National Community Development Agency Bill, 1982: Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

Mr. O'Mahony

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete subsection (1), page 4, lines 6 to 44, and substitute the following subsection:

"(1) The principal functions of the Agency shall be—

(a) to examine the extent and sources of inequality in all its forms in Irish society on an on-going basis;

(b) to undertake action aimed at combating poverty and to evaluate such action;

(c) to appraise critically existing policies and programmes in so far as they affect poverty and to recommend modifications in policies or programmes where such are necessary to combat poverty;

(d) to suggest effective new policies and programmes against poverty and to test out new programmes on an experimental basis;

(e) to promote, by financial or material aid, programmes of community self-help within communities or groups identified by the Agency as having a high degree of poverty and social deprivation;

(f) to promote greater co-ordination of the programmes of statutory and voluntary agencies against poverty and social deprivation.

(2) In addition to the functions set out in subsection (1), the Agency shall have the following functions—

(a) to advise the Minister, in relation to social and economic planning, on matters which relate to poverty and social deprivation;

(b) to advise the Minister and to make recommendations to him regarding community development policies and community development programmes in relation to self-help, poverty and social services;

(c) to advise the Minister on the development of community-based services, including in particular improved training and the supply of community development staff;

(d) to draw on and evaluate research on self-help, poverty and social deprivation by third-level educational and other bodies, and to promote research from time to time on specific projects;

(e) to promote through community information centres specifically and by other means a greater public knowledge of statutory entitlements and services;

(f) to collect and disseminate information on community development, self-help. poverty and social deprivation;

(g) to promote greater public understanding of the nature, causes, and extent of poverty and social deprivation and the measures required to alleviate them;

(h) to perform such tasks and submit such reports as the Minister may from time to time direct."

This amendment is to substitute a series of functions for the agency in place of those contained in the section. I referred during the course of a short contribution on Second Stage to the origins of the agency which is now proposed and I should like to repeat those briefly. The proposed agency will replace the National Social Service Board in its entirety. It is also seen by the Government to be an alternative to the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty. It is no secret that the Government of the day were not enamoured of the work of that committee since its inception and sought any opportunity they could to place obstacles in the way of the committee and its employees. They had it in mind to eliminate the committee and its work at the first opportunity. Now the Government and the Minister have taken the opportunity afforded by the proposed new agency to wipe out the committee and its work and the philosophy which lay behind that work, under the guise that this new agency will in some way carry on the same kind of programmes and tasks.

I read carefully the functions proposed for the agency in the Bill. Apart from the fact that they are unduly vague, they are in no way a substitute for the philosophy behind the national committee to combat poverty. They do not provide an opportunity for a national programme directed specifically towards the elimination of poverty. Poverty, of course, is mentioned in the Bill on many occasions but there is no question of the Bill containing any philosophy behind the causes of poverty or any set of objectives to come to grips with those causes or to move towards the elimination of the scandal of 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the population living in poor circumstances.

What I am trying to do in the amendment is to provide an alternative set of functions. Some of these are already in the Bill but I have tried to make more explicit the concept that poverty exists, that it is a result of inequality, and to make more explicit the obligation on the agency to combat that poverty and to act against it openly and clearly and without equivocation. We cannot write poverty off the agenda irrespective of how difficult the economic circumstances we find ourselves in. We cannot wipe out at a stroke our knowledge of the scale of poverty or the embryonic anti-poverty programme which has struggled to survive during the seventies in difficult political and economic circumstances. I believe strongly that if this agency does not have specific terms of reference which oblige it to act on behalf of poor people, to analyse the scale and causes of poverty and to help them to organise explicitly against it, the agency will be no more than the National Social Service Board is at the moment and, valuable though its work is, it is no substitute for a national anti-poverty programme.

I have retained in the amendment before the House many of the ideas contained in the section in the Bill but I have attempted to make it clear that the agency's primary function is to act against poverty and on behalf of poor people. Therefore, I have suggested, for example, that the agency should undertake action aimed at combating poverty and evaluate such action. That is a fairly straightforward and simple concept. It means essentially that the agency will be a buttress on behalf of poor people against the State. If the State does not give them equal opportunities it will have the obligation to stand on their behalf against Government agencies or private institutions when necessary. It will also, as suggested further down in the amendment, have the function of modifying existing programmes or suggesting new programmes by agreement with statutory and voluntary agencies.

The section as proposed in the Bill is vague. It does not appear to accept the reality of poverty or make suggestions about an explicit programme to combat it. Assisting community development projects and self-help projects are valuable aids which I have included in my proposed amendment, but unless there is a clear unequivocal commitment of funding an agency which will act explicitly and clearly on behalf of poor people, where necessary, then we have effectively wiped out eight years' work and eliminated skills which have been accumulated during that time and which will take many years to reaccumulate if they are not used on an ongoing permanent basis now. Therefore I move the amendment, not with any great sense of antagonism to the Government which proposed it, but because it incorporates the good functions in the existing Bill and adds to them an explicit set of commitments in relation to the people whom the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty were trying to help, and retains that philosophy inside our legislative system.

Mrs. Bolger

I would like to refer to section 4 to ascertain and specify communities in which there is a high degree of poverty and social deprivation——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are dealing with amendment No. 1: we are not on the section yet.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I am in agreement with the points made by Senator O'Mahony in relation to his objective of providing the funds and resources to continue and develop the work for the poor which was initiated in the combat poverty pilot schemes. These pilot studies indicated the possible directions for the future. Based on these, on the work of the National Social Service Board and on the experience generally otherwise, together with the developments which have been taking place in our society, this Bill proposes to meet all those requirements in what we believe to be the best way possible. I would like the Senator to recognise that there is no intention to wipe out the combat poverty work or concept but in fact to enshrine this work in the kind of organisation which these pilot studies have ultimately led to. Senator O'Mahony said we should not write poverty off the agenda but there is no intention to do this. All through the Bill, including this section and the original Bill as it stands, poverty and social deprivation are highlighted.

Since the Senator raised the question of economic circumstances, £250,000 was to be provided for the national committee on poverty. In the Estimates this year this body will have £2 million. In economic terms, it is quite clear that the Government's intention is to put markedly greater resources at the disposal of this new body. I am satisfied that all the Senator's proposals are already adequately covered in the Bill as passed by the Dáil. Subsection (1) (a) refers to inequality in all its forms and this is a very broad and ambiguous term to enshrine in legislation. The substance of this paragraph is adequately covered in the present provisions. It is obvious that the agency, if it is to fulfil its statutory obligations, will have to examine all aspects of poverty and social deprivation including the extent, sources and effects of social inequality. In addition, the agency will be empowered to engage directly in research. Here again it is obvious that the relationship between poverty, social deprivation and inequality will come up for consideration.

The essence of subsection (1) (b) and (1) (d) is contained in section 4 (1) (a) of the Bill, whereby the agency is empowered to undertake programmes on an experimental basis. The agency will also be required to evaluate such action. It is not, however, my intention that the agency should become involved in the operation of programmes on a long-term continuous basis. Once the agency identifies an unmet need, arrangements will be made to have it tackled by the appropriate statutory bodies. Senators will agree that this would be the logical development. Once that need is clearly identified and long-term action is required, it will be a case of ensuring that that action is taken by the appropriate statutory or voluntary bodies. I accept the essence of subsection (1) (c) but it is adequately covered in section 4 (1) (a), (b) and (e) of the Bill and this amendment is, therefore, unnecessary. Subsection (1) (e) is already adequately covered in section 4 (1) (d) of the Bill. I agree with Senator O'Mahony that the agency should concentrate its attention on communities which are most deprived and most in need of support. This has been spelled out clearly in the Bill as it stands.

However, it is important to bear in mind that pockets of deprivation exist throughout the country even in the most prosperous and well-developed areas. We all know very well that the study commissioned by the former combat poverty pilot scheme on the elderly and the old alone in Ireland showed quite clearly that loneliness was one of the major problems and that this existed irrespective of the particular community in which the elderly people lived. In other words, they might live in a community which was not normally regarded as a deprived community, but for them there was deprivation in that sense. This is the concept we have of community here and it is vital that the agency should not be unnecessarily restricted, that they should be able to offer their support wherever this is needed. The use of the word "particularly" in section 4 (1) (d) will, while ensuring that the agency concentrate on the most deprived communities, allow them the flexibility to work in any area with any group which they deem to need assistance. It will be up to the agency to identify these communities which will not be solely tied to areas.

Subsection (1) (f) is already adequately covered by the provisions of section 4 (1) (b) of the Bill. My proposals require the agency to promote and co-ordinate the work of statutory bodies and voluntary agencies so as to achieve more effective action in relation to self-help, poverty and social deprivation. I would point out here that in the proposals in the Bill which has been accepted in the Dáil, it will now be possible for any Minister to direct an agency which is under his control to co-operate with the new agency which are setting up here today. This is a new and very important development and one which will be very valuable in ensuring that the maximum co-operation takes place.

Subsection (2) (a) is already contained in section 4 (1) (e) of the Bill, subsection (2) (b) is already covered by section 4 (1) (a) of the Bill, subsection (2) (c) is covered in section 4 (1) (f) of the Bill; subsection (2) (d) is covered by section 4 (1) (g) which also includes provisions for the agency to engage in research.

Before engaging in research the agency will be required to obtain the approval of the Minister. The purpose of this provision is twofold: first, to ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication of effort between the agency and other research bodies. Senators will recognise that the intention is that the bulk of the research could be done on a contracted-out basis but in specific instances it may be necessary for the agency itself to engage in research but we would hope these would be limited instances and that the bulk of the work could be done by persons or bodies on a contracted basis, which is the way most of the work of the pilot studies was done originally. Research undertaken by the Medico-Social Research Board, the Economic and Social Research Institute, the National Economic and Social Council and in certain cases An Foras Forbartha, and An Foras Talúntais may be very relevant to the work of the agency and it is obviously desirable that the agency should not duplicate their efforts.

The second reason for requiring ministerial approval to engage in research is to ensure that the agency does not become too research-oriented. I am anxious that the emphasis should be on action rather than research. The agency's primary and most urgent objective is to take steps to provide community development and to promote it and to initiate action against poverty and social deprivation. This is the primary intention in the Bill and we do not want the agency to become over research-oriented in itself. There is great scope for action, for making use of the information which is available there and which can be obtained from existing outlets. I do not intend that the agency should devote a large share of its resources to research to the detriment of other more practical activities. Research will have its place and I want to ensure that it is kept in proportion.

Subsection (2) (e) of the amendment is already contained in section 4 (1) (h) of the Bill. I do not consider that it is necessary to specify community information centres. The agency is empowered and obliged to continue the work of the National Social Service Board. The present section 4 (1) (a) of the Bill requires the agency to advise the Minister on the development of social services. Section 4 (1) (d) of the Bill is wide enough to enable the agency to continue the work of the Board in relation to support and promotion of voluntary groups and activities, while section 4 (1) (h) has been expressly included to enable the agency to take over the board's functions in relation to community information centres. Subsection (2) (f), (g) and (h) correspond exactly with subsection (1) (i), (j) and (k) of the Bill.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am well aware that the Minister is endeavouring to take the points that are being made to him, but I fail to understand how he will ensure particularly that the agency will concentrate the greater proportion of their funds and efforts in what he has himself identified quite clearly as their major functions in the area for combating poverty. It is not in the functions as listed in the Bill. There is no provision for principal functions and other functions in the Bill. Will he change the functions by regulation after the Bill goes through the Oireachtas? What is the mechanism by which he proposes to ensure that the agency do what he clearly is indicating to us that he wants them to do, that is to concentrate the greater part of their efforts and resources on the combating of poverty and in the major objectives he has named? One of the important aspects of the amendment, and one to which he has not alluded too much is the identification of principal functions and then other functions.

It is clear that the Minister's intention is that the principal function should be to combat poverty, but it is not clear from the Bill that that is what the function will be. Ten functions are listed there and nothing in the Bill in any way suggests that one function is or will be more important than the other. There is a slight suggestion that if the Minister is going to say on a day-to-day basis which of those functions is more important than the other he will effectively be running the agency. If the agency are to have a special primary function it ought to be written into the legislation or it ought to be done by regulation. It should not be done by indications, pressures and suggestions from the Minister.

That would not be a satisfactory method of running an important independent agency which, as I said on Second Stage, ought to have a role which could technically be defined as subversive of the established order. They ought to be challenging accepted views, conceptions, ideas and structures. They cannot do that if they are to have day-to-day regulation by the Minister of their functions. The only proper way to ensure that the agency do what they are supposed to do, which is to struggle and work to combat poverty in all its manifestations as their principal function, is either to accept the amendment or by the Minister giving a commitment to amend those functions by regulation subsequent to the passing of this Bill through the Oireachtas. Otherwise the agency are left wide open to day-to-day interference by the Minister in office determining how they work and that obviously would not be acceptable.

Mr. O'Mahony

I share Senator Ryan's view that there appears to be too much possibility for ministerial intervention in the work of the agency. On the matter of the functions proposed in the Bill and the amendment, the Minister quite rightly indicated, as I myself did, that a number of the functions proposed in the amendment are similar to the functions proposed in the Bill itself. That is quite true because what I attempted to do was to draw out of the original set of functions those which I thought could be beneficial in any kind of programme designed to help people in either deprived groups or deprived communities. However, what is very worrying with the original set of functions proposed is that they seem to move away clearly from any kind of commitment to the concept of a national agency which will act nationally on behalf of poor people. The functions are to promote and co-ordinate programmes in relation to self-help, poverty and social deprivation with the objective of achieving more effective action by statutory bodies and voluntary agencies. That is something we would all agree with as being a desirable objective. It is a different objective, however, from an objective set down in the amendment before us which in clauses (a), (b) and, indeed, (c) are very explicit and clear. Subsection (1) (a) is "to examine the extent and sources of inequality in all its forms in Irish society on an on-going basis". That is a very explicit proposed function which is essential if we are to have any serious long-term attack on the problem of poverty and social deprivation. It is not contained in the original set of functions in the Bill.

More importantly, perhaps, subsection (1) (b) in the amendment suggests that the agency should "undertake action aimed at combating poverty and to evaluate such action". That, too, is quite simple and short but it is very important because what it attempts to convey is the idea of a national agency which will act in its own right directly on behalf of poor people against whatever set of structures or institutions are keeping them in the conditions in which they find themselves. In other words, that is a significantly different function in itself from the range of functions proposed in the Bill which are concerned with advising the Minister, with suggesting modifications to policies. In fact (d) is "to foster and assist... projects of community involvement and activity, and to facilitate the mobilisation of self-help particularly in communities in which there is a high degree of poverty and social deprivation". That is good in the sense that it will have merit and value on the ground in selected communities but compared with the recommendations contained in the final report of the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty, the difference between the two is that that final report recommended a national institution which would act on behalf of poor people and which would be funded by the State so to do and which would act for them at a national level, clearly, explicitly and in its own right.

The Minister said that the combat poverty programme was merely pilot schemes. That is true. He went on to say that this agency now derives from the results of those pilot schemes. That is not the case. The results of the pilot schemes suggested a different kind of agency which would incorporate some of the functions proposed in the Bill in relation to self-help and community development and so on, but which would also have as a central function that of representing poor people and poor communities, centrally, explicitly and openly and which would be a national institution there to act on their behalf against all other institutions which sought to keep them in their existing situation.

In conclusion, I agree with the Minister when he says that a number of the functions proposed in the amendment are already included in the Bill. That was deliberately done because there are good functions proposed in the Bill but what is missing from the Bill is a commitment to a national agency which would act on behalf of poor people and be their voice in the myriad range of institutions we have at the moment.

Mr. Robb

I have read with great interest the National Community Development Agency Bill and having done my best to digest it I would like at this juncture to say that it seems to me that it does cover in a very broad way many of the outstanding difficulties and needs there are with regard to the increasing number of deprived people living in our community. However, I would like to say that I share some of the reservations which have been expressed by Senator O'Mahony. He has clearly indicated that the Bill lacks, perhaps, the cutting edge which is really required if we are to have effective action and effective action requires raising awareness because it seems that it is only by raising public awareness that we can become politically agitated sufficiently to get action rather than words and good ideas. I wondered just as I read through the Bill if in fact there does not appear to be a little too much of over-centralised control coming through it. I would ask the Minister how he envisages the local awareness, at local community level; how does he envisage the voluntary bodies, the statutory bodies and the people who are politically involved plus the consumer at local level coming together to define the local need and how this, in the context of his Bill, is to be translated from local level into the agency so that the agency can effectively respond to what is needed locally? Different localities will have different needs but I do not want him to conclude that I am suggesting that we should fragment the organisation. There is need for national organisation but there is need also for some balance. I would be very worried about the question of the control element rather than the need for increasing the people's awareness of the problem so that they can put the pressure on the agency and in turn further pressure on the Minister through his Ministry to produce results. I am not sure that that has been adequately dealt with and therefore I would be very much inclined to support Senator O'Mahony's amendment.

Mrs. Barnes

I also share the concern expressed by Senator O'Mahony and by the other Senators who have spoken. What we are endeavouring to do is get at what has to be fundamental to this agency if it is going to be effective and that is that its powers and authority will have to be defined. Likewise, I find that within the functions as written into the Bill that definition is not there. Such definition is absolutely essential in such a Bill because if we are talking about seriously combating poverty we are not just talking about including the word "poverty" in the Bill or even the word "deprivation". What we have to include above all in the Bill is inequality because that is basic to poverty and we have to tackle inequalities if we are serious about removing poverty from our society. If, as Senator Robb said, and I agree, that it would seem from the reading of the Bill now that the emphasis is on control, particularly centralised control and the total communicating of everything to the Minister and to the Minister's Department, it is really more an advisory agent rather than an active positive agent in its own right.

When we talk about combating poverty, and hopefully removing it, we really have to talk basically about giving people a set of, first, their own rights but, secondly a sense of how to go about achieving them and that will come only through an agency having the power and authority to challenge the established structures. There is no way to remove inequality without challenging and changing those structures. If the whole force and thrust of the Bill is centralised through the Minister who keeps the status quo, how can the agency have any power in their own right? I would like a clearer definition of the agency's functions and authority, without which they will not be effective.

The National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty Report shows clearly that what is needed is not centralised advice, or hand-outs, or getting involved with organisations which help and assist people. What is needed is to give people control over their own lives and choices. That is really what the removal of poverty is about. We must not just talk about self-help, but promote it, and when we actually promote self-help we take on a real challenge. We have to hand back to the people some of the power already vested in the established structures, including this, and, particularly, the other House. The greatest root of poverty is the lack of control over one's life. To release that power to a vast number of people one must give them authority, which means that the agency which will bring this about must have the authority to do it in the first place.

The functions of the agency are bland and not couched in strong enough language. For instance, the agency are to foster and assist, including by financial or material aid, projects of community involvement. What is meant by that? We should not be fostering and assisting, but positively helping to establish, in the development sense, community projects with the people, within their own authority.

Senator O'Mahony's amendment is an attempt to define more clearly and more positively the functions of the agency. I would be very unhappy if the present wording of the Bill were let stand. I am not taking away from the Bill — I know and admire the commitments therein — but we are talking about a Bill that is to help to remove not just poverty but the sense of powerlessness from which a million of our people suffer. We cannot come out with a bland Bill. That would not be the answer. We must produce a strong, positive, challenging Bill and be prepared, in bringing out that Bill, to be willing to hand over some of the power we hold and some of the wealth we hold. Only in that way will this agency work.

Dr. Woods

There is much confusion about the functions of the agency. In the Dáil, there was a different situation, particularly on this section. Everybody seems to have a different idea about what should be included in the Bill. If we came back next week we would find another hundred different people with different ideas about what should be included in this section. We have a tradition of semi-State bodies which has served us very well. We are here setting up a semi-State body and giving them the kinds of functions, support and backing which were given to other semi-State bodies. This is the first time that such a body has been established, irrespective of all the talk that has gone on for all the years. Here we are spelling out the functions which will be comprehensive and flexible. Irish men and women as members of the board will run this agency for the poor. We specify the functions clearly in all the sections.

I went through the points raised by Senator O'Mahony and I want to go back over them to show whether they are encompassed in the Bill as it stands, without the need for primary and subsidiary functions. Senator O'Mahony would have the advising of the Minister — and, obviously, the Government of the day — as a secondary function. I would see that as a very central function. The body will not do all that we want done, as the combat poverty group did not. The latter group gave an indication of the right direction and it was up to the Government of the day to take up these indicators and act on them. This body will be central to Government policy. They will be in a position to advise publicly. People have suggested that there is hidden control, but it is spelled out quite clearly in the Bill that the agency will publish their reports. They can publish at any frequency they like, but they must at least publish annually. This is regarded as very important. We are in no way trying to hide poverty or put it aside.

On the whole question of dealing with poverty, successive Governments have made great strides. We should recognise that fact. We are here planning an agency which will be a semi-State body in the full sense. There are restrictions on staff, of course. All semi-State bodies have similar restrictions on staff. There is now no such thing as setting up a body and leaving it to its own devices, although there might have been in the past. Wide, well learned and hard learned experience has shown that it is necessary to have some control over the numbers of staff to be appointed. I come to the same Opposition Senators on another question concerning the health services and they tell me to control the staff, that staff numbers are too high in some areas and not sufficient in others.

Mr. Harte

The Minister is not comparing like with like.

Dr. Woods

The Senator may reply in a minute. This is a standard function in all the bodies which are set up now. Let us be quite clear that there is nothing unusual being suggested here. We are not trying to encircle this agency. We are trying to establish it on a sound, practical, effective basis. I believe that it will be effective. We in this House cannot dictate how exactly this agency should function. That has never been the purpose of this House in relation to our semi-State bodies. We have given broad functions to those bodies. We have put people on the boards who were interested and involved in the country and in the development of the areas concerned. They have had to work out the direction which that will take. These people are not in single figures. North, south, east and west they are engaged actively in the voluntary agencies and the statutory agencies.

Senator O'Mahony puts forward a clause (a) that we should have instead of the existing functions in the Bill. Clause (a) would be to examine the extent and sources of inequality in all its forms in our society and on an ongoing basis. Clause (j) in the Bill as it stands is not only to examine but also to suggest the measures which are needed to alleviate such poverty as it discovers it. In this Bill we have been through the legal framework and the parliamentary draftsman. The previous Bill was only a draft Bill. The heads of the Bill had been circulated but had never gone through the parliamentary draftsman. The Bill had never had that test, which is a very important test when one comes down to being quite clear and specific.

Section 4 (j) includes the phrase "to promote greater public understanding of the nature..." That is a separate function. I refer back to what Senator Robb said. The function is there to promote greater understanding. How the agency do that is their own business. Among our semi-State bodies, for example, An Foras Talúntais publish reports about anything they regard as important to agriculture. They also give reports to the Minister and advise the Minister, but they are totally free to publish their own reports in these areas. The function as stated, "to promote greater understanding of the nature, causes and extent of poverty and social deprivation and the measures required to alleviate them." Therefore that is widely embracing. This is why I said in my reply to this amendment that the functions which Senator O'Mahony would wish to see included in the Bill are included but just in a different way. I do not want to create primary and secondary functions. I believe it is up to the board at a given time to decide themselves which ones are more important or less important. There is no way we can do that here. That is a functional matter for the board once established.

Senator O'Mahony said also that the combat poverty studies recommended that the body should be one at national level to act for the poor. There is no way we can set up a body other than a full statutory one at national level having a comprehensive set of functions, powers and authority in that area. If the House or the Government feel that there is an area not being covered which is important in relation to the objectives of the Bill — an area of social deprivation, difficulty or hardship — the Minister can direct the body to undertake studies in such circumstances and which might otherwise be neglected. As I see it, the provisions of the Bill will meet that requirement following on the combat poverty pilot schemes.

I had been involved in re-organising the National Social Service Council to give it more teeth, more strength. I had completed that before we went out of office around May, 1981. It was my intention at that time to proceed from there, making that council a statutory body in a form which would be indicated by various other elements. The Government changed and we were out of office for some time. We are back in office and what we are now doing is giving teeth, money and power to this area, subsuming the National Social Service Council which has become the National Social Service Board within the overall agency.

Senator Robb was concerned about the cutting edge. I am afraid we cannot specifically include the cutting edge in the Bill if the cutting edge is not in the people when they come to implement it. There is plenty of scope for them within the provisions of the Bill. Our purpose here is to provide the broad functions, authorities and powers which they can use. I do not want to divide them into two separate levels of functions. It really is a matter for the board once established. People will decide very quickly whether the board are doing a good job. It will be a matter for the Government of the day to decide whether the board are doing a good job or not. There are plenty of people who will indicate clearly to a Government or any Minister whether they believe the board are doing a good or bad job especially in this area.

On the question of raising public awareness, one of the functions of the Bill is to increase public awareness and to promote and co-ordinate programmes. I already mentioned paragraph (j), which reads:

to promote better public understanding of the nature, causes and extent of poverty and social deprivation and the measures required to alleviate them.

Then paragraph (h) reads:

to promote greater awareness, accessibility and co-ordination of social services;

That is the awareness of which the Senator spoke. They can interpret that any way they like. That is just to promote awareness. It is not merely awareness of co-ordination; it is awareness standing alone. I can assure the House that our semi-State bodies are particularly good at promoting awareness of the things they believe to be important in their fields. Certainly I would have no fear in that respect. Indeed, to talk about establishing a body and stepping up funds from £250,000 to £2 million suddenly, because it is now so late in the year discussing it here in the Seanad — I am not blaming the Seanad for that — affects us this year. Everybody appears to be so worried about poverty. The Second Stage was debated in the Dáil on 2 June. We were delayed in the Dáil with other business and so on. We have £2 million available in the Estimates for this year. There is no way that body will be able to sort this out in the short time remaining. Certainly they will have an opportunity of having a dynamic and strong developmental effect on our society — the point Senator Barnes made.

Senator Robb was concerned also about too much centralised control. Control relates only to the fact that the Minister and the Government will require a report per annum. That is one control. They will also provide the money. Therefore certainly at the outset the body is doing very well. The question of the numbers of people employed is a control which applies now to all our semi-State bodies. That does not affect the normal day-to-day spending of the moneys which have been allocated already. It is only if the body wants to expand its activities into new areas or recruit extra staff that this would require the approval of the Minister. Indeed on the question of numbers of staff in all bodies throughout the public service there is now the requirement that the Minister would have to get clearance for such additional staff from the Department of Finance. In any event we do not visualise this as being a body with a large staff.

We want to keep the body small, dynamic and do spending on a contracted-out basis through local agencies and through engaging people for specific research where this is proved necessary. We have provided the facility within the provisions of the Bill to engage in research where this is seen to be necessary. We would hope that that would not be too often. Therefore I consider the control is overbearing. It is different if one sets up a body that does not have statutory powers; then it does not need the same relationship with the Government and with the Dáil. But here we are setting up a formal statutory body, giving it the responsibility of looking after this whole area for the first time on a statutory basis. That obviously entails a certain amount of reporting and control.

How will the local voluntary bodies become involved with the agency? Here we would hope that the voluntary bodies will be built into the work of the agency through the projects they are undertaking. Of course the agency will be empowered to grant funds to local voluntary bodies for activities which relate to their functions and priorities as they see them at the time. We have emphasised in the Bill that the areas and communities of high social deprivation must be the first priority. That is spelled out particularly in the Bill as it stands. On this basis they will be empowered to give both capital and current expenditure type grants to voluntary bodies. This is what these voluntary bodies are starved of. They are doing their work and additional resources are needed to get them under way.

There will be the question also of having seminars and working together with these bodies. This is something which the National Social Service Council have been doing in so far as their power and authority would allow them. The new body will have a much wider brief and there is much more scope for them in that respect. We would be concerned particularly that the activities be well related to the people involved on the ground in particular areas in many instances. There will be some instances where there is no activity on the ground. They will have to go in and get that activity under way. Once under way we would then like to see them relating back either to the local community or others. This was one of the problems encountered and discovered earlier in some of the pilot schemes, that in some instances schemes were started but remained separate from the community. Despite a wish to become involved in the community that just did not happen.

I agree with Senator Barnes that this is a very important element. The biggest dynamic is in the community about the local area. Senator Barnes also spoke about tackling inequality. She was concerned about the question of the body being so centrally controlled and being there, more or less, to feed the Minister, which is not its purpose. Certainly, in terms of advice in relation to Government policy, this will be a central agency for advising the Government on policy. The former Government had a proposal to have a section in the Department of Social Welfare — we considered it earlier on — which would act as a monitoring and controlling section. We are now giving the agency the responsibility to advise the Government on their direction on policy matters in relation to combating poverty generally and social deprivation. In that sense I certainly hope this body will feed the Minister of the day with reasoned ideas and arguments which they would have. In that way this body would have a very important role as they would look at existing schemes and systems, compare them and say where real genuine weaknesses are and suggest how these might be tackled. That, however, would not be their sole role. This body's function would be to do their own work as the principal agency to deal with poverty, self-help and community development.

Senator Barnes also raised the question of fostering and assisting. They sound like words that are not too strong, but when one comes to the parliamentary draftsman this is the kind of wording which is comprehensive. I am concerned about fostering new agencies, setting them up and getting them under way. The dynamic way in which the work is done is then a matter for the board and their staff. It would not be appropriate for us to put in here "to foster dynamically" although we may feel like doing that. We will have to leave it to the body to be dynamic in their day-to-day operations.

I would like to assure the Senators in relation to this section that it is not a bland Bill, as Senator Barnes feared, but it has real teeth in the functions which it has and it is up to the body to use those teeth effectively. They are given the enabling power and authority in this Bill. It is really a question of how they go about doing that job subsequently. Senators can be assured that the power and the authority are there for them to act as a statutory semi-State body in this area.

Mr. Harte

I want to apologise for speaking across the House. It is not a habit of mine and I apologise to the Minister for that and particularly the Chair. If the functions of the Bill are not set right and if they do not work the whole purpose of the body fails. This is why there are arguments and concern. For example, if the agency have no access to the other Departments, for example, Education, and so on and do not have a feed-in to the social and economic plan of the Government, and, indeed, to the Taoiseach's planning officers, there are difficulties there. This is not only an agency responsible to the Minister for Social Welfare and Health. It is a debatable fact whether the Minister for Social Welfare and Health is the person to be in charge of this body. We are concerned that when the functions are set down they are representative of the whole question of dealing with the social and economic problems that go with alleviating and making less acute the problems of poverty.

The Minister said that if you did something in one direction you would have many people coming in with other ideas. Of course, you will have people with other ideas. Is that not what democracy is all about? Perhaps if the Minister had initiated the Bill in this House he would not have had many problems in the other House. Particularly, in view of the volume of work that had to be dealt with there, this was an ideal place to start the Bill.

The Minister was concerned about the question of delays. We are not unduly delaying the Bill. I lived in and with poverty in the late twenties and the thirties. It is still to be found in the same locations. There has been no great haste by any Government party to get to real grips with this problem.

It is very important that when we talk about the question of how this will function, we do it right, even if it means a little delay. It is not an intentional delay. The Minister says they have the power and the authority, but they have not the flexibility and the freedom that go with the power and the authority to do the job the way it should be done. We had the Heritage Bill before this House recently and one wonders if the council in that particular area which looks after statues, museums, pictures and parks were not given a lot more power and flexibility than these functions appear to give to people dealing with human misery. This is what we have to tease out. We may be wrong in the final analysis, but we will tease this out.

Mr. O'Mahony

I do not want to delay the House either but I would like to make a very few brief points to finish my contribution to this amendment. The Minister raised a matter which he felt was of concern, that is, that I put the various functions in relation to advising the Minister in a secondary position. In a sense I did, more for tidiness sake than for anything else. There is another purpose as well for putting them in a secondary position, that is, advice is not the problem. We have gone through that period. Advice is available at the drop of a hat or at a fee in relation to most matters concerning social policy. I wanted to try to get the advising functions out of the way down in a separate subsection on their own so that we could begin to see more clearly what the real functions should be.

The fundamental problem still remains. When we accept the functions proposed in the amendment in relation to advising the Minister, when we have accepted the functions relating to projects of community self-help and community development and so on, and when all of us agree that these should go ahead and should be funded, none of us, of course, believes that £2 million in a year will do very much for poverty although it is an improvement on anything we have had before. Let us face it that with £2 million we will not solve the problems of one million poor, but it is still good and it is important that these community development projects should go on. However, at the end of the day it seems that what is important is that these kinds of projects have been going on to a greater or lesser extent over a decade, and in parts of the country, through Muintir na Tíre and other organisations they have been going on for many decades and they will not solve the problems of poverty by themselves. The problem of poverty is a problem of powerlessness; it is a problem of a failure to have proportionate access to the political decision-making system. Because people are subject to that inaccessibility to the system they end up poor.

Therefore, it seems to me to be critically important that we add in this third function, that is, to give the agency the function of representing poor people at national level. That is what I am proposing in subsection (1) (b): "to undertake action aimed at combating poverty..." It is clear and simple, and it means the agency have the authority to come to a Minister, or a local authority, or a private industry, or a semi-State body, and say: "We represent one million poor. This is what we want done. We are their political voice until they have direct access to the political system."

Therefore, I have no difficulty with the advisory roles proposed in the Bill. I have no difficulty either with the community development roles proposed in the Bill. In my amendment I tried to put them into slightly different categories, but basically they are the same. The Bill itself does not contain this fundamental commitment to an agency which will act on behalf of poor people at national level. Unless they have that commitment and function we just have an additional sum of £2 million available for deprived communities, together with AnCO programmes, youth employment programmes, and so on. I certainly would not suggest that these communities should not be given £2 million, but we must have a central national agency which will speak out on behalf of poor people who are powerless in a system which continues to deny them that power. This is the only way we can get a breakthrough on behalf of poor people.

Dr. Woods

Senator Harte suggested that if the functions of the agency are not right, this will be a bad Bill. I certainly agree with him. I have mentioned the different views which can be held in that context. I tried to point out that, if 60 or 80 people were asked to draw up a Bill, they would all come up with different words for what they hoped was the same purpose. Some of them might have different intentions but, even if they had the same intentions, they would come up with different words. The wording we have here has been through the parliamentary process in the Dáil and the parliamentary draftsman's process and is as good a form of wording as we will get to give the authority and the background against which this agency can develop. Individual words can be taken but then you have to look at how they will balance against the other parts of the Bill and whether they are covered elsewhere. That is the point I was trying to make, rather than saying people are not entitled to their views. Of course people are entitled to their views. The only problem is that when drafting a Bill you have got to boil it down into an essence which will give the authority needed. We have that here.

Senator Harte raised two interesting points. On the one hand he wanted the agency to be involved almost as a Government Department and, on the other hand, he wanted independence for the agency. We cannot have it both ways. We have to decide what we are to have. We want to have a statutory body as we understand statutory bodies. We give them their functions and we allow them to get on with the job. We ask them to report back at certain stages. They are seen as a body who advise the Government and the Minister on the areas in question. We want to give them the independence which we believe is necessary. The Minister can direct the other agencies or statutory bodies to co-operate with this agency. That is enshrined elsewhere in the Bill. Senator Harte's point is covered in that way. We were concerned about that. It is all very well to give an agency the power to co-operate and work with people. We want to ensure that the agencies under the control of the State, directly or indirectly as semi-State bodies or as agencies attached to particular ministries, will co-operate if the need arises. That is covered in the Bill. It is an interesting inclusion in the Bill in that it empowers any Minister to direct an agency under his control to co-operate with this body. It gives a very central policy recognition in that way.

Senator Harte said he had lived with and seen poverty and thought there was no great haste to get to grips with this whole question. It is unfair to those who have gone before us to say they did not make efforts to get to grips with problems. There were housing developments in different areas. Perhaps problems developed subsequently for various administrative or other reasons. They made great efforts and they established new housing schemes, and so on.

Apart from these efforts, which were made generally and are identified fairly globally, there is also the fact that particular groups or communities are not in a position to benefit from these developments. Perhaps the schemes are not having the impact initially intended, or they may even be wasteful. I see this agency as being particularly valuable in terms of specifying the communities or groups which need further specific assistance.

Senator O'Mahony talked about the secondary position and the fact that the advice should be on a secondary basis and said there is plenty of advice around. Generally speaking there is plenty of advice but, when you get to specific advice about specific actions and their implications, specific advice is not quite so freely available. When you try to make changes in a complex system you often find that they may have undesirable effects. When the agency are doing research into the schemes already in existence, or into the need for new schemes they will specify very clearly the direction which should be taken, I see that as a very central role. It is a role which will meet Senator Harte's requirement that they be seen to be a central agency. Senator O'Mahony requires that they be seen as the agency who represent the poor at national level. As far as we are concerned that is what this agency will be.

The point was made that £2 million is not very much. The question is how it will be used. It is not intended to increase old age pensions or anything else in that area. It is intended to act as the dynamic element and influence within the communities and the groups and it can have a very big effect there. On Second Stage Senator Ryan raised the question of the percentage of the level of payments to those on social welfare benefits. I was particularly concerned about that. He quoted a figure of 25 per cent of the average industrial wage or thereabouts being the 1979 position. I have been working in that area globally since that time, and I have been very concerned about it.

It is important to recognise that between 1979 and 1982 the position changed substantially. The pension of a single old age contributory pensioner as a percentage of the average industrial wage in each case on the previous December was, in 1979, 24.8 per cent, in 1980 28 per cent, in 1981 29.3 per cent and in 1982 33.4 per cent. I agree with Senator B. Ryan that that process had to go to a reasonable point. Senator O'Mahony raised another question. He asked how far that process should be applied, how it should relate with other things and the various elements in support of it — fuel schemes, ESB schemes and so on. This has to be looked at, but at the same time there is the central requirement of moving up the basic income level of the poor, especially those who are genuinely poor, within the social welfare system. This £2 million will give this body strength to tackle this task.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am sorry to take up so much time, but the Minister will agree the Committee Stage was rushed through the Dáil and many points were not teased out. I accept the Minister's goodwill in this but, to some extent, he contradicted himself. He gave a fairly strong assurance that he would ensure the agency will concentrate their greatest efforts on the alleviation and combating of poverty as defined in subsection (4) and I asked how he proposed to do that. He said it would be a matter for the agency to determine what would be their major function from time to time. I do not believe the agency should have a discretion about what their major function is. The problem is enormous and it cannot be an area which is concentrated on temporarily. I would still like to know how the Minister proposes to ensure that this agency will concentrate the greater part of their resources on what we all agree they should be doing. Will it be by amending the functions by regulation subject to the passage of legislation? Will it be by a fairly close watch on the operations of the agency which are somewhat unacceptable? Will it be by an unfortunately careful selection of the membership of the agency to make sure they do what the Minister thinks they should be doing? Whatever good intention the Minister might have in doing that, it would effectively eliminate any real independence if they were such a subservient body that they would do what the Minister wants them to do on specific issues, because the temptation outside of just identifying their functions could well be enormous if the agency become a little awkward. I would like the Minister to clarify for me how he proposes to ensure that this agency, in the context of the functions proposed, will concentrate the greater part of their resources on the combating and alleviation of poverty and not on some of the other functions listed.

Dr. Woods

The agency will be a full statutory body. It will be up to the agency to decide how they will perform these functions which are set out to give them the power and responsibility to do the job we require of them. The Senator is asking how I can be sure they will do that job and, at the same time he is asking how he can be sure I will not make them do only the job I want them to do. In effect we are giving them independence and we are providing them with very adequate resources. It will be up to that body to take the kind of actions which are necessary to meet the functions spelled out here. We spelled out very clearly that poverty and social deprivation must be a priority and I can direct the body to undertake a particular kind of action or task. In other words, if I feel there is a special area where some research should be done to find out what is happening, or where some pilot study should be carried out I can direct the body to undertake such a study. If people feel there is an area that is not being dealt with, the body can be directed to look into it. If the body do not fulfil the conditions laid down, at the renewal of the membership of the board there will be an opportunity to change the board.

We are between two stools. We have to trust the board to get on with the job and then judge them as they go along. I have no doubt that the kind of people involved will be interested in the area. The Senator has a later amendment down which relates to this. I do not want to have a stranglehold on the board. If anyone wants to talk to me about poverty, the community, or anything else, I am prepared to talk openly with them. I was involved in research and development and I understand that if you do not let things come up naturally you will not get the best solutions. In politics this can be more embarrassing than it is in research, but nevertheless I appreciate that if we do not do that we will not get the answers. This body are free to do the work and publish their reports. Many people will be interested in their reports and there will be plenty of attention given to them. There is no question about that.

What the Government of the day do about them is something we cannot predetermine at this stage. That will depend on who is the Government of the day. I regard it as a very positive development and, as Senator Barnes said in a couple of different ways, this body will need to have that developmental function. It is something I identified at a very early stage in relation to the National Social Services Council. They did not have this kind of developmental function. The combat poverty pilot study had to be undertaken because there was not a body who had a brief to do that sort of work.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 22.

Tá

Brennan, Paudge.
Cassidy, Donie.
Conway, Seán.
Cranitch, Mícheál.
Fallon, Seán.
Farrell, William.
Fitzgerald, Tom.
Hanafin, Des.
Hannon, Camilla.
Herbert, Tony.
Hussey, Thomas.
Killilea, Mark.
Lanigan, Mick.
Larkin, James.
Mallon, Séamus.
Mara, Patrick J.
Mullooly, Brian.
Nolan, Matthew J.
O'Keeffe, Edmond.
O'Rourke, Mary.
O'Toole, Martin J.
Robb, John D.A.
Ryan, Eoin.
Ryan, William.
Smith, Michael.
Wright, Thomas A.

Níl

Barnes, Monica.
Belton, Luke.
Bolger, Deirdre.
Bulbulia, Katharine.
Byrne, Toddie.
Cregan, Denis (Dino).
Daly, Jack.
Dowling, Dick.
Durkan, Bernard J.
Ferris, Michael.
Harte, John.
Hourigan, Richard V.
Howard, Michael.
McDonald, Charlie.
Mannion, John M.
Murphy, John A.
O'Connell, Maurice.
O'Mahony, Flor.
Reynolds, Pat Joe.
Ross, Shane P.N.
Ryan, Brendan.
Taylor, Madeleine.

Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Cranitch; Níl, Senators Belton and Harte.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. B. Ryan

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, between lines 52 and 53, to add the following new subsection:

"( ) All financial or material aid given by the Agency to assist projects of community involvement or activity shall be supplemental to any financial or material aid given by any other statutory body."

I am proposing this amendment because of grave concern that has been expressed to me by various voluntary bodies, some officers of statutory agencies and other people that the National Community Development Agency instead of being what it is intended to be, an additional new resource in the struggle against oppression and poverty, will become a replacement for many of the present resourcing bodies, funding agencies and so on. I am aware that in at least two health board areas it is being suggested that some of the funding that is currently coming to voluntary groups under section 65 of the Health Act, 1953, will be more appropriately sought from the National Community Development Agency. Of itself, that is bad enough but in times when the budgets of health boards, in particular, are being restricted or fairly carefully monitored, the temptation will be enormous on health boards to pare where they can. They may try to make a plausible case that the existence of the National Community Development Agency and the fact that there are funds available relieves them of their responsibilities under section 65, and the commitments they have made, unless there is clear ministerial guidance to them to the contrary. I am greatly worried that they will use the existence of the National Community Development Agency, and the funds available from and through it, to reduce at worst and, at least, to stand still on the funding they are currently making available. It would be disastrous if that was done. I hope the Minister can give me a precise figure but I understand that the sum of money involved in section 65 — grants — around the country is of the order of about £4 million. I stand to be corrected on that figure; I do not have access to a correct one. If this source of funding was to dry up as a consequence of the setting up of the community development agency the final outcome would be a situation far worse than we have at present. We would have noble intentions about the community development agency. Whatever our arguments are about the functions there is no question but that they are well intentioned.

It must be clearly stated, and understood, that this £2 million is an addition to all existing funding. In this regard I hope that the £2 million is an addition to the present budget of the National Social Service Board and that it does not incorporate the budget of the National Social Service Board. If it is not clear that all current central funding of major voluntary bodies is not to be continued, maintained and extended, and if it is not clear that all local funding either through local authorities, health boards, or voluntary bodies is to be maintained, then the fine and noble intentions of this agency will be as nothing and, in fact, it will be seen to be a way of effectively reducing the amount of State commitment and support to voluntary bodies and agencies. I am sure that is not the Minister's intention. That is why I inserted the amendment to clarify this section and to clarify the position of voluntary bodies and to hope that, perhaps, the Minister will alleviate the widespread concern that is being expressed to me that it might become a replacement for existing funding.

I know of one major national voluntary organisation — I am not at liberty to name it — which formed the impression that officials of the Minister's Department had told them that, instead of their current funding coming from the Department of Health, next year they ought to make a submission to the National Community Development Agency. That is the impression they have formed and they are greatly concerned about it. Obviously, if this is to be the case, whatever intentions and hopes we have for the National Community Development Agency will be swamped in the fact it will simply become a funding body for existing voluntary organisations.

I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify the issue.

Dr. Woods

I should like to thank the Senator for putting down the amendment since it gives me an opportunity to clarify the position. I welcome the amendment on that basis, but I do not accept the amendment for a number of reasons which I will explain. As the Senator has said, the amendment gives an opportunity to clarify the position completely. I accept that the Senator's motive in tabling this amendment is valid but I must state quite emphatically that it is certainly not intended that any financial or material aid given by the agency to suitable projects or activities would be in replacement or in substitution for funds or other forms of aid already available from existing statutory sources. For example, where any body or group may already be in receipt of assistance from a health board under section 65 of the Health Act, 1953, it is not intended that such assistance would cease once the agency gives financial or material aid. Indeed, such forms of assistance from the agency will be in addition to existing sources. I consider that the wording of this amendment would serve on the other hand to restrict aid to bodies already in receipt of statutory support, and rule out other bodies. It could be seen to restrict the aid from the agency to bodies which have already received aid otherwise. I know that is not the Senator's intention but there is the danger that it could be taken that way.

In any event, it will fall to the agency to decide how financial and material aid will be allocated without ministerial sanction but I would expect that the agency would have a dynamic and innovatory approach in dealing with projects and activities which seek its intervention and which are not at present being funded or otherwise assisted through the statutory sources. Therefore, while I accept the essence of the amendment, I do not consider it necessary or prudent to write such a safeguard into the Bill.

In relation to the National Social Service Board which Senator Ryan memtioned, the Bill provides that the functions, funds and liabilities of the board are subsumed. These would be additional to the funding which is to be provided for the new agency.

Senator Ryan said one group had formed an impression from discussions with officials but certainly it was not on my authorisation and I would very much doubt that. I am in contact fairly constantly with the principal officials involved and there is no doubt in their minds as to what the position is. All I can assume is that either it was a wrong impression to form or it was wrongly given in the first instance. The position is very clear-cut as far as I am concerned. The Senator asked for some sort of ministerial guidance in relation to this. I will clearly indicate the position to the health boards and I undertake to do that. It would also, of course, have the effect that the funds presently allocated, whatever the figure is, £4 million or £4 million plus, would not be substituted. I accept that also.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am happy about the Minister's assurance in regard to the health boards. Can he give me a similar assurance that funds at present being made available centrally to voluntary groups will be made available in the future?

Dr. Woods

The funds to be provided here will be additional. Whether the funds will be provided centrally will depend from year to year on circumstances in the particular year and the bodies involved. On occasions I have found it possible to give substantial sums of money to voluntary agencies which would have difficulties peculiar to them in certain years. I might not have such money available in the following year. We will have to let that situation evolve. In future this body will become a main grants agency for voluntary groups. It could become a source of funds for voluntary groups, but we will have to see how that fits into the system. I can assure the Senator that the funds now being distributed will be added to rather than substituted for. That is the intention of the Government and the Minister — there is no question about that.

Mr. B. Ryan

With the assurance to the Minister that I will be keeping a very vigilant eye on what will happen, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".

Mrs. Bolger

Paragraph (c) of the terms of reference states "to ascertain and specify communities in which there is a high degree of poverty and social deprivation." Already we have ascertained at local authority level, through bad housing, lack of sanitation and overcrowding, and at health board and VEC level, where the communities are. Therefore, I hope there will not be any waste of time by the agency doing the work all over again. The information is there and I suggest the Minister might be more specific about this provision. I should also like the Minister to explain more clearly the provision in paragraph (h) which is to promote greater awareness, accessibility and co-ordination of social services. That seems to be vague.

Mrs. Barnes

I should like to add a little to Senator Bolger's reference to paragraph (h). Two areas of concern in this matter relate to private groups, whether in relation to social deprivation because of lack of education, or rural deprivation because of lack of information or lack of accessibility to a centre because of distance. This concern arises again and again in consideration of social problems. There is lack of dissemination of information and accessibility, for instance, to family planning. Even considering the co-ordination of social services that we have, much more remains to be done.

Even using the present network, we still have not the answer to the needs of people in rural areas or small towns because of the lunacies we have in the Family Planning Act which allow freedom of conscience to local doctors and chemists and deny it to couples concerned. One of the problems that needs to be looked at immediately and challenged includes the restrictions in that Act. It imposes lack of opportunity for couples living in rural areas who may have to depend on one doctor or one chemist to provide such contraceptives as might be required by them.

In the Minister's constituency, and indeed throughout the country, there is a pressing need for the provision of far greater access to free legal aid. One group that come to mind immediately who are most in need of such a service are those in deprived areas where a great proportion of the people would be eligible for free legal aid but staffing does not allow a full comprehensive service to be provided. In this House we must refer continuously to the great need for a network of such services for people in rural areas. When we talk about deprivation or discrimination, the gravest examples we have today are in rural areas. I hope earnestly — I am sure the Minister joins me in it — that we can remedy the position in regard to family planning and free legal aid. We say the services have been provided for but in reality they are almost non-existent.

Mr. Mallon

I take this opportunity to reiterate a point I made last week in relation to paragraph (j) which is to promots greater public understanding of the nature, causes and extent of poverty and social deprivation and the measures required to alleviate them. In that paragraph, I suggest, we should have included the effects of poverty and social deprivation. One of the functions of the agency should be to look at and study, and even to anticipate, the effects of poverty. It is not something that may happen within the next month or 12 months or five years; it is something that is with us now, something which will be with us in reality in the foreseeable future irrespective of efforts made by this agency or by the Government. The effects of poverty may have salutary results in political terms because one must appreciate that social deprivation leads to social alienation and that in turn leads to political alienation. Therefore one can see the way in which poverty can become a breeding ground for what we spoke about at the beginning of today's sitting, because it is a fact that when there is great poverty and social deprivation there is great alienation from all systems of government. That in itself can become a very dangerous thing.

Therefore, if we exclude study and consideration of the effects of social deprivation we are excluding any foresight or forward planning in regard to how we can translate what is becoming a national sore, north and south of the Border, into something we can come to grips with. Last week I referred especially to the effects this has in educational terms. From my experience, it seems to me that when we speak of poverty and social deprivation we think of the educational system as being cushioned from the effects of this. In my view it is there that we see the stark reality of the effects of it. One of the great tragedies of this country and of poverty itself is the way in which people, through no fault of their own, are discriminated against because despite the fact that they have the ability to proceed in educational terms they do not have the proper home background, the proper encouragement, the proper social environment and, in many ways, the proper sustenance to do it. It is in terms of that that I would ask that the words "and prevent" be included after the words "measures required to alleviate".

It is not enough simply to alleviate that which exists; we must try to prevent what may happen in the future. The realities of life are that in the present economic situation poverty is going to be with us for some time; the effects are going to be seen and are being seen on the streets throughout our country. We should not confine ourselves simply to looking at the nature and the causes and the extent of it. We must be realistic and try to prevent it. I may have a bee in my bonnet about this but the effects of poverty are very frightening within this country. We have seen it in Britain as well. We have seen what happened last summer during the heat of the summer in Toxteth and Brixton. We have seen what happened in the North. I do not want to be depressing about it but if we do not get to grips with the effects of violence, God knows where it might happen next.

Mr. Harte

I hate to say it at this point but, as this section stands, I do not think it will bring about real changes in the situation of deprived people. The word "poverty" is used here and there; it seems to have been thrown in as an afterthought among concepts such as self-help, community and social deprivation, whatever they may mean. There is no mention of justice, humanity and equality. This gives me cause for concern, particularly when there is no emphasis on structural change or the redistribution of wealth. Perhaps the Minister could clear the air on this but it does not seem to me that there is any emphasis on the redistribution of wealth which is fundamental to the question of how this agency will function and it is of paramount importance. The freedom and flexibility to tackle comprehensively poverty and its causes do not seem to me to be front runners in this section. There is in the section the umbrella concept of community development without a full understanding of what is involved in the development of communities. The term "community development" is becoming all things to all men and it is a very much used term. It is often used to cover a range of contradictory activities. I hope the Minister can clear the air in regard to some of those.

The other area of concern to me in regard to the functions is again the whole question of the "top down" approach. Maybe I am reading it wrongly, but it seems that there is greater emphasis given to the functions of the agency than there is to the needs of the deprived. Also, there seems to be a lack of clarity in the whole section. If some explanation could be given as to what is meant by and what can be achieved in the area of community development, I would be much happier. There is provision for the co-ordination of services and that is emphasised in section 4. But the functions seem to have a very narrow range. I thought that the amendments that were put down went a great deal of the way to broadening the functions. As they are set out in section 4 they are not sufficiently broad or explicit on the question of dealing with deprived people.

Having said that, I do not propose to say any more on the Bill this evening. But I must put it on the record that I still have misgivings as to whether the functions as set out in the Bill as it stands will do the job of really dealing with the people having regard to the involvement of the Department of Education and other Government Departments. It seems to me that there is not going to be any scope for people to feed in to the Government's coming plan. The functions do not appear to allow for that. I said it earlier when I was speaking and I would like to have it recorded again now.

I trust that the Minister may be able to clear the air about these matters.

Dr. Woods

Some of these areas are fairly well covered. Section 4(c), for instance, is in regard to communities which have a high degree of poverty and social deprivation. Senator Bolger seemed to be concerned that the ascertaining is done to a large extent and I know Senator Bolger is deeply involved in health board activities and obviously the health boards are involved in ascertaining these matters in their own local communities. But the word "communities" means more than just a local regionalised group or community; it means groups like, for instance, the elderly in rural areas or the travelling people and so on. I do not think anyone could argue at this stage that these groups are particularly well catered for in the existing circumstances. It would also mean various other kinds of groups.

Even within the health board areas there are services and needs which may not be as effectively met as they might be. We would all recognise that. So there is work to be done in that respect. This is basically to provide the authority to the agency to engage in areas where it is considered it is necessary to do so. So this is a matter for the agency. Obviously if there are health boards which are doing all their work 100 per cent right and there are no problems in those areas they will not have any tasks to perform there. One will probably come up against new forms of poverty in areas like that.

As far as section 4 (h) is concerned, Senator Bolger spoke about the importance of access and awareness. I would like to point out that the functions of the NSSB, which are very much related to information and awareness, are subsumed into the body so promoting greater awareness, accessibility and co-ordination of social services will leave everybody quite happy with the fact that this body will be continuing, promoting and developing that work which is going on already under the aegis of the NSSB.

Senator Barnes also spoke about some areas of lack of awareness and social deprivation, particularly the lack of services in rural areas. This is one of the things which was brought out by one of the combat poverty pilot studies — the fact of the loneliness of the elderly people in rural areas as distinct from other areas. The information brought out by that study was much more precise and valuable than anything of a generalised nature that was coming forward from the existing arrangements. I agree with the Senator that the question of the special kind of deprivation which can occur in the countryside is a matter with which the agency should be concerned.

The questions about the lunacies which the Senator alleges exist in the Family Planning Act are really more a matter for that legislation than for this. Certainly these matters are also a function of the health boards and perhaps Senator Barnes might have a word with Senator Bolger about the functions of the health boards in this respect. There is, of course, the question of providing money, apart from the secondary question of the legislation. There are two separate areas here.

The question of free legal aid is an interesting one because it relates very closely to our area of activity but comes under the Department of Justice. Obviously free legal aid is very important to many of the people with whom we would be dealing in relation to the operation of this Bill. The need would certainly be stressed through the agency. The Free Legal Aid Board are under the aegis of the Department of Justice but the need for free legal aid would arise from the difficulties and the kinds of deprivation and poverty to be seen in the work the agency would be doing. I appreciate that there is an area where the two aspects come very close together and the agency would therefore be concerned with it.

Senator Mallon talked about section 4 (j) and he made a very important point that the question of including the effects of poverty and social deprivation is an integral part of this section. It is the function of the agency to promote greater public understanding of the nature, causes and extent of poverty and social deprivation. We would obviously be concerned with the effects of poverty and that is covered by the section. He made a very important point in relation to social and political alienation and the whole question of the background from which the individual is working. One of the most basic needs is the need for a job. If you can provide the job you are halfway towards solving the problems. That is quite clearly to be seen in many areas of deprivation. The problems of the home background and the need for education and community development are inter-related in breaking the cycle of poverty which exists in particular areas or in particular sub-groups and communities. This is a very relevant point and it is one to which the agency will have to give a great deal of attention. It is partly an answer to Senator Harte's point. You will not break the poverty cycle unless you get into the areas which affect it and perpetuate it, like the questions of the home background, the development of the community and education facilities in particular areas. In some communities numbers of children from difficult home backgrounds have been assisted greatly by pre-school periods which have enabled them to avail of educational opportunities and to be on a par with others who could avail more readily of them. This is why Senator Mallon's point is so relevant.

The whole question of community development and self-help is important. I know that Senator Harte has difficulty in seeing in practical terms where this fits in. From my own experience in that area I am quite convinced that the agency's function in supporting community development is central and will be very important in their work.

Senator Harte says there is more emphasis on community development and self-help than on poverty. I would accept the point that in certain instances there will be other factors, like a simple lack of money. Very often even the provision of the money will not change circumstances because of the background and because of the need for support in the community. This is where the community development aspect is so important. This aspect is also crucial and will have a very major impact in the long-term on this question of redistribution of power and resources.

Communities must develop themselves and get the confidence, ability and the capacity to analyse, evaluate and develop their own systems and demand support from the agencies that are there to provide it. Very often the communities which do not get support are those which do not know where to look for it in the first instance or have not the time to look for it. Often they have not the persistence to keep ensuring that they get it. The whole community development concept would relate to that. One would expect that in the development of communities they would themselves be in a better position to insist on a better distribution of resources. There are plenty of examples of that. There is one to which Members of the other House refer quite frequently, in Dublin's inner city. I will not go into that at the moment.

Senator Harte also talks about the whole question of the "top down" approach. If anything this agency is a "bottom up" approach rather that a "top down" one. It will develop within the community the capacity and the ability to express themselves and to insist on their rights within our society.

Senator Harte is worried about the fact that the agency are very well covered here as distinct from the deprived. What we are trying to do is to set up an agency which will function in the areas which we define, making clear to the agency the kind of thing which we want them to do. That is why we have to be concerned in the Bill with how the agency will act and what they will see as their priorities and functions. The whole function of the agency will be to assist, help and promote the deprived and they will have to be seen to be doing that. In relation to all this area of community development and self-help, I know that Senator Harte is a doubting Thomas.

Mr. B. Ryan

It is quite obvious that the function of the agency is central. I accept to a large extent that implicitly, if not explicitly, almost everything that I would want from an agency is contained in the wording there. My views on the precise wording are on record.

I have chosen in this debate to talk about the struggle of the oppressed and about the subversion of the established order of society. It needs to be said over and over again that any suggestion that all that is needed to eliminate poverty is a little good will from all sides, a little extra money here and there that we forgot about these people for a while but have rediscovered them, is to simplify beyond any legitimate stage the argument and the cause of the oppressed. Since we have agreed on the functions it is important that the people nominated to the agency should be of the right calibre. We can discuss that when we come to the section.

I wish to make specific reference to a number of things. One is the quality of delivery of the social services. Unfortunately, through no fault of his own, the Minister could not be here to reply to Second Stage. I would have been interested in his comments on a few things. In many cases, the manner of delivery of the social services is effectively an instrument of oppression. The service is meant to benefit people who are oppressed or poor. The manner in which it is delivered and what people have to go through to get it effectively degrade and oppress those who are meant to benefit. Much research is required in that area and it may well bring the agency into conflict with the public service unions. The evidence in Britain is, at least from David Donaldson's book, The Politics of Poverty— he was chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission — that any attempt to do a real study of claimants' views on how the service was delivered was vigorously resisted by the public service unions. As an active trade unionist, I hope the agency will not be prevented from working vigorously and actively in that area because of resistance from any vested interest, even if it is, God between us and all harm, from my own favourite homeland, the trade union movement. I do not think it should be allowed. I said this about a number of areas of trade union activity.

The trouble is that those of us who are designing, planning, improving and modifying the social services rarely have to use them. There are not that many of us who have experience of long-term unemployment, for instance, and the inhumanities involved in that. There are relatively few of us who have to put up with some of the rigmaroles that certain groups have to put up with in getting a medical card. In the area of promoting greater public understanding of the nature, cause and extent of poverty and social deprivation, I hope the agency — and the Minister should ensure they do — will become a major force to restore the balance in the one-sided loaded and incredibly intense anti-welfare lobby which is developing in this country.

It is to my amazement that I receive all this stuff about the anomalies in the social welfare system from one interest group. Nobody apparently seems to be in a position to reply convincingly and actively on behalf of the poor and the oppressed. Let nobody suggest the contrary to me because I will not believe it. Every time an attack like this is made it is a humiliation to everybody on social welfare. There are means of dealing with many of the anomalies, injustices and problems. There are many anomalies in the social welfare system which hammer the poor as distinct from the few anomalies that are now being highlighted, which to some extent benefit the poor.

In the area of promoting greater public understanding of the causes and extent of poverty and social deprivation and the measures required to alleviate them, there is a great need for a national voice to give the other side of the story. I am very grateful to the Minister for the information he gave us about the improvement in pensions. That is to the credit of the various Governments which were involved. It is more than welcome.

There is no point in going on forever about the small minority of people who, it is suggested, are abusing the services, when the way those criticisms are made and the sort of newspaper headlines that are based on those criticisms degrade and humiliate everybody who is in receipt of those services. Do not tell me that any unemployed young person drawing £25 a week if he is lucky — if he is living at home he will draw a lot less — will not feel humiliated by that kind of talk. One wonders where all the jobs are which people are allegedly not filling because of disincentives to work. I know at least 60,000 young people who would happily take any job paying £100 a week. There is a great need to restore balance in this debate. Otherwise, we are liable to have a level of public hostility to welfare which will make it impossible for anybody to introduce improvements or dramatic changes in the quality of our welfare services which are needed if we are to become a genuinely caring community.

I wish to underline what Senator Mallon said. This is not just an academic exercise. With the way our society is developing, the high level of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment and the huge scale of our housing problem, which I fear will get worse before it gets better, unless we provide a public platform on which they can state their needs, irrespective of the relatively painful cost to those of us who are in a position to pay tax, then it will be created by them in a manner which will not be acceptable to us. It will come through crime, violence or some sort of extremist polictics, not necessarily of the left. This should be of great concern to us. If there are riots in the inner city areas of Britain which has a stable society, then a society like ours with our population structure, our levels of unemployment and hostility to welfare recipients, is in for serious social disruption and no amount of security legislation will deal with the problem.

I urge the Minister to ensure that the people appointed to the agency will see to it that the agency's functions are carried out in a hard-nosed, tough fashion. If we are to avoid serious social upheaval, the poor must be liberated from their silence, their oppression, and the fact that they believe nobody listens and nobody cares. That ought to be the function of the agency. There is major controversial work to be done in the area of rebuffing the anti-welfare lobby.

There are two major areas that need to be looked at. One can go on for ever. There is the area of social welfare appeals which is degrading and humiliating. I hope the agency will look at that as well. I should like to feel that this agency will tackle real problems that oppress the poor in a particular way.

Mr. Ferris

In connection with the functions of the agency, it can only be successful if the Minister has a similar commitment to ensuring that in the first instance it is properly financed and funded. I contend that the opening estimates of £2 million for setting up this agency will do nothing to ensure that the agency can carry out the functions that this section advocates it should do.

The Minister must also have a commitment to the statutory bodies which he gives this agency a responsibility to work and identify with. If the statutory bodies are under a financial constraint, how can the functions be carried out which the Minister wishes? On Second Reading I pointed out that, having regard to the help the voluntary agencies give us — at times they put the statutory agencies to shame with the amount of work which they can achieve — apart from housing and other matters under the Department of the Environment, the Department specifically the responsibility of the Minister have been hamstrung for funds in the area of public health nursing, home help and social workers.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair would like to point out that grants to the agency might more appropriately arise under section 7.

Mr. Ferris

I shall reserve my comments until then.

Dr. Woods

I should like to reply to some of the points made by Senator Ryan. The first is about the quality of the social services delivered, his keen desire that this quality should be of a high order and that we should always be examining our services to ensure that the quality was upgraded and maintained in this respect. He mentioned that one of the difficulties which can arise in this respect concerns the unions involved — public service unions in most instances although there are also other unions involved from outside that area. I think Senator Ryan appreciates the problems involved in relation to the quality of the services delivered. I agree with him on the importance of improving the quality and even the places in which the service is delivered. If we look back over the years, very often the place in which the service was delivered was not given the status which some of the newer bodies got. Some of these were set up as semi-State bodies. They built and developed their own independent status and set up a fine quality of delivery of service as well as developing the places in which this service could be delivered. The health boards are at present in the process, with funds provided by the Government, of building new health centres which will assist greatly in terms of the physical situation. The employment exchanges are a much wider and more difficult area; and that problem exists there because of the situation which has developed over the years.

It is one at which I am very concerned. There is a physical side and a personal side, and training is one of the major needs in relation to the personal side. It is something into which we must put more effort and I am sure that the agency will look very closely at the quality of the delivery of services apart from any other aspect.

The other area raised by Senator Ryan was the anti-welfare lobby and the fact that there are no voices raised on the other side. I have made very clear on television programmes and elsewhere that, as Minister for Social Welfare, I have a positive function, of providing the services which are needed at the right place, time and quality, Health is also a great part of that. At the same time, I have a duty to ensure that abuses are prevented as far as possible. I made this clear to the lobby and also to different groups representing the lobby when they made clear to me their views in relation to abuses. I took great pains to put into proper perspective the reality of the situation. For instance, among the unemployed there are people who are abusing the system. It is hard to devise a foolproof system. We have a substantial investigation unit, we have officers around the country and we are continually re-appraising that position. We will continue to do so. We will look at the systems to see where they are allowing for this kind of abuse and we will try to close such loopholes. We have closed a couple, which has improved matters. I accept that where abuse exists one has to deal with it. I agree with Senator Ryan that one of the most substantial abuses is the lack of the opportunity of a job. That is an abuse of the person and must be the primary consideration for the Government, particularly in our present circumstances. It ill-behoves those who are well-equipped and fitted into jobs to be constantly sniping at those who are not.

In the last three years 9,000 investigations were carried out by officers of the Department in relation to people who were claimed to be abusing social welfare benefits, such as unemployment benefit. Of those investigations one-third were found to be abuses. Two out of three of the claims made about abuse were false claims. There is the situation where a person comes into the employment exchange and admits he had worked for two days in a week. They can have an arrangement whereby they are paid for the other days. You will see that person drawing social welfare benefit and working at the same time but unless you are familiar with the exact details you would be misled by what you see. It is a fact that one in three of the claims made was valid. We must be vigilant about the numbers because this is not doing any good to the service, the system or the cost involved. It is frustrating for those who are working and contributing.

I appreciate the point made by Senator Ryan that in the global situation there is a need for voices of this kind so that we can get a properly balanced outcome. As Minister, I am prepared to stand on any platform and discuss the realities of the situation, given the fact that my first duty is to provide services to those who need them. I hope the agency will meet the Senator's requirements.

Mícheál Cranitch

I should like to take this opportunity to compliment the Minister and the draftsman on the excellence of that part of the section which deals with the functions of the agency. They are to be found in 11 paragraphs, and one particular word is repeated at least five times. The emphasis on that word to show its importance gives me great pleasure indeed. That word is "self-help". There you have the key to eliminating and reducing poverty and deprivation. Generally speaking, the poor do not want anything for nothing. The best thing one can do in such cases is financially to lead the poor to see how they can better their lot. Various ways were mentioned such as providing employment and so on, but the key word is self-help. God helps those who help themselves. That insertion of the word and its repetition are very important in showing that the Minister and his Department are on the right lines. We wish them every success.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am very grateful for the Minister's contribution on the area of welfare abuse and I welcome his stance on it. However, I am terrified that something he said which was perfectly clear to me might be misunderstood. I can visualise headlines about one-third of claims being fraudulent. I understood the Minister to say that of the 9,000 allegations of fraud that were made to his Department in a period of time only one-third or 3,000 were valid and God knows how many thousands of people are receiving social welfare benefits. I am worried that we will have a newspaper heading tomorrow to the effect that the Minister says one-third of claimants are fiddling the dole. I think I understood him correctly, that only one-third of allegations of fraud have turned out to be justified.

Dr. Woods

That is quite correct. Disability benefit payments are close on 70,000 a week, unemployment benefit payments 150,000 a week and so on. We are talking about weeks because these are claims of fraud over a period which might be a week or two weeks or something of that order. In the whole year you are talking about millions upon millions of payments and of all those individual payments the number which was unearthed by the Department themselves or referred to the Department by employers or other people informing and so on, was a total of 9,000. Of that number 3,000 were found to be substantiated. So you are talking about 3,000 out of all that vast number.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 22 Jul 1982