On sections 4 and 5 — and this is tied in with the First Schedule — in his speech the Minister referred to the list of functions which my be delegated to the agency. It is not particularly good practice in a Bill like this simply to give 15 or 16 different functions under the side heading of the sections. It would have been very helpful if the Minister had provided in ordinary layman's language the exact scale of the functions which would be delegated to the agency. At this stage there is not very much that can be done but it would be very helpful in future, or even at this stage, if we could be told by the Minister now what these particular functions are.
National Treasury Management Agency Bill, 1990: Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
All the Finance Acts are basically getting authority to do this, that and the other, as I am sure Senator Manning will appreciate. I will circulate them to him. What we are doing here is delegating the functions of borrowing money on behalf of the State and managing the debt on behalf of the State. That is the central function. The agency must report directly to the Minister for Finance and not to the Department of Finance or not the secretary of the Department of Finance, to ensure that the constitutional functions of the Minister for Finance are kept intact. The model that was devised for it is the Minister for State. Basically, it is to devolve down the functions of borrowing money on behalf of the State, issuing loans on behalf of the State and managing the national debt on behalf of the State.
I would like to thank the Minister very much for his replies. It is becoming rarer and rarer that on Second Stage we get a detailed reply to the questions we ask in this House. I would like to thank the Minister for taking the trouble to go through the points we raised and tackling them one by one. Nobody expects us to agree with everything he did but at least he took the trouble to tackle the points raised.
On section 4, I am not sure whether it is a permanent part of legislation or if it is just creeping in and being incorporated in all legislation of this sort and into the functions of other bodies, that consultants are shoved in anywhere to give an agency of this sort powers to send for people they want when they are inadequate to deal with it themselves. I would be happier if the agency's powers were limited in this area.
The people are being employed at very large salaries to do what the Minister tells us — personally I disagree with him — are highly specialised jobs. That is why they are being paid so much. I cannot understand in what circumstances it would be necessary for them, on top of that to call in consultants. It seems that they are specialised in their own fields already. Maybe the Minister could give us an example or an illustration of where they would need to call in consultants on top of that? I would have thought that they would be people who are experts in foreign exchange and other forms of debt management, Government stock, Exchequer bills and all the different areas. It is giving them too wide powers to say on top of that they can bring in consultants any time they like on any issue they like. It is complete freedom of movement without limitations. Could the Minister tell us in what circumstances he thinks this could be necessary and, maybe, that their powers to do so could be limited.
Starting out, the creation of a proper management structure — and the people we talk about sometimes are not the best at this — to operate in such a situation is important. The Senator can be assured that the Minister sets the budget and will not let them run wild and bring in consultants for this, that and the other. He directs the policy and sets the limits on the budget. That safeguard is there and will remain there.
Does the Minister know why they should be necessary? I do not know how many people will be employed by this agency, but if there are people who are experts in these areas and it covers the spectrum of national debt management, why would consultants be necessary?
I am sure the Senator will agree that consultants will be needed for setting up management structures.
Yes, but after that in the ordinary running of the agency?
Various other areas, perhaps risk management systems. I do not think the people who would be inside there are the people who should devise what the risk management systems should be, for instance. If you are setting the target, you are setting a performance policy for them. They should not devise the internal system to which they would have to work towards. Another example may be the insurance limits they keep within and certain limits are risks. We are not into the high risk, the high roller business. We are intent on running a business that can get us the maximum savings at the minimum risk. There are areas where it can be done but the Minister will set the overall expenses of running the agency. They will not be able to call them in every day or else they will be doing with less staff.
Would the Minister not have this power anyway to call in consultants without writing it into the legislation?
This is being run at a distance away from the Minister. It is an unusual module for an agency. The Senator will not find one of them in the system.
Would the Minister envisage that the employment of such consultants or, indeed, financial institutions would only take place on the advice of the Minister?
Sure.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply to the matters I raised. There was one on which I did not hear the reply and it refers particularly to the section, that is the delegation of powers to the agency. I have not got the Ministers and Secretaries Act in front of me and I must confess I did not read it today. I am quite clear about the constitutional delegation of power from Ministers to functionaries within the Department. I use the word "functionaries" in its correct sense there and not in any demeaning sense.
It seems that the Act specifies the Minister has certain duties. I was also under the impression by virtue of that legislation or some other that the Secretary of the Department of Finance was the accounting officer for that Department. In this legislation, as the Minister outlined to us in his earlier presentation, the chief executive becomes the accounting officer. I see a clear conflict in those two roles. We now have two accounting officers in the Department of Finance. The Minister said that he was the accounting officer.
The chief executive.
At some stage today the point was made about the Minister being the accounting officer, perhaps not by the Minister. I am glad we have no disagreement on that. The Secretary of the Department is the accounting officer for the Department of Finance. I specifically asked three times about the relationship between the chief executive and the Secretary of the Department of Finance, because we now have two accounting officers for the same Vote.
No. The Secretary of the Department of Finance is the accounting officer for the Department of Finance Vote. There was no accounting officer up to now on central fund services. It was not included in the Vote. It was separate from the Vote. To make this agency accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts, I had to appoint a chief executive as the accounting officer to account to the Houses of the Oireachtas. The relationship is as follows. The chief executive officer of the agency reports direct to the Minister, not to the Secretary of the Department of Finance and the Secretary of the Department of Finance has no involvement in accountability of the agency to the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Committee of Public Accounts or the Comptroller and Auditor General.
I am quite clear on that aspect of it. The second aspect I am still not clear on is whether the Minister has the authority to delegate that power outside the Department of Finance. I personally doubt it and I know the answer the Minister is going to give. It is one of those vague areas of legislation and constitutionality which I probably will have to live with but I want to hear the Minister's answer on it.
The Senator is right. I do not have that power and I am not exercising that power here. The Government are exercising the powers, not I, because I do not have it and I cannot give it away. It is the Government who delegate the authority to a Minister for State to carry out his functions. It is not the Minister of the particular Department, it is the Government who do it. That is why it is a Government decision, it is a Government delegating authority.
On a point of order, before the Minister goes ahead, we are actually in breach of Standing Orders of the House.
Acting Chairman
I am aware of that and I have been attempting to give the contributors some latitude. I have been awaiting advice from the Government side of the House on this and have been monitoring the development of the debate. I inform the House that Senator Manning is quite correct. We are in breach of Standing Orders technically in that agreement was made at 4 p.m. that this debate would be concluded at 4.30 p.m. We have now gone some six to seven minutes over that time.
It was agreed we would conclude at 4.30 p.m. However, if it is agreed now, in the interests of the debate, we could conclude at 4.45 p.m.
I have no wish against having the debate concluded but I would not put a time on it.
Acting Chairman
Can the Chair be informed of the decision of the House?
The decision this morning was that we would conclude the Committee and all Stages by 4 p.m. Subsequently, the House agreed to 4.30 p.m. In the interests of getting the matter concluded as quickly as possible, certainly we would not mind extending it by another five or ten minutes.
Acting Chairman
Therefore, I have a proposal that the debate on all Stages be concluded at 4.45 p.m. Is that agreed?
It has already been agreed for 4 p.m. We have already broken it twice to facilitate Members of the House.
I do not believe we are in breach of Standing Orders. We are in breach of the orders of the day. We can extend those at any time so there is no big deal about that. There is an amendment to be proposed in a few minutes. I believe this Bill will conclude very shortly and I do not think we would get ourselves into a row about it.
We will not get into a row.
I propose that we continue until the Bill concludes.
In deference to the Minister who is waiting outside we should be very conscious of that as well. He has been waiting since 4 o'clock.
On a point of order, we have got to decide whether the legislation works for the Minister or the Minister works for the legislation. I know the Minister is waiting outside but I do not think——
We generally adhere to what has been agreed.
——the discussion of legislation can for one moment be curtailed simply because there is a Minister waiting outside. There is no one here trying to obstruct the business but we want to do the Bill mature, responsible justice. That is all we intend to do.
In deference to the Minister, I am making the point that he is now waiting three quarters of an hour. We have extended this debate for three quarters of an hour and we should advert to that fact as well.
We should try to finish the Bill. We are mindful of the fact that there is a Minister waiting.
I want to respond to a few points in relation to the constitutional delegation of this authority. The exercise of the powers being given here to the agency is an exercise of the executive powers of the State. The executive powers of the State are exercisable only by, or on the authority of the Government. We had a debate in the Dáil about this. Article 6 and Article 28 are the two Articles that govern the constitutional aspects of it. The effect of this Bill is that the agency can only exercise its powers and functions if the Government make an order delegating those functions to it. The Bill also provides for the revocation of such order in whole or in part by the Government. The delegated functions of the agency will be exercised subject to the control and general superintendence of the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance will retain, concurrently with the agency, his powers and functions in relation to the management of the national debt. A provision similar to those which I have already mentioned applies to the Ministers for State.
Since the functions and powers of the agency will be exercised on the authority of the Government subject to the control and general superintendence of the Minister for Finance, that is the basis for making it totally and absolutely within the requirements of the Constitution under the Articles I have talked about with the best constitutional advice in the country plus, of course, the Attorney General's advice available to the Government in taking this step.
I would like to thank the Minister for a very clear answer. It was a matter which was bothering me a lot about the legislation.
I would like to ask one question which I raised during my contribution earlier in the day. Is it envisaged — this may have some constitutional impact and perhaps the Minister could give me some information on it — that some of these advisers may not be Irish nationals or Irish citizens?
Is it members of the advisory committee the Senator is asking about now?
Yes.
That is not the legal advice I got. They are Irish citizens under the Constitution. The Senator need have no worries about that. With regard to the question of the members of the advisory committee, as I have said here in the Senator's absence, there are institutions like the World Bank and the European Investment Bank where Irish people have reached the top of the ladder, or very close to it, in their own particular fields as financial advisers in the financial world and possibly such people could be called on if they were agreeable to serve in a part-time advisory capacity, with a small honorarium, and very similar to that of a semi State body.
I am sorry if I caused the Minister to repeat himself. I was at another meeting so I missed part of his speech.
I would like to ask the Minister what size does he expect the agency to be? We talk about the employment, the chief executive, the salaries. Everything in the Bill is very flexible and that may or may not be a particularly good thing. I suspect it is not, but it gives a certain scope to those involved. We do not seem to have got out of this Bill, from the Minister or anybody else how many people will be employed or even some sort of broad figure of what it will cost the Exchequer in administration expenses? I would like to have a better idea of how many people there will be on the administrative and technical staff and in the so-called expert area, and what it will cost.
It is difficult to be precise about it. If you look elsewhere where this kind of operation is being done, say Sweden, for instance, they employ in the region of 135 or 140 in this particular operation. At the moment, I would say probably the best judgement would be somewhere between 50 and 100. You have to take in computer people and back-up services.
Do we have any idea, which I presume the Minister would have, of what the cost to the Exchequer of salaries and administration, the total expense to the Exchequer, within 10 per cent or 20 per cent.
I do not know what the salary will be. We have to go into the marketplace and see if people are there and prepared to move and how much the chief executive will be. I know I went into the marketplace, not with a specific salary on a contract basis. I tried the two ways and did not get any response so there is no point in making stabs at it at this stage.
Would the Minister say it will cost £10 million or £20 million for the whole operation? Can we have some idea? I presume the Department have made some sort of estimate for it.
I would not have thought so. I am not thinking in terms of £20 million. He might be the chief executive. I do not know whether he is applying for the job or not——
(Interruptions.)
He is not talking anything in the line of £15 million or £20 million and neither am I. It will be a very minor part.
The cost of running the agency will be less than £10 million?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 12, line 12 to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
The amendment relates to the chief executive being a member of the advisory committee. The reason for this is the chief executive, from all indications, will be a very highly paid individual. Part of the reason for setting up the body in the first place is because it is so difficult to get the necessary expert people and since the chief executive will be the number one person in the agency obviously he will be exceedingly well paid. Secondly, he will be responsible to the Minister.
The advisory committee have a function obviously to give advice in relation to the operation of the agency and how best to manage the affairs in the context of the national debt. The chief executive then will, of course, be a link between the Minister, the agency and the advisory committee. It would seem necessary that the chief executive sit in on all of the meetings of the advisory committee and from that point of view it would be appropriate that he would be a member. It seems unreasonable to have it otherwise or else we would be establishing two bodies that would operate and meet separately. Of course, the chief executive is the man who is directly responsible and makes the direct contact with the Minister. If the advisory agency is to advise the committee and the Minister it seems absolutely essential that this amendment be accepted and that the chief executive be appointed as one of the members of the advisory committee.
It is a matter for the Minister of the day to decide who shall and who shall not be a member of the advisory committee. You will meet two schools of thought out in the real world about this. Some people would say that the chief executive should not be a member of a board, other people would say he should be. It is a question of which view you take. The reason for the insertion of the word "may" is to leave open the possibility that he will be a member of the executive committee but that it should not be binding on the Minister of the day. I am sure he or she will be a member of the advisory committee but I would envisage at all times that that person would be in attendance at the meetings, just as the chief executive is in attendance at a board meeting to answer questions or to get involved in discussions. I do not see any problem with it. The reason I put it that way was to ensure that the position was left open for the Minister of the day to make his or her decision in relation to membership or not.
Amendment declared lost.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.