Select Committee on Legislation and Security díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995

SECTION 8.

Dr. Woods

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 7, line 39, after "Board", to insert "shall have such powers as are necessary for, or incidental to, the performance of its functions under this Act and the Board".

Section 8 is about the powers of the board. The idea of this amendment is to make clear that the board has these powers and that they should be stated in a positive manner as in other Acts. The amendment would give powers to the board in a positive way, stating quite clearly that they should have them.

Mr. Taylor

I sympathise with and support the objective that Deputy Woods seeks to achieve in the amendment. However, I suggest — and the advice to me from the draftspeople is — that what he is proposing is repetitious and unnecessary because section 8, as it stands, already provides that subject to the provision of this Act the board may do anything it considers necessary or expedient to enable it to perform its functions under the Act. The advice, therefore, is that it is really not required and the thrust of what Deputy Woods seeks is, in fact, already there in the wording of the section.

Dr. Woods

I accept that that is the case. The amendment related to clarity in that area and the fact that it was used elsewhere. I have no real quibble with the Minister. I wanted to be clear that that is the position.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 8 agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Dr. Woods

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 42, to delete "September" and substitute "June".

The Pensions Act and other Acts provide for reports within six months and this also has been general Government policy. Why does this section say "not later than 30 September in each year" which provides a nine months period? It would be desirable that the practice which already prevails in other Acts and in Government policy generally would be extended to this legislation. Government policy is not always lived up to but there has been a great deal of effort to bring it to this stage. The amendment which we propose is to delete "30 September" and substitute "30 June of each year," which gives the board six months in which to prepare its report. The board should make a report to the Minister for the preceding year by 30 June.

Mr. Taylor

When this Bill was initiated in the Seanad, section 9 provided that the board would have to make its annual report to the Minister within a year of the period to which the report related. Following a long and very thorough debate in the Seanad I undertook to consult the board to determine if it could produce its annual reports within a shorter period. A particular difficulty is that the board's annual reports to date contain a considerable amount of statistical data which takes some time to compile. However, as a result of my consultations with the board I was able to introduce an amendment on Report Stage in the Seanad which shortened the relevant period to nine months. It may well be that other boards can produce their reports in a shorter time. The time needed varies depending on the function of the board. Some may have activities that would warrant production of a report within six months but the best I could do on it was that it would produce a report within nine months, that is, by 30 September. The board indicated that it would produce the report sooner than that if possible, but a good deal of work and material goes into those reports.

Mr. O'Dea

I support Deputy Woods. I appreciate that the Minister has improved the situation compared to that in the Bill as originally drafted. The 12 months period in the original Bill has now been reduced to nine months. I have read these reports and it should not take nine months to compile them. We should consider between now and Report Stage whether it would be possible to bring this legislation into line with the other organisations and legislation to which Deputy Woods refers. I realise there are particular problems in compiling statistics but, from what I read, I cannot see any overwhelming reason the statistics could not be compiled within six months rather than nine months. Will the Minister tell us what will happen if the report is not compiled within the relevant period?

Mr. Taylor

Nothing very much, I suspect. There would be a breach of the statutory provision. Perhaps I will have to consider availing of the draconian powers Deputies are suggesting I have in dealing with the board for failing to comply with a statutory directive. The situation in regard to reports has improved. In previous years, before I was in Government, the reports of the Legal Aid Board in some cases fell a couple of years into arrears and were obsolete by the time they were produced. We secured the maximum possible improvement on that and I am satisfied, following the consultations we have had with the board and its executive, that the best we can do is to have the report produced within a nine months period.

It will be produced sooner if possible but the reports are quite weighty in comparison to reports of others boards which may not have quite as much material to assemble. It is important to include statistical data in these reports as they are helpful to Members of both Houses in giving an overall view of what is going on in the Legal Aid service. The 1994 report was approved by Government today. It makes interesting reading and is well illustrated with statistical graphical data; it gives an idea of the changes in the service. I cannot, as a result of my consultations with the board, reduce the period any further and I ask Deputies to leave it at nine months, which time was arrived at following consultation.

Dr. Woods

To what extent is the Legal Aid Board computerised and if it is, could it not move a lot faster? I do not want to take from anything the Minister said. I am happy to withdraw the amendment for the present.

Mr. Taylor

I understand a computerisation programme is in place but not fully operational.

Ms Keogh

I am sure that when the computer system is up and running, it will be possible to prepare a reports quicker than that. There is no necessity to dwell on it now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Woods

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 8, subsection (2) (a), line 4, before "as", to insert", other than information in relation to day to day activities".

Section 9 (2) says that the board shall, at the request of the Minister, supply him or her with such information relating to the performance of its functions as the Minister may, from time to time, specify. I propose that we include the phrase "other than information in relationg to day to day activities". The idea here is to exclude the day to day activities as is done in some other legislation — I refer particularly to legislation on pensions — and to ensure that a future Minister would not interfere with the day to day activities of the board, or to demand routine or personal information. I know the present Minister would not interfere in the day to day activities of the board. The provision as amended by my proposal is not unusual. It appears in other legislation and without it the section is left open and can be intepreted in a variety of ways.

If the board is seen as being directed from the centre this amendment becomes necessary and that is what worries me. We have expressed our views about that earlier and I do not want to repeat them. This subsection would allow the Minister, or a future Minister, to demand information relating to any of the functions of the board so it is important that the day to day activities would be excluded.

Mr. Taylor

Section 9 (2) (a) provides that the board shall, at the request of the Minister, supply him or her with such information relating to the performance of its functions as the Minister may, from time to time, specify. Deputy Woods's amendment would seek to exclude information relating to the board's day to day activities. It could, for example, be argued that almost everything the board does constitutes day to day activities in which case the important power delegated to the Minister by section 9 would become almost meaningless. I must point out that the Minister is answerable to the Oireachtas for the operation of the Legal Aid Board. The Minister's position would be impossible if he or she were, for example, unable to answer parliamentary questions on the operation or activities of the Legal Aid Board because of being unable to obtain the relevant information from the board. I would be extremely unhappy with that situation. I believe that Deputies would be equally unhappy if they were unable to obtain meaningful replies to parliamentary questions put down in relation to the board's operations. I appreciate there may be concerns that the Minister might be able to interfere in individual cases. However, as I pointed out in dealing with amendment No. 13, the Minister is now prohibited from intervening in any particular case with which the board is, or may be, concerned. Those functions will be strictly reserved for the board and, therefore the amendment is not appropriate.

Dr. Woods

I do not want to protract the debate on this issue. It appears to be appropriate in other legislation and has not caused any problems. The Minister spoke about responsibility to the House but he is only as responsible as the Act makes him. When the Bill is enacted it will decade the extent to which any Minister is responsible. By retaining it in the Bill the Minister obviously wants to enable him or his Department or Minister wants to investigate the daily activities of the board. It always worries me when a Department or Minister wants to investigate daily activities. It is not healthy or desirable and displays lack of trust in the board. There are adequate provisions for the Minister to receive reports on what is happening with the board. Therefore, I will press the amendment.

Mr. Taylor

I disagree with Deputy Woods. The section does not mention interference with the activities of the board in particular cases. That is specifically excluded as a result of amendment No. 13. This section deals with obtaining information and, because the board is using substantial amounts of public money, it is appropriate that the House receives information as to how that money is being expanded. Members should be entitled to put down questions to the Minister — regarding the activities of an independent board — on how taxpayers' money is spent. I can envisage situations arising in boards — not with this one — about which Members of Dáil Éireann would demand to know and they would be entitled to such information. If the Minister was debarred from obtaining information from the Legal Aid Board it would not be possible for him to give such information to Members of the House, who should be entitled to receive it.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 9 agreed to.

Section 10 agreed to.