The time remaining to the Deputy is 20 minutes and the time remaining for the debate on the motion is one hour and 30 minutes.
Committee on Finance. - Private Members' Business: State Boards and Companies (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a Select Committee consisting of seventeen members of whom five shall be a quorum, be appointed, with power to send for persons, papers and records: (a) to examine the capital expenditure of State Boards and Companies, and to consider the future capital programme and plans of such Boards and Companies; (b) to consider whether any changes are needed in the organisation of such bodies; (c) to consider whether there is proper and adequate liaison between such bodies and Government Departments, and private interests affected by their activity, and between the bodies themselves in matters of common interest; (d) whether the private citizen or other body obtains reasonable service from such semi-State bodies and in case of dissatisfaction has a reasonable means of securing redress from any such body; and (e) to make such report or reports embodying the recommendations of the members of such Select Committee as it thinks proper. —(Deputy Sweetman.)
When I reported progress, I indicated that we are in support of the principle of the motion that a Select Committee of the House be set up to examine the capital expenditure of State boards and companies and to consider their future capital programme. The motion has one or two defects in it. There has been a growing tendency in recent years to think in terms of State boards and companies which have proved to be successful. That success should contribute to a reduction in the cost of the services supplied or to the general economic progress of the country, but the suggestion has been that they should be brought into private enterprise and the inducement to private enterprise is that these are operations from which financial benefits could be derived.
There is an aspect of some of these State companies which requires examination and which is not referred to in the motion, an aspect which has been repeatedly and justifiably raised in this House, that is, the failure of some of them to deal with their staffs in a responsible way and to introduce into their structures adequate and efficient personnel. The effect of that failure has resulted on a number of occasions in disputes, causing loss and serious inconvenience to, and, on one occasion, possible danger to the community as a whole. Attempts have been made from time to time to ascribe breakdowns in industrial relations to the workers employed in these State bodies. Yet, when a thorough examination has been made, it has been reveled that such breakdowns were because of prolonged vexation to which the workers had been exposed, because of the deliberate policy of negation in negotiations leading up to situations in which industrial disputes have taken place. In these instances, the failure of those in authority has led to serious results.
Over the years attempts have been made in this House to obtain information regarding the operations of some of these State bodies. On some occasions the Ministers concerned, and the Minister for Transport and Power in particular, have given long and prolonged explanations but on other occasions the reply has been that the Minister has no function in the matter. It would be interesting, in relation to an examination of State boards and companies, if some information could be obtained as to the basis on which appointments are made to positions of power in these companies. We are presumed to be a democratic country, to go through the democratic processes. Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann are supposed to operate according to democratic principles but where some of these State companies are concerned, the process in operation is much closer to dictatorship. These matters, while not referred to in the motion, are matters of some concern and would justify examination.
On the last occasion I mentioned that I did not support the general tenor of the remarks made by Deputy Donegan, following the moving of the motion by Deputy Sweetman on behalf of Fine Gael. It appeared to me that the sense of some of his remarks was that there should be an attempt to limit, in the interests of private enterprise and in the interest of people concerned with the making of profits, the operation of these State companies which are providing a service to the community. I referred to the fact that a number of these State companies have been established because private enterprise had failed to do its duty and to make its proper contribution to our economy. We should not think in terms of just an examination of these State companies but we should take steps to ensure that they continue to operate efficiently from the point of view of the community as a whole and that they take into account the rights, responsibilities, needs and problems of those in their employment.
The main thing is to discover whether or not these State companies are providing a service that might be taken back now into the hands of private enterprise and run for purely profit motives: so spoke Deputy Donegan, if I heard him correctly. I do not agree with Deputy Donegan.
Where citizens feel they have been aggrieved by State bodies there should be some process to enable them to have their legitimate complaints and grievances rectified. Up to the present that has proved almost impossible because of the nature of the machinery and because the Minister disclaims responsibility. There is a need here.
The motion suggests the committee should examine the extent to which proper and adequate liaison either exists or should exist between the public and these State bodies. There is need for such an examination because, from time to time, there does appear to be a contradiction in policy and a contradiction in approach.
The method of appointment and the powers of those appointed should be examined very carefully indeed. Certain of these appointees seem to feel they have unlimited authority. They do not subscribe to any accepted pattern or system. The position of employees in some of these State bodies is not at all satisfactory and that is a matter that should be examined into by the suggested Select Committee.
This House and the community in general owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to a number of these State bodies. Some failings have been mentioned by me, and possibly by others, too, in the course of the debate and on other occasions, but, apart from a breakdown in industrial relations, which is to be deplored and which ought to be corrected, one can list a number of these State bodies which have proved most successful in advancing the general interests of the community. I mention here Aer Lingus, the ESB and the Sugar Company. Many others have made a substantial contribution to development here. Some of these State bodies have made history. However, no matter how excellent they may be, the day always comes when a situation calls for re-examination and re-assessment and the most efficient body may fail, for some reason or another, to move with the times. The appointment of a Select Committee would permit of an examination of the various State bodies and might afford an opportunity for a mature assessment not only of the services rendered but of the desirability of extending these State companies.
I have listened very carefully to this debate so far because I was sincerely anxious to understand as clearly as I could what the proposers of this motion intended precisely and, indeed, what those who support the motion wish to achieve by doing so. The first thing I want to point out is that this motion is framed in the widest possible terms and because it is so framed, it raises a host of questions which, to my mind at any rate, have not so far been answered by either the proposer or the seconder of the motion, or indeed by any of the Deputies who have spoken.
The first question that poses itself to my mind in regard to the intention of the framers of the motion is whether or not they intend this Select Committee to be a once and for all operation. It would seem, from reading the motion at first glance, that that was the idea, that this Select Committee would examine the situation and perhaps make recommendations for some other type of mechanism to be established—I am not sure—because as the motion is framed, the sheer wording of it, the Committee could also be a continuing Select Committee making reports of the widest possible nature, presumably to the Dáil and also to the general public.
The motion also clearly envisages this Select Committee as being concerned with the State bodies in all their aspects. First of all, it would require the Select Committee to examine the fundamental basis of their existence, their capitalisation and long term plans and also it would be concerned with their day-to-day operations. That is quite clear from the wording where among other things the motion indicates that the Select Committee would be concerned with the service which these State bodies give to the public. Indeed, that was confirmed in the remarks of Deputy Dockrell apropos CIE. As the motion stands, this Select Committee would be concerned with every single aspect of the State bodies, their organisation, their set up, their capitalisation, their future plans and their day-to-day operations.
I want to suggest seriously to the House that that would be an impossible task for any Committee of this House to undertake. Apart altogether from the impossibility of performing it, it would be totally undesirable that any Committee of this House should be given these far-reaching powers because they would almost certainly trespass to a very considerable extent on ministerial responsibility. If we take firstly heading (a) "to examine the capital expenditure of State Boards and Companies, and to consider the future capital programme and plans of such Boards and Companies" that is clearly an executive responsibility—the future capitalisation of the State Companies and their future plans. In undertaking that, the Select Committee would almost certainly find itself trespassing to a great extent in a province which is solely the responsibility of the appropriate Minister and the Government. I also find myself concerned very much about heading (b) which suggests that the Select Committee would consider "whether any changes are needed in the organisation of such bodies." Again, this is a matter which goes to the fundamental basis of the existence of these organisations. Their basic structure, and perhaps even the necessity for them, would apparently come within the ambit of this Committee. Again this is something which is strictly a Government and ministerial responsibility.
I do not know that there is any great evidence that would indicate that a Select Committee should have the power set out under heading (c) —"to consider whether there is proper and adequate liaison between such bodies and Government Departments, and private interests affected by their activity, and between the bodies themselves in matters of common interest." Surely in regard to the liaison between the bodies themselves this is clearly a matter for the Ministers responsible for the particular bodies to see to it that the Boards act in unison and in conformity with the broad principles of Government policy. I suggest we have no evidence to suggest that they do not do so, nor indeed, have we any significant volume of evidence to suggest that they do not have proper regard to the private interests affected by their activities.
In this House we very quickly hear of any case in which there is a suggestion that they do not do so. Apart from these particular comments on heading (c) I would like to mention that we have established a group which is looking into and examining the whole structure of our public services with a view to making recommendations and it is certain that that group will examine the relationship which exists between the State Companies and the appropriate Government Departments with which they are concerned. I am quite certain it will give consideration also to the relationship of State bodies with one another so that it would be unnecessary duplication if we were to give this similar type of function to this Select Committee, if we decided to establish it. Under heading (d) it is suggested that the Select Committee should examine "whether the private citizen or other body obtains reasonable service from such semi-State bodies and in case of dissatisfaction has a reasonable means of securing redress from any such body." Again I think that the Select Committee would be venturing into dangerous territory there. I cannot see how it could go into this aspect of the affairs of State bodies without positively getting involved in their day-to-day operations. I believe that in the membership of this House, we have perhaps the best sounding board in this country and I feel sure that in so far as members of the public have complaints about the conduct, lack of service, or anything of that nature of the State bodies, we very quickly hear about them and they are very readily and very fully ventilated here.
These are some comments I should like to make on the motion as it is framed and the particular functions it is proposed to allocate to this Select Committee. However, for a moment I should like to go just a bit beyond the technicalities of the motion and have a look at this matter of the supervision of State bodies in the round, as it were. The first thing I want to say is that we must always keep in mind the purpose for which these State bodies were established. Mark you, there is a great variety in the form and structure and purpose of the State bodies as a whole, of which there are roughly 44 altogether. You could describe 30 of them as trading and 14 as perhaps non-trading. They vary a great deal in their organisation, structure, methods and purposes. The majority were established either to do a commercial job which nobody was doing or capable of doing or else they were established as a means of bringing people with special skills and knowledge into the public administration. In that connection I am thinking of bodies like An Chomhairle Ealaíon where we appoint to a particular body people who have very special qualifications which would not be available to the public service otherwise.
The main purpose, however, in establishing most of these bodies was to promote economic development. In approaching this matter we should keep that purpose very much in the front of our minds. That task of promoting economic development and expansion is as urgent in practically every sphere of activity today as it was when many of these bodies were founded. Indeed, it could be argued that, with the developments of recent times, the new sort of situation we are facing in free trade conditions and the necessity to gear our economy to meet all sorts of challenges, it is possibly true that the position is more urgent today than it was at any time before.
For my part, I am far more interested in production, employment, development and expansion than any other factor involved in this situation. I put that as a top priority. I would say the first task of these various State bodies is to ensure that. I would like to see them, so far as their particular purpose and structure allows, being in a real sense of the word development corporations. I would certainly like to see them forging ahead rather than standing still. I prefer to see State bodies being a nuisance to their responsible Ministers in continually putting forward plans or ideas for progress and development, rather than the other way about with the responsible Minister having to prod the bodies for which he is responsible into activity of one sort or another.
We have got to allow these bodies to take calculated risks. Given first class management, capable of weighing the pros and cons of any particular project or idea, I would like to see them so minded that they are prepared to take calculated commercial risks. I would be very loath to be responsible for anything that would help, on the one hand, to kill their initiative or, on the other, to reduce their competitiveness. We could get into the situation where their managements and top executives would be much more concerned with keeping the files right and being in a position to go before some Select Committee and prove that they did not make any mistakes than they would be in getting on with the job and the fundamental purpose for which they were established. That is a very real danger which I think exists in the establishment of such a Committee as is envisaged here. I feel Deputies on both sides are just as much aware of that as I am.
We must be very objective about this matter. I know, as a Deputy myself and talking to my colleagues, that very often these State bodies and semi-State organisations do generate feelings of frustration amongst us. We must not let our personal feelings in regard to any particular one of them weigh unduly with us, if at all. I will be the first to admit candidly to the House that some of these bodies do succeed in annoying us very much and that there are—let us face it—people involved in them who seem to be much more concerned with projecting their own personal images and their own public images than with anything else. There are people in them who do not seem to understand that these are public institutions, that the people employed by them are in the public service and that these bodies, no matter how powerful they may be, are still subordinate to this Parliament and must always be so subordinate. There are people in the State companies who do not seem to appreciate that—I hesitate to use the phrase "the most humble Deputy in the House" because I do not think there are any humble Deputies in the House; I will use the phrase "even the newest Deputy in the House", represents the people and, as such, is entitled to the greatest respect and consideration from any of these bodies.
I am prepared to admit all that. It exists and, in common with all the Deputies, I deplore it. But, as I think Deputy Sweetman adverted to in his opening remarks, these people, such as they are, are far outweighed by the great corps of dedicated and devoted people who give their services to these organisations. We have been very fortunate that that is so. I would hope we would be objective about this and not let the odd irritant weigh too much with us. We would hope that in due course those who have not a proper appreciation of what the role of a State-sponsored body should be would learn from those who have—that great body of dedicated people who have done so much to develop these bodies to the point where today they are able to make such a magnificent contribution to our total national effort.
The question we must ask ourselves is: is the State-sponsored body doing a good job? Is it, by and large, getting on with the job the Oireachtas gave it to do? If it is doing that, I would be inclined to overlook a great deal. All Deputies admit that the technical auditing of these State-sponsored bodies leaves nothing to be desired. As the proposer pointed out, they are scrupulously audited from the point of view of financial control and the elimination of fraud. But, once you get outside that sphere of auditing, it is very difficult indeed not to trespass into the realm of policy. Those of us who have served on the Committee of Public Accounts would recognise and admit that.
Has the Minister ever heard of an efficiency audit?
I have. I have heard of most things by now.
Sometimes they go in one ear and out the other.
I want to make this point with regard to that sort of division of functions. If we were to give a Select Committee the sort of global powers envisaged in this motion a particular organisation would be accountable twice, on the one hand, to the Minister and, on the other, to the Select Committee, both, perhaps, applying different standards and both asking the body to be accountable for different purposes. That would place a State-sponsored body in an impossible position.
In any particular State company the Minister in pursuance of general Government economic or financial policy, might be urging the State body to restrict services, whereas the Select Committee, under its terms, might be suggesting that the State body was not giving reasonable services to the general public, and might criticise it on that account. This would make for very great difficulty for the management and boards of these companies.
By and large the control, management and operation of these companies must be an executive function and must be left with the Minister or Government of the day. I do not think this House or any Committee of it such as is envisaged here could ever be expected to take over that function. This is a deliberative, legislative Assembly and we have delegated to the Executive, the Government, these executive functions. This applies, I think, as much in regard to State-sponsored bodies as it does to any other form of our activities and Ministers and the Government have a very great deal of control over all these organisations. Certainly any particular Minister has far more control, and access to far more information about the affairs of the State companies for which he is responsible than any ordinary shareholder in an ordinary outside commercial organisation has. He appoints the board. He decides what capital they will get. He subjects their activities to review from time to time in great detail. He gets reports from them and generally he exercises very real and very close control over their activities.
I also want to suggest that the ordinary Deputy has a great deal of access to information about these bodies and their activities. First, he has the process of the Dáil question which as I have seen it in my time in the House, is very effective. More often than not the affairs of the particular company in which a Deputy is interested may be discussed on the Estimate for the appropriate Department. Most Ministers in their Estimates give fairly long and detailed expositions of the affairs of the bodies for which they are responsible. Deputies have the annual reports of these bodies and I am not sure that it is not open to any Deputy, if he wishes to do so at any time, to put down a motion seeking to have the affairs of any particular State-sponsored organisation discussed in the House.
I think this motion is particularly off the rails in regard to its capital aspects. In recent years, as Deputies know, we introduced a system whereby the total programme of public capital expenditure is brought before the House for discussion. We shall be bringing before the House very shortly now, the capital programme for the coming year. That programme will set out clearly the full capital expenditure proposed by every public body and organisation; Government Departments and all State bodies. There will be set out the full details, with appropriate comments. It will be available to all Deputies for discussion both as to the total amount and its adequacy, and as to its constituent parts. On the capital side, the House gets very adequate information about all these bodies. I should be very favourably disposed, however, to listen to any Deputy who has any suggestions as to what further information about our capital programme might be made available to the House.
I want to add also that if we were to accept this motion, we would find that a Minister would be in a tighter strait-jacket in regard to capital expenditure than he is in regard to current expenditure. We would find that the capital expenditure programmes of these State-bodies would be subjected to scrutiny and examination by a Committee with power to send for persons and documents. The Minister is not subject to any such group in regard to current expenditure which I suggest is, perhaps, in the ultimate, of much greater importance than the capital. I should be very intimidated by the extent of the task this Select Committee would take upon itself. I spoke already of the great variety of these State bodies. Let me briefly mention two of them that come to mind. I have already mentioned An Chomhairle Ealaoín. This Committee would perhaps find itself called on to criticise an expertly qualified council such as An Chomhairle Ealaoín in a very abstruse area dealing with works of art, music and so on. Going to the other end of the scale, the Select Committee would presumably investigate such things as the future capital programme of Aer Lingus and whether it should embark on a programme of buying particular aircraft or not. It is very difficult to see how any one body could be equipped to deal with such a wide range of subjects. Furthermore, I cannot see how the Select Committee could possibly go into the affairs of a body like Aer Lingus, its future planning and purchase of aircraft, without disclosing information which would be advantageous to its competitors. I see many other difficulties also in this matter which I have not time to deal with now.
I want to conclude my general remarks by saying that it is a very difficult and complex problem. I should find it very difficult to suggest precisely how it should be tackled but I am asking the House to reject this particular solution. In doing so, I do not want to dismiss the possibility that we may be able to devise some additional form of Parliamentary review of the activities of these bodies. I do not suggest that at all. I am asking the House to reject this particular mechanism because I do not think it is suitable. First, I do not think a Select Committee could do the job which the motion assigns to it. Secondly, if it were to do the job as set out in the motion, it would almost certainly interfere with Government responsibility and I believe there would also be a very real danger that a Committee with the sweeping powers set out in this motion would undoubtedly run the risk of interfering with the freedom of action and competitiveness of the State bodies they would be investigating. For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the motion.
I should like to add a few words to what the Minister has said. In a way I am sorry to have to oppose this motion because I am far from satisfied with the present situation but I agree with the Minister that this Select Committee is an unduly cumbersome body, with terms of reference which are far too wide. I feel there is a lot in the Minister's statement that the boards of these State companies should constantly be reminded that they are acting under this House, and not over it. It is difficult to find some mechanism whereby this point can properly be put over.
We must devise some method whereby current questions relating to general policy can be discussed with the board and management of these various companies for public information. I can see that a Select Committee could get itself completely gummed up by discussing with the board of CIE whether a certain railway station should be kept open or whether certain trains should be speeded up or abandoned, and so on. We should look at this in the way an ordinary commercial company acts.
An ordinary limited company has its annual general meeting which is attended by its shareholders, if they wish to come, and, on the report of the directors for the year, shareholders have a fairly wide scope of general comment. They may, and in many cases do, ask questions which appear to them to be relevant. It is always possible for the chairman of the board or for any member of the board to claim that an answer to a specific question, if given in public, would be detrimental to the best interests of the company by reason of the fact that it might give information to a competitor. I should be the last to deny that right to a director because I think that can be a dangerous practice. At the same time, it is very valuable that these boards of directors should be made more conscious of the fact that they have shareholders. The best way in which this can be done is by having an annual general meeting which is attended by some people, as well as a representative of the Minister for Finance, acting in the capacity of shareholders. I believe the Minister must have the final say on matters of appointment, and so on, and also on matters of capital formation and major matters of policy of that sort which impinge on Government policy generally but I do not think it would be improper to suggest that the Minister might consider setting up some committee of this House which might join him or his representative at the shareholders' annual general meeting of a State company.
There are various matters which I think could properly be raised and which it is very cumbersome to raise in any other way. Take, for example, criticism of the form of report issued by these companies. In many cases, I think these reports are far too long and far too complicated. They seem designed more to confuse than to educate the people to whom they are issued. In any case, too, I think the form of the report is far too grandiose. They include beautifully coloured binders, coloured photographs, and so on. This is all very well for a commercial company which is trying to build up its image in the eyes of its shareholders and potential shareholders but a State company does not need to do that. I do not know any other way in which this sort of question could be raised. Even without the Members of this House, as a Committee, having any vote, I think they could ask, as members of the public, a number of very relevant questions to which answers should clearly and freely be given by the board of directors of the company concerned. I do not think it would be too hard a job. After all, the reports are given in great detail.
It would be a small matter for the members of the Committee to peruse these reports and then to meet the members of the board at the annual general meeting and discuss a number of relevant questions at that time. At most, it would be a matter of only a couple of hours. It would be good for the morale of the public to know that there was someone who could speak directly to a member of the board of CIE, Bord na Móna, Aer Lingus or any other State-sponsored body. Some members of the public seem to feel that these individuals are completely ungetatable, that they are living in a sort of ivory tower and that nobody can ever even speak to them. Some people wonder whether they really exist. There are matters which could be discussed at such a meeting, matters such as the general policy on personnel management. This would be a relevant matter, particularly if the company has had a bad record of industrial disputes. I cannot produce a cut and dried solution to this problem but I believe there is a problem which, even when this motion is rejected, will still be with us.
I was very interested in Deputy Sweetman's remarks about the type of audit carried out by commercial concerns as compared with that laid out by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I thoroughly agree with him that we should try to work out some form of audit and report which would include the best points of both types. I would hope that the auditors would give some advice to the directors as to their findings. I think the advice of an outside commercial firm of auditors could be very helpful. It need not necessarily be binding.
Are they not servants of the shareholders rather than of the directors?
Certainly. That is why it is vital that you should have a firm of auditors who could advise the directors that a certain course of action is unwise or that a certain result is due, in their opinion, to the taking of a certain decision. Outside criticism from a highly technical body is absolutely essential from the point of view of the shareholders who are members of the public. It may also be necessary to have the control of the Comptroller and Auditor General, though, to be perfectly frank, I am not nearly so worried about that. I think we could get ourselves unduly gummed up on technicalities.
I am sorry this motion has been put down in its present form. I am far from satisfied with the control of State companies. There is no evidence whatever that parliamentary control is being exercised at all. It would be well worth the Minister's while to devise some way by which a link could be forged between the Houses of the Oireachtas and the companies. It would do us good and it would do the boards of the companies good, and it would give much greater public confidence which, at the moment, is lacking in certain cases.
I am grateful to the Minister for the personal tribute he paid to me, although it was quite unwitting, when he was talking of the excellence of the idea of submitting a Capital Budget to this House. When I entered the Department of Finance in 1954, although Fianna Fáil had been there for 20 years, there was no such thing whatever as a Capital Budget, or even a capital projection.
Well done.
How they ever expected to manage without it, I do not know. I am grateful also to the Minister for the strictures he passed on what I will agree with him are a small number of the personnel of these State-sponsored bodies, who think that they are not merely above themselves but also above the public interest, and I hope he will take steps to ensure that his remarks, suitably underlined, are sent to the Chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann whose grossly offensive remarks about the Members of this House before Christmas were condemned then and should always be condemned when the matter comes for discussion.
He is not the only one although he was the only one who came out at that time in the terms and in the extravagant, offensive phrase he used. I saw on one occasion a letter from the principal executive of one State-sponsored company to a member of the Oireachtas in which he criticised, fairly offensively, the remarks that that member of the Oireachtas had made about the work of the State-sponsored body and saying that it was all wrong. The member of the Oireachtas concerned wrote back to him. I saw the letter—a nice quiet letter—turning the other cheek much more than I would have done— saying: "I spoke from the only information that you make available and if my information is wrong, then you make available to me the true information and I will certainly correct what I have said." The answer he got from the chief executive officer was: "If you did not know what you were talking about, why did you say anything at all?" That type of mentality in a State-sponsored body ruins the public image.
It is nonsense, too, for the Minister— and here I want to take the Minister and his predecessor seriously to task —to suggest that these organisations, even the manufacturing ones, are run entirely on commercial lines.
Hear, hear.
The great thing about this House—Deputy Dillon has reminded me of it—is that by question, by motion, one can bring a Minister here to account for his actions in this House and I am glad that we brought the Minister here today to do so. It was more than I was able to do on Telefís Éireann last week when we could not have a single representative of a State-sponsored body to attend before the television camera to defend the principle on which State-sponsored bodies were run when it was being criticised by me. I am glad that Deputy Dillon reminded me by his interjection. I am glad to say that this motion, at any rate, has brought the Minister here to this House. They were not prepared to face the music and face their criticism.
I wonder is the Deputy being fair there?
Perfectly.
Would you expect him to enter into a confrontation with a Deputy?
I will not draw the nice distinction the Minister draws as to whether they were prepared to enter into a confrontation with a Deputy. They are certainly prepared to speak in public, when not confronted, in the most offensive way of Deputies, as the Chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann did. He would have been better advised to defend the principle rather than be offensive in that way, or as the other chief executive, to whose correspondence I have referred, was when he was asked.
There is no use saying that these are entirely commercial operations, when I mention, for example, the extraordinary way in which the Minister for Finance for the time being operated in relation to Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta. The sum of £3,829,000 was advanced by the Minister for Finance to Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta before 30th June, 1964—I have examined the balance sheet of that date—£5,649,000 was advanced before 30th June, 1965 and on 30th June, 1966, the Minister for Finance of the day—the Fianna Fáil predecessor of the present Minister— after millions and millions had been outstanding for two years calmly announced that he had not yet fixed the rate of interest which was to be charged for that money. Can anybody, outside a madhouse, see any board of directors going along to their shareholders and saying: "We have borrowed in the first year £3,800,000; in the second year, £5,600,000; and now, a year after all that, we have not even arranged the rate of interest, much less the terms of repayment"? How can anyone suggest, when that is done, that it is a commercial operation and that the concern is to be treated as a commercial transaction?
The plain fact of the matter is that in relation to this motion the Minister has adopted the line that has been adopted by Fianna Fáil down through the years, that they wish nobody to have a look inside the curtain. In consequence, there has been the grossest suspicion caused, in cases, let me add where no suspicion was deserved—and in other cases where, indeed, suspicion was proved, as in the case of one company about which the former Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance had to set up an inquiry, only as a result of a great deal of battling.
Deputy Booth, when referring to the position of the auditors, omitted to draw attention to one vital thing. The auditor of a commercial company is, as Deputy Dillon reminded him, the servant of the shareholders and is appointed by the shareholders, but in this particular case it is the nominees of the Minister, not the public, who are appointing the auditors and it is the same person, in effect, who is appointing the auditor as is appointing the directors.
Apart from that, there is clear evidence that either I have been told untruths in relation to the replies that I got to many of the questions that I put down last week or that Ministers have completely abdicated from their duties. In many of the cases where I asked questions last week the Minister replied to me that he had no information about the terms of remuneration of the five principal executive officers other than the first. Surely, on the case made by the Minister for Finance today, a Minister has the obligation to get information in relation to the relativity of employment and remuneration and terms of employment between one aspect of the public service and another?
The Minister made the case that these State-sponsored bodies were a segment of the public service. Yet we have a situation in which Ministers of State have come in here, put down replies to questions and said they have no function in regard to this aspect. Others of them have said they did not want to give it. At least that is honest, but to suggest that they have no information means that they have not taken the trouble, perhaps, to look at the advertisements in the papers; they have not taken the trouble, perhaps, to inquire from the State-sponsored bodies. Or else they had the information and preferred to tell an untruth of that sort. I have not seen the files concerned, and I am not in a position to know whether it was that the Ministers involved had not done their job, or whether they were not being properly frank in this matter.
The Minister for Finance often made a point that he could see this Committee getting into difficulties because the Committee might want a State-sponsored body to take an expansionist role while the Government of the day might consider a restrictionist role the proper one in the national interest. Let me say at once that, in my view, the Government of the day must be entitled to judge the overall effect on the national interest as opposed to the particular interest, and impose the national interest on the body concerned. It is exactly because of the case made by the Minister that I think this Committee is necessary in the public interest. We very often see here that when Ministers are criticised or questioned on the policy of the State-sponsored body, they indicate that they have said it should follow a restrictionist policy, and they allow the blame to fall on the State-sponsored body, whereas it should fall on the Minister concerned. At least this Committee would make it clear where the blame for that rested, while the effect of having the responsibility brought home to the person concerned would be a very salutary lesson not merely for the past but as to how that person should operate in the future.
I do not agree at all with the Minister for Finance that the effect of this motion would be to fetter or impede the day-to-day working of State-sponsored bodies. Rather we believe that the effect of the existence of a committee such as this would be that State enterprises would be able, unimpeded by public hostility and by avoidable resentment from the private sector, to go very much more efficiently about their work. I do not think the terms of reference of many State-sponsored bodies have been at all proper or clearly enough defined. I do not think their purpose has been defined as it should be. The effect of that must inevitably be to cause confusion between the Government, between boards, between managements, on the one hand, and this House, on the other. A clearer definition of their purpose such as would be brought out by this Committee would be something that would be well worth while.
Nobody will disagree, I think, with the fact in regard to certain of these State-sponsored bodies, there has been an appalling record on industrial relations, and a little breath of fresh air such as this Committee would bring, would be of great assistance in that connection. The supervision of State-sponsored bodies has been—and I think it is fair to say this—systematically eroded and impeded by the Fianna Fáil Governments over the past few years, in particular.
The Minister could have come in here and put down an amendment specifying that he wanted the Committee not exactly under clause A but under clause A (1), then there might have been some case for it, but he did not; he threw that out. This type of Committee operates in every parliamentary country that I can ascertain, and I offered the Minister last week the opportunity of checking the only authority that there is on that. He did not realise it, but he was being walked into it when I said I wanted to find out if he had it, because if he had not got it, I was going to give him the book. He will find in that book that in every single country from Britain to America, to the countries of the Common Market, there is something on the lines of a court audit or something on the lines of a court reporting to congress. It is not much good having it if the Minister did not read it.
I read it.
If the Minister read it, he knows what I am saying is true, that in Britain, in America, in France, in Italy, in Germany, even behind the Iron Curtain, in Japan, in India, in all those countries, there is something akin to this Committee I am suggesting. But, of course, good tactician that he is, the Minister did not produce the book until after he knew that under Standing Orders, he would not be allowed to speak again because he was afraid that otherwise he might be crossexamined on certain pages of it.
We are entitled to ensure that these concerns that are dealing with public money spend it with the greatest efficiency and economy of operation. We are entitled to ensure that the enterprise carries through the clearly defined objectives with which it has been entrusted. I referred last week to the reprehensible practice of certain State companies—no doubt, aided and abetted by Fianna Fáil Governments —having got authority from this House to be set up, then proceeding to set up a subsidiary company without any authority from this House. We accept without question, as I have said, that these companies or bodies must not be impeded in their commercial activities, that they must be allowed reasonable commercial freedom, that they must, at the same time, conform to the high standards of integrity the public service requires, for instance, in relation to the acceptance of substantial contracts by tender.
That is old hat now in Government circles.
It is very old hat, or never became a hat at all in certain of these State-sponsored bodies, and that is one of the reasons why I suspect very strongly that this motion is being resisted, that the Minister has got an SOS from all these monopolistic bodies, to prevent the wind of examination going into what they have been doing.
Would contracts and tenders not come within the scope of normal auditing?
Not necessarily at all. Only if, as the Minister knows very well, there was a question of contracting and tendering with some connection of the directors concerned. One of the difficulties in relation to State-sponsored bodies is the interlocking there is by means of the nomination by Ministers of directors and because of the fact that the executives choose to interlock without having the same standards imposed on them as are imposed on civil servants. While saying that, I also want to say that I still think the majority of them are dedicated public servants. However, there are some far from it and it is to those I address my remarks.
This Committee would ensure that all State enterprises would provide fully informative reports. I agree with Deputy Booth that they ought to stop the practice of presenting illustrated, coloured photographs of themselves which do not add to the public image of the body concerned, whatever it may add to the public image of the people themselves. The use of the standard form of accounts would be far better and these would show the return earned on the State's capital investment in the enterprise. I do not mind a decision being made in the public interest that a certain job has to be done, that it cannot be done commercially and that therefore it requires a certain subsidy, but I resent very much that a hidden subsidy should be provided by virtue of which the uninformed consumer is being mulcted by a monopoly the Government have not the courage to defend in the Dáil and Seanad. A Committee such as that suggested in the motion would stop that practice.
The statement cannot be too often repeated that you can have public enterprises with clearly defined purposes working side by side with private, free, competitive enterprise. But you can only have that if the purpose of the public enterprise is clearly established and it is understood by everybody that it is open to the ever-present examination and standards of the public service. Otherwise the private sector of the economy is always going to resent it and resent it very properly. There is already one clear cause of resentment as to why it is that a Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance has refused or neglected to determine the rate of interest at which £6 million of public money is being advanced to a State enterprise. That Minister, by failing to fix the rate and determine the conditions of that advance of public money, has been completely failing in his duty. For that, and for no other reason, I press this motion to a division.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá: 55; Níl: 70.
Tá
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Seán.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Hogan, Patrick
- (South Tipperary).
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lindsay, Patrick J.
- Lyons, Michael D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Mullen, Michael.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, John,
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Don.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fahey, John.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin South-Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Foley, Desmond.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, James J.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Patrick.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moore, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Crotty and T. Dunne; Níl, Deputies Carty and Geoghegan.
Question declared lost.