This section is about the Authority setting up consultative councils or committees. I am in favour of consultation in a general sense. However, I see within it already the seeds of further committees, consultative processes, subcommittees and more bureaucracy.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill".
The Deputy's point is noted.
Could we tighten that up? The Minister may have provided for consultative committees because of the technical nature of the work. However, the authority should not be able to set up ad hoc subcommittees just for the sake of it. Members of such committees are entitled to remuneration and there could be abuses. There should not be more than three consultative committees. There could be ones for turf, timber, food and so on. There is a loophole there.
There are about 14 consultative committees at the moment and it is not envisaged the legislation will change that one way or the other. As Deputy O'Keeffe remarked, they would not be able to do their work without access to this kind of consultative process. Expert committees are an essential part of the process. To my knowledge, there is no payment for participation in these consultative committees on domestic business. They are an example of the kind of participation which is necessary to make the system work. The NSAI would not have a great deal of meaning without this kind of expertise — it is essential to underpin it.
Seeking a cap for the number of committees implies no confidence in the board or the senior management. I am not competent to say that a new development in technology cannot be provided for in the same way as something in the more traditional areas of fire, food, gas.
I accept that it is a technical body and there is room for various expert committees. However, there is also room for exploitation and abuse, especially abuse of funding and expenses. We hear and read about this area and it has to be more tightly policed. I am not a technical expert, but I do not see the necessity for that large conglomeration of committees or consultative bodies. The report covers many areas — electrical safety, building products, the hospitality industry. We are now making the report statutory. By giving it that legal status without putting some mechanism in place to protect the taxpayer we are opening the floodgates.
The Minister has indicated that will be a matter for the board. As a former member of the original board, I am aware that is the procedure.
We do not want to make fat cats out of the consultants. Price Waterhouse are doing so well on many issues. They will be called in again. We will have another consultant investigating 15 consultative committees.
Question put and agreed to.