Vol. 497 No. 2
10 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, he has in relation to a recent suggestion by the Attorney General to the University College Dublin Law Society that independent regulators could erode democracy and political accountability if they are not made answerable to Dáil Éireann and the Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24587/98]
The Attorney General was invited to deliver the annual guest lecture to the UCD Law Society. The title was "Who Regulates the Regulators?". The speech examined the experience of other jurisdictions in this area and explored options for ensuring accountability without compromising necessary independence. It referred to the options set out in the strategy statement of the Department of Public Enterprise and pointed to the importance of ensuring that there are adequate structures in place.
I welcome the speech of the Attorney General. It was an important one for him to make and gives the House a lead in terms of how we ought to be dealing with the issue. Based on the views of the Attorney General, is legislation being prepared which will provide for the statutory framework which the Attorney General indicated was required to make regulators accountable to the Dáil? The Attorney General referred to the need to identify where the regulators fit into the triangle of the Dáil, the Government and the Judiciary in terms of accountability.
I will convey the Deputy's remarks to the Attorney General who has been looking at what has been happening in other countries and has indicated how he sees the role of regulators being developed here. He strongly believes that a new way of dealing with these issues should be found, given that difficulties have been encountered in other countries. He cited various examples and case histories.
His principal point is to recognise the valuable role of independent regulators in a modern, developing society and to highlight the need to ensure that we, as elected representatives, uphold the basic principles of democracy and political accountability. Since he made that speech we have discussed matters with the Ministers involved to build on what he used in the strategy statement of the Department of Public Enterprise. We have no definite plans yet, but in terms of what he identified as a democratic deficit there is an issue to be addressed.
I am sure the Taoiseach will recall the telecommunications regulator's resistance to attending an Oireachtas committee. She claimed she was answerable to the Comptroller and Auditor General and was entitled to read her rights in that way. Does the Taoiseach agree that the House should clarify that regulators are not independent to the extent that they are not accountable to the elected representatives of the people?
The Deputy is going beyond the scope of the question.
Will the Taoiseach undertake to examine the feasibility of legislation and confirm that a legislative framework will be introduced?
Yes, we will do that. The issue of the telecommunications regulator was concerned with status. She argued that under the terms of the legislation—
The 1996 Act.
—she was not accountable and in doing so she referred to the lacuna in the legislation. In his address to the students the Attorney General said this resulted in a democratic deficit. We must ensure there is no such deficit.
Is the Taoiseach considering further legislation?
We are looking at whatever needs to be done, even if it means new legislation.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the implication of the Attorney General's remarks is not so much that there is not a system for the regulator to account to the Oireachtas but that the terms of reference under which the regulator is to regulate were insufficiently precisely laid out by the Oireachtas and that the lack of precision in the remit of the regulator is at the root of the problem rather than any issue of reporting?
In terms of the difficulties faced by the regulator regarding the democratic deficit, the legislation passed by the Oireachtas excluded the regulator from dealing with the Houses of the Oireachtas. That was the point made by the telecommunications regulator.
Did the Attorney General discuss the contents of the speech with the Taoiseach before he issued it? On foot of the question posed by Deputy De Rossa, can we take it that the philosophy outlined in the speech will inform legislation on all types of regulation concerning the move by State monopolies to competitive companies?
The Attorney General would have given me a copy of the speech. He would have been aware of Ministers' views, but it was his own speech.
Did the Taoiseach obtain a copy of it before it was made?
I did. The speech reflected his views and it represents his own work. I welcome the fact that he undertakes engagements of this kind. While we may not accept his philosophy, we are examining the points he has raised and will formulate the Government's response.
Does the Taoiseach agree there needs to be greater accountability for some of the existing agents? For example, I recently asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he would draw the attention of the contents of a book to a garda investigating the disappearances of persons—
The Deputy has gone beyond the scope of the question.
Members of the House deserve better replies than that it is not routine to comment on such investigations. I join with Deputy De Rossa in welcoming the Attorney General's views. In any examination of his views and given the Attorney General's role under the Official Secrets Act and as protector of citizens' rights under the Constitution, will the Attorney General be made more accountable as part of that examination?
It is a separate issue. The Attorney General is a constitutional officer of the State.
