On the last occasion I raised a point in regard to subsection (6). Has the Minister any view on this? If the company, in which the Minister for Finance holds the bulk of shares, has not repaid money advanced—presumably it is because it is unable to do so—does the Minister see any advantage in having the power whereby a court order may be obtained?
Committee on Finance. - National Building Agency Limited Bill, 1963—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
In the last analysis, I think the situation would be that they would come back here and there would have to be fresh legislation.
If the company were unable to repay, would the effect of proceeding with a court order alter the situation in any way?
Of course the getting of a court order in respect of semi-State companies' liabilities probably would not make a great deal of sense and that is why I say that the ultimate decision would probably be legislation in this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
I raised this point on the last occasion and I wonder if the Minister has any further information on it, that is, that principal which the Minister may guarantee is held at £2 million. Does the Minister envisage that as the absolute limit or does he see a situation developing in which further sums may be needed?
So far as we are concerned with this particular legislation, that is the limit but that is not to indicate in any way that it may ultimately be the limit. If there is to be a new limit, there will have to be amending legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 1:
In paragraph 3 (1), page 5, line 30 to delete "auditor of the Company" and substitute "Comptroller and Auditor General".
I understand that at present such is the case and that the accounts are audited by an auditor from the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that at any stage in the future these accounts will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The point has been raised here on quite a number of occasions that in regard to semi-State and State bodies to which moneys are advanced by the Oireachtas, the measure of control sometimes passes from this House and at that stage, while the moneys are accounted for, anybody who wishes to question them must proceed in the ordinary way to the company for an explanation of how the moneys were spent.
We believe that the insertion of these words will be a guarantee that the money is being properly invested, that there is a proper use of these funds and a maintenance of the link between the Comptroller and Auditor General auditing these funds, so far as the State is concerned, and the Oireachtas, which is the body which determines what finances are made available to State bodies and which, through the Comptroller and Auditor General, exercises a measure of control.
I suggest to the Minister that this amendment does not in any way take from the freedom of operation which the National Building Agency enjoys and which the House is now prepared to give it, but it will reassure all those who may be anxious to be reassured that the highest controlling officer in the State is actually responsible for the proper control and auditing of moneys advanced by this State.
I should just like to say, in support of the Bill as it now stands, that the auditor appointed by the company shall, according to the articles of association of the National Building Agency, be a person appointed by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance. In fact, the Comptroller and Auditor General has been the person nominated up to this. That is not to say that there is any compulsion to continue that arrangement. In fact, I am opposing the amendment on the grounds that we wish to have the freedom, if the situation should arise, to appoint other than the Comptroller and Auditor General to do the accounting for this agency.
One thing that should be said about the National Building Agency is that it is really a trading company as distinct from, say, Bord Fáilte or other such kindred bodies for which the Comptroller and Auditor General is designated as the auditing officer. In its trading, it has had and will continue to have dealings with ordinary commercial companies and it is only right that the agency should have at least as much freedom in its operations as the companies with which it will be doing business and on whose behalf it may be asked to erect houses for the companies or for their workers.
The rather strange thing about all this is that Deputy Jones, no doubt in good faith, has joined in tabling this amendment but he has been rather unfortunate in his choice of seconder in that he has Deputy Byrne who, in 1960, in volume 183, No. 13, at column 1803, had this to say:
The question of the Government's confidence in the accountancy profession arises in relation to this matter, the Minister's confidence in the professional integrity and professional competence of the members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants to which I have the honour to belong. If the Minister has no confidence in the profession, I would urge him to say so frankly and give us an opportunity of putting our house in order. If, on the other hand, he has confidence—and I believe he has—I would urge him to consider my pleading sympathetically.
I do believe the Comptroller and Auditor General is properly equipped to carry out the audits of commercial companies. I want to emphasise that I do not wish at all to cast aspersions on his Department —quite the contrary.
That is Deputy Byrne in a related sphere where the question of the Comptroller and Auditor General comes up. I have other excellent quotations in the same vein from Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Dillon. It is not often I agree with those gentlemen in their outlook on many things but in this case they seem to have long since agreed with what I am proposing to the House, that is, that we do not go on with this amendment making it obligatory to have the Comptroller and Auditor General appointed to do the accounting of this company.
The Minister will have to agree that the fact that a certain person is joined in this amendment does not invalidate the fact that the amendment is desirable. One of the things that have been apparent from time to time is that money provided by the State for semi-State companies has gone outside the control of the House. While this may happen on this occasion. I propose that the Comptroller and Auditor General examine the accounts of this company. In doing that, I am not casting any aspersions on the accountancy profession outside or on those whom the Comptroller and Auditor General may appoint to examine accounts on his behalf.
The purpose of having the accounts examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General is to ensure that moneys provided by Oireachtas Éireann for any service of the State will be used in the manner for which they were voted. In that connection, there was another amendment, which has been ruled out of order, to the effect that the Committee of Public Accounts should have the opportunity of examining these accounts and the report of the Auditor General thereon. That amendment has been ruled out but the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General would be auditing the accounts would be an indication that the money would be used for the purpose for which it was voted.
Up to this the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, has appointed the Comptroller and Auditor General to look after the affairs of the company and to ensure that the money voted to it will be used for the purpose for which it is voted. It is a fact that we have set up companies from time to time to carry out certain works which are desirable in themselves and that we have voted a certain amount of money for the working of these companies but the measure of control exercised over that money by this House has been going from the House. Even in some cases where the Comptroller and Auditor General has been appointed to look after the accounts of these companies, they are not asked to account to him in certain respects. They account to him in their own fashion.
It does not invalidate the amendment that the person who has signed his name to it has argued in another way at another time. That is going from the general to the particular and to do that is not a good defence in cases such as this. I would prefer the Minister to deal with the amendment on its merits.
I think Deputy Jones is under some illusion that the control exercisable by the Comptroller and Auditor General would be more effective control. Later on, it emerges that, in fact, the Comptroller and Auditor General does not control to any greater degree the functions of the company to which he is assigned as auditor than the ordinary auditor appointed in the normal way outside. It should be kept in mind that the Minister retains the right, whether the Comptroller and Auditor General or any other auditor is appointed, to say who is to be appointed and that control cannot be taken from the Minister by any action of the company or its directors. The company may not dispense with this control of the Minister which will always remain.
Up to the present, we have been using the Comptroller and Auditor General because of the fact that when the company started, there was very little in it. It was a backroom operation and it is still relatively small. For that reason, it was convenient to appoint him and it may still be convenient to do that but I can foresee the time when the company will no longer be so small and when it will no longer be convenient to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General. I hope that it may grow into a sizeable institution and may reach the point where it will no longer be convenient for the Comptroller and Auditor General to look after it. He might find that he would not have the staff or the time to be doing this company's business as we might like to prescribe in this amendment that he should.
I say that it is better that this trading company, this commercial company, whose business will take it into close contact with other commercial companies, should be entitled to the same freedom as that enjoyed by those with whom it will be dealing, to the same freedom as CIE, the ESB, the Irish Sugar Company, Ceimicí Teoranta and the air companies. There is no reason to believe, from our experience of those very large concerns, that the fact that their accounts need not be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General means that they have been doing anything wrong.
There is no reason to suggest, I think, from past experience or any prophecy of what may happen in the future that by not obliging the company to have its business audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, it may go off the rails. It is subject to as much control and will be subject to as much control by the appointment of any accountant as it will be even as it is now being audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, we do not want to tie it to the Comptroller and Auditor General, for the reasons I have stated.
From past experience of those rather larger operators I have mentioned, plus the fact that in the last analysis, the Minister will still control the appointment of an auditor to the company's business and, in turn, will be answerable in his own way, in the ordinary course of business, in this House, the position should be satisfactory to those who have any doubts about the matter. Unless they are matters which, by their disclosure, would be other than in the interests of the company and its operations—that is, the National Building Agency—I shall, as Minister, at all times hold myself quite free to give to the House any and all information which Deputies may request.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In paragraph 3 (2), page 5, line 38, to delete "drawn up in such manner" and substitute "in such form".
Perhaps this is only the difference of a word but the Minister will appreciate that the difference between "manner" and "form" can be considerable. I take it that in the ordinary way in these accounting procedures a certain form is adopted in regard to the way in which they are drawn up. We want to ensure that that will be followed in the ordinary way and not in a manner such as might be directed by the Minister—whatever Minister might be there. We want to ensure that it would be in such form rather than in such manner.
I presume that if I had had it down the other way around, the amendment would be in reverse. The Deputy has withdrawn his first amendment and I hear he has had the ill-luck to have his third amendment shot down through not conforming to the rules of the House. If it is agreeable to the Deputy, I am prepared to accept this amendment if amended to read "in such form and manner". I presume that that would meet both sides of the story.
Very good.
Amendment, as amended by leave, agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 has been ruled out of order. The Deputies have been so informed.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
This Bill is certified a Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.