Vol. 398 No. 3
14 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if he or his Department, have issued any instructions to CIE regarding the manner in which they should present their accounts especially the manner in which the Exchequer subsidy should be accounted for; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Prior to 1984 the Exchequer subvention represented a contribution towards losses incurred by CIE and was shown in the board's accounts as below the line receipts. In 1984 it was decided to treat the subvention as a payment from the Exchequer to CIE in respect of essential public transport services of a social nature, which could be included above the line in the board's accounts. I recently decided that above-the-line accounting of this kind tends to give a misleading picture of CIE's financial performance and, in the interests of improved transparency, I have requested CIE to ensure that their accounts reflect this.
Surely the Minister would have to agree that this is precisely what the workforce and CIE management do not want. Above-the-line accounting was fought for by the unions down through the years and they are happy with it. The morale of the workforce will be severely undermined by the presenation of their companies as loss-making companies. Would the Minister agree, in the interests of morale of the workforce and the development of the company, that he should not revert to the old transparency argument of below-the-line accountancy but rather that he retain as has been requested by the trade union movement, the above-the-line formula which, I am told, is standard accountancy practice.
I will certainly give some thought to the Deputy's points. That is probably as far as I can go — if that relects the view of the workforce as he portrays them. I should also like to say that the taxpayer has a say in this matter also. When one reads in the newspapers that there has been a profit from CIE that can give a wrong impression — not deliberately I hasten to add — and a misleading picture when in fact, because there is a social element the companies are not able to meet all their outgoings. I am anxious that the public would not be misled either. That is an important matter to which the Deputy should give some consideration.
Is the Minister aware that a former Secretary of the Ministry of Finance in Northern Ireland described the arrangements by which her Majesty's Government paid Northern Ireland administration moneys as a system of fudges, wangles and dodges? Would he agree that a similar term might be applied to the accounts of CIE, not only in terms of what they receive from the State through the money they receive for school buses etc.? Would he agree that it would be worth while ensuring that the amount they receive is immediately obvious to anyone reading their accounts and that what should be removed from their accounts is the cost of maintaining and extending the permanent way. In other words CIE have to meet a cost which road transport carriers do not have to meet. The accounts, therefore, of CIE both in what they receive and what they do not receive are distorted.
I would agree with that description of the CIE accounts. A maintenance charge in regard to the permanent way is a legitimate one in any set of accounts. Maintenance is sufficiently legitimate to have it included.
Is it not the Minister's policy to get CIE to prepare this set of accounts so that CIE, a public company, would be seen in the worst possible light. The Minister, in effect, is softening up the public and undermining the morale of the 12,800 workers in the CIE group of companies, notwithstanding the fact that today we have elicited that the rate of subvention to CIE is relatively small by European standards——
Ceisteanna le do thoil.
——with this headline shock result.
Let us proceed by way of questions.
That is not what I am doing. I think all Deputies and all parties in the House would want us to reflect the situation as it is. Mature people can make up their own minds. If a company is showing a loss, then we should show a loss; if it is showing a profit, we can show a profit. We can explain why there are profits and losses. What has been suggested to me is that in order to make people feel better we put up with and encourage headlines which say: "Another record profit" when in fact that is not the case.
May I ask the Minister——
The Minister prefers a poor image of the company.
I am not prepared to doctor it, which is what the Deputy is suggesting.
The Minister does not have to doctor it, just leave the figures——
Let us have an orderly Question Time; it has been very orderly up to now, let us leave it so.
Would the Minister bear in mind the point I made earlier in relation to taking into account all the finances received by CIE so that they are immediately transparent? Would he also look again at the question of including the cost of the permanent way? For example, Dublin Bus Company might just as well be asked to include some cost for the maintenance and development of the roads, yet the rail company is asked to do so and the road company is not asked to do so. That is a distortion in the accounts. I understand it is not the case in some European rail companies. Would the Minister agree to look at that case again so that a fair accurate account of the affairs of CIE can be presented and can be easily witnessed by a cursory glance at the issued accounts?
I will give careful thought to the Deputy's suggestions and I thank him for them. I want to join with Deputy Byrne in saying that I want the morale in CIE to continue to improve. The workforce there do a very good job. I hope that over time that I could chart out for them, working with me an even more exciting future.
Why change the accountancy practice at this stage?
The Deputy would change nothing if he had his way.
