Grangegorman Development Agency Bill 2004: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Sections 21 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 22, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) A register of disclosure under this section shall be made available for public inspection on similar terms to the register under section 26(7)”.
Under section 26(7), there is public access to the register of interests but there does not appear to be specific public access to a disclosure of a conflict of interest under section 27. I am seeking to have such a provision inserted in the Bill in order that under section 27 there would be such public access. Section 27 deals with the disclosure of certain interests by members of the agency.
There is merit in this amendment. However, I ask the Deputy to withdraw it at this stage. I will consult the parliamentary counsel with regard to considering it before Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 27 agreed to.
Section 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 23, after line 45, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Reference to this section is inserted in Part I of the Third Schedule to the Freedom of Information Act 1997 and that Act shall apply to the agency.".
This amendment relates to the Freedom of Information Act 1997. The proposal, which speaks for itself, is that a reference to this section be inserted in Part I of the Third Schedule to that Act and that the Act should apply to the agency. I am suggesting that, at the very least, a reference to section 29 should be inserted in the Third Schedule to the Act in order that it would not prevent disclosure of information under the Act.
It is intended that the agency will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act but the mechanism to allow for this is for the Minister for Finance to make by way of an order under the freedom of information legislation. I will arrange for him to do so at the appropriate time.
I accept the Minister's position but may return to the issue on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 29 agreed to.
Sections 30 and 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 25, lines 39 to 42, to delete subsection (2).
The purpose of this amendment is to allow the chief executive to comment on Government policy. The relevant subsection states the chief executive may not do so. I would prefer not to gag the chief executive on policy matters.
Obviously, there must be clear lines between policy and executive functions, between the functions retained by a Minister and the functions of other officers such as the chief executive officer. Policy determination is a matter for the Minister and the Government, not the CEO or a State board. It follows that a CEO has no role in criticising Government or ministerial policy. I do not propose, therefore, to accept the amendment.
We have had this debate before on other legislation with members on the Opposition side possibly feeling it might be appropriate in some situations for the CEO of an agency such as the one we are considering to express views on policy matters. Clearly, there are situations where a CEO might hold very strong views on a particular policy issue. While I agree with the Minister that policy determination is a matter for the Government, it should not go so far as disallowing a CEO from commenting on policy or expressing an opinion on it.
I support the amendment brought forward by Deputy O'Sullivan. The Minister spoke of a CEO expressing criticism. The deletion would not, necessarily, leave room for criticism but it would leave room for the expression of an opinion. It is important that someone with day-to-day knowledge of the agency would be in a position to comment on whether something was beneficial to it, rather than having to express an opinion through the back door or in something other than a straightforward manner.
I see no circumstance under which I could accept the amendment. A CEO implements policy while the Government makes it. It is not for a CEO to comment on policy, one way or the other.
The CEO will be appointed by the agency to implement the legislation with a view to developing the Grangegorman site. This will be done in consultation with the board and the wide-ranging consultative groups to be set up under the legislation. It would be entirely inappropriate for the CEO to decide to go off and take an independent role.
I do not see anything wrong with the CEO having an opinion and giving that opinion for our benefit. He or she will be someone whom we can consult and from whom we can take advice. I do not see what is the problem. Of what are we afraid? The same problem is found in the Bill to establish the Health Service Executive. No one can speak. This is a free country and we want to hear what people have to say. I do not see any reason to block someone from having an opinion.
It will be clear from the outset exactly what the aim of this project is, what it is going to do, how it is going to work and what the consultative process will be. If a particular person does not agree with this, he or she need not apply for the job of chief executive. However, once the chief executive is appointed, he or she cannot criticise the employer who sets the policy. There will be ample opportunity, in this committee and elsewhere, to review the progress of the project. However, a CEO of any organisation is not the one who deals with policy.
That means that if this committee invites the CEO of the Grangegorman Development Agency to speak to us, he or she may not offer us an opinion on whether matters are going according to plan or whether changes should be made. Such opinions could be in conflict with Government policy. The CEO is effectively barred from offering an opinion to this committee or anyone else on how the project is progressing.
That will not be the case. The CEO will be able to comment on how matters are progressing.
Only if that is in agreement with policy. If he or she thinks policy changes need to be made, he or she will not be in a position to express such an opinion.
The committee will be able to meet the Minister to discuss the progress of the project. The CEO can also discuss progress with the Minister. The project will take some years to complete. It is hoped such discussions could take place in a positive light. The CEO will have a hugely important job and hold a very influential position. I envisage him or her being able to continue working closely with those who are making policy in a spirit of partnership.
Section 32 deals with the accountability of the chief executive to the Committee of Public Accounts. Although the text cites a committee of Dáil Éireann, it appears to refer primarily to the Committee of Public Accounts. The marginal note refers specifically to this committee. It is not clear whether the Select Committee on Education and Science is included. Whether the Committee of Public Accounts or the Select Committee on Education and Science is intended, I can envisage members of the Committee of Public Accounts, in particular, asking probing questions relating to the financial aspects of this very large project which involves a large amount of money. If the CEO has an opinion on a financial aspect of the project, he or she might say something which a Minister might consider not to be in accordance with policy. For example, the Minister for Transport might say it was not Government policy to open the railway line but it might be quite sensible for the CEO of the agency to tell the Committee of Public Accounts that he or she considers this should be done in the context of developing the Grangegorman site.
The section will constrain the CEO. If he or she is not to comment in any way or express any opinion on the wide range of Government policies, it will make it difficult for him or her to answer questions put by public representatives on the Committee of Public Accounts.
The necessity for subsection (2) baffles me. I still cannot understand it. We talk about the spirit of partnership. What partnership can there be if one person cannot have an opinion? That is not a spirit of partnership. The CEO is an invaluable person and his or her comments and experience will be invaluable to the success of the agency. His or her comments need not always be critical. The word "criticise" is not specifically used in the subsection.
The subsection states the chief executive "shall not question" policy. Questioning policy amounts to criticism. The chief executive's job is not to question or offer an opinion on the merits of policy but to implement it.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand," put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 32 agreed to.
Section 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 26, subsection (3), line 42, after "require" to insert the following:
"in particular, such information as the Minister may require in order to furnish a full response to parliamentary questions".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the Minister would be able to get information required to answer parliamentary questions tabled by Deputies.
It is my intention that the agency will provide information necessary for the Minister to reply to parliamentary questions. Does my Department ever refuse to answer questions on the basis that the agency in question is at arm's length from it? The amendment is unnecessary because section 34(4) explicitly permits the provision of information to the Minister. It states: "In addition to information provided by the Agency in its annual report and in reports made pursuant to subsection (3), the Agency shall supply to the Minister such information as the Minister may from time to time require regarding the performance of its functions”. Included in this is information required for parliamentary questions.
On the basis of the Minister's response, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 34 agreed to.
Sections 35 and 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 27, subsection (2) (e), line 34 after “committee” to insert “or the Consultative Group”.
The purpose of the amendment is to extend the indemnity to members of the consultative group, which strictly is not a committee under the terms of the Bill.
Because it is Christmas I will accept the amendment.
I wish the Minister a happy Christmas also.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 38 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
TITLE.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 5, line 11, after "AS" to insert the following:
"GNÍOMHAIREACHT FORBARTHA GHRÁINSEACH GHORMÁIN, OR IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE,",
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 62:
To remove the first ‘h' in Ghníomhaireacht, so as to be spelt Gníomhaireacht.
Níl an Ghaeilge chomh maith agam agus atá ag an Aire, ach sílim nach ceart an chéad H a bheith san fhocal "GHNÍOMAIREACHT". The Minister may wish to check this before Report Stage but I believe the spelling should be GNÍOMHAIREACHT.
Chonaic mé é sin ar an gcéad dul síos. I said to myself, "There should not be another H." However, as it is now seven years since I taught Irish, I have decided to bow to the cigirí in the Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta but I think the Deputy is right. We will certainly check it.
My earlier amendment is linked with this one.
The amendment is being pressed. The proposal is to delete the first H from the word in question, which I will not even attempt to pronounce.
Nach fíor go bhfuil Gaeltacht i do dháilcheantair, a Chathaoirligh?
Beidh a lán Gaeilge á labhairt againn ins na míonna atá rómhainn.
I also wish the Chairman a happy Christmas.
Amendment to amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I thank the Minister and her officials for attending. I also thank members of the committee for their contributions to the debate.
