This provision is incorporated in most Bills and allows for expenses incurred to be subject to sanction by the Minister for Finance. This Bill, however, is not concerned with saving money. It is designed and expressed in such a way that it appears to have that effect. Reference is made to reasonable and practical things such as self-finance, attracting extra business, selling services, etc. However, when enacted, this legislation will involve spending more money. The break up of the IDA into IDA Ireland, Forbairt and Forfás did not save money; it increased the cost of bureaucracy and the operation of those agencies. I make that point because this section involves financing the implementation of the provisions of the Bill.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
This is a standard and normal provision in terms of expenses and their discharge from central Exchequer funds with the assent of the Minister for Finance. Deputy O'Rourke made an arguable point but it requires more discussion than we can engage in at this meeting. Her central thesis is that there has been a proliferation of agencies throughout the economy and it might be prudent if this were not the case. That is really a matter of industrial policy and opinion. Deputy O'Rourke may be correct, but I would like an opportunity to argue the point with her on an agency by agency basis. I do not believe there can be a generalised debate on this issue. I am sure that she will not accuse me of being partisan, but the previous Government of which she was a member was responsible for the proliferation of agencies.
I merely stated that I disagree with that proliferation.
I am not making a partisan point. However, in this particular case we are not breaking up any agency for the sake it or because we believe it is a good idea to do so. We are making this provision because there is a business and legal imperative involved. As the Deputy stated, the provision is perfectly normal but there will be some expenses associated with it. We are not aware of the extent of such expenses, but they should not be very high because the same people will be carrying out the same work. Deputy O'Rourke is correct that bureaucracy has a habit of costing more than intended and I take her point. However, I would not sponsor this Bill if the imperatives to which I referred were not behind it.
If finance is being provided under this section, will the Authority be empowered to raise its own expenses or fees?
Absolutely.
Does the Minister of State see the Authority as being self-financing?
I would not go that far. There is no doubt, however, that the Authority is empowered to levy fees. It is expected that approximately 75 per cent of its revenue will be generated in this way. Theoretically, it is open to the Authority to set its own fees and, perhaps, obtain an amount in excess of 75 per cent. However, I presume that judgment must be made in terms of the cost that will be borne by industry, etc. Deputy O'Keeffe is correct that there would be resistance, on the part of this or any Government, to extensive costs associated with the change of status. The exceptionally good work carried out by those employed by the NSAI in terms of income generation is to be commended and encouraged. As the Deputy stated, a significant contribution is being made.
We are providing a service to the industry and service sectors to improve their standards, give them a greater input into the market and give them a lead in promotion, based on a standard of equality.
That is precisely what it is — if you like, it is a hidden aid to industry. As against that, to trade in a modern economy our standards must be up to par and internationally recognised and our certification procedure must be such that it passes muster.
Question put and agreed to.