Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

This Bill was announced with great fanfare a number of years ago as the third leg of a stool which the Government intended introducing to fill in many of the gaps that existed and which I would argue still exist in the policy on people with disabilities. Since that time, the Education of Persons with Disabilities Act and the Disability Act have been passed. This Bill is the second incarnation of the Citizens Information Bill, as the Comhairle (Amendment) Bill 2004 has already been laid before the House. I have yet to hear the reason that Bill, which is still on the Order Paper, was not the vehicle chosen to proceed with completing this Government initiative which was announced with such great fanfare. The only issue between that Bill and this was a concern that seemed to exist about the name of the organisation. If this was the central issue, then it should be explained in the debate.

I wish to declare an interest. A number of years ago I worked on a six-month contract with what was then the National Rehabilitation Board. I still remain confused as to the reason that body disappeared into the mist. It became part of the new Comhairle organisation. It seems that someone decided the delivery of public information and services to people with disabilities was an even knit in some way. It is a compatibility which did not exist then and does not exist now to a certain extent. I agree there is a need for the introduction of a personal advocacy service, but I cannot understand the reason for a marriage of convenience and the maintenance of a very uneven alliance for the delivery of very distinct and separate services. I hope this anomaly can be addressed in the future.

I hope the chosen name will be a matter of debate on Committee Stage and that consideration will be given to renaming the Bill and the organisation which the Bill is to establish. From where has the demand to change the name of Comhairle come? Will the Minister reveal whether he received particular representations in this regard? Is it his personal opinion which has informed this change of legislation?

Could it be that the lack of proper consultation within the organisation which is currently delivering these services has failed to bring about a proper focus as to what that organisation is and should be about? While this Bill is necessary, it is flawed in many respects and much attention will have to be paid to it on Committee Stage if we are to repair what should be much needed services. That said, the provision of personal advocacy was an essential element in the aborted disability Bill 2001, section 5 of which came in for much critical comment at what is known as the infamous Mansion House meeting which drove the Government to withdraw that Bill.

The concerns of people who live with disability, those who live with people with disability and organisations who represent their interests is that the introduction of personal advocacy in this way, with much uncertainty as to how it is to be resourced and what it can achieve, may end up as nothing more than a fancier form of consultation with no guarantee of adequate resources being provided or delivery of services which those with disability so badly need. At the heart of this has been the Government's refusal, despite this being the third in a series of Bills, to recognise the need for rights-based legislation for people with disabilities. Until that is ceded by the Government as a central principle or is acted on, debates on people with disabilities will be informed by this debate.

Outside of that, there are a number of other flaws that need to be debated. Even though I speak in a negative sense, I hope the Minister will be open to accepting some amendments on Committee Stage. The decision to entitle it the citizens information board will cause untold confusion. The introduction of a statutory board when there already exist 42 independent citizen information boards that are non-statutory and deliver face to face services, which will interact with a statutory board which will not deliver face to face services, does nothing to clear the confusion that exists in this area. If the Minister wants to talk about what this organisation would do, he can either maintain or come up with a different version of Comhairle as a name or put into the title its more wide embracing remit which is to be an advocacy and information service because it certainly is more than a citizens information board. The work being done under that title is done in a different and more effective way. That is a particular confusion that needs to be sorted out.

The appointment of a director of personal advocacy services is welcome. My concern is whether the person to be appointed under the provisions of the Bill will have sufficient independence. It is important that independence is given and can be acted on. There are too many references in the Bill to the office of that person having to refer to or possibly be influenced by the Minister in any given time. If we are talking about asserting the rights of people with disabilities, there has to be a necessary distance and independence in this office to allow it to be effective.

On a slightly more technical aspect, the establishment of a new office should be restricted to the same type of restrictions as for other office holders in the State. The idea of a State appointment being limited to a seven-year term and only extended under certain circumstances, with the advice of the chief executive of the organisation, is missing from the Bill. If we want to appoint the right person and have renewal of ideas and energies in that office, such a provision should be included in the Bill.

The other area where the Minister is proposing to make changes is in the composition of the board. Some are welcome changes while others are in need of further consideration. I was surprised that during the past year the Comhairle organisation appointed a new chair, yet there was no public announcement of that appointment. The person appointed is excellent. He is a well respected former member of the press gallery here. I wonder whether that information was withheld not because of any modesty on the part of the person appointed, but because it was decided not to name the composition and chair of the board until a new name and remit of the organisation was put in place. Perhaps I can have clarity from the Minister on that issue.

I agree with the reduction in board members. A membership of 20 is too large, while 15 will make it more effective. The terms of office which are to be extended from three to five years have a logic, although the Minister and I will disagree about the manner of public appointments. My preference and that of my party would be for an independent public appointments commission rather than that such appointments should be in the remit of an individual Minister, but we can argue about that in another forum. The proposal to reduce the number representing people with disabilities from five to three needs to be looked at again because it is not a proportionate reduction. What had been a 25% representation on the board of 20 becomes a 20% representation on a board of 15 members. There are issues about whether the representation is of people with disability or people representing people with disabilities. It would be a retrograde step if in a smaller board the voice of people with disability was smaller on the new board. The Minister should at least increase the number to four. If he is open to such amendment, it would be a big improvement on the Bill.

The only other governance issue he wants to talk about is the quorum for board meetings. There is a certain logic in that because it is hard to get a quorum for meetings at the best of times. I would suggest on Committee Stage that to ensure there is a voice of people with disability, at least one member of that quota at all times should be one of the representatives who are appointed in that way. I welcome the fact that those people will no longer be appointed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if only for the fact that I am always happy to see less decisions being made by the current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

While I have strong reservations about the Bill, I recognise the need to implement it and I am willing to co-operate with the Minister to ensure much of the Bill comes into being. I hope he is forthcoming and accepts a number of amendments on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context