Appointment of Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies: Motion.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Power)

I move:

(1) That it is expedient that a Joint Committee (which shall be called the Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies) consisting of seven members of the Dáil and four members of the Seanad (none of whom shall be a member of the Government or a Minister of State) be appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts and overall operational results of State-sponsored bodies engaged in trading or commercial activities referred to in Schedule A hereto and the trading and/or commercial aspects of the Reports and Accounts and overall operational results of the State-sponsored body referred to in Schedule B hereto and to report thereon to both Houses of the Óireachtas and make recommendations where appropriate.

(2) That, after consultation with the Joint Committee, the Minister for the Public Service with the agreement of the Minister for Finance may include from time to time the names of further State-sponsored bodies engaged in trading or commercial activities in the Schedules and, with the consent of the Joint Committee and the Minister for Finance, may delete from the Schedules the names of any bodies which he considers no longer to be State-sponsored bodies engaged in trading or commercial activities.

(3) That, if so requested by a State-sponsored body, the Joint Committee shall refrain from publishing confidential information regarding the body's activities and plans.

(4) That the Joint Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and, subject to the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist it for the purpose of particular enquiries.

(5) That the Joint Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members to be Chairman, who shall have only one vote.

(6) That all questions in the Joint Committee shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting and in the event of there being an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative.

(7) That the Joint Committee shall have power to print and publish from time to time minutes of evidence taken before it together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

(8) That every report which the Joint Committee proposes to make under this Order shall on adoption by the Joint Committee be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith whereupon the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

(9) That four members of the Joint Committee shall form a Quorum of whom at least one shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and at least one shall be a member of Seanad Éireann.

Schedule A

Aer Lingus, Teoranta

Aerlinte Éireann, Teoranta

Aer Rianta, Teoranta

The Agricultural Credit Corporation Limited

Arramara Teoranta

Bord na Móna

British & Irish Steam Packet Company Limited

Ceimicí, Teoranta

Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teoranta

Córas Iompair Éireann

Electricity Supply Board

Fóir Teoranta

Industrial Credit Company, Limited

The Irish Gas Board

Irish Life Assurance Company Limited

The Irish National Petroleum Corporation Limited

The Irish National Stud Company, Limited

Irish Shipping Limited

Irish Steel Holdings Limited

Min Fhéir (1959) Teoranta

National Building Agency Limited

Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta

Óstlanna Iompair Éireann Teoranta

Radio Telefís Éireann

Voluntary Health Insurance Board.

Schedule B

Údarás na Gaeltachta.

The motion before the House proposes the re-establishment of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on State-sponsored Bodies. Deputies will be well aware of the impact which the committee have made since their establishment. The number of reports published by the committee now stands at 18. Given the heavy demands on the time of members, this is a considerable achievement, particularly when one considers the high quality of discussion and analysis in the reports and the amount of detail they have gone into.

The Government believe that it is necessary now more than ever in these difficult times for our economy that the operations of companies in the public sector should be looked at objectively and critically by the elected representatives of the real shareholders, the Irish public. This necessary scrutiny will, I am sure, be undertaken, as in the past, in a constructive and understanding spirit.

The boards, executives and employees of the commercial bodies will now be familiar with the work of the joint committee and will, I feel confident, accept that the efforts of the committee are bent in the same direction as their own: towards an effective, efficient, employment-generating public sector. Indeed the dialogue between representatives of State bodies and members of the committee may be seen as affording those bodies a unique opportunity to explain their operations and problems to public representatives in a public forum in a far more direct and forceful way than is possible in the cold prose and statistical columns of an annual report.

This in turn makes possible more informed public discussion and debate which should help to avert the negative effect on morale within public bodies of ill-informed criticism. Too often, perhaps, it is forgotten that some State-sponsored bodies which we classify as commercial are required nevertheless to provide services which a private company would close down as unprofitable. Due regard must be had to this social element in the operations of certain bodies and the studies by the joint committee should help to highlight cases where unprofitability is genuinely a result of providing socially essential services.

On the other occasions on which motions have been debated to establish the joint committee, my predecessors have taken the opportunity to pay tribute to the enormous contribution which has been made by the various State-sponsored bodies over the years. In doing likewise, I hope that I will not be accused of merely observing a ritual. Over the half century and more since the first State-sponsored bodies were founded, State enterprise has spread into many sectors and manifested itself in many forms. A strong State sector has undoubtedly contributed to stability both in terms of employment and output. The Government recognise the importance of this contribution to our national well being which comes about through the dedication of the many able men and women who serve in the State sector. Some of the bodies in which they work are very much in the public eye, others — some of them notable success stories — are less well known. Perhaps the work of the joint committee will in time rectify the position in relation to these. Where faults are found, as they are bound to be, it is ultimately in the interest of all that these be recognised and put right.

The only changes proposed from the previous Orders of Reference are to the Schedules listing the bodies to be examined: a new body, the Irish National Petroleum Corporation, has been included for the first time and Gaeltarra Éireann has been replaced by Údarás na Gaeltachta. Because of major changes in their role in recent years arising from a ruling by the European Court, the Pigs and Bacon Commission cannot as matters stand be regarded as a commercial State-sponsored body, and for this reason has been deleted from the schedule.

I will not take up much more of the House's time. The motion would essentially restore the position which existed in relation to the joint committee before the dissolution of the 21st Dáil. The matter has, therefore, been the subject of debate and discussion in both Houses on a number of occasions in the past and I believe that there is a broad consensus favourable to the continuance of the committee's work. This is as it should be for, irrespective of our party allegiances or independence of such allegiance, we are all parliamentarians committed to the strengthening of parliamentary institutions. The joint committee was first established to fill a gap in the relationship of a part of the public service to the Oireachtas and, as I said in my opening remarks, it has been a notably successful innovation. We should now take the necessary steps to allow the committee to get on with its work.

Mr. Cooney

I move amendment No. 1:

Before Schedule A to add the following paragraph:

"(10) That the Joint Committee may in any report request either House of the Oireachtas to debate the contents of such report."

and to add to Schedule A:

"Industrial Development Authority".

I welcome the introduction of this motion to re-establish the joint committee. As the Minister points out, the work of the committee made heavy demands on the time of Members and I speak from personal experience in this regard, although I was in the other House at the time and demands on Members of that House are not as heavy as demands on Members of this House.

I should like at the outset to pay tribute to the chairman of the committee, Senator Eoin Ryan. The way in which he conducted the business of the committee was a major factor in their being able to get through such an amount of work. His wisdom and perspicacity at all times and on many difficult and sensitive occasions was quite outstanding. I should also like to pay tribute to the staff of the committee, the clerk and the permanent consultant whose work was outstanding. In addition, the committee from time to time had the valuable assistance of outside consultants on a contract basis and invariably the committee were well served. I should like to record the committee's appreciation of that work.

When the committee were first established there was some apprehension in the minds of the chairmen and executives of State-sponsored bodies as to how the committee would operate and whether it would turn out to be some sort of witchhunt. At this stage I can say confidently that those apprehensions were very quickly removed and there was a very harmonious and co-operative relationship between the committee and any State-sponsored company which came before them. The committee reported on 18 companies and, having regard to the fact that some of those are large and complex companies such as CIE, Aer Lingus and NET, the House will understand that the committee get through quite an amount of work.

The inspiration for the setting up of the Committee came from the frustration over the years in this and the other House at the lack of contact or control by Parliament over these bodies who are funded by public moneys but not directly accountable to the source of that funding. The practice had grown up — properly, too, I suppose — that Ministers when asked questions about the operations of a State-sponsored company indicated that they did not have responsibility for the day-to-day operations of these companies. That convention had been expanded to avoid answering questions even on the general principles behind the operations of these companies. This was a perfectly understandable stance but it left a gap in the relationship between the Oireachtas and the companies and the committee was seen as providing the necessary link between the Oireachtas and the people spending Oireachtas funds or controlling Oireachtas property.

The full potential of the committee in closing that gap was not realised because their reports were not debated in this House or debated sufficiently in the other House. Towards the end of the life of the committee, the other House adopted a Standing Order which enabled it on being requested by the committee to give time for a debate on the report. Two or three debates took place in the other House. No such debate took place in this House and there is little point in having a committee which is to bridge the gap between this House and State-sponsored bodies unless the activities and fruit of the work of the committee is debated in a real way and attention paid to it. It was frustrating for members of the committee. I am sure former members of the committee will agree with me that there was a feeling of operating in a vacuum when all the long sessions with companies and long preparation and drafting sessions were ignored by the main House of the Oireachtas.

It is for that reason that I put down the amendment seeking to have it written into the motion setting up the committee that the committee would have specific power to request a debate in either House of the Oireachtas. The committee cannot direct either House to amend or provide in Standing Orders for that debate but one assumes that such a change in Standing Orders would follow automatically so that a request of the House's own committee could be complied with in this area. It is an important step that must be taken.

The amendment also seeks to include the Industrial Development Authority within the ambit of the committee. They were excluded originally because there was room for argument as to whether they were trading or commercial. They are spending enough taxpayer's money and in so far as the rationale for the committee was to provide the Oireachtas with a function to oversee the final destination of that money, they should be included. At the present time, when their activities are the subject of an outside consultancy report and when they are coming more and more into the public eye, it is important that they be included within the ambit of the committee. I ask the Minister to agree that they should be added to the list of bodies which can be reviewed by the committee.

I thank the Minister for introducing the motion to reconstitute the committee. I welcome it and hope the Minister will be able to implement the changes I suggest, namely, have a debate in the House after the committee reports and include the IDA among the bodies to be examined.

Mr. Manning

I support Deputy Cooney's amendment. I welcome the decision to re-establish this committee. It has been far too long since the committee operated. The fact that it is almost a year since it has been in operation is regrettable. I know circumstances were abnormal given that we have had two general elections.

Between 1978 and 1981 the committee produced 18 reports. I was not a Member of the House during the lifetime of that committee but I was impressed to see from the reports the extent to which the activities of the companies were delved into. The work of the members was thankless and generally unpublicised. It reflects great credit on those who worked so hard. On reading through the reports one must be impressed by the work of two members, Senator Ryan, who was chairman, and Deputy Cooney. One must include the secretariat in the tributes on the performance of the committee.

I was not aware until recently that there was an amendment. The amendment gets to the nub of the problem which is the lack of effectiveness of the committee to date. I believe that because there was not sufficient publicity not enough attention was paid to the important nature of the work done by the committee. I strongly support the first part of the amendment.

There are other ways in which the committee can be effective. I should like to ask the incoming committee why it should confine its investigation to semi-State bodies engaged in trading activities. There are many other State-sponsored bodies, some 123 of them, all in receipt of State funds. They all exist as a result of some policy decision. If we turn the spotlight of investigation on some of them, we may find that they serve no real purpose today and might be amalgmated elsewhere or go out of existence. In this area of high public expenditure, it would be no harm if Parliament could carry out the odd lightning raid into the activities of State-sponsored bodies. A frequent review of their work could be useful and might result in some bodies being wound up. Why not? There is not much point in having them if the original purpose for which they were created is no longer relevant. They drain away valuable State resources.

I take the Minister's point about the spirit in which the committee was set up. It is to help State-sponsored bodies and see that they operate for the public good. It is not to carry out a witchhunt against them but rather to help them. The committee might look into the working of the Arts Council, AnCO, Bord na Gaeilge, Córas Tráchtála, the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies and so on. Is it proper that the State should treat this institute as a State-sponsored body? Could it be amalgamated with some other area of higher education? These are questions to which the House could turn its attention.

I should like to see the committee widening its terms of reference. This would mean having a bigger committee and would also mean having a greater secretarial service and backup resources. However, it would be worth while, as it would strengthen the principle of parliamentary accountability. It would strengthen the powers and responsibility of the House.

Health boards could also be included as they are great spenders of taxpayers' money. Many Members are uneasy about the huge amounts of money they spend at present. I ask the new committee to insist that State-sponsored bodies adopt some uniform accounting procedures for their annual reports. There is too great a variation at present and we cannot avoid the impression that some reports are designed to conceal rather than reveal the true state of things. The committee should insist on greater frankness about how the bodies treat each other. Who knows the true relationship between the ESB, An Bord Gáis, the Irish National Petroleum Company and Bord na Móna? There is a merry-go-round situation with the reality concealed from all but the trained eye. I should like to see the committee move away from the specific details of individual companies and examine the whole philosophy behind State-sponsored bodies.

Since the establishment of the Electricity Supply Board in 1927 State-sponsored bodies have been a most important part of our public life. We are all very proud of the innovation they represent in this country, an innovation which has been copied in many other countries. But the very fact that we are so involved means that perhaps at times we have not examined the fundamental principles underlying State-sponsored bodies. I hope that the new committee will take time off from details to ascertain whether State-sponsored bodies constitute the best method of achieving a specific purpose. For example, they might examine the whole concept of what is meant by efficiency, fair returns and social responsibility in these State-sponsored bodies.

If I may revert to the principle involved in the setting up of this committee, I should say that I see this as an extension of the whole principle of public accountability, an extension I should like to see carried into other areas of the work of this House and indeed the Seanad. For example, I should like to see similar committees set up to examine some of the Estimates, to scrutinise them in a calm, detailed manner rather than having the farcical gallop through of millions of pounds of Estimates at the tail end of a session, as we are now doing. I hope that this Dáil, if it lasts long enough — a question on which we all have doubts — will turn its attention to the major problem of reforming its structures in this way.

On a practical note might I recommend to the new committee that they begin their work by turning their attention to Údarás na Gaeltachta, a most important State-sponsored body and one over which a great cloud hangs at present. I do not know whether the allegations made against them are true or false. This would be a very useful role for this new committee and a very appropriate place for such investigation to be carried out. I hope the committee will undertake an immediate investigation into the activities of Údarás na Gaeltachta so that whatever doubts exist may be dispelled or allegations proved or disproved as the case may be.

The new committee might also consider the idea of having its chairman drawn from the Opposition parties. I am not in this respect casting any aspersions on the quality of chairmanship of Senator Eoin Ryan, which I believe was impeccable and above approach. But it might be no harm that the principle applicable to the Committee of Public Accounts — that of appointing an Opposition chairman — be that adopted in respect of this committee.

I welcome the decision to establish this committee and strongly support the two amendments of Deputies Cooney and Deasy.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Power)

I thank Deputies Cooney and Manning for their contributions. I am aware of the sterling work done by the chairman, Senator Eoin Ryan and Deputy Cooney. I should like to join them in tributes to the staff involved in the work on that committee. I must say that any committee of the House with which I have been associated has received the same attention from staff. The comments here today indicate a great degree of party co-operation in the work of the committee. I am sure that when the committee was first established we all shared the feelings expressed by Deputy Cooney that there was a degree of apprehension felt among the bodies likely to be investigated. It cannot be said that a witch hunt of any kind was pursued but rather definite good work on behalf of the public. I think it can be said that it proved to be an effective committee.

I should like to deal with the amendment put down by Deputies Cooney and Deasy to the effect that the Joint Committee may in any report request either House of the Oireachtas to debate the contents of such report. We should realise the thinking that went into the setting up of that committee. I am sure it was realised that this House could not afford the time to deal with matters such as this. The committee system was introduced to save the time of the House, to enable in-depth discussion to take place and examinations of such bodies be carried out. If we reach the stage where joint committees would refer their reports back to the House to be discussed, I believe it would defeat the very purpose for which these committees were set up. Also we would then have reached the stage at which the parent body, which is the House, having set up a sub-committee to report back to it, would receive a request from that minor body to have their work discussed in the House. That to me would smack somewhat of our allowing the tail to wag the dog. As matters stand at present any Member of the House can put down a motion to have the report of the committee, which must be laid before the House, discussed in the House in his own time. I hope the Deputies will not feel this is an attempt to cover up anything. My thinking is that committees were intended to make time and, if this motion were accepted, it would have the opposite effect because we would then have lots of work done at committees pushed back into this House. As far as committees are concerned, we are at an infant stage. Indeed, I might add that other committees which I hope will be set up might adopt the same attitude. For instance, the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the Euro pean Communities could well ask that their reports be pursued in the House. I think that would not be very effective.

With regard to the suggestion that the Industrial Development Authority be added to Schedule A, I should say that they are not a commercial body and do not come under the terms of reference of this motion. There is nothing to prevent the Minister, if he wishes, from having a name added later on. If we decide that non-commercial or semi-State should be added later, that can be done. My suggestion is that at least we allow the present committee to come into existence and see how they work before deciding to load any more onto any other committees.

Deputy Manning mentioned that he was not too happy at the fact that the committee had not met for almost a year. The Deputy cannot really blame us for that. There was opportunity afforded during the term of office of the previous Government for seven or eight months. We do not accept any blame for the fact that that committee was not reconstituted. We have acted reasonably quickly. We resumed office in March only, we are now mid-way through June and the fact that this committee is being reconstituted is an indication of the serious view we take of it. I am sure Deputies will appreciate that it is not a standing committee of either House of the Oireachtas, that it is not automatically re-established and that there must be a motion put down for its re-establishment. We are intent on so doing.

The question raised about the re-establishment of a joint committee of the Oireachtas on non-commercial State-sponsored bodies is being investigated. Such a committee was not established during the term of office of the 22nd Dáil. Indeed, the committee we are seeking to establish today, in its present form, was not re-constituted in its present form during the term of office of the previous Dáil. I would appeal to members to allow us to get the joint committee on commercial State-sponsored bodies off the ground immediately and then allow us to examine the non-commercial one. Údarás Na Gaeltachta has been added in place of Gaeltara Éireann. There was the suggestion of Deputy Manning, which we shall bear in mind, that Údáras Na Gaeltachta may be the first body to come under the scrutiny of the new committee. B'fhéidir gur féidir linn a rá, "Tosach maith leath na hoibre". Although he did dilute his remarks later, Deputy Manning mentioned the doubts and allegations about Údáras Na Gaeltachta. I hope the Deputy is not pre-judging the situation before the committee attempts to examine in depth the affairs of Údarás Na Gaeltachta.

Mr. Manning

On a point of information, absolutely not, but simply because I wanted to have it cleared up in the proper place, and I believe the Committee is the appropriate place.

Mr. Power

The Deputy's anxiety would be to prove that such allegations were unfounded. I am delighted with the degree of unanimity and appreciation expressed here with regard to the re-establishment of the committee. I am sure we would all like to see the committee re-established and working and when we see how they work, then we can, if necessary, broaden the scope of their terms of reference.

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Mr. Cooney

Reluctantly. I would be out of order if I were to point out the fallacies in the Minister's reasons for not accepting it.

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

I am glad the Deputy accepts it would be out of order.

Mr. Power

We can think about the fallacies, and Deputy Cooney can imagine he is right and I can imagine I am right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 10 Jun 1982