(South Tipperary) asked the Taoiseach if he will consider setting up a special committee to examine and make recommendations on the relationship between Parliament and the State-sponsored autonomous bodies, particularly those of a commercial nature.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Parliament and State-sponsored Bodies.
2.
I would refer the Deputy to my reply to a Question addressed to me in this House on the 29th March, 1960. Nothing has occurred since then that would alter my views on the relationship between the Oireachtas and State-sponsored bodies.
(South Tipperary): Is the Minister not aware that there is increasing dissatisfaction in the House, particularly from the point of view of the answering of questions put by Deputies regarding the activities of such State-sponsored bodies?
I am not aware of that. The situation is not any different from what it has been for a number of years. If we set up State-sponsored bodies to compete in the ordinary commercial and business world where private enterprise is also engaged, they cannot be made subject to Parliamentary supervision in respect of their day-to-day working.
(South Tipperary): I contend that there is no great difference between these bodies and private enterprise inasmuch as private enterprise has the responsibility of answering to the people who have shares in these undertakings and surely, in the national assembly where such vast sums of public money are involved, when reasonable and simple questions are asked, and many of the questions are quite simple, the information asked for should be given?
We are now entering into the realms of argument.
Is it not a fact that this matter has had the attention of successive Governments and it was under contemplation that some sort of Parliamentary procedure should be built up to consider how best to provide for these autonomous bodies and the responsibility of their directorates to the shareholders?
In my reply of 29th March I said:
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 a discussion of a motion dealing with the report and accounts of each such body which had been laid before the House pursuant to statute.
Since that date, I have no evidence of a substantial demand for such a procedure.
Would the Taoiseach not take this question as a substantial demand?
I would not.
There is this difference between State-sponsored bodies and private enterprise, that practically all the State-sponsored bodies have monopolies, whereas private companies have not.
I spoke at some length on this subject to the Institute of Public Administration who thought fit to publish my remarks in the form of a brochure. I am prepared to send this brochure to any Deputy who may want it.
If there were a substantial demand for a Parliamentary examination into the responsibilities of State-sponsored bodies, would the Taoiseach be prepared to have the matter further examined? In the light of the demand now being made in the House by the major Opposition Party, would he now consider that we have such an examination as promised?
That is not what I said. What I referred to was the procedure by which the affairs of these State bodies could be discussed when their accounts were placed on the Table of the Dáil.
Would the Taoiseach have any serious objection to the proposal made by Deputy McQuillan?
It is strange that those who profess to be most in favour of State enterprise are those who are least disposed to allow it to work.
That is what we want to do, to have it brought out in public.
Do not natter. All my life I have thanked God that he saved me from a nagging wife.