to require an organisation under his or her aegis to put specified information into the public domain through the annual report when requested to do so. The power is one option open to a Minister in the strategic management and control of bodies which come within his or her remit. It is a useful procedural arrangement in this context and I do not propose to depart from it in this case.

Amendment No. 23 concerns the laying before the Oireachtas of additional or special reports which the National Disability Authority may make. I am satisfied that it would not be appropriate to require such additional reports to be laid before the Oireachtas. The NDA must, within the provisions of subsection (3), be free to report to the Minister in respect of any issues which it feels would benefit from such reporting. Such reports may arise as a consequence of an intervention by the authority under section 14 with a service provider. In many cases, aspects of the report may be confidential.

It will be incumbent on the Minister to take appropriate action on receipt of such reports. The power of the authority to report in this way to the Minister and in turn the Minister's ability to proceed with matters raised by the authority in a manner considered to be most beneficial is crucial to the establishment of an effective mechanism enabling the authority to channel its concerns directly to the Minister and through him or him to all Departments and service providers. Where the NDA feels it is appropriate, it will be open to it to refer to matters which it has raised and special reports to the Minister in its annual report. In this way issues which are appropriate to public debate may be brought into the public arena.

Amendment No. 24 would make mandatory the inclusion of all recommendations made by the authority in its annual report. I cannot accept this proposal for the same reasons which prevent me accepting amendment No. 23. It is essential to leave it open to the authority to proceed with matters as appropriate to individual cases. In many instances I have no doubt the recommendations of the authority will be recorded in its annual report. I do not propose, however, to make this obligatory. For the reasons I have set out, I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 21 to 24.

My main concern is the power the Minister has in regard to the annual report, which is an important report. That is the reason I propose the deletion of the words "Minister may direct". The authority should have the power and be encouraged to write its own report as it sees fit. I respect the role of the Minister but he has too much power under the Bill. The Minister will not direct that other recommendations made throughout the year be included in the annual report. The annual report is a source of information for everybody, not just those of us in the House, on the way the authority operates, its concerns and its work throughout the year. I wanted the authority to have as much scope as possible in drawing up the report and that the report would be debated. In that way we would have full information on the recommendations the authority made to the Minister throughout the year which currently is not compulsory.

In other words, the annual report should be a clear, transparent document which is not drawn up under the Minister's direction and presented in the form the Minister wishes. The Minister said he has a right - and he should - to request that some matters be covered in the report but the authority should have liberty to include what it sees fit in the report. I am not sure that as it is presented in the Bill the authority will have that liberty.

I support amendment No. 24 which follows the amendment the Minister made in the Seanad with regard to making recommendations for the review, reduction or withdrawal of any moneys provided by the Oireachtas. The moneys are provided by the Oireachtas and if the Minister is the only person who will know what is contained in the recommendations - the information will not be in the annual report so therefore it will not be laid before the Oireachtas - how will Members know that this recommendation has been made? I know we should trust our Ministers but I ask the Minister to examine that particular amendment because there is a transparency element in terms of moneys voted by the Oireachtas. It would be desirable that Members of the Oireachtas have that information made available to them.

The report would be made available in the Library to Members of the Oireachtas and everybody would have the opportunity to read it. I do not want Members to think, because of the language used here, that I or any successor of mine would in some way write the report. The role of the Minister relates to the form of the report. The question of the contents of the report, aside from the exceptions set out in the section, would be a matter for the authority. It is true that from time to time - Deputy Theresa Ahearn said this was acceptable to her - the report would include information which would be directed by the Minister; we are all agreed on that. There is no question of the report not being a transparent, open document. The authority will be allowed to write its own report and to furnish it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 not moved.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 10, subsection (1), line 6, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 10, subsection (2), line 13, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 10, subsection (3)(a), line 22, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 10, subsection (4)(a), line 36, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 10, subsection (5), line 47, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 11, subsection (2), line 8, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 4. 15 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.

Amendments Nos. 31 and 58 are related and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 31

In page 11, subsection (2), line 9, to delete "another" and substitute "a".

These are technical amendments arising from a drafting point raised in the Seanad on consistency in the terminology used regarding executive or director and staff of the authority with other similar references in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 20.

Amendment No. 38 is consequential on amendment No. 32 and they shall be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 11, subsection (1)(b), line 31, to delete "19" and substitute "18".

These amendments allow for two worker directors rather than just one. The intention is to ensure that the workers are represented at all times. If the worker director provided for in the Bill was not able to attend a meeting the workers would not be represented. It is desirable that there be two worker directors to adequately ensure that the interests of people working in the organisation are properly represented when decisions are being made. It is a straightforward amendment.

I feel that when we agree to appoint one person to represent a sector we are merely protecting ourselves from the criticism that it was excluded rather than giving a signal that we feel it is right for workers to be represented on the board. A better signal would be sent out if there was provision for two worker directors. We would be copperfastening a belief that we want workers represented at all meetings and that worker participation makes for a positive contribution rather than merely fulfilling an obligation by appointing one worker director.

As Deputy O'Sullivan said, it cannot be guaranteed that there will be a representative present when there is only one such director. It has happened in the formation of Governments - Democratic Left is an example. It is a guarantee that there is a voice at all times.

Section 20(1)(b) and section 20(4) provide for the appointment of an elected worker director to membership of the authority. Amendments Nos. 32 and 38 seek to increase the number of worker directors on the authority from one to two employees. The NDA will be a small expert body with an initial staff complement of 35 in total. As a consequence I do not believe there are any grounds for making provision for the appointment of more than one staff representative to the board. Under the circumstances I cannot accept the proposal of the appointment to the authority of a second employee representative of the authority.

I accept that the number of people working in the authority will be small but that does not deny the arguments that the workers should be adequately represented and that there may be times when the person would not be able to attend meetings.

There is also an argument that there will be a balance of interests with two people. If there is only one person representing the interests of all employees, there would not be as wide a range of opinion as if there were two worker directors who would be able to represent different levels of employees within the organisation. I accept that it will be a small organisation but there is a principle that there should be more than one worker director.

It would be different if it is was a large commercial organisation such as An Post, Aer Lingus or CIE. This is a small expert group. I agree with the need for staff participation at authority level but one worker director is fair in the circumstances. It should be pointed out that in similar situations the position is no different. It is true that more than one worker director has been appointed in large organisations but we are not talking about a large organisation, we are talking about a small expert group. One person from 35 is a fair representation when one considers the size of the body and the number of staff involved.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 11, subsection (2)(a), line 33, after "Authority" to insert "(not being a person engaged in or employed by a person or body engaged in the provision of services to people with disabilities)".

The intention of this amendment is to ensure that the chairperson of the authority is not engaged in the provision of services to people with disabilities. This issue was debated at length in the Seanad. The principle is clear. I am not suggesting that anyone would promote the interests of their own organisation but there is a general principle that it is better that the chairperson of any body should be independent of the provision of service.

The National Disability Authority will have duties concerned with the monitoring of standards, the drawing up of codes of practice and, with regard to the amendment the Minister introduced in the Seanad, the withdrawal of funding from an organisation if it was not doing its duty properly. The job of the authority is closely interlinked with the performance of the service providers. It would be better, therefore, if there was a chairperson who was not employed by one of the service provision organisations.

This was brought to our attention by those involved in disability organisations. Inevitably, people who work as service providers will be members of the authority. That is only right because of the nature of their expertise. However, the chairperson should be a person who is independent of any of the service providers.

Amendment No. 33 seeks to amend the Bill to stipulate that the chairperson of the authority should be a person who is not engaged in the provision of services to people with disabilities, either as an employee or as a member of the board of such a body. These criteria would apply where up to one third of the membership of the interim National Disability Authority would be excluded from the possibility of serving as chairperson of the authority. The remainder of the authority is made up in the main either of people with disabilities who are not engaged in service provision or of the parents or carers of people with disabilities. The chairperson of the interim authority might have come from either of these groups or from among the service providers on the authority.

In the event, the chairperson of the interim authority is an employee of Rehab, a service provider. There was a great deal of disappointment among people with disabilities when the authority was established and a service provider was selected as chairperson of the interim board. I assure Deputies that my selection of the chairperson from among the members of the interim board was made with a view to the challenging programme which would fall to be delivered by the incumbent of the position. I believe the chairperson possesses all the experience, expertise and drive to make a success of the National Disability Authority, and I am pleased my invitation to take up the appointment as chairperson was accepted.

The amendment proposed would conflict directly with the arrangements which have been put in place with the interim Authority, and I am not disposed to accept it. It has to be recognised that irrespective of who was made chairperson of the Authority there would be a certain amount of disappointment. One could go so far as to say that, irrespective of how far one tried to go in terms of membership of the authority, there would be a degree of disappointment. These are inescapable facts of life, particularly where public bodies are concerned. The decision is the correct one. The chairperson is a person of tremendous energy and commitment and great dedication and has shown that over many years. I think I will be proved correct.

I fully accept the dedication, energy and commitment of the person who has been appointed to the interim chair. It is the principle that I am arguing and the fact that inevitably there will be issues under discussion and decisions to be made that directly involve the service provider, whoever that service provider is. It is in that context that it would be better to have somebody who is outside the service provision area chairing the Authority.

I am happy it is a Tipperary person who is to be chairperson. I firmly believe the reason there was disappointment in the disability sector is that it was one of the recommendations of the commission report that an independent chairperson, unconnected with any of the foregoing should be appointed. I realise Deputy O'Sullivan is arguing a point of principle, and it would be most unfair of any one of us to judge anyone's performance before he or she had carried out the job. I wish the chairperson well. We all know her commitment, dedication and expertise in the area she has served.

The points raised here are not in any way personal. I believe, and I hope she will prove, that there will be no conflict of interest and that she will serve as a very successful chair of the authority. It was the recommendation of the commission report that built up the belief within the disability sector that somebody who was involved with the service providers would not be appointed. However, I am glad the Minister picked somebody from Tipperary.

There is a general recognition that this is not a personality issue. Clearly it is a matter of principle as to whether a service provider should or should not be chairperson. The Deputy can take it that I fully accept her principled stand in that respect.

The truth is that both service providers and recipients of services are capable of distinguishing their roles as providers and service recipients from their roles as members of the National Disability Authority. Section 31 provides for the standard safeguard in such cases in that where a member of the authority has a beneficial interest in respect of any matter which falls to be considered by the authority, that member must clearly disclose his or her interest in advance of any consideration of the matters of interest and may not seek to influence that matter or take any part in its consideration. That person must withdraw from any meeting at which it is discussed and not vote or act in relation to the matter. That is a standard safeguard of which we are all very well aware.

To the extent that members of either group, that is to say, service providers or recipients, fail to achieve a level of balance, I feel certain other members of the Authority would act in such an event to ensure the statutory remit of the corporate entity is exercised without prejudice. In general terms, I believe there is a sufficiently broad-based group appointed to meet the challenges which lie ahead. I gave a commitment that the majority would be people with disabilities or their families or carers, and I fulfilled that. It is never easy to select boards such as this. It is not an exact science. Selecting the chairperson is not an exact science either. However, I am satisfied, following upon extensive consultations, that the person whom I selected as chairperson is the right person for what is a very difficult and challenging task.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 34 is in the name of Deputy O'Sullivan. Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 are related. They can be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 11, subsection (3), lines 48 to 53, and in page 12, lines 1 and 2, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:

"(a) the requirement that 15 members shall be appointed by the Minister from persons nominated to the Minister by organisations representative of persons with disabilities, their representatives, families or carers; and the remaining 3 appointed members shall be chosen by the Minister from persons appearing to the Minister to have relevant knowledge and experience, and".

This amendment and the related amendments are intended to deal with issues relating to the membership of the authority. Amendment No. 34 is to allow various organisations to nominate their own representatives, rather than have the Minister decide who would be appropriate to represent particular disability organisations. In the Seanad debate there was discussion about which organisation should have nominating rights and so on. There are some guidelines with regard to that in the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. Therefore, that would not necessarily be a major obstacle. The principle of organisations being able to nominate their own representatives is important. I refer the Minister to the universities legislation whereby different interests are able to nominate people to represent them on boards of universities. That is just one example, but there are many other examples where organisations nominate their own people rather than have people chosen for them by the Minister.

The other amendments relate to gender. Deputy Ahearn's amendment relates to geography, and I support her on that.

With regard to the gender issue and amendment No. 35, which relates to people with disabilities having a percentage representation on the authority, the Bill appears to deal with these issues, but it is not worded as strongly as I would like. For example, section 20(3) states that in appointing persons to be a member of the authority, the Minister shall have regard to the desirability that a majority on the authority will be persons with a disability. Again, in relation to gender the term "desirability" is used. What I am seeking to ensure is that it is not just desirable but that it actually happens. My amendments and Deputy Ahearn's amendments seek to strengthen the surety that this happens rather than only its "desirability" being referred to in the legislation. I welcome that its "desirability" is in the legislation but I would like it strengthened and for that reason I have tabled these amendments.

Amendment No. 35 proposes to delete "a majority" and substitute "at least 60 per cent.". Often, as legislators, we do just enough to avoid being criticised and we lack the courage and the conviction to forge ahead and make something definite to ensure maximum representation, in this case representation of people with disabilities, their families and carers. There is a big difference between a "majority" and "at least 60 per cent" of the membership representing people with disabilities. In a board comprising 20 members, a majority is 11 but if there must be at least 60 per cent, then 12 or more must represent people with disabilities, their families or carers.

I cannot understand why we did not have the courage to go the whole way . By stating a "majority" we are ensuring we cannot be criticised for not tackling the issue. Why do we not do this with strength and courage? For this reason, I tabled this amendment which is in accordance with the recommendations of the commission's report which stated that in all circumstances at least 60 per cent of the membership of the National Disability Authority should be people with disabilities or their families. It would strengthen the adequate representation of people with disabilities, their families or carers.

I realise there is no perfect way to draw up the membership of any board. It is almost impossible to satisfy all interests but we should do the best we can. This is the reason I tabled the amendment concerning a geographical spread. While I submit it is equally important to have as many areas as possible in the disability sector represented, a geographical spread on the board is very important. We all know the inequities are on a geographical basis in the provision of services. If someone suffers from a disability, whether he receives a good service depends on where he lives. A geographical spread is important so there is full and adequate voice for those who live in remote areas. I know we can succeed in having a geographical spread as well as ensuring the various sectors are represented. The desirability of a geographical spread should be included in the legislation. Perhaps it could be even further strengthened rather than simply using the word "desirable".

The geographical spread is important because of the variety in the standard of services depending on where one lives. For example, with transport one has some hope - small though it is - of getting a bus that will take a wheelchair user in Dublin. There is no hope down the country. In order to represent all people with disability, irrespective of where they live, it would be wise to include a geographical spread.

These amendments seek to change in various ways the arrangements for appointing the NDA. On amendment No. 34, when appointing the members of the interim authority I took account of and found most useful the many nominations I received from disability groups. It is of course standard practice for interested parties to make nominations and consideration to be given to all such nominations. This will no doubt continue to be the case as section 20(3) stands. It would not, however, be the case if I were to accept this amendment. As I am sure the Deputy is aware many organisations represent the disability sector. In the view of many people they would have equal interests in having nomination rights to the authority. In the circumstances, it is equitable to provide, as section 20(3) does, more general criteria for appointment to the authority.

On amendment No. 35, section 20(3) as drafted meets the need for the board of the NDA to be truly representative of people with disabilities, their families and carers while at the same time ensuring it includes a wide range of interests and represents a balance of stake-holders as recommended by the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities.

The commission also recommended at least 60 per cent of the members of the authority should be people with disabilities or their families. The consultants to the commission referred to this delicate balance advising that if the board is dominated by Departments and statutory agencies, it may lack courage in challenging current practice. If, however, it is dominated by service users and carers, it may lack the knowledge, leverage and legitimacy necessary to achieve real change.

The establishment group's recommendation for membership of the authority was made with due regard to the need to achieve this balance. It recommended account be taken of the following groups: people with disabilities, their representatives, families or carers, service providers, both statutory and voluntary, relevant Departments, the social partners and the staff of the NDA. Section 20(3) provides for this recommendation. It succeeds in achieving the balance by adhering as closely as possible to the recommendations of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities in this regard.

The principle set out in amendment No. 36 was accepted in a debate on the Bill in the Seanad. I indicated then that I would accept this principle in a format which ensured primacy is given to the desirability that a majority of the Authority is composed of people with disabilities, their families or carers and that they have knowledge or experience of matters pertaining to disability or of assistance to the Authority. I am satisfied the gender balance provided for in subsection (3)(b) is appropriate and I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 47 would impose further criteria on the selection of members of the Authority. While in many instances it may be appropriate to provide for a geographical balance in the membership of boards, that is not the case in this instance. The NDA is first and foremost a national authority for people with disabilities. The criteria laid down in subsection (3) regarding membership of the Authority are necessary to ensure the appropriate balance is obtained. I do not propose to add further criteria which are not of direct relevance to disability and which may lead to the exclusion of individuals who would otherwise be available for selection to the board. I do not propose to accept amendment No. 37.

On the amendment regarding gender balance, the Minister indicated that he stated in the Seanad he would address this issue. However, I still do not feel paragraph (b) does this. It only refers to the "desirability" of not less than eight members being women and not less than eight being men. I accept the Minister is very balanced in this regard but it does not address the issue of inserting in the legislation that it must happen rather than being simply desirable.

The present requirement of section 20(3) is that at least eight of the members will be women and at least eight will be men. That appears to fall short of the 40 per cent requirement sought in the amendment given the board comprises 21 members. Deputy O'Sullivan who tabled the amendment stressed that a future Minister might not address the gender balance in the way I have done. I doubt that. I honestly feel no Minister would be daft enough to upset the gender balance like that. Of the 20 appointed members of the current interim authority, nine are women and 11 are men. Obviously it is well balanced relatively speaking. If Deputy O'Sullivan has specific concerns, I could consider on Report Stage increasing representation from eight to nine members. That might be the way forward. There is a shortfall with regard to the 40 per cent requirement sought in the amendment, given that the board is comprised of 21 members. We will look at that again.

I thank the Minister for that. I was concerned more about the use of the term "desirability" than the number. Women have tended to become sceptical over the years about promises rather than safeguards in regard to gender balances because unless these matters are written in stone they can be dropped. I accept that the current board is well balanced but I am trying to tighten it up a bit more, to ensure the gender balance is maintained in the future.

I understand Deputy O'Sullivan's point. I do not think any Minister would be so foolish as to upset the balance. However, nothing is impossible and the best bet is for us to look at it again. We will look at the issue again before Report Stage to see if the terminology can be tightened a bit to ensure the desirability factor is taken into account.

I did not hear the Minister respond to amendment No. 35 and why he selected "a majority" rather than "at least 60 per cent". Will he consider addressing the geographic spread on Report Stage? I agree it is another imposition by any Minister on appointments to the authority and that it is possible to have too many guidelines. However, we are dealing with an area in which geographical representation is very important. As I have said, there are differences in the quality of service between one area and other. It would not be cumbersome to have a geographic balance on the board - it would be a positive step which would add to the overall contribution the authority will make in improving the quality of services. I see no reason the Minister would not consider including this on Report Stage.

The point is that amendment No. 35, to which Deputy Ahearn referred, seeks to substitute the requirement that at least 60 per cent of the membership of the authority would be persons with disabilities, their representatives, families or carers, for the present requirement that such persons should comprise a majority of the membership of the authority. There was a deep commitment to ensuring the authority would comprise people with disabilities, their families and carers for the most part. In fact, 65 per cent of the present authority are representatives of people with disabilities, their families and carers and several more are representative of service providing agencies. Representatives of the social partners and relevant Departments also had to be included. In general terms, we can say without question that the actual composition of the present board exceeds the expectation raised by the amendment tabled by Deputy Ahearn.

In providing that a majority of the authority would be persons with disabilities, their representatives, families or carers, I have ensured that a balance is maintained and that people directly involved - recipients of the service - control the authority. I do not see how increasing that to 60 per cent would in any way improve their position. It is true it would change the individual membership of the board but there is an inbuilt majority in the legislation for the people about whom Deputy Ahearn is concerned.

The Minister of the day would have to take into account various factors in deciding the future composition of the authority, in terms of the proportions of those with disabilities, their families, carers and representatives and others. For my part, I have decided that the vast majority of the board should be comprised of such people, that is, people with disabilities, their representatives, families or carers. I cannot see the advantage, once we have provided for a majority, in increasing it further. However, the discretion is still there, of course.

The Minister is basing his argument on the composition of the present board. This legislation does not relate just to the present board. Membership of the board can change; for example, members who leave the board must be replaced. I am delighted that over 65 per cent of the present membership represent people with disabilities, their families and carers, and I congratulate the Minister. However, board membership changes - the present board will not be there forever. This amendment should be accepted to ensure that at least 60 per cent of that category will always be represented on the board. The fact that they have 65 per cent of the present membership is not enough to justify a simple majority. Boards and Ministers change.

Subsection (3), as drafted at present, refers to the fact that the Minister must have regard to the desirability that a majority would be persons with disabilities, their representatives, families or carers. That is not something which any Minister would breach easily. There might come a stage where it would be felt necessary that the board should comprise more of one group than another and there would not be the flexibility to do that if the number of members with disabilities, their representatives, families or carers were fixed at 60 per cent. That is a reasonable argument, when one considers the desirability of having a majority must be uppermost in the Minister's mind.

In my view, there will always be, barring some unforeseen event, a majority of people with disabilities, their representatives, families or carers on the board. That is as good a guarantee as I should give in the circumstances. There must be some room for discretion, if only to tackle events which are, as of now, unforeseen.

There is a provision in section 34 that it will be reviewed by the Minister within three years. It states: "The Minister shall, not later than three years after the establishment day, initiate a review of the operation of Parts I and II of this Act". I suggest these issues are looked at under that provision. We are not concerned so much about the membership of the current board as the fact that we want to ensure these areas are adequately represented in the future. With that proviso, I will not press my amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 11, subsection (3)(a), line 48, to delete "a majority" and substitute "at least 60 per cent.".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 12, subsection (3), between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

"(c) subject to paragraph (a), the desirability that a geographical balance be maintained among the membership of the Authority.".

I am pressing this amendment as I was not promised a review of the geographical spread.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 38 not moved.
Section 20 agreed to.
Sections 21 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 25.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 13, lines 16 to 18, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:

"(1) There shall be a chief executive of the Authority who shall be known, and is referred to in this Act, as the 'Director'.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 13, subsection (2), line 19, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 13, subsection (2) line 20, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 13, subsection (2), line 21, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 13, subsection (3), line 22, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 13, subsection (4), line 27, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 13, subsection (5)(a), line 32, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 13, subsection (5)(b)(i), line 41, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 13, subsection (5)(b)(ii), line 43, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 13, subsection (5)(b), line 44, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 13, subsection (6), line 46, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 14, subsection (6)(a), line 1, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 14, subsection (6)(b), line 5, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26.

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 14, subsection (1), line 9, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 14, subsection (2)(a), lines 13 and 14, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 14, subsection (2)(a), line 16, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 14, subsection (2)(b), line 22, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 14, subsection (2)(c), line 30, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 14, subsection (3), line 32, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 27.

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 14, subsection (1), line 36, to delete "staff" and substitute "officers or servants".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 14, subsection (3), line 48, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 28.

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 15, subsection (1), line 8, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 15, subsection (6), line 28, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 15, subsection (8), line 41, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 15, subsection (9), line 49, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 16, subsection (10), lines 8 and 9, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 29.

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 16, subsection (1), line 17, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 30.

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 16, subsection (1), line 25, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 31.

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 16, subsection (1), line 39, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 17, subsection (6), line 38, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Section 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 18, subsection (2), line 12, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 18, subsection (3), line 32, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 34.

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 18, line 41, to delete "Minister" and substitute "Authority".

This amendment relates to the part of the legislation I quoted earlier where I had hoped the various sections would be reviewed particularly with regard to the composition of the Authority. In this amendment I am seeking to have the authority review the operation rather than the Minister. This is not to suggest that the Minister should not do so also.

Section 34 provides for a review of the legislation after three years of operation. I assure Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Ahearn there will be a review of the legislation and where there are weaknesses we will certainly move to correct them.

Amendment No. 71 seeks to allow the Authority rather than the Minister to review the legislation three years after the establishment day. This is a most unusual proposal. In the normal course it is for the Minister concerned to review legislation and to bring proposals for change to Government and to the Oireachtas. The review of the legislation involves a wide consultation process. In three years' time the consultation process will include bodies with an interest in the legislation. It seems inevitable that the review process will impact particularly on the National Disability Authority and I expect special regard will be had to its views concerning the options for amending the legislation at that stage. However, formal responsibility for the review of the legislation must rest with the Government and with individual Ministers in whose functional area the particular legislative proposals arise. Deputy O'Sullivan will understand, therefore, why I am not in a position to accept her amendment.

I understand the logic of the Minister's argument. I should have suggested that both the Authority and the Minister would review the legislation.

There will be a clear consultative role and the views of the Authority, since the review will impact on it more than anybody else, will be taken into account.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 34 agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
SECTION 36.

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 19, subsection (2), lines 22 and 23, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 73:

In page 19, subsection (3), line 28, to delete "Chief Executive" and substitute "Director".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Top
Share