asked the Taoiseach whether in view of the desirability of bringing the activities of State and semi-State bodies more under the control or supervision of the Oireachtas without at the same time interfering in their detailed day-to-day operations he will consider making arrangements so that a separate annual debate could take place on the activities of the principal bodies concerned, rather than having such discussion confined within the limits of the general Estimates, as obtains at present.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - State and Semi-State Bodies: Oireachtas Control.
1.
Control or supervision, as suggested by the Deputy, would, if these words are given their ordinary meaning, imply a degree of intervention by the Oireachtas in the activities of State-sponsored bodies which would be highly undesirable as well as being repugnant to the basic principles on which the Oireachtas has established such bodies. In my view, as I have previously stated, the existing system is adequate to meet any reasonable need there is for parliamentary control.
As regards bodies which receive grants from voted moneys, there are, in connection with the Estimates, sufficient opportunities for general debate or for the putting down of a motion by a Deputy in accordance with Standing Orders. Where capital for such State-sponsored bodies is provided by legislation or where guarantees are given by the State for loan capital, the enabling Bills or Statutory Orders are open to full debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas, and such occasions have in the past arisen frequently.
In the case of those of the principal State-sponsored bodies referred to by the Deputy which do not receive annual grants but the capital of which has been wholly or mainly subscribed or guaranteed by the State, I would, if there is a substantial demand in the House for such a procedure, be prepared to consider whether there is need for an arrangement whereby the House would be asked to allow time periodically for discussion of a motion dealing with the report and accounts of each such body which have been laid before the House pursuant to statute. The extent to which other opportunities for Dáil debate are available in the case of a particular body would be a factor in the consideration of the need for a motion, and I would envisage that a motion in relation to each such body would not be required more frequently than once in a few years. I should also make it clear that I would not be in favour of such a procedure unless discussion on the motion were to be confined to matters of policy, arising out of the Report and Accounts, for which a Minister clearly has parliamentary responsibility.