When I was speaking on this motion on the previous occasion I was attempting to summarise some points in relation to this House and its association with semi-State companies or statutory corporations. On the inauguration of a committee such as that now proposed it is not easy to summarise what might be its relationship in regard to the scope and extent of the powers of some of the semi-State companies.
This is the century of monopolies. We know of the situation in America where early in the century American business was faced with the question of private enterprise. In private enterprise the tendency is always towards a monopoly of power and wealth and to this extent the American economy then found itself up against what I might call a trade barrier, an élite at the top exploiting the consumer at the bottom.
Fifty years ago some of our semi-State companies were set up. For this House it was then a question of whether it would agree to vote money to extend private enterprise or whether it was going to vote money to set up semi-State companies and, at the same time, to put them under the control of civil servants. It was quite correctly argued that if the State tried to extend and to foster private enterprise inevitably we would have a monopoly and possibly a restriction in trade which could ultimately lead to the exploitation of the consumer.
The other argument was that if the semi-statutory corporations were placed under the control of civil servants there would be all the attendant red tape, accompanied by trade restrictions in the sense of the strict discipline that would be enforced by the civil servants. At that time it was said it would conflict with the principles of good trade operations and relations. Those of us who knew something about these arguments had an idea of what was behind them. One impression was that if the semi-State companies were handed over completely to civil servants they would be run as departments of State with all the inevitable restrictions. It was not realised that they would be a little more detached.
The other argument was that if we tried to extend private enterprise we would have all the monopolistic tendencies and ailments that went with that kind of trading. It was fortunate that at that time a combination of methods was used. In a sense the methods were rather novel because the State was young and one must look with a certain amount of admiration at the work the companies have accomplished during the years.
On the last occasion I confined my remarks to a few of the companies and I took them as examples and perhaps it would be as well if I continued in that way. Many arguments could be put forward both for and against the extension of the concept of the semi-statutory corporation and I merely wish to pose the questions that should be put by a Member of the Oireachtas. It is essential that we have a rational approach to the matter while keeping in mind the way the semi-staturory corporations did their work in the past.
The Minister who is sponsoring this motion has the advantage of belonging to a younger generation who have seen the workings of those companies. To that extent he and his advisers have acquired knowledge regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the companies. He has also the added advantage that he has heard arguments for and against the extension of the companies. On balance the arguments in favour are much greater than the arguments against semi-statutory corporations. Irrespective of how the arguments are framed or whether the person putting them forward is totally in favour of private enterprise, I think the question would fall in favour of semi-statutory corporations in our circumstances. In earlier days we had not the money or experience to float large companies. Private enterprise had not the werewithal to do it and it fell to the Oireachtas to generate not merely the ideas but the money, which was the greatest barrier at that time. It was then left to the leaders of those companies to recruit their respective staff. The Local Appointments Commission was used and it may be said that most of those companies got the best material possible. It would be wrong for Members of the Oireachtas not to record appreciation of the work of the personnel of those semi-statutory corporations over the years.
We could easily be led into thinking that a committee like this could be a committee of management. I do not believe this is the idea of the House in regard to this matter. Those semi-statutory corporations are well managed already. They present annual reports and they have recourse to advice they did not have in the early days. They can recruit consultants at various times who have dealt with matters like this not merely here but abroad. There is no shortage of technology available to those companies and neither is there a shortage of advice on administration and management available to them.
What should be the functions of the committee? A certain amount of caution must be used in regard to the setting up of such a committee. If the House is to be of real help and provide a certain amount of leadership in this regard it must be seen as having a sort of partnership with those companies, that is having a benign attitude but at the same time seeing that strict accountancy methods are used. There need be no conflict between the House and those companies. As far as I am aware there never was any great argument in the past between the House and those companies. There was often argument in the House, when it came to voting money, that there was not enough control and that the Members of the Oireachtas did not know about the working of those companies. Some arguments were used in praise of those companies and some against them but there was no great conflict on the principles underlying the general work which those companies were engaged in.
I said earlier on I intended referring to two companies in particular. We depend on the ESB for a great deal of our power and energy. This company employs a large number of people so we are dealing with a company of very great importance to our economy. I believe Bord na Móna are equally important. We could do great service to everybody by dwelling a little while on the ramifications of Bord na Móna and the ESB. It was thought to be a joke by some people if one spoke about going back to the bogs. I am very glad that there were people who had the idea that we could get energy out of the bogs and that they were not enormous sponges in the midlands for holding water. We must be very grateful that there were people who insisted on the development of the bogs as a source of energy.
Many people believe that by the end of the century the ESB will have extended considerably and will have gone into nuclear power so that we will have entered another age. If that happens we hope the House will still be able to provide the money and provide every help to the ESB and also to Bord na Móna. It is very important to have a combination of politicians and those companies. We have never been too afraid of exploitation by semi-statutory bodies because we knew there was some control, even though it might be remote, and that public spirit underlay the working of those companies. We were able to appreciate that there was not the same desire to exploit the consumer by those companies as there would be in the case of private enterprise. I am not condemning private enterprise but unrestricted private enterprise in monopolies can be very dangerous. This has happened in many countries and could also be dangerous here. Our concept of semi-statutory bodies saved us a good deal of anxiety during the war years and subsequently, I believe this has improved the image of semi-statutory corporations.
When I was a member of the Council of Europe, before we went into Europe, I remember discussing the matter with some Germans and members of the Swedish delegation. I recall saying in regard to socialism, that while we had not the name of being outright socialists we had more socialist principles at work here than in any country in Europe at that time. When the Minister mentioned that these State companies employ 57,000 or 58,000 and have a turnover of £500 million I realised that this is an enormous business and it would pay us as politicians in this House to try to frame the best possible legislation in dealing with these companies.
The Minister indicated that he proposes asking the House to consider for this committee seven Members of the Dáil and four Members of the Seanad. If one wants an effective committee this would possibly be the correct number. Sometimes a committee of good personnel will give better results than a large committee which could be engaged in useless debate on occasions. A forward-looking committee balanced as between Dáil and Seanad is a fair proposition and in my limited way I fully support that.
I also tried to deal briefly with the fact that procedure in the House was inclined to be slow because we had too many subjects in the pipeline. One could say that matters appertaining to public administration and economic matters were coming into conflict in the House to the extent that one was vying with the other for priority of debate. We would avoid this if we could free the House to deal here with public Departments, with debates on Estimates and Bills and so on and in that way regularise our business here and arrange it in a better way. Those who have been here for some time know that the volume of business coming to the House is enormous and we know there is a limited time for debate in any week. Our aim then should be so to arrange our order of priority that we will have time to debate briefly the Estimates of the various Departments leaving time afterwards to deal with Bills and other matters. I think it is very sensible to try to shift matters from the floor of the House which should not properly be there and which should properly be moved to committee.
The argument always was that we have a small House. That is so and when one takes out of it Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries and now Members of the European Parliament, one is left with a rather small number of personnel. The time of that personnel is important and should be used to the best advantage.
I believe that I also made some point in relation to the large spending Departments. In the last few years the agenda was so crowded that we did not have time to discuss fully the various Votes. We should have a way of dealing with this matter. By consent between Government and Opposition or otherwise we should have some system whereby we could select at a certain stage the Estimates we would like to debate and bring them to the House. This would ensure that in any year no large Estimate would go undebated provided Members wanted to debate it and that they would get some time to make some points in regard to it. I mention that because I think that what is visualised by the Minister here could help to take some of the business off the floor of the House. I am not saying that the House was very much taken up with semi-State bodies or their ramifications but it was very disedifying at various times in the past to find questions directed to various Ministers being met with the standard reply: "I have no responsibility for the running of semi-State bodies." Of course that was correct but the questioner was inclined to dispute that and there was an argument across the House as to whether the Minister should have power or not. Going in the direction now proposed will, I think, indicate how this matter stands in general in relation to the House and at the same time will clear the minds of Members regarding the work of semi-State corporations. It should lead to a more appropriate way of dealing with those companies.
I have some other notes on matters which I intended to stress in regard to semi-State bodies. I have aired sufficiently the point in relation to what other countries tried to do with regard to private enterprise. In other countries they had great trouble early on in dealing with private enterprise and they suffered great privation as a result of the unprincipled approach to trade and commerce which some merchant princes had in the past, even some people manufacturing goods. Because we had the services of a statutory corporation available to us, we escaped a good deal of heart-burning and travail. We used our time wisely. In setting up those companies the House had a social aim as well as an economic aim and made social and economic progress at the same time. It is not easy to combine those two principles.
In the first part of this century the big argument was on the question of social and economic principles. Revolutions were fought on that basis. When one lives with something one does not always notice it. One comes to accept living with a lake, or a lovely river, or a mountain. If one is working and earning one's living one does not have time to stand back and discover what were the ideals of the initiators of such movements. Let us be thankful that, by having the services of the companies I have described, we escaped a good deal of the heart-burning and argument that went on about the exploitation of the consumer. We are all consumers.
If we thought there was some transgression of the principles of trading, whether or not a Minister had responsibility for the company, we could always raise it in the House, as it was raised in the past. Thankfully there were not many occasions on which it was necessary to raise those matters. This method was always available and at hand. Public opinion was another element. All those elements helped to make for smoother relations between the semi-statutory companies and this House.
When the Minister was considering setting up this committee the question arose as to the type of company which would be included. We have some large spending semi-statutory corporations. Some of them handle millions of pounds. Others are more or less administrative. The question had to be considered as to how many companies should be named in the Schedule and how many of them would subscribe to the view that they came within the scope of the working of this committee.
Having regard to the history of the semi-statutory corporations and the way they were set up, this is the best method of bringing into existence a committee which may be deemed to be capable of dealing with those semi-statutory corporations and living with them. That is what the House wants. That is what is in the Minister's mind. Unless we can set up a committee of this sort, neither the committee, the House nor the semi-statutory companies will be satisfied in the long run. The history of some of the semi-State corporations would lead one to say truth is stranger than fiction. One could tell a story which would vie with a fairy story or a nursery yarn as to the start of the companies and their subsequent working. Some of them came into existence because we had not got wealthy people who could readily invest money in large-scale long-term enterprises. We were credit worthy but it was not considered wise to go outside the country and borrow on a large scale to set up companies which would be concerned with the essentials of life, power, energy, and so on.
The best way to deal with those companies is to take them in easy stages, to include a limited number of them, mainly large spending semi-statutory companies, to select them and see how the committee will work with them and, if necessary, to extend the system later. The country and the House will be satisfied with a committee of the dimensions at which we are trying to aim. Aer Lingus started by easy stages, in fact, with one plane. Irish Shipping started in a similar way. Bord na Móna started from very small beginnings and extended their activities outwards. The ESB started in a similar way.
It is interesting to consider the beginning of Irish Shipping. During the war we depended on England for our ration of tea and although the British promised us a reasonable supply of tea, they later went back on their word. The then Minister for Industry and Commerce said if possible he would buy the next tramp steamer coming up the Liffey. Irish Shipping started in those circumstances and have extended their activities on a worldwide basis.
Therefore when we are dealing with matters of this kind we must have regard to what has been achieved, to the store of knowledge which has been built up, to the technology and the guiding principles which are there already, and the managers who are there already. If we can appreciate such factors it will be of great benefit in the working of the committee envisaged here. The basics are there and all that is needed is the general knowledge of the subject one is dealing with to appreciate all the elements involved.
The Minister intends to cover about 25 semi-State corporations here, but there are a great number of other companies dealing with essential matters in which one could be very interested, although they are not spending the volume of money which is mentioned, nor are they engaged in huge schemes like the generation of power and so on. However, by virtue of our target these companies could not be brought in here. I think it is better to have a small number, the proportion involved here, roughly one-fourth, and see how, with the passage of time, these three elements, the House, the committee and the companies involved will work together. If necessary, the scope of the committee's activities could be extended to a larger range of companies.
As I said, I agree with the aim of this motion. It will eliminate confusion on the floor of this House, with a Minister having to say that he has no responsibility for the working of some semi-State corporation which might be within the ambit of his Department. It will take away that embarrassment from the Minister and also from the members of the Opposition who would be the querists. We all acknowledge the enormous amount of work in which these semi-State corporations are involved and its usefulness.
