Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jul 1959

Vol. 176 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1959—Money Resolution.

I move:—

That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to provide for the establishment of a Department of Transport and Power, and for that purpose to amend the Ministers and Secretaries Acts, 1924 to 1956.

The Taoiseach indicated yesterday that there would be no extra staff for this Department. I should like him to give us an indication now, if he can, of the number of personnel to be transferred from the Department of Industry and Commerce and the existing cost of this personnel. I have the gravest doubts that there will not be some additional cost. For one thing, it will probably mean a certain number of promotions and people will be paid at a higher level. Secondly, we all know that Parkinson's Law will most certainly operate.

Apart from that, I want to put this to the Taoiseach. The Department he is setting up is to cover marine services and harbours, which have been under the direct control of the Department of Industry and Commerce. It is to cover also inland transport. Ninety-five per cent. of inland transport is dealt with by C.I.E. There is, of course, the administration of the Road Transport Act in respect of which the licensing provisions are dealt with by the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Taoiseach said yesterday he did not believe in giving full autonomy to public boards. I take it that by that he means full autonomy in matters of general policy and that he is not making any suggestion that the day-to-day administration of C.I.E. will come within the purview of the new Department.

Civil aviation policy is dealt with very largely by statutory concerns— Aer Lingus, Aer Linte and Aer Rianta. The Department of Industry and Commerce has some direct control. As far as I remember, Shannon Airport is under the direct control of the Department. But, again, virtually all the day to day work is dealt with by statutory concerns. In relation to power, frankly I cannot see what work the Department would have other than matters of general policy, because the E.S.B. and Bord na Móna seem to cover all that is involved.

If that is so, it seems clear that there will not be sufficient in this Department for a Minister and for a proper working Department. On that basis it would be highly desirable that some other work should be embraced in this Department for the purpose of saving the additional cost that will otherwise be involved. The suggestion was made yesterday that communications should be included. I cannot see why communications could not be included. The Taoiseach's objection yesterday was that he did not want to have the Post Office administered without a Minister. There will be a Minister for this Department and it could be quite well administered.

We all know that the fact has been that certain Ministries have been greatly overworked and certain Ministries, to put the matter at its minimum, have not been hard-pressed. I can appreciate the Taoiseach's point of view in sub-dividing some sectors of the Department of Industry and Commerce, but if he is to do the job efficiently, he should at the same time ensure that there will be an administration in relation to those Departments where an active Minister would not be engaged full time.

Is it not a fact, for example, that the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Defence would each hardly have full time occupation in the normal course in their existing Departments? For one reason or another, of course, it may not be desirable to amalgamate the Department of Justice and the Department of Defence.

Would that not be more relevant on a Second Reading speech?

Perhaps it might. I shall confine myself to the consideration that the Taoiseach, when he is providing the money for this Department, will either give us the most firm and absolute undertaking that the personnel will not exceed the personnel being transferred from the Department of Industry and Commerce under any circumstances, or else that he will communicate to us why it is not possible to make up that saving by amalgamation with other Departments.

I want to correct a misunderstanding on the part of the Taoiseach as a result of some remarks I made yesterday. The Taoiseach suggested, when replying last evening, that I advocated splitting power and fuel. I did not want to interrupt him then. What I did say was, in fact, that I thought power—which I understood to include fuel as, in fact, it does— should remain with the Ministry of Industry and Commerce and those services covered by transport should be taken over by the new Minister. I went on to suggest possibly communications in the Post Office might be added at a later date, making a Ministry of Transport and Communications. I quite agree with the Taoiseach that it is obvious one cannot divorce power and fuel. They are too closely connected. Such a divorce was not present to my mind as, I think, the Official Report will show.

Yesterday we discussed the four activities which would be brought under the control of the new Department. In the course of the discussion I referred to the amount of time spent in the examination of claims for grants for harbours. In the first instance, applications for grants are sent to a committee which spends quite an amount of time posting the applications. The applications are then sent to the Board of Works. The Board of Works advises as to the feasibility or advisability of the proposed works. If it is decided to make a grant the Board of Works is again consulted. At least 90 per cent of the time occupied from the date of application until the final decision is taken is occupied in the main by a Board of Works examination of the whole problem to find out what is practicable in the circumstances. Remembering that, it might be wiser to consider whether harbour grants and repairs to harbours should not be transferred to the Board of Works.

The Board of Works acts as the technical authority in advising the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Minister and the Department are often in an embarrassing position when they are pressed for a decision as to whether or not a grant will be made when, in fact, they can do nothing whatever and are as impotent as a monument in O'Connell Street until such time as they are advised by the Board of Works. Since the Board of Works undertakes all manner of work of a constructional character and, in fact, looks after certain harbours itself exclusively it might be a good idea to give the Board of Works the responsibility for the administration of harbour grants which at present impact on the Department of Industry and Commerce. Dún Laoghaire harbour is maintained by the Board of Works. I see no reason why the Board of Works should not look after every harbour since it does 90 per cent of the technical work in connection with such grants.

That, surely, is a Second Reading speech.

The suggestion is made in a desire to help the passage of the Bill with the utmost expedition and to try to put as much sense as possible into what we are doing.

That should have been done on the Second Reading.

I should like to ask the Minister where it is proposed to locate this new Department. I take it, it is not proposed to remove the existing sections out of Kildare Street. There is room there for all sections and the mere substitution of a Minister for a Parliamentary Secretary should not involve any movement out of the Kildare Street building in order to establish the complete independence of the proposed new Department vis-a-vis the surviving Department.

I should like to ask the Minister also whether all that is involved in this change is, in fact, merely a transfer of sections from the Department of Industry and Commerce to the new Department, sections which are deemed by this Bill to be appropriate to the new Department. Secondly, is it a fact that all that it involves is the conversion of a Parliamentary Secretary into a Minister to look after the proposed new Department?

That is correct.

Arising from what Deputy Norton has said, would the Taoiseach agree that it might be desirable to put the Board of Works in with this new Department and thereby get some semblance of rationalisation into St. Stephen's Green?

I should like to ask the Taoiseach, when we are appropriating money for this new Ministry, which is to take charge of all the State and quasi-State bodies, will he apply his mind to the repercussions thereof on the ordinary taxpayer? The purpose is to give the taxpayer better service for his money. One of the gravest difficulties under which the existing system labours is that referred to by both Deputy Russell and myself yesterday, that the average citizen when he comes in contact with one of these semi-State bodies finds himself in a much more impotent position than that in which he would be if he came in conflict with a Department of State. If he comes in conflict with a Department of State he can always have recourse to Parliament, by way of Parliamentary Question, a motion on the adjournment and so forth. By means of that procedure the Minister can be brought to answer for his performance.

If I understand the Taoiseach correctly, we shall now have a Minister responsible for a number of semi-State bodies. If questioned here he will almost uniformly be placed in the position of saying that he has no function and therefore must decline to answer.

I do not think that arises relevantly on a motion allocating certain moneys for the purpose of an amendment to the Ministers and Secretaries Act.

If we are appropriating money for the more efficient discharge of particular business, it is appropriate to suggest that this is not the best way in which to do it, unless some ancillary steps are taken.

The Deputy is making the matter very general. He should confine himself to the motion.

When we are appropriating this money, I think it is in order to suggest that one ought to make provision for an ancillary service where these semi-State bodies are concerned. I suggest—in default of a better suggestion, I think my suggestion is a good one—that the Taoiseach might well consider the Scandinavian model. If the Minister is not answerable to this House for detailed matters relating to these semi-State bodies there should be somebody to stand beside him, somebody analogous to the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners in his relationship with the Minister for Finance, or the Comptroller and Auditor General who enjoys a constitutional position of independence. That "somebody" should be invested with the duty of dealing with complaints made by members of the public in respect of grievances which they believe themselves to labour under vis-a-vis semi-State companies.

I think the Taoiseach said he emphatically did not want the Minister to be responsible in any way for the day-to-day activities of these companies. Indeed, he could not see how anybody is at a greater disadvantage vis-a-vis these semi-State companies as compared with any other company. The answer to that is that these semi-State companies are monopolies. One of the reasons that they are semi-State companies is because they must be monopolies in order to function properly. The individual citizen has not, in relation to them, the traditional sanction of taking his custom elsewhere. If he is not pleased with the service he is getting he has nowhere else to take his custom. Every citizen stands in a position in relation to a semi-State company quite different from that in which he stands in relation to a public or private company.

The Taoiseach indicated that it is the intention of his Government to expand public enterprise under the auspices of this Minister. I think you are going to have a growing volume of protest in this House that this Minister is not equipped adequately to meet the legitimate requirements of public representatives in respect of complaints that reach them on behalf of their constituents. I accept that it is not practical to charge a Minister to answer to this House for every detail of administration in respect of the public companies for the general policy of which he answers. If it is not, then I think there ought to be some other person who would have the quasi-judicial independence of the Executive, whose duty and right it would be to deal with such complaints and to give satisfaction either to public representatives or to aggrieved individuals who believe that they have a legitimate cause for complaint against a State body enjoying a monopolistic position vis-a-vis the individual consumer, the citizen.

We are asked to vote money for the setting up of a new Ministry. When we think of a Minister we think in terms of someone who has power, some authority. As far as I can see, this Minister would be only a figurehead, a kind of king who does nothing but show himself off. He will have no power because he is asked to administer statutory bodies that cannot be questioned. For instance, if we want to ask a question about them, we are told we have no authority to ask questions. If we have not, has he? What power will he have? That is my objection to spending a lot of money setting up a Ministry that has no power, even to influence these bodies or to convey the feelings of this House where there may be some genuine grievance on the part of some member of the House.

I have a question down for to-morrow asking why members cannot put down a question in relation to these bodies. I hope to get an answer. I should like to think that a Minister has power, that he is not just a figurehead. If that is all he is, there is no point in wasting money. That is my only objection. He ought to seek some power to influence these people or to have some say and not be just a dummy. It has been conveyed to me that I cannot ask a question.

I am informed that the total staff to be transferred from the Department of Industry and Commerce to the proposed Department of Transport and Power will be about 400, but a very substantial part of that number would be represented by the employees at Shannon Airport. The staff will be housed where they are located at present, in the Department of Industry and Commerce building in Kildare Street, where the new Minister will also have his office. There will be no change in that regard.

The justification for the arrangement, in my view, is precisely what was said by Deputy Dillon, that this will give the public better service at no greater cost. So long as the activities appropriate to these divisions of the Department of Industry and Commerce now are not extended, there will, of course, be no increase in staff. I am not, however, going to put the new Department into a strait-jacket and say that they must never expand. Indeed, as I mentioned yesterday, we contemplate the possibility of certain developments affecting some of these matters which could in course of time impose new responsibilities on the Department. Whether that will involve any increase of staff or not cannot be decided now and, of course, any proposal of that kind must come to the Dáil and be justified here.

Most of the matters raised by Deputy Sweetman were, I think, raised also last evening by Deputy Costello and I referred to them. It is certainly not intended that the new Minister or any Minister should interfere with these statutory bodies in their day to day administration. They were set up deliberately by this House with that independent position in regard to their management affairs which they now have because we believed that that would make for more efficient working.

Deputy Costello last evening denounced the Departmental file. Do we want to stuff up these statutory boards with Departmental files, the type of records that they would have to keep if Deputies were entitled to ask questions on details of administration—why some official was promoted or some official was dismissed or why a supply of power or transport or something else was given or not given in certain circumstances? If Deputies were entitled to ask for details about their administration of that kind, then, of course, the Departmental files which are now, according to Deputy Costello, the bane of Government Departments, would have to reappear in equal number in the offices of these State boards.

It is not true that Deputies are refused answers to questions about these bodies. Indeed, the practice has been that, when questions relate to policy, the answers are given in the fullest possible terms. It certainly has been, so far as I know, always my practice and, indeed, the practice of everybody who has held the office of Minister for Industry and Commerce, to give full answers to questions dealing with policy matters but to refuse to give information in matters where the Minister has no responsibility, matters which are by law transferred to the independent decision of these statutory boards.

If they abuse their powers, have we no power?

I am not accepting that they abuse their powers but I am quite certain that, if any Deputy believes that, the boards of these organisations will investigate the allegation. The boards of these organisations are not officials administering them. They are there as representatives of the public, chosen because of their suitability, to ensure that the service the public are entitled to get from these boards is, in fact, provided.

I am accusing the E.S.B. of abusing their powers.

Deputy Sweetman inquired whether the Minister in charge of the new Department will, in fact, have enough work to occupy himself. I have stated that my experience as Minister for Industry and Commerce was that, being occupied with other matters, I was unable to give to many of these affairs the personal attention I thought they required and that situation is likely to be aggravated in the early future when it is obvious that, in respect of some of them at least, quite important policy decisions will have to be taken.

I would not at all agree with Deputy Norton's suggestion about transferring responsibility for harbour development grants to the Board of Works. Where the question of developing a harbour arises, two questions have to be dealt with, one, the commercial considerations which would justify the outlay and the other the technical problem of carrying out the works involved. It seems to me to be far more sensible to have responsibility for the final decision rest with the Department which is concerned with the commercial prospects, leaving the technical matters to be dealt with in the technical Department, rather than to have the technical Department dealing with the purely constructional aspect and seeking the advice of the commercial Department on the justification for the outlay. Indeed, in that regard, I have been quite conscious of the fact that, in respect of certain harbour projects, in regard to which difficulties of one kind or another arose, such as at Galway, or problems of another kind which do not appear to be easy of solution, I, as Minister, was unable to give them enough personal attention or even, on many occasions, to meet the local representatives who wanted to discuss their problems with me and I should hope that, as a result of this division, that situation will be greatly relieved.

I do not know—one cannot be certain—that the amount of routine administrative work which will devolve upon the new Minister will keep him fully occupied. I hope it does not. I hope he will have time to study and deal with these policy matters to which I have referred and to contribute as a Cabinet Minister to the development of Government policy in the widest sense. It seems to me, however, that Deputy Sweetman is not applying Parkinson's Law here because, if that does operate, the volume of work in the Department will tend to grow to the point at which all the time of its officials will be fully occupied.

That is not Parkinson's Law. That is the reversal of it.

I think myself that it would be no harm if we had a discussion at some stage or other on the relationship between the Government and the Dáil on the one hand and the statutory bodies and the State financed organisations on the other hand. I may say that I do not necessarily agree with Deputy Dillon that there is a problem to be solved. I expressed my views on this matter in an address which I gave early this year to the Institute of Public Administration which has since been published as a pamphlet. I welcomed the opportunity of expressing my views on that occasion as, I may say, the matter has engaged our attention for some time and also the attention of other Parliaments without any workable proposition emerging as to how the commercial independence of these organisations could be maintained while, at the same time, they could be made subject to any degree of Parliamentary control.

In my view the procedure we have, under which their administrative independence is guaranteed by statute but with general responsibility to a designated Minister of State, is as workable as any that has been suggested but, if any Deputy has any idea to put forward or any proposition to make, the House would, I am sure, welcome an opportunity of debating it and it would help to clear our minds and the minds of the public on the whole subject.

Did the Taoiseach say that he had made a speech on this matter?

Yes. It has been published in pamphlet form.

At half-a-crown a copy. He will give you one for nothing.

Did I understand that the Taoiseach has completely shut his mind against any amalgamation of other Government Departments?

No. I hope I never come in here with a shut mind. I have no proposals at the moment but I agree that there should be a periodic examination of the distribution of Governmental responsibilities between Departments.

I am trying to draw the Taoiseach's attention to the facts illuminated by Deputy Sherwin. It may be as clear as crystal to the mind of the Taoiseach that any of these boards provide adequate protection for the individual but I want to press on the Taoiseach that he is mistaken in that belief. When the individual comes into conflict with one of the great Departments of State he should be able to call on Deputy Sherwin, or myself, or any other Deputy and bring the head of the Government if needs be, to give an account here. That is one of the great fundamentals of human liberty.

I want to put it to the Taoiseach, however, that in the case of these monopolistic State bodies when the average housewife comes in conflict with them—I am not taking sides in this argument at all—or when the average housewife has her electric light or power cut off, as she thinks unjustly, she is conscious of a deep grievance. In that position she should have the right to have her Deputy bring the Minister in charge of that Department to account for what has been done to her. At least that will give her the feeling that she has some protection against the anonymous power of the State.

There is no use in my writing a letter to the Board and getting back a smooth reply and sending it on to her. She says that that is not enough. As Deputy Sherwin says, she feels a grievance that she cannot get information. I quite agree that the new Minister should not be charged with meeting these complaints but there should be some method by which a Deputy could bring these complaints before the House and make the Minister responsible answer them.

The most stupid thing any Minister can do is to accept responsibility where he has not got power.

I admit that but the Taoiseach will be aware that every big firm has a Chief Information Officer. In some firms he appears as a Public Relations Officer. I want the Taoiseach to consider the possibility of setting up a Public Relations Officer or an Information Officer with wide powers of inquiry and investigation. You could divorce him form Parliament altogether but you could give him such powers that, if Deputy Sherwin or I are approached by a constituent, we can go to a person of that status who would have the right to investigate the matter in the Department concerned on behalf of the aggrieved person. I agree with the Taoiseach that the Parliamentary Question is not the appropriate procedure.

This grievance is wholesale. It is a national grievance. A resolution on the matter was passed recently by Limerick County Council and another one by the Dublin County Council. It has now reached such a stage that 50,000 or 100,000 have been aggrieved and nearly 20,000 people are cut off every year. That makes it a national grievance.

Question put and agreed to.
Resolution reported and agreed to.
Top
Share