asked the Minister for the Public Service if it is the policy of the Government to denationalise any enterprise, or part thereof, currently under public control; and if any consideration has been given by the Government to such a policy.
28.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Denationalisation Policy.
27.
asked the Minister for the Public Service whether any policy decision in respect of the semi-State sectors of the economy has been taken which would open the way to private ownership of specified areas of semi-State operations; if he is aware of widespread unease on the part of management and trade union representatives regarding the future of semi-State sectors following his own recent statement on semi-State bodies.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 27 and 28 together.
The question of the denationalisation of any enterprise under public control has not been considered by the Government.
However, the pursuit and attainment of full employment within a framework of fiscal responsibility is the Government's most important social and economic objective and its stated policy is that every possibility which can contribute to that aim must be explored. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to rule out consideration of possible transfers from the public to the private sector of particular enterprises or their assignment to joint State and private undertakings where this would lead to more efficient working and less cost to the community.
I am aware that certain trade union representatives have expressed their reservations about some of the suggestions made during the course of a recent address to the chief executives of State-sponsored bodies. However, I am convinced that, in deciding whether an activity should be assigned to the public or private sector, the approach adopted should be a pragmatic one. We must opt for the system that will give the best results for all sections of the community.
I am sorry to tax the Minister of State with the speech of his political master, the Minister for the Public Service, but if the Minister insists that the Minister of State answer questions in this House, the least he could do would be to refrain from making speeches in the area in which the Minister of State is asked to answer questions.
Does the Minister of State accept that the Minister's speech has caused grave unease among trade unions and people in the semi-State sector? Will he make representations to the Minister to ensure that before making such speeches in future he would clear the bridges, so to speak, with the employees in these companies because his speech caused a great deal of unease in CIE and other companies?
That is a statement.
Would the Minister of State tell us if he would make such representations to the Minister?
I am satisfied that any unease which might have been created will be allayed long in advance of any decision being taken by the Government.
Has the Minister discussed with the Minister of State the possibility of a policy statement being made in the near future which would reassure many employees in the semi-State area about the safety of their jobs? The Minister of State will agree that the Minister and his chief adviser, Deputy O'Donoghue, Minister for Economic Planning and Development, have proved notoriously inefficient in relation to the management of the economy. If these bunglers are intending to go into the semi-State area and take employment from these people——
The Deputy is not permitted to make a statement attacking other Deputies. I am calling the next question.
(Interruptions.)
In view of the Minister of State's acceptance of the possible need to relieve unease that may have been created by the Minister's speech, will he accept that that unease should be relieved as soon as possible by clarification of what the intentions are rather than leaving people in a state of uncertainty?
The public interest arises in this matter.
This is a farcical situation. This is like the protocol of the Imperial Court of China.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please. I will have to ask Deputy Kelly——
This is a farcical situation. The Minister of State is not responsible for what the Department do.
The Chair is asking Deputy Kelly to resume his seat.
It is impossible for anyone to answer questions when there are four people on their feet asking questions at the same time.
And the man who should be answering them is interrupting.
Could I ask the Minister of State, standing in for his puppet master, the Minister for the Public Service——
Who is pulling whose strings?
——if it is not a fact that the leaders of private enterprise have said they are not in business for the creation of jobs but for the making of profits? Would the Minister of State give us the list of proposed, probable or possible firms or enterprises which the Minister——
This does not arise. The question is not acceptable.
What is the list the Minister has in mind?
I am calling the next question.
Is the Minister of State aware of one example of nationalisation which has already taken place?
I have called the next question.