Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. As I said to the Tánaiste previously, it is nice to have former Senators back here and to see them doing so well.

I welcome Senator Ó Céidigh's Bill. I admire him for much of what he has done over his career. Unfortunately, I am unable to support his Bill on this occasion. I welcome the fact that he has brought it forward for discussion. Senator McDowell's contribution was quite reasoned and thoughtful in terms of pointing out the pros and cons of why someone might be contemplating such legislation. Unfortunately, from Senator Ó Céidigh's perspective, Fianna Fáil will not support the Public Bodies Review Agency Bill 2016. We believe that any body or agency that is no longer needed can be disbanded and a new super quango is not required to do so. If Ministers have the political will and the justification for disbanding an agency they can already do so. In 2011 Fine Gael campaigned to get rid of quangos but all it has done since is add to the list. Irish Water is probably the most memorable of the more recent State bodes that have been set up. It would be on the list to be controlled or regulated were this Bill to be enacted.

The purpose of the agency is to review, at seven-yearly intervals, the effectiveness of the public bodies within a view to ensuring that their statutory remit remains of relevance and that each public body continues to discharge its functions in the most effective way possible. The idea behind the Bill is that companies in the private sector must constantly adapt and change in order to survive but the same pressure does not exist in public bodies. It is intended that the review agency would provide some of this pressure, thus making the operation of public bodies more relevant. The agency will have the responsibility to review 140 different bodies at least once every seven years. The list is extensive and includes the Child and Family Agency, Bord Bia, the Arts Council, IDA Ireland, the Central Statistics Office, NAMA and the NTMA. I shall not list them all. If the Minister does not implement a recommendation then he or she will have to compile a report on why not within 90 days. However, this would lead to a massive overhaul of all legislation pertaining to State bodies, which would cost a significant amount of money.

The agency will likely require experts. Reference has been made to a board of ten members and a chief executive. I do not have an idea of how big or small the body would be in terms of staff. It will likely require external expertise and that means the appointment of experts, auditors and consultants. The measure is again likely to cost a significant amount of money for potentially not a great level of return. It is unlikely that the expertise would be available inhouse to review public bodies as diverse as the Pensions Authority, the Sports Council and the National Transport Authority. A new agency would simply add to the bureaucracy of running a public body. The review of public bodies already takes place and the platform already exists. Ministers, spokespeople, the Committee of Public Accounts and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform are all capable of performing such reviews. Unfortunately, it is for those reasons that my party is not in a position to support the Bill.

Every one of these agencies has a board. They also have nominations that I presume are ministerial in nature or need ministerial approval. We know that some people have found it difficult to fill their boards because they do not have enough information on how to fill a board. People can look at the website stateboards.ieto learn how to apply for a position on a State board. I was a member of one of the bodies listed in the legislation. I was appointed to the Dental Council, which had no fees nor expenses. The Dental Council is located on Merrion Square and I can almost see it out of the window if I look hard enough. The Dental Council is self-funding. It maintains the register and is the regulator of dentists and is funded by fees paid by dentists. In terms of the legislation, an element of review takes place anyway. Most members of State boards will try to make sure that their board is as effective, efficient and relevant as what it is supposed to be. Recently we were briefed by Teagasc and heard about all of its great work. Teagasc has been listed in the legislation, along with one of its companies, Moorepark Technology Limited.

As Senator Mulherin and other Senators have referenced, we got rid of 80 town councils and merged councils in Waterford, Limerick and Tipperary. We merged the city and county councils in the case of Waterford and Limerick and the Tipperary north and south county councils were merged. The Local Government Management Agency absorbed the Local Government Computer Services Board. That shows this work can be done.It is not Senator Ó Céidigh's fault or the fault of anyone who is proposing it but it could be looked at as a kind of "Yes, Minister" scenario. The character in that fictional mockumentary was Minister for Administrative Affairs. Effectively, we would be setting up a huge body to re-examine bodies that are already there and which should be examined. I support the concept and thrust of looking at public bodies to make sure they are relevant but I am not sure this is the best mechanism. To conclude, I will not be able to support the Bill.