I call Senator Ross.
Business of Joint Committee
This is unprecedented. We were carrying out a very serious investigation into CIE which involved matters of corruption, kick-back, corporate governance, in particular, and the board and the non-executive board not having been informed of a very important report by Baker Tilly.That caused a great deal of worry and red lights to go on. We have had difficulties already which are explicable and excusable in terms of Mr. John Keenan not appearing before the committee because there was an impending court case.
This is a completely different issue. This is an issue of corporate governance and how the board of CIE and Iarnród Éireann are run, what they know and what they are told. We know they have not been told many things they ought to have been told, in particular, about the existence of the Baker Tilly report which cost €500,000 and the results of that report. If they are being kept in the dark we are entitled to have them appear before the committee to find out how this board is being run, if at all. The first problem with the board is that it has got an executive chairman. To start with an executive chairman is against the rules of all corporate governance. We have got to put a question like that. Having asked these officials to come in, we have received a reply to say they will not come in. They are refusing to come into the Oireachtas without giving any reason whatsoever. That letter does not give a single reason, it simply states, "No we are not coming in, thanks very much indeed". What is happening here is that people appointed by the Minister and paid by the taxpayer are not appearing before the committee and not answering any questions about how this company is run.
I have had other problems with CIE and Iarnród Éireann which make me deeply suspicious of what has been going on there in recent times. In recent days I have had reason, as a Member of the Oireachtas, not as a journalist, to ask them about some of their spending, particularly on public relations people. I do not know why they need public relations people because they have a public relations department. They have come back and told me to go and jump in a lake. They are not going to tell me what their spending is on that issue. It appears to me that CIE is not just lacking in transparency, it is hiding from accountability. We cannot possibly accept that these people who are responsible for the corporate governance refuse to come and answer questions here.
I formally propose that we seek compellability powers to bring in the non-executive board of CIE and of Iarnród Éireann if, within 48 hours, they do not reverse that particular decision. It is quite intolerable that we should be treated like this. It is frustrating an inquiry and it is showing contempt for the democratic process. I also propose that the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, be asked to appear before the committee immediately. I suggest the invitation be issued to him today to ask his attitude and whether he intends to tolerate a board of a semi-State company, some of whom he appointed, refusing to be accountable for what happens under its watch.
I agree with Senator Ross. I have had serious issues with CIE also. It has refused to discuss at this committee, or in a public forum, a special audit which was carried out in a section of Iarnród Éireann in 2006. That is a very serious issue. There is no accountability or transparency if they refuse to come in and discuss it.
There are other issues in regard to Shannon Foynes Port Company refusing to answer questions here. There is another issue, which I will raise later, in the Department of Defence which appears to be preventing the Air Corps from being asked questions here in respect of a contract which will cost the State more than €500 million over ten years. At the core of what Senator Ross is saying is that either the primacy of the Oireachtas is clear and absolute or there is no point in us being here. The executive chairman of CIE, his board and his non-executive directors who are appointed by the Minister must be accountable here. In the interests of transparency and accountability they must come before the committee and I support the view that we opt for compellability, if necessary. Otherwise, there is no point in having a Parliament. Last year, €325 million was the subsidy for the running costs of CIE and its companies and in the past ten years we have given it €4 billion or €5 billion of taxpayers' money to increase its rolling stock and to run a much better operation. Those are the issues germane to this committee and I hope the proposal is unanimously accepted.
I support the proposal in broad terms. The first Dáil of which I was a Member had a committee on commercial State-sponsored bodies. Obviously, issues arise of commercial importance to a State company and a State company competing in the marketplace may feel it needs the same level of privacy a private company would have, given that almost any company operating in many areas of the economy will have had some sort of licence, support or whatever from the general community and from the State. Senator Ross's fundamental point is valid. I do not see any reason that all members of the board would not be accountable to this committee.
We were sent a note by the legal adviser to the Oireachtas — perhaps it was at the Committee of Public Accounts — stating that witnesses now have absolute privilege. I hope I understood it correctly but my understanding was that the warning Chairmen give witnesses at the start of meetings has changed. Apparently we now have the same types of powers as committees of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and so on.
The most significant issue with Irish Rail is the Broadmeadow collapse and what that tells us about aspects of the culture of maintenance in the company. Given the recent report on the interconnector and the fact that that project is three years behind the metro for no reason we can understand, I believe that is the most significant issue the Oireachtas must address. I support Senator Ross's motion. The representatives should come before the committee.
I agree entirely with what has been said. I sat through many of the debates with the representatives of Irish Rail and I am aware there are many questions outstanding but all of this hangs on the compellability aspect. Can somebody give me an indication of what we must do or where we can get the power to compel the representatives to attend?
There is a procedure we must go through to invoke that. We have looked into this previously. I understand that because we are in public session the clerk cannot comment but we would have to go to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP, to get approval for this. It would then have to be approved by the Dáil and the Seanad and, having done that, we could get powers of compellability at that stage.
Is there a precedent for that?
There is not a precedent but as I pointed out to the committee previously, the former committee on State-sponsored bodies had powers of compellability. We agreed here previously that we should seek to have powers of compellability in respect of all semi-State bodies with which we deal. That is something I would strongly advocate. We might seek the approval of the CPP to go to the Dáil and the Seanad and in fact that we would ask for the legislation to be changed to ensure we are given powers of compellability for all semi-State bodies under our watch.
While using the procedures for this specific one at the same time.
Yes. I am happy to do that.
The sooner we do that, the better.
In the recent past we sought legal advice on bringing in witnesses. What happened in that regard? In the context of the letter CIE has written, can we get our legal people to tell us if they are within their rights in doing that?
The answer is that they are within their rights.
Therefore, we cannot do anything legally to counteract their letter.
No. We have had discussions with and advice from our legal adviser on that issue earlier. When I looked into the possibilities that existed, the only procedure is the one I have just outlined, which I am happy to consider. I will speak to the CPP on the question of getting approval and having the matter put before the Dáil and the Seanad. We will go back to the chairman of CIE and report on the proposal, if it is accepted, and perhaps ask him to reconsider that the board and its non-executive directors should appear before the committee.
Is there a precedent for that? How many boards have come before this committee? We might often have a chief executive and a chairman come before us. Is the request to bring the entire board before the committee? How many times in the past have we had a full board come before a committee? Is that not an unusual request?
Deputy Ahern is right. It is an unusual request but it has got particular merit in this case.
When the FÁS representatives appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts quite a few members of the board were in attendance.
They are appointed by the Minister. They are paid for doing their job. If the Minister appoints them they must be accountable to us here. The Department of Transport quangos, for want of a better word, are accountable here and if they are direct appointees of the Minister they should come in here in the exceptional circumstances which have arisen.
I was not a member of the Committee of Public Accounts when the FÁS representatives came before it but would it not have been the chairman of the audit committee or the chairman of specific committees that might have been before it?
That is right. They had specific functions.
I accept they have to be accountable but it is generally the case that the people who are accountable are the chief executive or the full-time executive officers, with perhaps a chairman——
Non-executive members have got to be accountable.
It is a bit unusual to bring in the non-executive directors who sit now and again.
It is, yes.
That is——
It is called accountability.
We are entitled to accountability but we would generally opt to invite in the full-time officials of a company. They are the people who are accountable, not somebody who attends a board meeting for half a day every two months or whatever they do. If we want real accountability——
We will find out what they are doing. That is what we want to find out.
——I would have thought the people we would invite in would be the chairman and the full-time executive officers.
No. We need them all.
Does any other member wish to make a comment?
On the question of privilege, we all saw the circular that came from the legal adviser but I believe that could put us all in an awkward position in the future. If people are invited to make a submission before a committee and they make attacks on people it will put an onus on Chairmen to stop them doing that. It could be very dangerous. I am not saying it will be used but the odd crank might use it as a means of having a go at somebody under privilege.
They do not have privilege if they do not obey the direction of the Chair. They lose that privilege.
They will be deaf in one ear and hard of hearing in the other.
They could make a statement before the Chairman stops them.
The committee invites them in but they can only speak to the issue germane to the matter with which the committee is dealing. If the Chairman directs them to stop giving evidence, they must do so. If they do not do that, they are liable to be sued in the civil courts.
We are talking about either privilege or limited privilege, and that is——
It is much better to have that than to have——
The problem is that this issue was discussed at the committee of Chairmen and much concern was expressed. However, the issue has now been decided upon although they agreed to refer it to the CPP because of the concerns expressed by members. There is nothing we can do about it here. Senator Ross has made a proposal which has been seconded by Deputy O'Dowd. Is it agreed? Agreed.
That is compellability.
Yes.
What about asking the Minister to come in because his views on this are very important? Can we request the Minister to come in? They are mostly his appointees. I do not believe he has a problem with that. It is important we hear what he has to say.
I will accept that proposal.
I thank the Chairman.
Is it seconded?
I second it.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
In regard to the issue of CIE, I take it the clerk will communicate with the chairman of CIE and ask again that the request be reconsidered. In the event of that not happening, we will seek our powers of compellability.
We should go ahead with compellability immediately because he will say he will consider it at the next board meeting and it will be another month. The date on the letter the Chairman received is outrageous; apparently it is dated three weeks after the decision of the board was made.
That is agreed.
How will one justify setting off in a brave new world trying to do something which one more or less admitted was never done before? What is the justification for this?
That is how things are done sometimes. One does things which have not been done before.
I would like to understand the thinking behind it or what we are trying to achieve.
Senator Ross has made it clear on a number of occasions that he is anxious to get answers he believes he has not got up to now. If he believes he can get those answers by doing this, I am happy to go along with that. We will get that process in motion and will report back to the committee on what is involved.
Earlier I referred to an e-mail from the Assistant Secretary in the Department of Defence. I am very concerned about the content of the e-mail because there is a contract worth €0.5 billion being spent by the Department of Transport on search and rescue helicopter services for the next ten years. It will cost €50 million per year. Before the contract is signed — the due date is the end of June — I want to find out exactly what the position is in regard to the capacity or the interest of the Air Corps in providing some of this service. The Air Corps provided this service up to the end of 2004. I understand from speaking to pilots in the Air Corps and others that it would have an interest in providing that service, or providing some of it.
The clerk contacted the Department of Defence. The letter I wrote invited the Department of Defence and the Air Corps. From reading the e-mail, it seems the Department of Defence is refusing to allow the Air Corps to come in, which is very wrong. It would not be an interrogation. I just want to know if the Air Corps has a view and if it could provide the search and rescue service in one location. The advantage would be that the Air Corps would have a greater role to play. It would be a role it played previously. It would benefit the Air Corps generally and it would also benefit the taxpayer because we are getting one new helicopter and four old ones for the €0.5 billion. However, the State will own nothing having spent €0.5 billion as the helicopters are being leased. If the Air Corps was involved, it could have ownership of the helicopters. The current helicopters are approximately 45 years old, so a significant——
I suggest we go back and request——
It is very strange to hear Fine Gael opposed to outsourcing. I thought that was——
We are not——
——a core part of its policy.
We do not want a row.
I am raising a different red flag.
We do not want a row between potential coalition partners.
The key point is that the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Defence does not want the Air Corps to come in but I would like it to come in with the Department of Defence some time in early June to discuss the issue.
We will make that request.