I believe the Government have the confidence of Dil ireann. I have been listening to three Deputies from the Opposition who have competed with each other for some hours in expressing their moral indignation. They have been wringing their hands and craw-thumping about business ethics and the judgment of this Government. Might I remind the public that these lectures are being delivered by, among others, former Ministers who were virtually run out of office for their gross neglect of our Irish economy. These were the Deputies who presided over a national debt which doubled during their term of office; these were the Deputies who pushed the economy to the brink of collapse; these same Deputies were those who, as Ministers, pushed the Exchequer borrowing requirement to 13 per cent of GNP; these were the Deputies who, as Ministers, pushed the national debt to 130 per cent of gross national product. This was the Finance Minister, Deputy Bruton, who presided over the highest personal tax regime ever - a standard rate of 35 per cent, the highest in any OECD country. This was the Finance Minister who subjected one out of every three taxpayers to paying the highest rate of taxation. Was it any wonder then, that this Government which left office in early 1987, was rejected by the Irish public at that election? Was this not the same former Tnaiste, the same former Minister for Finance, the same Fine Gael Party and the same Labour Party that gave us, in their time in Government, the Irish Shipping scandal, the Insurance Corporation of Ireland scandal the PMPA scandal, [501] the Dublin Gas scandal, and indeed the early days of the Aer Lingus Holidays scandal? Did the Taoiseach of the day, did his Ministers, ask anyone connected with these scandals to step aside or to resign? Were the chairmen of any of these companies responsible for the scandals asked to resign by the Government of the day? Where were the lectures by these Deputies, then Ministers, about the accountability of Ministers when hundreds of millions of pounds were being spent by them on B & I, Irish Shipping, Dublin Gas and the Insurance Corporation of Ireland?

I was making the point that I can certainly take lectures and, indeed, advice - as all of us can - about the responsibility of Ministers in regard to the supervision of companies, but I find it hard to take some of the lectures today from the same Deputies [502] who, when in Government, oversaw perhaps the greatest list of business fiascos in the history of our State.
In the case of Irish Shipping the then Minister for Communications, Deputy J. Mitchell, told the Dil that speculative charter agreements were entered into without his knowledge or without his consent as Minister of the day. He also made it clear that the Minister for Finance was not aware of these speculative charters. There was no suggestion at that time from any Deputies on that side of the House that they should have known or ought to have known. In June 1986 the Irish Spruce was sold off for 3 million a fraction of its original cost. Estimated liabilities at the time amounted to 117 million, of which about 40 million was guaranteed by the State and had to be met by the Irish taxpayer. Had that Government not panicked at that time I believe the company could perhaps - as I am now attempting to do with the B & I - have been repackaged and placed in new ownership.
The Insurance Corporation of Ireland, whose liabilities were in the region of 200 million, were bailed out by an arrangement involving the Central Bank. Where was the supervisory role of the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism of the day, Deputy John Bruton? What of the emphatic reassurances of Minister of State, Deputy Eddie Collins, that there was no crisis in the industry, barely one month before the collapse? Did the Government of the day feel that the business crisis was the Government's fault? Did the Taoiseach of the day or the Ministers ask those responsible to step aside or to resign? They did not.
The Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, explained on RTE with regard to the PMPA debacle that had he known earlier and been able to act sooner he may have saved the taxpayer some 10 million. Where were the lectures about ministerial responsibility for such companies?
With regard to Dublin Gas, Deputies Bruton and Spring in Government did a deal with Dublin Gas which allegedly [503] insured that the private sector would carry its share of risk. This resulted in the taxpayer being liable for all the debts of Dublin Gas, amounting to 129 million when Dublin Gas went bankrupt and were taken over by Bord Gis ireann. Deputy Gay Mitchell criticised the company for its lack of accountability, however where was the criticism by Deputies then, of ministerial responsibility during that crisis?
These few example show the hypocrisy of the protestations today in the speeches we have heard in relation to the responsibility of Ministers with regard to the supervision of business matters. The Deputies well know that it is impossible in Government to fully supervise every detail of every company. It has been demonstrated that our predecessors were unable to do that. It is not the Government's job to supervise these details. It is the Government's responsibility to provide legislation to promote the development of business within an appropriate framework. It is also the responsibility of Government, when wrongdoing or bad judgment come to their attention to take firm and decisive action. Unlike our predecessors in office this Government have done that.
This debate is timely. We have to clear the air about events of recent weeks. It is important to state clearly that from our perspective these were business scandals, not Government or political scandals. Nevertheless, they were totally unacceptable to the Government. There is not any Government member in any way involved in such scandals. All the alleged matters took place in the semi-State sector or by the action of individual business people. It is important to understand the difference. The only way the Government of the day can be judged is how they respond to such matters. The Government took swift, decisive corrective action wherever and whenever problems were identified. We took swift action in relation to Aer Lingus Holidays. Within hours of being notified I directed the company to bring the matter to the immediate attention of the [504] Fraud Squad whose findings are now with lowing a review over several weeks, I also instructed Aer Lingus to shut down the subsidiary company involved, to overhaul their procedures and take disciplinary action.
The Telecom affair first came to my attention in the summer of 1991.
I immediately asked Telecom for information on their Ballsbridge site. Following a review over several weeks, I remained unsatisfied with the information made available to me. I immediately ordered a formal inquiry under the Secretary of the Department of Communications to investigate all matters connected with Telecom's Ballsbridge site and other properties. I also immediately froze further development of the Ballsbridge site. I also announced that there would be full disclosure of the inquiry's report. After establishing the inquiry I agreed, with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that if the inquiry did not receive full co-operation from all the parties involved, we would immediately request the Minister to appoint an Inspector under the Companies Act.
When this co-operation was not forthcoming from one of the parties, on 1 October, 1991, the inquiry requested that an inspector be appointed. The inquiry subsequently published their findings in full that day. An inspector was also appointed that day.
This was another example of firm action by the Government. It shows what can be done. The Government took swift, decisive and correct action in regard to the Telecom affair.

I instituted a thorough, professional inquiry and I would like to pay tribute to the public servants who worked untiringly on this inquiry. The inquiry established 13 key facts and [505] made five key recommendations which I intend to follow up.
With regard to Celtic Helicopters, when the leader of the Opposition, Deputy John Bruton and his Transport spokesman, Deputy Yates, approached me with certain allegations that confidential Aer Lingus information had been provided to Celtic Helicopters on Wednesday evening 25 September, I took immediate action to learn the facts. I replied to Deputy Bruton on Friday 27 September. When Deputy Bruton sought further information on Friday 27 September, I again sought this information from Aer Lingus and forwarded same to Deputy Bruton on Saturday 28 September. Additional information was provided by Aer Lingus to Deputy Bruton this week.
In referring to Government action in relation to this matter, I wish to highlight that, as in the Telecom affair, I, and the Government, acted in an open manner, fully divulged all the information asked for, did not hide behind any State company and acted honourably at all times.
Ministers cannot be held responsible for particular transactions of semi-State companies which do not require their approval or consent. It is a duty of directors to run these companies on behalf of their shareholders and staff. Directors of companies are responsible for ensuring the proper day to day management of the companies.
It is the obligation of the board of directors to vigorously investigate issues which give rise to concern. They should not wait around for the Government, media or indeed the inspectors to take action for them. Boards of semi-State companies have authority. I advise them again, as I have done many times in the past, to use that authority to develop their companies.
The financial crisis of the Deputy Garret FitzGerald and Deputy Dick Spring coalition Government was tackled head-on by the Fianna Fil Government of 1987-89 and by the present Government. The magnitude of the difficulties facing the Government were extreme. We were heading for bankruptcy. We [506] had reached the edge of the financial cliff and we were toppling over. We had to take action. We reduced public borrowing; improved the competitiveness of Irish business; maintained a stable IR within the EMS; created 40,000 more jobs than in 1986, and reduced the tax rate to 29 per cent from 35 per cent. We developed the financial services centre, the envy of many capital cities. We negotiated the Programme for National Recovery and Programme for Economic and Social Progress, both historical agreements, with the social partners. We negotiated EC Structural Funds, total investment 9 billion to restructure our economy and we played a leading role in the development of the new Europe.
The Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications accounts for 17 per cent of GNP and 13 per cent of total employment in the State.
The tourism sector has taken off since Fianna Fil assumed office in 1987. Tourism has achieved record targets of 15 per cent growth for the past three years - three times more than the world average. It is now earning in excess of 1 billion in foreign earnings. It now employs 80,000, a 45 per cent increase since 1987. It is still producing 5,000 new jobs every year.
The Government have also presided, at EC level, over a liberalisation of air transport which is opening up the skies of Europe. We have invested heavily in regional airports and are fully committed to their development.
An Post are experiencing difficulties. Despite their financial position I could not support An Post's viability plan because of its effects on rural Ireland and I decided that the plan should be scrapped. However, An Post must, at a minimum, break even and they can do so if both sides are willing to compromise on their current positions and jointly plan the way ahead. I urge both sides to leave aside their differences in the current dispute and sit down and secure the future of the postal services.
[507] My Department and I have achieved much in two years but I am impatient and there is much yet to be done. I should like to tell the House today that my review of the Broadcasting Act is now virtually complete. I have met all the parties concerned, RTE, TV3, the Association of Independent Radio Stations, the CII, the advertising industry, independent film makers and the national newspapers. I have come to the conclusion that the Act requires changes and I will shortly be presenting my proposals.
The new aviation authority announced on 30 July will involve the movement of some 600 civil servants from my Department into a new State body. I will shortly be introducing the necessary legislation. My bus competition Bill which will open up the bus industry to real competition is being finalised.

The sale of the B & I will be pushed through by me in the near future. I am following up my technical and financial studies into the possibility of a light rail system for Dublin. I am also in the course of presenting a major new initiative in the tourism area designed to continue employment growth in that sector.

I have already apologised to the House; it will be circulated as soon as possible. I have to make some last minute changes as I wanted to respond to some of the points made by Deputies this morning. It will be circulated shortly. I will give the Deputy a specially bound edition with a photograph of the Minister on the cover.

This morning Deputy Bruton raised the question of NCB getting consultancies. I had the opportunity since then to check the position with my Department. Of the 28 consultancies given by my Department since 1983 NCB received one which was given to them by the then Minister for Communications, Deputy Jim Mitchell. I wanted to clear that matter up in the House as I am sure it is important. Deputy Bruton asked why I did not include Findlater House and the property on the Merrion Road in the inquiry. I announced publicly that I was including them in the inquiry but the Deputy must have missed that announcement.

As I am sure former Ministers realise, one is tempted to consult the files when one has them at one's disposal particularly when Members are playing the perception game. I do not want to play that game, I have resisted the temptation to do so. However, I am [509] aware of many cases - I stress that I do not think there is anything wrong with this - where State companies have done business with supporters of the Opposition parties who run companies well. They do good business with State companies and there is nothing wrong with that. I am aware of many cases where supporters who previously had been excellent fund-raisers for Opposition parties appear on State boards. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with that so long as there is full declaration. What I am suggesting from my casual perusal of the files is that I would prefer not to be lectured by the other side of the House about these matters, in particular by former Ministers who should know better. They should know - if one wants to play the perception game - that one can put all the simple facts on a piece of paper, that so and so raises money for a party, appears on a State board and does business with a State company, and if one produces it on the right day, at the right time and in the right atmosphere one has a scandal. We could all play that game. I was very tempted in carrying out research for this debate to do so but it is not my style and I would prefer not to get into it.
Mr. Currie Mr. Currie 

Another point I should like to make to my good friends in The Workers' Party is that they too can play the selectivity game and I would not blame them for that. That is one of the ways political activity has developed. They castigated the boards of directors - the fat cats, as they would call them - the business people and much of it was justified. I agree that many of the practices are unacceptable but I know they do not mean to exclude, for example, the very fine worker directors on State boards when they castigate the board of a State company. There is no such thing as different types of directors, [510] there are the worker directors and ordinary directors and if one wants to complain about the board of a State company one has to include all members, including the worker representatives and ministerial appointees. I know The Workers' Party do not exempt anyone from criticism and I take it that when they criticise a board they criticise the whole board without selectivity.

I have given some examples of the major policy initiatives I will be bringing forward in the period ahead. This is a strong, competent and determined Government. They will not take fright at each and every opinion poll and will not buckle under wild allegations. Rather they will continue to aggressively develop the economy, play an active role in the new emerging Europe, and, above all else, continue to develop a country, the kind of country of which Irish people can continue to be proud.
