Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 16, line 7, after "Directive" to insert ", unless otherwise determined by the Minister".

This amendment concerns the involvement of the Minister in the consideration of directives. The reason for it relates to our experience in other places. I would like the Minister to think back over the discussions we have had in the past couple of years on issues such as the HSE and political accountability. The amendment concerns the division of responsibility and accountability and where the Minister sits in all of these arrangements. I am completely in favour of creating space, but in all situations there should be provision for oversight of the activities of anybody with responsibility. In a democracy, the only way to ensure oversight is by providing for political responsibility. I am not saying a Minister should micro-manage the work about which we are talking. What I am saying is that there are situations where directives might cut across Government policy or what the Minister might believe he or she stands for or might not be in the common good. Therefore, we should always include a fail-safe mechanism providing for the involvement of the Minister.

The relevant portion of the Bill states "The Commission shall be national regulatory authority for the purposes of the Directive." I am happy for it to be the national authority but there should be some political accountability. Why am I saying this? I have given the Minister the example of the HSE, and every week someone in the House questions whether it is right to give away all responsibility.

There is also the example of taxi regulation. We all agreed with the general purpose of taxi regulation when it was established. We found ourselves in a position not too long after this where the Taxi Regulator insisted that taxi fares be increased although the people in the industry were opposed to it. They felt it was bad for the industry and it did not make sense when there was less marginal income for people to spend. They were unhappy with many aspects of the issue. There was no way we could intervene politically and I cannot tell how many times this could happen. We could not see how that could happen.

I will use the Minister's own area as an example and deal with electricity prices. In the interests of regulation and competition, the regulator has decided the ESB should not be in a position to reduce prices to compete with other suppliers. I am not arguing the reasons for doing this as I understand them but there may be cases where such action as the regulator has taken would not be acceptable. The point is we gave away this responsibility and there is no political accountability. There should be a fail-safe option. I am not pushing the wording in the amendment but in the interests of how we do business in a democracy, the Minister should have the power to intervene in cases where he or she feels the issue is going the wrong way.

This is a logical position and the point could be argued for the importance of independent regulation. I am not trying to undermine that and I am not asking that Ministers micro-manage regulation. Neither am I asking that regulators seek the approval of Ministers. This is step down the line from that idea, meaning a Minister could intervene in certain cases. I am keen to hear how other Members feel about this but the matter is important and should be looked at again.