Would Deputy Tunney, I wonder, allow me to intervene for a moment? I have been considering what was said by him and some of his colleagues this morning and I think we may meet the situation with regard to Gaeltarra Éireann in this way. As I have explained already, Gaeltarra Éireann have two functions, one is promotional and the other is ordinary trading and commercial activities. We could bring the latter within the ambit of the Oireachtas committee and I am disposed to table an amendment to bring in these activities of Gaeltarra Éireann. They can be identified because they come under the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The matter will want to be looked at very carefully but I can table an amendment to meet the points raised by the Deputies.
Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies: Motion.
I am thankful for the Minister's intervention and I welcome it. I will leave it to our spokesman to deal with the position. I spoke earlier about the need for adequately qualified staff for the committee and I hope the Minister will be mindful in that regard of the proven capacity, dedication, independence and ability of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas, a staff which has served so well in the past.
I would like to remove some confusion in what I said about a company retaining staff while no production was taking place. Deputy O'Malley spoke of similar circumstances obtaining in a factory in Achill. I think I said Aran. The factory to which I referred is located in Carraroe. With regard to the Minister's proposed amendment, it might be wiser to include in full the business of Gaeltarra Éireann having regard to the note to which I referred given to us by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
One of our amendments calls for the inclusion of Gaeltarra Éireann and I propose to speak in support of that amendment. There is a very big principle involved as to whether all the activities of Gaeltarra Éireann should be brought before the committee for consideration or merely their trading activities. The points I prepared deal mainly with their trading activities and the companies with which they have investments and in which they hold shares. In view of the Minister's proposed amendment there is no need for me now to elaborate on that particular aspect. I should, however, like to thank the Minister for conceding this point to the Fianna Fáil Party. On further reflection he may consider including all the activities of Gaeltarra Éireann.
I have been accused by the Minister for the Gaeltacht of asking questions in regard to some companies in which Gaeltarra Éireann are involved which are to the disadvantage of the companies and to the disadvantage of Gaeltarra Éireann in promoting industrial activity in the Gaeltacht areas and attracting new investment into those areas. Up to now we have been in a very awkward position. I have the utmost regard for the officials who work in the various Gaeltarra Éireann establishments. They give very loyal and very dedicated service in a very difficult field. At the same time, recognising that and giving due credit for it, I do not think I should be inhibited from raising pertinent questions in regard to the activities of Gaeltarra Éireann. I believe the public should not be denied information as to how the moneys voted are spent. It may not be spent in all cases to the best advantage. The committee will eliminate most of the difficulties an Opposition Deputy encounters in this regard of not wishing to interfere with the success of the company while, at the same time, making sure that everything is being done satisfactorily and that rumours are quenched by facts. This could only be done up to now by way of question and answer in this House.
It is most suitable that the activities of Gaeltarra Éireann be discussed by the committee, where discretion will be exercised by the members. It is most important that the chairman be a Member of the Opposition. That principle has been established in the Committee of Public Accounts, for instance, and it must be adhered to in this case also. The effectiveness of the investigations of the committee can best be assured by the allocation of the Chair to a Member of the Opposition, and I hope the Government will concede that amendment which stands in the name of Fianna Fáil.
I am glad that no longer will I have to bring before this House the affairs of these individual companies and the way they are being assisted by Gaeltarra Éireann. Up to now it was the only way open to us, but it is right and proper that it should be done in the Committee rather than having to drag it out here in public. I should like to thank the Minister for the bit of the road he has come in regard to the concession he is making to us. I would ask him to consider again the terms of the concession and to ensure that all of the operations of Gaeltarra Éireann are included, not just the trading company aspect.
The Minister described the setting up of the committee as a significant step in the reform of the public service. In addition, he gave us the reasons it was necessary to do so. Frequently it has been quite obvious that the relationship between the Oireachtas and the semi-State companies was not a satisfactory one.
I agree with the reasons he gave for making an effort to improve the situation but I do not think the step now proposed is of any significance or will make any worth-while changes in the situation. This is my candid opinion. The motion calls for a committee "to examine the Reports and Accounts and overall operational results of State-sponsored bodies engaged in trading or commercial activities". Instead of the word "results" I should like to see substituted the word "proposals". Will the committee simply look at reports that in most cases appear one-and-a-half years after the figures have been compiled? What service will it provide to improve the many things Members of the Oireachtas would like to see changed? Will the committee help to expose the workings of State-sponsored bodies?
I have gone through the Minister's opening statement again because I did not hear all of it when he was speaking. At column 1407, Volume 293 of the Official Report, dated 10th November, 1976, in relation to the State-sponsored companies he said:
There is a problem in relation to their responsibility to the Oireachtas but, at this stage, it seems that a solution may well lie in a redefinition of their relationships to Ministers. For the commercial State-sponsored bodies, however, we feel that the existing relationships to Ministers, which provide for considerable operating freedoms, are broadly correct but that there is, in the overall structural pattern, a gap in the area of responsibility to the Oireachtas which will be filled by the proposals now before the House.
There are several significant points in that statement. The Minister admits there is a void to be filled. He claims that this motion providing for an all-party committee will fill that void, but I do not think it will. In that statemen the Minister implies that there will be amending legislation in relation to the Minister's powers with regard to State-sponsored bodies. I do not know if he has spelled this out in clearer detail since but I formally request now that in his reply he makes clear whether it is his intention to have amending legislation in respect of Ministerial relationships with State-sponsored bodies. This might allay the fears of those who are not satisfied with what the committee can do within the terms of reference set out.
All of us have the greatest admiration for the executive officers who were responsible for the success of the important State-sponsored companies that did so much for the economy. In this connection one cannot fail to think of the faith that Seán Lemass reposed in the Irish people on each occasion when the companies had to fill a void that could not be filled by private enterprise. No private company was likely to take on the development of the bogs on a national scale as Bord na Móna did many years ago. Things have dramatically changed and our economy has benefited enormously because of the work of the State-sponsored bodies.
Public transport is the subject of legislation before the House. The necessity to have a common carrier, to have a company committed to public transport, was the reason CIE were established. The same applies to shipping and many other areas where appropriate State-sponsored bodies were set up. This was done because it was beyond the capability of private enterprise. So far so good. The pioneers of those companies were great men who gave their best to something which was really on trial. Many thought it could not possibly succeed. There was a good deal of the usual opposition at the time, which was to be expected. The fact that those semi-State bodies succeeded is a great tribute to the executives who undertook the gigantic task of getting them started. They have been given practically absolute autonomy and are almost independent from many obstacles which the House could place on them.
The Minister pointed out that those semi-State bodies have grown to the stage when £1,000 million is estimated to be the value of their assets, their turnover is a net £5 million a year and they employ 57,000 people. They have become an integral part of the national economy, indispensable to the success and progress of the economy. They must be very much involved in economic expansion. We have not got a programme of economic policy at the moment. This must emerge at some stage and those semi-State bodies must be a part of it. They have grown to the stage where the freedom and independence they had from parliamentary control is no longer justifiable.
I believe the extent to which this committee will improve this situation is minimal. In fact, it is only an excuse. The people who have been crying out for a better link between the Oireachtas and those important bodies will not find any satisfaction in what the Minister is doing now. It is another glorified Public Accounts Committee which will say whether or not that money was wisely spent. What power will the committee have to deal with the many things we would like to see corrected? The committee should be able to enlighten us why those companies are doing certain things. Will the committee do anything to allay our suspicions about the lack of friendship between Bord Fáilte and Aer Lingus? We are not satisfied that there is co-operation there. They are both operating in the same field, which is of the utmost importance to the economy. What will the committee do to improve that? What power will they have to deal with matters of that kind? What power will they have to deal with many other things, such as our suspicion that there is overstaffing, that Parkinson's Law has been allowed to operate unbridled? What power will the committee have in relation to companies that are not obliged to make a profit and can employ more and more staff with extra facilities that are out of proportion to the need of the actual job they are doing?
I may be wrong and thousands of people in Ireland may be wrong but there should be some means, if those suspicions prevail, of allaying the feelings of the people. This committee are worse than nothing because they will create the impression that now everything is all right. The committee have no power except to look at a report that comes out one-and-a-half years late, say what they think about it and put forward some suggestions to the company. That is locking the stable door when the horse is gone. That is not enough.
The amendments we suggest would dramatically change the situation. The word "policy" is an essential one. If it is taking power away from the Minister, which he would prefer to have, let him amend the law in relation to ministerial power in liaison with those companies so that he can be accountable to the House and that Parliament is given the same relationship to those companies as it has to any Department of State at present.
Those semi-State companies have grown up and matured now. They have good men in charge. They have experienced many vicissitudes as they passed from their embryo stage until they reached maturity. They are capable of withstanding the pressures and very often the wrong accusations that could be flung at them in the House. They should not be afraid to open up everything in relation to the important work they are doing and the important part they must play in any future plan for the expansion of our economy. This committee will not be given any teeth to uncover any of the weaknesses we suspect at times in those semi-State bodies. What will this committee do in relation to the lack of proper co-operation between two bodies which should be co-operating for the general welfare of our economy, that is, Aer Lingus and Bord Fáilte? What will the committee do in relation to something which is causing a good deal of public anxiety where CIE this year sold a subsidiary body dealing with air freight traffic? This is reputed to have been sold to a former manager for a nominal figure. An asset like this, carrying an international freight transport licence with great goodwill attached, should be worth a considerable amount of money if it were advertised and sold —something State Departments are obliged to do when they have any assets to dispose of. How were CIE, as was reported earlier this year, able to sell Aerlód Teoranta to a former manager for a nominal sum? Was it offered to other interested people? We are told that CIE are losing money. This subsidy body had an IATA licence. The people are anxious that those bodies be made accountable to the Oireachtas and that their suspicions be allayed. It would be to the benefit of the companies concerned if they had the opportunity to submit everything in relation to their operations to the House and have them discussed and, if necessary, rectified.
This motion providing for the establishment of the statutory committee is an innocent looking one, providing for the appointment of a few Members from each side of the House. There has been some argument about who should be the chairman. It is not very significant, if the committee have no teeth. There is then a nice clause which says that no matter can be published in relation to the workings of these companies if the committee are requested by the particular body not to do so. The obvious reason for that is that where commercial undertakings are involved they would not like competitors to know how they were dealing with market research, sales, quantity control and many other things. No sensible committee would indulge in this but, nevertheless, that provision can be used by some State-sponsored bodies to prevent anything they wish being published. Such a body could say that any information was detrimental to them.
At this stage I should like to ask the Minister if he would agree to a major examination in relation to commercial dealings to see whether State-sponsored companies should be in competitive business or not. The Minister interrupted the proceedings to announce that he is going part of the way to bring in some of the activities of Gaeltarra Éireann to be scrutinised by this committee. I do not think what he has announced is very important but at least he has acknowledged the soundness of the case being made by us. In fact, he could not refuse to take in the commercial side of Gaeltarra Éireann because in his opening statement he made the case that it was the commercial companies he sought to bring in first. There is no more commercialised company than Gaeltarra Éireann and no State-sponsored body requiring a magnifying glass to be put on their activities than Gaeltarra Éireann. The public suspect that Gaeltarra Éireann is simply a public relations body for the Minister for the Gaeltacht because he is directly associated with the promotion of every bog road, track and parish pump they are involved in, from one end of the Gaeltacht to the other.
Gaeltarra Éireann are never known to say "no" to anything that is proposed but they never say "when" and leave themselves an unlimited amount of time in which to carry out a proposal. The promotional and commercial activity of Gaeltarra Éireann should be subjected to minute scrutiny by the House. I am aware that Gaeltarra Éireann and other State-sponsored bodies are not obliged to make a profit. The forerunner of Gaeltarra Éireann was established by the Department of Lands for the purpose of setting up industries in areas where private enterprise would not go. It was taken for granted that that body would lose money in the process of doing so. That argument held water until such time as the manufacture of tweed, particularly Donegal tweed which is the only tweed in the world worth buying, reached its peak on the world market. Then we found that Gaeltarra Éireann was a thorn in the side of private producers. Gaeltarra Éireann, because they were not obliged to make a profit, could under-cut on the market and did not mind if they stockpiled or not. When private enterprise was making a handsome dividend on the shares in their investment Gaeltarra Éireann were losing money on the same product. Nobody complained at that time. Later we amended considerably the terms of reference under which they were operating and passed legislation permitting them to take equities with private enterprise in the development of companies. That activity is being pursued by Gaeltarra Éireann now.
I am not happy with how easily Gaeltarra Éireann can at times undertake certain enterprises which have not a great potential or are likely to last out for any great length of time. I must say that the IDA, before they give grants, require applicants to do their market research, have proper quantity control and the testing of products. They ensure that the knowhow and technological production side of the enterprise is available before they pay a grant. On occasions they are so particular that they annoy applicants. They make these investigations because they are giving a free handout, a gift, to the person going into the enterprise. I do not think that Gaeltarra Éireann enter into a commitment with a proper appraisal of the potential of an enterprise or its likely outcome. They do not have due regard for the possibility of a sudden closure.
I would hope that Gaeltarra Éireann would do twice as much but on a firmer basis and that they would link other responsible bodies to their enterprises, such as the IDA and CTT. In that event there would be constant vigilance and supervision. One of the best ways to have the necessary surveillance would be to give the committee the Minister is proposing to establish the powers we are seeking for it. The public would then know what was happening and the firms concerned would have an opportunity of explaining to the House, through the Minister, what they were doing. Because that will not happen under this committee, I believe it will be a disappointment. If the Minister said he may introduce amending legislation to improve the relationship between the Minister and the House concerning State-sponsored bodies it might make up in some way for what the committee lack.
I was a member of the Committee of Public Accounts for some years and on occasions I felt it was not a very effective exercise, particularly if Members did not do their homework or engage in any research. We often asked silly questions that were remotely related to what we should be probing. However, if one did one's homework one could find out how the money was spent and whether it was spent to the best advantage.
This is a different operation. This is a committee which is supposed to look into the workings of the State-sponsored bodies which account for 57,000 employees and possess £1,000 million worth of assets. They have become a huge cog in the whole economic mechanism of the country. We need more than a few Members of this House examining their reports and accounts and overall operational results. Those are the terms of reference. These accounts and operational results in the past have been submitted a year and a half or perhaps two years late. I cannot see that this is a very important step.
The State-sponsored bodies which have been included and those which have not been included make one suspicious. The Minister referred to the criteria he used to select those on the list. He laid emphasis on their commercial activities. Why then did he include such firms as the Dairy Disposal Company and Ceimicí Teoranta and leave out Gaeltarra Éireann and others? One would almost suspect that, in the selection of that list, the Minister was activated by no other motive than to find a list of companies which would be least controversial. He could not omit Aer Lingus, CIE and the ESB.
I have had occasion to make reference to the ESB's operational affairs in this House several times. I have incurred the ire of ESB officials. Some of them have written to me to that effect. The ESB legislation which went through the House recently was rather limited and did not give scope for a detailed debate. I referred to what I believe to be a fact, that is, that the installation costs are far too high. I repeated something which was pointed out to me by ESB officials, that the estimate was based on the very highest figure they could find through whatever slide rule they used and when the technicians came to do the work they were supposed to do it in the most inexpensive way.
I am not suggesting poor materials or poor workmanship would be used. Nobody could accuse the ESB of that. In fact, their emphasis on quality is sometimes overdone. I should like the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, or the ESB, to explain something to me. A few years ago you built your house and you asked to have the electricity connection made. It was done in about a week's time and there was no charge. As I pointed out recently, a woman applied to have her cottage connected in a little place called Duchairi and she was asked to pay £3,790. Some explanation is necessary other than the mad inflation which has been allowed to run unchecked and throw everything out of gear. These people feel the ESB have gone mad. The only way to allay those feelings is to expose them to the light. I use the word "expose" in its true, literal sense. They should let the people see what exactly is happening instead of continuing to suspect it is due to some other cause.
Our State-sponsored bodies are so much an integral part of the economy that the Houses of the Oireachtas should be able to manipulate them to the benefit of the economy as a whole, allow them to run deficits in times of stress if necessary, and ask them to do certain work which is essential to the economy, perhaps in relation to a superstructure which will bring about consequential industries and improvements generally. Having the approval of the Oireachtas they would be free from suspicion and the blame would not rest on the very able executives who are in charge of these operations. This proposal does not in any way move towards that. It will be an irrelevant, futile committee. If we are to be charged one of these days with the responsibility of producing an economic plan to deal with the serious situation in which the country is at present, we must be in a position to use the State-sponsored companies to the greatest advantage to pull the country by the shoe strings up out of the depths into which it has been trodden by a lack of attention and complete neglect under the present regime. That is very hard speaking but it is quite straight, and it is the way the public are talking at present and the way they expect us to talk from these benches too.
We are taking up the time of the House dealing with a little motion. The Minister will not even accept the use of the word "policy" in the amendment proposed by us. It is just cosmetic to pretend that a promise made prior to the election is being carried out. It is a pretence and nothing more. The committee are completely devoid of teeth. Worse still, it will now be taken that everything is all right: the Oireachtas have got the accountability they wanted and everything in the garden will be rosy. There is nothing in it to make changes, if changes are necessary. The economy as a whole will demand a plan and a policy and a programme which will necessitate the complete involvement of many of the State-sponsored bodies. It will then be more necessary than ever for accountability to be available to the Oireachtas.
I could say half a loaf is better than no bread, but I do not see even half a loaf here. If one could say it is a step forward it would be welcome. To me it is likely to be a fait accompli, and the one and only effort. There is no provision for what the Minister described as significant development. I do not see anything significant about it. The accounts of these companies are audited by competent auditors. They work to the highest dictates of public responsibility but the things that private enterprise must and can do are very often absent where State-sponsored bodies are concerned. The only weakness in State-sponsored corporations is that all the checks and balances to which private enterprise is subject are not applied to the State-sponsored bodies. A greater degree of accountability to this House by these bodies, giving them the opportunity to show the public what they do and why they do it, would satisfy the public.
I am sorry the Minister has not shown his readiness to accept the amendment proposed except to the small extent he has come in relation to Gaeltarra Éireann. I would ask the Minister to let us know whether CIE had the right to sell Aerlód privately and whether the transfer of the international airways licence, which has not yet taken place, will take place without an open explanation being given in regard to the disposal of this important asset, the goodwill and the licence which this company has.
One would think, listening to Deputy Brennan's statement on this motion, that he was some backbench Deputy who was elected to the House at the last general election. One would never guess that he has been here since 1951 and during a number of years was a Minister in the Fianna Fáil Government. I am asking him before he leaves the House, what did Fianna Fáil do about probing into the affairs of State-sponsored bodies? I ask that as one who again and again down through the years suggested that a committee such as this motion proposes should be set up.
I agree that the committee I had in mind and for which I used to agitate in this House would have more bite than the one proposed in the motion but I am satisfied that this is a good beginning. It is something for which we have been looking for many years and Fianna Fáil would do nothing about it. I used to say, and I think with some justification, that their main reason for doing nothing about it was that the boards of the State-sponsored bodies were utilised mainly to give a soft seat to some of their political cronies, ex-Members of this House and Members of the Seanad and Taca men around the country.
The Taoiseach, Deputy Liam Cosgrave, would never do that.
That was one of the major defects of these bodies. We all know the importance of these organisations, some of them listed here: the ESB, CIE, Siúicre Éireann. I do not think I am reflecting unjustifiably on a number of people when I say they were appointed to these boards with little or no other qualification than that of being an active supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party, financially or otherwise. These were the criteria Fianna Fáil applied to appointing people on such boards. It was detrimental to their advancement, and I am giving that as one of the main reasons why we did not get a motion somewhat similar to this before the House in the years gone by. To my mind it was a shameful period of our industrial history, this appointment to boards of people who could not be said to hold the minimum qualifications for such membership.
Now in 1976 this Government are taking cognisance of our State-sponsored bodies and the role they play in the life of the country. The Minister in his opening statement has said that there are almost 100 bodies that may be deemed to be State-sponsored, that their total employment content is some 65,000 and their overall financial resources in the region of £1,000 million.
It was possibly right on the part of the State to set up these bodies. The ESB was a most essential corporation to establish here at the time it was established more than 50 years ago. We can look back with pride on its work down through the years. That body has now reached the stage where our electrification scheme is being brought to a conclusion with 98 to 99 per cent of homes having the advantages of electricity. However, without reflecting on the ESB or any of these bodies set down in this motion and those which are not set down in the motion, I think they could do their work just as well if the elected representatives of the people had more say in their affairs. I do not mean by that that we should dictate to them about their day-to-day affairs, but there should be more accountability to this House.
When questions were asked here in the Dáil we were told that this or that body was autonomous and it was not open to the Minister to give information as requested in a Deputy's question. Because of the repetition of this type of answer, Deputies felt it a futile exercise to put down questions relating to State-sponsored bodies. The position will change with the help of this motion. If we find that it is inadequate and does not measure up to the requirements of this House and the interests of the public, it can be extended. This is a wise beginning.
We accept that the boards of these companies are doing a good job but the executives of State-sponsored companies must lie more lightly on their pillows at night than the executives of private companies. The owner of a private company is a troubled man today if he cannot meet his liabilities. We hear a great deal of talk today about the large profits being made by private companies, but I have always been a believer in private enterprise. Private enterprise is not in conflict with public enterprise. Most private businesses, whether large or small, have served the State well. They are providing facilities for people at moderate rates. There is no excessive profitability in most private concerns. The private businessman must find money to pay his employees, to pay his tax and to meet his other liabilities, but the chief executive of a State-sponsored company has not the same worries. If, for instance, CIE, a State-sponsored company, are not making money, this House will come to their aid. Year after year we are voting the allocation of moneys to State-sponsored bodies. The people who vote for the allocation of money to State-sponsored companies are entitled to more information than is available to them at present. Many people say that State companies are not efficiently managed, that they are over-staffed and have surpluses of one kind or another.
Deputy Brennan said that he had occasion to remark on a particular body and that, as a result, some executives of that body were not too nice to him afterwards. If a Deputy is not entitled to comment on these companies, then he has no business here at all. My reason for quoting Deputy Brennan's point is that I commented on a State body on another occasion and I was given the same treatment. I had occasion to visit that company at a later date to make representations on behalf of my constituents and I got very little attention.
It has been said that all information obtained by this committee should be published. I do not agree with that. The ESB are a commercial organisation. They buy the equipment they sell from different manufacturers. It would not be fair to publish that kind of information. This committee should be able to decide what should be published. Any man in the public service who is doing his work properly has no reason to be afraid of any committee. The members of the Public Accounts Committee are fair-minded. They are not trying to stab anyone in the back but are trying to get facts and figures in order to improve the services of State companies. There is no doubt that State-sponsored bodies are unwieldy at present. The big snag is that they are free from accountability. I know that many of the chief executives of State-sponsored companies are eminent men and have no doubt that many of them welcome this measure. It will give them an opportunity to express their recommendations. Unfair charges are often made against these companies. This measure should give them an opportunity of refuting unjust charges.
My main reason for intervening in this discussion is to congratulate the Minister on making a stand. It may not have all the teeth that Fianna Fáil would like, but they had not the courage to bring forward anything like this. They did not provide even a toothless motion. We had to continue in Opposition asking questions on State-sponsored bodies and being satisfied with standard answers. Projections made in relation to State-sponsored bodies have been proved incorrect. I remember a time when the closure of the West Cork railway and the Waterford-Tramore line was being discussed in this House and it was considered that the closure of these lines would result in the better functioning of CIE. The executives in CIE backed up the then Minister's proposal and these lines were closed.
I do not know how that prophecy of 14 years ago is working out at present but the capital injection for the railway side of CIE alone is something in the region of £28 million. It is a pity that this committee was not there at the time to have those executives questioned and their answers on record. I assume that any statements made to this committee by executives of State-sponsored bodies will be recorded as will the questions and statements made by the committee. Wild statements were made years ago in relation to CIE and if they were recorded and read now in the light of what has happened they would seem very funny indeed.
The number of bodies being investigated is sizeable. I assume that the more important and bigger ones are in the first list and if it is necessary to amend or add to the list that will be done. I have no hesitation in voting for this motion as it is set down. It is a move in the right direction. If I had the setting down of it, I would give it a little more bite but at any rate it is an innovation. It is something new and as far as I can see the membership will be apportioned between the Government and Opposition. From my knowledge of committees established by this House they work smoothly and efficiently.
Not only will this committee be helpful to Members of the House and to the Irish public in getting information on the activities of our State-sponsored bodies but it will also be helpful to State-sponsored bodies. They will have an opportunity of channelling their views to Members of the Oireachtas. I know many men and women of integrity employed in State-sponsored bodies and they are doing everything they can to keep costs down and to improve the board or body where they work in the best possible way. It is not easy to do so at times. This committee will give an opportunity to the Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas to meet the executives of these boards and of getting information. When the executives meet with members of the committee they can put forward their views and recommendations and if necessary they should be allowed to find fault with the activities of this House in relation to legislation passed which affects their board. I see no reason why this should not be allowed if the criticism is sincere and constructive. It would be quite in order for such senior people to make this type of comment.
This motion is a beginning and it is an indication of Government thinking which has also been reflected in the legislation that has been passed in this House since this Government took office in 1973. We have dealt with all aspects of public life. I take little notice of the bluffing statement made by Deputy Brennan in the concluding part of his statement when he was hopeful that he would be back again on this side of the House to rectify all the ills that have beset the country in the past few years. Taking everything into account, particularly this motion, the Government are looking forward and this motion is trying to ensure that State-sponsored bodies will work more efficiently than they are at present and where there are doubts about their efficiency steps will be taken to rectify any deficiencies within the bodies. No matter from what aspect one views this measure, it is sound and it is in line with the measures brought before this House by this Government since 1973 and I have no doubt that it will be acclaimed generally by all the people throughout the country, almost all of whom have an interest in the workings of our State-sponsored bodies.
I am in almost universal agreement with what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. I note the Parliamentary Secretary's real concern to ensure that State-sponsored bodies will be seen to be publicly responsible in so far as we in this House as representatives of the people can be the agents in that responsibility. There was concern that in the past they may not have been as responsible as the public would have wished them to be. For that reason all of us welcome the move towards accountability to us of semi-State bodies and, more importantly, through us to the public.
Before one can think in terms of the accountability of any State body one must establish what is their role, their place and their function in relation to the national aim in the economic area. I would have hoped that in an innovation of this sort the Minister responsible, who also happens to be the Minister responsible for the Public Service, would have given us some indication of the role he sees for these State bodies in the economic development of the country. One must recognise that it is not possible to scrutinise the role of any of these bodies without first being made aware of how that role fits into the overall economic plan in whatever area it is charged to operate.
In this area lies the first weakness in the Minister's approach to this generally laudable legislation. I should have thought that he would have given an outline of the functions and obligations of these bodies in the economic planning for the future. I have no wish to be unkind, much less to be cynical, in this regard. Perhaps it is understandable that the Minister did not enlighten us in regard to the role he sees for these organisations since the Government have not given us an outline or a programme of what they intend their own economic direction to be. There can be no full definition of the role of these State organisations without there being also a clear definition of economic policy. Whether we are talking about State organisations that are promotional or those that are commercial, the most important question should be that of the Government's economic plan and philosophy. The question of the role of the Government is a very important argument. Should it be, as the Labour Party have been advocating, the promotion of national development agencies, or is it to be an entirely free enterprise, as Fine Gael ask for? Until this question is decided there can be no clear decision how these State bodies should operate. In other words, the basic premise of the argument is missing.
A reply to this question is long overdue, but perhaps the Minister will supply the information when he is replying to the debate. As both he and the first speaker to the motion from this side of the House have said, these bodies welcome the introduction of the committee we are setting up, subject to some of the reservations I shall refer to later. They would welcome even more some directions to which they could respond in the same way as the public would welcome targets or challenges to which they could respond but there can be no response either from the public or from semi-State institutions in the absence of such targets. The person charged with responsibility in this area, the Minister for Finance, has not given us any guidelines.
There is no point in endeavouring to claim credit for the introduction of the various semi-State bodies. I expect that for each claim for the credit for a successful body there could be also the responsibility on either side of the House for having set up bodies which, although not without some success, have been costly. However, I think it can be said of the fifties and sixties that the State bodies under Fianna Fáil played a major role in the economic development programme of those decades. One recalls that many of their executives identified with the type of confident economic thinking personified by the late Seán Lemass. I shall not refer to names in regard to these executives but these names are well known in the various areas in which these people operated. There was the "get up and do things for yourself" attitude of the Government in those days and the semi-State bodies responded to that challenge as did the private sector. Shannon is a very good example of what I am talking of. These semi-State bodies literally changed the face of the areas with which they were most directly converned. This was to the economic and social advantage of these areas. To that extent they identified with a co-ordination and a partnership that redounded to the public good. Unfortunately we have had no plan for economic development during the past three years. In those circumstances how can we criticise Bord na Móna, Aer Lingus or any of the other bodies mentioned here in regard to the discharging of their functions? They have not been given any guideline as to what their position is or as to what it is to be during the coming ten years. These bodies are entitled to ask what is expected of them. But to the extent that there is no plan for economic development this exercise may be very much of less use than it might otherwise have been.
In so far as the legislation represents a degree of accountability to this House it is welcome. Equally, it must be recognised that to render the accountability effective there would need to be also a reappraisal of the role of this House, of its Members and of their capacity to deal with such heavy responsibility. To illustrate what I have in mind, as I was coming here to contribute to this debate I was approached by the secretary of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities and asked to go along immediately to a meeting of that committee which was about to begin. Those of us who in one sense are privileged to serve on committees of that type—the burden of so serving seems to rest on the same minority of members—find that such membership involves much time, study, research and analysis. We must realise that many of us by reason of our professional, business or personal backgrounds have not the capacity to be experts in all the areas with which we are asked to deal, but membership of these committees requires a readiness at least to study and analyse detail. The amount of data coming before us for examination is increasing daily. Documentation from the EEC is an example of this. We have many committees in operation and we can expect to have more in the future. We are lucky in regard to the committee I have just referred to because we have the back-up service of a dedicated and expert staff but the problem is that we are a relatively small House compared with, say, the House of Commons or the US Congress. Although their responsibilities are greater, there are more people among whom to share responsibilities in these parliaments or legislatures than we have here, of necessity. I think this will involve a complete reassessment of the function of the Deputy and that the Deputy himself will have to reassess his functions to some extent. Perhaps the public will have to recognise also that it is time that they should analyse the function of the Deputy in a more detailed way and also his responsibilities and obligations —and I might include remuneration —by comparison with those that apply in other sectors.
It is very regrettable that there are many people employed in other sectors of the community, including the semi-State bodies, who could not and would not be in a position to accept the reduction in income that becoming a Member of the House would involve. I do not say that we who are here now are not being paid enough, that we personally want more. But perhaps one should have a good look at the role of this House, the status and significance it represents, so that those who are best equipped will be here discharging these very heavy responsibilities and so that nobody can say: "It would be too costly for me to transfer from a semi-State body and offer myself for election to Dáil Éireann. I would lose too much for myself and my family". That has happened and is happening. It is regrettable. I do not say these people are being paid too much where they are, but perhaps somebody should analyse the consequences of the financial relativities in this Parliament and these bodies and see what the effect is on public service generally.
We must always recognise that Deputies have constituency responsibilities. We have the primary responsibility to be answerable to the immediate needs of those who elected us. We cannot tell them at the end of a week: "I had no time to inquire about your problem." They will not believe or accept that, and they are right. If we wish to discharge our responsibilities as Deputies we need— and this is much more important than financial reward—secretarial facilities of a type we have not even begun to provide. I do not blame the present Minister; I think both sides of the House have been responsible but some Deputies find themselves in positions that would not be tolerated in any concern, semi-State or otherwise, outside this House, where three of us are thrown together in one room with nobody to answer a telephone.
If somebody rings for me in my room while I am speaking here now he will get no reply. That could not be tolerated in any other sector. If we are to discharge these new responsibilities, as we are all anxious to do, at least we are entitled to the same secretarial services and research facilities that are available in the semi-State sector, the private sector and every other sector. If, on occasion, I answer the phone for Deputy Brennan with whom I share the room and say he is not here at present, I may be asked; "Could I speak to his secretary?" My answer must be: "We do not have secretaries here." This is a terrible admission of lack of respect for our function—not for ourselves. I hope the present proposal will bring about an analysis of how we can discharge our functions and what services we need.
While we serve on these committees, who will answer our phones, deal with our correspondence and do the things the public are entitled to ask to have done? If these facilities are not provided, a Deputy would have to be very unselfish to say: "I shall ignore my constituency and serve the national interest on this committee." That is asking a lot when he knows he will be blamed at the end of the week for not making inquiries about this, that or the other as he has been asked to do. Both tasks must be discharged. There is a second general responsibility, as the Minister concerned has a dual capacity, I think that on both sides of the House we must take a new look at the way we work in this House, the facilities we have, so that what we can do we shall do well and so that nobody will be neglected because we are otherwise engaged. This is much more important than the remuneration we receive.
I turn now to the third point, the broad principle involved here, the selection of the bodies concerned. Even if Deputies were only to deal in detail with the bodies listed here along with some others on which I shall comment, it would involve very detailed study. If we do not do this in this sphere of responsibility the last state will be worse than the first because, if what the Minister proposes turned out to be nothing more than a facade of public accountability, where overworked Deputies with lack of normal secretarial facilities to do their job were presenting themselves on this committee asking questions they had no chance to research, looking at accounts they had no opportunity to study, the position would be worse than it is now. The public would apparently be asked to believe that there was accountability to this House through us when the reality would be that we had neither the time, capacity nor perhaps energy to do all these things. We should have the time, capacity and energy to do these things and we can only do them if given every proper facility to attend to all our responsibilities.
We all know there is a great temptation sometimes to absent oneself from the Chamber—some people think there is nothing happening except for those of us who are here while others are serving in committee and in various other ways. That is where the immediate return comes, not here in the House discharging one's fundamental responsibility. I do not want that tendency increased. It is vitally important that the whole structure, programme and procedure for the operation of this new committee should be established on a regular basis and that while Deputies will be serving on it, their other obligations will not suffer. The Minister should ensure that those who are ready to serve will not be asked to serve at the price of neglecting other responsibilities. That can only be done by ensuring that the assistance that is available outside in the public and private sectors will be available here also. We must have people to answer phones, type letters and make inquiries in matters of pressing personal interest. If we end up with a committee which appears to involve public accountability but in fact, does not, such a facade would do no service to what the Minister wants to achieve, no service in the semi-State sector and—most important—no service to the public that all of us are charged to serve. I hope we shall not have a facade, that all of us, particularly the Minister who has the greatest responsibility, will ensure that it cannot be such and will insist that whatever the cost—it will not be very great—we get every facility necessary to guarantee proper and effective functioning and questioning and exchanges of views such as must arise with this committee. These are three points of fundamental principle that I want to make before we analyse the bodies themselves.
I want to make a fourth point which relates as much to the bodies not on this list as to those that are on it. It is one that has been raised by other speakers before and the Minister must have considered it. The Minister says he has confined our consideration of semi-State bodies to trading or commercial State-sponsored bodies and generally he has excluded promotional State-sponsored bodies. In his very brief explanation as to why he excluded the latter and included the former he says that the latter, being the non-commercial State-sponsored bodies, are in many ways similar to the executive branches of Government except that they have a larger degree of operating freedom. There is a problem in relation to their responsibility to the Oireachtas, but at this stage it seems the solution may lie in a redefinition of their relationship to the Minister. As far as I can see, that is the extent of the Minister's justification for the exclusion of these bodies. I accept that he is genuine and concerned when he says, perhaps, the solution may well lie in a redefinition of their relationship to the Minister. They all have relationship to the Minister including those ones that are here. He did not go into it in any further deatil. Perhaps he did not think it appropriate. Perhaps he thought: "I am not going to be critical of that".
They all have this responsibility to Minister but the difference between the ones we are now being allowed to examine and the ones we are not being allowed to examine is that those we are being allowed to examine have to produce annual accounts of profit and loss, showing where they made and where they lost. They are engaged in the business of production and, as with any other company so engaged, anyone looking at their reports can see they made this much from this operation and lost that much on that operation. Therefore, there is a problem somewhere, in sales, marketing, programming of one form or another, or in the general administration, if the loss is too significant at the end of the year. That is the test that these bodies we are being allowed to consider in Committee have to fulfil, the test simply of profitability.
We may suffer the frustration that the Parliamentary Secretary has obviously suffered, that is the frustration, when you ask about the why or wherefore, of being told that it is a matter for the semi-State body and the Minister cannot intervene. Allowing for that, at least the accounts and the profitability of such bodies as CIE, Aer Lingus and Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann—and they are all engaged in some form of production—are there to be seen like those of any other body and to the extent that the public can see and criticise them and make suggestions in one way or another to the public press. To that extent those bodies are already accountable to public reaction if not to public scrutiny. They must be sensitive to the public reaction to their accountability. Many of them, perhaps, are unduly sensitive, but where those we are including here have their annual balance sheets the other ones—and there are quite a lot of them, Bord Fáilte, the IDA, SFADCo, all of the promotional bodies —have no annual balance sheets to present. They do not have to say: "We made this money, we lost this much, we spent this and there is the balance at the end of the year." They are promotional bodies and, therefore, we can judge them only by the success or otherwise of their promotions.
How do we know whether the money that was voted to them in this House was spent to the best advantage? How can we check, if they are now going to be excluded, on whether or not they have grown too big, have mushroomed and become too comfortable or too fat? Some of them might have been lean, hungry and determined when established ten or 15 years ago and they have now become comfortable and fat. We do not know at the moment and, unfortunately, in view of their exclusion now, we cannot know in the future.
The Parliamentary Secretary expressed, perhaps, even deeper reservations than I would. I do not want to be taken as criticising any of these bodies. Some of them, IDA, SFADCo and others, are charged with industrial promotion, a very specific responsibility. Industries or executives in industries who may have been established with the support, encouragement and guarantees or loan assistance of IDA or SFADCo have found themselves in the last few years in very severe financial stringency. Where in the private sector which may have been promoted by the IDA or SFADCo there may be redundancies, these redundancies, breezes and draughts that have blown like a gale through the private sector have not been reflected in the semi-State sector. There have not been redundancies in AnCO or SFADCo. I am not saying there should be. These are only two examples. I am saying that the industries which may operate under their aegis have had to suffer redundancies. Perhaps this highlights the need to have a look at the role and function they have and at least to ensure that everything is as tight as possible and the economies are applied to the best advantage within these bodies in the same way and with the same tests as in the private sector.
It is important that, from the point of view of getting an identity in the private sector with the national programming, the public sector at any level, State or semi-State, should not look on themselves as being immune from the breezes or influences, or even viruses if one likes to call them such, that have been attacking the private sector very vigorously over the last three or four years. If they do we are getting an imbalance in our society which is improper and will not do anything to arouse the kind of confidence we need on an overall general basis. For that reason I believe it is vitally important that these promotional bodies particularly should be subject to scrutiny here in this House as to their operation, accounts and expenditure, particularly their expenditure. I am not criticising any of these bodies because they have not had redundancies. There have been suggestions from time to time that some of the expenditure of some State bodies in their promotions have been rather freely applied. It has not begun even under the present Government. It has been a matter of some public comment. For the health of the bodies themselves it can be important that somebody could check or be seen to check on the expenditure of these promotional bodies to ensure that, either by way of travelling expenses or various entertainment or other allowances, there was a tight discipline being applied.
I will give an example. I travelled as a Minister on one occasion to a function outside this country. Also travelling on that occasion were representatives of State bodies. I was travelling in an official capacity doing a special job, as were they also. The luxury in which those gentlemen spent the few days outside the country by comparison with the relatively parsimonius comforts that I as a Minister had, although I was quite comfortably provided for, struck me as very strange. There was an imbalance somewhere. I cannot see that that degree of expenditure could be so casually undertaken. It is part of a pattern where we are properly accountable here, as I am sure the Minister wishes it to be, to the public sector and where we should be severely scrutinised wherever we travel and have occasion to travel. I would expect that there should be the same level of accountability and stringency in the public or semi-State sector.
May I give another example which will highlight the need to include promotional bodies here? The Minister may know that I have the unenviable distinction of having the shortest period in office of any Minister since the State was established. I hope to rectify that soon.
Is the Deputy crossing the House?
Of course I will cross the House very shortly. As the Minister crosses this way I will go over there and a lot sooner than he expects.
The Minister must know that there are more State-sponsored bodies under the aegis of the Department of Transport and Power than of any other Department. When I was Minister for Transport and Power it became very clear to me that there are not always identities of interest between the State bodies under that Department. Deputy Brennan referred to one such body and I want to highlight it by practical illustration. I want to tell the House of a clash of interests between Aer Lingus and Bord Fáilte.
Aer Lingus wanted to ensure that they would be the instrument of carrying people to this country and thereby guaranteeing their profitability. Bord Fáilte wanted to get people here from every source and felt Aer Lingus were not capable on their own of discharging that responsibility. I felt that the only way I could get a real appreciation of the differences between them was not to see the executives and directors separately but to see them together. I have never had a more heated but at the same time more informative meeting that I had on that occasion. I learned more from them than I could ever have learned had I interviewed them separately. Both men were quite properly zealous, if not jealous, of their own interests. Each was concerned for his place in the national plan. Neither was as concerned for the other's place in the national plan as he should have been.
If Aer Lingus are on this list and if an examination of their functions arises in relation to their promotional activities or the number of passengers they will carry to develop tourism, and if there is a clash of interest— and I believe there is a healthy difference between these two bodies— how can they be resolved if the committee do not have Bord Fáilte before them? Aer Lingus could say that they could not operate more profitably because they had to compete on the Atlantic or European routes which should be exclusive to them. They could also claim that another reason was that they had to compete subject to IATA, when they might have been better off working outside the IATA umbrella. These arguments might be valid for Aer Lingus, but the consequence of accepting them might be that fewer tourists would come to Ireland. Bord Fáilte would have something to say about that.
The committee should have the right to summon the executives of both bodies to scrutinise the effectiveness of the programming of the body under consideration. I cannot see how the committee could properly examine one body without having the right to examine the other. They should be able to say to the executive of Bord Fáilte "If we take certain decisions about Aer Lingus, how will they effect you?" That seems to me to be a matter of fundamental common sense. From my limited experience I do not see how the committee could take an effective decision on Aer Lingus without consulting other bodies such as Bord Fáilte.
When one talks in terms of promotional activities, there is a great need to ensure co-ordination of marketing and promotional activity abroad. The CTT are doing a very good job for the development of Irish exports. On the other hand, Bord Fáilte may be doing another job in another area, and Aer Lingus may have somebody else doing yet another job. We have an obligation to coordinate all these promotional and marketing efforts to the best effect and at the least cost. We have seen different State bodies promoting products in the same region. In such a case, joint promotion probably would have yielded a better result at less cost. This area of sales promotional activities should be examined very closely and analysed very deeply to ensure that necessary economies are made and that money is being spent to the best possible advantage.
The Minister is asking us to cut back and be less selfish, but he is not getting the response he wants for the reasons I have already stated. Everybody, including semi-State bodies, should be conscious of their obligations, reanalyse their functions and take another look at their expenditure. If I were given a choice I would opt to have promotional bodies included in this list rather than the trading and commercial State-sponsored bodies. The latter will be accountable because they must produce a balance sheet at the end of the year. I should like the Minister to consider that point. My only worry is how we would deal with them here?
Some of those companies were established 40 years ago, others 30 years ago, but most within the last 20 years. Each year there is a need to redefine their roles and functions having regard to the direction of the national plan, which is not apparent at the moment. These companies cannot fulfil their obligations until the national plan is published when we will all know where we are going in the economic area and can respond to the challenges which the Government are charged to meet.
Each year the role of these bodies will change. The role of Fóir Teoranta will change. The IDA are not mentioned on the list here but we must consider whether we have been giving too much money towards the capital cost of equipment. Perhaps we should consider the employment potential rather than the cost of new installations. We should relate our grants to the employment potential of companies rather than to the capital costs of their equipment. Each year the role of the semi-State bodies will continue to change and for that reason we should have a flexible, well-researched service in this new committee to ensure that we can discharge our responsibilities, having regard to the new priorities. These bodies are entitled to know what is expected of them and what part they have to play. The Government must present a plan in order that they can respond. I want to remind the Minister that during the sixties when there was a plan they did respond. When there is no plan, they do like the rest—they simply react. They might even become selfish and the Minister seems to believe that the public have become selfish recently. They have no challenge, no national concept to which they can respond.
I will give another example with regard to the co-ordination of the efforts of these bodies. AnCO are doing a fine job in the training area, backed by funds from the European Community. We have been reminded very often by the Minister of the external factors which have caused our economic problems, but we overlook the external factors which are providing so much for us in this country. We have had £110 million net by way of grants from the European Community in the FEOGA section alone. A little bit of national honesty would serve us very well in this area. Equally, AnCO are being consistently backed by funds from the European social programme. The sum is in the order of £3 million. This has enabled them to carry on very important training programmes.
I believe that if we are to launch training programmes we have a responsibility to our own community and to the European Community to provide jobs at the end of the line when the training programmes have been concluded. AnCO may be using this money to good effect but we must ensure that there are jobs available for the young people who have completed training courses. That is very obviously not happening. We can all give examples of boys and girls going back within a few months to repeat courses with AnCO at State or European expense because there are no employment outlets for them. AnCO are establishing themselves throughout the country and there are dedicated men and women ready to serve and advise people on job opportunities, but these opportunities are simply not there. We have to ask ourselves what is happening to the people who are being trained.
We are going round in circles because there is no co-ordination between the various bodies concerned. We must look at the role and function of these bodies and their policies if we are to do anything effective and I certainly endorse our spokesman on this. I hope the Minister will give us a comprehensive statement on the role of the semi-State body, of the commercial body, the trading body, the promotional body and the co-ordination which should exist between them. He must know this and he should be able to say how AnCO can coordinate with the IDA or with CTT or any other semi-State body. There must be co-rdination and we must know whether it is going to be done through him or through this committee. We do not discharge our responsibility simply by trusting them. We must question, analyse and then give support and I think it is fair to say that the semi-State bodies welcome this accountability because it will enable them to justify themselves in a way not previously possible. To that extent I welcome this proposal of the Minister because it will lead to a healthy reaction all round, provided that we have the capacity and the facility to discharge the responsibility which he propses to give us, even in a limited area.
Finally, I want to refer to the question of publication of proceedings. I recognise that it could be detrimental to the financial position of some of these bodies to have their trading positions fully disclosed, but nevertheless I feel that an all-party committee of this House could and must be trusted with the responsibility of not undermining the position of these bodies during their deliberations. If we are not capable, as representatives of the people, of trust and discretion we should not be operating here. For that reason I feel that the Minister should not just vindicate the role of these bodies but the role of the House and should give what our spokesman on Finance, Deputy Colley, has asked for, namely, the right to examine the policies and the role and function of the semi-State bodies. Above all else, the Minister should trust us to decide, on request from these bodies, what information should be publicly available. If he does not, we will seem to be less responsible than we should be and the people will have less respect than they should have. The Minister should recognise that and I hope that this will develop into a much more comprehensive exercise in the years to come, provided he adopts the recommendations which have been made by many people on this side and not least by the Parliamentary Secretary who spoke before me.
I am grateful to the House for the manner in which this motion has been debated. I think that there is no substantial area of disagreement. The main criticism seems to be directed at the fact that we have not brought within the ambit of the bodies to be examined by the committee a number of semi-State bodies which are not either trading or commercial bodies but have some other function, like the promotional function referred to by Deputy O'Kennedy.
I want to repeat now what I said at the beginning. I said a start has to be made sometime and our motion covering 25 semi-State companies covers 90 per cent of the employees in the semi-State sector, so it cannot be said that we are making a small beginning. We are making a very substantial start in allowing Parliament to review the operations of some semi-State bodies. We have brought the major ones within the jurisdiction of this committee, major in the impact they have on the lives of the people, major in the amount of public moneys they involve and major in the number of employees they have. They include bodies like CIE, Aer Lingus and Bord na Móna. Were the committee to do no more than look at the operations of these bodies for a start I am certain they would probably have sufficient work to engage their attention for the coming year.
The lifetime of this Parliament by law expires in March, 1978, and the bodies in the schedule to this motion are incapable of being fully examined during the lifetime of the present Dáil. I believe, however, that the experience gained in the course of examining the reports and the overall operational results of these companies will enable all of us to take a better and a clearer view in future of what would be the appropriate area of future work and the way in which we should go about that work.
Deputy Colley, Deputy de Valera and others asked what is the status of this committee. In what particular category of Committees of Parliament does it fall? They drew attention to the fact that this committee will be a joint committee of both Houses unlike some committees which are confined to a particular House. The closest parallel would be, I think, with the Committee on Secondary Legislation. That exists under an ad hoc resolution of this House, a resolution similar to this resolution. When the committee on the consolidation of Bills was first set up it was established under a similar resolution and under a similar procedure. After both Houses had had experience of the working of that committee the procedure was introduced into Standing Orders. I would visualise that, after some years' experience of the operations of this committee, Standing Orders being amended to provide for this committee on a permanent basis. At the moment its life stems from the passage of this resolution today and its future existence will depend on future resolutions until such time as Standing Orders are amended. I anticipate there will be an amendment of Standing Orders in due course.
Does the Minister mean existing Standing Orders would not apply?
No. Existing Standing Orders have a number of provisions relevant to the working of this committee. For instance, Standing Orders contain provision for the establishment of the Committee of Public Accounts.
I am thinking in terms of a joint committee of both Houses and whether Standing Orders apply to it.
I think they do but I am not speaking ex cathedra on that. I think there are Standing Orders governing procedures of Joint committees, but no procedure will work without co-operation and I anticipate there will be a concensus on this committee as to the best way in which to go about the work. If Standing Orders are silent as to the working of joint committees, obviously we will need to get the co-operation of Members of the other House in working out acceptable procedures and the probability is this could not be done without years of experience of the operation of the committee.
Deputy de Valera laid, I think, too much stress upon the financial responsibility of the committee. I am not for one moment taking away from its financial responsibility but he seemed to cloak this committee with precisely the same garments as are worn by the public accounts committee. That is a wrong assessment of the situation. It is certainly not the way I see it. The Committee of Public Accounts have no responsibility at all in the area of policy; they may not even review policy. Their function is to satisfy themselves that the moneys voted by this House have been spent in the proper manner. We are going further in this new committee. We are allowing them to examine reports, and as we know, reports of trading and commercial bodies frequently cover matters other than the trading accounts and the profit and loss accounts of the concerns in question. We are going beyond the reports and accounts and allowing the committee to examine the overall operations and the results. Examining these will inevitably involve a study of policy, albeit past policy, but one cannot debate the results of past policy without forming a view as to whether or not the continuation of such a policy would be proper in the future. If criticisms arise and are published in the reports of the committee in regard to the operations and results of past policies, they will undoubtedly help the Government, in the first instance, and both Houses of the Oireachtas after that, to formulate better policies for the future.
In our democratic system in which Government is responsible for the running of the country and Ministers are responsible for the various bodies under their Departments it is proper that future policy should be determined by the Government of the day. But Government in a democracy must take account of views and criticisms uttered outside Parliament or by parliamentarians themselves. I anticipate that the better understanding of the workings of semi-State bodies and an examination of the results achieved by them in the committee will improve decision-making at all levels of Government and in semi-State bodies themselves in the future.
Deputy Colley, Deputy Halligan, Deputy O'Kennedy and others argued in favour of including bodies like Bord Fáilte, Córas Tráchtála, the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and the Industrial Development Authority into this. I was, in fact, specifically asked to include these and asked why they were not being brought in. They are not brought in for the simple reason that there will be more than enough to do in the schedule available for consideration in the lifetime of this Parliament. We are dealing with bodies which obtain most or a substantial part of their revenue from the sale of goods and services. Bodies like CTT, the IDA and SFADCo are not in receipt of the greater part of their funds from the sale of goods and services. They are helping our economy to be more efficient and achieve greater growth, provide better services and so on, and they obtain most of their funds as a direct subvention from the Exchequer. I agree with Deputies who have expressed a desire that such bodies should be examined by a committee of the Oireachtas and I would look forward to the day when such examination would take place.
A number of Deputies were quite rightly concerned about the immense weight of work which lies on their shoulders and they feel a certain frustration and dissatisfaction with present procedures and systems which do not enable them efficiently to discharge their functions. They felt that perhaps we were asking a limited number of Deputies to do too much. I can sympathise with that point of view having served on both sides of this House to the best of my ability. I understand the pressures and I do not willingly add to any of them but I know that conscientious Deputies will happily bear the additional responsibilities entrusted to them by a motion such as this and by any extension of responsibility which the Dáil may vote in future years.
So far as the Department of the Public Service and the Department of Finance are concerned, we will do all we can to make available to the committee an adequate secretariat so that the members will be able to get a great deal of the analysis done for them to enable them to concentrate on what could be called policy matters. They will be able to take broad decisions based on the analyses prepared for them. However, if it is to be a Parliamentary Committee it must be operated mainly by parliamentarians who must do their own thinking and an amount of research themselves so that they may pose the questions which activate them and others and which often find expression in the form of public criticism or protest of one form or another.
It may be that in the course of time the secretariat may have to be enlarged but it would be wrong to create a new secretarial empire to serve this committee. That could lead to a situation where the work would be done by one group of bureaucrats looking over the shoulders of others. Here we want the parliamentary view, the view of Members of this House who have been sent here to serve the interests of their constituents. That must be the force and influence that has most impact on the working of the committee and on the semi-State bodies themselves. It can best be achieved by providing an adequate secretariat and I do not anticipate any great difficulty in reaching agreement on the numbers, status and skill of the personnel involved in serving the committee.
Deputy Colley asked if meetings would be public or private. This will be a matter for the committee to decide. The Dáil Standing Orders provide that the committee may decide such matters. If it is to work effectively, if it is to get the greatest possible amount of information and co-operation from the semi-State bodies, it will probably work in private, just as the Committee of Public Accounts operate. However, this will not prevent the committee from issuing a report disclosing information it considers of material public interest, subject to the obligation to maintain confidentiality in relation to information it would be necessary to keep secret in order to prevent damage being done to the commercial interests of any State body. That safeguard must be retained for the public good.
The argument has been made here that the public good would require the fullest possible disclosure of information and it was suggested we should not impose an obligation to maintain confidentiality. I can understand the thinking behind that view but I would ask Members who advanced that argument to appreciate the need to preserve the public good and to ensure that semi-State bodies operating in the trading and commercial sectors are not subjected to any inhibition that would not apply to the private sector. It arises out of the need to ensure that they will not be put at any disadvantage compared with competitors in the private sector, either in Ireland or elsewhere.
I do not anticipate that the obligation to preserve confidentiality will create any real problems. If members of the committee consider that information given to them with a plea of confidentiality is deserving of publication and that it can be published without harming the body in question, I feel certain they would undoubtedly respect the obligation to preserve confidentiality, in the presentation of their report to both Houses of the Oireachtas they would express their concern that information was given to them with the plea of confidentiality but which the members themselves considered should be published in the public interest. The knowledge that such a comment could be made in the annual report will lead to a situation where the representatives of semi-State bodies will not lightly plead confidentiality in relation to information. I anticipate there will be little or no difficulty between members of the committee and representatives of semi-State bodies who may furnish information to them.
The points I have dealt with were raised by several Deputies in the course of the debate and there is no need for me to return in detail to the several well-considered and well-presented problems put forward by many Deputies. However, I should like to refer briefly to some criticisms offered today about Gaeltarra Éireann. One Deputy rightly said that the problems of Gaeltarra Éireann are not new, that they have been recited in this House for decades past. It would be very wrong if, as a consequence of anything said today by the Opposition, the view should go out that Gaeltarra Éireann are not a sound and well-run organisation.
Gaeltarra Éireann have eliminated many of the practices that were a cause of justified criticism in the past. In the past three years they have had a record of very substantial progress. It is always undesirable to relate individual cases as though they gave the overall picture. The few cases given today bear no relationship to the overall performance of Gaeltarra Éireann. They gave a very unfair picture and a totally unbalanced view.
I should like to put some point on the credit side. Since 1973 Gaeltarra Éireann have turned their knitwear and tweed divisions, which had traditionally been in the loss-making sector, into a profit-making operation. For instance, in 1975 it produced a profit of £30,000; this year the profit on those divisions is £120,000 and next year it is estimated that the profit in this sector will be £250,000. That is quite a significant improvement. Total employment in Gaeltarra Éireann increased from 1,800 at the beginning of 1973 to 3,300 at present. This reflects the tremendous amount of restructuring and reorganisation that has taken place in Gaeltarra Éireann and in activities promoted by them. One of the most significant aspects has been that their whole structure has changed from being primarily a trading and commercial body with substantial losses into being a promotional organisation encouraging private interests to establish themselves in the Gaeltacht area. Today only a small proportion of their annual income comes from activities in the trading and commercial area. As I said earlier today, I accept the need to respond to public anxiety which has been expressed in the past about Gaeltarra Éireann, some of which was reflected in the contributions by Members here today.
I am, therefore, disposed to amend the motion to provide that the committee may study the trading and commercial activities of Gaeltarra Éireann. I am doing that by putting in a second Schedule which will refer to Gaeltarra Éireann and by amending the substantive motion by providing that it is the trading and commercial activities of Gaeltarra Éireann only which will be examined. The day may well come when this committee or some other committee of the Oireachtas will examine the non-trading and commercial bodies and the State promotion bodies. Whenever that occurs one can then put in the non-trading and non-commercial activities of Gaeltarra Éireann. I hoped to have the appropriate amendments typed but I gather there was some misunderstanding or some breakdown in communications. The result is that I have not got the actual text typed and this may create some difficulty.
Has the Minister got the text?
I have. I have some textural amendments I want to make to the motion to incorporate ideas which I think may be agreed on either side of the House. The real problem that arises, as I see it, is that the Seanad will be asked to approve a motion in similar form. If we do not pass this motion today in the form in which I present it to the Seanad the Seanad will ultimately pass a motion in a form different from that passed by the Dáil today. I would then have to return to the Dáil to rescind the Dáil's previous resolution and, hopefully, adopt the resolution which would be passed in the Seanad. On the other hand, if the House agree today to making the amendments which I will suggest orally we could then pass a motion today which could then be reflected in identical terms in the Seanad. I have a copy of the motion, as amended. I could hand it to the Chair and I could also explain it to Deputy Colley as I go along. I am sorry this has happened. The way in which I would approach the problem is this: Paragraph (1) would be amended in the following manner:
After Schedule in the 12th line——
Is the Chair in some difficulty regarding this?
The Minister will appreciate that it will have to be in Irish and in English.
Yes.
How long would it take to get those amendments typed?
If we could have them typed it would help but the Chair has said we need an Irish text as well. I am not certain how long that would take. The alternative would be if we pass the motion and I undertake to return here when the Seanad has considered the matter. It is a joint committee and the text would have to be similar in both Houses.
In those circumstances the Minister would bring the amended version to the Seanad and would then come back here and amend this motion in the same way.
Yes.
If the House agrees we could have the text translated later.
I will not raise any objection on that ground.
Perhaps the best thing I can do is to explain the matter and if Deputies have any difficulties we will have to try to find some other way. I do not believe any difficulty will arise because we are endeavouring to meet some of the points the Opposition have raised.
Before the Minister gives details of it could I be permitted to make a very brief point which I believe is relevant to what he is saying? Am I right in thinking that the Minister proposes to amend the motion in order to provide another Schedule which would contain the references to Gaeltarra Éireann and the motion itself would contain references to both trading and commercial activities and non-commercial activities as well?
No. Paragraph (1) will be amended by providing that the committee will examine the trading and/or commercial activities and the reports and accounts and the overall operational results of the body referred to in Schedule B thereto. In Schedule B we would have Gaeltarra Éireann.
Why is it being done that way?
Because the Deputy will see that the original motion authorises the examination of the reports and accounts and the overall operational results of State-sponsored bodies which are described as engaged in trading or commercial activities being the bodies being set out in the First Schedule. It does not say "shall examine the trading or commercial activities of those bodies". I want to provide that in relation to Gaeltarra Éireann it is only the trading and commercial activities of that body which fall for examination. All the activities of the bodies in the First Schedule are trading and commercial and there is no need to put in the limitation.
This is really the point I wanted to put to the Minister. It appears that it might simplify the amendment very greatly as well as which I believe the Minister would not be doing any great damage to the concept he has in regard to this, if he were simply to add "Gaeltarra Éireann" to the existing Schedule. I agree that thereby he would seem to be opening up all the activities of Gaeltarra Éireann to examination, which is not what he intends to do. I want to urge him to reconsider that. I do not believe there is any great loss involved particularly, as he said, he visualises in due course other bodies, which are not engaged in commercial activities, being added to the surveillance of this committee. Would he not consider adding the whole of the activities of Gaeltarra Éireann and thereby, hopefully, in addition to other benefits, simplify his amendment enormously?
I would certainly simplify the presentation of the amendments today but it would mean that we would have the promotional activities carried on by Gaeltarra Éireann under this committee whereas the promotional activities carried on by the IDA, SFADCo and some other State agencies, such as Bord Fáilte and CTT would not come under the ambit of this committee.
We could start with this.
It would be unfair, having regard to the fact that Gaeltarra Éireann could be in competition with the IDA and SFADCo—they are certainly carrying on the same kind of industrial activity—that one should have its activities in that area under the ambit of this committee and the other would not. I assure the Deputy that the effect of my amendment is precisely that which Deputies today argued in favour of—to bring the trading and commercial activities of Gaeltarra Éireann within the ambit of this committee. In my view it does it in a way which is fair to Gaeltarra Éireann and achieves the objective of Members.
I should like to ask the Minister if the effect of the amendment he is proposing is that the companies with which Gaeltarra Éireann have investments will have their accounts examined by the committee or is he saying that only the accounts of Gaeltarra Éireann will be considered?
The effect will be that the accounts of Gaeltarra Éireann and of companies which are subsidiaries of Gaeltarra Éireann or in which Gaeltarra Éireann is the predominant shareholder, all of which accounts are at present examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, will fall for consideration by the committee. Gaeltarra Éireann have a number of minority holdings in private concerns and they will not fall for examination.
According to the 1974 published accounts of Gaeltarra Éireann there are 49 companies in which Gaeltarra Éireann have a share holding. The percentage of that shareholding varies from 100 per cent to as little as 15 or 20 per cent. What does the Minister mean when he says "predominant shareholder"? This side of the House would like the amendment to cover all companies with whom Gaeltarra Éireann have a shareholding.
I do not have the precise figures with me and I would not like to give any information which would not be entirely accurate. The parallel is that the IDA have shareholdings in some concerns, Fóir Teoranta hold shares in concerns, and the accounts of those concerns and their activities do not fall for examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General; they are not public companies. Nobody would deem them to be public companies but a company wholly owned by a State concern— like Ostlanna Éireann—would fall for examination.
Does the Minister mean anything in excess of 50 per cent?
I was using that as a descriptive term and I would not wish to be tied to any particular fraction. As I speak I am not certain what companies under the auspices of Gaeltarra Éireann or which have been assisted by Gaeltarra Éireann have their accounts examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I take it that the wish of the House is that such companies as are public companies should fall for examination by the committee. That is what we are endeavouring to achieve by the amendment without proposing to open up for examination by the committee the operations of private concerns in which Gaeltarra Éireann may have a small shareholding and which shareholdings interest has increased in recent years because Gaeltarra Éireann have been giving assistance more by way of equity rather than as an outright unconditional grant.
Presumably the Minister's intention is that in any case where Gaeltarra Éireann have a controlling interest, either full ownership of the equity or at least a controlling interest, such companies would come within the ambit of this committee?
Yes.
I know the Minister does not want to be tied to more than 50 per cent but our understanding is that it is the Minister's intention that where there is a controlling interest by Gaeltarra Éireann that will come within the ambit of the committee. There are occasions where Gaeltarra Éireann start with 30 or 40 per cent interest and subsequently acquire, as part of a funding operation, more equity and would then go over the 50 per cent and have a controlling interest. Is it the intention where that happens to bring that concern within the ambit of the committee?
I think it could happen that way. I do not want to issue statements here which might cause difficulty later on, which might be unhelpful to a firm which Gaeltarra Éireann might wish to help. I suggest that my amendment is going a long way towards meeting the anxieties of Members. I am not saying that that is the last word on it but we are providing for a right to add bodies to the committee's responsibility later on. Having regard to the fact that we have only 14 or 15 months left in the lifetime of this Dáil, and therefore to operate the terms of this resolution, it will be more than enough to look at Gaeltarra Éireann and the other concerns.
The Minister's amendment, in my view, will have little effect in achieving the aim that our party had in mind in seeking to have Gaeltarra Éireann included in the Schedule. If the Minister is only referring to companies in which Gaeltarra Éireann have a controlling interest he is excluding a very substantial proportion of the companies with whom Gaeltarra Éireann have involved themselves. I had hoped that the Minister's amendment would include all companies in which Gaeltarra Éireann had taken shares. I had inintended to try to convince the Minister to have these companies included by mentioning a company which to all intents and purposes is now defunct as an example of the type of business arrangement Gaeltarra Éireann entered into. The company I had in mind had locations in Donegal and Spiddal where Gaeltarra Éireann entered into an arrangement with Solus Éireann Teoranta to form a new company called Soltoys, who took over the toy-making division.
I do not wish to obstruct the Deputy but it would be preferable if he did not mention the name of a company.
They are no longer in existence and therefore I am not interfering with their present or future trading prospects. The thing failed. Solus Éireann Teoranta were given about 76 per cent of the shareholding in the company and their investment was £11,000. The assets of the company were in excess of £500,000 and Gaeltarra Éireann subsequently paid in by way of a grant another £325,000 and did not make any arrangement to participate in the management of that company. There was gross negligence and wastage of taxpayers' money, voted by this House, in that case and I do not think Gaeltarra Éireann would deny that. It was a bad decision. In such a case, where Gaeltarra Éireann only retained a 26 per cent shareholding, the Minister would be excluding consideration of that by the committee. That is negativing the purpose of our amendment: that any of these deals should be considered by the committee.
It will be for the committee to decide whether we have empowered it to examine the trading and commercial activities of Gaeltarra Éireann. I feel sure they will act in a responsible way. It is the only way in which I can extend the resolution to bring in the kind of cases to which Deputy Molloy and others have referred. Perhaps it does not bring in all cases, any more than we are bringing in IDA assisted companies. We are dealing with 26 major companies and their activities which cover more than 90 per cent of the activities in the semi-State area. It will be a tremendous committee if it gets even 10 per cent of that work done over the next 15 months which will be the lifetime of this committee.
The sooner we start the better. I would hope that, while it might not go all the way at the moment to satisfy Deputies opposite, they will see it is opening up to them an opportunity to explore the situation. Further, there are 49 companies, as the Deputy said, listed in the 1974 annual report of Gaeltarra Éireann. It would not be possible at this stage for me to list those which would or would not be within the ambit of the committee. Quite frankly, apart from making an assessment on the basis of those figures before me, the situation might have changed since 1974. We are going a long way, and it ought to help. Maybe it will cover the cases the Deputy has in mind. I do not know.
Might I qualify what I said in case anybody takes me up wrongly? I said the company was defunct. The arrangement entered into has been cancelled between Solus Éireann and Gaeltarra Éireann. I think there is a company called Soltoys operating in Donegal but the factory in Spiddal closed. The arrangement with Solus Éireann ended.
It is true, as the Minister indicated, that the amendment does not go as far as we would like it to go, but it is an advance on the complete exclusion of Gaeltarra Éireann. To that extent we welcome it. The physical difficulty in judging the exact effect of the amendment is such that I will take it on trust that what the Minister says it is doing is what it is doing. On the basis of what the Minister said, while it does not go as far as we would like it to go, we welcome it because it is an advance on the original position. It may be that, on a detailed examination of the amendment, we might have some questions but I am taking it on trust. On that basis, I am prepared to agree to the amendment.
I am grateful to the Deputy. If we find it is inadequate we can always return to the House and amend the resolution. The next amendment I should like to make is one which also goes a long way to meet the objection which the Opposition recited to the right of the Minister for the Public Service to delete from the Schedule the name of any bodies which he considers no longer to be State-sponsored bodies. We have provided that he can do that only after consultation.
The Chair will have to deal with the amendments seriatim. At the end of the Minister's speech we will have to take amendment No. 1 in Deputy Colley's name, followed by amendment No. 2 in Deputy Colley's name. In effect, the Minister is not moving now. He is stating his intention to move?
I am simply describing what my intentions are. I hope they may be acceptable.
We can move them formally afterwards.
In paragraph (2) after the word "schedule"—it will become plural now—I propose to insert the words "and with the consent of the joint committee and the Minister for Finance" there may be a deletion of a company. That would mean no company could be deleted from the list unless the committee consented with the Minister that it should be deleted. As I illustrated before, there has been such a case since the original motion was tabled. The Potato Marketing Board became a private co-operative and, not so long ago, Bord Bainne which was a State concern became a private concern. It is possible that the need will arise to eliminate a company and, rather than requiring a separate motion to be tabled here and in the Seanad, it is better that the consent of the committee should be obtained. I hope that will be acceptable to the Opposition.
Whatever about the merits or otherwise of the suggestion that five, including the chairman, should be members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, there is procedural difficulty in accepting that. There ain't no such creature as the Leader of the Opposition so far as our parliamentary rules are concerned. Whatever about the position in this House, the Seanad is not supposed to have an Opposition at all. Whatever resolution we pass here will have to be passed in identical terms in the Seanad, in order to allow the Seanad to be a party to the joint committee.
We have no difficulty on the procedural side if the substance is accepted.
I hope it will be possible for us to reach appropriate agreement in the Committee of the House which will be appointing this committee in due course. I hope the Opposition appreciate that I have been anxious to get a consensus in relation to this committee, to its foundation in the first instance. That desire will follow through so far as I am concerned at all levels so that we will get a consensus on the establishment of the committee and the manner in which it will do its work afterwards. I have also difficulty in accepting——
I appreciate the procedural difficulty the Minister mentioned. Could he indicate his attitude to the substance, in other words, putting it in very blunt terms, that five of the members of the committee would be members of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party and that one of them would be the chairman? What is the Minister's reaction to the substance of that?
As the Deputy will recall I mentioned this previously. I said that if this House and the other House are to have a number of committees it would be desirable that we should have the chairmanship rotating or distributed. I would say the sensible thing is to have a provision that, if there is an equal number of committees in either House, the chairmanship should be divided equally between Government and Opposition and, if there is an unequal number of committees, the Opposition should have one more than the Government of the day. That situation has to be looked at in the light of the existing committees we have here and in the other House.
I would hope we would be able to reach an understanding, if not in relation to the setting up of this committee here and now or the chairmanship of it or other committees already in existence, at least as to what should be the position after future elections. On neither side of the House does anybody presume the political pendulum will stay where it is for ever. There is no attempt on the part of the Government to get any passing advantage even by not acceding to the resolution as it has been tabled.
On the number "five" is the position the same so far as the Minister is concerned as in relation to the chairman?
That would be my predisposition. Obviously, the committee of selection will have to reach the ultimate agreement. I hope it will be possible to reach an acceptable arrangement. I have already mentioned my difficulty in accepting that the committee should extend into the area of policy which could deal with present and future policy and not merely past policy. As I have already said, I am disposed to accept that Bord Gáis Éireann should be included.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but he will appreciate there is a slight difficulty in procedure here. Is the Minister saying he has difficulty in accepting the insertion of the word "policy" as provided for in amendment No. 2? When he was speaking earlier he said the committee would be looking into present and past policy.
The point I was making was this. It would be rather unreal to think the committee would examine the overall operational results and report on them without such a report having an influence on present and future policy. But I would not visualise that the committee at this stage would be issuing edicts about future policy. However, mere comment upon past successes or failures or shortcomings or achievements would, I think, have a bearing upon decisions, either at Government or parliamentary level, on the operations of the companies.
On the issue of confidentiality, I have already explained why I consider it necessary to keep a restriction there, because this is the best way of encouraging the semi-State bodies and their representatives to give the fullest information to the committee. I was going to refer to Bord Gáis Éireann. Deputy O'Malley was quite right when he referred to the incorrect title of the concern in question——
I did not know he had referred to it. I was going to draw the Minister's attention to it.
——in both the original motion and Deputy Colley's draft. The provision in law is "Bord Gáis Éireann" and, therefore, if the House will agree, we will omit the word "Teoranta" in the amendment I have tabled.
I have already explained the reason why I find at present an inability to accept either Bord na gCon or Bord na gCapall. They are promotional organisations and they are not trading or commercial activities in the true sense. Again, in the light of experience of the operation of the committee and when they have their existing workload under control, we may consider adding these or some other concerns. I would say we would be better able to form a mature judgment on that issue when we have had the experience of the workings of the committee over a couple of years. I hope that will help the House to form a view on the original resolution and the amendments which have been tabled to us.
Briefly, I would just like to indicate that I would be unable to accept amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the name of Deputy Colley. No. 3, I would respectfully suggest, has been met by the amendment which I have suggested requiring the consent of the committee to the deletion of any name. Amendment No. 4 I find difficult to accept for the reasons I stated in relation to confidentiality and amendment No. 4 (a) which I have tabled would be amended by the deletion of the word "Teoranta". I would suggest that that amendment of mine, together with the further amendment which includes the trading and commercial activities of Gaeltarra Éireann, goes a long way to meet amendment No. 5 of Deputy Colley which I would be unable to accept in its present form because it includes Bord na gCon and Bord na gCapall.
Tá.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Patison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Thornley, David.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- White, James.
I understand that the Whips will decide when the remaining amendments come to be dealt with.