McGreedy Coup D'etat?

dahamsta

Reading a debate on the Communications Bill in the Seanad yesterday, I noticed that there seemed to be rather a lot of sniping about the Finance Minister's attempt to insinuate himself into just about everything these days, for example:

[Mr. Coghlan:] The Minister for Finance is mentioned constantly in the Bill---

Mrs. O'Rourke: He has been here in the House. He is pre-eminent in all our activities.

Mr. Coghlan: The point I am making is that the office of the Minister for Finance is so dominant and appears in so many sections. It appears one cannot go to the toilet without asking the permission of the master, the Minister for Finance.

Mrs. O'Rourke: That could be interesting.

Mr. Coghlan: It might be but the Minister knows the point I am making. It struck me forcefully this morning as I read through the Bill.

And later on in the debate:

[Dr. Henry:] Like Senator Coghlan, I wonder whether it will be slowed down and taken over given that the Minister for Finance is so heavily involved. Perhaps, if he is well occupied in the other House, we may be able do something with the Bill on Committee Stage to remove his heavy hand from various sections.

The Minister for Finance seems to have a more powerful role in every part of the public service. I do not know if the Minister, the Cathaoirleach or other Senators noticed two letters published in The Irish Times last week relating to the Freedom of Information Act as it affects the Department of Health and Children. Since the Government took office - I know Senator Liam Fitzgerald has his views on hospital consultants - we have been trying to work towards a consultant provided service, or so we thought. I was a member of Comhairle na n-Ospidéal when we brought this forward. We were appointing more consultants and trying to cut back on the number of non-consultant hospital doctors. The next thing we see is a letter in the newspaper dated early January from the Department of Finance stating a consultant provided service is not necessarily the way we will go. There was an anguished reply from the Secretary General of the Department of Health and Children. The Department of Finance and, I presume, the Minister seem to be stepping in when other Departments are trying to make progress. The manpower task force has been proceeding on the basis that there will be a consultant provided service. Comhairle na n-Ospidéal has been doing the same. I can see the same thing happening in this case.

As the Minister said, the commission is to be independent. I was delighted she gave such praise to the regulator, Ms Etain Doyle, who has done a tremendous job with good humour, especially since she has had her own problems with the Department of Finance. The Minister may remember a big fight last year when the issuing of one licence was considerably slowed down.

Mrs. O'Rourke: 3D.

Dr. Henry: The Minister for Finance, as far as I can remember, wanted a high minimum fee while the regulator wanted to make sure there was coverage throughout the country. The process was delayed by about one year until they reached a settlement. This may happen more frequently in the case of this legislation.

The commission will be independent because it will raise its own money. I notice it can provide for borrowings for which the Minister will have to give permission, but it is the Minister for Finance who will have his hand around the Minister's neck in giving the permission. Did the regulator ever borrow from the Minister? I have no idea about this. Was the regulator able to sustain her department with her own levies? Why will the commission not be able to do this rather than have situations such as that outlined in section 13 which deals with directions of the Minister? As Senator Coghlan said, the Minister appears to be able to give all the directions apart from awarding individual licences.

It worries me enormously that section 13(4)(b) states: "...the means by which entitlements to use such spectrum may be assigned (including appropriate fees), and in giving such direction the Minister shall have regard to principles of good frequency management." That is fair enough, but the next subsection states: " A direction under subsection (1) relating to fees referred to in subsection (4)(b) may only be given with the consent of the Minister for Finance." In other words, the Minister for Finance will control competitions. That is not good. We should, therefore, remove the subsection in question because the Minister for Finance will control competitions, not the commission, as a result of which it will not be independent.

It is quite bizarre that the commission will have its own money and pay its staff, but section 20(3)(a) states that the Minister and the Minister for Finance shall determine the number, grading, remuneration and other conditions of service of staff to be appointed by the office of the commission. That should be taken out of the Bill. It is only numbers at the moment, but it will not do. The commission might decide it wants six very senior people and no one else. It might decide it wants two very senior people and half a dozen consultants. Control of that cannot be left with the Minister for Finance. If that is the case, how could one consider the commission independent? We can change this - I am sure the Minister for Finance will never find out. Does the Minister think he has spies here?

Mrs. O'Rourke: I am afraid they have just looked in this very minute.

Dr. Henry: We are speaking to a very discreet audience.

Mrs. O'Rourke: They have spies all the time.

Dr. Henry: I am sure the schoolchildren who have joined us in the Gallery will not tell the Minister a word.

The behaviour of the (Finance) Minister seems to weight quite heavily on the minds of our elder statesmen. I wonder if anyone else on the board finds this as fascinating as me, or if I'm just turning into a boring old fart?

adam

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by dahamsta
[B or if I'm just turning into a boring old fart?

adam [/B]

with faaaaar too much time on his hands....