Seanad debates

Wednesday, 7 December 2016

Public Bodies Review Agency Bill 2016: Second Stage

 

10:30 am

Photo of Paul GavanPaul Gavan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will begin by welcoming the opportunity to discuss the Bill in the Chamber. It is clear there has been a substantial amount of work put into this legislation by the Senator and I fully accept that it is well-intentioned. We recognise that the proposal for further scrutiny and oversight of our public bodies has merit, however we have concerns over this particular method of regulation. Our primary concern is in regard to the establishment of just one single agency that would regulate all public bodies. We have particular concerns about the proposed new agency's democratic accountability. Will this new agency effectively push public representatives further away from the process of scrutinising public bodies and therefore ensure that political scrutiny of public agencies is reduced? We should also recognise that such a new agency could potentially become a Trojan horse with the intention of curtailing the remit of public bodies and could also be used by those in power for purposes not in keeping with the public interest. The best place to scrutinise and regulate public bodies is in the sectoral committees of the Oireachtas. The health and finance committees, for example, should be meeting regularly to ensure the public bodies within their remit are performing. The responsibility for scrutinising public bodies should not be left to one agency every seven years because every seven years will not cut it. We need to be much more effective in establishing the democratic accountability of those bodies. If individuals are not satisfied that sectoral committees are doing an adequate job of reviewing public bodies, perhaps we should reform the committees rather than creating a new quango. There is no little irony in the proposal to establish a new quango in order to cut down on their overall number.

We are concerned that there is potential for this agency to become a political football. While this Bill may be well-intentioned, there is the possibility of it becoming a balancing act between the agency doing what it feels is the correct thing and being hijacked by legislators and lobbyists. We saw this previously with the Combat Poverty Agency, which was silenced by the Government in 2008 during a hostile takeover of a watchdog that was very focal and critical of Government budgets. What happened to that agency? The Government said the agency would be axed and incorporated into a much larger body. All too conveniently for the Fianna Fáil Government of the time, the Combat Poverty Agency was taken off the pitch. We do not want to see the same thing to happen to other public bodies in the future, especially when it is at the behest of this proposed public bodies review agency, which lacks the democratic accountability of Dáil and Seanad committees.

I have taken a look at some other similar models in other countries and I am a bit concerned by one model in particular which is cited in the explanatory memorandum as a possible solution. That model is the Sunset Advisory Commission in Texas. It does what this Bill would ask the proposed new agency to do. It should go without saying that Texas is not exactly a byword for progressive politics. We discovered that the Sunset Advisory Commission has been strongly criticised for being driven by unelected bodies and doing what powerful people want it to do. It has also been criticised for not accepting any proposals beside ones which had the blessing of the oil and gas industry, all of which points to an agency controlled by anyone but elected officials. The Sunset Advisory Commission also prides itself on how many agencies it has abolished and how much money it saves, which is concerning when one considers the story of the Combat Poverty Agency mentioned just a moment ago. In light of this, we really have to consider the ideology behind the body which prides itself on the number of agencies it has abolished. Is this simply a way for the Government to shrink regulation and the public sector, which would lead to more outsourcing?

Amid all this talk of regulation, we must remember that it was not the public sector that caused the financial crash eight years ago; it was the private sector. It was reckless lending, borrowing and investments within the banking and housing sector. It is the private sector in which a significant amount of additional oversight and scrutiny needs to be applied. Coming back to this public sector review agency, it is our position that the oversight of public bodies is best done by public representatives rather than having those public representatives pushed back to arm's length.

In the interest of public oversight and accountability all replies, including deferred or delayed replies from the HSE, should be published on the Dáil record with a link to the original parliamentary question. The Government needs to end the practice of Minister's not answering for their semi-State and arm's length bodies. For that reason, Sinn Féin would prefer to see bodies such as the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts extended rather than creating a new quango that outsources these responsibilities to unelected officials who are not held to account. For these reasons, Sinn Féin will not be supporting the Bill. We recognise that a great deal of work has gone into the legislation and we welcome further discussion on public and private sector regulation.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.