Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Mar 1971

Vol. 252 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - State-Sponsored Bodies: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

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.

—(Deputy O'Donovan.)

Dr. O'Connell

There are few points I wish to speak on, except to ask the Minister if he will seriously consider this question of a Committee of the Dáil to examine the question of semi-State bodies. It is of importance in the public interest that we should know what the stated management objectives of these companies are. Every company should have a stated management objective. We do not know what the stated management objectives of many of these semi-State bodies are. They might be incompatible with the national interest and also they could be such as to eliminate competition. We would also like to know how money is spent by these companies in the fulfilment of these stated management objectives. CIE are engaged in the transport business as are Aer Lingus and the B & I company. There might be duplication of work by these three bodies engaged in transport. The objectives of one might conflict with the objectives of another. Another example of this duplication could arise where the fertiliser policy of the Sugar Company might not be compatible with that of Nítrigin Éireann. It would be important for the future programme of development and co-ordination of these companies that we should know this. The public, as shareholders, are entitled to this information. I can accept the fact that we have two types of State-sponsored bodies—those engaged in State monopoly and those in commercial competition. We, in the Labour Party, appreciate that there might be secret information about the commercial processes employed by Erin Foods which should not be made known to those in the private enterprise field. It would not be in the public interest that such information should be made available. It would not be in the interest of the particular State-sponsored body such as Erin Foods if they were in competition with Batchelor's Foods to disclose such information to a Select Committee of the Dáil. The information might appear the following day in the newspapers. We would have to have common sense and to know that secret information about commercial companies would not be available.

Where a large amount of money is involved in State monopolies, such as CIE, we think that the taxpayer is entitled to information. There is no doubt but that in some companies there is wasteful expenditure. How can we justify the opening of a CIE office in Los Angeles? The people in CIE are not responsible to anyone——

Minister for Finance (Mr. Colley)

I do not know the facts offhand but I would imagine that this would be one of the more profitable enterprises in CIE.

Dr. O'Connell

Opening an office in Los Angeles?

Mr. Colley

Quite possibly it could be profitable.

Dr. O'Connell

How can any Minister for Finance imagine that a CIE office in Los Angeles would bring in many tourists? If there was public accountability for companies such as this we would not have an office in Los Angeles. We would be more realistic and would cut our cloth according to our measure. As long as a company like CIE are permitted to spend money as lavishly as they do, this alone justifies the approval of this motion of the Labour Party. There should be an account of the CIE operation and the spending spree on which they are engaged every year with the public's money. The realisation by them that there is no accountability is not helpful. I know of an instance where machines were actually ploughed into the ground and cemented over in the CIE works at Inchi-core. The Minister for Finance would agree that there is no accountability there. Where there is a possibility that money is being misspent—and we have not got this money to spare or to throw into a company which shows no real regard for its responsibility—there should be accountability.

I have instanced cases of CIE mismanagement and wastage of money before. It is a great pity that there is not public accountability for such wastage. I wish to refer briefly to Irish Steel Holdings Limited where there is another glaring example of things going wrong and where an accountant resigned because he was dissatisfied with the way in which the company was being run. This man proved his point. This is another case in which there is not public accountability.

Mr. Colley

What period is the Deputy referring to with reference to Irish Steel Holdings?

Dr. O'Connell

Obviously the Minister did not get details in the post about a year or so ago about the operation of Irish Steel Holdings Limited.

Mr. Colley

Is the Deputy saying that the accountant of Irish Steel Holdings Limited resigned? I do not think that is correct.

Dr. O'Connell

An accountant resigned.

Mr. Colley

The man concerned was involved with other companies who were dissatisfied with the policy of Irish Steel Holdings.

Dr. O'Connell

Did not an accountant resign?

Mr. Colley

To the best of my knowledge, I think that is not so. I am not deliberately contradicting the Deputy, but I think that is not so.

Dr. O'Connell

Was he asked to resign?

Mr. Colley

No. There is no basis for that remark.

Dr. O'Connell

I was under the impression that he had resigned because he was dissatisfied with the methods employed by Irish Steel Holdings Limited and he felt there should be public accountability. Perhaps we will look into this point. I think there is a Bill coming before the House later this evening which relates to this.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy is confused on that.

Dr. O'Connell

Deputy Tully is in agreement with the facts of what I said. I always find Deputy Tully very well informed on there things. He is never wrong, unfortunately.

Mr. Tully

I would not say he resigned. I would say he left all right for other reasons.

Dr. O'Connell

Whether he left or not I felt he was dissatisfied. When we brought forward this motion on behalf of the Labour Party we were not denigrating semi-State bodies. We were far from that. We believe that where it is in the public interest we should have this, where possible, and more and more of it. We do not, of course, accept that you can set up a State body and have it completely outside the realm of accountability to the public or to the Houses of Parliament. This would be wrong and would be contrary to all concepts of what socialism is. The whole idea is that these bodies be set up where the public interest would be better served by so doing. I must pay tribute to Bord na Móna for what it has done. As a semi-State body it has done an enormous amount of work and certainly we have to feel proud of its achievement over the years. Deputy Tully represents the workers employed, but I say that as a semi-State body its achievement is remarkable. Who would have thought it would have had the success it has had? I have quite a regard for the ESB. I will never say a word against the ESB because it has recognised the social need, and this is important.

However, I do not think that the directors of these companies should have anything to hide and I do not think they would want to be completely unaccountable to anyone, and, therefore, I do not think we should have a vote on this matter. When I mentioned this in a Dáil question to the former Taoiseach, Mr. Seán Lemass, he did say they would consider it and I think the present Taoiseach said it was being considered. No matter what Government is in office the setting up of this committee should be seriously considered. This would eliminate suspicion about these companies. It would, perhaps, enable them to operate a little more efficiently. There is no question whatever of interfering with the day-to-day activities of these companies. I do not think this was intended in this motion, because if there was such interference it would do more harm than good. If they were accountable to some committee the element of competition would enter into it. There would be more incentive to direct their operations towards their targets. It would eliminate this sluggish attitude which may be prevalent in a few of them.

I know we get reports from some of these semi-State bodies. However, I have seen a list of such companies and I must confess I have heard nothing about them. I do not know whether Tea Importers Limited is still in operation. There are a few of these bodies about which we know nothing, how they operate or anything else. I would like to know exactly what their purpose is, why they were established, what they are doing at the moment, and what money they receive. If there was a committee such as we have suggested more up-to-date information might be available on such bodies.

Mr. Colley

The possibility of establishing a Parliamentary committee to examine and report on the activities of our State-sponsored bodies—or our community-owned enterprises as they sometimes like to be called and not without reason, I think—has been under active consideration by the Government for some considerable time. Having regard to the growing importance of these bodies and the amount of State money invested in them, which is now very considerable, the Government recognise that some form of Parliamentary review of their activities other than we have at present may well be desirable.

There are, in all, more than 30 State-sponsored bodies engaged in commercial activities, and there are as many more again of a promotional or developmental nature. I take it that in discussing the question of Parliamentary review our interest is mainly in the commercial bodies. One of the difficulties in devising suitable arrangements for a review of the activities of State-sponsored bodies is the need to ensure that the managements of these bodies are not deprived of the initiative and flexibility which is essential to any successful undertaking. Indeed, the terms of the motion before the House at present acknowledge the importance of protecting the commercial freedom of our State-sponsored bodies.

A major consideration in the setting up of these commercial State-sponsored bodies as independent units was the need to ensure that they would have the necessary freedom of action in their day-to-day affairs to enable them to operate efficiently. Therefore, any undue scrutiny of their affairs by the Oireachtas would clearly negative this benefit. There is a further difficulty to be considered and that is that Ministers have certain responsibilities imposed on them by statute in relation to the control of some of these bodies, and in that regard the Ministers concerned are accountable to the Oireachtas. It would be essential in setting up the kind of committee envisaged in this motion to ensure that the work of such a committee in reviewing the activities of State-sponsored bodies should not trespass on the statutory Ministerial responsibilities.

Mr. P. Belton

The Minister could be chairman of this committee.

Mr. Colley

That would not necessarily ensure that his statutory responsibilities were not being hived off to the committee.

Mr. P. Belton

It would take some of the work away from him.

Mr. Colley

We would have to change the law to do that and this is the point to which I am trying to draw attention. What is envisaged is a committee to deal with a lot of these bodies together. If we were going to change the law on this we would have to take each one by itself and consider on its merits whether this should be done, and I think we would come to the conclusion in almost every case that we would not change the law in that regard, that is, the accountability of the Minister.

It is, I think, fair to say that Deputies are kept reasonably well informed in regard to the activities of our State-sponsored bodies, although I freely acknowledge that from time to time there have been protests from individual Deputies who felt that this was not so. Under our present arrangements Deputies are provided with information principally in four different ways: first, the annual report of the particular State-sponsored body which is laid before the House; secondly, in the course of the annual Parliamentary debate on the departmental estimate which provides funds for individual bodies; thirdly, through the Parliamentary question; and, fourthly, when amending legislation is brought before the House from time to time.

The State-sponsored bodies are encouraged to include as much detail as possible in their annual reports and accounts and I think it will be acknowledged that in this respect they measure up to the best standards in the private sector. Where funds are being voted for a paritcular State-sponsored body, there is ample opportunity for Parliamentary debate on the affairs of the body concerned. The Minister directly concerned usually gives a full account of the policy objectives and the programme of the particular body and, at the end of the debate, he answers specific queries raised by Deputies in the course of the debate. The Parliamentary question is, of course, a further means available to Deputies for procuring information apart from purely day-to-day matters of routine administration. In giving replies, Ministers have to ensure that these semi-State bodies are not subjected to such a degree of Parliamentary scrutiny as would undermine their ability to operate in the commercial world.

I think it is clear enough from the terms of this motion, and the debate, that Deputies on all sides of the House are very conscious of this necessity of not depriving these bodies, which are operating in a commercial field, of the necessary freedom to operate in that field. There are, of course, some people —they are becoming fewer in number as time goes on—who, as a matter of ideological conviction, are opposed to such bodies, or feel that where they exist, all of their activities, no matter what they are, should be open to full public scrutiny. I think that most people, and certainly most Deputies, recognise that this is not possible if we are to have any community-owned enterprises engaged in commercial activities.

However, I was dealing with the position as it is at present, and reviewing the opportunities that are available for review of the work of these bodies. One of the matters I mentioned is that from time to time legislation dealing with these bodies comes before the House. The normal practice, where money is provided by the Exchequer for the activities of these bodies, is to have an authorisation by statute for an amount which would normally cover their activities for a period of about three years. This ensures that periodically new legislation has to be brought in dealing with the particular State body, thereby providing a full opportunity for both Houses of the Oireachtas to debate and review the general policy and activities of the particular State body.

In reply to recent Parliamentary questions on the subject of bringing the activities of State-sponsored bodies under review by a Parliamentary committee, the Taoiseach stated that the position is being re-examined in the light of the recommendations in relation to these bodies in the report of the Public Services Organisation Review Group, or the Devlin Report as it is commonly known. While that report is mainly concerned with the restructuring of the Public Service, and an examination of Oireachtas functions was outside its terms of reference, the general recommendations contained in it in relation to State-sponsored bodies are relevant to the question of Parliamentary review.

The recommendations envisage, first, that the non-commercial bodies will become units of Civil Service Departments under the title of executive agencies while still maintaining their traditional structures and, secondly, that so far as organisation is concerned, the commercial bodies will retain their present position but will operate as far as possible to commercial standards with clearly defined goals, and will be recouped by the State for any losses arising from activities of a social as distinct from a commercial character.

It would appear that, if these recommendations are implemented, the non-commercial bodies at least would probably come under closer scrutiny by the Oireachtas as part of the executive units of Departments. These bodies would, presumably, be included in the annual departmental reports which, it is recommended, should be submitted to the Oireachtas. As regards the commercial bodies, it would seem that the implementation of the recommendations in the Devlin Report would not significantly affect their present position so far as Parliamentary control is concerned. However, the annual departmental reports which I have mentioned might possibly contain some data in relation to the activities of these bodies—that is, the commercial ones— and, to this extent, they might become subject to closer Parliamentary scrutiny than they are at present.

The recommendations I have referred to are related, of course, to the basic recommendation in the Devlin Report that the Public Service be divided into aireachtaí responsible for policy, and agencies responsible for the execution of policy. Until such time as decisions have been taken on this basic recommendation and its implications for State bodies have been fully assessed, I consider that it would be inappropriate to set up a Dáil Committee to review the affairs of State-sponsored bodies. It is clear that the decisions on the Devlin recommendation might have a very important bearing on the form and the content of any Parliamentary review machinery that might be introduced.

Some Deputies may recall that in November, 1964, the Committee of Public Accounts, in the course of its report, referred to the substantial sum of voted moneys paid to State-sponsored bodies, and to the absence of any provision in the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann for referring the accounts of these bodies to the committee for examination and subsequent report to the Dáil. The committee suggested that, as a first step, provision might be made for the reference to it of the audited accounts of bodies that receive subventions from voted moneys. In subsequent reports the committee has referred again to this matter. Its suggestion has been considered in detail and the general conclusion has been that, if it is decided in principle to introduce a system of Parliamentary review, it would be better to devise an arrangement that would be of wider scope than that proposed by the Committee of Public Accounts.

However, as I have already said, the whole position must now be reassessed in the light of the recommendations for the reorganisation of the Public Service. As I have indicated, these recommendations are basic to the way we would approach any Parliamentatry review of the activities of the State-sponsored bodies. A detailed examination of these recommendations is going on at present, and I would hope that the Government would be in a position to make decisions on these basic recommendations in the Devlin Report in the fairly near future, and then the other question of how the Parliamentary review of State-sponsored bodies might best be effected could be tackled, and I think in a more realistic way than at present, because the matter is somewhat up in the air until we know what line has been taken on the Devlin Report. So, this is very important in any consideration of this motion.

There is another matter that I think it is not inappropriate I should refer to, that is that we have at present some experience of the operation of a committee of this House in circumstances other than its traditional mode of operation. I am, of course, referring to the Committee of Public Accounts.

Dr. O'Connell

In its present task?

Mr. Colley

I am referring to what it is doing at present, which is different from its normal task. The point I want to make is that it would be unrealistic of anybody in this House to talk about the motion we have before us and not to have some regard to what is happening in that committee at present. It would also be unrealistic, I think, not to recognise that there may be some people whose views on the necessity and the desirability of Parliamentary review of State-sponsored bodies might be somewhat tempered by their experience of what is happening at the moment, at least to the extent of wanting to be quite sure of the kind of safeguards which it would be necessary to build in in any review of this nature.

Dr. O'Connell

Is the Minister suggesting that the Committee of Public Accounts at the moment are not meeting with the approval of the Government?

Mr. Colley

No. The Deputy must not put words into my mouth.

Mr. Cooney

The Minister seems to be disapproving of its present modus operandi.

Mr. Colley

No. Perhaps I should say it again and maybe this time the Deputies will listen very carefully to what I am saying.

Mr. Cooney

It is a delicate subject.

Mr. Colley

It would be unrealistic in my view to consider the subject matter of this motion before the House without having regard to what is happening in the Committee of Public Accounts at present and it would be equally unrealistic to expect that in the light of what is happening many people would not be concerned to ensure that any such committee as would be set up, as is envisaged in this motion, would be subject to such safeguards and restraints as they might not have thought were necessary some time ago.

Dr. O'Connell

The Minister is saying that the Taoiseach has had second thoughts on this and decided he was wrong in asking the matter to go before the Committee of Public Accounts.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy may put words into my mouth if he wishes but of course they are his words and not mine.

Dr. O'Connell

That is what the Minister is saying now. The Taoiseach has decided he was wrong.

Mr. Colley

I am saying no such thing. Am I to take it from what we are hearing that Deputy O'Connell, and perhaps Deputy Cooney, think the point I am making is of no substance whatever? Am I to take it that they think that what is happening in the Public Accounts Committee at the moment is of no relevance in considering a motion of this nature, in considering setting up such a committee? Am I to take it that they do not agree that the experience of what is happening in the Public Accounts Committee at the moment does not suggest it would be necessary to have certain safeguards on the operation of a committee of the Oireachtas operating in relation to bodies outside this House?

Dr. O'Connell

Is the Minister suggesting there are not the safeguards at the present time with the present duties of the Committee of Public Accounts?

Mr. Cooney

The Minister is speaking as a lawyer.

Mr. Colley

Is the Deputy suggesting there are?

Dr. O'Connell

I think it is good to discuss it but the Minister should be a little more explicit because what he is saying is a serious matter.

Mr. Colley

I agree. I think it is very serious. As I said I think it would be very unrealistic of us to talk about this motion and to try to pretend that what has been happening in the Committee of Public Accounts is not relevant. Of course it is relevant.

Dr. O'Connell

The Minister should be a little bit more explicit. He should tell us a little more of what he has in mind.

Mr. Cooney

The Minister should speak as a lawyer instead of as a politician.

Mr. Colley

I do not know how much more clearly I can put it. Many people have been in the past enthusiastic about the idea of greater Parliamentary control over State-sponsored bodies. Of those people some may now be less enthusiastic unless they were satisfied that the machinery which we would set up to carry out this review contained some greater form of control over the operations of the committee than has ever before been envisaged.

Matters which would want to be considered very carefully are whether it should be done by way of the terms of reference and what remedy can be adopted if the terms of reference are not adhered to.

Dr. O'Connell

Is the Minister suggesting that the powers given to the Committee of Public Accounts are too wide? Is that what the Minister is suggesting in retrospect?

Mr. Colley

No, I am not saying that at all.

Dr. O'Connell

The Minister spoke about safeguards. For whom?

Mr. Colley

We are talking about a Parliamentary inquiry into the operation of State-sponsored bodies.

Mr. Cooney

I think the Minister's point is that the present procedure should not be regarded as the norm.

Mr. Colley

Thank you, Deputy, that is a help. I think the Deputy has put the other side of the coin but it is the same coin. If the present procedures of the Committee of Public Accounts were to be regarded as the norm then I think many people who have been enthusiastic about the idea of stricter Parliamentary control of State-sponsored bodies would not be nearly so enthusiastic. I say that should not be the norm and need not be the norm. I think it would have been unrealistic of me not to make this reference but, having said it, I want to make it clear that in the light of consideration going on in regard to the Devlin Report and other matters I have mentioned I have to ask the House to reject the present motion. I hope, however, I have made it clear that in asking the House to reject the motion I am not dismissing the possibility that when decisions have been taken on the main recommendations in the Devlin Report we may be able to devise some suitable form of Parliamentary review of the activities of State-sponsored bodies.

Mr. Cooney

I would like to support this motion. I can appreciate the Minister's concern at the moment but I would refer him to the terms of the motion, which is very carefully and reasonably worded. It stresses the need to safeguard the commercial freedom of semi-State bodies and requests that the Dáil, who represent the people and who provide the finance for those semi-State bodies, should set up a committee to inquire into their activities. If the motion is considered in that light and with that intent hanging over it I do not see how anybody could find it unacceptable.

It is a most reasonably framed motion and does not give rise to any ideological difficulty. The Minister made a lot of play with the Devlin Report and said that until decisions are taken on the recommendations of this report it would be unrealistic to go ahead with anything of this nature.

I submit to the Minister that we will hear the Devlin Report mentioned many times in the future as a reason for doing nothing. I cannot see that there would be any conflict between what this motion proposes and steps that would ultimately be taken on foot of the Devlin Report or, indeed, any steps that might be taken by way of review of Parliamentary procedure. The Minister mentioned this aspect, too, as being another reason for deferring the action requested by this motion. I cannot see that the motion as framed could not be investigated further, adopted and a suitable body set up, a body that would not frighten any of the whiz kids in our semi-State bodies, a body that would have as its guiding spirit the idea of being in co-operation with these bodies rather than being a watchdog. Granted there must be an element of the latter but it would, I would hope, be a minor element in the activities of any such body that might be set up.

It seems an extraordinary thing and I know it is something that causes puzzlement and concern to many people outside parliament that these semi-State bodies, financed in the main by public moneys and very often performing a monopoly service to the community, are not subject to review in the full light of publicity. Many people are concerned and puzzled as to why this should be so. They cannot understand why these bodies should have this great power which they have and this control over so much public money and yet be so little subject to review by the parliament that provides this money. If parliament is to reflect the wishes of the people the Government should accept this motion. It would be a reassurance to the public at large that this House and the Government are concerned as to how public money is spent.

It is an arid answer to say that the idea is good but we must wait until we have the Devlin Report considered, until the question of Parliamentary reform is considered. That is begging the question. The need for the review is acknowledged and once the need is acknowledged all that is wanted to put it into action is energy. I would suggest that the Government should show the energy necessary to establish the review body asked by this motion. It would satisfy public demand, it would reassure the public at large and it is only proper that this House which provides the money as trustees to the people should be represented in overseeing expenditure of that money.

It is particularly important, too, when we regard the widespread commercial and social ramifications of these semi-State bodies. They have proliferated over the last ten or 15 years and their activities impinge on all sections of the community and in all parts of the land. The Minister mentioned a number of ways in which parliament can exercise control and keep an eye on these bodies. It is wrong to say that any of these ways allows parliament to exercise control. All that these methods which the Minister mentioned can do, as far as parliament is concerned, is to enable parliament to get some idea of the workings of these bodies without being in any way able to influence their workings. He mentioned that on the Estimate of a particular Department responsible for the semi-State body there can be some review in that regard but the reality of the situation is that a Deputy comes in and he makes a speech concerning the Minister's Department and touches on the semi-State body which comes under that Department. It is, unfortunately, so many words in the wind. This House is too remote from the semi-State body for the remarks made here by the ordinary rank and file Deputy to have any effect on the semi-State body and on some of the mandarins in charge of some of the semi-State bodies.

The Parliamentary question which can be a good weapon of review is too often blunted by the Minister's reply: "I cannot give this information. It would interfere with the commercial integrity of the semi-State body and it would interfere with its day-to-day running". If the Parliamentary question were allowed to be used in the sense that a full answer would be given to all questions touching semi-State bodies it would represent a very valuable weapon in the hands of parliament for reviewing the activities of these bodies but it is a weapon that is very blunted because of the attitude of the Government towards these questions.

The Minister mentioned, too, amending legislation. Again, this is something that crops up only infrequently. We did have an example here lately when the Minister for Transport and Power had to ask for a further subvention for CIE. That gave an opportunity to debate CIE but it was no different from a debate on the Estimate and again when there is no direct link between parliament and the semi-State body the views expressed here are too remote to have any practical effect on the workings or on the personnel operating in that semi-State body.

I have been receiving the annual reports since I became a Member of this House. Some of them are detailed but I get the feeling that the majority of them do not go into the same detail that one would expect to get in a set of commercial accounts. I find a lot of space taken up—CIE's annual report is a prime example—with colourful pictures and graphs that really mean nothing. The information given on two colourful pages of CIE's report could be given in a short paragraph. The actual accounts themselves, to my mind, do not give detailed information of the type that should be given if these reports are to be a help to parliament and if they are to be put forward as a reason for suggesting that there is information enough without the review bodies requested by this motion. In the CIE report dealing with the canals working account there is a big increase in the figure for maintenance and buildings and the maintenance of waterways and works but there is no explanation among the notes as to how these increases are arrived at or what causes them.

Another disturbing thing which I see in these reports is the fact that they are not all audited by the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Some of them are audited by commercial firms. I want to make it very clear that I am not casting any reflection whatever on the professional integrity or the probity of these firms but, nevertheless, it is a bad principle that where public money is concerned it should not be entirely in the hands of the Comptroller and Auditor General and, if necessary, his staff expanded to enable that to be done.

Another feature I have noticed about semi-State bodies lately is that they are tending to invest in commercial ventures connected with the particular venture in which they may be engaged. Some of these investments are not altogether happy. I certainly think there would need to be some machinery so that before a semi-State body would think of investing what, in effect, are public funds in a private commercial enterprise there would be a full-scale investigation into the viability of that proposed enterprise. One example of an unfortunate investment was the investment by Irish Shipping in Palgrave Murphy. This investment was made at a time when the warning signs had shown themselves in many parts of the transport world. But Irish Shipping, a semi-State body invested our money in a concern which, shortly afterwards, went to the wall.

The Shannon Free Airport Development Company have taken shares in a commercial venture involved in the setting up of holiday cottages. This is a good idea provided there is ample commercial investigation beforehand and provided that the investments are not a manifestation of what I might call "the old boy network" in a particular type of business. We can well imagine a particular type of business where the world involved is small, where everyone knows everyone else, where a lot of business can be done informally at social gatherings and where a new development can be inserted in a non-commercial environment. It could be difficult for the executives of a semi-State body to resist a request to invest in a purely private commercial enterprise. They should be taken out of that position of difficulty by the setting up of a procedure which would prevent them from being allowed invest in a commercial enterprise except under certain strict prior conditions. This is important and could be achieved if a body such as is requested by this motion, were set up.

I sympathise with the Minister, who was walking on a very tight rope when he spoke of the activities of the present Committee. I am prepared to interpret him in the way I interjected while he was speaking. I agree with him that it would be unrealistic if anyone were to think that a body such as this motion has in mind would operate in a similar fashion. That is not what is intended, as will be seen from the reasonable wording of the motion. However, we must remember that the particular body which is functioning at the moment was set up to consider an extraordinary situation. It is not good logic or fair arguing to draw the operations of that Committee into this debate when one has regard to the origins and to the facts that gave rise to the present deliberations.

Indeed, while the Minister was speaking the thought occurred to me that this whole question of review of these bodies by this Parliament is something which these bodies would regard with apprehension. I do not speak of the general public when I say that because they would welcome review, but having regard to the way in which politics and politicians have become almost dirty words during the past 12 months, I am sure that some of the dedicated people working on these bodies would view the motion before us with some apprehension. It is unfortunate that that should be so, but all the events of the past 12 months, culminating in the Ard-Fheis, where some of the Minister's colleagues, I am sorry to say, allowed themselves to be seen publicly in a state where one of them was incoherent with rage and hatred while another was pathetically protesting his innocence——

An Ceann Comhairle

How do these matters arise on the motion?

Mr. J. Lenehan

We are well able to look after ourselves.

Mr. Cooney

They arise on the motion which is asking for the setting up of a Committee of Dáil Éireann which would oversee the activities of semi-State bodies. I am suggesting that it would be easier to bring such a Committee into operation if politicians were all seen to be above reproach and if the activities of the last year had not happened.

Mr. Colley

Would the Deputy accept that it might also be easier if some Members who are not vested with power by this House at the moment, on this side of the House, were to inspire a little more confidence in the way they exercise the power which has now been vested in them—that this is a ground for fear on the part of some people?

Mr. Tully

If the Minister is criticising the Public Accounts Committee he should say so openly.

Mr. Colley

I am talking in the context of what Deputy Cooney has been speaking about, which is the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Cluskey

They have served their purpose and now that the Ard-Fheis is over, they are no longer required.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. Time on the motion is running out.

Mr. Cluskey

I am a little more responsible than the Deputy's colleague who had not the guts to remain on the Committee.

Mr. Cooney

I have not very much more to say except that I consider this to be a very important motion and, in particular, it is a motion that would meet the wishes of the vast majority of the people of the country.

There is considerable disquiet because of the autonomy allowed to some semi-State bodies. Some of their activities are puzzling to the ordinary layman. If a Dáil Committee were set up to oversee these activities, much of the apprehension would be allayed.

One matter that has been mentioned to me repeatedly in relation to expenditure by semi-State bodies is the persistent and expensive advertising done by the ESB. That body is a monopoly. There is nobody else selling electricity in this country; nobody else can do so. What is the point in advertising a monopoly product with all the expense that such advertising entails?

For the past few months there has been considerable apprehension about the working of Bord Fáilte. We were reassured here by the Minister for Transport and Power in this regard and the Taoiseach, in reply to a question put down by Deputy Begley and I, stated that he was perfectly happy with the working of Bord Fáilte, that they were doing and had done an excellent job and that there was no need for any drastic changes in the structure of that body. Yet, some days ago the Irish Times carried an article which showed that, far from all being well in Bord Fáilte, the opposite is the case. We read that a report had been received by Bord Fáilte which was strongly critical of their activities and, more important still, alleging that the figures which had been determined for earnings from tourism did not represent a proper picture of the real tourist earnings.

This report on a body such as Bord Fáilte, which expend so much public money, should have been made available to the Dáil or, certainly, to a Committee of the Dáil. It is not a matter that should be thrashed out in private within the inner councils of Bord Fáilte. This is something that should be available to the Parliament of the people. sums of public money is not administering its affairs in the most economical or efficient manner then it should be

If a body in receipt of large subject to review and the people should know that review was taking place. The Minister is, I think, satisfied there is a case for such review. He has conceded that the principle in the motion is a desirable one. It is begging the question to put it off until such time as a decision has been taken on the Devlin Report or until such time as there is some Parliamentary reform. If the principle is accepted I see no reason why the body requested should not be set up forthwith.

Mr. Dowling

It would take more than a committee to put some of the things right in some semi-State bodies. Aer Lingus some time ago invited Members of the Oireachtas to visit the workshops and discuss its method of financing, its accounts and the various systems adopted. That was a realistic way of bringing Members of the Oireachtas up to date in relation to the affairs of the company. Aer Lingus have done that on a number of occasions.

Dr. O'Donovan

I wish the Deputy would be serious.

Mr. Dowling

They have done that on a number of occasions. I and other Members of this House got a realistic insight into the running of the company. If there was the same approach by other semi-State bodies we would be in a better position to assess the situation. I should like to see an expansion of this kind of contact. Contact is important. It is important that we should get a comprehensive view of the affairs of these bodies.

Some years ago I and other Deputies visited CIE. Many erroneous impressions were corrected as a result of that visit. We had full and frank discussions with the management. I should like an expansion of this so that we could see for ourselves at ground floor level the conditions under which the employees work, the methods adopted and the problems that exist in certain departments.

These semi-State companies are very important bodies. When we ask questions here we are invariably told that the particular Minister has no function. The Minister would want to reconsider his position in relation to the whole set-up. Much of the information sought, and refused, is information that should be given to Deputies. I trust that in the not too distant future such information will be supplied. It is not good enough that Deputies should be treated in this fashion. Some semi-State bodies have an anti-trade union bias. That is another matter the Minister should take into consideration. He should ensure the elimination of any such bias. The present situation is an unfortunate one. It is appalling that there should be victimisation in some semi-State bodies. That victimisation will continue so long as the present system persists. I am sure the Deputies in the Labour Party know what I am talking about; they have from time to time tried to eliminate this anti-trade union bias. Many of the semi-State bodies do not have this bias but the controlling personnel in some are definitely anti-trade union. The result is that the workers are dissatisfied and there is strife. I trust this matter will be examined without delay.

It is disconcerting to find varying wage and salary scales in the semi-State bodies. This, again, is a matter calling for examination. It is something that must be tackled from the top to ensure that we have happy workers and the co-operation so necessary and so desirable between workers and management.

For some time I have been concerned about the position in CIE. The relevant Estimate is discussed and certain sections of the Official Report, together with the Minister's reply, are handed to personnel in CIE. In some instances the information is not all that correct. At the moment the workers there are disturbed for many reasons. If we had more contact we could come to a better understanding perhaps of the situation and solve some of the problems which are causing the workers concern.

There are personnel in CIE who vet men. They question workers and some of the questions are really absurd. A list is sent to workers. One question asked was, if a worker saw a person approaching whom he did not wish to meet, would he cross to the other side of the road and the worker answered quite truthfully "Yes". There are few of us who have not adopted that subterfuge from time to time. This worker was told he had failed because he was not a man of character. This kind of thing is causing problems. You have these so-called specialists who know more and more about less and less and who know very little indeed about the problems of workers because they were never workers themselves.

If a committee were set up to examine the problems of workers I would support it, but I think the best we can hope for is an extension of the system Aer Lingus adopted last year. All Members of the Dáil and Seanad were invited—whether they went or not is another matter—to visit the workshops and the offices, and they had the opportunity of seeing the computer as well as questioning the personnel and discussing finances. In this way we got a very good picture of the problems within the concern. There is no reason why the other concerns cannot afford the same facilities. As a matter of fact, these concerns give little recognition to Members of the Oireachtas at any time. We see on some application forms in small print the words "canvassing will disqualify". This comes from people who themselves canvassed for the job they are in.

Where a person gets a letter of recommendation it depends on how it is interpreted by the personnel officer whether or not he will disqualify that person. If he does not like the Senator or Deputy whose name is on the letter, then he will disqualify on the basis that this was canvassing, whether it was a character reference or not. Most people applying for appointments merely want a character reference from a Deputy or Senator or someone else and then depending on the personnel officer the job is at his mercy. I know a Senator who recommended a young girl for the position of air hostess and the Senator received a letter saying that the girl had been disqualified. The girl was also told that she was disqualified from sitting for that particular examination and this was at a time when they could not get hostesses. This is nonsensical in the extreme.

We have these little dictators setting themselves up within semi-State concerns and the sooner we get rid of some of them the better and the sooner we educate them how to treat Members of the Oireachtas the better. It is time we made our position clear to the Minister concerned so that we will not have this type of nonsense "canvassing will disqualify". If people go for an interview and the interview board are not competent, then I would say that canvassing should disqualify but if the board are competent there is no reason why they should be influenced one way or the other by any recommendation from anyone outside the board.

Mr. Desmond

Why do you have to send a letter then?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Details in regard to this are not in order.

Mr. Dowling

That may well be but I, on this occasion, want to express my disgust with some activities of semi-State concerns. We supply the money but if I table a question to the Minister for Transport and Power about a semi-State body under his control his reply is that it is no function of his and I am availing of this opportunity to say some of the things I wanted to say about labour matters and workers' problems and I have no apology to make. If we had an extension of the facilities which some semi-State concerns made available to us, then they would be in a position to hear our point of view and we would be in a position to question them on their attitudes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Order provides that a speaker from the Labour Party will be called on now at 7.15 to conclude on this motion.

Dr. O'Donovan

I regret that I was not here for all of the Minister's contribution and that I only heard part of it. It was purely accidental that I was not here. I gathered that he was not really opposed to the spirit of this motion but that he had two reasons for not wanting to do anything about it just now. One is the matter that is the concern of the Committee of Public Accounts at the moment and the other is the Devlin Report. Without wishing to reflect in any way on Mr. Devlin or on the expensive body of industrial consultants he employed, I like people to take on jobs which they are competent to do and with all due respect to Mr. Devlin he allowed himself to be put in the position of attempting to do a job for which he was not competent. So much for Mr. Devlin. As regards the matter before the Committee of Public Accounts, that is a temporary position and if the Minister has any inhibitions about it, considering that the last serious and full scale discussion about this matter took place in the Seanad 21 years ago, I do not think another few months is going to make a big difference.

I do not think there is a full understanding of what is intended in this motion. To use the expression used in England, there is a vast no man's land existing between major policy questions, which everybody agrees should be decided by the Government, and the day to day work where these companies should be entirely independent and in this no man's land there should be some check on their activities. Let me take as an example something at which I merely hinted when moving the motion. I think this is a good example and I am not picking out this body particularly for any reason, but take the moneys which have been paid out by way of grants for hotels particularly in the west of Ireland.

The suggestions one hears, and in the absence of a committee of this sort there is no check on whether or not these suggestions are correct, are that individuals got such amounts by way of grant or guaranteed loan as were very much greater than the total cost to them of the hotel. The only method of checking on that is through a committee of this sort. I do not think Deputy Dowling understood what exactly is intended. The intention is that they would have to appear regularly. It need not necessarily be annually, it could be bi-annually or tri-annually. It would not really matter so long as an examination and a report on the activities of these boards could be carried out.

The purpose of these investigations would be to ensure that there was an examination of matters which were causing concern. This country is sufficiently small that such a Committee of the House would not have any difficulty in hearing about matters that were causing concern. I made the specific suggestion that the Committee should have a competent person as an investigating officer who would report to them. The Committee should be prepared to hear suggestions, criticisms or reports from other trustworthy people.

Despite a period during which I was closely concerned with industrial relations in the ESB, I was never aware of any anti-trade union feeling in the ESB. I am not quite sure if that was the body Deputy Dowling was referring to. I was under the impression he was referring to CIE, but I am not aware of any anti-trade union feeling in CIE either. I do not think any of us, including the Minister for Transport and Power, will learn anything next Saturday when we go to the Aer Lingus reception. We are not suggesting here anything like that. What we have in mind is a serious investigation of the financial affairs of these bodies and the manner in which they are conducting their business.

It is true that big bodies tend to become more careless. In the ordinary commercial world what happens, as in the case of United States Steel, is that young rivals come along and cut chunks out of the empire. This does not happen in the case of State enterprise because they are usually monopoly concerns. If they decay the effects are felt in the community without there being any method of curing them. Aer Lingus, CIE and the ESB have an annual turnover in the region of £30 million. They have a greater annual turnover than any commercial concern, with the sole exception of the Guinness company. Some years ago when I was speaking to a member of the Guinness company I said to him: "You know, the ESB has shown a greater growth rate than your company." He replied, "Yes we are aware of it, we had noticed it."

The fact of the matter is that there are these enormous bodies and it is no use, as I said, when moving the motion, expecting the Comptroller and Auditor General, where he is the commercial auditor of these bodies, to be able to do something about it. As commercial auditor he is in exactly the same position as any other commercial auditor. An entirely different system is needed. I am not going to pretend it is an easy problem. Obviously, if it was an easy problem it would have long since been solved in Britain where they have massive companies like the Coal Board and British Railways.

This is really acceptance of the fact that we should have a counterpart of the Swedish system. When this Committee of the Dáil is being set up I hope a visit will be made to Sweden to find out how they work. It would be a great deal more useful than any visit to Aer Lingus or CIE. It is a very serious matter that there should be this vast lacuna in the Government system, where vast sums of the money are spent.

It seemed to me that the Minister was in favour of the motion as a whole but then he started to look round, I thought, to find excuses for not doing something about it at the moment. It is 20 years since the matter last had an airing and I do not think it is going to worry the Labour Party if the Minister does not do anything until he has examined the Devlin Report which, to me, does not appear to have many useful suggestions in it. The Minister has, to give him his due, set up a services Department for the State services and that is one of the most useful suggestions in the Devlin Report. It is, however, a pity that the Minister was not more specific. He could have said: "Very good, when present troubles are over and we have examined the Devlin Report we shall certainly do something about it".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is aware that this motion concludes by 7.30 p.m.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy is seeking a decision, it must be taken before that time.

Dr. O'Donovan

We are not going to press to a Division. We should be glad if the Minister, even in a sentence, would indicate that he has an open mind about the matter.

Mr. Colley

I did try to indicate that I was not opposed to it.

Mr. Cluskey

That was the impression we got. Is that the proper impression?

Dr. O'Donovan

That is the assurance I want. The only specific view I have about it is that it should not be the Public Accounts Committee—they already have enough on their plate. It has almost fallen into desuetude. It does not get to grips with things the way it used to when Deputy Seán MacEntee was Chairman of it from 1927 to 1932. It had a great deal more teeth in it then than it has nowadays and it was a great deal more effective. I am not worried about how many people are on the Committee, it could be ten or 20. I do not mind how it is composed, but there should be a committee to cover the day to day operations of these bodies such as the dismissal of a bus driver from CIE, to the vast problems of policy which would usually involve the expenditure of some millions of pounds which concerns the Government—all the normal operations of these bodies. This is really what is proposed in this motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the motion withdrawn?

Dr. O'Donovan

Not exactly. We would like it to be put.

Question put and declared lost.