Vol. 412 No. 1
9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if he will give details of any communications, formal or informal the Taoiseach had with persons (details supplied) on (1) the privatisation of Telecom Éireann and (2) the proposed Telecom Éireann site in Ballsbridge, Dublin 4.
I assume that one of the persons mentioned met the Taoiseach on many occasions in the past number of years.
I assume that person took the opportunity, as he regularly did in the public arena and in meetings, to make his views known again to the Taoiseach, as he has done with many Ministers and Members of the House from all sides, on the subject of privatisation of Telecom.
My understanding is, however, that no formal meeting took place with the Taoiseach and that person on this issue.
When the issue of privatisation studies was raised during September, I made the following statement on 12 September 1991:
As a matter of good business practice and arising from routine, informal discussions between senior Department of Communications officials and the company, Telecom Éireann decided to undertake an exploratory study of their future equity options, competition, liberalisation and deregulation issues and EC policy.
The Department and the Minister will receive a copy of the report, in due course, after consideration by the board. The Minister will then decide whether or not to put proposals to Government.
During June 1991 Telecom presented the Department with a copy of the Telecom 1988 IBI/Parabas study. The Department in July 1991 requested that Telecom in any update of the study also cover issues such as the regulatory framework, international competition and so on.
Telecom subsequently in August 1991 selected IBI and NCB to prepare a study on the implications of privatisation. Telecom did not discuss the scope of this study, the selection of advisers to conduct the study or seek the approval of the Government, the Minister or the Department for the study.
I believe that organisations such as Telecom should study various options as a matter of course. In this case although privatisation of Telecom would require new legislation, Telecom are entitled under the provisions of the Postal and Telecommunications Act, 1983, to conduct such studies.
My position is that these studies by Telecom would be useful in considering all options. I do not believe that proper decisions can be taken without adequate consideration of all the options. In this case while Telecom went ahead with the IBI/NCB study without seeking my approval, which they did not require, I would have been and remain interested in the results of any studies. In any case I was aware of the study and did not object to it.
As a result of other matters involving Telecom and the Ballsbridge site, I suspended the work on the IBI/NCB studies pending the finalisation of the Telecom inquiry. As the inquiry is continuing, I have not yet made any decision on this study.
No formal consideration of the matter by the Government has yet taken place. There are no proposals before the Government regarding the future of Telecom Éireann.
As far as I am aware no communication of any kind took place with the other person regarding the privatisation of Telecom.
With regard to the Ballsbridge site which Telecom purchased, there was no contact between either person and myself or the Department until my Department wrote to Telecom on 15 July 1991 seeking details of their plans for the site. The letter stated:
I am directed by the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to say that the Minister has noted from time to time references in newspapers to Telecom Éireann's proposed new head office in Ballsbridge which is to be constructed at an estimated cost of £25 million.
The Minister has asked me to inquire when he will receive a request from Telecom Éireann for his approval to this proposal
Yours sincerely
The following reply was received from Telecom, dated July 22 1991.
Dear Sir,
Please refer to Mr. Ryan's letter of 15th July 1991 in regard to the Ballsbridge project. I am not aware of any provision under which the Minister's approval is required for this project.
Yours sincerely
I wrote again to Telecom on 31 July 1991. The following is the letter:
I refer to previous correspondence about Telecom Éireann's proposed new head office in Ballsbridge.
The Minister has asked me to find out details of the proposal from Telecom Éireann and I would be glad if you would provide information on the scale of the proposal, the likely cost, the manner in which the cost will be financed, the likely return on the investment involved and the current stage of development of the project.
Telecom provided some information on the Ballsbridge site project on 3 September, 1991.
To the best of my knowledge there was no communication between the two persons referred to and the Taoiseach or myself or my Department other than set out in this reply and the interim report of the Telecom formal inquiry.
Did the Minister ask the Taoiseach if the Taoiseach met Dr. Smurfit to discuss the matter and if the Taoiseach made any representations to Dr. Smurfit about who should be appointed consultants for the privatisation study? Did the Minister ask the Taoiseach if the Taoiseach had any meeting with Mr. Finnegan, the auctioneer dealing with the Telecom site in Ballsbridge, about the matter?
I did not ask the Taoiseach about Mr. Finnegan. I had no notification of that question and, therefore, I did not raise it with the Taoiseach. In clearing this question for reply today I inquired from the Taoiseach's Department as to whether any formal meetings had taken place. My understanding is, as I said in my reply, that no formal meetings took place with the Taoiseach and the person mentioned on this particular issue.
Why did the Minister not ask the Taoiseach directly whether the Taoiseach met Mr. Dermot Desmond about this matter or whether the Taoiseach made representations to Dr. Smurfit about the appointment of consultants? Why did the Minister not ask the Taoiseach face to face, did this happen?
The question is not about the appointment of consultants; it is about privatisation. I spelled out in my reply that the person mentioned by the Deputy in his question made no secret of the fact that he had strong views on privatisation. I assume that on many occasions that same person made his views on the question of privatisation known to the Taoiseach. He certainly made them known to me and I have no doubt that he made them known to many other Members of the House.
May I ask a further supplementary?
I want to call Deputy Rabbitte.
The Chair will appreciate that this is a question I put down.
The Deputy has had a good bite of the cherry.
This is a serious question.
The Taoiseach should be answering it.
The Taoisech should be here.
May I ask the Minister why he agreed to answer a question on behalf of the Taoiseach in respect of formal or informal meetings that the Taoiseach had, without directly asking the Taoiseach to state in person whether or not he actually had such meetings and whether at such meetings he discussed either with Mr. Desmond or Dr. Smurfit the privatisation or any matter pertaining thereto, for example, the appointment of consultants, or whether the Taoiseach discussed either with Dr. Smurfit or Mr. Desmond at any time any of the matters concerning the site? May I ask the Minister again why he did not ask the Taoiseach directly: "Did you, Taoiseach, have a meeting or did you not?" Why did the Minister not ask the Taoiseach that question?
The Chair is anxious to facilitate Deputies in the matter of eliciting information but I would discourage them from repetition.
I do not feel it is necessary to tell the Deputy how I go about preparing for my replies to parliamentary questions. A question has been specifically put down to me asking about formal and informal communications, and I have given a very full reply.
The question was not put down to the Minister. It was transferred to him.
I said that my understanding is that no formal meetings took place with the Taoiseach and that person on this issue, and I would not say that unless I was clear about it. I also said that I assume that the person in question——
The Minister assumes?
——met many Ministers, including the Taoiseach, from time to time and made his views known on the question of privatisation.
Did the Taoiseach discuss the question of privatisation with Mr. Dermot Desmond?
Did the Deputy discuss privatisation with the man in question?
The truth is that the Minister does not know the answer.
Did the Deputy discuss that matter?
No, never.
Is the Deputy sure?
Deputy Rabbitte is offering.
May I ask the Minister——
Please, Deputy Rabbitte has been called. The Chair will be obeyed.
On a point of order, is it not ridiculous that the Minister who was asked straight questions did not give replies but asked questions in return——
Please, Deputy O'Keeffe, allow Question Time to proceed in an orderly fashion.
This is putting the House into disrepute.
The Minister is bringing himself into disrepute. He is a disgrace as a Minister.
We accept that Mr. Smurfit has very strong views on privatisation and he made no secret of them. I say, Mr. Smurfit, because I have as much objection to unearned titles as I have to unearned profits. I put it to the Minister that there are dozens of senior personnel in An Bord Telecom who will aver to what I put on the record of the House on 17 October, that Mr. Smurfit communicated to the Taoiseach that he would not be prepared to take a further term as Chairman of Telecom Éireann unless he was assured that the company could be floated. It was on the basis of that assurance that he went ahead and made the decision on IBI and NCB to which the Minister has referred. Therefore, he did not need Government approval because he understood he had such approval. Furthermore, this is the cause of the ludicrous spectacle on the front page of The Irish Times— the date now escape me — whereby there is a statement from Dr. Smurfit saying he had done this on the instruction of Government and a statement from a Government spokesperson saying that they had given him no such instruction. The Minister, up until today, has never satisfactorily explained how that dichotomy could appear in public.
I have no information on any conditions——
Why has the Minister not got that information?
——that Mr. Smurfit may have laid down at the time of his reappointment. I have nothing on the files in that regard.
The Minister did not ask about it.
I have no paper work about such conditions.
Why did the Minister not ask the Taoiseach about it?
It is like the time the Minister appointed the Chairman of Aer Rianta. He did not look for the files then either.
Those conditions have to be in the area of hearsay. I have no evidence that those conditions were laid down by Mr. Smurfit.
See no evil, hear no evil.
Did the Minister ask the Taoiseach about this matter?
I checked.
We cannot ask him these questions in the House.
I checked in so far as I could.
The Minister should check these matters with the Taoiseach.
I have no evidence or information that those conditions were laid down.
He will not answer the questions for us.
In regard to the whole question of privatisation — I want to be clear about this and Members in particular should be clear about it too — I make no apology for concurring and not objecting to a study of the privatisation of Telecom Éireann. What else would one do with a company who are heading for EC changes and have a dominant position in the marketplace but study their future financial structures.
That is not the issue.
Many former Ministers on that side of the House in their day — I have a whole list of them — suggested and examined ways of financing State companies, including privatisation. Therefore, let us not all wash our hands and pretend that privatisation is something we should not even study lest we get caught out.
The issue is who did the Taoiseach meet?
There were studies conducted by Telecom Éireann and I did not object to them. I look forward to reading them if and when they come in, and we should all take the same view.
The Minister is totally evading the issue.
We should not be afraid to study anything; it will do no damage.
The Minister should not avoid answering the question.
May I ask——
There are a number of Deputies offering and I want to facilitate them, time permitting.
I put down this question.
The Deputy does not have to remind me as to who put down the question. I am very conscious of that and I have allowed him to ask a serious of questions. I am going to call the Deputy but first I want to call Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan, Deputy Pat Rabbitte and Deputy Michael Noonan.
Would the Minister agree that under the terms of the Postal and Telecommunications Act there is no facility whereby the Taoiseach can become involved in the dealings of a company? The Act clearly states that the Minister is the person, not the Taoiseach, who should discuss any measure that is about to be taken with Telecom Éireann. There has been a serious breach of the law which has been overlooked to date. The Minister has said he was told that a meeting took place. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that under the terms of the Act he is the person who should have carried out these discussions, not the Taoiseach.
Let us proceed by way of questions.
I fully accept my responsibilities. I understood from Telecom Éireann that they were carrying out a study in regard to privatisation. I did not object to that and I still do not object to it. It is important to study all these issues, but by studying them does not necessarily mean we will accept the recommendations. I knew they were carrying out a study with regard to privatisation, I did not object to it, and that is still my position.
Did the Minister know in advance that these discussions were taking place?
Which discussions?
Between the Taoiseach and the chairman of Telecom Éireann?
I have just replied to a parliamentary question in which I said that I assume that the person in question made his views known to many members of the Government and that my understanding is that there were no formal meetings with the Taoiseach on this issue.
How can the Minister say he is fulfilling his responsibilities in this matter when he failed, perhaps through lack of nerve, to actually ask the Taoiseach personally about his meetings in this connection? May I ask further if the board of Telecom Éireann approved the selection of NCB to carry out this consultancy study; whether this consultancy study was advertised to give others the opportunity to do it, and, if not, why; was this consultant appointed on the decision of the chairman, without proper consultation and, if so, had the chairman any discussions with the Taoiseach prior to his suggestion that NCB, Mr. Dermot Desmond's then company be the one selected to do this study?
I would be very glad, Deputy, to answer a full parliamentary question on that subject, but the question put down to me has nothing to do with the consultancy. I am not running away from it and I will be glad to answer the questions for the Deputy. From memory, the board of Telecom Éireann appointed the Investment Bank of Ireland and NCB to conduct a study——
——the board?
Yes.
Are you sure?
That is my memory of it. However, if the Deputy will please put down a question, I will clarify it for him.
Minister, you brought it into your reply.
I understand, as the Deputy knows, that in the course of the inquiry into the land situation at Ballsbridge, NCB stood down from the study and I required that Investment Bank of Ireland, although they were not involved directly in that site, would stand down. I have frozen that study into privatisation, pending the result of the other inquiry.
(Limerick East): Would the Minister state the terms of reference of the IBI and NCB study? However, if he considers that the terms of reference are too long to read out in this House, would he arrange to leave a copy of them in the Oireachtas Library?
I do not, Deputy. However if the Deputy will put down a question on the consultancy, I will not dodge it and I will reply in full to it.
The Minister has dodged this question about the Taoiseach.
The question before me deals with communications between myself, the Taoiseach and so on with regard to privatisation. If the Deputy wants full details about the consultancies, I will be glad to read out the terms of reference in full to the House.
(Limerick East): The Minister referred to it three times in his reply.
I have one question. The Minister has been asked about details of communications, formal or informal, beween the Taoiseach and the two persons mentioned, Mr. Desmond and Dr. Smurfit. He has told us in his reply that he inquired of the Taoiseach's Department, not of the Taoiseach, but of his Department, about formal meetings; he has told us further that he has not discussed the situation fully, or at all, in fact, with the Taoiseach. What is his answer to the specific query about informal communications between the Taoiseach and the two persons concerned? What is the Minister's response to that section of the question?
I did not say, Deputy, that I did not discuss this matter with the Taoiseach.
You did discuss it, then?
What I am saying——
Minister, you did or you did not.
I have been asked a parliamentary question and in my response I have given an account of my understanding and the information made available to me from, among other sources, the Taoiseach's Department. That is my position.
How can the Taoiseach's Department know about informal meetings between the Taoiseach and the two persons concerned? The Minister is now hoping to evade these questions.
It is not an evasion, I resent that assertion. I have said quite clearly that I assume——
Did you talk about it with the Taoiseach and find out the answers?
Deputy, did you talk to your Leader about whom he met?
I do not mind if you talk about me; my life is an open book.
This is leading to argument and disorder. A final supplementary from Deputy Rabbitte.
I assume that the person in question made his views known to the Taoiseach informally. I assume that happened.
Sir, on a point of order, may I say that this is the worst ministerial performance at Question Time I have ever seen in my 22 years in this House in terms of the Minister's failure to answer questions.
If Deputies are dissatisfied with the Minister's reply, they have a remedy.
Evasion, assumptions and understandings.
A terrible evasion.
This is truly appalling.
A final supplementary, Deputy Rabbitte.
A Cheann Comhairle, may I ask you, Sir, if you stand over a situation whereby the Taoiseach came in on 16 or 17 October and complained bitterly about the list of questions I had tabled on this matter and then transferred them to the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications who will not now answer them? Did he or did he not consult the Taoiseach about this matter.
Yes or no.
May I put this question, a Cheann Comhairle? In respect of the issue that has dominated politics for the past two months and which preoccupies businessmen, is the Minister seriously trying to tell this House, and expecting us to accept, that he did not discuss this matter with the Taoiseach; if he did not do so why did he not do so? Is the Minister trying to tell us that he seriously does not know whether the decision to bring in NCB, the company that is at the centre of almost all of the affairs being inquired into, to carry out a study for Telecom was a decision of the chairman, a decision of the board, of the Government or of the Taoiseach?
This is Question Time; we cannot debate the matter today.
I can tell the Deputy quite clearly that if he wants details of the consultancy assignments I will gladly provide them to the House if a question is put down to me. I did not bring details of the consultancy assignments because the question was specifically about contacts between the Taoiseach and the persons involved.
——which, Minister, you did not answer.
Throughout this entire matter I had regular meetings with the Taoiseach. I consulted him. We had regular meetings in the ordinary course of managing Government affairs. During the ordinary course of dealing with Government affairs, consultations took place between the Taoiseach and I on this matter.
Did the Taoiseach tell you——
Order, I am proceeding now to Question No. 10. I understand that we had tried to take it earlier.
Is it correct that the Minister objected to the Taoiseach about answering this question——
I now call Question No. 7.
—— and that he is afraid to answer that question, as well.
