asked the Taoiseach if the Government have reconsidered the question of enabling Dáil Éireann to review the accounts of statutory bodies or other State or semi-State bodies; if so, what decision has been arrived at; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Accounts of Statutory Bodies.
2.
I have dealt with questions of a somewhat similar nature on 29th March, 1960, 26th July, 1962, and 15th April, 1964. Briefly, the view which I expressed was that where the State provided grants from voted moneys there was ample opportunity for parliamentary debate on the affairs of State-sponsored bodies. In the case of the principal State-sponsored bodies, which did not receive annual grants but whose capital was subscribed or guaranteed by the State under statute, I pointed out that opportunities arose for parliamentary debate when the enabling legislation was before the House periodically from time to time. I went on to say, however, that in these latter cases, I would, if there was a substantial demand in the House, be prepared to consider whether there was 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 had been laid before the House pursuant to statute, provided that discussion on the motion was confined to matters of policy, arising out of the report and accounts, for which a Minister clearly had parliamentary responsibility. So far, however, there has been no substantial demand for this in the House.
The Deputy will, of course, be aware that the report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the Appropriation Accounts 1962/63, dated the 12th November, 1964, and released a few days ago suggests that consideration be given to an amendment of the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann so as to provide, where appropriate, for the reference to the Committee of Public Accounts of the audited accounts of bodies which receive subventions from voted moneys. The bodies in question are those on which I have already expressed the opinion that adequate opportunity for parliamentary debate exists. The Committee's suggestion raises a number of new issues apart from those which have already been raised by the Parliamentary Questions to which I have referred earlier. The suggestion will, of course, be taken fully into account and commented upon in the formal Minute which the Minister for Finance addresses annually to the Committee in reply to matters raised in its reports.
As the Taoiseach mentioned, the recent comments of the Committee of Public Accounts, published last week or the week before, would have been published subsequent to the earlier replies he gave. Does he not now consider, in view of these comments, that some procedure should be adopted, either by means of amending the Standing Orders or by the establishment of an ad hoc committee, for consideration of accounts of public companies?
That is a separate question. The Committee of Public Accounts referred to the possibility of bringing the reports of companies receiving subventions from public moneys before that Committee, but whether that suggestion is appropriate is a matter for further consideration.
Do I take it that the Taoiseach is prepared to consider referring, in certain cases, the accounts of statutory bodies for consideration to some committee in respect of general questions of policy as distinct from day-to-day administration?
I am not prepared to say that.
Is the Taoiseach aware that at least one of those who have come to be described by some newspaper scribes as the bright young men of Fianna Fáil has expressed the view that some procedure should be introduced?
Men learn by experience.
The Taoiseach is Bourbon-like in this matter.