Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Mar 1980

Vol. 319 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Joint Committee on Autonomous Non-Commercial Bodies: Motion.

Mr. Bruton

I move:

"(1) That it is expedient that a Select Committee consisting of 7 members (none of whom shall be a member of the Government or a Minister of State) be appointed to be joined with a Select Committee to be appointed by Seanad Eireann to form a Joint Committee (which shall be called the Joint Committee on Autonomous Non-Commercial Bodies) to examine the Reports and Accounts, policies, overall operational results and value for money of the bodies referred to in the Schedule and shall report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas and make such recommendations as it thinks fit.

(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 bodies 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 ought to be subject to scrutiny by the Committee.

(3) In particular the Joint Committee shall examine whether the form and content of the report and accounts presented by the bodies referred to the Oireachtas is adequate, and if they are presented sufficiently promptly, or if a report and accounts is not presented to the Oireachtas by a particular body, whether they should be, and if so in what form. The Joint Committee shall report on these matters to both Houses of the Oireachtas within one year of its being established.

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

(5) 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 and to incur such other expenditure, including travel expenses, as may be necessary to the discharge of its functions.

(6) 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.

(7) 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.

(8) 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.

(9) 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.

(10) That 4 members of the Committee shall form a Quorum of whom at least 1 shall be a member of Dáil Eireann and at least 1 shall be a member of Seanad Eireann.

(11) That the Joint Committee shall have power to allow its proceedings to be broadcast by radio subject to such safeguards or limitations as it thinks fit.

SCHEDULE

Health Boards.

General Medical Services (Payments) Board.

National Rehabilitation Board.

Board for the Employment of the Blind.

National Health Council.

Comhairle na nOspidéal.

National Drugs Advisory Board.

Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education.

Health Education Bureau.

Medico-Social Service Council.

Hospitals Trust Board.

National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty.

An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

The Inland Fisheries Trust Incorporated.

Bord Fáilte Éireann.

Shannon Free Airport Development Company.

An Foras Talúntais.

An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta.

Bord na gCapall.

An Córas Beostoic agus Feola.

An Chomhairle Olla.

Córas Tráchtála.

Kilkenny Design Workshops.

Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann.

National Economic and Social Council.

National Film Studios of Ireland Ltd.

Irish Goods Council.

Institute for Industrial Research and Standards.

Industrial Development Authorities.

Nuclear Energy Board.

An Foras Forbartha Teo.

An Chomhairle Leabharlanna.

National Road Safety Association.

Fire Prevention Council.

Irish Water Safety Association.

Medical Bureau of Road Safety.

An Bord Pleanála.

Water Pollution Advisory Council.

An Chomhairle Oiliúna (AnCO).

Council for Education, Recruitment and Training for Hotel Catering and Tourism Industries (C.E.R.T.).

Gaeltarra Éireann.

Bord na Gaeilge.

National Board for Science and Technology.

An Chomhairle Ealaíon.

Institute for Public Administration.

Law Reform Commission.

Employment Equality Agency.

Higher Education Authority.

National Council for Educational Awards.

Bord na gCon.

Racing Board."

The purpose of the motion is to set up a Joint Committee of the Dáil and Seanad to supervise the 57 State bodies which are listed in the Schedule to the motion. A Joint Committee of the Dáil and Seanad already exists to supervise the activities of what are known as commercial semi-State bodies. About 30 such bodies are covered by that committee. However, there are another 57 State-sponsored bodies listed in this motion which are not covered by that committee. They are classified as non-commercial bodies. There is probably a greater argument for having parliamentary supervision of these non-commercial bodies, because they do not have the discipline of having to make a profit.

The 57 non-commercial bodies spent about £700 million in 1979. The most significant group of bodies amongst them are the health boards, which spent about £500 million. Also included are the Industrial Development Authority, Bord Fáilte, An Córas Beostóic agus Feola and many other important agencies. It is vital that these important agencies be supervised. It is proposed, therefore, that a Joint Committee of the Oireachtas, with similar powers to the existing one on commercial bodies, be established in relation to these 57 non-commercial bodies.

The detailed terms of reference of this new committee are set out in the motion. They closely follow those of the Joint Committee on commercial bodies, set up some years ago, which has worked very successfully under these terms of reference. They give the committee strong investigative powers, but provide for safeguards against the publication of confidential information. There is a major innovation, however, in respect of this new committee, in that it will have the power to have its proceedings broadcast by radio, subject to appropriate safeguards.

The motion also proposes to give the committee power to inquire into the promptness with which the State bodies concerned present their annual reports to the Houses of the Oireachtas. There have been cases of very long delays in the presentation of annual reports— delays, indeed, which would not be acceptable if private companies were concerned, reporting to their private shareholders. If they are not acceptable in the case of private companies, they certainly should not be acceptable in the case of companies which are reporting to the taxpayers of this country and are spending the taxpayers' money. The most glaring example of this is to be found in the case of the health boards which, between them, spend over £550 million, or 20 per cent of the entire current budget of the Irish Government. These boards are obliged by the Health Act (No. 1), 1970, to present abstracts of certified accounts to the Dáil each year. However, in the case of none of the boards have reports for any year since 1976 been presented. In the case of the North Eastern Health Board, this board have presented no report in respect of any of the following years: 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979. When this matter was raised recently in the Dáil, the excuse was given that there was a legal dispute between the boards and the local government auditor about their respective functions. A court case between the two State bodies seems likely to ensue and is a very bad thing. This would not have happened if the law had been properly drafted in the first place.

A committee such as is proposed in this motion would help to avoid the recurrence of wasteful and expensive litigation between two tax financed bodies as is now contemplated. In any event, the health boards are not the only example of delays in presenting reports. The National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty and the Law Reform Commission have presented no reports to this House yet for 1977, 1978 or 1979. The Higher Education Authority, An Foras Forbartha, BIM, the Nuclear Energy Board, the Irish Goods Council and the Library Council have not presented reports yet for 1978 or 1979. The utility of reports presented after such a long delay is highly questionable. The delay, in itself, suggests a great need for investigation by a committee of this House, such as is proposed in this motion.

The motion also proposes that the committee shall take steps to bring the content and format of the reports up to date. The aim should be to have reports which are comparable with one another and give genuine and comprehensible information about the relative efficiency of each body and of each sub-unit of each body. The problem at the moment is that, as far as the layman is concerned, it is very hard to make sense of the reports presented to this House by the various bodies. This House consists almost exclusively of laymen and it is essential that laymen representing the lay public be in a position to make sense of these reports. We are proposing, therefore, that this new committee would, within a period of 12 months, be asked to examine the format and content of all the reports being presented, so as to bring about uniform standards for these reports, so that they will be easily understood and comparable with one another and also act as a real measure of the efficiency of the bodies in question.

I mentioned the problem of these reports not giving a breakdown as to the way in which money is spent by individual sub units of the board. A very good example of this occurred in the Dáil last week, when there were questions put to the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture about the reports of Bord na gCon—the Greyhound Board. It transpired regrettably, that, while global figures for the profitability of greyhound tracks were given by Bord na gCon, no report was given about the profitability of individual greyhound tracks, which of course is the relevant information which one would seek. This example bears out the need for a committee of this nature.

I ask the House to accept this motion and to set up the proposed committee. The basic need for such a committee is simply expressed. These bodies spend vast sums of public money each year on matters of important public policy, such as health, industrial and agricultural development, tourism, training and education. Public representatives, and through them the taxpayer, should have the power to supervise and investigate the use of such vast sums of public money in respect of such important matters of public policy. That is the very least that the electorate would expect us to do here in this House. When these 57 boards were set up in the first place, the powers of this House were thereby diminished. The boards took over the powers which had previously been exercised by Departments of State in relation to which we could put down parliamentary questions. However, once these boards have been set up, if we put down a question about the matter with which they are concerned, the Minister can, if he wishes claim that he has no official function in the matter and refuse to answer the Dáil question. Sometimes, of course, the Minister does give the information, but it is only as a courtesy, not as a matter to which the Dáil has a right. By setting up the committee envisaged in this motion, the House will be merely reasserting a power which it had previously surrendered.

The proposed committee will help Ministers and Governments to do their job by sharing the work load of supervising the myriad activities of the bodies concerned in this motion. The new committee will free Minister to concentrate on central issues of policy making. Now, it may well be argued by some in this House that this committee would be an invasion of the functions of the Government. I do not accept that it would. We all know that the Cabinet consists of only 15 men and it is not possible for 15 men to be aware of the detailed activities of each of the 57 bodies listed in this motion. If we set up a committee of this sort it will merely help Ministers by allowing some of the detailed work they are now forced to do in order to ensure public accountability for public funds to be shared with other Members of the House of all parties, so that Ministers can concentrate on the really important central decisions which Government have to make about the allocation of public funds. I do not see any conflict between this motion and the prerogative of the Government. I believe, in fact, that this motion will assist the Government —whatever Government it is—to do its job better and I ask the House to accept it as one means of enabling the Dáil and Seanad to play a more constructive and creative role in our national life.

Minister of State at the Department of the Public Service (Mr. Calleary)

In principle we welcome this motion. In the case of a number of the boards and bodies listed under the motion the House has already had a limited opportunity of discussing a considerable amount of business these boards do under the Estimates for the various Departments. There are certain issues on which the attitudes of all Deputies broadly coincide. I am sure there is no one on this side of the House who is not in sympathy with the general principle underlying this motion, that is, that the activities of bodies established in the public domain, drawing money from the public purse, should be made more open to formal review by the Oireachtas. There is a very real distinction between that unobjectionable principle and the means of achieving it as embodied in the motion.

The terms of reference set out in the motion seemed to be influenced by those of the existing Joint Oireachtas committee which deals with the major commercial State-sponsored bodies. In his opening remarks Deputy Bruton said that it was somewhat similar to that. I am not convinced that this influence makes for an entirely satisfactory approach. There are three fundamental points of difference between the bodies covered by this motion and the commercial State-sponsored bodies covered by the existing committee. The bodies covered by the existing committee have one vital characteristic in common. They are intended to live by the sale of the goods and services they provide. The presence of a profit or loss on their accounts provides a convenient if crude yardstick against which their performance over any given period can be measured. The soundness of an investment decision in any one of them can be tested with reasonable objectivity.

On the other hand most of the bodies listed in the schedule to this motion fall into a radically different category. They do not operate to commercial criteria and were never intended to. Readymade accounting criteria, such as a return in capital employed, do not provide a suitable means for the evaluation of the success or failure of bodies which are not in the business of making profit. The second major difference between commercial and non-commercial State-sponsored bodies is that the task entrusted to each commercial body was one which in other circumstances might have been discharged by private enterprise. It is therefore possible to view a commercial organisation in comparative isolation and still form a reasonable view of its success or failure.

Each of the non-commercial bodies was established to carry out a task or range of tasks which was thought to be suitable for discharge by an organisation outside the conventional civil service framework. That decision may have facilitated effective day to day performance of the particular task. It did not remove the strong link between that task and the policy of the Minister or the Department concerned. Looking at the list of bodies included in the schedule to the motion I can easily discern three instances which suggest that their activity, policy or operational result cannot be seriously examined in isolation from the Ministers and Departments to which they are attached.

In the case of health boards or general medical service payment board the level of demand upon their services would seem to be determined to a significant extent by the policy of the Minister and Government in relation to eligibility for service. Their capacity to cope with demand could be affected by the level of resources made available to them. The operations of the promotional or training bodies would similarly be affected by Ministerial and Government decisions on resource allocation. A number of bodies listed in the schedule were established to provide advice to a particular Minister. How can their effectiveness be judged without questioning ministerial policy?

Paragraph 1 of the motion attempts to cope with these problems by providing in the terms of reference that the proposed committee should examine the reports and accounts, policies, overall operational results and value for money of the bodies referred to in the schedule. I accept that this phraseology represents a serious attempt by the Opposition to cope with the problems I have mentioned rather than an attempt to subject departmental policy-making to a new form of parliamentary scrutiny. But in my view it underestimates the complexity of the problem.

There is a further difference between the bodies covered in the motion and those which fall within the remit of the existing committee which is of some relevance to the motion. The commercial bodies derive their revenue in varying but large measure from the sale of their goods and services to an extent which varies with the circumstances of each body. The manner in which they dispose of such revenue was not, prior to the committee's establishment, a matter with which this House would readily concern itself. It is possible for these bodies to acquire and deploy investment funds without reference to this House. The position of most of the bodies with which this motion deals is radically different. The bulk of their revenue and capital expenditure is derived from moneys voted by this House. This House has, through the Estimate debates, an opportunity to consider and give voice to its views on the overall performance of those bodies and the desirability of the levels of subvention provided.

Given these basic differences between commercial and non-commercial State sponsored bodies, I have some doubts about setting up to examine non-commercial bodies a committee which appears to be based very closely on the model of the existing commercial committee. If and when we come to establishing a non-commercial committee we will have to look long and hard at the terms of reference to cover adequately the very significant differences. Although I have so far stressed the differences between bodies to which this motion relates and those which come under scrutiny of the existing committee on commercial State-sponsored bodies, I admit there are certain points of resemblance. Despite their commercial mandate it is generally recognised that the operation of these commercial State bodies has a social dimension. This view was acknowledged during the debates in 1976 and 1978 on the establishment and reactivation of the existing Joint Committee and has been confirmed by the reports which the Joint Committee have already published.

When the committee was being reactivated in 1978 we on this side made it clear that we did not see its terms of reference as being immutable. However, we were prepared to give them a fair trial and to review them in the light of practical experience of the committee's operations. While the committee has been active in the interim it has not yet completed a cycle of reports on all the bodies within its ambit. Therefore it is too early to draw valid conclusions on necessary or desirable amendments to its terms of reference. Any conclusions which relate to the social dimension or to the impact on the bodies of wider governmental policies would be important to the terms of reference of any committee or committee of the kind now proposed.

Therefore I wish to make it clear that the Government do not object to the principle of having a committee, or committees, to oversee the activities of non-commercial State-sponsored bodies. However, we have some reservations about the arrangements proposed in the present motion. We doubt the wisdom of moving into this area at a time when we are not yet in a position to evaluate the work of the existing committee on commercial bodies.

Mr. B. Desmond

I am sure those Members of the House concerned about this area of Oireachtas scrutiny over the public sector welcome the opportunity of discussing, however briefly, the role of such public scrutiny.

In proposing this motion I give Deputy Bruton the benefit of having his heart in the right place and I concede to him the progressive motives in so doing. He did not elaborate on the precise functions of such a committee, but presumably they would be along the lines of the existing committee for the commercial State-sponsored bodies. However perhaps one could say that the proposed structure envisaged by Deputy Bruton and his colleagues may not necessarily, on examination, be the most desirable. Deputy Bruton is to be commended on having tabled the motion and affording us an opportunity of placing our views on record as to what precisely those of us in the Labour Party and in other political parties feel and how we should progress in this area. We tend to draw an excessive demarcation line in the State-sponsored sector between the commercial and non-commercial bodies. I do not know where that concept developed. I suspect it was the product of an over-fertile public service accounting mind when perhaps somebody at Cabinet level said the State should not get too involved in commercial activities. One could advance that argument time and again. For example, currently under the existing Joint Committee we have CIE—just to take an example—the bulk cost of whose real activities comes from State revenue—it is not really a commercial outfit at all in that sense. Indeed, it is arguable whether it should even come under the auspices of the existing Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies. There are many other bodies one would wish to have involved in scrutiny, many others listed by Deputy Bruton in this motion. Certainly one could put some extremely interesting questions to some of them—for example, the Hospitals Trust Board, Bord Fáilte, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara—on their role in Irish commercial and non-commercial operations which would be a fascinating study, as would be the whole role of An Bord Pleanála as it has developed. Indeed one would like to have an opportunity to talk to the officers of the Law Reform Commission or the Employment Equality Agency.

I have my doubts about the benefit of setting up another Joint Committee of the Oireachtas, spending a great deal of time, of necessary public money, effort and energy within that structure. I would suggest that we should have a somewhat different structure. Speaking as a member of the existing Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies I feel we fulfil a very useful function. We do an extremely valuable amount of work. It has been extremely valuable to the Members of both Houses who have had the opportunity of examining bodies like CIE—eleven Members only from both Houses serve on it. When we examined bodies like CIE, or Aer Lingus, as we are currently doing, the B and I, or say, the National Stud we found these examinations to be extremely helpful in learning about those State-sponsored bodies. I have no doubt that the bodies concerned likewise have found their experience valuable when responding to the inquiries and views of members of the Committee.

But in the long run I would suggest to Deputy Bruton that what we should have are Departmental Joint Committees of both Houses of the Oireachtas. We must remember that we will have another 20 Deputies in this House in the very near future, within two years, when there will be approximately 170 Deputies and 60 Senators. If these Deputies are not to suffer from palsy, political paralysis, just sitting on these backbenches they should be involved in Departmental Estimates Committees of both Houses. Indeed, each of the 15 Minister of State, those new, glorified men, instead of running around the country, opening garages, fish and chip shops and entertaining constituents to the affairs, stories and gossip of the State, should have his own Estimates committee and be responsible therefor. Not alone should that Joint Committee be responsible for the departmental Estimates—as in the United Kingdom they are currently responsible—but it should be responsible also for the State-sponsored bodies under that departmental Estimate.

I am glad to see the Minister of State at the Department of Labour and the Public Service and the Minister for Labour present. In time, perhaps during the next Dáil, we might have a Labour Estimate Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas to examine the work of the Department of Labour, the Estimate itself, and also the role of AnCO which certainly warrants examination, a massive organisation which has grown over the years whose members, apart from writing the odd letter to the Director-General making representations about somebody having a place in a training course or something like that, know very little about its role. Such proposed committees should have an opportunity of examining the role of, say, the Employment Equality Agency, if it is still in existence after the next general election. On that basis committee members would have an opportunity of being directly involved.

I share the great public-spirited concern of Deputy Bruton in this area. He has been quite consistent in this. I echo the strictures he has made on many occasions in regard to the delays of some bodies in issuing their reports. I would urge also that we be careful in this area. I would be particularly emphatic that the role of the Joint Committee on which I currently serve be forward-looking and progressive, ensuring that the outcome is not merely a negative examination of the accounts of those State-sponsored bodies.

We had an example recently of the Director-General of the Irish Management Institute launching a tirade—that is what I would call it—on the role of the State in public enterprise. I thought that rather strange coming from such a person because it was disclosed to me in a Dáil Question last week that that body, got £6 million to £7 million in taxpayers' money to run their outfit in the past decade.

We must be very careful to examine those bodies in a constructive, forward-looking way so that the chief executives and staff will not be scared stiff coming before a Joint Committee of the Oireachtas but that they will put forward views which will help the economic and social development of the nation. I do not want to use the word "premature" because if something is premature in Dáil Éireann nothing will happen about it for ten years, but I think this motion is somewhat premature. I hope that Deputy Bruton will be here in the next Dáil and I urge him to reactivate the motion in 18 months or, if he is then on the other side, to put forward his proposals early in the next Dáil.

The existing Joint Committee have examined seven bodies and are in the process of reporting on four or five others, and I suggest that before we go out of office we should produce an omnibus report explaining our experience of the work we have done. In the next Dáil that Joint Committee will be reappointed with a new chairman. At the moment the Joint Committee have two officers and two persons servicing these officers, a staff of four. If we were to employ technical staff and a consultant staff, our annual budget would be about £200,000. I am not in any way opposed to spending that kind of money because the volume of expenditure in the public sector is vast. I share with Deputy Bruton, as a member of a local authority, grave reservations about some health board expenditure throughout the country.

If we are to do the kind of examination in great depth that the motion calls for we would need a substantial secretariat. I suggest that for the moment the current Joint Committee should continue with the excellent work they have been doing. I share Deputy Bruton's view that if the proposed Joint Committee are to be appointed their proceedings should be publicised because it would bring to the public a good deal of important information. I can see a new role for the new Ministers of State in a new structure.

In that context I suggest we should have a look at what has been done in the UK where I understand they have about 14 different committees at Westminster examining departmental estimates and accounts of associated nationalised bodies. They bring them all in periodically and give them a through examination and report to the House. That is the kind of structure we might very well evolve in the years ahead. That is not in any way to decry the Joint Committee we now have or the spirit of the motion which in principle the Labour Party support because we see it as a valuable contribution to the public debate in this area. I am sure Deputy Bruton would like to see introduced a more effective system of checks rather than the simple unilateral approach of appointing one committee which would find itself overwhelmed trying to get to grips with the work. I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with Deputy Bruton but we are both concerned in this area and I am offering my observations in that spirit.

Mr. White

I support the motion and first of all I should like to point out that part of Fine Gael's policy is to reform the Dáil. I am disappointed that the Minister did not suggest an alternative to this motion. He said that he has some doubts as to the wisdom of this but that he would welcome something like it if it were phrased differently. The Minister knows that we have got to bring a new approach to the procedure in the Dáil. I think all sides of the House will agree with that. This evening the Minister had a chance to put a constructive alternative proposal to the House. I did not expect him to agree with everything Deputy Bruton said, and of course Deputy Desmond suggested something completely new.

Obviously Fianna Fáil back benchers find the Dáil proceedings extremely boring. They feel they are nothing better than rubber stamps. On this side there is nothing to prevent us from getting up to air our view but many Deputies on the other side come in here to mark time and record their votes. All Deputies should get involved actively in the work of the Oireachtas. The Minister spoke about the difference between commercial and non-commercial State bodies. Those 57 bodies mentioned involve a budget of £700 million and the elected representatives of the people should have some kind of say in the spending of that money.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

We have.

Mr. White

Fine Gael and Labour Deputies do not have a true function in the spending of that money. Of course, there are Minister who have control over those bodies but they are the only control units we have. I am sure the Minister will agree that all sides of the House would be able to give valuable ideas and contribute new thinking on the semi-State bodies. The £700 million I mentioned is a vast sum of money. It is hard to believe that the health boards alone account for £550 million. Any backbenchers seeking information about a health board must put down a question to the Minister for Health, who may reply that this is a matter for the local health board. Elected representatives have no direct say. When there are 57 bodies, some things are bound to be wrong. The ideal is to have about 14 committees, each committee dealing with six or seven of these bodies. They would act as watchdogs and this might be their most important role.

I had the pleasure of taking part in the five-day debate on the Fisheries Bill. I said in my final contribution that the Bill could have been thrashed out if two Fianna Fáil Deputies, two Fine Gael Deputies and, perhaps, one Labour Deputy had met together and the Bill might then have been passed in a half day. Procedure should be changed and streamlined. I know from my own experience that there is nothing worse than sitting as a backbencher on the Government side and rubber-stamping everything a Minister does. The Minister could get ideas from the proposed committees. We should be acting as "think tanks" and this is what we are elected to be.

Deputy Desmond talked about the £200,000 expenses for secretarial work. This is practically nothing when speaking in terms of £800 million and it would probably be saved during the first week these committees would sit. People in semi-State bodies who are not answerable to this House would know that there was a watchdog committee and they might keep a tighter eye on things. The Minister should have said he would look into the matter.

Mr. Calleary

I said it.

Mr. G. Fitzerald

Perhaps the Deputy was not listening.

Mr. White

Of course I was listening. At least the Minister could say he will bring new proposals before the House this year so that it can be made a far more interesting place for every Deputy. The Minister should state definitely when he intends to bring in the new proposals to streamline the Dáil.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. G. Fitzgerald)

As the Minister of State has said, we on the Government side are in sympathy with the general principle which underlies this motion, that the activities of bodies established in the public interest and drawing money from the public purse should be open to formal review by the Oireachtas. Speakers have already drawn attention to the fact that we have a particularly large number of more or less autonomous public bodies which are not open to scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee, as are Departments of State. It is only in recent years that we have seen the establishment of a direct formal relationship between some of these bodies and the Oireachtas with the setting up of the Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies which deals with commercial State-sponsored bodies. I should take the opportunity to compliment the members of that committee for their work to date. It is to their credit that they have produced seven reports already on the 27 bodies and four or five others are at present under active consideration.

In discussing the motion to establish the committee in 1976 and again in the course of the debate on their reactivation in 1978, speakers referred to the desirability of making a similar arrangement for bodies left outside the terms of reference of the committee, namely, the non-commercial State-sponsored bodies. I accept that a reasonable case can be made for setting up the machinery to allow the Oireachtas to examine the activities of the bodies in question. In agreeing with the general principle behind the motion, let me make it quite clear that I am not for a moment implying any lack of faith in these bodies or any criticism of their operation. On the contrary, I am glad of the opportunity to acknowledge that they have contributed in a most significant way to the wellbeing of the community. A cursory glance at the list of bodies in the Schedule is sufficient to remind us of the broad range of activities in which they are involved.

The Minister of State has already referred to the timing of this motion and I agree that it would be unwise to set up a second joint committee to examine State-sponsored bodies. Time may well show that a second committee is needed. Deputy Desmond adopted a very sensible approach to this whole area and I listened with much interest to what he said. He obviously agreed with some of the sentiments expressed by my colleague and now by me. It may well be that a second committee is needed and we have an open mind on the question, but given that the existing committee have been in existence for a fairly short time we should prefer to postpone for the moment a decision on the establishment of a second committee.

Although the existing committee were first established in late 1976, they had time for only a few meetings before the dissolution of the twentieth Dáil. Most of those meetings were probably taken up with procedural arrangements. The committee were re-established in 1978 and set about their enormous task with a great deal of vigour and commitment. They have published reports on the following State-sponsored bodies: Min Fhéir Teoranta, the National Stud, the British and Irish Steam Packet Company, Córas Iompair Éireann, Ceimicí Teoranta, Aer Rianta and Arramara Teoranta. Given that the committee's terms of reference cover the investigation of some 27 bodies, it will be granted that they are still only in the early stages of operation.

We have often referred in this House to the physical difficulty of operating the committee system and Deputies who serve or have served on committees will readily agree that membership of a committee makes extremely heavy demands on time and energy. Given the already heavy demands on Deputies and Senators, the Government consider it is only fair to prospective members of a new joint committee, as well as being a matter of prudence, to wait until we have more experience of the workings of the committee at present dealing with the commercial bodies. When that committee have had the opportunity to examine a greater number of bodies operating in a wide variety of fields, we will be in a much better position to decide whether the setting up of a second committee is the best way to achieve what we desire in this field. Should this be the case, the practical experience gained by the present committee will be of great value when it comes to drawing up suitable terms of reference and later in establishing fruitful working methods.

Deputy White had some comments to make about a reference of his recently in the House to the desirability of having the Committee Stage of the Fisheries Bill taken by such a committee and he said that it would have been a more desirable exercise. For expediency that can be argued both ways. If we look, for example, at the experience in relation to the Wild Life Bill taken by a Special Committee of the House during the life of the previous Dail, we will all realise that that was a very lengthy committee session and certainly imposed hardship on the small number of Deputies who had to carry the work load involved. While it may on occasion work well, on other occasions it may not work so well. I know the Government's views here would not be to say "no changes". I am one of those who would be quite prepared to consider any change but it should not be change just for the sake of change. Certain examination in detail must be given to what has been done to date. I have already spoken at some length about the committee working on the State-sponsored Bodies.

There is another matter which we should not lose sight of here. In February 1979, as a result of an Opposition motion and an uncontested Government amendment, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges were asked to consider and advise on Estimate procedures. Deputy Barry Desmond referred to ways and means within the Estimate procedures through which the possibility of certain changes there could be examined. The Committee have not yet completed their deliberations. It is not unlikely that the recommendations they may make will have the effect of increasing the degree to which the bodies listed in the schedule to the present motion will be subject to scrutiny by the Oireachtas since they derive a large proportion of their voted moneys from Grants-in-Aid.

I am not suggesting that this would be the complete solution. However, as the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges may well have a bearing on the matter in hand and as the Committee have not yet reported, I believe we have an additional reason for proceeding with due caution on a proposal such as this one. There are also a few details of the proposal before us on which I am to some extent concerned about taking a decision without giving it more time and study and examining what difficulties it could create.

Deputy Bruton referred to the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and of the Committee. I have a very open mind in regard to proceedings of the House being broadcast but I should sound a note of caution as to whether it is the appropriate type of committee to commence that type of exercise with for the obvious reason that in the examination of such bodies there may well be confidential, important information that, for commercial reasons, it may not be right to disclose to certain other people perhaps in some form of competition with the State body concerned. As well, I know that the matter of broadcasting the business of the House has been under consideration on more than one occasion by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

As regards another new committee examining non-commercial State-sponsored bodies, I am not yet convinced that this is the right area for its introduction. I believe the House should have more time to study the possible implications for the 57 companies listed in the schedule. That is a note of caution I wish to express. I have a very open mind in relation to broadcasting the proceedings of this House.

Deputy Bruton also said that long delays have occurred in submitting reports and therefore he would impose a 12-month limit as in paragraph 3 of the motion. He said it is justified. I agree with him because I believe that reports of bodies should be submitted as quickly as possible. I am sure that one cannot expect them for a certain period of time after the end of a particular year. On the other hand, I believe it is unfair to Members of the House and others that there should be a very long delay. It may be that this particular paragraph in the motion could well strangle the proceedings of such a committee. What happens if, for example, due to unforeseen circumstances in the compiling of a particular report, the report is not submitted within 12 months?

Mr. Bruton

The motion does not say that.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

It is my desire that reports would come out fairly quickly but that is a point I should make. The Deputy will get an opportunity to clarify that point. With regard to the general principle of the motion I believe it needs closer examination for the reasons I have mentioned, further experience of the working of the committee examining the commercial State-sponsored organisations, the possible relevance of the recommendations of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, who are examining how Estimates should be handled in the House. That Committee, as pointed out by Deputy Desmond, could possibly come up with some very useful and innovative ideas in that area.

Although we are rejecting the present proposal, the Government appreciate the concern shown by Deputies in this important matter. To underscore our sincerity in this I will undertake to the House to have the whole question reexamined within one year from now in the light of the experience gained in the operation of the Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies and taking account of any recommendations which the Committee on Procedure and Privileges may make, which might be relevant to the matter. Like Deputy Desmond I consider, with that undertaking, that the Deputy should withdraw his motion. We have had the opportunity of airing it in the House.

Mr. L. Lawlor

The Minister's concluding remarks are relevant to the motion before the House. I would like to compliment Deputy Bruton on putting down the motion, which is timely. As a member of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on State-sponsored Bodies looking at the commercial bodies, my experience to date and that of my colleagues is that there was a need to set up that committee. I believe in due time we will have a committee to look at the non-commercial semi-State bodies. I suggest to the Minister that possibly during the autumn sitting of the House he would consider calling in the existing joint committee looking into the trading semi-State bodies and discussing with them the experience they have built up over three years having seen ten or 12 semi-State organisations.

The semi-State organisations which we have had the pleasure of working with so far certainly grasped the opportunity to improve communications with the politicians; for far too long Ministers were answering questions about semi-State bodies in the House in a negative way saying that they were not accountable for the everyday activities of those bodies and that there was a board of directors attached to them. The committee has certainly helped to bridge that gap. The more progressive semi-State bodies that have so far been examined have taken this opportunity to put forward their track record in the form of a memorandum; they have set out their programme and their requirements for the future. Contact with the Minister responsible has also been improved by the members on the committee. Experience to date has shown that there is a need for the committee as suggested by Deputy Bruton. The Minister's view is realistic. We should let it run on for the remainder of 1980 and then consider the setting up of a committee for the non-commercial semi-State bodies.

There are many benefits attached to the committee. Semi-State bodies put their proposals which are accepted by the civil service and then reports and recommendations are put before the Minister responsible. This new committee would have the duty, as the existing committee have, of putting before Ministers another view of the workings of these bodies. These bodies are now playing a vital role in the trading and non-trading sector of our economy. In non-commercial area some of the promotional semi-State companies carry vast responsibility for the improvement of our economy by promoting Ireland. Bord Fáilte in particular have a major role to play in the economy. The importance of these bodies is increasing and the politicians should have the opportunity to meet them face to face and hear their views and their recommendations and table before the two Houses reports and suggestions as to how we can improve their performance. There has been a gap over the years where Ministers do not deal directly with the semi-State bodies. This gap must be filled. The motion would go a long way towards that. I feel the Minister's recommendation should be accepted by Deputy Bruton. The intention is there and probably by year end the idea behind this motion will be implemented.

The Minister referred to the workings of the committee system, its effectiveness, its efficiency. He also referred to the burden it puts on a limited number within the two Houses. That is something that should be said. The Deputies and Senators who work on these committees are playing a vital role in improving the relationship with the semi-State companies. I have no doubt that such a committee could improve the situation in the non-commercial areas.

Deputy Bruton referred to the broadcasting of the workings of the suggested committee. Our experience to date on the existing committee has been that here are a number of confidential comments made by executives of semi-State bodies in answer to questions put by members of the committee and it would not always be desirable to broadcast this information which could be of benefit to other bodies in the private commercial sector who could utilise information made available in this way. So I do not feel that broadcasting the workings of this type of committee would be desirable. The press have access to the existing committee and their reporters regularly attend our working sessions and have obviously got a lot of useful information from the exchanges between politicians and the responsible semi-State directors. But I feel that the broadcasting of the workings of any of these committees or of the workings of the House would create a tremendous difficulty as to who would do the editing, who would cut the tape at the appropriate time; there would be a possibility of leaving an impression on an unfinished paragraph and so on. The experience across the water has been that broadcasting tends to give an incorrect impression of an overall debate. I suggest that broadcasting is probably not realistic or useful. However, the procedure presently followed by the existing committee where confidential comments may be made by executives of semi-State bodies and the committee accepts them in that way is very satisfactory. I suggest that when the Minister has had time to study the workings of the existing committee he will consider that that same procedure is probably the most workable.

The opportunity which the existing committee has given to the semi-State bodies to come forward with their recommendations, their request for future Government funds, is a vital area of communication which has proved very beneficial. The new committee will benefit from the experience to date in the area of research and back-up staff. I hope that this new committee when set up, probably in 1981, will be on the same lines as the existing committee.

I recall the Tánaiste addressing the first working session of the directors of the semi-State bodies and the Oireachtas Members. He urged that there should be greater discussion of the role the semi-State bodies saw themselves playing in the growth of the economy even to the extent of suggesting that some semi-State companies should consider participation in certain areas of private enterprise. We have seen no great developments in that area but it is a suggestion worth following up. The actual going out on the ground that the existing committee have had with the seven semi-State bodies that have been looked at to date has brought about a tremendous opportunity for an exchange of views between the key personnel and employees in the semi-State bodies and has shown the excellent job they are doing on behalf of the nation. For that reason the non-trading semi-State organisations will probably agree that they would like the opportunity to meet the politicians and report on their areas of responsibility, how they are performing, and how they propose to expand their activities and increase their involvement to the betterment of the nation as a whole.

I would be in favour of the Minister's suggestion that we should allow 1980 to be the final year for gaining experience of the existing joint Oireachtas committee. Would the Minister consider discussing with the committee during the autumn session our experiences to date in this area? If he did, we could put forward positive suggestions about the expanding and setting up of another committee in this direction.

There are a number of non-commercial semi-State organisations which play a very vital role and which will take on even greater responsibility in the future. For that reason contact should be improved. As we move into the eighties State involvement through semi-State organisations will be a continually growing feature. The recent setting up of the State organisation to handle the purchasing and distribution of oil is another indication of the need for indirect State involvement in the everyday affairs of the country. Therefore, I agree with the Minister's suggestion that we give ourselves the remainder of this year to gain experience of the existing joint committee and hopefully early in 1981 he will bring forward a motion setting up a similar committee but which will not deal with broadcasting.

This is an opportune time to comment on the facilities made available to members of committees. If we are to have more committee work, secretarial and support facilities will have to be increased, particularly for Members serving on committees. For Members of the existing semi-State committee there is a great deal of study involved. They must study very complex presentations from semi-State bodies. If they are to study these presentations in detail, they will have to be provided with additional facilities. When setting up new committees the Minister, who is also responsible for the public sector, will have to look into this area.

Mr. Bruton

I would like to thank all Members for the serious and nonpartisan way in which this motion was approached. I was disappointed the Minister had not seen his way either to accept this motion or to put forward specific amendments to it in order to remove or change those aspects he found of doubtful value, and thereby enable an amended motion to be passed this evening and a committee to start working straightaway.

The Minister said we needed another 12 months to look at this matter and to make a mature judgement to see what was the best means of doing the job. I want to point out that this motion has been on the Order Paper of the Dáil for the past 12 months. The Minister and his predecessor had that 12-month period to examine the terms of this motion and to come up with something better. Having had that period to examine this subject knowing it was likely to be brought up in this House, and not having come up with anything better in the course of this debate, it is something of a disappointment that the Minister should ask for another 12 months, and maybe he will come up with something then. In my view, he is not tackling the matter as energetically as one might have hoped.

Something must be done to ensure that there is proper control by Members of the Dáil and the Seanad on the spending of vast sums of public money by these bodies. If we postpone action on this matter for another 12 months, or for another two years as seems more likely, another £1,500 million will probably have been spent by these bodies without any scrutiny such as is envisaged in this motion. That would be regrettable. It would be far better if we were to act on this matter tonight.

I want to deal with the arguments put forward from the other side. The Minister of State said there was an opportunity, albeit a limited one, to discuss these matters in the course of the Estimates debates. The vast majority of Estimates laid before this House are never discussed here because of lack of parliamentary time and because they must be passed within the first six months of the year. The majority of these estimates, encompassing in many cases up to £2,000 million, are passed in one day without any debate and only a small number, perhaps three or four, seven or eight Estimates, are discussed in full in this House. To say we have the opportunity of discussing the role of these bodies in the course of the Estimates debates is no answer to the case being made.

The Minister of State made much of the difference between the bodies with which this motion is concerned and the commercial bodies with which the existing joint committee are concerned. He said the motion's terms were too closely related to those of the commercial bodies and therefore inappropriate to non-commercial bodies. At the same time he made the argument that we should wait to see what will be the experience of the committee dealing with commercial bodies before acting on non-commercial bodies, thereby admitting that there was a great deal in common between the two. The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either the committee on commercial bodies are relevant and their terms of reference are relevant to non-commercial bodies in which case we would act on this motion on terms of reference similar to those contained in the commercial bodies, or they are not relevant in which case the Minister should put forward some alternative. The Minister cannot use that argument and neither act on this motion nor put forward an alternative. The Minister in his contribution seemed to suggest that perhaps we would not need a second joint committee. If we were to try to get the existing committee to deal with these bodies, at the rate they are at present dealing with bodies—about three or four a year—we would not get around to all of the bodies for about 25 years. That would not be acceptable if the two committees were to be grouped together.

Mr. B. Desmond

We deal with more than three or four.

Mr. Bruton

Seven in two years. Some members queried the suggestion in the motion that the committee have the power to have their proceedings broadcast by radio. The motion says that the committee

shall have power to allow its proceedings to be broadcast by radio subject to such safeguards or limitations as it thinks fit.

It would be a matter for the committee whether they allowed their proceedings to be broadcast or not and it would be a matter for the committee to lay down whatever safeguards they thought necessary. The press are allowed into the proceedings of the joint committee as it is. I cannot see how members of the press can be allowed in and not radio. If the press are there the material will become public anyway. To say that radio should not be allowed in because confidential discussions may take place but that the press can be allowed in, suggests that in some way the committee can nobble the press so that they do not mention anything confidential. If the members of the press are there and they hear something they will report it so that argument is not on. If the press can be there there is no reason why radio should not be allowed to be there subject to appropriate safeguards.

The Minister mentioned that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges were asked to look at the procedure in relation to the Estimate. The committee were given a six-month deadline to complete their work but they came back about eight months ago and asked for a further six months. They have not come back to look for a further extension and I do not know where they stand now. Given that the committee got an extension of six months they should have come back for a further extension if they had not presented their report. As a non-member of the committee I am disappointed that they have not yet been able to come up with any report, even an interim report on the question of how best to deal with the Estimates. I agree with the Minister that that report would be relevant to this. If the Minister accepted this motion we could make alterations in its terms of reference to take account of my recommendations made by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should conclude.

Mr. Bruton

The Minister had an opportunity during the last 12 months to look at the terms of this motion and come up with something better. In view of the Minister's failure to come up with something better we on this side of the House must insist on putting this matter to a vote in order that something would be done rather than have the matter merely postponed again for a further 12 months.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 66.

Tá

• Barry, Myra.
• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Belton, Luke.
• Burke, Liam.
• Clinton, Mark.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Cosgrave, Michael J.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• D'Arcy, Michael J.
• Deasy, Martin A.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Donnellan, John F.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Boland, John.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Joan.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Horgan, John.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Mannion, John M.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairi.
• Ryan, John J.
• Spring, Dan.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• White, James.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Kit.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Andrews, Niall.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, Seán.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary Seán.
• Cogan, Barry.
• Colley, George.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joe.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Filgate, Eddie.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
• Fitzsimons, James N.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Fox, Christopher J.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Dennis.
• Gallagher, James.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keegan, Seáan.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killeen, Tim.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Morely, P.J.
• Murphy, Ciarán P.
• Nolan, Tom.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Donoghue, Martin.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• Power, Paddy.
• Smith, Michael.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael J.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies L'Estrange and B. Desmond; Nil, Deputies Moore and Briscoe.

Question declared lost.