Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Jul 1959

Vol. 51 No. 5

Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1959—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Taoiseach

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the establishment, on a day to be appointed by Order by the Government, of a new Department of Transport and Power. The need to divide up the responsibilities of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and to create a new Department to take charge of some of those responsibilities, has been discussed frequently in the past. It is a course which was frequently urged in order to ensure more efficient performance of functions now resting with the Department of Industry and Commerce.

I think it will be generally agreed that if the change is to be made, it is desirable that it should be made now. As the Seanad is aware, a new Minister for Industry and Commerce has been appointed and as he has to assume the responsibilities of that office in the middle of a Dáil term, with a considerable amount of legislation in progress and much business to be attended to, it is preferable that he should have his responsibility defined quickly, and that a new Minister be appointed to take charge of the functions which it is proposed to transfer to the new Department. The functions which it is proposed to transfer to the new Department were given in some detail in the Dáil. These are, briefly, all the services at present administered by the Department of Industry and Commerce relating to marine business, harbours, inland transport, civil aviation, fuel and power.

These services do not represent a fifty-fifty division of the Department. The dividing line was drawn on a basis involving the least redistribution of staff and the least inconvenience and change in the Department, rather than making an even division of them. It will, of course, be in the power of the Government, at any time, to transfer to the new Department, or to any Department for that matter, additional functions.

It was the subject of discussion in the Dáil when this Bill was under consideration that many of the services for which the new Department will be responsible are, in fact, administered by statutory bodies. That is recognised to be the case and the establishment of the new Department is not intended to imply that there will be any greater interference by the Minister in the administration of those boards than was the case heretofore.

It is, however, desirable, I think, in relation to policy matters which arise in these important spheres of activity, that there should be a Minister who has got, not merely the responsibility, but the time, to make himself familiar with all aspects of them and to ensure that in each case policy is co-ordinated with the general policy of the Government. In addition, of course, to these major policy matters which are of such great importance, the Minister will have a degree of routine administration work to do which will keep him fairly fully occupied.

In that connection, I should perhaps correct a statement which I made in the Dáil. I was asked across the floor of the House to state the number of staff who would be transferred to the new Department and I replied that the figure would be about 400. That figure is not correct because it did not take into account the meteorological and radio staffs which also come to about 400, so that the total number of officers who will be transferred to the new Department will be about 800, counting in the meteorological and the radio staffs.

It is not contemplated that there will be any increase whatever in the staffs or any additional cost involved in the creation of the new Department. I made it clear in the Dáil that, while I was not attempting to forecast the future and while I had no desire to put the new Department into a straitjacket which would restrict its future development, nevertheless I did not see that any need for additional staff was likely to arise in the near future unless some very important new activity, not now foreseen, could be entrusted to it.

I may mention that the Bill provides that the new Department will be set up on a date which will be appointed by Government Order. My intention would be that the Government should make that order forthwith as soon as the Bill becomes law. It would be administratively convenient to have the Minister who is to take charge of the Department aware of his responsibilities at the commencement of the summer recess, and have the period of the adjournment in which to make himself familiar with the working of the Department and the measures, including legislation, which are already in train relating to services which the Department will administer.

It will, therefore, be my intention to complete this operation and to appoint the new Minister as quickly as possible. It may be that at some future time when policy matters have become stabilised in relation to these activities, and no new development is foreseen, Ministerial responsibility for this Department can be entrusted to a Minister who has other Departmental responsibilities as well. I do not think that is likely to arise for many years. Indeed, in all these spheres, developments are taking place or are likely to take place on which the Government and the Oireachtas would like to have the advice of a Minister who is fully familiar with them, and to know that careful consideration was being given to them in relation to the general policy of the Government of the day, apart altogether and separate from the interests of the statutory boards directly concerned with them.

The appointment of a new Minister is, of course, something that should be done only where the circumstances fully justify it. I think, from my own experience, as well as the expressed views of other people who have had business with the Department of Industry and Commerce, there can be no doubt that the circumstances justify this division of the Department and the creation of this proposed new Department dealing with transport, fuel and power.

Professor Hayes

Before dealing with this Bill, I want, on behalf of the House, to say a word of welcome and congratulation to the Taoiseach. We have had him here very frequently in the course of his activities as a Minister and he was always very willing to attend and very vigorous in debate — on the whole, I suppose we all like that because that is why we are here. We wish him well in the difficult and complex duties which have now fallen to him.

With regard to this Bill, there can be no doubt at all that the division of the Department of Industry and Commerce should be accomplished. Everybody with any experience of it, either from the outside or the inside, is, I think, agreed about that. The manner in which it should be divided and indeed when it should be divided is not a political matter or one which should be made the subject of Party controversy. This matter, which is of very great importance, does raise the question of whether the best way to proceed to reorganise the Department of Industry and Commerce and divide its functions would not be to look at the Government generally and see whether Ministerial functions are properly divided

An entirely new Government, an entirely new regime, came into operation in 1922, 37 years ago. I think at the time the Department which corresponded to the Department of Industry and Commerce was the Department of Labour. Certain Departments had been set up by the previous Government which were a part of what it is now fashionable to call the resistance movement and were not able to function adequately — though some of them did great work. That was 37 years ago. We might be able now to see in greater detail than this Bill reveals what changes are necessary in the organisation of Ministries and the division of Ministerial functions.

The Taoiseach himself has had 32 years of active parliamentary work, and for more than 20 years of the 32 years he was in office in this Department, the duties of which were certainly very onerous. Since he has now decided, from his own experience, that this Ministry is too unwieldy and large, one would imagine that the opportunity should be taken to look into the whole question of the division of Ministerial functions in this small and not very prosperous community. There is plenty of experience available. There are people in the other House who have knowledge, experience and goodwill. Perhaps the Taoiseach thought that there was not sufficient time but I should have thought that a Dáil Committee or a Joint Committee would have been able to give views on this to enable something to be done in an entirely unanimous manner.

My view, and I think it was the view of the Opposition in the Dáil, is that if this is what the Taoiseach wants, to carry out his functions, he should be allowed to proceed on his own lines. Therefore, I would not propose to hold up this Bill, although certain things ought to be said about it. It is quite clear that other arrangements might be considered—that other ways of dividing up Ministerial functions besides this way might be considered. This is a proposal to appoint an extra Ministry in a country which has plenty of Ministries, plenty of boards, plenty of officials but falling employment and a falling population.

The Taoiseach said in the other House and repeated to-day that while he does not want to put the new Ministry in a straitjacket, he anticipates it will not cost any more money. I am afraid all our experience — our experience in this country and anything we can read about other countries — leads to the conclusion that a new Ministry inevitably means more staff and more expense. That is the experience in England and it has been our experience here. The Taoiseach was very careful to guard himself here and in the other House against anything definite.

It is a good rule that there should be one Minister for one Department. Departments differ just as Ministers differ. Some Departments are easy, while others are hard. A not particularly competent or active Minister can take it easy, just as it is true that a competent and active Minister can work very hard in a Department in which another person might do very little. A good deal depends on the individual.

The functions being given over to the new Minister are transport, power and fuel. That involves control, if the word "control" is the correct word, or dealing with a number of independent or so-called independent boards. In theory, these boards are independent. They are not subject to the Dáil and to the only machinery the Dáil has for dealing with public Departments, that is, the Public Accounts Committee. Although these boards are not under the control of the Dáil — I am not saying they ought to be — although the Dáil cannot ask questions about them, the Minister has power to direct them on policy lines. He has, at the same time, I think, power to prevent them being discussed in the Dáil. A Minister dealing with these bodies really has the best of both worlds.

There was some talk in the other House, and the Taoiseach referred to an article written by himself in a journal, with regard to the relation between Parliament and these independent boards. I have given the matter careful consideration. I had to consider it long ago when the E.S.B. was first established. I was asked in the Chair of the Dáil how those boards would be controlled. I gave what, on re-reading it some years ago, seemed to be a very intelligent reply. I said I did not know how it could be done, that I thought the problem would arise in more acute form and would probably not be solved.

Here, more than 30 years later, I find that the problem has not been solved here and it has not been solved in any other country. It has baffled other Parliaments. It should be remarked that, even where you have a direct and entire State ownership on socialistic lines, you have no such thing as a genuine Parliamentary control. There has been some talk about Parliamentary Questions with regard to these boards. That would be ruinous to these boards. The Taoiseach is aware of that.

The Parliamentary Question is a very valuable democratic weapon but it is costly. Every Parliamentary Question costs a good deal of money. The fact that Government Departments are open to Parliamentary Questions slows them up and is responsible for a considerable amount of delay in dealing with matters. It is responsible also for the "caginess" of civil servants because a civil servant has to put it down in writing and, this day 12 months or this day 12 years, somebody in the Dáil might ask a question about what he did.

It would be ruinous to these boards entrusted with the running of State or semi-State companies, if they should be subject to Parliamentary Question. So long as Deputies have constituents and elections, their interest and perhaps the interest of Senators are more likely to be small and particular rather than large and general in dealing with policy. I think the Taoiseach, in his experience, and all of us in our experience, knows there is much more interest in small things than in big things. The Minister for Education very often gets more trouble about a comparatively small appointment than he gets about the lines upon which schools proceed generally.

It is true that we have very little information about these boards which this new Minister will now deal with. We do not know as much about them as shareholders can find out about an ordinary company. Another argument in favour of the Taoiseach's plan or of any plan for dividing this enormous Ministry is that the thing most difficult for any Minister to do in a Department is to disengage himself from day-to-day work of niggling and nagging personal problems and to devote himself to general aspects of policy.

The Taoiseach pointed out that this is a Bill which creates a new Ministry and that there is general power for the Government to transfer functions and services to that new Ministry. What we are passing here is not a final Bill. When it becomes an Act, it does not necessarily mean it is the end of this new Ministry. The Taoiseach has power, I think, to transfer particular functions to the new Minister.

The great argument for the Bill is that it will give us better services at no greater cost. It will probably give us better services but what member of this House or what member of the Government would undertake to prophesy that it will not cost us more? It is absolutely certain to cost us more. The Taoiseach was extremely careful not to commit himself to the promise that it would not cost us more and I do not blame him for that.

I have considerable sympathy with the Ministers of any Government. They have to carry out three separate functions, each of which is a full-time job, particularly in the case of a Ministry like this. They have to do with legislation in the Dáil and in the Seanad; they have the administration in their offices; and they have to keep themselves right politically. These three jobs are very difficult to do at the same time for one and the same person in the circumstances in which our Ministers find themselves.

One obvious variant of this measure would be to make a Ministry of Communications — to divorce Radio Éireann from the Post Office and to put in the Post Office a Minister for Communications and with it to put all the other land and sea and air communications in the country. There is no doubt that the Ministry of Industry and Commerce needs to be divided. Nobody has more experience of that than the Taoiseach, and I do not think he should be obstructed. I hope he will not leave this matter so that the net result is a new Ministry and more expense, even at the cost of greater efficiency, falling upon a population which is itself declining.

If that is so, the effect will be that we are building a pyramid; we are adding to the top and subtracting from the bottom, which has been happening for a long time. I hope the new Ministry will work out well. Senators should know that we are merely passing an enabling Bill. We are enabling a new Ministry to be created. The functions of that new Ministry may be varied from time to time. However, this is what the Taoiseach wants. He has come into a new and very difficult position and if it is what he wants and if he considers it necessary for the carrying out of his duties, we ought to give it to him. For that reason, I shall not oppose this Bill.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to start by echoing what Senator Hayes has said in welcoming the new Taoiseach to this House. Senator Hayes has said that he was always available when required. I would say almost always available, and I should like to welcome him and also to wish him well in his new office.

The Bill we have before us he has explained to us very clearly and I do not think it is a contentious Bill. The basic question is: is a new Ministry for Power and Transport required or not? I am confident that the Taoiseach is extremely well fitted to answer the question and I am satisfied if, from his experience as Minister for Industry and Commerce, he feels it necessary and useful to separate certain functions of that Ministry, that it is necessary because I think he thinks in terms of competence and efficiency and that therefore his answer to that question, is it necessary or not, is an informed answer and one which I would accept.

I do not think the question Senator Hayes raised about cost is really a major one, for two reasons. If the separate Ministry is necessary for reasons of efficiency and the capacity of one man to do a certain amount of work, then if it does cost a bit more, that cost must be met. It would be ridiculous to say the new Ministry is necessary but because it will cost a little more, we do not want to have it. That kind of niggling and halfpenny saving in politics is a great mistake. It is the kind of thing you get in the county councils and in many of the ratepayers' associations. It is extremely shortsighted and the community pays for the incompetence that is preserved by saving a halfpenny here and there on the rates. I would regard the question of cost, while not irrelevant, as being secondary. If it costs more and if it is necessary, we must have it and be prepared to meet the cost.

The second reason why I regard the question of cost as secondary is that I believe the savings which it is quite possible this new Ministry will make will be none-the-less real because they are indirect and will not appear on the balance sheet. There will be savings and benefits to the community at large. The more efficient running of a transport system and the more efficient use of power will render more profitable and more beneficial for the community a host of services, factories and so on. It may not show a balance sheet profit to the Department of Power and Transport, but it will represent a very real gain to the community, and that ought to be our prime consideration. For these two reasons, I would regard the main question as being: is the new Ministry necessary and not: is it going to cost a bit more?

I believe the Taoiseach has expert experience as to whether this Ministry is necessary, on which point, if not on all points, I would accept his opinion. In doing so, however, I would urge him to urge his new Minister, whoever he may be, to use to the full in the community interest the powers that will be given to him in this Bill and in whatever other amending legislation should be necessary. It would be a pity if a separate Ministry for Power and Transport were to be set up capable of doing a lot but too timid to use the powers which are being asked for now and which I hope we shall grant.

I should like to think the new Minister will be bold and imaginative in the use of his powers in the national interest, not in any sectional interest and not bound by considerations of Party politics and I say that not in relation to one Party because I am afraid it is part of our democratic process that every Minister is to some extent conditioned by the local effect of a change which may be to the national benefit but may be criticised locally. It is in that sense I hope that the new Minister will be bold and courageous and will plan in the national interest and not in any sectional or local interest.

I should like to cite an example in that regard. We had a recent case in which C.I.E. decided to close down certain railways and we were shown that there was a balance sheet saving by reason of the closing of these railways because C.I.E. did not have to maintain the permanent way if they closed the railways. In fact, as in the case of the Harcourt Street line, much of the transport which went by rail has now been put on to the road and while that does not become an immediate charge upon the company, it is nevertheless a charge upon the community. That kind of planning is not over-all planning but planning for what will appear upon a balance sheet. I should like to see a more national view taken instead of a local view, which says: "We can show a saving of £30,000 here and there if we do not have to pay for the maintenance of the permanent way" or whatever it may be.

Similarly, the Taoiseach in the Dáil, when a question was asked about the abolition of the Howth Tram, said that to renovate the permanent way there would cost — I forget how many thousands of pounds. In relation to that, two considerations would arise if the Minister for Transport were to be asked a question in this connection. The G.N.R. had certain obligations in relation to that line which they did not fulfil and for which they were probably paid compensation at the time. That compensation appears somewhere in the balance sheet. It was not used as it ought to have been used for maintaining the permanent way. If it had been used, the Howth Tram would not have gone into that state of neglect.

The second consideration I would refer to in that connection is this. I notice that in Douglas, Isle of Man, they have horse trams maintained, even more antiquated than the Howth Tram. They regard it as a tourist attraction and the horse trams run regularly there. There was a slight lack of imagination here; you could prove perhaps that there was an immediate loss on the line but there might have been a wider gain had this quaint, outmoded means of transport been kept as a quaint, interesting and picturesque attraction, despite the fact that it might not immediately be economic.

An Cathaoirleach

A discussion on transport policy is not in order on this Bill.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am glad to say I have said all I want to say on those two points. I want to turn to the question of the attitude — I might say the Government attitude because it is the Government who are asking us to do this — on the setting up of a new Ministry. I think I am right in saying the plea is being made that our economy will be made the more efficient, if power and transport are directed by a single Minister. That is really the main issue here today. Since we are moving more and more towards the concept of the managerial state, let us make it competent and efficient. I think that competency and efficiency might be said with justice to be two of the main aims of the Taoiseach and his Government. I should like to plead that community interest be not forgotten in the managerial state which is just around the corner. I should like to plead that not a too narrow balance-sheet-minded attitude be taken and that ordinary human beings be considered just as well as technical efficiency.

I should like the question to be put to the new Minister whom we are being asked to bring into being as to what are the power and transport needs of the Government and the resources of the country. I should like to see him proposing plans for the use of these resources for the satisfaction of those community needs, no matter what private, local or vested interest might be crossed. It is in that spirit that I support this Bill and the Taoiseach's speech in favour of it.

Mr. McGuire

We all know that the Department of Industry and Commerce was an enormous Ministry and one which went from big beginnings to its present enormous size. Therefore, it is only sensible that something should be done to break it up into more manageable units. I do not think we shall ever again have a Minister who will have the energy of the Taoiseach when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, but I doubt whether he was ever able to follow down all the different ways and alleys in which his Department was concerned. I know that even in small ways he was blamed by his officials for many things which I know he never saw or heard of.

The fact is that the Ministry is too big. It has really got out of hand. It very often depends in some of its activities upon the ability and integrity of its permanent officials. That is all very well. We have some very good permanent officials and civil servants but they are not all that good. I think there is a crying need for a break-up of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. Therefore, I must say that I am in agreement with the proposal we have before us in this Bill.

There is a general feeling in the country today which is manifested on all sides. You hear it at all levels and you see it in all forms of print. It is the feeling that we are getting somewhat frightened at the size of our governmental machine. Because of the size of that machine, the average citizen is becoming worried about the growth of State overheads which manifest themselves in very high taxation and in drawing more and more not only from private enterprise business but from the private citizen himself who is called upon to produce more and more, not only in the form of taxation but even in the form of savings and finance which is necessary to carry on these State operations.

If one embarks upon some new form of organisation in order to expand business or to deal with an expansion of activities, one always has to look round to see whether there is anything which can be cut down or amalgamated. It seems to me that there are some Ministries at present in existence that do not seem to justify being Ministries. They do not seem to justify the dignity of being called a Ministry at all. Perhaps the Taoiseach will tell us if he has looked round. I know that he has not had very much time to do so, but perhaps he would look round to see if something could be done to cut down expenses in other directions and amalgamate not only the actual Ministry under one Minister but also amalgamate certain of the personnel. I do not know the statistics at the moment but everybody can get them. There is a growing army of people in what Senator Sheehy Skeffington called the managerial state to which we have very much arrived.

If this Ministry is to be a success, it is inevitable that it will involve extra costs. If it takes on extra duties, it is inevitable that it will cost more. Therefore, it is obvious that we should look round and see where we can draw from, amalgamate, or cut down so as to offset in some way the growth we see all the time in the Department of Industry and Commerce.

In regard to the new Ministry and the general control by the State which comes under this Ministry, I think we ought to go carefully on an expansion of the State's operations. It is going so far now that it is really getting too big for the taxpayer and the ordinary citizen in the community to carry on this enormous control. There are plenty of people who may say that private enterprise has failed and that we ought to go on with more State enterprise but very little of the State enterprise is productive. It is the structure on which to build a money-making and income-making economic machine. If we are to build upon State bodies which are giving services, no matter how desirable and good, unless they produce wealth for the community, we shall find ourselves awkwardly placed. We shall be like the family man spending all his resources on his house and on the provision of baths and swimming pools but is getting nothing done to earn money.

I agree with the proposal in the Bill but I hope that some method will be found to curb expenditure in other Ministries where the expenditure is not really required or is not giving value for money in order to offset what I feel will be the worthwhile expenditure in this Ministry.

Mr. Cole

One must presume that, when it comes to this stage of the Bill, the Taoiseach has made up his mind as to what his new Ministry will be. It does seem from the items he listed that the new Minister will be in charge of these. It seems to be more an attempt to relieve the Department of Industry and Commerce of some of its sidelines than an attempt to have a Minister who will be an added asset to the Government. In other words, taking those items from the Minister for Industry and Commerce will probably give great relief to him.

It seems to me that the Department of Industry and Commerce might still be a very big and over-weighted job for one Minister. If it was my position to say who would be the most advantageous Minister to appoint at present, one who would be the most useful to the economy, I would say a Minister for external trade or export. If we could amalgamate all branches of industry, and possibly agriculture to a certain extent, which export to other countries and appoint a Minister to deal with them, simply and solely, to facilitate exporters and to introduce our exports to foreign markets, such a Ministry would be far more advantageous to the country at the present time and these other items could be divided up amongst the Ministers we have at present.

Dr. O'Donovan

I noticed that the Taoiseach when introducing this Bill said that there would be no additional cost. We all know from long experience of these matters that you just cannot set up a new Ministry without having additional costs. If we take the very minimum cost, there will be an office for the Minister and his staff, and there will be an office for the Secretary of the Department and his staff, and the very minimum for those would be between £10,000 and £20,000 a year. If I wanted to, I could easily take the Department of the Gaeltacht as an example and there would be no difficulty in demonstrating conclusively that that has led to the minimum increase in expenditure.

However, there are more important matters involved. There are really two main approaches to a problem of this sort. One is the approach which I associate in my mind with the Department of Industry and Commerce, as it has developed during the past 30 years, and the other is the approach I see in the Department of Justice. It is remarkable that the policy of the Department of Justice has been one of laissez faire. The expenditure on the headquarters staff is probably no greater to-day, allowing for the fall in the value of money, than it was 30 years ago. Yet, the total amount of crime and the total expenditure on prisons has gone down and down. I suppose the efficiency of the Department of Justice is to be gauged partly on the expenditure on prisons and it is a proof of efficiency.

On the other hand, we all know that the Department of Industry and Commerce has expanded really beyond reasonable bounds. Again, if I felt that proper thought was given within that Department to certain of the problems that come along, I might not have such objections to such a large Department. I am very much afraid that this sort of thing creates the officials' rights to one another, creates a sort of merry-go-round and this new Department is, of course, going to add to the merry-go-round. There was a new Department established two years ago and the public reaction to the establishment of the Department of the Gaeltacht was not too favourable. I am afraid that public opinion will not be very much disposed in favour of this Department, either.

I think that Parkinson's Law—the name which it got in recent times but which used be called, long before Parkinson wrote about it, empire building — operates in these matters. If a civil servant gets into a new Department and wants to improve his own position, he proceeds to increase, as far as he can, the importance of his own work. That goes on all the time and I do not think it happens anywhere more than in the Department of Industry and Commerce. Before setting up this additional Department, I think the Taoiseach had done this in relation to the Department of Industry and Commerce: first of all, he had the Department itself; then he became aware that there was a certain amount of public opposition to the size of the Department and he proceeded, within the Department, to set up a number of independent entities. These are a few which I found in the Estimates: the Labour Court, Foras Tionscal, the Fair Trade Commission, the Industrial Development Authority and Córas Tráchtála Teoranta, which is now being put into the slightly outer category which is my third category. The third category is the category of numerous State enterprises which have been established outside the Department of Industry and Commerce, so that really there has been a triple development in relation to this matter.

I am not passing judgment on any particular part of that development. What I am passing judgment on is the extraordinary size of the existing Department of Industry and Commerce. It is not the first time I have mentioned it. There is another difficulty, and perhaps a more important one, that is, that you are getting to the stage where the size of the Government is becoming unwieldy from the point of view of operating as a committee, which is essentially what the Government is, a committee which has to come to unanimous decisions.

I think most people would say that there are sufficient Ministers. When one looks around the Ministers, what does one see? There is one obvious Ministry which is most suitable for conversion into a statutory body, and indeed it could be associated with the new Ministry, that is, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, which is, in essence, a communications organisation. Probably most people would say that the most suitable kind of organisation for it would be something in the nature of a statutory board. Certainly it is scarcely of sufficient significance to be a separate Ministry and since this Ministry is being established, it seems to me that it would fit into it in a fairly suitable way. This is a Ministry for Transport and Power and certainly from the transport end, it would fit into it.

There is another point which the Taoiseach made in an addendum to his written brief, that is, that the Minister would be concerned about policy, not that there would be no greater interference with the statutory bodies. There again, you see, there are two opinions about that. Most people would agree that the statutory boards should be free from day to day interference. A different problem has arisen and that is the problem referred to by Senator McGuire of what is called the managerial State, and which I think we can call the problem of the managers. There is no question that in the way matters have developed in our own small community, too much power is now vested in the managers. I am satisfied about that from my own experience. They are able to make a case for their expenditure to a Minister. They make their case in a general way. In particular, in the case of the boards attached to the Department of Industry and Commerce, there has been, inside the Department of Industry and Commerce, in my opinion, no proper examination of the proposals put forward from time to time by these boards.

We all know that there was the sad case of Ministerial interference which resulted in a surplus of a quarter more power stations than are required. That is an expenditure of £50 million which is roughly what the power stations stand at in the accounts of the Electricity Supply Board. A quarter of that, about £12 millions, is surplus to requirements and will be so for years to come. No amount of juggling with the figures will alter that. We have had talk about percentage increases and so on, as if it were like the laws of the Medes and Persians, as if the demand for electricity would double every five or six years. Once rural electrification is completed and as the population is going down, the demand for electricity may not increase at all, at some stage.

That example of Ministerial interference — and certainly it was Ministerial interference and so recognised by everyone — resulted in an excess expenditure at the apex of something like £15 millions. A loss of that amount is enormous and there is simply no income at all as against that expenditure for the time the power stations are surplus.

When the Taoiseach speaks about the new Minister deciding major matters of policy, I should like to have a more specific meaning attached to that phrase. I understand a major matter of policy to be, say, a matter as to whether we should have our first atomic power station or not at a certain time. I do not know what major matters of policy can arise at present in relation to power, as I understand the term. One might refer to the fag-end of rural electrification, about which again there was certainly a substantial slip-up in the figures a few years ago, both in the E.S.B. and in the Department, which did not reflect credit on either.

The original figure said the cost would be £1.8 million, to deal with the oddments left out in the scheduled areas, the octagonals. This figure of £1.8 million was supplied to the Government of the day. It was subsequently found that it should be £4 million. Whatever junior man made the slip, it was picked up by nobody until it reached the Government. That is disgraceful. It indicates the greatest lack of attention to what I would regard as proper thought by the people concerned. Someone told the Government of the day this would cost £1.8 million. There were certain little extra areas which should be done and it was found that the cost would be that. It went to the Government at £1.8 million and it subsequently turned out to be nearly £5 million.

The point I am making is that you do not get more accuracy by prolification. You get less responsibility, because no particular person or group can be pointed to as absolutely responsible. I suppose that in this case, if one wanted to take Parliamentary responsibility, the people responsible would be the Government, in absolute terms; but the Government certainly operate from very remote territory.

One of the ways of dealing with this problem would be if the Department could start to think a little more like the Department of Justice, more in the manner in which that Department thinks; and if, when they meet a problem, they would try to approach it in the way the Department of Justice approaches it. There are two ways of approaching it. I think Senator Sheehy Skeffington is more in agreement with the way the Department of Industry and Commerce approaches the problem. I am more in agreement with the way the Department of Justice approaches it. I am extremely doubtful about the conclusion of Senator Sheehy Skeffington that our economy would be made more efficient by the establishment of this new Ministry.

Mr. Lenihan

I have no intention of following Senator O'Donovan in his by-ways of criticism. Senator Cole, however, had some rather original and unusual views to state on this question of exports and had particular suggestions about it. While I think his suggestion is a bit impracticable, it might be no harm to point out here the scope which there will be, under a Minister concentrating on all these State bodies, for an improvement in regard to our export position. That is not so obvious in the case of Bord na Móna and the E.S.B., which are primarily concerned with power requirements, but there is obviously scope for improvement in our export position, both in regard to visible and invisible exports in the case of transport organisations, Córas Iompair Éireann, Aer Lingus and Irish Shipping and the Ports, both air and sea, which they feed into, the sea ports of Dublin and Cork; and Shannon and Collinstown Airports. There is very little real scope there for providing low cost transportation of goods and people.

In that sphere, there is a real challenge to the new Minister and there is scope for improvement in the transportation of people and goods at a more reasonable cost, which can contribute very reasonably to our export position. That applies particularly to the Port of Dublin, from which the bulk of our exports are sent. It is obvious that there is scope there for an improvement of the position of congestion around the Port. There is room for an improvement of the feeds into the Port, both rail and road, and provision for the development of a container traffic in the case of cross-Channel exports. That also ties in with the difficulties we are having in the cross-Channel freight position. The latter point is a serious one and I think it can be solved only at Government level, by debate between the two Governments concerned.

It is in that sphere that the new Department will have the greatest scope for improvement, the sphere of co-ordination of our transport organisation so as to ensure that goods and passengers are transported as cheaply as possible, so that people coming in here can be moved quickly between Aer Lingus and C.I.É. and so that goods going out of this country, either by rail or road, can be fed as cheaply as possible into an air transport system or, if possible, into some improved cross-Channel shipping transport system. Whether that latter cross-Channel system will take the form of Irish Shipping moving in or not, is a question for decision at Government level, but there is certainly obvious room for improvement in the freight transport position from the Port of Dublin to Liverpool and other English ports where the bulk of our exports go. There is real scope for improvement and development there, by a new Minister in that Department, charged with the responsibility of dove-tailing and co-ordinating these improved transport organisations we have developed here over the years.

The Taoiseach

I should like to begin by expressing thanks for the words of welcome and for the good wishes expressed by Senator Hayes and Senator Sheehy Skeffington.

I am quite convinced that this proposed new Department is both necessary and timely. I have no doubt that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, if he had been appointed after a general election, would have acquired in a short time a knowledge of the working of the Department and the competence to control its affairs to a degree equal to that of any of his predecessors. One will understand, however, that a new Minister, coming in in the middle of a term when everything is in progress and under an obligation not merely to keep things moving but to go right back to examine matters and the considerations which led up to the decisions taken, would be gravely handicapped, particularly in a Department of that size.

Apart altogether from that temporary situation which requires and justifies the setting up of this Department now, I am convinced from my own experience that the whole efficiency of the administration of the services entrusted to the Department of Industry and Commerce will be very greatly improved by the change. I was very conscious of the fact myself that I was relying, perhaps unduly, upon the advice I was getting in policy matters from the boards of these statutory companies and that I certainly was not in sufficiently constant touch with them to understand, not merely all the factors which led to the recommendations they made, but also the direction in which they foresaw their future development. In the case, for example, of transport policy, as Senators know, a quite substantial amount of time was involved in transport legislation which was introduced a couple of years ago. Since then, various organisations have been asking me to discuss with them the possibility of changing that legislation. It was so abhorrent to me to go back over all the considerations and arguments which had led to the original decisions that I found it almost impossible to consider their proposals or even to meet them to discuss them and, as some of their ideas may have been good, they were certainly entitled to get adequate Ministerial attention.

When I was leaving the Department, I was aware that on the desk of my successor there would be quite a number of big matters on some of which reports had been received which would require his early consideration and a number of them, at least, came within the scope of this new Ministry. I was anxious to ensure that these matters would go ahead rapidly and I was, indeed, at that time, somewhat concerned as to how that could best be arranged. I think I would have urged the creation of this new Department now, even if the change in the Government had not taken place.

I will agree with Senator Hayes that the question of the reallocation of services in the Government Departments should be re-examined from time to time. I am not at all convinced that a Dáil committee would be very helpful. I think experience has shown that services are transferred from one Department to another very often because of a realisation by the Taoiseach that a Minister has special qualifications or a special interest in particular work which justifies giving him extra duties. Indeed, that is a factor which would always be in the mind of any Taoiseach, the reallocation of the services among the Departments, not merely the theoretically best arrangements in respect of these services, but the capacity of the individual members of the Government to deal with them properly.

The Department of Posts and Telegraphs is one Department which it has been suggested might be changed by the device of setting up a statutory board to administer the postal and telegraph services. I do not know that we should consider such a very substantial development, unless we were convinced that a very considerable improvement either in efficiency or cost of the service was likely to result. Again, I am by no means convinced of that and indeed one can see circumstances in which the release from immediate Dáil criticism which would be involved might have the opposite effect.

I find that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is a particularly well-occupied Minister. Admittedly, the greater proportion of his time is occupied with routine administrative matters and policy is only settled on major questions at long intervals. The question of television, for example, will be a main policy matter before that Department at present but I cannot see that the work of the Minister could be transferred to another Minister without completely overburdening him. Indeed, I would not agree at all that there is not in that Department, which after all does control the fortunes of a staff of some 20,000, justification for a Ministerial head.

The Department of the Gaeltacht has naturally been under examination from time to time. The amount of work which the Minister can do in that Department depends entirely on his interest in it. The present Minister, so far as I have been able to see, is very heavily burdened because of his personal inclination to attend to quite small matters of detail affecting the lives of some people in the Gaeltacht areas perhaps, but which another Minister might be inclined to leave to his officials. At the same time, one could hardly contemplate the giving of that Ministry as a secondary and minor matter to a Minister already in charge of another Department. I presume the Department of the Gaeltacht would be given to the Department of Industry and Commerce where it would be of very minor concern to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and that is exactly what it was intended to avoid when the Department of the Gaeltacht was set up. It was intended that a Minister with complete access to the Government would be in charge of that Department, who would have no other obligation except the economic and cultural development of the Gaeltacht areas. Therefore, I think all the considerations which justified the creation of that Ministry in the first place now justify its retention.

I do not want to open in a general way the question of the Parliamentary control of statutory boards. Senator Hayes rightly said that this question arose not merely in this but in other Parliaments in the past and that no satisfactory and acceptable proposal has emerged. I am not at all sure that the fact is not due to a misconception of the character of the problem that is presented. Indeed one has to decide first if there is a problem that the present system of control is not sufficient. The aim was to give these statutory boards the commercial freedom of private concerns, to give them the advantages of operating on the same basis as private concerns, keeping them subject to control only with regard to policy through their responsibility to an individual Minister. A lot of these examinations about methods of increasing the degree of Parliamentary control arise from the desire to have it two ways, subject to Parliamentary control and at the same time, continuing to enjoy commercial freedom. Certainly successive Governments with different policies have given attention to the matter and they reached the conclusion that it was best to leave them as they are.

I had better not refer too violently to some remarks made by Senator O'Donovan. All I want to say in that connection is that the Department of Industry and Commerce grew very large because the policy of the Government required an extension of its activities and the public were pressing for an extension of its activities. Over the years, the Department has shed many of the services for which it was originally responsible. It originally had control of a very large section of the Social Welfare services which are now administered by the Department of Social Welfare.

In my early days as Minister, 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of my time was occupied with trade disputes which have since been transferred entirely to the Labour Court. I have never seen to my knowledge any reluctance on the part of the chief executive of the Department of Industry and Commerce to bring in any experts from the Department of Finance and elsewhere to overhaul their administration and see what economies could be achieved or what greater efficiency could be realised. There is now, I think, a continuous review of their operations which has led to some changes and it was that fact which led me to the decision that when setting up this new Department, one should think of transferring complete and integrated sections rather than attempting to transfer responsibilities which would mean a division of a particular section of the Department.

At a later stage, it may be that it will be found possible to draw the dividing line somewhere else, but on the whole this new Department of Transport and Power will be set up in a way which will mean no interference with the work of the Department and the minimum of dislocation of staff arrangements. It will not cost any more money. Senator Hayes said I was cautious in that regard, not entering into a definite commitment. I meant to convey that, assuming everything goes on as at present, the functions of the Department of Industry and Commerce in respect of Transport, Fuel and Power are not to be increased or altered in any way; no extra cost will be involved.

The present Minister for Industry and Commerce has chosen to carry on without a Parliamentary Secretary. I had a Parliamentary Secretary. He had an office and secretariate. Indeed, the only change in that regard is that there will be in that office a person who has the status of a Minister instead of that of a Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps I should qualify my statement that no extra cost will be involved by saying that no doubt the senior officer of the Department will in future rank as a Departmental Secretary.

Some of the matters mentioned were perhaps not relevant. I should say, in relation to repeated suggestions that the E.S.B. have installed excessive generating capacity, that the Board themselves have said they could not have met the peak load of last winter without utilising all their installed capacity. It is true that the Board's capacity has to be designed to meet a peak demand and that at other periods of the year, the demand is less than it is at the peak period. However, the Board are pressing ahead with some of the new stations which have been sanctioned. They are convinced they will require them to meet their obligations to the electricity consumers at least on the date originally visualised and possibly a little earlier.

The rate of increase in electricity demand at present is seven per cent. per annum. That is so completely in line with the experience of other countries that it is quite reasonable for the Board to plan their future installation of generating capacity on the assumption that it is likely to continue. Apart from that consideration, surely it is far better for us to be in the position that we can meet any demand for electricity that industry may have to make rather than that we should have to delay our industrial development while the Board are building up the capacity to meet it?

A number of big concerns established recently require a great deal of electricity. It was a comfort to everybody concerned to know that they could go to the E.S.B. and be quite certain that their requirements would be met the day they wanted, without any difficulty or hesitation on the part of the E.S.B.

However, these are not matters, perhaps, which are relevant here. I accept, in relation to the E.S.B., that the policy decisions which have to be made are generally of a major kind. We had to decide to turn over to peat production. We had to decide to build up generating capacity based on native resources. We are coming within sight of the point at which native fuel and water-power will fully be developed. Then there will be the question as to how to go on from there when creating new capacity after that period. As these plans have to be made five or six years ahead, it will not be very long before these questions are calling for decisions.

In other boards, I think large policy decisions arise more frequently, particularly boards of a more commercial type. The aim of the new Minister, as I see it, would be to ensure that their development is proceeding in accordance with the ideas entertained when they were set up — that they are, in fact, doing the work they were intended to do and that their efforts are being coordinated in such a way as to obtain the maximum possible benefit for the country.

We have always had some little problem of co-ordination in these boards. It was the function of the Minister to ensure that it would be properly effected. I can see for the years ahead for this Minister for Fuel, Power and Transport the same kinds of functions to perform. In all these directions, I should like pressure of the right kind coming from the Minister rather than visualise the Minister sitting in his office and waiting for the directors of the boards to come to him with ideas for his consideration.

In our circumstances, we must be organised to overcome and remove the inertia which inevitably tends to develop in these larger organisations, if they are not under continuous compulsion from the top to consider new possibilities and new fields of activity through which they can contribute to the development of the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration, and passed.

Tómas Ó Maoláin

I understand that the Minister for Finance is still engaged in the Dáil and will not be able to take the next item for some time. I suggest we adjourn until 7 p.m.

Business suspended at 4.50 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.