This amendment was discussed last night. Its purpose, as is clear from the wording, is to provide for some method of selecting staff for the proposed news agency by competitive examination. That suggestion moved the Minister to personalities and I am sorry that he should be so irritated by any suggestion to deprive him of the powers of patronage which the Bill confers on him. I do not want to repeat what I have said. If the Minister is not prepared to accept it, I record my protest and withdraw the amendment.
Irish News Agency Bill, 1949—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:—
Before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—
Every appointment to any situation in the service of the agency shall be made by means of competitive examination conducted according to regulations to be made by the Civil Service Commissioners. —(Deputy Lemass).
The Deputy mentioned two statutes yesterday relating to the National Stud and the Industrial Development Authority. There are no such provisions in relation to either of these bodies.
That will not apply to amendment No. 15.
I should like to know if the Minister has had an opportunity of inquiring into the method by which appointments were made to the staffs of the broadcasting service—appointments to the talks staffs and the various selections made under Government regulations.
I have not had an opportunity of going into it.
The Minister will?
Of course.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 13 is the same as amendment No. 7.
Amendment No. 13 and amendment No. 19 are the same amendment in a different context.
Amendment No. 19 deals with a different point.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (2), to insert before paragraph (b) a new paragraph as follows:—
( ) the said articles shall provide that no remuneration shall be payable to any director other than the managing director so long as any advances from the Minister are outstanding;.
The Minister has given us no precise information as to the functions which the proposed directors of this agency should perform or as to the remunerations they are to receive. Deputy Cowan yesterday assumed that the directors would act as censors of the journalists employed by the agency, and have responsibility for approving of all material issued by them. I assume that is not correct and that the directors will be concerned only with the business activities of the agency. If so, I think it likely that their directorial functions or duties will be very light.
The general type of supervision which they will exercise over the business of the agency will not involve frequent meetings or any great sacrifice of time and, in view of the fact that the future of the agency is very speculative and that the likelihood of its making profits or being in a position to repay the advances which it is to receive from the Exchequer is not very great, I think that the Minister should endeavour to ensure that we get directors who will discharge these light duties without remuneration or, in any event, that the remuneration should be conditional upon their making the agency a financial success.
I am not very clear with regard to the suggestions made by Deputy Lemass. Am I to take it that the directors are supposed to be only just nominal directors?
Do not ask me; ask the Minister.
I believe that if we face up to this matter from a business point of view and a national point of view, we can arrive at some decision as a result of which both sides of the House will be able to agree on a proposal from which some good will emanate for the country. I do not know what Deputy Lemass intends to do but from his remarks some time ago, I thought we were going to have something in the nature of a miniature war. However, wiser councils prevailed and Deputy Lemass and the Minister have arrived at the same decision—whether it was telepathy or not I do not know. They decided that they would not have any row here this evening.
I am not committed to that.
I do not know whether the Deputy is or not, but that is my assumption. If I am wrong, I am open to contradiction. I believe, anyway, that we should face up to this problem, not in any Party or parochial spirit but from a big national point of view. I am delighted to hear Deputy Cowan say "Hear, hear". I am sure that when it comes to taking big decisions Deputy Cowan will repeat that "Hear, hear", in regard to decisions which are going to improve the standard of life in this country. With reference to the precise information required by Deputy Lemass, I remember not very long ago seeking certain precise information in this House and, by the time I got it, I knew as much about the matter as when I started. I should like Deputy Lemass to give me some terms of reference, so to speak, with regard to this precise information. Deputy Lemass probably knows more about this Bill——
Would the Deputy come down to the amendment? We are on amendment No. 14.
I am just trying to elicit from Deputies, who undoubtedly have a greater knowledge of this amendment than I have, exactly what they mean. I am exhorting them to give the Minister their 100 per cent. support to make the Bill what it was originally intended to be.
We are not dealing with the Bill. We are dealing with amendment No. 14.
I am afraid that with my limited information with regard to the amendment, I am dealing only with generalities.
I am afraid so.
I would appeal to Deputy Lemass to give us the benefit of that wonderful fund of information and knowledge which he undoubtedly possesses. I pay that tribute to Deputy Lemass. We all appreciate his services during the emergency, and irrespective of what we may say about him at any other time——
Would the Deputy say something about the amendment, not about Deputy Lemass?
Spare my blushes.
I do not want to paint the lily white, but, in any case, I would ask Deputy Lemass to give us whatever he has at his disposal——
I am afraid I shall have to ask the Deputy to resume his seat. He is not dealing with the amendment.
In putting a proposition like this forward, one generally makes an estimate of what the initial cost is likely to be. I am not talking about the £25,000, because I assume the Minister is not going to plunge and spend the whole of it at once. Has he made out any estimate of what the expenses will be in the first year? It would give some satisfaction to the House and the public in general if we could know how much money he expects to spend, anticipating even roughly how much he may expect to get in revenue, even if there is a marginal loss for the first year or so.
Will the Deputy relate that to the amendment?
I think it arises on this amendment. There is a question as to remuneration and the amendment says it is not to be given until there is a balance struck.
Amendment No. 23 deals with that specifically and it might be more convenient to deal with it on that amendment.
I think the Minister might answer the question put by Deputy Lemass. The Bill provides that there are to be not less than three or more than five directors, including the chairman and the managing director, and the amendment provides that no remuneration shall be payable to any director, other than the managing director, so long as any advances from the Minister for Finance are outstanding. I take it that at this stage the Minister has in his mind some idea of the bones of this news agency, as to whether he is to appoint three or five directors, and whether those directors are to be paid or not. The Minister ought to be able to indicate at this stage whether it is proposed to pay them and, if it is proposed to pay them, how much it is proposed to pay. It might be unreasonable to tie the Minister down to the last shilling, but we could have a rough figure, within £100 or so, of the remuneration to be paid to those directors.
If, as I suggested last night, those directors are to be civil servants, or if one of them is to be a civil servant, is he to be paid, in addition to his salary as a civil servant, out of the funds of this news agency? That is important, because the qualification for being a director is to hold at least one share in the agency and it is provided in the Bill that that share will be paid by the Minister for Finance. The whole thing, of course, is fictional. The qualification for a director is the holding of at least one share and the Bill provides that that one share will be paid for by the Minister for Finance. The Minister ought to be able to say whether these are to be civil servants or whether some of them are to be civil servants. If they are not to be civil servants, what are they to be paid? If they are to be civil servants, will they be paid anything in addition to their official salary?
I make the suggestion at this stage that, if the Minister would give as much information as he possibly can to the House, he would probably facilitate the discussion of the Bill and the amendments. If we are to be met, every time we ask for information, with a stone wall refusal to give the information, I think it is discourteous to the House and unfair to Deputies. I ask the Minister to indicate what he has in mind. If he did indicate that, I might be able to take a different view. But, as it is, and knowing how Acts have been used in the past to do things that were never in the mind of anybody who took part in the passing of these Acts, I feel that it is a wise thing that each Deputy should, in so far as he possibly can, obtain all the information that can possibly be got so that he will be clear in his own mind as to what exactly he is doing when he is passing the Bill or a section. I feel for myself that if we are placed in blinkers, if we are denied information that it is reasonable to ask for, we may be doing something here that will be regretted in the future.
The Deputy is only making fictional snowballs.
Certainly it is a nice point of view if a Deputy is not to know exactly what he is voting for. They may be fictional snowballs, as Deputy Timoney calls them, but I think, like the snowball, that type of interruption melts before ordinary common sense. I certainly do not appreciate that it is any part of my duty on any Bill, no matter by whom introduced, to vote for it unless I know exactly what is intended by it. If Deputy Timoney knows whether these people are to be civil servants or not, whether they are to be paid or whether they are not, it would be helpful if he would tell us.
They may be paid.
If they are to be paid, how much are they going to be paid?
I think the Minister made it clear last night that they would be paid at least trade union rates.
Last night we were concerned about people who are not paid sufficient.
We were talking about directors.
That shows how much Deputies who are interrupting know about the Bill. Last night, when we got an assurance about trade union rates, it related to the staff. Now we are dealing with directors. One would imagine that when Deputies come in to support a Bill like this, and support it to the extent of interrupting in the way that the interruptions are being carried on, they at least would have some idea as to what they are talking about. I regret that two colleagues——
We do not share your omniscience.
——who ought to know something about the interpretation of Bills and Acts should know so little about this particular one.
Perhaps the Deputy would come back to the amendment and get away from the homily.
I am sorry that I was drawn away from it. I think it has been put very reasonably to the Minister that he should give some information to the House as to what this section actually means. However, I am pressing the Minister to give information out of ordinary courtesy to the House, apart from anything else.
The common ground between Deputy Lemass and Deputy Cowan on this amendment appears to be the common desire to tie the Minister's hands. That is applicable to this amendment as it was, without exception, to every other amendment that has been proposed here. I would appeal to the House not to so emasculate this Bill that it cannot be utilised for the purpose for which it is intended. An attempt has been made in the House, since the debate on the Committee Stage started, so to emasculate the Bill as to make it useless to this or to any succeeding Government.
We do not know what exactly is intended by the Bill. I do not think it is unreasonable at this stage to ask the Minister whether he has yet made up his mind as to who will be the directors—I do not want him to give names—and whether they will be civil servants or whether he proposes, say, to make a journalist managing director. Now, I do not think it is a bit unreasonable to ask that. I do not think it is unreasonable for Deputy Cowan to ask if the Minister would indicate what would be the salary of the managing director and of the other two directors. Will the Minister say now whether he intends appointing a journalist or journalists on the directorate?
The Deputy should deal with the amendment first. The question is whether the directors will be remunerated or not.
I hope that we will not have to enter into a discussion all over again to deal with some of the points that have been made by Deputies. In the first instance, I am not aware that I refused to give any information to this House concerning any questions that were asked by any of the Deputies. I cannot, however, keep on repeating the same information over and over again if Deputies choose to ignore the answers that I have given as well as the information that I gave originally. I dealt with most of the matters that have been raised on the Committee Stage fairly fully on the Second Reading.
Questions have been asked as to who the directors are likely to be. I have not really considered the matter very fully yet. Until the Bill was passed, I preferred to leave the provisions there in the form in which it is usual to find them in such Bills and without getting down to the consideration of the actual personnel. I would say it is probable that one or two members of the board would be civil servants. I would say that would be so in the normal course. I do not want to be tied to that. I would say that, in the normal course of events, somebody from the Department of External Affairs should be on the board and, possibly, somebody from the Government Information Bureau. But, again, I do not want to be tied to that. It seems to me that it would make for co-operation and smooth working if that were done. For these reasons it is very obvious that the question of the remuneration of the directors must vary in each individual case. One assurance that I would certainly give the House is that no excessive remuneration will be paid to any of the directors or to anybody else in the employment of the news agency. I can give that assurance to the House, and I willingly do so.
With regard to the amendment, I do not think it can have been put down seriously. In effect, it proposes that the directors should receive no remuneration at all. As I indicated to the House. I do not expect that the news agency for some considerable time will show any profit or will be in a position to repay any of the advances made. Therefore, the proposal in the amendment in effect suggests that the directors should be on a voluntary basis. I do not think that would be practicable. It is not a proposal that was ever introduced in any of the various measures that were proposed to this House by Deputy Lemass or by the members of the last Government in introducing similar measures.
I would like to correct the Minister on that. It has been, I would say more often than not, the practice not to pay remuneration to the directors of State-sponsored companies in their initial stages. I could name a large number of companies which functioned during the emergency the directors of which carried a heavy burden of responsibility and none of whom accepted remuneration. There is the case of Irish Shipping, Limited, the directors of which received no remuneration during the earlier years of the company's existence. I think most Deputies will know that it is a common practice in business for the directors of a new company not to accept their fees until the company has got over its initial difficulties and is beginning to cover its expenses, if not to make a profit. There is absolutely nothing unprecedented in the suggestion that the directors of this company should receive no fees during the stage in which the company is making losses. There are many examples of companies of that kind established by the last Government and numerous examples in ordinary commercial life.
Would the Deputy point out to me a similar sub-section to that which he proposes to introduce into this Bill in any of the Acts which he introduced?
It is quite true that the legislation usually provided that the remuneration should be determined by Order of the Minister concerned or by the Minister for Finance. In this particular case we are asking for information. We have not got the information. I gathered from the Minister's reply that these directors are going to be remunerated. That was implied in his observations, if not stated directly. We got the assurance that the remuneration will not be excessive. What does the Minister mean by "excessive"? Would he regard £100 a year in fees to a director as excessive or inadequate? Can he give us some information as to what he has in mind, without committing himself?
I am quite prepared to admit that in a case of this kind it might be undesirable to fix a figure in the Bill, but it would not be unusual to fix a maximum figure in the Bill, and that assurance of having such a figure in the legislation would, ordinarily, be sought by the Dáil. It is, I think, only reasonable to look upon this House as a gathering of shareholders. We are the people who are being asked to provide the money which the company can lose, and we want some indication that that money is going to be usefully spent and not squandered unnecessarily. It seems to me that the putting of a board of directors on this organisation is like inverting a pyramid. It seems to me that it could be run by one individual, a competent director and staff. Why it must have a whole remunerated board of directors, plus an advisory committee to see how a limited number of officials work, I cannot understand. If we are going to provide the money for this service, let us at least ensure that the bulk of the money will go on the service and not in paying salaries to people supervising the way in which other people work.
I am agreeably surprised to learn from Deputy Lemass that we have such a large number of people in the business world who are so unselfish as to do all they can to get on the boards of new industries established in recent times, and then deny themselves the right to draw directors' fees.
It is quite common.
I admit you know more about this business than I do, but I am agreeably surprised to hear that. If that is so, why is there all this gate-crashing for representation on the boards of these new industries? I have taken a very keen interest, a personal and a small financial interest, in some companies. When you go around your constituency looking for people to put money into industry, the first thing you are asked is: "What are you going to do in this yourself?" I have taken a nominal share, because that is all I can afford, in some industries established in my own area so that I would have a right to attend meetings and read the balance sheet. I have read no balance sheets where the directors declined, for the reasons given by Deputy Lemass, to draw fees before the concern was paying.
Invest in the Irish Press to start with.
That may be one company. I wish some of the public concerns that went bankrupt refused to pay directors' fees until they were on a firm, financial foundation. Unfortunately, that was not done in some of the cases of which I know.
Does the Minister visualise that these directors will be whole-time, or will they be part-time? Are they going to give up their own businesses and become whole-time directors of this organisation, or will they simply be part-time directors and attend meetings weekly, fortnightly or monthly as the case may be? That is something the Minister has probably thought out and I would like him to deal with it because it has a bearing on the amendment. If these directors attend meetings weekly, fortnightly or monthly, then there will be no case for any remuneration at all beyond some out-of-pocket expenses if they happen to have to travel a long distance. Will the Minister tell us whether he visualises that this will be a full-time job for the three or five directors?
Of course it is not going to be a whole-time job. It is going to be a part-time position the same as the boards of any other companies. At the beginning I imagine they will have to meet very frequently. As to their remuneration, I hope some of them may not have to receive any remuneration at all. Deputy Lemass has asked me what I would consider excessive remuneration. I am quite certain his views and mine on that point do not coincide, because I look upon many remunerations which were directly or indirectly sanctioned during his period of office as being excessive.
Is that all the information we are going to get?
What other information do you require?
Do you not agree that it is a desirable principle to establish in a case of this kind that directors, other than the managing director, who are given responsibility for the commercial success of the undertaking, should not receive fees until they see they are within sight of achieving success? It has been done and such cases are available. I mentioned Irish Shipping, Fuel Importers and Grain Importers. Even the directors of Fáilte Teoranta, who got nothing but abuse over the management of their hotels, got no fees. There are people who are prepared to work as directors without fees. I am not asking that they should work without fees in perpetuity. I am asking that they should work without fees until it is clear that the concern is likely to pay its way.
We all know the position with regard to Córas Iompair Éireann.
The shareholders were responsible there.
What is the difference between fees and expenses?
I am not aware that the shareholders of Córas Iompair Éireann had very much to do with determining the remuneration paid to the directors.
They are the only people who had anything to do with it in law or in fact.
Anything to do with it? Read the Transport Act.
The Minister should read it.
Does Deputy Lemass suggest that he does not know who decided that remuneration by way of salary and allowances to the extent of £6.500 should be paid to the chairman of that company?
I had nothing to do with it. It was determined by the shareholders and the other directors, and paid by them.
And you represented the community interest?
I am telling you that they paid it.
Without any sanction from the Minister?
Without any sanction.
And without the Minister being made aware of it?
Without the Minister being required to take action of any kind whatsoever. I will give you the facts straight if you want to discuss Córas Iompair Éireann. Next week you will get all the facts you require.
We would like to have those facts. I hope some of these directors may be able to give their services without any remuneration. As I explained to the House at the beginning, I do not visualise this company will be a paying proposition for a great many years to come. I am not presenting this Bill to the House on the basis that this company is going to be a paying proposition. I repeatedly indicated that very clearly in earlier discussions. Deputy Lemass's amendment, in effect, seeks to limit the directors to persons who are in a position to give their services freely. I am not prepared to accept that amendment. I hope some of the directors will give their services freely —persons who may be slightly better spirited citizens than many of the directors appointed by the Deputy.
Quite possibly. Will the Minister undertake to tell the House how much they will get?
The Deputy can put down a question, and he will also have the Estimates.
In amendment No. 14 it is proposed to insert a new paragraph. I am putting the question: "That such paragraph be there inserted."
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 40; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, John.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Brennan, Joseph P.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick
- Hallden, Patrick J.
- Hckey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Lynch; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Kyne.
Amendment declared negatived.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In sub-section (2), to insert before paragraph (b) a new paragraph as follows:—
( ) the said articles shall provide that no member of the Oireachtas shall be eligible to be appointed a director of the agency;
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 can, as far as I am concerned, be discussed together.
Very good.
If the Minister accepts amendment No. 15 I shall drop amendment No. 16. If I cannot persuade him to accept amendment No. 15 or persuade the Dáil to insist upon it, I am not likely to be successful as far as amendment No. 16 is concerned.
Might I shorten the discussion by asking if the Deputy would be prepared to alter amendment No. 15 slightly by providing at the end of the amendment that "... no member of the Oireachtas shall be eligible to be appointed a director of the agency without a resolution of the Dáil"? I have no case in mind, but I could visualise circumstances in the somewhat distant future where you might deprive yourself of an extremely good man.
I accept that. Let me say, however, that members of this House know my views on this subject. Although I started off by following the practice, I came very strongly to the opinion that it was undesirable that members of the Oireachtas should be members of Government-sponsored companies. I expressed that view very strongly when amending the Turf Development Act in order to provide for that position. While I withdraw my amendment on the assurance that the Minister will introduce an amendment on the lines he has suggested I can promise him that if he ever comes with a resolution—irrespective of the person concerned—I shall oppose it.
I think the Deputy is right on the general principle.
I shall withdraw the amendment if the Minister introduces on the Report Stage an amendment prepared by the Parliamentary Draftsman.
Amendment No. 15, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
I think that everything that might be said in regard to the section has been said in the discussion on the amendment, and I think the points of clarification that were required, in so far as there could be clarification now, have been replied to by the Minister. However, I should like to stress, on the section, that the appointment of five directors, maximum, or three directors, minimum, is hardly necessary at this particular stage and that it might be well if, in the initial stages of the venture, one competent person were appointed as managing director under this section and that the Minister would indicate that in so far as he can see it now he would not consider it necessary to appoint three or to appoint five directors.
There is no amendment to paragraph (a) of sub-section (2), and under it the number of directors shall not be less than three or more than five.
Would the Minister now say whether he intends appointing trade union journalists on the board of directors? He has said, on the amendment, that he intends to appoint two civil servants. Would he say whether it is his intention to appoint on the board of directors a trade union journalist or journalists?
No. There is an advisory committee which will be primarily representative of the newspapers as distinct from the board of directors.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendment No. 20 is out of order and may not, therefore, be moved.
No. 21:—
I move amendment
In line 53, to delete the words "two hundred and fifty" and substitute "one hundred".
The formation of this organisation, which is termed a company in the Bill, should follow the ordinary lines of formation of such a company and the normal expenses of forming a company such as this, including the draft of the memoranda and the articles of association, the printing of them and registration fees. I am not sure whether there are, in fact, any registration fees in a company of this kind —I do not think there are—but the normal costs of doing that would be well under £100. That being so, to put in a section in the Bill giving permission to go as far as £250 seems to me to be excessive. I do not know what the Minister has in mind. I do not know whether he proposes to avail of the services of some of the solicitors in the service of the Departments of State to prepare or to do all the work necessary for the establishment and registration of this company. If he does, the expenses should be very small, and should, in fact, be no more than the cost of printing. I do not know whether the Minister visualises that, or whether he visualises the appointment of some solicitor for the purpose of forming this company, in which case the costs ought not to exceed £100. However, as far as the amendment is concerned, I do not want to press it, because I do not think it is an amendment which is worth pressing. At the same time, I should like to have an indication from the Minister as to whether he intends to have this company formed by one of the solicitors in the service of the State or whether it is his idea that some outside solicitor should be appointed to organise and run this. I would ask the Minister to give some information on that point.
The provision of the section in relation to making available a sum not to exceed £250 is the standard provision made in all similar enactments. It by no means indicates that £250 will be spent. It is a ceiling placed on the expenditure and I hope that the expenditure on the promotion of this company will be much lower than £250. I do not want, on the other hand, to minimise the difficulties involved in the preparation of the memorandum and articles of association of this particular company. I have had a look—I have not given the matter very careful consideration yet—at the way in which Reuter's and other news agencies are incorporated and they are extremely complex and complicated documents. I think, having regard to the complexities, it would probably be more satisfactory if some firm of solicitors practised and versed in the formation of companies and the drafting of memoranda and articles of association were employed rather than State solicitors who have not very much practical experience of that character in their State work.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 10.
On the section you ruled out of order, Sir, my amendment, No. 20, and a similar amendment to Section 11 will, I understand, also be ruled out of order. The purpose of the amendment was to get rid of the pretence that the news agency is to be financed by means of advances from the Exchequer on terms to be fixed by the Minister for Finance giving the impression that the news agency would at some time be able to repay. It would be better and more straightforward to make provision for a grant to be voted for the purposes of the news agency. Why is it necessary to have provisions here to finance the news agency by way of advances when the Minister knows quite well and has in fact admitted that the agency will never be able to repay? If it ever gets to the position of making profits or accumulating reserves from which it could repay the obvious thing to do would be to reduce future advances. It would be much simpler and much more straightforward to provide in Sections 10 and 11 grants-in-aid out of voted moneys rather than this arrangement of making advances on the understanding that they would be repaid.
There is a good deal in what the Deputy says, but two considerations are involved. In the unlikely event that the news agency did become financially profitable, I think that the Department of Finance would like to feel that they had some claim on repayment.
If there is ever a dividend it will be paid to them.
Yes. In addition, there is this consideration: I want to avoid, as far as possible, making the company a directly subsidised company for reasons of legal requirements in other countries.
That is very thin. The Minister will want to strengthen his camouflage.
I must say that when we come to this section we are concerned, as a Dáil, with authorising the Minister for Finance to make money available. That is really what this section means, and without the authorisation in this section the Minister for Finance cannot make the money available. If we are going to engage in this fiction, instead of granting money to the news agency and wiping off at the end of every year whatever the amount is, the Minister for Finance will have to account for it as money lent under certain conditions to this news agency. That, I think, is undesirable from the point of view of the control of public finance. I think it is completely wrong to do it in that way. We authorise the Minister for Finance to make available £10,000, £25,000, or whatever the sum of money is. I think it would be much better if we authorised the Minister for Finance to grant that sum to be used to the best advantage by the news agency, but if we are going to have in the accounts of the Department of Finance sums of money lent to this news agency it suggests that these moneys are lent and will be repaid at some time. At least, there is a claim to repay them but if we are reasonable about the situation we see that it would be impossible for this news agency to be in a position to repay money unless, under the memorandum and articles of association, they take powers of gold mining, as they may do. These articles of association include everything, every possible thing that a news agency could do, and under one of these sub-heads they might, at some time, strike oil.
If you keep on boring long enough you are bound to strike oil. You have been at it a long time.
Deputy Lehane I knows as well as I do that this news agency is never going to make a halfpenny and we should face up to that fact and get away from the fiction that this is money lent by the Minister for Finance that might be paid back at some time. I look on that as a sort of immoral control of public moneys and I am surprised that the Minister for Finance would be a party to that in any way.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move:—
To delete the word "advance" in line 2 and substitute the word "grant" and to delete sub-section (2).
I think it would be very desirable that we should insert in this Bill an overriding limit to the advances which may be made to the news agency. That, I may say, is not unusual in legislation of this character. In various Bills providing for advances to companies established to undertake particular work the Legislature has indicated how much it was prepared to risk in the venture. That does not mean, and would not mean in this case, that the news agency might not get more money if it was doing good work and there was a desire to give it more money, but it would mean that it would only get more money following the introduction of an amending Bill so that both Houses of the Oireachtas would have an opportunity of getting a report on the work of the agency and some reasons why they should alter the limit fixed to the advances. It may be argued that as the money has to be voted by the Oireachtas now we would get that opportunity on the annual Estimate, but most Deputies know and even the newest Deputies in the House have learned by this that that safeguard is more apparent than real in so far as the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs or the Department of Industry and Commerce is discussed here in bulk and the discussion often ranges over a very wide field relating to the different sub-heads of the Estimate so that no single item is really adequately discussed or isolated for special examination. The Minister need not be afraid that he is departing from precedent if he accepts this amendment or if he agrees to insert in the Bill some other limit. I am not committed to the figure I have mentioned in my amendment, £10,000. I think it is as much as I would be prepared to venture on this enterprise, without insisting upon getting a report on its progress before putting any more into it. I cannot know what the Minister has in mind or to what extent £10,000 will meet his programme or fall short of it. If he prefers to have some other figure, that is all right by me. I think there should be in the section of the Bill a fixed sum and a legal obligation on the Minister to come back to the Dáil with an amending Bill, if he has to exceed that sum or if circumstances should arise which, in his view, justified him in exceeding it. I am surprised, in fact, that the Minister for Finance did not insist upon such a limitation when the Bill was submitted to his Department for confirmation. I cannot remember that I was ever able to get a Bill of this kind through without my colleague, the Minister for Finance, putting on a limitation.
We have better control over the Minister for Finance.
I think that Deputy Lemass has underestimated his powers of persuasion with the Ministers for Finance with whom he had to deal. I am not aware that he had such limitations placed upon any similar legislation. The proposal contained in the amendment would be completely unworkable. As I pointed out to the House several times before, the company is not likely to be a paying proposition, the advances are likely to be outstanding and likely to be much greater than the sum suggested by the Deputy.
I am not committed to the sum. I will make it £100,000, if the Minister prefers.
I do not think that would serve any useful purpose. After all, the Estimates have to come before the House every year and it is within the province of the House to cut down the Estimate for the news agency every year on the annual Estimates.
Provided the Government majority can be persuaded to put out the Government. The Estimates are not a very real safeguard, but they can be persuaded to put this in the Bill.
I think it would not serve any useful purpose to add to a future Government the burden of coming to the House in between Estimate times with a special Bill.
A number of companies and services have to do it.
As to the estimate of the cost, the amount provided for in the Estimates this year was £25,000. As I explained to the House, it is hoped that there will be, apart from whatever office there is in Dublin, an office in the United States and an office in England. These will have to be provided for. At the moment, and until the company has been set up and full investigation is made into the costs of establishing these offices, it would be very difficult to form any accurate estimate; but the House has at all times complete control of moneys, inasmuch as the moneys for the news agency will have been voted by the House.
Does the Minister not see the difficulty that arises from this section? I agree that Deputy Lemass's limitation of £10,000 is insufficient, but at least, if we can now, we ought to put some limitation beyond which advances cannot be made. £100,000 would be £25,000 over four years.
The House places its limitation every year.
I want to explain this. If we place a limitation now of, say, £100,000; in other words, if we are prepared to say: "This is an agency the Minister is very anxious to run—we all think it is a bit of a cod——"
All the members of your Party.
I was going to say——
Do not say it.
——that when they expelled me, they blew the brains out of the Party. We may say that we will give £100,000 of the taxpayers' money, but when the Minister has spent that, at least he ought to come back to the House and get new legislation to increase that. I am absolutely certain that in four years' time there will be a Dáil here that will not throw away money in that fashion. I say we ought to limit it at this stage.
There ought to be some limit put in this section. I cannot recall any occasion since I came into the House on which money was voted without some limitation. We have no idea as to what the amount will be.
May I assure the Deputy that he has very often voted for similar statutes?
I cannot recall it.
For companies financed in this way?
Without limitation.
There should be no objection of any kind on the part of the Minister to giving some figure he thinks would be reasonable for what he has to face.
The Deputy has that in the Estimates. I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not want the discussion to proceed on a wrong basis. Not one penny can be given to this company that is not voted by this House annually in an Estimate. Therefore, the House can regulate every year to a penny what it is going to give to the company. That is the usual practice.
That is all right, but as Deputy Lemass has pointed out, when the Estimates come up, it is very hard to deal with every item. One has to take them in bulk. In this case, there is no earthly reason why the Minister should not be prepared to give some figure which he thinks would meet him for a reasonable time. Then, if necessary, he could come back to the Dáil for more, as has been done in several other cases. I think it is our duty here, as representatives, to insist on some such provision. If it is likely to be a success, I do not think this House will refuse the Minister the finances necessary to carry on.
The only point that it appears possible to make in favour of the present amendment, and the only point that has been made so far by Deputies opposite and by Deputy Cowan, is their incapacity to deal with this matter on the Estimates. I do not think that can be advanced seriously. We have heard much smaller items than could possibly be involved in this dealt with on the Estimates from year to year.
Most unsatisfactorily.
Perhaps. The Deputy is entitled to the point of view that it has been unsatisfactory. However, in the very limited experience that is available to me, I have heard Deputies on both sides of the House dealing at length with minute points of expenditure on the Estimates. I think the whole objection to the section which it is sought to enshrine in this amendment is completely unreal and on a par with most of the other amendments that have been tabled. The Dáil has ample opportunity, unlimited opportunity, to deal in detail with any money so expended on the discussion of the Estimate for the Minister's Department. To seek, either jocularly, like Deputy Cowan, or dramatically, like Deputy Lemass, to justify the amendment on the basis that there is no check over the expenditure and that it is necessary to put a ceiling to it is, to my mind, completely unreal.
The lid is off the Government's economy programme.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
Yes. As public representatives our duty is to protect the taxpayer and to hold the Government to its economy programme.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 41; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Brennan, Joseph P.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Lynch; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Kyne.
Amendment declared lost.
Sections 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
I have some doubts —perhaps the Minister will look into it —whether the procedure laid down in this section complies with the Companies Acts. Sub-section (2) says:—
"(2) The Minister for Finance may, from time to time as occasion requires, for the purpose of compliance with so much of the Companies Acts as requires that there shall always be at least seven members of the agency or for the purpose of providing a person appointed or intended to be appointed to be a director of the agency with the necessary qualifications, do either or both of the following things...."
Then follows provision for requiring a member of the agency to transfer all or any one or more of the shares in the agency for the time being held by him to the said Minister or any other person. It does seem to me that this section drives or attempts to drive the proverbial coach and four through the provisions of the Companies Acts which have for their object the establishment of genuine companies. I do not know whether the Minister has succeeded in achieving that object, but when any query has been raised before in regard to provisions such as these, the Minister's answer has been:—
"I am following precedent. That was in an Act or in so many Acts introduced into this House by the Minister for Supplies or the Minister for Industry and Commerce."
I do not think that is a valid argument at all. Many of us, including the Minister, were very critical of some of these companies which were formed and there has been substantial public criticism of them. The section provides for the holding of shares in trust for the Minister for Finance and the obligation of the holder of the shares to transfer these shares to the Minister, if the Minister orders him to do so, or to somebody else. The whole thing— and this is clearly set out in that section as well as in the other sections-is in this sort of state that, if anything of the kind were attempted by an individual company promoter outside, he would find himself in Mountjoy.
Why would he find himself in Mountjoy?
For breaking through the provisions of the Companies Acts and forming a fraudulent company.
The Minister for Justice would let him out.
For holding shares in trust?
I am not speaking about that. The Bill, as I say, drives a coach and four through the Companies Acts.
Nonsense.
Even if it did, would it not be entitled to do it?
In other words, we are setting out here in Parliament to establish a fraudulent company.
Under this section?
Under this section.
A fraudulent company?
We are dealing with this section only.
In so far as this section is concerned, it carries out the machinery of the fraud.
And the new definition of fraud is something with which Deputy Cowan does not agree.
What is the new definition?
That, apparently, is it.
You are going to the expert now.
The answer of the Minister to every query raised in regard to these sections is that it has been done in a previous Act. Is this simply a case of precedent being followed or is there any good purpose behind the provisions in the section? I can do no more than draw attention to it. If the answer is that it is following precedent and if there are enough votes here to keep the precedent going, I suppose we will just have it.
I disown this precedent entirely.
Is it not in any of the other Acts?
It is, of course.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 24:—
Before Section 17, but in Part II, to insert a new section as follows:—
In the event of the agency being wound up all moneys remaining, after the debts of the agency have been paid, shall be paid into and disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall direct.
Precedent is on my side here because a number of the Bills the Minister referred to contain a provision of this kind. I think it is desirable.
I think it is desirable and I am prepared to accept it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:—
Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
( ) The names of the members of the advisory board shall as soon as practicable after their appointment be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and if either House, within 21 sitting days, by resolution, expresses disapproval of any member, such member shall forthwith cease to be a member of the board.
I am not altogether enamoured of the idea of having the names of the members of the advisory board submitted individually to the Dáil for approval, but perhaps on this amendment the Minister would give the House some idea of what he has in mind in his proposal to establish an advisory board at all—what its functions will be, what class of persons will act upon it, whether they will be remunerated as the company directors will be remunerated, or whether they will be expected to give their services without fee, and if it is intended that the House should have any function in regard to the advisory board. It may be asking too much to require that the names should be formally submitted for approval here, but in so far as this board, as I understand it, is to exercise a sort of general supervision over the carrying out of the functions of the agency it could be described as the organ of the Oireachtas rather than the organ of the Minister. Therefore the Oireachtas should have some right to influence the type of persons that go on it, if not to approve of the actual individuals themselves. I think the Minister in any event is setting up a top-heavy organisation. If the agency is to be limited in size and in functions to the extent he has indicated, then to give it an advisory board as well as a board of directors seems to be an unnecessary refinement. I doubt very much if this advisory board will function at all. Again let the Minister benefit from my experience. He will find that various measures for which I was responsible contained provisions for advisory boards and, after they met formally for the first time, we never heard of them again.
The advisory board visualised is intended to advise the news agency and to co-ordinate the work of the news agency with that of newspapers, journalists, broadcasting authorities and correspondents generally. I think it should be an extremely valuable board. I do not agree with the Deputy that advisory committees or boards are valueless. I have had experience of an advisory committee in my Department which has done invaluable work over the last 12 months, and I think that in the case of a news agency which is bound to have very close relationship with journalists, newspapers and the news world in general, it is essential that there should be a body representative of these interests, with all the skill and experience that they have gained in their profession, available to the agency for advice. I think it should be a very useful body.
Is the Minister's reference to an advisory committee in his Department to that committee which arranged to have the Dáil photographed for display in an exhibition of arts and crafts?
Is it the Minister's intention that the members of the advisory board should be remunerated? Another question is whether this board will meet, say, at specified intervals. I have had experience of advisory boards which are completely useless bodies, such as the Broadcasting Advisory Board. I am not referring to the personnel of this board, but I do not know when the board last met. I doubt if it met subsequent to its first meeting.
I know the experience to which the Deputy is referring. I would prefer that this board should not be paid, but I can visualise circumstances where expenses may have to be paid. There may be members who will not be resident in Dublin. Again, if the board had to devote a considerable time to the work, it might be necessary to remunerate members for their attendance at meetings.
They would meet at stated intervals?
I hope so.
I do not know whether Deputy Lemass is going to press this amendment to a division or whether it is worth pressing.
I certainly shall not press it to a division but I am pressing it at the same time.
The amendment which I have down would confine membership of the board to working journalists having at least ten years' practical experience. Looking at the whole thing in a realistic way, we have gone a certain part of the way now in establishing a news agency with directors, with practical working journalists as a staff, with the Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Finance. That is the construction right up to this and now we state that an advisory board of not more than seven members and representative of newspaper editors, journalists, correspondents, broadcasting authorities and such other persons as the Minister may think competent to advise the agency, shall be set up. Their function will be to advise and assist the agency in the conduct of its functions. Clearly there is no commonsense in that. If you have your directors, your staff——
I do not know where the Deputy gets the "assist".
It is the amendment we are discussing.
I wanted to shorten the procedure by discussing my own amendment. I say it would not be worth while using the time of the House to approve of that type of advisory board because, remember the board is to advise and assist the agency, not to advise and assist the Minister or to advise and assist the Government. It is to advise and assist the agency which is set up with its directors and staff. If the agency is selected from the competent people the Minister has in mind, it may very well take advice or not take advice. Generally, if the members of the agency are competent, they will not want advice nor will they want assistance. I do not think this board will perform any function whatsoever. I think the Minister would be well advised to delete Section 17 altogether on the Report Stage and give the agency some sort of chance.
If the Minister does agree to delete it, it does not prevent his getting advice from anybody from whom he wants to get it.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister has already implied that he will have representatives of trade union journalists on the board. Would the Minister consider nominating a majority of trade union journalists on the advisory board?
Not at the moment. It might so happen, but I should not like to tie myself to it.
Would the Minister consider dropping the section altogether?
No. If the Opposition have any real suspicion in their minds as to the purpose for which this Bill has been initiated, they should welcome this section, because it sets up an advisory body——
Will the Opposition appoint the committee?
——and it enables a certain degree of supervision to be exercised and information given concerning the working of the agency and will thereby ensure its impartiality.
The Minister will agree that the best people to supervise the work of a news agency are journalists? If this must go through the House by a majority, I want to see, so far as possible, that the agency will be staffed from top to bottom by trade union journalists.
If the Deputy reads sub-section (3) he will see that the advisory board will be representative of newspaper editors, journalists, correspondents and broadcasting authorities.
At the Minister's absolute discretion.
There is one point which the Minister might consider. He says that the advisory board will supervise, whereas their function under the Bill is to advise and assist. There is no means by which the directors are bound to give them any information or consult with them. The directors may simply meet them and say to them: "We would like your advice this evening, ladies and gentlemen," and that is all. There is no statutory obligation on the directors to give them any information. The Minister may say that in the normal way they should do it, but the advisory board will have no function except to come up and have a cup of coffee.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment.
When will the next stage be taken?
Wednesday next.
Ordered: That the Report Stage be taken on Wednesday, 23rd November.