(Cavan): Item No. 43.
Private Members' Business. - State Sponsored Bodies: Motion.
Mr. Chairman, in relation to Private Members' time, there are a number of motions on the order paper for quite a considerable time in the name of a number of Deputies from the Fianna Fáil Party. I should like to draw attention to Standing Order No. 86 which states in relation to the taking of private members motions——
Acting Chairman
As far as the Chair knows this motion has been taken by agreement between the Whips.
It is contrary to Standing Orders not to take motions in rotation in relation to the parties. Since Private Members' time started a number of motions have been taken from Fine Gael and Labour. As an ordinary Member of Dáil Éireann, irrespective of party, I wish to point out that this means that the motions of the Deputies of the Government party have not been taken by agreement or otherwise and we are being deprived of an opportunity of expressing our opinion on such motions in relation to matters affecting the people we represent.
Acting Chairman
I do not wish to cut the Deputy short but if we proceed on these lines the time allocated for the motion which I have called will be eaten into. I understand the practice has been that ten days notice be given under Standing Order 86.
On a point of order.
Acting Chairman
I am going to call on a member of the Labour Party.
I am not moving the motion. On a point of order, the agreement under which these motions were taken is an agreement between the Whips. If there is a dispute between members of the Fianna Fáil Party about this, it should be settled outside the House and not here.
Mr. Chairman——
Acting Chairman
I am calling on a member of the Labour Party.
I understand that the business of the House is conducted in accordance with Standing Orders. If a motion is taken on the basis on which it has been suggested now it is not in accordance with Standing Orders. In regard to these motions not alone has ten days notice been given but 18 months notice has been given for the purpose of having them discussed. If we are to be continually deprived of an opportunity of expressing ourselves on such motions——
It is the Fianna Fáil Party that is depriving the Deputy of the opportunity, not the Labour Party.
Acting Chairman
The Chair understands that no party in the House has complied with the special precedence Standing Order in regard to ten days notice and, in default of that notice, the matter has been informally arranged between the parties. It was agreed that motion No. 43 in the name of the Labour Party Members would be taken to-day and the Chair is now calling on a member of the Labour Party to move that motion.
It is deplorable that the House refuses to allow Private Members' time to be extended to the backbenchers of the Government Party. It is erroneous to say that notice was not given. These motions were put down 18 months ago, and I approached our Whip within the last fortnight——
Acting Chairman
The Chair has been patient with Deputy Dowling. If this is some internal matter between a Member of the House and his own party it should not be brought into the House.
It is not a matter——
Acting Chairman
I am ruling the Deputy out of order and I am calling on Deputy O'Donovan.
It is a matter of the rights of the backbenchers of this party to have their motions taken in rotation in accordance with Standing Orders.
Acting Chairman
The Chair would suggest that the Deputy should take this matter up with the Whip of his own party.
I have taken this matter up with the Whip on numerous occasions.
(Interruptions.)
It is not our fault.
Acting Chairman
The Chair is now ruling——
Standing Orders are being broken.
Acting Chairman
I am ruling Deputy Dowling is out of order. Will Deputy Dowling resume his seat?
In relation to Standing Orders——
Acting Chairman
The Chair appeals to Deputy Dowling to let the business of the House continue.
I am not trying to obstruct the business of the House.
Acting Chairman
That may not be the Deputy's intention but he is effectively doing so.
The House is depriving members of this party——
On a point of order, I just want to bring it to the Chair's attention that, due to this unwarranted interruption, we are losing Private Members' time. The Chair will take it into consideration?
Acting Chairman
That will be taken into consideration.
On a point of order. This has nothing to do with any suggestion of an internal row.
There was no such internal row if that was the suggestion.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order. I am trying to suggest that you have admitted that this procedure this evening is not in accordance with Standing Order.
Acting Chairman
It is in accordance with precedent.
I am talking about Standing Orders.
It is in accordance with an agreement made between the three Whips to which your Whip was a party.
I am not going into that.
I will go into it for the Deputy.
Acting Chairman
What the Chair said was that Standing Orders not having been operated, this resolution was taken by agreement between the Whips. So the Chair understands.
I submit this business will be invalid if it is proceeded with, not being in accordance with Standing Orders.
That is a lot of nonsense.
Acting Chairman
The Chair would also point out that this motion was announced by the Taoiseach at 4 o'clock as being taken in Private Members' Business and was not questioned. The Chair considers it is unreasonable——
(Interruptions.)
Reference has been made by the Whip of the Labour Party——
Acting Chairman
The Chair considers that this is out of order and that it is wasting the time allocated to this motion. If any Member of the House objected to the Order of Business it should have been raised at 4 o'clock. Deputy O'Donovan.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann bearing in mind the necessity of striking a balance between its rights and the need to safeguard the commercial freedom of semi-State bodies, requests that a permanent Dáil Committee, representative of all Parties, should be established for the purpose of examining and reporting on the activities of these bodies.
This is not the first occasion on which a motion of this sort has been discussed in the Oireachtas. It has been referred to many times but I might, perhaps, mention in particular the debate in Seanad Éireann on the 2nd March, 1950 on a motion by Senator Orpen. It was a preliminary kind of motion:
that Seanad Éireann is of opinion that a Joint Committee of Members of both Dáil and Seanad Éireann should be set up to consider and report on what steps (if any) should be taken to provide for a periodic review of the operation of companies in which the State holds a majority of the issued shares.
Among the people who contributed to that debate was Mr. Patrick McGilligan, then Minister for Finance. I am aware, and people who read his contribution will be aware, that he had made a serious study of the matter. He ended up with a suggestion—for reasons which he considered good and sufficient—that the motion should be let rest having been discussed. He said:
I ask the Seanad, having given me the benefit of their views, not to pass the resolution but to let the matter rest here. If it should become necessary, I will come here and indicate what is going on and let the Seanad pass its views on it, or come back and ask to have this resolution resubmitted, so that it could be assented to and the committee of inquiry referred to set up.
That is a quotation from column 726 of the Official Report of the Seanad Debates of 2nd March, 1950.
There have been many references to the matter since but that certainly was the most important one. There is general agreement that it is a very awkward problem. The British have come to no decision about it, although they considered it many times. The Swedes have a system very like our Committee of Public Accounts. The chairman and senior officials of semi-State bodies, the equivalent of our semi-State bodies, come before their Committee of Public Accounts and bring their papers with them and they are answerable in much the same way as our accounting officers are answerable.
The motion deals with a serious basic problem and attempts to tackle the problem have been made in many countries. On the whole, when we find that very practical people like the English are reluctant to start something, we have cause to think twice about it. It is now 21 years since 1950 and, of course, the position has changed very considerably in the interval. At that time the total capital programme of the State was somewhere in the region of £30 million. Now it is approaching £200 million. Whatever reasons there were—and there were enough reasons at the time —for suggesting that if at all possible, some method should be found of investigating these bodies, these reasons are all the stronger today.
The directors of these semi-State bodies are expected to run them in the public interest but we know that the directors of private enterprise companies frequently have little or no regard for the interest of the shareholders but have a great deal of regard for the institutions themselves. That is to say, if you like to make a comparison, that the people who would be running the semi-State bodies would have more regard for the interests of tourism, or transport, or what have you, than they would have for the welfare of the people of the country as a whole, to use the phrase in some of the Acts.
I am afraid that as the semi-State bodies grow older, this tendency will develop and it is likely that they will be run more in accord with the views of the officials who staff them, than in accordance with the interests of the people of the country. These are public boards run on public money and operated by people who are, in fact, if not in name, public servants. They are certainly public servants in the general sense of that term. In many cases the money imposes a liability on the taxpayer.
Generally speaking policy is based on the terms of Acts of the Oireachtas. These semi-State bodies are supposed to be governed by these Acts. We all know that the general fashion in which Bills have to be phrased, the general language in which they have to be couched, means that they have very little influence on how these bodies carry out their work. Perhaps I should mention that, up to the present, the main reason why there has not been any interference was the feeling that the State sets up these bodies in this particular way to take them away from the direct control of Parliament and the Comptroller and Auditor General, so that they will have freedom, being commercial enterprises in many cases, to carry out their business without being answerable for their day to day administration.
There is a world of territory between day to day office administration and broad lines of policy. It is here, of course, that the serious problem arises. That problem is not answered by the reports and accounts that are usually presented yearly to the Oireachtas. All the time there is a desire that these bodies should be autonomous and that they should not be interfered with. It is a question of whether this form of autonomy must be maintained at all costs.
I should like to give some examples of what can happen. Following the passing of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1947, which was an ideal moment, agricultural prices being at rock bottom, the board of directors of the company continued to make no loans, in effect, lending just a couple of hundred thousand pounds a year. This went on until the present chairman, Mr. Considine, became chairman of the board. Then the policy changed. I noted in answer to a Parliamentary Question put down last week by Deputy Bruton that the Agricultural Credit Corporation lent £5 million during a limited period recently.
The fact was that the corporation in its early years had been lending fairly broadly and then ran into serious trouble in the agricultural world of the 30s. They got such a severe lesson then that they almost literally went out of business. What was of significance was that the commercial banks would not lend the farmers 1s at the same time. The minute the Agricultural Credit Corporation, under the guidance of Mr. Considine, began lending money to the farmers, the commercial banks said: "We too." They began to pour money into agriculture as well as the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Indeed, this country suffered very severly in the early part of the 50s because of the non-operation of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1947.
Let me speak about another body. A booklet was published last week—or at least I got a copy of it in the post— by the Institute of Public Administration entitled Cost Benefit Analysis of the Operations of Bord na Móna. One reason why I was interested in it, apart from the fact that it was about Bord na Móna, was that I do not really understand exactly what cost benefit analysis means. It is one of these new things which have been brought into economics since I was at college. I thought this provided an ideal opportunity to learn what is was all about. I do know a good deal about Bord na Móna and I have a great admiration for the manner in which that body has conducted its affairs. What shocks me about this booklet is that the two learned gentlemen from Trinity College, Dublin who wrote the book, took the year 1968-69 as the base for the purpose of their report. I do not know whether or not it is coincidental that 1968-69 was the best year Bord na Móna ever had. Through no fault of its own it had six very bad years climatically from 1960 onwards. This suggests to me that this is not a fair financial analysis of the position of Bord na Móna. It suggests also that academics employed to do such a job do not show very good judgment.
It has been said that if a committee of the Dáil were set up we could not get people in the House with the necessary experience because of the diversity of operations of these bodies. I do not accept that view. Members of this House come from a great variety of occupations and strata of society, if that be of any significance. Semi-State bodies vary greatly quite apart from the different projects they undertake and difference in size. Giants like the Central Bank and the ESB have a capital in excess of a couple of hundred million pounds whereas small bodies like Bord na gCon and Bord na gCapall have a very small capital, and bodies such as the Rheumatism Clinic have a nominal capital. The fact of the matter is that these bodies at the present time are responsible to nobody. I do not think this particular position applies anywhere else in the community except in the case of complete private ownership. This should not be allowed to continue indefinitely. The expenditure of these bodies has increased fantastically in recent years.
How the committee would operate is the question. The present commercial accountants are not worth tuppence in this context. I once had a problem about which I consulted the then Comptroller and Auditor General who was the commercial auditor of a particular company. He said, "I can do nothing about it; I am only the commercial auditor in this case. If I were acting as Comptroller and Auditor General I could do something about it." All these bodies have commercial auditors although there was a period when the Comptroller and Auditor General was, in fact, made the commercial auditor but, if he has not the power to act as Comptroller and Auditor General, he is no better in that context than a commercial auditor would be.
The British used to have a system of sending to places like Egypt a man called the Treasury Remembrancer. He was usually a senior official of the Treasury who had to be put out to grass because he was not able to cope with the hurly-burly of life around Whitehall. In these foreign places he had the power of complete veto. I would not suggest such extreme action but I do think the committee might have attached to it an internal investigator. We all know what an internal auditor is in a single company. An internal investigator should be a person of real administrative and financial experience who would act on such information as he could collect himself or on information supplied to him by members of the committee or other responsible people. He would then do the preliminary work for the committee which would call the directors and senior officers of these companies before them and ask them whatever questions they thought appropriate.
Most of these companies are run by part-time directors. These part-time directors receive low remuneration although on occasion there are suggestions that they also receive fringe benefits of certain kinds. They do not tend to interfere with the full-time officials. At the weekly or monthly meetings they tend to accept whatever is put before them by the full-time officials of these organisations. There are many reasons for this. First of all, a lack of intimate knowledge about the business, second a fear of upsetting the machinery of management in the company and third the nature of committee control itself.
I am not to be taken as suggesting that we have suffered in any way severely from the kind of thing that is said to have happened in Australia where many retired and defeated politicians have been placed on the boards of semi-State bodies. There is a special reason for referring to Australia in this connection because Australia was the first country in the world to set up this kind of organisation. For a time they were a great success but it was later suggested that the boards of such bodies were being loaded with politicians who were either retired or defeated. There is no coercive evidence that this is true but it might be said that some of our directors are people who have backed one Government party or another. As the present Government party have been in office for 33 years I suggest that an analysis of the political opinions of directors of semi-State bodies would indicate a substantial majority of supporters of the Government party. There are, however, some directors I know who are not just Tadgh an Dhá Thaobh but are Tadgh an Trí Thaobh, everything to Fianna Fáil, everything to Fine Gael and everything to Labour, as befits the government at a particular time.
There is limited control at present from Ministers and their Departments. There have been two occasions when Ministers did harm by interfering, although I do not think that is the case at the present time. One occasion was in relation to the ESB. If a Minister is inclined to be a busybody he is more likely to intrude in the affairs of the semi-State bodies with a great deal more irritation than any committee of this House could intrude on them.
What is a day to day matter and what is a matter suitable for decision by Government policy? Would a £¼ million grant for a new industry or £100,000 for a hotel in the west be matters decided by the Government or by the semi-State body concerned? I think it would be a matter for the semi-State body. I do not think the Government would intrude. So extensive has expenditure become that a proposition would have to cost about £1 million before the Cabinet would become closely concerned with it. There is a method by which the Government can control them at present but it is a very slow one. If a Minister disagrees with the directors of one of the bodies for which his Department are responsible, he can gradually remove them. A director is generally retired each year, but this is a very slow method of changing policy. The only other method he could operate would be to introduce an amending Bill altering the nature of the board but that might run into very serious criticism. He might, of course, make things so difficult for the board of directors that some of the more independent members might resign. However, I do not think that would be desirable because while it was going on the board would be affected and the people working on it would be aware of the difficulties.
The Ministers in charge of Departments which are responsible for individual companies must act as kind of overlords and co-ordinate the work of the companies. Usually companies attached to the Department of Agriculture are agricultural companies, those attached to the Department of Finance are financial companies, and so on, and there is no doubt that the Minister should have the right to co-ordinate policies between various groups. There has been great reticence about doing anything about this awkward problem, for quite good reasons. The day has arrived when it will have to be tackled. The capital budget for 1970-71 was estimated at £200 millions in round figures of which about £80 millions was spent by semi-State bodies and the remainder by the local authorities and the Government on housing, health and so on, but the air companies at the beginning of the year were expected to spend £24 million and the ESB £23 million so that these two giants have been responsible for about 60 per cent of the capital expenditure of semi-State bodies, although they employ only about 20 per cent of the workers employed by semi-State bodies. This is one of the difficulties. Despite the efforts made since the end of the last world war to come to a conclusion about this matter the extent of the capital expenditure now controlled by these bodies is such that the matter cannot be put on the long finger any longer. I know of no method better than the method suggested in this motion.
I second the motion. I intend to be brief because frankly the points I had intended mentioning have been covered adequately by the proposer and in a much better fashion than I could have covered them. We are asking for a permanent committee of the House to be set up to examine the expenditure of State bodies and realising the nature of these bodies and of the desirability of giving them very considerable latitude we even embody that in the motion. These bodies are growing more and more powerful and influential and in some cases more and more expensive to the taxpayers and therefore there should be a procedure whereby they will be accountable to impartial people on behalf of the taxpayers who contribute very considerable sums of money.
Deputy O'Donovan has given examples of other countries in which they deal with this problem but we think the solution to our problem lies in the setting up of a committee on the lines of the Committee of Public Accounts which has displayed impartiality and objectivity in its normal sittings over a long number of years and therefore this motion should commend itself to the Minister.
We support this motion because it is part of our stated policy; we stated this before the last general election and during it. We support the motion in no desire to interfere with the activities of State companies in any way. Deputy Cluskey has expressed the same idea. The figures given by Deputy O'Donovan for the capital moneys going into these companies year after year indicate that they are becoming a very major feature of our lives. More and more people are being employed by them and the semi-State bodies are indulging in more and more activities, some of which we might commend and some we might not, but in which we might desire that they should not indulge. It does seem extraordinary that Parliament should have no voice, in the working of these bodies whereas Parliament has, this year, expressed itself through the committee of Public Accounts in regard to the expenditure by the State of State funds. I cannot see why, except that it is just one move further ahead, this Committee can investigate the actions of a Minister, the work of the Revenue Commissioners, the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the work of various Ministries and the expenditure on various things like education, fertilisers, subsidies, grants and so on, and cannot examine the commercial accounts of Aer Lingus, the ESB, CIE, Bord Fáilte, Coras Tráchtála, the IDA or Bord na Móna.
We are parliamentarians and it is from this House that the Government get their power but surely the Opposition as well as the Government should have some voice if not in the decisions to be made in relation to the allocation of funds for semi-State companies then certainly in the examination of how those funds are applied? If they have that voice in the Committee of Public Accounts in regard to State Departments why should they not have a voice in regard to the expenditure of State companies? There is the natural political reason and it seems to be the only reason why the Government have resisted this suggestion and I am sorry to say that I feel they will resist this motion also. The Government want to keep all influence, all power and all the information except what is sent to us in the form of a report of a semi-State company and what we see in their balance sheets and profit and loss accounts.
Parliament desires to know more and is entitled to know more. With regard to this motion what will happen is that Fine Gael and Labour will vote for it and the Government will vote against it. That is a prognostication that may not come true; perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the Government are accepting the motion. I have been a Member of this House for 16 years and, if I know the thinking and the feeling of the Government that they must keep the maximum amount of information to themselves, that will be the pattern of voting at the end of this debate.
That does not mean that the Ministers involved in the running of semi-State companies do not want the companies to succeed. The Minister for Finance is the person responsible for allocating funds; the Minister for Agriculture is concerned with the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the Minister for Transport and Power has various companies under his control. They are all anxious that the semi-State companies will succeed because, to a large extent, their political future depends on the success of the companies. However, up to the present the Government have wanted to do it their own way, without Parliament having a voice even in the examination of how work has been carried out.
This is a negation of democracy. The Committee of Public Accounts have shown the way and the interest that is being shown by the people in the examination being carried out by that committee would be similarly evident if the affairs of Aer Lingus, Bord Fáilte, Córas Tráchtála, Bord na Móna, the Industrial Development Authority, the Agricultural Credit Corporation, the Industrial Credit Company, the ESB and CIE were under examination. If these organisations were the subject of helpful scrutiny—not critical or destructive—by a responsible committee of this House, this would be welcomed by the majority of people in the country.
Of course, there would be dissentient voices. I disagree with the idea that the ESB should increase constantly the sale of electrical appliances because they have a tremendous advantage over the ordinary trader. If a person buys an appliance from the ESB and is unable to pay the hire purchase instalments the ESB will switch off the light and this is leverage the trader has not got. A man who is employed in the ESB with perhaps seven people under his authority will get practically double his salary if he can succeed in increasing the volume of business—eventually he will have 14 people working for him. This is the form the salary structure of most semi-State companies takes.
This tends to ensure that people will try to increase turnover when, in fact, they may not be making a profit. If the semi-State company is also engaged in numerous other activities this provides an opportunity in the charging of the various costs to the different activities of the company to cloak real losses. I would mention the example of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann and what one penny on a lb of sugar would mean in revenue and then take note of the various other activities of the company. Some of those activities incur heavy losses, although I agree that in some cases they are of benefit to the country. It is common knowledge—I use those words rather than common gossip— that losses which have been suffered by the company in activities divorced from the manufacture of sugar have been shown as being far less than the actual loss.
I will give an example of a company —not a semi-State company—that could move items from one part of the profit and loss account to the other before proceeding to the charging of expenses. Let us take the example of flour mill and bakeries both held by the same company. In the event of both concerns using vehicles owned jointly, if there is a common transport manager and joint garage and petrol facilities it would take a most detailed scrutiny to decide the cost of transport in relation to the 2lb loaf or the sack of flour. This is a problem that has to be faced by a commercial company.
One can consider the varied nature of the activities of a semi-State company—Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann is the perfect example. In very many cases only the most scanty information is given in regard to the many activities of the body concerned. When this happens in the case of a semi-State body there is a necessity for a committee, such as the Committee of Public Accounts, to analyse the situation and ask questions that must be answered.
I sat on the Committee of Public Accounts some 12 or 13 years ago. I remember the head of the Revenue Commissioners coming in. I asked him the question what was involved in an item of £7,000 for "awards". There was a stunned silence and then the answer was given that it was a reward to people who told tales on others who were not paying their income tax and the following morning, to my astonishment, the item of £7,000 got banner headlines in three national newspapers.
As an example of the great variety of activities I have instanced, CIE, not only transport people and goods but are also hoteliers. What is the charge to each section of the company? Something is not doing so well and an officer of the company desires that this be not publicly shown. He believes that in a few years or maybe in less than a year things will improve. Very often—I am a business man myself—there is an arbitrary decision as to what particular section of an account one charges a particular item. All the civil servants, accountants, auditors and fellows with letters after their names until you would be tired writing them down, cannot change that fact.
There is every necessity for a committee such as I have described. It should not be a committee to pull the place apart but a committee that has at heart the interests of the semi-State company and the people who work in it, a committee that will examine the actions of that company and see whether the public interest is being served. It is in that interest that we in the Fine Gael Party have produced a policy as close as makes no difference to the motion which the Labour Party have now put down, and when the division takes place it will be voting with the Labour Party on it.
Mr. O'Donnell
I am very pleased to support this motion tabled by the Labour Party. As the spokesman for my party on Transport and Power I am very conscious of the need for improving the relationship between Parliament and the nine or ten State companies. We in the Fine Gael Party clearly spelled out in our policy document issued some years ago our attitude to this question of the Parliamentary control of semi-State bodies and I have given a good deal of time to studying this problem. The Fine Gael Party believe that the ideal solution to this question of public accountability is by means of Parliamentary committees. For that reason the motion tabled by the Labour Party is, in my opinion, very much on target.
In the light of almost two years experience as my party's spokesman on Transport and Power, having had contact with at least nine State bodies, covering Bord na Móna, tourism, aviation, industry, Bord Fáilte, ESB, a wide variety of companies engaged in complex and scientific processes, my conclusion is that there is not sufficient scope for studying these bodies. The only opportunity Dáil Éireann has at present to express opinions on the policy of these companies is by means of the annual Estimate debate or occasionally when special Bills in relation to one particular company or other are introduced into the House. There is only limited scope at Question Time. My experience has been that the Parliamentary Question is totally unsatisfactory from the point of view of a Deputy seeking information regarding State companies. I am reminded of a rather amazing coincidence in relation to a question which I tabled last week to the Minister for Transport and Power seeking information about new developments in CIE. You, Sir, in your wisdom disallowed the question by reason of the fact that the Minister had no responsibility. Not for one moment, Sir, would I question your ruling, and have never done so, but it is a common feature that questions I have asked in relation to Transport and Power in the last two years on the activities of various State bodies, have been disallowed by you on the ground that the Minister had no responsibility in the matter.
So far as the average Deputy is concerned—and I regard myself as only an average Deputy—it is impossible for him, no matter how assidious, studious or capable he might be to become au fait with the activities and the workings of every one of the State companies. I have made a fair attempt to do this and I have considerable contact with the various bodies under the control of Transport and Power. The present system of Parliamentary control of State companies is totally unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory both from the point of view of the Members of Dáil Éireann and of the people of this country who, it must never be lost sight of, are the shareholders in the State companies.
The only opportunity we have of questioning or discussing the activities of these State companies is the annual Estimate debate, and this is not good enough. The question of the control by Parliament of State companies is a subject which has been discussed at length not merely in this country but in several other countries. It is a very controversial matter. The Devlin Report on the Public Services deals very extensively with this question of the structure of State bodies and their accountability to Parliament and to the people. There is no satisfactory way in which the people of this country or a Member of Dáil Éireann can assess the performance of these companies. I have been horrified to find in page 45 of the Devlin Report paragraph 34, under the heading of "Accountability" that: "In theory, State-sponsored bodies are responsible to their Ministers and through the Ministers to the Dáil." That is the theory but: "in practice there is no effective machinery in Departments for the appraisal of their results. Departments are not equipped effectively to examine the accounts of the state bodies." Imagine that! "The multiplicity of accounting practices makes comparison difficult."
This motion which we are discussing now is very valid. It makes a case which must be met, in my opinion. A system will have to be devised whereby the people of this country, who are shareholders in State companies, and we their representatives in Parliament, will be able to ascertain, and assess, and judge, the performance of the various State bodies. Time and time again, Ministers have come in here and looked for money. As recently as last December the Minister for Transport and Power, at short notice, looked for £3 million for CIE. How could I, as the Fine Gael spokesman, or Deputy O'Donovan, who is better qualified than I am to assess it, judge? We had not access to the type of information we would need to enable us to decide whether CIE were entitled to this £3 million.
This has happened in the case of Aer Lingus and in the case of subventions to all the State bodies. We have no way of knowing this, other than from the annual reports which, as Deputy O'Donovan rightly said, are purely commercial presentations and do not present a true picture of the performance of the various State bodies. Over the past two years, every time I had the opportunity in a debate on State companies under the aegis of the Department of Transport and Power, I have referred to the need for introducing a proper system of accountability for State bodies. In other words, these bodies should be made accountable to the people, the taxpayers, who provide the finance for them. The way to make the State bodies accountable to the people, is through the elected representatives here in Parliament.
We feel—and so far as I can gather the Labour Party have the same idea in mind—that the obvious way to make State companies accountable to the people of Ireland, through Parliament, is by means of Parliamentary Committees. Deputy Donegan mentioned the Committee of Public Accounts. I do not think that one committee would be able to examine fully the affairs of every State body. There should be a series of Parliamentary Committees to examine the various related State bodies, for example, transport, CIE and Aer Lingus, and the various other ancillary off-shoots of aviation such as the meteorological services and air traffic control. There should be a committee of Parliament on aviation, and one on surface transport, shipping, and so forth. This could be done by means of Parliamentary Committees, as suggested in the Labour Party motion.
This system of public accountability by State bodies through Parliamentary Committees is, in fact, in operation in Great Britain and it is working very satisfactorily there. Experience in Britain has shown that Parliamentary Committees and Inquiries are very beneficial and, in fact, the management and directors of the various State bodies in Britain have welcomed the establishment of Parliamentary Committees. I am not advocating a Parliamentary Committee which would, as Deputy Donegan said, tear these companies apart. I am not even advocating that these Parliamentary Committees should have the authority to pry into the day to day affairs of these companies.
The Parliamentary Committees should be able to obtain enough information from the various State bodies to enable the Members of this House to arrive at a logical decision, when they were fully informed of the pros and cons, as to whether X company was entitled to £Y million. I am aware of, and very much conscious of, the inadequacy of the present system of accountability by State companies in so far as it applies to Members of Dáil Éireann, but I was shocked to find that Departments of State, the Government Departments under whose control these companies are, have no effective way of judging their performance.
This clearly calls for a new approach. It calls for the setting up of special Parliamentary Committees. Deputy O'Donovan referred to the fact that an argument which had been advanced against the setting up of these committees is that we, as Members of Dáil Éireann, would not have the technical know-how or the capacity to discuss the working of a company such as Aer Lingus, or the operation of a company like the Electricity Supply Board, or any other such State company. If we were supplied with enough information every one of us, in our own way, would be quite capable of making a rational decision regarding the performance of any of these companies. We cannot do so at present except by hit and miss methods and by means of contacts.
I do not mind admitting that most of the information I have been able to get regarding the State bodies under the aegis of the Department of Transport and Power over the past two years, since my party appointed me as spokesman on these matters, came from contacts within the State companies, and not through questions at Question Time. I have had questions shot down time and again because of the fact that the questions related to matters on which the Minister for Transport and Power had no function.
We have an outstanding case for the setting up of these Parliamentary Committees. Taking all the State companies, there is one striking case which calls for a special method of accountability and that is the case of Bord Fáilte in relation to hotel grants. Time and again Deputy Murphy and I and other colleagues of mine have adverted to this fact. We have pointed out that the Industrial Development Authority in their annual report gave details of the grants paid to every industry, big or small and details of other grants are available from other Departments, but there was no way of knowing how much any hotelier received by way of grant. The Minister for Transport and Power has at last agreed to furnish this information in future reports.
Bord Fáilte is responsible for a major national industry, which has grown fantastically over the past ten years—an industry which has implications directly and indirectly for many sectors of our economy. In view of the difficulty which Members have had in obtaining information about Bord Fáilte from the Minister, it is essential that some means be devised whereby Members of this House can assess the performance of Bord Fáilte, the difficulties of the tourist industry, the progress being made and can suggest improvements. Deputy Tully is very interested in the tourist industry and has on many occasions referred to the fact that tourism was a major national industry. I am sure he will agree with me that the big difficulty for Deputies interested in the tourist industry is in obtaining information regarding the performance of a company. This motion appeals to me because of my experience as a Fine Gael spokesman on Transport and Power over the past two years. It gives me great pleasure to support the motion.
In tabling this motion the Labour Party are not denouncing or decrying semi-State bodies. Indeed, it is the policy of the Labour Party where the interests of the public are concerned that organisations such as these should not be in private hands. We feel the Government on behalf of the public should have control over bodies such as these. Certainly, we do not intend that semi-State bodies be abolished. We do, however, feel that public accountability is very important. We do not feel that national monopolies should exist or continue to exist without the public having some control or say in the running of them.
I find very little fault in many of these companies. It is good to see semi-State bodies operated in a businesslike manner as opposed to operating under the Civil Service red tape which can strangle a company. The Government hold the shares of these companies on behalf of the public who are, in fact, the real shareholders. Yet the taxpayers are the only people who do not have any say in how these companies are run. Members of this Dáil are ridiculed by the public because they cannot ask questions about semi-State bodies. Is there anything more humiliating to a Dáil Deputy than to have to tell a constituent, "I cannot bring this question up in Dáil Éireann because it involves a semi-State body"? The ordinary man in the street will reply, "Surely this is an ordinary semi-State body? You must be able to ask a question about it". But we have to say, "No, this is a semi-State body and we have no control over it". Parliament is held up to ridicule when the elected representatives of the public cannot ask questions about semi-State bodies on behalf of the public.
There would be no question of Deputies sitting as a court reviewing the affairs of semi-State bodies interfering in the day-to-day affairs of such bodies. I remember Mr. Lemass when he was Taoiseach saying, "Yes, it was desirable, it would be considered". The present Taoiseach is now saying, "Yes, it might be considered". No one wants to come to grips with the situation and say, "Yes, we must do something about it". The Labour Party tabled this motion because they took it that the Taoiseach was sincere and earnest about wanting to do something. The motion states:
That Dáil Éireann bearing in mind the necessity of striking a balance between its rights and the need to safeguard the commercial freedom of semi-State bodies, requests that a permanent Dáil Committee, representative of all Parties, should be established for the purpose of examining and reporting on the activities of these bodies. I do not think that is too much to ask. I hope the Government will not force this to a vote but instead will say, "Yes, we agree with it. We think it should be done and we shall make arrangements accordingly".
I was amazed to learn that Deputies could not find out what grants were given to hoteliers even though public money was involved. Evidently it was not in the public interest that they be told. Where taxpayers' money is concerned there should be accountability to someone. I do not think the purpose of semi-State bodies when they were originally set up was to make them immune from parliamentary inquiry. It is a good thing that the ESB should be financed by the State because if private enterprise had taken on the job people in remote parts of the country would not have the facilities and services now provided by the ESB. Had CIE not been made a semi-State body commercial interests would find it was not profitable to provide a road or rail service in particular parts of the country. There is a social obligation on the company to provide such services and for this reason I think semi-State bodies are excellent. To appoint men with business experience is a good idea. Aer Lingus is a very good example. It has done wonders for this country and has put our name high on the list of international airlines.
I do not think these companies have anything to hide. I am sure they do not want Dáil Deputies meddling in their everyday affairs—we are not asking for that. All we are asking is that a body representing Parliament should have the power to review the activities of these companies so that if complaints come to the notice of Deputies they can be forwarded to the committee. The committee could check the validity or otherwise of the complaints and then see how they could be rectified. I do not think semi-State bodies would resent this. It would be in the interests of everybody if it was done. The fact that the public know so little about these companies engenders a certain amount of suspicion in their minds. This is a great tragedy. It is often said, "The less you know about things, the more you suspect". If we have public accountability this suspicion might be removed because there is abroad a great deal of suspicion that appointments within these bodies at a high level are political. I do not think they are but it is said "Oh, he is a political appointee". This suspicion is dangerous. We read in the newspaper the other day of the suspicions about Parliament and Deputies. There was a survey carried out amongst 70 people and they felt that Deputies were in the Dáil for personal advancement and their own personal power and influence. They felt that you could get something only through political influence. We should try to rid society of this kind of thinking. It is very much in evidence with regard to semi-State bodies. If there was this machinery for periodic reviews we might rid people's minds of this idea that money was being squandered or misappropriated. As long as this idea exists we will not have a healthy society. This was very much in evidence in regard to Bord Fáilte's grants to hotels. For everybody's sake we should try to see that suspicions about graft or political corruption are dispelled from people's minds. People lose respect for Parliament and politicians when there is this suspicion.
I fail to see how the Government can put this motion to a vote. Fine Gael have indicated their support for the motion but I cannot see how the Taoiseach who talks about reform can in all sincerity put this motion to a vote. The motion does not ask for a lot but just that the taxpayer who is being continually overburdened will have some knowledge about where the millions which are invested in these companies go. I am not saying it is being squandered but there is the impression that it is. We like the idea of the semi-State bodies and it is in the public interest to have them but it was never intended that they should act as monopolies free from accountability. Take the case of CIE. We have lots of grievances about CIE. Originally we got the impression that when CIE became a semi-State body their workers would be treated like civil servants and their conditions of service would be ideal. Unfortunately this has not been so and we find that the conditions of employment of many workers are not as they should be and we have no means of inquiring into this. The CIE Inchicore works is in my constituency and I get a lot of complaints about conditions of employment and certain aspects of policy within the works which are not in the interest of the workers or of the people. As I have not got any means of inquiring into this position I am not able to act properly as a public representative. We saw recently what happened in regard to placing a contract abroad and we know that there were internal problems but these problems might not have arisen if there had been a committee to look into the affairs of CIE. There are other aspects of CIE policy which are not in the interest of the public.
Recently we heard about a semi-State body purchasing goods from China and the Minister's answer in regard to that was far from acceptable. He said that unless the price of the Irish products was as good as that of the imported products they would favour the imported product, or something to that effect. This is a very dangerous thing to say. Even though the price may not be as good there are other aspects to be considered. The price factor should not be the only factor because we have to consider the conditions under which the product was produced abroad and if there is slave labour, or if workers' conditions are not ideal, we should not encourage the buying of these goods from places such as China where workers are not given a proper wage. It would seem to me to augur very badly for Irish workers that the Tánaiste, who answered for the Minister for Transport and Power, should make a statement like this. It would seem that, in the Common Market, Irish goods would not stand a chance; if goods came in from abroad we would not favour the Irish product. This would be very dangerous. Our whole policy should be to favour Irish products. If there were public accountability such purchase of foreign goods would not happen.
The Deputy should read the Official Report and learn what was said. He is purporting to quote and he is not——
The Minister said that imported goods were cheaper.
He said that only 20 per cent were bought and they could buy the whole 100 per cent.
(Interruptions.)
The Government policy is to encourage the purchase of Irish products but in practice this has not been so. The Government who should be giving the example have been the biggest offenders.
Of course the trade unionist who is employed in a shop and who serves the material of another country over the counter——
Does the Deputy suggest that a trade unionist in a shop should refuse to sell something which his employer has and which is not Irish?
(Interruptions.)
They do what the boss tells them and if not they are sacked.
I thought Deputy O'Connell would be favouring his Chinese friends.
No, I would not be favouring any Chinese friends. I would denounce anybody buying products from a country where the workers are not being paid proper wages. I cannot see how the Parliamentary Secretary would pander to that low level to try to insinuate that I would say otherwise.
We will know about it next weekend—the secret session.
I thought you fellows would never again talk about a weekend, after last week.
The Parliamentary Secretary should be ashamed to hold up his head.
(Interruptions.)
Debate adjourned.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,