The motion before the House is a very interesting one and obviously everybody would support it. The difficulties the committee will have are very considerable, and I am sorry Senator Russell, who is a very experienced businessman, could not have told us a little bit more about the possibilities of a small committee like this dealing with companies of this size with assets of a thousand million pounds and a turnover of £500 million. I cannot help feeling that it is a rather polite genuflection towards the ideal of this most important question in all societies, in mixed economies, socialist economies and straight private enterprise economies; the attempt to see that enterprises, however they are funded, shall be responsible to the people who pay for them.
Senator Russell will probably agree that the say of the shareholders at the annual general meeting is a rather plaintive bleat without any real powers, no more power indeed than the average individual has in our type of mixed economy with State capitalist-type institutions, which all of these things really are. They are not socialist, although I agree with Senator Lenihan they are moving over towards the socialist concept. But the underlying philosophy, I am afraid, is expediential and pragmatic. The philosophy of the great pragmatist, Seán Lemass, was certainly not a socialist philosophy, but that is not too important. The past is past and it is a question of what one learns from what has been done, whether it is in private enterprise or in the public sector.
I notice that nobody has made any serious attempt to defend the appalling morass of despair in what you might call the monopoly capitalist camps these days, not only here in Ireland but all over Western Europe and in the United States, the great home of the whole idea of monopoly capitalism, and the terrible human suffering which is involved in this failure—the unemployment, the consequential effects of low productivity, the inability to develop proper services, whether health, education, old people, housing, communications or whatever it is. The record here of the pragmatic State capitalist-type of intervention is that of undertaking jobs that private enterprise would not or could not do in the first instance; possibly capital was not there. Since a number of the enterprises had a very high social content, investment could not have been justified if one is concerned with the profit motive, which is the driving force of monopoly capitalism. Therefore we had what the poor Americans seem to be so frightened of, creeping socialism. We have creeping socialism; and it is obviously very welcome even in the form which it has taken, because there is no doubt that our infrastructure of State enterprises is a very considerable one indeed, and extending all the time.
Of course, private enterprise has failed in our society to provide the services except to a limited extent. It has succeeded totally in its limited objective of making a lot of money for a few people, but in the general objective of a society such as ours its interest is a very narrow and selfish one. Therefore, as the aspirations of people and their expectations are expanded and as people become more enlightened and become more demanding in the things they want for themselves and their children, for their old own people, quite obviously the State sector becomes more and more important and is brought more and more into action perforce, without it being wanted, in the face of the obscurantist opposition, the kind to which Senator Russell referred. It is a mixture of direct opposition by vested interests of people, for instance, the private bus companies, carriers, who might feel threatened from the beginning by CIE or the old State bus company.
But there is no doubt that the whole of these enterprises have developed and expanded in a very hostile—at worst— and certainly in a very unfavourable, unenthusiastic society, a society which resented and resisted the intervention of the State all along the line as long as I can remember. One does not hear nowadays to anything like the extent that one used to hear the danger of red tape and the inevitability of bureaucracies, the inefficiency of the State and so on. That is not heard virtually at all now because quite obviously anybody can look up in the air and see Aer Lingus in action or look around and see the various other enterprises, Bord na Móna, the ESB, which Senator Russell so rightly praised for the wonderful work they do, and the many other companies in their various degrees of efficiency—and inefficiency; I am conceding without a doubt efficiency and inefficiency and this, of course, is said to be the reason we are presented with this motion.
This question of accountability—and that is what the Minister is attempting to bring about by this motion—is a problem for everybody whether it be private enterprise or a State concern. A lot of countries have failed to achieve serious accountability and even in the socialist countries there have been many instances in which one did get the complete slowing down through the intractable bureaucratic inertia because of the way in which some of the companies were established. I suppose one has two contrasting pictures on the socialist side, of the democratic centralism of the Soviet Union, with the tendency towards bureaucracy and frequently the inefficiency associated with that kind of thing, going over to, unfortunately on a very much smaller scale, the Yugoslavian kind of approach where there has been an attempt to involve the community all the time in most of these enterprises, and one has attempted devolution of power from the centre to the periphery, instead of as in the Soviet model, in order to involve the public. Then again in Mao Tse Tung's China he tried to develop his socialist ideas involving the community the whole time in discussion and consideration of desirable aims, all the time trying to push back to the periphery, to society as a whole, responsibility both for the good and the evils of whatever kind of society they are involved in.
In my experience in practically all the activities in which I am involved, both as a professional person and as a politician, this has been the regret I have over our 50 years of government, the fact that we have moved away from public accountability and that we have moved more and more towards the Soviet style of control of our affairs. The reasons are very complicated and I will not dwell on them; but, unfortunately, our people do not appear to be encouraged to accept responsibility. We tend all the time to look towards the centre, the leader, to look for guidance and we appear to have provided a community where there is an enormous amount of dependence by the community generally on some central oligarchy or, in one phase of our lives, a benevolent dictator who seemed to know all that was right and good for us. I regret that—the moving back from the local authorities and county councils, the development of the managerial powers. I know there were practical reasons for this kind of evolution when it took place but, in effect, it was a retrograde decision. It was a decision that you could not trust the ordinary people. This led ordinary people to feel that they could not be trusted, that they need not be trusted, that there was somebody else who knew all about this at the centre here in Dublin, in Leinster House, and that everything would be all right if we left it to them. However, it did mean they, in effect, opted out of any responsibility or any sense of involvement in the particular enterprises in which they took part. This obviously applies to the whole political establishment in our society.
Unfortunately in a mixed economy there are very grave difficulties, because if one is going to support the idea of private enterprise side by side with State enterprises and if, regrettably, the majority of our public representatives and the majority of the products from our schools and colleges and universities are committed to the State and private enterprise-type of society, one must have the private monopoly capitalist-type block side by side with the State enterprises. This creates many difficulties for both sides. In ways it is remarkable that the State companies have done so well, considering that they have developed in such a hostile milieu, as was inevitable, whether it was that the Ministers in charge of State Departments or many of the people who were appointed to become chairmen of the boards and many of the directors who were appointed to the boards, had no interest whatever, certainly no respect or regard or sympathy for many of the enterprises with which they were associated. It is miraculous that so many of these enterprises have done so well, in spite of the way we have managed them rather than because of the way we have managed them. This is one of the factors which will arise in the creation of this small body.
Senator Russell, as an individual, is a man of considerable integrity. But how does a business man of that kind sit on a committee such as this? I am not denigrating him in any way. There must be great difficulty for a person like that in trying to reconcile his ideological or philosophical beliefs with the operation of a system which he does not despise but in which he has no serious or deep faith. This applies to most of the people in these companies. Many of the directors are committed private enterprise people and many of the Senators and Deputies who will be on this committee will certainly not be committed socialists.
This is one of my reasons for not having much faith in the committee. Even if the committee could do more in the sense of a continuing review of the activities of these companies than what Senator Russell suggested, that is, if they could be objective about the analysis, investigation or assessment of what has been done or what these companies have failed to do, they might come back in three or four years with an examination of value to all of us in the assessment of the merits and demerits of these companies, whether some of them should not have been put to do the work they were given to do and whether some of them did it extremely well. If they could do that task alone, it might be the only useful function they might have. I really do not see how these people—busy Deputies and Senators—can take on any serious examination in the continuing sense of such complicated exterprises as Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta, the Agricultural Credit Corporation and so on. I would have valued Senator Russell's contribution in that regard.
Is it physically possible for a business man, with the best will in the world, to make any kind of useful examination of enterprises as complicated as that? I have very little experience of this beyond a few companies which I set up a few years ago. I accepted the principle of the Blood Transfusion Board, mass-radiography, BCG, cancer hospitals and so on. I took the general line then of no interference. I felt it was wisest to set up a company in which one had a certain amount of trust in the members. That, again, is a subjective thing: why should my trust necessarily be relied on? But, as the Minister, I had the power to do that. I doubt if it is a power that we should allow to any single individual.
The general feeling of attempting to keep some sort of hold on the company was undesirable for two reasons. As Senator Russell said, if there was a day-to-day continuing interference it might slow the activities of the company. Secondly, if one has not got direct responsibility in the House for the activities of the company—and this comes to the danger question of accountability—then one can say that this is a matter for the company. To that extent is one evading one's responsibility? I simply do not know. This factor was referred to. I must admit I did not give it any deep consideration at that time because it was done rather hurriedly. Were I doing it again I am not sure what I would do in relation to these companies.
Reference was made in the Dáil to a Minister having responsibility for a company, say, Telefís Éireann, CIE, Aer Lingus, Bord na Móna. CIE and Aer Lingus would be the ones which most of us grouse about. Any Minister can say that it was a matter for the company, simpliciter. Either that should be so and seen to be so, or the company should have total independence to get on with the job. In my case the Blood Transfusion Service were given the money and were allowed to carry on their business without interference from their Minister.
It seems that there is this lack of accountability in respect of a number of very important companies. For instance, the present row about whether Prionsias Mac Aonghusa should be made director of Radio na Gaeltachta. There appears to be a certain amount of thimble breaking in Radio na Gaeltachta between the director of Telefís Éireann and the Minister. Who is responsible? Can one of the Deputies put a question? If he does, what will be the response of the Minister, acting presumably, within his rights? In relation to the present CIE strike, were the company right to behave in the arbitrary way they did? The trade unions and I think it was an arbitrary way. Were they correct to behave in this arbitrary way of imposing these particular services and bringing about the present dreadful strike position? Who is accountable? Is anybody accountable in relation to that? Can one ask? Can somebody put down a question to the Minister for Transport and Power, or whoever is responsible, asking about these things? If not, what is the position? How does this motion alter that situation in respect of the running of these powerful institutions?
We have talked about Senator Russell and his shareholders, but we have even less control than his shareholders. Surely that is wrong. We have this extraordinary anomalous position of the ownership without the control. We fund State companies through taxation. There is not serious accountability in respect of any of the Ministers and the position has worsened over the years. I remember the times when you could question Ministers about various services that were not given, whether Local Government services, Posts and Telegraphs, CIE, Bord na Móna or whatever it might be. It seems to be happening less and less now. The ordinary Deputies and Senators are getting less power while more power is being vested elsewhere, whether in the boards of directors of State companies, or whether the Minister really has the power and uses it when it suits him—he stops a particular broadcast he does not like but he has no responsibility when somebody is wrongfully dismissed. They appear to be having it both ways.
This motion does not seem to deal with this issue at all. I do not know if it is meant to deal with any issue seriously beyond the one which Senator Russell forlornly suggested it might do—take three years having a look at the whole principle underlying the State companies and then come back and tell us what you think.
The idea is not an answer to the criticisms, and there are many criticisms. I have made some criticisms. I remember being one of a group of Deputies who tried to see one of the directors of CIE. He told us he would not talk to us. At the time there was some trouble with CIE, but he would not even see us, a group of all-party Deputies. There have been criticisms of State companies and I, as a socialist, do not resent it. There must be criticism, but I resent the fact that we cannot deal with the criticism and cannot organise these companies which do such wonderful work in so many aspects of our life. Everybody agrees that we cannot try to increase accountability. Everybody would agree that we are moving closer and closer to a centralist approach, in spite of all our protestations about the democratic ideal. This has always been my difficulty in our society. I am a fanatical democrat and believe in the right of the individual to hold a point of view and to express it, but we are getting to a situation where there is a retraction towards the centre on the part of all the Government Ministers in all aspects of their work, particularly in relation to these State companies, and that is a very retrograde development.
I do not understand the peculiar segregation of the companies, why they are segregated on the commercial principle and promotional principle. I do not know the value of going into a commercial company with the idea that you are going to have some interest or responsibility. Theoretically they are meant to come back to us and tell us what is going on in these companies, whether they agree or disagree with what is going on, or approve or disapprove of what is going on. I assume they can do all those things without having the right to discuss policy. I do not understand why we should give the name or status of a Seanad-Dáil Joint Committee to a group to examine the reports and accounts and overall operational results of the State-sponsored bodies engaged in trading or commercial activities referred to in the Schedule, and the trading and/or commercial aspects of the reports and accounts and overall operational results of the State-sponsored bodies referred to in Schedule B.
Beyond reading the accounts and the annual reports it seems that this is a mild variation on what any of us can do. As Senator Russell said, we can buy the reports and read them. Sometimes we are little the wiser and sometimes we do know a little more. These people should have some authority beyond the authority simply to ask for more information than one gets in the accounts. The information given should relate to its consequence. We should ask why are you going to close down a particular line, or what is the profit and loss, and have you appreciated the significance from the social point of view. Surely it must be permissible for this committee to ask questions of this nature: are you right to do this kind of thing? Do you think you are justified? Do you think that the cuts that you are imposing are warranted? That surely is a question of policy.
The question of policy is inseparable from an examination of the operational activities or results of these companies. For instance, in the recent CIE dispute all these services are being reduced on predominantly actuarial grounds. The main thing involved appears to be certain saving of money by the company. What about the social consequences of this kind of thing? Surely this is where we could be of help to a group trying to run this on strictly actuarial grounds, because the social content of a transport policy is absolutely fundamental to it. As long as they have been talking about transport policy, and many of these other things, there is this social content which is immeasurable. It is quite impossible to say that if somebody wants to get from Kilmacanogue to Roundwood, there are no buses going there and that they must stay forever in Kilmacanogue. The public service has to run at a loss. Many companies who have this social content will have to run at a loss and will have to be funded from central funds. We are a community. Some of us live in out-of-the-way places, some of us need a postal service, a television service, or an electricity service. This is obviously the most important one, light and power. If one is left with the facility of simply examining the accounts on a strict profit and loss assessment of success or failure, there is nothing to be gained.
The company will say "This is what we did. This is the service we ran. This is what we paid out. This is what we took in". If the committee are restricted to that kind of information and cannot say, "Because of the need in this particular area, you have to put in electric light. You have to run a service because there are people there, children have to be brought to school and so on". The school bus service could never be justified on actuarial grounds. "We think you should do some particular thing." That is a policy declaration. If they are to be prohibited from taking that kind of part in the operation of these services, then I suspect they are wasting their time. Their function cannot be any better than simply getting more high level accountants to look at the figures and to examine the reports. They will be little the wiser. Little value can be added to the power that any of us have either of reading the annual reports or of doing our best to get information from the Minister by letter or by parliamentary question.
If top quality people are put on the committee by both of the parties—as I am certain they must be—their time will be wasted on this kind of committee with such limited powers. The important aspect from the Government's point of view is that there is a fundamental division between themselves and the Opposition on the interpretation of the terms of reference. Therefore, it starts under a great disadvantage because the main Opposition made the case in the Dáil that the question of policy is inseparable from the interpretation of "... to examine the Reports and Accounts and overall operational results of State-sponsored bodies engaged in trading or commercial activities...". They believe that this is inseparable from the question of policy making. Whether they agree or disagree with this right being vested in the committee is another thing. They believe that it is implicit in the wording of this motion. Therefore, one has an immediate conflict. Why is it that the Government have not said they either believed the right to policy decisions must be included or, specifically, that the right to policy-making is excluded. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the interpretation of the words in this motion is the operative motion in respect of the activity of this committee.
A curious decision is that they may include in the Schedule from time to time the names of further State-sponsored bodies engaged in trading or commercial activities. First of all, there is nothing peculiar in the right to include new State-sponsored bodies in the Schedule. That is understandable because there are so many, and a number of them should obviously be included. Why is it necessary to specify the trading or commercial type of State body rather than leaving it open to the Minister to include anybody he wishes to? Why does he specifically exclude non-trading or non-commercial companies? A reasonable fear that a number of us have about this motion arises from recent speeches made by three main Fine Gael speakers—The Taoiseach, the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Kelly and the Minister for Finance—all tending to denigrate the whole State concept in relation to the further funding of their activities in the community.
This was particularly noticeable in the response of Deputy Kelly, the Parliamentary Secretary, to the suggestion by the then Secretary of the Labour Party that there should be considerable expansion in State spending in relation to State corporations in order to try to increase badly-needed employment. One has to consider this motion and every word in it in that context where you are dealing with people who are notoriously hostile to the socialist idea or to the State enterprise idea. This has been very recently and cogently argued. They have argued very cogently against this to their satisfaction, I might say, in the light of a cascading collapse of monopoly capitalism on all sides. It defies understanding how people can still talk about the merits of private enterprise, but this is possible, I suppose, a kind of bigotted attitude in an intellectually closed mind.
In this situation one has to examine this motion and find out why they specifically exclude bodies other than those engaged in trading and commercial activities. There are other bodies. The IDA, which is an extremely important body was set up to create employment or expand employment. It has done extremely badly in that job over a long time. One would imagine that it should be included for examination to see whether it should continue with its capital-intensive type of industrial development instead of the employment-intensive kind of development which is so badly needed. They are spending millions of pounds on industries which employ half a dozen people.
The disastrous policy decision in relation to Bord Iascaigh Mhara, changed the emphasis from a State type of company to a private enterprise company. The result is, of course, that these unfortunate fishermen are going around in tiny boats, while on the periphery we have the fleets of the world fishing away to their heart's content, raping and pillaging the sea and the enormous wealth in it, because a handful of small traders or businessmen in the fishing industry made enough to buy themselves whatever baubles they wanted. They have left the community bereft of a serious fishing fleet or the capacity to defend our Atlantic fishing rights. One of the most dazzling achievements of successive Governments in this country has been their failure to use our natural advantages and resources. With our climate, our arable land, the seas around us, any other country would have built a paradise without any great trouble. But we have continued to stumble on, poverty stricken, near bankrupt as we are at present, with all the wealth there is in the country, instead of developing it for the majority rather than the handful who now own it. This kind of mentality is behind this motion and is a frightening one.
The Irish Productivity Council are another body which it should be possible for us to examine in regard to the extent of their success. Mianraí Teoranta is another company which it would be worth being able to do much more about than we have already done. Senator Russell, as a practical and successful businessman, gave us enough information to tell those of us who do not know as much as he does that the committee cannot be a serious communications link between us and these semi-State companies. It cannot function like that because it is physically impossible. In various other ways, from the point of view of trying to assimilate continuously changing information, in a disastrously changing economic world, the committee could not possibly discharge that function. This committee should allow us to say at any particular time that a director of a board is exceeding his functions and should concern himself with the job we set up the board to discharge. It is not going to do that either.
One is compelled to return to the belief that there is, as we all agree, a certain amount of discontent and a certain amount of concern. We have, for instance, Gaeltarra Éireann, with £4.5 million invested and a return of of £1.5 million—an enormous amount of money spent and a relatively small amount coming in. There is this peculiar privacy that Gaeltarra Éireann are looking for. They have not apparently got out of their earlier functions in the Gaeltacht and are involved in taking shares in other companies. For that reason, we are told, they should not be subjected to any kind of serious scrutiny, but the shares in the other companies were bought with our money. Whatever the companies, even if they are private companies, the majority shareholding in some of them is held by Gaeltarra Éireann and, therefore, we must be able to subject them to the kind of scrutiny any shareholder in a private company expects. We are not getting that from anybody. We are not getting it from the Ministers in the House or from the companies. We are told it is not our business and we are only private citizens. I do not believe for one moment that the committee set up under this motion will do that. I am not terribly interested in the committee because I suspect it can do very little. It will be rather importent in its influence except in one sphere. Here I share Senator Russell's belief that it could be of some use in regard to a long-term survey.
Clause 3 states:
That if so requested by a State-sponsored body, the Joint Committee shall refrain from publishing confidential information regarding the body's activities and plans.
I do not understand why that is included. It appears that the committee may come into possession of confidential information about the activities of the company. Obviously, I can see, just as everybody else can understand, that there must be confidentiality in relation to the operation of a complex business, especially where one is dealing with competitors. That sort of explanation is a little like the one we had from the preceding Minister about the need to get extended jurisdiction. It is not really as simple as that. While it is true that one should have the right of confidentiality when running a big enterprise, at the same time if we appoint a Joint Committee of the Oireachtas why should they not be trusted, first of all?
I can give some of the answers myself, that some of them have a vested interest in not helping these State companies. But the record has not been too bad as far as we know it. Most people who serve on these kind of committees tend to do what they think is best for the community, the company or whatever it may be. When we have a committee of responsible people, responsible Senators and Deputies who will be handpicked, top level people of their parties, and assuming that a certain level of integrity will be observed by them, how can we say that if they are given confidential information which they believe should be conveyed to the Minister and to this House and if the board of directors or the chairman says this confidential information should not be transmitted to this House, or to the Minister, then their word is to be operative?
This is what I have often talked about, this inability to trust people who are carrying out a particular job and who have a standing in society. They are handpicked for the fact that they can contribute their knowledge, their experience and their dedication to their job, like those who sit on the Public Accounts Committee. Those who continually do these kind of things on those committees, and growingly will continue to do that, why should they be impugned in this way by the suggestion that they would act in an irresponsible way in disclosing information which would be damaging to the State-sponsored body they are investigating? Surely this is suggesting that they would act in an irresponsible way and that they cannot be trusted. How can one take a group of men from all parties, with the exception of the Independents—I saw a reference by Deputy Kelly telling Deputy Colley that he could deal with the Independents, that they would be delighted to dispense with them also—and ask them to do a job, and then tell them that implicitly one does not trust their judgement, if the company being investigated suggests one should not do so? If the committee decide this should be published, it is the kind of information that should be published and be made available to the Minister and to the House.
It seems to be the most up-ended kind of logic, where one has a body which everybody has said will be a very exclusive group, of top quality intellectually from an industrial and business point of view, to tell them at a certain stage they may not do a particular thing they feel should be done. The motion states that, if so requested by a State-sponsored body, the Joint Committee shall refrain from publishing confidential information regarding the body's activities and plans. I do not question the right of a body to ask that this should be done and their right to attempt to establish a case that it should not be done. But this Committee should have the final say as to whether the information shall be conveyed to this House. This is the most important consideration of all.
It seems that this is the most important consideration of all, that we should know something which they think we ought to know but which the others would like to withhold. We had, for instance, I do not mean it in the same way because it is relatively unimportant in the sense that I am talking about major policy decisions, things that are going wrong in a big way and which are being suppressed by the directors of the company or the chairman of the company or whatever it may be—the recent Irish Life type of situation, where I am sure the Minister would like not to have had this thing blow up in his face. It would be in the public interest that we should be able to probe it right to its roots in order to see that it would not happen again. I would prefer that the Joint Committee should be completely trusted or not at all; or, alternatively, that they should have a right to report to the Minister and he could make the final decision. I do not think it should be left to the State-sponsored body to make this final decision in such a situation.
Clause 5 which states that the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such a report together with, as it thinks fit, any evidence and other such related documents given to it. Are they not in conflict with one another? If information is given to them, related documents are given to them, evidence is given to them and they have that information, then it simply cannot be taken back. The information is available to them. It seems it can, under that section, be published and be damned, as they say, in relation to the company, whatever they might have decided to ask them to do. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary has not, under clause 5, the body we are setting up the power to publish anything they want, anything they have heard, any evidence they have got under the last paragraph of that clause (5) and does that not negative clause 3? However, if it does not, it should, because I still believe it is wrong that a body of this kind should be set up and subjected to the limitations imposed in it.
For the Government to set up this poor little group of five, or whatever it is going to be, to carry out this enormous task displays an extraordinary sense of naivety or innocence on the part of the Government. It surprises me that they have got away so easily in relation to serious criticism because of their total impotence and inevitable ineffectiveness in the fundamental question that the public is interested in, the accountability of these semi-State bodies. This motion adds virtually nothing whatever to establishing serious accountability. It is wrong always when one is dealing with an intelligent opponent to say to him that he does not realise what is happening. I believe the Government know damn well what they are doing. They are leaving these companies the way they are because they are as hostile to them now as they have always been in their lives and they have no intention of diffusing power in any way from the centre. They intend to retain the anti-democratic centralist basic philosophy which seems to colour all their attitudes, whether in politics, in industry or in business.
