Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 24 May 1978

Vol. 89 No. 3

Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies: Motion.

Mr. E. Ryan

I move:

(1) That Seanad Éireann concurs with Dáil Éireann in its Resolution communicated to Seanad Éireann on 17 May 1978, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee (which shall be called the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies) consisting of seven members of the Dáil and four members of the Seanad (none of whom shall be a member of the Government or a Minister of State) be appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts and overall operational results of State-sponsored bodies engaged in trading or commercial activities referred to in Schedule A hereto and the trading and/or commercial aspects of the Reports and Accounts and overall operational results of the State-sponsored body referred to in Schedule B hereto and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas and make recommendations where appropriate.

(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 State-sponsored bodies engaged in trading or commercial activities in the Schedules 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 to be State-sponsored bodies engaged in trading or commercial activities.

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

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

(7) 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.

(8) 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.

(9) That four members of the Committee shall form a Quorum of whom at least one shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and at least one shall be a member of Seanad Éireann.

Schedule A

Aer Lingus, Teoranta

Aer Rianta, Teoranta

Aerlínte Éireann, Teoranta

The Agricultural Credit Corporation, Limited

Arramara Teoranta

Bord na Móna

British & Irish Steam Packet Company Limited

Ceimicí, Teoranta

Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teoranta

Córas Iompair Éireann

Electricity Supply Board

Fóir Teoranta

Industrial Credit Company, Limited

The Irish Gas Board

Irish Life Assurance Company, Limited

The Irish National Stud Company, Limited

Irish Shipping Limited

Irish Steel Holdings Limited

Min Fhéir (1959) Teoranta

National Building Agency Limited

Nírigin Éireann Teoranta

Óstlanna Iompair Éireann Teoranta

Pigs and Bacon Commission

Radio Telefís Éireann

Voluntary Health Insurance Board.

Schedule B

Gaeltarra Éireann.

Dr. West

You have not concluded the discussion on Item No. 2?

Mr. Cooney

Is the Minister going to speak on the motion?

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Wyse)

I should like to state that I am deputising for the Minister for the Public Service here this afternoon. This motion proposes to reactivate the Joint Oireachtas Committee on State-sponsored bodies who were established following the passing of motions in the Dáil and Seanad in late 1976. That Committee met only twice before they lapsed automatically on the dissolution of the 20th Dáil. Both of these meetings were taken up with procedural matters and the Committee had little opportunity of getting down to the practical task of looking at the State-sponsored bodies under their mandate. This fact has weighed heavily in the Government's decision to re-establish the Committee without making any major alterations in their terms of reference. It is proposed that the new Committee will, like their predecessor, deal only with those bodies which are engaged in trading or commercial activities.

I will detail later what the changes are; they are generally of a procedural or technical nature. The Government are aware that a case can be made for a Committee with a wider area of concern and, perhaps, more detailed terms of reference. Nevertheless, they believe that the proper approach is to allow the Committee to function for the present with these substantially unchanged terms of reference; any changes which experience may suggest as desirable can be made by the Oireachtas in the light of that experience.

Commercial organisations founded or acquired by the State are a feature of most modern States. There are, however, two important distinctions between our situation in that regard and that in other countries. First, State involvement in those enterprises does not, in our case, arise from any ideological preconception and is not generally, therefore, a matter of dispute between political parties. Secondly, our State-sponsored bodies, although small by comparison with some of their counterparts in larger EEC countries, constitute, in the aggregate, a significant sector of our economy.

It is significant that the bodies listed in the Schedule to this motion provide some 60,000 jobs and include some of the nation's largest employers. This fact alone makes their wellbeing the concern of every Member of this House. Their importance does not, however, stop there. As a group, these bodies employ a large share of the nation's capital and the range of economic activities in which they engage affects almost every area of national life.

Given the importance of these bodies to our economy and the degree to which their investment and strategic decisions could affect the quality of our lives for many years ahead, it is, all will agree, proper that they should now come into closer relationship with the Oireachtas.

The reasons why State-sponsored bodies are established are many and varied. Although in organisational form these bodies have many similarities with private sector companies, there are real and fundamental differences. Complex economic and social issues were involved in their creation. The balance sheet may rule in private enterprise; it is only one of the yardsticks by which State-sponsored bodies should be judged. Yet, if we were to assume too readily that the normal commercial criteria should not apply, the danger could arise that social need could be advanced as the justification for any and every loss. We all know that there are social costs. Ideally, these costs should, as far as possible, be separately identified leaving the true commercial area of the business to be judged by the standards of the market place. The Committee may have a worth-while contribution to make in clarifying this difficult issue.

I wish to make it clear that the establishment of such a Committee involves no suggestion that these bodies are failing in their responsibilities. A number of chief executives have already indicated that they see the Committee's role as a positive one which will enable the Oireachtas and the public to appreciate the difficulties they encounter and the challenges they face. The work of the Committee will, I know, be particularly demanding and their success will depend on the ability of their members to come to grips with salient—and probably highly technical—data. I am conscious that the demands on Deputies and Senators are already very great. If the members of this Committee are not to be overloaded and are to get to the core of the issues, it is vital that the Committee should have available to them a good back-up service to sift through and analyse relevant data. In addition to a secretariat, which need not, I think, be large, I will be prepared to make provision for the engagement of technical expertise, preferably on a limited term basis for particular investigations.

I pointed out earlier that certain changes had been made from the terms of the motion previously passed by both Houses. The first of these incorporates the title "the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies" in the motion. This change formally recognises a title which has already gained currency. The second substitutes the term "Minister of State" for "Parliamentary Secretary". This change is a consequence of the establishment of the office of Minister of State and the abolition of that of Parliamentary Secretary by the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1977.

The changes in paragraphs 5 and 6 are in line with those adopted for other Joint Committees pending the revision of the Standing Orders of the House and relate to the election of a Chairman of the Committee and to the resolution of questions in the Committee by vote.

Under the terms of reference of the motion establishing the former Committee they had power to publish evidence only in conjunction with a report. The Government felt that this in effect put a restriction on the Committee in so far as a long time might elapse between the giving of evidence and the ultimate publication of the report. To rectify this position the Committee's powers are suitably extended in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the motion to permit them to publish evidence or material as soon after each meeting as they deem fit. In doing so, however, it is subject to the qualification that the Committee may not publish material if a State-sponsored body so requests on the grounds that publication of confidential information would be injurious to its business or commercial interests.

The final change is that the Dairy Disposal Company Limited has been removed from Schedule A of the bodies to be examined as it is in the process of winding up its affairs and its commercial involvement is now practically negligible.

There have been, over the years, frequent suggestions that State-sponsored bodies should be accountable to Parliament. The Committee proposed in this motion can be seen as a response to this view. It can also be viewed as a means whereby the Oireachtas which created those bodies can now look at the range of bodies as a group or individually and make suggestions as to their future development.

Mr. Cooney

We in the Fine Gael Party welcome this motion and the reactivation of this Committee. Parliamentary involvement or oversight of the work of semi-State companies is something that has been looked for on and off for upwards of 20 years. It only came to pass towards the end of the last Dáil. The Committee set up then had not really begun to operate other than to establish their procedures and begin to look at their staffing requirements. Accordingly, we look forward to a deeper involvement by that Committee in the implementation of their terms during the life of this Oireachtas.

It is common case on all sides of the House that this involvement by the Oireachtas, in accordance with the terms of reference, in the affairs of State-sponsored bodies is a good thing because these bodies are spending public money. The constitutional theory is that that expenditure is by the authority of Parliament and if that authority is to be properly exercised it should be the subject of review or oversight by a body representing parliament.

This Committee will be analogous to but not similar to the Public Accounts Committee of the other House in so far as the same detailed scrutiny will not be carried out. Because of a certain commercial element in the operation of many of the State-sponsored bodies it might not be suitable for that type of detailed scrutiny. Nevertheless there is an analogy.

I would not like to think that this new Committee will operate in the same way as the Public Accounts Committee which at this stage has lost much of its reality and constitutional position by reason of the fact that it is operating so far removed in time from the expenditure it is examining. It is very important for the maintenance of the powers of Parliament that the review of spending and the retention by Parliament of power over accountability of the finances passed by it should not become diminished. Many people are worried that Parliament no longer really counts. Because of the party system Parliament has become, in many cases, a rubber stamp for the will of the Executive. Indeed, if the chief person in the Executive is a person of very strong character Parliament, in effect, can become the rubber stamp for the will of one man. This is not democracy as we know it. Anything that seeks to reassert the sovereignty of Parliament is desirable.

I see this motion and this Committee in that light. It has a very important role to play. It will be important that they will be enabled to play this role effectively by having a full secretariat, having all the technical assistance they may need, bearing in mind that they will be overseeing the activities of a large number of bodies discharging widely differing roles. If it is to do that effectively in time it will need to have lots of secretarial and expert assistance. I hope that will be made available.

In so far as it is Parliament overseeing the Executive, in the sense that semi-State bodies are linked through the appropriate Ministers to the Executive, the principle of the chairman of the Committee coming from the Opposition is a good one. It will prevent any dangers of a conflict of interests. I am not saying that a chairman from the other side would not be independent and impartial but it is important, in this sort of scene, that he would be seen to be. That could not be achieved if the chairman is from the ranks of the Government benches. The chairman should be a member of the Opposition. Regretfully that principle was not applied during the life of the last Committee but, as that Committee barely got into being before Parliament was dissolved, no great precedent has been established.

I have noticed that the present Minister for Finance, when in Opposition, speaking on the debate to set up this Committee originally was of the opinion that I am now expressing, that the chairman should come from the ranks of the Opposition. I would urge that on the Minister of State as a desirable principle when the nature of the Committee is to, if you like, oversee the activities of the Executive albeit at a greater remove than the Public Accounts Committee. That principle should be established from the beginning of this present Committee, from the beginning of this Parliament.

I welcome the changes being made in the term of reference, especially the one which permits interim publications of the work of the Committee. Under the terms originally drafted nothing could be published until the final report. As the Minister says, it may be desirable in the meantime, pending publication of the final report, to publish various pieces of material coming to the attention of the committee. I welcome that. It gives extra status and power to the committee.

The other terms of reference have had to be drawn somewhat sketchily because this is a new committee embarking in a new area. They will have to approach their job in a pragmatic way, developing their role as it goes along and seeing their terms of reference in operation before they can come back to the Oireachtas and ask for an extension of their powers or a clearer definition of their role. Initially the terms of reference are about right and I would not seek to try to expand these or define in advance any principles of procedure. These will have to evolve as the committee operate. I have no doubt that will be the spirit of the committee, to operate with cooperation as the main feature of their relationship with the semi-State bodies; there will not be any suggestion of Big Brother looking for mistakes. On the contrary, it will be an operation of mutual help rather than a teacher/pupil or parent/child relationship. I do not think anyone in the Oireachtas would want that, nor would they want to operate in any way that would lead people in the semi-State bodies to see this committee as inhibiting their activities.

As the Minister pointed out, the role of these semi-State bodies is a mixture of social and commercial. This will require sensitivity of approach on the part of the committee. Politicians will be aware of both considerations, will be able to weigh their values in the operations of the various semi-State bodies, take them into account and give proper weight to each. As the Minister said, State involvement is not a matter of any ideological preconception and is not a matter of dispute between the parties. It has not been up to now though, as I noted in the debate on the White Paper, the present economic strategy of the Government excludes State enterprise completely. I suppose that is a matter of tactics rather than of ideology.

I welcome the setting up of the committee. I hope it will be able to get to work very speedily with a fully staffed secretariat and with an Opposition chairman.

Dr. Martin

I join Senator Cooney in welcoming the measure and indeed in applauding all its recommendations. It is obviously a matter of great importance that there be some sort of a body, paternal or fraternal, operating in terms of the Oireachtas and the semi-State bodies. If it operates in terms of the brief of a watchdog function all the better still. There are just two points I want to make with regard to the measure itself. First, we see that in paragraph (1) of the motion and I quote:

It is expedient that a Joint Committee (which shall be called the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies) consisting of seven members of the Dáil and four members of the Seanad (none of whom shall be a member of the Government or a Minister of State) be appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts and overall operational results...

It is an unhappy number that has been ascribed to the Seanad, that is, four members. It seems to have been arrived at without any serious consideration of the composition of this House. The only rationale on which one could justify four would be to recognise that there are four different groups within the Seanad. There are the Government, the Labour Party, the Fine Gael Party and the Independent Senators. If the number four has any rationale that is really what it should reflect. I understand that that is not really what is at the back of the minds of the framers of the motion at all, that they propose there will to be two from the Government and two from the Opposition parties.

Last year when this measure came forward there was general agreement right up to the last minute that an Independent Senator, Senator West, would be a member but, at the last minute, the Government and the Opposition failed to reach agreement on this matter. It looks as if the motion at present will go forward as constituting a committee which merely includes representatives of the three main parties.

The purpose of the entire motion—and I have read out some of its purposes—is that a committee be appointed:

...to examine the Reports and Accounts and overall operational results of State-sponsored bodies engaged in trading or commercial activities referred to in Schedule A hereto and the trading and/or commercial aspects of the Reports and Accounts and overall operational results of the State-sponsored body referred to in Schedule B hereto and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas and make recommendations where appropriate.

If we see that as the overall brief of the committee I cannot think of any role for which an Independent Senator would be better fitted. If they are to report on these and examine them critically and constructively there is just the possibility that either a Government or an Opposition Senator might have reason to soft pedal or go easy on something that might be marginally irregular because there is no party in the House at present that has not been in power and that has not had dealings with these semi-State bodies. In other words, there is at least an occult reason why, in certain circumstances, both Government and Opposition might wink at an irregularity or might at least take a benign or congenial view of something that might be regarded a little more stringently by a purely Independent Member.

The more I think about this the more incensed I become at the notion of setting up a body of this type, of giving a watching brief of this kind to a committee consisting solely of party members under party Whips and responsible to party discipline. It is understandable in the Dáil but there is in the Seanad a body of people who are here specifically because they are supposed to be Independent and to see that they are excluded from what should be an impartial and independent inquiry into the operation of these bodies, to see such a committee set-up and to exclude the one independent voice which exists, in either part of Parliament, seems to me to be nothing short of a mockery of the whole process of Independent representative in the Seanad.

I want to make that first point with all the force available to me, that unless there is an Independent Member amongst those four this committee seems to me to be disabled from the start; it starts out with limited credibility.

I should like to have it explained to the public why an Independent Senator is not allowed representation. I should like to see the Minister's face while he is explaining it to the House. I should also like to know why the figure four? Why not five? That would make it possible to have Government majority representation, one from each of the Opposition Parties and an Independent Senator. It would be no skin off anybody's heel. The committee seem to be deliberately, perversely framed in order to exclude an independent voice.

I think I have made my case with sufficient force. I have repeated myself because that is one of the few ways one can lend weight to a point of this importance on a motion of this kind. I hope my colleagues on the Independent benches will not hesitate to put forward their version of this complaint when the time comes. There is only one other aspect of the motion I find profoundly relevant, that is, this whole point put forward in the Devlin Report that the heads of State-sponsored bodies should be limited in the salaries they are granted. This cheeseparing limitation is disastrous.

An Cathaoirleach

The remuneration of the heads of State-sponsored bodies does not arise on this motion.

Dr. Martin

I should hate to even question the ruling of the Cathaoirleach, but am I correct in recalling that the matter was admitted in the debate in the Dáil? It seems to have been allowed there, whether it was allowed irregularly there or not——

An Cathoirleach

The business of the other House does not arise here.

Dr. Martin

It does not arise here. On the matter of the remuneration of the heads of the semi-State bodies, having stated I am of the opinion that they should not be held under such restraint, I will abide by your judgement and pass on to the general import of the motion. In doing that, let me say just once again before I sit down how very, very seriously I take the policy, if it is a policy and if it is implemented, of excluding an independent voice from this very important committee.

Mrs. Robinson

On behalf of the Labour group in the Seanad, I welcome the re-establishment of this Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies. The only deep regret the Labour group have is that it took so long to re-establish this committee. The original committee had two meetings only, had barely established their own working methods when they were dissolved at the time of the general election. It is a reflection on the slow procedures of the two Houses that it has taken from last May until this May to re-establish the committee. We cannot afford this kind of tardiness and this dilatory approach. It undermines a lot of what was said in the other House and what will be said today in this House about the important role of such a committee.

If the committee are that important, then I suggest they should have been re-established when the Dáil and Seanad sittings recommended after the general election. This point is worth making for future reference. This is the second of these innovatory specialist committees which evolved recently in the Oireachtas. First, we had the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities and then this Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies. After a great deal of pressure the EEC committee got re-established last December. That, in itself, was far too long. There was far too long a lag between May and December which effectively meant the committee began to meet in January to cope with the various draft directives and regulations which had issued from Brussels the previous May. Similarly, the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies should have been re-established at the beginning of November at the latest, and should by now be issuing their first reports.

Time has been lost. Indeed, the services of staff have been lost because I understand the clerk who was appointed to that committee has sat in his office waiting for the re-establishment of the committee and, in effect, his time has been wasted and public moneys have been wasted waiting for the committee to be re-established.

Since we now have these specialist committees, and since by the nature of them they are Joint Committees of both Houses, they will dissolve when we have a general election, it is not too soon to make a firm political commitment that they will be re-established as soon as both Houses come back into business themselves. The Joint Committee have a statutory basis so there is no question but that they would be re-established. A firm all-party commitment about the importance of this committee should ensure that they, too, would be very quickly re-established.

I should like to support Senator Martin. He is right in saying there should be Independent representation from this House on the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies. The Seanad has that kind of personal expertise and commitment to offer. It is recognised on all sides of the House that the Independent Members of the Seanad put in very conscientious time, do their work and do their homework, and have made very substantial contributions in the areas of operation of our State-sponsored bodies. What he said also struck a cord with me personally as a former Independent member.

It is an insult to the contribution they make at the moment, and can make, if there is not an Independent Member on the Joint Committee. There are two ways of doing it, as Senator Martin said. Either one of the four Senators should be an Independent Senator, or else the matter should be returned for consideration of enlarging the size of the Joint Committee. From my own personal experience on the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, a committee of 11 is small to ensure a good working quorum for consideration of the work of the committee. The experience of the Joint Committee has been that, even with a committee of 26, it is sometimes difficult to get more than seven or eight to participate in a full Joint Committee session, or in a session of one of the sub-committees. A committee of 11 makes it difficult, I presume, to form sub-committees and this, in itself, will slow up the approach to their workload of the Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies. If they cannot form a number of sub-committees, they will have to consider their entire workload in full committee and, since their terms of reference, as has been mentioned, are to examine the reports and accounts and the overall operational results of the very significant number of State-sponsored bodies listed in Schedule A, and Gaeltarra Éireann listed in Schedule B, this is a very formidable workload.

There is a danger that the Joint Committee might get bogged down in examining one or two bodies—in examining CIE and RTE, for example—and a whole session might go by without the committee performing a very important preliminary task, that is, to have an overview of the present operation of the State-sponsored bodies. I should like to see the committee in a position to give both Houses of the Oireachtas a genuine sense of how chief executives and staff running the State-sponsored bodies view the statutory procedures under which they were set up. Do the legislation and the terms of reference they were given stand up to the experience of many years in operation, or are there substantial improvements which could be made in that regard? Are they able to put forward the kind of plans and proposals they want to? This kind of general overview of all the State-sponsored bodies listed in Schedules A and B should be completed within a period of a maximum of two years in order to allow the committee, in a normal span, to have further time to look in more depth at certain of the State-sponsored bodies which could be singled out.

If this task is to be placed on the shoulders of 11 people, therefore preventing the development of a structure of sub-committees, there will be very considerable problems in ensuring that this important overview of each of the bodies is completed within a two-year span.

Another vital matter in establishing a committee of this nature is the permanent staffing of the secretariat of the committee. As I understand it, the clerk appointed to the old committee remained the expectant awaiting clerk of this committee about to be re-established, but I have not heard any other firm commitment as to the back-up permanent staffing this committee will have. I would welcome a very specific indication on this from the Minister. Presumably the previous committee had an opportunity in their preliminary meetings to assess the minimum staff which would enable them to accomplish their task and, again, comparisons with the work of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities are worth while.

It is worth recalling that the Joint EEC Committee—to give their short title—had two years of considerable teething problems in relation to getting a firm commitment for adequate permanent staff on the secretariat. This committee had to wait for a long time to be established. An equivalent committee were established in Britain in 1949 and have been operating since. We as a Parliament are very late indeed in establishing such a committee, given the immense economic significance of the State-sponsored bodies in our economic life. Given how long it took, first of all, to establish the committee at all and, secondly, how much delay there has been before their re-establishment by this motion in the Dáil and Seanad, it is vital that the committee should start with the adequate complement of staff. I would have thought the minimum the committee should have would be their clerk and at least two other permanent staff of senior standing, and they should also have secretarial assistance.

Apart from that, I am glad to see that the terms of reference ensure what looks like a commitment by the Minister for the Public Service to enable the Joint Committee to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist them for the purpose of particular inquiries. This is absolutely essential if the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies are to approach their task with adequate expertise and back-up knowledge. It will be difficult for these 11 members to assess the accounts of State-sponsored bodies without very significant technical and specialist expertise available to them. The accounts of State-sponsored bodies, no more than the accounts of other companies, do not reveal very much, and they require very specialist assessment in order to get a true account of the performance and of the actual record of the State-sponsored body. It will be essential for the Joint Committee to use the power there in order to perform their scrutinising task on behalf of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I also welcome the new paragraph (7) of the motion:

That the Joint Committee shall have powers to print and publish from time to time minutes of evidence taken before it together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

If the committee taken evidence from chief executives and senior members of State-sponsored bodies, and from other sectors of the economy affected, other experts, and publish this evidence, they will perform a very important service for Members of both Houses who can then be better informed about the role, the priorities and the problems of State-sponsored bodies, the difficulty at times in combining the emphasis on a necessity to be a trading corporation and, at the same time, to fulfil a valuable social function, the conflict at times which must face senior executives in CIE, for example, between remaining if possible reasonably within economic bounds and, at the same time, ensuring that they provide a social service and, in the interests of economising, do not pare down dramatically on the provision of a social service.

I am glad to learn that a number of chief executives have expressed a welcome for the establishment of this parliamentary committee. They are right to do so. They deserve to have a dialogue with a parliamentary committee to ensure that their pre-occupations are considered adequately by an expert committee of Parliament, with expertise available to them, with continuity of membership, so that there can be a substantial learning process by all members of the committee. Publication on a fairly consistent basis, of evidence taken by this Joint Committee would be of very significant benefit to both Houses and to the public generally, because there has not been sufficient general accountability or general feedback from the managers of our State-sponsored bodies, those who run them.

The various debates on the Estimates for Departments, or debates in either House when a Minister comes in looking for a further sum of millions for a State-sponsored body, have not been very constructive. They were random and discursive because Members were not equipped with adequate knowledge to assess the performance of the State-sponsored body.

The amount of employment given by State-sponsored bodies and the fact that they are about to embark on worker participation are matters members of the Joint Committee should be in a position to assess; also, the successful implementation of a commitment to industrial democracy, to worker participation, which hopefully will become a much more substantial feature in our industrial relations, the progress of a State-sponsored body and the matter I mentioned, the possibility that, in a number of instances, the original Act which may date from the twenties or the thirties may no longer be a sufficiently flexible framework for a State-sponsored body. There will be an opportunity for a parliamentary committee to consider the possibility of broadening or up-dating the statutory terms of reference of that State-sponsored body.

As well I would hope the fact that there is a parliamentary committee would have, in itself, a chain reaction in the State-sponsored bodies, that they will themselves standardise to some extent the way in which they present their accounts and try to ensure full understanding and disclosure in those accounts, that they will seek to bring out reports and assessments for the members of the State-sponsored bodies committee and that these will be made available generally to Members of both Houses.

Again, the experience of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities has been that there is an important role for these committees in meeting interested groups and even interested individuals in the community, either inviting written submissions or going further and having oral hearings with these interested groups, with both sides of industry, with other affected sectors. This is an active role for the committee as a Joint Committee of the two Houses and enables Parliament to be better briefed, to be closer to the sectors affected, by giving them an opportunity of putting their views to a representative committee of Parliament.

Unless this committee are established rapidly and given adequate back-up services to enable them to get into gear very fast there is a danger that the Oireachtas will appear to be becoming more and more irrelevant to the complexity of modern Government and administration. The plenary debates on the floor of the Houses will not stand up to critical scrutiny because it will be far too much a case of one Deputy after another, or one Senator after another, getting up and talking in very general terms, mentioning a few individual grievances from personal knowledge, or from knowledge of one or two constituents, or whatever it may be. There will be a failure to realise that the complex nature of the operations and activities of State-sponsored bodies cannot be commented upon without adequate scrutiny, the assistance of experts and, indeed, an opportunity to hear and receive written and oral submissions from the senior managements of these bodies, and an opportunity to hear and receive written and oral submissions from affected groups in society.

I welcome the establishment of this committee and I reiterate my support for what Senator Martin said. Membership of the committee from the Seanad should include an Independent Senator because of the commitment, expertise and independence of those Members. There is a value in that membership of the Joint Committee and it is an insult to Independent Members and a denigration of the different kinds of contribution the Seanad can make to a Joint Committee to deny them representation.

Mr. Mulcahy

Fáiltím go mór roímh an rún seo. Ceapaim go bhfuilimid ag cur ar bun eagras nua a thabharfaidh taca do na comhlachtaí éagsúla Stáit san am atá le teacht.

I welcome this motion and I should like to make a few comments on different aspects of it. I must admit to having a certain sympathy with the views of the Independent Senators. There seems to be a certain way of setting up these committees. Perhaps we will have to learn whether or not that is the best way to go about it. I would point out to Senator Martin, and the Independent Senators, that the reports coming from this committee will be discussed in both Houses. Members will have access to the data and the discursive debates Senator Robinson referred to may be a little more focussed as a result of the existence of these reports. I am appalled at the workload ahead of the committee. As Chairman of one of the subcommittees of the Joint EEC Committee which Senator Robinson referred to, I realise the difficulties in trying to manage one of these committees. At the moment in the Joint EEC Committee we are trying to manage with one meeting per month of the sub-committee.

This whole approach will develop by trial and error but it is an extremely important move in that now we are bringing into existence a new organisation in the sense that there will exist a Joint Committee supported by staff who are not part of the service but are part of the House staff, in the same way the Joint EEC Committee is supported. I do not think I should take up the time of the House speculating about what might happen as this committee get under way but I am appalled at the workload. Members of the committee will have to learn how to analyse the operating accounts and the operations of the various State bodies in order to come to a conclusion about whether they are being run properly and perhaps make some observations as to how they might be improved.

In this regard, I am pleased to note in the Minister's introductory statement that some chief executives of these bodies have welcomed this move as a means of getting some of their ideas across which might have been bottled up in the past within the civil service system and the ministerial system. I am referring here to the rather slow developments in the evolution of the recommendations of the review body on the civil service, in Devlin 1, in relation to the aireacht idea and in relation to other appointments which were to be made. The existence of this Joint Committee might help to accelerate public service reform as well as looking at the operations of semi-State bodies. I hope the work of the Joint Committee will not be seen as negative, that they will not be there just to ask questions in an awkward way in the sense of an over-emphasis on control. I hope they will play a positive role in the development of these bodies and that the hopes of the chief executives of the semi-State bodies will be realised in that regard. When the media have to report discursive debates in this House they may be a bit more patient when they realised the data required to make any really focussed analysis of situations, particularly in relation to large-scale capital expenditure. The reports of the committee will be current, rather than waiting and analysing on a post hoc basis events which took place anything up to a year-and-a-half beforehand and are not really going to “grab” anybody.

I see an appalling workload ahead of the committee. They will have to learn how to handle it and they may have to develop new procedures. Members of the committee will have to give time to the workload, which cannot be left entirely to the back-up service. I welcome the fact that the committee seem to be empowered to draw on specialised technical services—I assume, on consultants to make specialised reports—and that these reports will be commissioned by a committee of the Oireachtas. This is not unusual, but not frequent. It will certainly change the way things have been done between these Houses and the public service. I welcome the motion and look forward with interest to the way the committee evolve. There may be some question as to whether they will be able to do this job at all.

Mr. Staunton

I welcome the opportunity of addressing myself to the motion setting up the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies. I believe there is a consensus within the Oireachtas regarding the proposed formation of this committee. Indeed, the committee now being reactivated is, to a significant extent, similar to that which was introduced by the Coalition Government in late 1976.

Since approximately 1927 when some semi-State bodies were established, there has been a growing disquiet that despite the extent to which the trappings of power may exist within the Oireachtas, much real power lies outside these Houses. As we have seen the growth of the semi-State system has been very successful. We have seen this vast increase in the extent of the scope of such semi-State bodies, in the proportion of the gross national product, in the output of this country and in the budget of this country held by the semi-States. The significance of this is shown in that in the bodies to which we are addressing ourselves, those engaged in the commercial and trading sector, we are talking about total assets exceeding £1,000 million and turnover of over £500 million and an employment of about 60,000 people. With this vast growth in the semi-State sector there has been public disquiet about what has seemed to have been a lack of public accountability of a suitable type. For that reason I welcome the formation of this committee.

The motion before the House presented by the Government concerns itself with what it describes as two Schedules, Schedule A and Schedule B. Schedule A lists those semi-State companies which in broad terms of reference could be said to be in a trading and commercial situation as opposed to the activities of the other semi-State bodies. Whilst I welcome the inclusion of the trading and commercial semi-State bodies in the list, we should address ourselves to the issue in principle and ask ourselves why the other large number of semi-State bodies are excluded from the Motion. There should be agreement within this House that the Oireachtas should have as its objective Parliamentary control of all of these semi-State companies without exception. If we look to the debate that took place on this issue in November 1976 in the Dáil it is interesting to note the comment at that time of the present Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, column 1419, Volume 293 when he urged the Minister at that time to have a look at this issue. At that time the Bill now introduced was substantially the same and was confined to the trading and commercial companies. The point was made by the Minister at the time that it was confined to the commercial and trading companies as merely the first step because of the practicalities of organising control of all such semi-State bodies both regarding the resources of this House and the resources of Members. It is interesting to note that Mr. Colley in his speech urged the Minister to have another look at this question. He went on to say that when one thinks about it one is entitled to ask questions. Why should a body like Coras Trachtála or the IDA or other similar bodies not be answerable to the Houses of the Oireachtas in respect of certain major aspects of policy? I quote:

If we take the IDA, it is true that the general policy followed is subject of discussion and debate in this House but, on the other hand, the methods used by the IDA to achieve its aims are not open to question in this House. There are good reasons in some cases why it should not be open to full scale public discussion at least until the facts are established. What I am saying is true of many other bodies also. I would question the wisdom of excluding from the terms of reference of this committee all State-sponsored bodies which are not engaged in commercial or trading activities. It may well be that the range of work involved is such that it would require another committee or even two other committees to do it. I am not dealing with the practicalities of that at the moment but rather with the principle involved.

I would presume that there is consistency in the Minister's thinking and his involvement in the present Government. If that is so, then the Government, while introducing this motion confining the control of the semi-State bodies to those in what is defined as the commercial or trading sector, will take the view that parliamentary control of all of the semi-State bodies is necessary and desirable and that this is merely the first step. Presumably, having looked at the workings of this first step, the Government would continue to think logically and would extend the ambit of this committee or a further committee to take control of the wider range of semi-State bodies we are concerned with.

I would welcome reference by the Minister to this issue which I have raised and to the speech made by the Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Colley, two years ago. I would like to hear what the Government's objectives are in this regard, long-term though they may be at this stage. When we look past the range of the trading and commercial activities there are other sectors such as AnCO, Bord na gCapall, Bord na gCon, Bord Fáilte, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Córas Tráchtála Teoranta, the Agricultural Institute, the Industrial Development Authority, the Kilkenny Design Centre and SFADCo in the Shannon region.

Consideration of this distinction, the desirability of control of all such companies for parliamentary reasons, brings me to mention in detail the rather odd inclusion in this motion of what is described as Schedule B. Contained within that Schedule B is Gaeltarra Éireann. Apparently under the motion which we are asked to accept the trading and commercial aspects of the reports and accounts and the overall operational results of the State-sponsored body referred to in Schedule B are to be examined.

I take exception to the inclusion of Gaeltarra Éireann within this motion because it is entirely inconsistent and smacks of a witch-hunt. The reason I object to it is that it is stated in the Minister's speech that Gaeltarra Éireann is in a somewhat different category. Whilst it is a promotional body it is also involved in equity participation. This by definition is commercial activity and for this reason it should be included within this motion. The inconsistency arises for two or three different reasons. There are other bodies which are semi-State bodies which are in the practically identical situation in that whilst they are primarily promotional bodies they also hold equity. For example, the Industrial Development Authority is largely promotional but again it is empowered by the Minister to hold equity in companies and does hold equity with private companies in a number of cases around this country. In addition to that Bord Fáilte, the promotional body for tourism, is in the position of holding equity in certain situations with local authorities and in other situations around this country. Yet we have the anomaly in the resolution introduced here today, and indeed, it is the single significant difference between the resolution introduced and the resolution of the previous Government in late 1976, in that Gaeltarra is included in this one and was not in the prior one. We have to ask ourselves why Gaeltarra Éireann is included for such accountability when its sisters in the semi-State sector in an identical position are not.

There is a further inconsistency. It is stated by the Minister in his speech in the Dáil that Gaeltarra Éireann is included because of the fact that it is in a commercial and trading situation in addition to its promotional activity. We need to define the type of commercial and trading activity in which it is involved to follow this through. Whilst previously Gaeltarra Éireann was in a strong trading and commercial position in that it owned its own companies and was involved as a company in trading, that side of Gaeltarra is a lesser section than it was some years ago. Whilst it holds equity in other situations that equity is held with private companies in industries which are run in the private sector. If it is the Minister's desire that this committee should look at Gaeltarra's equity participation with private industry, and having regard to the terms of reference here which refer to examining the reports and accounts and the overall operational results, we are dealing with an area which will demand confidentiality beyond the point of merely a right of such trading activities by any committee of this Oireachtas. It is entirely inconsistent. If at this stage the Minister can have second thoughts it is desirable that he should do so. On the broadest principle I hope that the Government will be consistent in re-echoing the remarks of the Minister for the Public Service and have as their ultimate objective the inclusion of all the semi-State companies within the accountability of the Oireachtas.

I also subscribe to the views of some of my fellow Senators who spoke about the involvement of members on this committee and the workload which it will involve. There is no doubt that this is a major job which is going to be carried out by both Members of the Dáil and Members of Seanad Éireann. The run-up to this is not satisfactory because in many Dáil and Seanad Committees the participation and attendance have not been as good as they might have been. I do not say this in criticism of individual members of such committees but rather because of the enormous burden they bear, more particularly the Members of the Dáil who are responding to the general public to a different extent from Members of Seanad Éireann. The constraints where constituency work and work delegations and committees are concerned lead to an extremely difficult job particularly for Deputies on any committee such as this. Sadly under the system which we operate they run the risk of losing votes from their constituents to those who choose not to exercise this type of parliamentary work for which they were fundamentally elected.

The Government will have to face up to providing adequate support for Members of the Oireachtas. We have been saying this for a number of years and we are saying it in an apolitical sense. Unless there is back-up and support for Members of the Oireachtas it would be absolutely impossible for Members to give of their best to committees such as this or to perform as effectively as they should in the national interest. A great many Members have the will to act fully in the national interest on committees such as this but until such time as they get the support and the back-up they cannot begin to do so. There is a huge anomaly here in that we have office conditions which are entirely unacceptable. There is a lack of secretarial assistance for constituency work. We have a situation where we have small rooms in which five or six Members of the Oireachtas are working together. There are larger rooms in which ten, 12 or 14 are working together without secretarial assistance. Yet we have this huge anomaly that this is the premier body here, the legislative body, the overseer, the controller to which all other bodies are subordinate.

We talk about public accountability but again we come back to this point that we have all the trappings of power here but real power can rest elsewhere. If there is to be effective Oireachtas control of these huge semi-State bodies with assets amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds the Members will have to be spoon-fed by Government so that they can perform adequately. This committee will not perform as usefully as it might. We cannot begin to look at the semi-State bodies in the non-trading sector until such time as the operations of this House and the support of the Members of it are considered.

For other reasons it is desirable that this committee be established. In the enthusiasm generated because of a certain aspect of the national life of our economy it may seem in a certain year that it is desirable that a semi-State body should be established but conditions change very rapidly. The first semi-State body was established in 1927. We are now 50 years past that point. Originally there might be a consensus within the Oireachtas. The Government might make a decision and articles of association are drawn up for a semi-State body to become involved in the national interest in a particular sector of our economy but times changed and possibly ten or 15 years later some of these bodies may not be necessary and coordination and the possible moving of personnel in semi-State bodies might be desirable in the national interest. There is the danger, and there have been examples of it, that bodies established and set in motion without adequate public accountability can sometimes take a loose interpretation of the articles of association under which they were originally set up. In this type of situation one can see semi-State bodies getting involved in areas of activity which were not envisaged by the Government of the day, which were not a charter given to it by the Oireachtas and which ultimately are undesirable in the national interest. For that reason a committee such as this monitoring what is happening is extremely useful.

There is also the issue of conflict with private enterprise. Clearly we have a mixed economy here which has worked very well in the interests of this country but the danger in a mixed economy is that matters can spill over. One can get unnecessary conflict between the public sector and the private sector. Unnecessary conflict between the public and the private sector is very undesirable. If we want to foster a spirit of private enterprise here it is important to avoid encroachments on the private area by the State sector because this can act as a huge disincentive in the most general terms apart from the specifics of the case in question.

There is a danger in this area where semi-State bodies are concerned. We should continue along the lines on which there has been general agreement. Within the State sector there is considerable scope for activity in economic and in many other areas. This scope for the State rests with those sections of our economy in which the options have not been taken up by private enterprise but I resent encroachments by the public sector where it is thought that the private sector is doing an adequate job in the national interest. That type of activity is not desirable.

Paragraph 3 of the motion states that if so requested by semi-State bodies the committee should refrain from publishing confidential information. I am in complete agreement that confidential information should be withheld when it is thought that it should be but I cannot, in a democratic system, go along with the nation that the ultimate decision of definition about what is supposed to be confidential should rest with the semi-State body in question. If we run into a position where the committee, for their own good reasons, see nothing wrong with the disclosure of certain information relating to semi-State bodies the mere definition of this as being confidential by the semi-State body could block such publication. It is possible that the semi-State body in their wisdom might be right but it seems to me that the committee are the ultimate authority and should have the ultimate power of what constitutes confidentiality.

One final point is the issue of historical accounting. One of the weaknesses in the EEC Committee of the Oireachtas is that much of the work we were doing was historical. We were looking at secondary legislation, much of which was passed a considerable time before it came near us and some of which was concerned with olive oil in southern European States and many such matters which were not relevant to this country. We were anxious that we should, as a committee, be kept informed of what was happening and of proposed legislation so that if we had a view and could influence events we could warn the Government of the day of our views on a particular issue.

There is a similar danger in the setting up of this committee that we should guard against. We are not going to have effective Oireachtas control of the semi-State bodies if we get involved to too great an extent in historical accounting. Reading the motion before us we are going to examine the reports and the accounts and the overall operational results. In talking about reports or accounts or overall operational results we are talking about the formal reports and accounts and such like information of such bodies. The accounts of many of these bodies will likely end on December 31. Some are fairly efficient in getting out their accounts, some are not. If some of these accounts are coming out in July or August of the following year—say, seven or eight months after December 31—some possibly later than that, the earliest stage at which this committee could examine such accounts is after the Summer Recess in October. We then have a likely position in which the reports and accounts of many of these companies will not be looked at until perhaps the October after the December of the year which had concluded, namely, about nine or ten months after the start of the operations for the year in question. We are being optimistic in some cases in expecting debate at that time because, having regard to the large number of companies with which we are concerned, debate could run considerably later than that.

The committee should in the first instance have discussions with the semi-State bodies in question regarding dates of publication of accounts. If there is to be dynamism in this committee, if it is going to respond on behalf of the general public here, if there is going to be enlightened debate, if it is possible to be helpful in so far as operations of certain companies are concerned, it is desirable that these discussions should take place at as early a stage as possible. The danger is that, having regard to some bodies where accounts have been published very late, we may get into historical accounting to the extent that we are back to the trappings being there rather than power, and we will have a situation where the operations of some of these companies will be examined perhaps two or three years later than is desirable. This would be most undesirable and I hope this committee will, in a friendly sense and at an early stage, talk about this question of accounting procedures and publication of accounts. The relevant year is the year 1978 and the publication of accounts for the year will end for most of these companies at the end of December next year.

Finally, I know that this will provide useful dialogue and be of as much assistance to the chief executives and the boards and the various workers in the semi-State bodies as it will be to the Oireachtas. We are not on a witch hunt. They provide an excellent service to this country. I would imagine that the question of public accountability and the sensitivity where the public are concerned, which could be explained very well to these companies by Members of the Oireachtas, might in turn be very useful to them in that there is going to be two-way dialogue here. I would hope that when this committee gets involved in dialogue with these various semi-State bodies the normal format will be for dialogue to take place at some time during the debate in each company with the chief executive of each semi-State body. It needs this kind of significance. I hope that part of the dialogue will be between the committee and the chief executive of the organisation in question.

With the major reservations about the inclusion of Gaeltarra Éireann which is entirely inconsistent, having regard to the position in Bord Fáilte and the Industrial Development Authority—there is no reason for it or if there is, other companies should be in there with it and working on the principle that the Government is moving towards a situation of control of all semi-State bodies especially having regard to Mr. Colley's speech in the Dáil in 1976—I welcome this motion.

Mrs. Hussey

I will be very brief in welcoming the setting up of this committee which seems both a necessary and suitable function for the Oireachtas. It does call into question the whole way that we conduct our affairs. The provision and the use of the facilities in running this parliament strikes me as being more suited to an age before modern communications and before the complexities of parliamentary life reached what they are now.

There are umpteen committees meeting on Wednesdays in every corner of the House and across the road in other houses. All these committees are concentrated into a couple of days in the middle of the week and people are trying to be in two places at the same time, if not three or four places at the same time. It would be better to have no committee than a committee which only half functions.

From the experience that I have on various committees, so far, I am not satisfied that they are functioning fully. I am not blaming the people who are on those committees. We seem to be stuck in a system that we all deplore but nobody seems to be actually tackling what way we are going to solve it. Obviously Senators and presumably Dáil Deputies who wish to sit on these committees will be sure before they elect to do so that they will have the interest and the time to give to the committee. If the officials of the semi-State bodies are going to take time off from their own very pressing business which is the running of these bodies to come and present themselves before this committee, the least they can expect is that they will have a well attended, well organised, well informed body of public representatives to talk to. It has not been my experience that that has been the case on various committees that I have sat on so far.

There is a sepulchral silence about this place on a Monday and a Friday. I am from Dublin and I understand that difference but the fact remains that Leinster House and the house across the road and everywhere else has echoing halls on a Monday and a Friday. Everybody is gone away and there is complete silence, and it is not so good either on a Thursday afternoon. There is something the matter with the way the thing is being run. Other countries have managed to design systems so that their public representatives do not have to be all things to all men all the time. It is mentioned quite a lot, and I submit that it is about time something was done before we go on setting up very valuable committees like this. Study should be carried out of all the different committees which are in existence which have members who are Deputies and Senators. There should be a time-table of where they are all meeting, what the attendance rate is and why it is so bad. I should be at a meeting now but obviously I cannot be in two places at the same time. I doubt the efficiency or the effectiveness of setting up committees like this which are going to cost the taxpayers even more money than they are already paying if they cannot be organised in a modern efficient manner. Senator Mulcahy says that by trial and error these things will work out. There has been enough trial and error, and it is about time we stopped hoping for accidents to make things right.

There is a very important point which I would like to speak on. I was sorry that the last speaker did not mention it. It is the representation of Independents on this committee. It is extremely important that there should be an Independent on the Committee. The Independent Senators fill a place in this House which is written down in the Constitution of Ireland. We have a very specific place in this House and therefore any joint committee of Dáil and Senate which leaves us out is not a representative committee. We are presuming that there will be a place for Independents on this committee. Anything else would be unthinkable. It would be flying in the face of the intention of the person who wrote that Constitution in the first place. I am very glad that there was a ruling earlier which makes it quite clear that this House certainly has no wish to enter into any debate on, or, indeed, does not condone, the recent disgraceful situation where the salary of a chief executive was dragged through the public.

Mr. Markey

I want to raise five aspects of the whole project. I call it a project because it has been decided to set up this committee after practically half-a-century of experience of State-sponsored bodies being accepted by the public as beyond accountability to Government Departments. This was an unacceptable situation and I suppose it is better late than never that this committee has been set up. The first point is in regard to terms of reference. The motion refers to the committee examining the reports and accounts and overall operational results of State-sponsored bodies. I wonder whether the investigation of policy matters is invested in these terms of reference.

Paragraph (3) reads: "... if so requested by a State-sponsored body, the Joint Committee shall refrain from publishing confidential information". This is giving far too much power to State-sponsored bodies. It would appear that they can make a request at the beginning of any investigation and that that request must be acceded to. I would prefer if it had been written in that such a request could be discussed first of all and that a decision as to whether it would be accepted or not would be entirely at the discretion of the committee. As it stands, this committee will have no option but to accede to a request to refrain from publishing.

We are all aware of the workload of Members of both Houses and I think it is no harm to give an example of the committee's functions in regard to the State-sponsored bodies listed which are shown in Schedule A. We know that from time to time hell lets loose in regard to certain State-sponsored bodies. CIE comes under the hammer of public criticism from time to time as Aer Lingus did recently, and the ESB more times than not, and so on. If this happens when the committee is in existence I can see its members being obliged to give a considerable amount of time to examining a particular body; certainly in the case of CIE which runs into heavy annual deficits. The pressure on this committee will be tremendous from time to time, particularly when public criticism is vociferous. In that event I cannot see how the committee will be able to cope with the other two dozen or more bodies which are listed in Schedule A. This means that these bodies may not be subjected to regular examination and perusal that was envisaged in the setting up of the committee.

I cannot understand why the number to serve on the committee has been restricted to seven Deputies and four Senators, a total of 11 out of a total House membership of more than 200. In other words, only 5 per cent of the total membership of both Houses will be involved in this very important work. I cannot understand why the work of these bodies, which covers various matters such as transport, industry, tourism and agriculture, was not given for examination to a larger number of Deputies and Senators. The number could be at least doubled. The subjects for examination could then be divided amongst that membership of two dozen, or even more, from both Houses, which would give the committee a far greater opportunity to discuss and investigate all these matters. It would be quite easy to divide, say, the Joint Committee into three separate subcommittees each responsible for transport or for industry or for agriculture. In that way the public would get far greater service out of the proposed committee than it is going to. I certainly do not see the committee being able to perform the task which has been entrusted to it.

The back-up service has already been mentioned and I am afraid to say that, even in the Minister's opening address, there are certain indications that this back-up service will not be adequate. In his speech the Minister said: "In addition to a Secretariat, which need not, I think, be large, I will be prepared to make provision for the engagement of technical expertise, preferably on a limited-term basis for particular investigations". How big is large? The seven public representatives engaged on this committee are not going to have time for much more than putting down headings on points which come into their minds in regard to the State-sponsored bodies. It would be necessary to have sufficient research staff, even investigatory staff, to do the back-up work for the public representatives so that the committee can really function. If we do not give the committee sufficient and adequate back-up staff, we are going to kill it dead at a very early stage of its existence, and that is something we do not want to happen.

Our experience of the Public Accounts Committee shows that they are dealing too late with events and the actual expenditure of money to be really effective and to be able to do more than make vague recommendations. From that experience we see certain dangers which we should avoid. If we do not give the committee the necessary back-up staff, increase its membership, and give it adequate terms of reference, such as being able to examine policy matters of State-sponsored bodies and make decisions in regard to publishing documentary information, we will not achieve what we all hope will be achieved in regard to this Joint Committee.

In conclusion I should like to pay a tribute to the chief executive and officers of all semi-State bodies. They are much maligned from time to time. They take a very heavy public responsibility on themselves which is increasing from year to year. I am glad that they see in the formation of this committee an opportunity for them to let the public, through this committee, appreciate the difficulties under which they work. I have listed my reservations in regard to the committee and hope that the committee will function very soon. It is disappointing to find that the committee which was set up in late 1976 met only twice up to June of 1977 and that they did no more than consider procedural matters. I hope that this new committee will act quicker than that. Indeed, I cannot understand why it has taken from last June to the present time to re-establish this committee. Again, I am afraid, it indicates a lack of confidence in the ability of any committee comprised of such a small number to perform its function.

I request the Minister to get this committee working as soon as possible and to have them come back with recommendations. I have no doubt that they will have positive recommendations in regard to extending their research and investigatory staff, and the Minister should act on their recommendation as quickly as possible in order to achieve their overall purpose.

Mr. Jago

I welcome this committee and I also welcome the terms of reference as I have been rather worried about some of the expressed views on Oireachtas control. I do not believe the committee are going to set up Oireachtas control. There is Oireachtas accountability. Oireachtas control will really mean creating another body over the body that is already controlling the particular semi-State body. The Board creates that. Therefore, the work that we are envisaging is that the committee will examine the accounts and a person experienced in accounts can then see the questions to be asked.

From that you have accountability in the same way as you would have accountability in a public company where the shareholders would be told of the service the company is giving. Therefore you can have people on the committee who have experience and are used to examining accounts and do so quickly. On the other hand you can have people who are not very used to examining accounts. Two things would be important. One is a back-up service to analyse the accounts for the members of the committee whereby they can formulate the inquiries they want to make. The other thing is that those who are appointed to the committee must be regular attenders to keep the continuity there.

Professor Murphy

First, I support the plea made by Senators Martin and Hussey that membership of the Joint Committee should include one of the Independent Senators. After all, four of the five Independent Senators are present, active and it is not too presumptuous to suggest that they are not below average intelligence or level of information. In that connection I thought it was a bit condescending of Senator Mulcahy to suggest that we could be fobbed off by simply saying, "Well, you are going to get the reports of the committee". That is wilfully beside the point. The point has been made by other Senators and I am not going to labour it except to thank Senator Robinson, speaking from the Labour Front Bench, for her support for Independent representation.

Like other Senators, I welcome the Bill but I take Senator Markey's point that perhaps it was shortsighted to keep the level of membership at such a low number as 11 given the enormous number of State-sponsored bodies on the Schedule. I am very glad to welcome the setting up of this Joint Committee if for no other reason than that it will serve to inform the public of the work of the State-sponsored bodies and so deflect some of the frequently vicious flak aimed at public servants in the State-sponsored sector. This is particularly so with regard to CIE, where the social services offered by the national transport system are frequently ignored in a mean and deliberate denigration of its services.

With Senator Markey I also take this occasion to pay tribute to the great work done by the State-sponsored bodies, which is almost co-terminous with the history of this State. I am glad to see that according to the Minister's statement there is no question of a witch hunt or that the committee have primarily an inquisitorial function. I thought that Senator Staunton seemed to suggest that this is the way he saw the Joint Committee working, especially in his reference to Gaeltarra Eireann being included. Therefore, I am glad to see in the Minister's statement the reference to the fact that the chief executives have already indicated that they see the committee's role as a positive one which will enable the Oireachtas and the public to appreciate the difficulties they encounter and the challenges they face, which is a very important clause. Not only has the Oireachtas the right and the duty to oversee the work of the State-sponsored bodies but the institution of this committee will supply the Oireachtas with the opportunity for encouraging these State-sponsored bodies in their work and to see how farther they can extend and cooperate one with the other in the crucial economic period in which we are now living.

Pace Senator Staunton, it is preempting the issue to say that you start with the first principle that the public sector must not encroach on the private sector. The Joint Committee must not vitiate its own work by closing the options at the beginning. I think all the options should be open. Finally, it is very sensible on the whole to envisage, in paragraphs 7 and 8, the committee publishing interim reports. This will have the effect, inter alia, of keeping public interest alive and well informed. I do hope, however, that the final report of the committee will not be over-delayed.

Mr. Molony

I did not intend to speak on this motion, but the more I listened to some of the fine contributions that were made, the more I reflected on the sorry state of many of the joint committees that we have. Reference has already been made to the amount of work which the Joint EEC Committee had to deal with. Indeed, it occurs to me that a couple of weeks ago we had the first meeting of the Seanad committee on statutory instruments and I understand from the Clerk of that committee that the last committee on statutory instruments considered instruments up to 1976. If one were to bridge the lacuna that exists now, one would have to consider 1,000 statutory instruments. If the new committee on statutory instruments is to function at all, it is going to have to ignore a lot of the statutory instruments that have already come into effect. Between the Joint EEC Committee and all other committees that sit in relation to the work of these Houses there seems to be a great lack.

I welcome the motion both in the sense that this committee should be a watchdog, as it were, and also in the sense that chief executives of semi-State bodies can use this committee as a way of expressing their problems or the hopes they have for their enterprises. It is important that this committee be sufficiently staffed with back-up services and people. The number of seven from the Dáil and four from the Seanad is grossly inadequate to deal with the amount of work which is envisaged for the committee. One has only to glance down the list in Schedules A and B to realise the enormous area of enterprise that is covered. I support the remarks made by Senator Martin and other Senators. It is proper that Independent Senators, or at least one Independent Senator, should be on this committee. How they will be selected I do not know. There are Independent Senators on both sides of the House and presumably they will meet and discuss it amongst themselves.

It is sad that when we speak of the composition of the Seanad we too often think of the party composition. The only time the real composition of the Seanad seems to be relevant is at the time of elections. We forget that in the Seanad we have five specialist groups represented. Then we have the University Senators, not forgetting the soccer team. It would be a very good idea to enlarge the committee considerably, certainly double their strength, and to have the work subdivided among them. The Seanad representatives on the committee should not be just from party groups but from the five vocational panels and from the Independents.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Wyse)

As Senators were making their contributions it came to me forcibly that we are talking about setting up a structure and then monitoring it until it reaches perfection. The Senators had this very much in mind in their contributions. It is very important that we should monitor the proceedings and progress of this committee. I agree with the Senator who said that the workload is going to be a very important aspect. As one who worked on many Oireachtas committees, he is aware of the fact that too often in the middle of our business the bell rings for a division, and so on. These interruptions mean that you cannot specialise or give your fullest attention to the work on hand. This matter will need serious consideration. I am glad that so many Senators made contributions today. Again, we are talking about a structure, monitoring it, and seeing how we can bring about perfection in its workings.

Senator Cooney suggested that the chairman should be from the Opposition. This was not provided for in the motion before the previous Seanad. As I said in introducing the motion, the Government decided to try out the original scheme and we were not anxious to make any very elaborate changes in the original scheme. Therefore, the matter of the chairmanship, like other matters, can be reviewed when the committee have obtained some experience of their operations.

Senator Martin referred to the number of Senators to serve on the committee. On the number of four Members of the Seanad — I think he asked was that provided for. It was provided for in the original motion. We are making no significant changes in the original terms. As regards his point that an Independent Senator should be included, this is a matter for the Committee of Selection. I do not wish to stray into the committee's province but I am sure the committee will bear in mind the Senator's remarks. There was a strong case made today for the inclusion of an Independent Senator on the committee. However, I am not going to influence the committee in anything I say here today. It is a matter for themselves and I have no doubt that this matter will be seriously considered by them.

Senators mentioned the staffing of the committee which, of course, is very important. The Minister for the Public Service will meet all reasonable requests of the committee for staff. It is for the committee to decide in the first instance what staff they need. At this stage I believe that the administrative section need not be large but it is important that technical expertise be available to the committee. This will be needed and I have no doubt that the Minister concerned will ensure that these services are available to the committee. That is very important as too often, committees fail to function effectively unless they have sufficient staff and the necessary back-up services to help them.

Senator Staunton questioned the provision whereby State-sponsored bodies have the right ultimately to decide what information is confidential. I think a number of Senators touched on this matter today. I agree that this provision could be abused by a State-sponsored body, but at this stage it would be wrong to assume that such would occur. If it should occur, the committee would no doubt report it to the Oireachtas. If that happened, the Government would take the necessary steps to bring in amendments in that respect. If such an abuse arises, I think there is provision for the Minister to act, if he is satisfied that this is happening. The Members of the Oireachtas can bring abuses to the notice of the Government and the Government can bring in an amendment to prevent any further abuse.

The inclusion of Gaeltarra Éireann for its commercial activities has been questioned by Senator Staunton. The reason for the inclusion of Gaeltarra Éireann is that they were included in the motion for the previous committee when the then Minister for the Public Service accepted an amendment to have them included. I am afraid that the Senator was under some misapprehension when he suggested that Gaeltarra Éireann were not included in the previous Schedule. What may be confusing him is that he is looking at the original motion rather than the amended motion.

Senator Staunton also asked why non-commercial State-sponsored bodies are not included. The answer is twofold. First, the Government have decided to give the original idea of the committee a trial and the non-commercial bodies were not originally included. Second, as the Senator said, the committee as now proposed will have a greater workload and we must see how they function before we extend this mandate. It is very important that we know exactly how the work of the committee is going so that amendments or suggestions are recommended.

I said at the outset that we are talking about a very important structure which will need all possible consideration and advice as it works. For that reason, I want to thank Senators for their contributions. This is the first big step forward in parliamentary procedure. This has been agreed by all Members. Both sides of the House agree that this is something good, something that has been talked about for a long time. It is now in operation and I hope it will prove to be of benefit. I will certainly convey what has been said here today to the Minister and further consideration will be given to all aspects of the contributions. I thank Senators for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.