This is a new section recommended by the Committee. It is a very proper one.
SECTION 191.
Question proposed: " That Section 191 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Lynch
There are two points I should like to raise. It is intended that all total emoluments to directors are covered in every shape and form from the company—not merely in their office of director.
Precisely.
Any conceivable payment by the company to a director.
A director who is also a secretary. The whole lot must be in this. Will a provision like this apply apart from public companies ? It is desirable that a provision like this should apply to all companies. I am thinking of the statutory companies. It is outside this Bill but I take this occasion to say that in present trends the same principles should be enforced in regard to statutory bodies where directors are appointed by the State on behalf of the whole country as shareholders. I am thinking of State companies which are not covered by this Bill, where directors are, in effect, appointed by the company or by a Minister and where the shareholders really are the people, by and large. I think that the provisions of this section should be uniform for all. After all, remuneration paid to a Minister of State, who can be regarded as ultimately the supreme director of the company, is made public. In the same way the remuneration of higher officers in the civil service is public.
This is a matter of general policy.
It is no harm to raise it. It is general policy in this Bill.
Except that the statutory companies are excluded from this Bill.
To some extent.
Maybe I have put my point badly. I shall put it this way. Should not this section of the Bill conform to what the provisions are for the ESB or some bodies like that? Let us start at the top.
That is going a bit too far. The Deputy might wait until we come to Section 377 which applies the provisions of the Bill to unregistered companies.
The reason for raising it now is that it is a matter of general policy here. I do not see why directors' companies envisaged by this Bill should be put, in this matter, in a very particular position as against directors generally.
Would the Deputy be prepared to leave it until we come to Section 377?
What is the point the Deputy is suggesting?
I am only seeking uniformity. If, for instance, it is necessary to have disclosures of all these things in this form for companies, well, then, I think it should be a uniform thing for the whole country. Regarding some public accounts in State services there should be a uniform pattern particularly in regard to companies which are really companies of public undertakings. But because of the way they are set up they are excused from the operation of this Bill.
Assuming that you want to get that information into the hands of individuals——
It is not individual information; it is group information.
We have State companies which are amenable to the requirements of the Companies Acts. There are some State Corporations, like the ESB, which are not. Presumably the Deputy is referring to these?
I am not thinking of the Minister's Department.
I have no responsibility for the ESB but I think the uniformity which the Deputy desires should be in the legislation governing these particular corporate bodies. There is no problem about the State companies which are amenable to the requirements of this Bill.
I would have thought in any case you would provide this information for the shareholders of a commercial company when they get the balance sheet and see what the directors are paid. I would have thought that in the case of State corporations which are set up on the authority of the Dáil who are the custodians of the public interest, Deputies have a means of ascertaining what the directors are paid.
It is given in every case.
I think it is used not for accountancy purposes but for political purposes.
It is a case of uniformity.
Uniformity, when somebody in the Opposition is bound to ask——
We can deal with that on Section 377. We will only be doing it twice.
Question put and agreed to.
When are we likely to get a copy of the proceedings for the last two meetings?
I am informed that the earlier one will probably be out tomorrow and the other one possibly on Monday next.
The meeting adjourned at 9.35 p.m. until 7.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 2nd April, 1963.