asked the Minister for Supplies if, in order to allay public uneasiness in the matter, he will call for, from Irish Shipping, Limited, and present to the Dáil, a report as to the number of ships purchased by them, the full prices paid for each such ship, the agents by whom purchase was effected in each case, the date of first registering of each ship, the condition of each ship as shown by survey and report thereon, the number of trips made and amount of cargo carried by each since each was purchased by Irish Shipping, Limited, and the amount already spent for repairs on each or already estimated as the cost of necessary repairs.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Purchase of Ships.
I am not aware of the existence of any public uneasiness on this matter, but I recognise that the attitude adopted by certain members of this House may tend to create uneasiness.
I do not propose to call for a report of the kind suggested. It has never been the practice to answer in the Dáil questions of detail regarding the administration of companies owned or controlled by the Government, and I see no sufficient reason for a departure from established practice in the case of Irish Shipping, Limited.
I have on several occasions stated in this House that it is not now possible to purchase good ships or cheap ships, judged by normal peace-time standards. The alternatives are to buy on the best possible terms such ships of suitable tonnage as may be offered from time to time, or to abandon any effort to import essential supplies to this country and to buy no vessels at all. Faced with a choice between these alternatives, the Government decided without hesitation to take such steps as are possible with a view to providing for imports of essential supplies. It was always recognised that the effort would be a costly one and the Government take full responsibility for the policy involved.
In view of the form in which this question is put I may remind the House, as a matter of interest, that on a previous occasion I mentioned that Irish Shipping, Limited had been offered a profit of £25,000 on one of the ships which it had purchased and which had been the subject of very critical comment in this House. Since that date, I understand, the company has been offered for one of its ships double the price which it paid for it.
Inasmuch as the Minister has been prepared to communicate to this House the profitable nature of certain of this company's transactions, does he not agree that that imposes on him an obligation to communicate to the House the nature of the other transactions to which he has deemed it imprudent at present to refer?
I do not think so.
If we are to hear half the story, we ought to hear it all. If we are to hear about ships for which the company was offered £25,000 more than they paid, ought we not to hear about the ship purchased for six figures and which they were told to sell as scrap for five figures.
There is no such ship.
Tell us the whole story and then we shall know.
It is quite obvious that the Deputy's only concern is to sabotage the efforts of this Government in a difficult situation.
Sabotage my foot!
How about being civil, Deputy?
Would the Minister not consider it desirable to communicate to each Party in the House a statement in connection with Irish Shipping, Ltd., giving in substance the information asked for——
No, certainly not.
——because information of that kind might very well enable Deputies to form a judgment on the matter which would be comprehensive and of a kind which might avoid the submission of questions of this type, if such questions were calculated to do any public damage.
A report will be given to the House when there has been sufficient time to enable the operations of this company to be judged as a whole.
Surely if the Minister thinks it undesirable to have questions of this kind submitted, the best way of avoiding any questions calculated to be of a sabotage character, is to give the House all the information he has in his possession? The money invested in Irish Shipping, Ltd., was not the Minister's money, nor was it the Government's money. It was the people's money, and surely we are entitled to some explanation as to what the company is doing in present circumstances?
I am not responsible for the administration of the company.
I know the Minister is not responsible, but the Minister is responsible for the money invested in it. It is not the Minister's money, it is the people's money.
That has nothing whatever to do with it.
The Deputy is now making a speech.
I have been asking interrogatories all the time. Why cannot we get from the Minister a statement as to what is happening to the money invested by the people in this company? Surely it is desirable to give the House that information. Why should there be a hush-hush about it in any case?
There is no hush-hush about it. A company has been established which is independent of Ministerial supervision. For the management of the business of that company the board of the company alone is responsible. I am not going to submit the company to the ridiculous burden of having every detail of its administration examined here by Deputies who are solely concerned to find fault, and to prevent the company carrying out the duty which it was established to carry out.
I do not know of any Deputy who wishes to find fault. I desire to get some information as to what the company is doing. The Minister has taken power by an Emergency Powers Order to invest the Guards with the right to examine the contents of a petrol tank in a motor car.
The Deputy may not make a speech.
Why cannot the Minister ask the company to furnish a report of what it has done?
I am fully aware of what the company has done and is doing.
I assume that is happening, but it is the people's money that is invested in this and not the Minister's. Will he inform all Parties in the House what the company is doing, and why the hush-hush?