While I welcome the Minister of State, who has come in to reply, I note the absence of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications.
The sacking of Angela Coffey and Kay Mulrooney from the board of CIE is nothing short of vindictive political score settling. Those fine directors, like all members of the CIE board, have been above reproach. As required under the Transport Act, 1950, a full explanation on the matter should be given to the House by the Minister of State on behalf of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications.
The Minister's current explanation is insufficient and it is insulting because it was not given to the House. The Minister stated that it is being laid before the House — in other words, lodged in the Library — and that Angela Coffey and Kay Mulrooney are being dismissed because their removal is necessary in the public interest. How would the Minister of State feel if her presence was no longer required in the public interest and a statement to that effect was lodged in the Library and not given in the House? The Minister should come into the House and explain why he chose to remove some, but not all the directors. If, as he says, he has lost confidence in the board, he must remove the entire board. He is engaging in political cherry picking. Should the two sacked directors decide to seek a judicial review of the fairness of the Government's decision, they will probably succeed. While I am not a lawyer, fairness alone would give them a good chance of succeeding.
The sackings will have major implications for semi-State companies in the future. The Minister and the Minister of State know it is traditional in this country — I have had to do it myself on a number of occasions — that incoming Governments have always worked with existing directors and chairpersons of State companies. These CIE sackings will make it more difficult to get directors if they feel they will face the sack with each incoming Government. Is that to be the fate of future boards if they disagree with the Minister? Any suggestion that the CIE directors were removed because they refused to reinstate the property sub-committee is clearly nonsense. Any child or amateur business person can see that if the board decides it would prefer to deal with property then it is far better than delegating it to a property sub-committee on which only three or four people might be represented. When a matter is sensitive it is more appropriate that the whole board should deal with it. That, therefore, is simply an excuse that the Government has offered to sack these directors.
I have already raised the point as to why only some directors were dismissed and not all of them. The removal of the non-executive directors is a bad precedent and was done for a bad reason. The entire board — the chairman, Mr. Eamon Walsh, the chief executive, all the directors including worker directors and the dismissed directors — without exception backed the decision on the Horgan's Quay site on two occasions. After they did the Minister accused the deal of being a shameful one. Logic dictates that if the board, including the Minister's own appointed chairman, backed the deal then either the Minister or the board has to go. Unfortunately, the Minister has not taken that honourable course so some members of the board did the honourable thing and two had to be dismissed by the Government.
Just to test my argument, will the Minister and the Minister of State be prepared to ask the new board next week what they think of the Horgan's Quay site? Let us hear what this new clean, clinical board — hand-picked by the Minister and vetted by the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, and the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring — will say about Horgan's Quay. I challenge the Government to put that to the test and ask them about that site.
It is only appropriate and fair that I should wish Mr. Joyce, the chairman of CIE, and his new directors, every success and the best of luck. There is a lot of work to be done in CIE: the light rail network, deregulation, protecting bus drivers from attack and the question of competition. I wish Mr. Joyce and his new directors every success in dealing with the whole range of strategic and operational issues. Unlike the actions of the present Minister, I trust this board will not be undermined by anybody. In a statement yesterday, one director, the vice chairman of the Stock Exchange, Mr. Maguire, said the Government had undermined the board and not vice versa.
