Select Committee on Social Affairs debate -
Thursday, 14 Dec 1995

SECTION 8.

Mr. Noonan (Limerick East)

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 8, lines 9 to 14, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:

"(3) Particular information or information of a particular class or description shall be considered, for the purposes of subsection (1), to be confidential if it is stated to be confidential or the Board or an officer of the Board has directed that it be treated as confidential.

(4) In this section ‘duly authorised' means authorised by the Board or by a person authorised in that behalf by the Board.".

It is proposed to amend subsection (3) to make clearer the definition of "confidential" and provide for the definition of "duly authorised" under a separate subsection. The amended subsection (3) and the new subsection (4) read as per the amendment. The term "stated to be confidential" means stated in the contracts between the VHI and service providers. These would usually have a confidentiality clause included.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I have no difficulty with the section or with the amendment. However, I understand that some of the staff representatives have raised queries in this regard. Is there already a procedural agreement with the unions representing staff which covers confidentiality, and is it the case under such an agreement that any breach of confidentiality is considered gross misconduct and subject to summary dismissal? Is an employee of the VHI who leaves for a competitor bringing information regarding the VHI and how it does its business outside the scope of the Bill by virtue of having left the employ of the VHI?

Mr. Noonan (Limerick East)

This issue means change, and staff representatives would like it discussed further with management. Like in any change, concerns will arise. However, more onerous confidentiality provisions are included because the VHI is entering a competitive market. While it had a monopoly, information in the public domain, regardless of whether it was price sensitive, did not matter very much. However, information which would be price or cost sensitive now could damage the company if it received a wider issue than within the company itself. This is all that is involved here, but it would be advisable for the VHI to discuss this with staff so that any view that members off staff may have that this was some kind of heavy-handed provision could be allayed by having the need for it explained to them.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Perhaps the Minister will respond to my inquiry regarding an employee who leaves the VHI?

Mr. Noonan (Limerick East)

The section, as drafted, would catch somebody who had left the employ of the VHI in that if people working in a key area who are free to take up employment with a competitor, divulge confidential information at that point, it could damage the company, so there would be a statutory obligation on them not to divulge such information.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.