Shane Ross (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State. The matter I wish to raise is one with which he will have some familiarity because he was a member of the Joint Committee on Transport in a former life. The issue is the refusal of the non-executive directors of CIE to appear before the Joint Committee on Transport. I regard this as an extraordinarily serious issue. These non-executive directors were asked by the committee to appear before it to answer some extremely sensitive but important questions about the running of CIE and the conduct of its executives. Their refusal to do so is a straightforward two fingers not only to the committee but to the Houses. I do not know of any precedent where employees of the State or of semi-State bodies have said they will not appear before a committee in such a case. The company of which they are non-executive directors is under a cloud because of corruption that has been found to exist by a group of independent consultants who were employed to find out the extent of corruption in CIE.

The questions that have to be answered are multiple, not only relating to the corporate governance of CIE during that period but also relating to the knowledge of the non-executive directors about what was going on. The evidence at present about the knowledge of the non-executive directors indicates they did not know what was happening and that they had not seen the Baker Tilly report on the corruption. What is necessary to know and what we are entitled to know as taxpayers and as Members of the Oireachtas is how much they knew and whether they were doing their jobs.

The chairman of CIE appeared before the committee after the publication of the Baker Tilly report on corruption and losses at Iarnród Éireann of at least €2.7 million, with an earlier draft stating €8.6 million. After that report, the chairman was asked about the knowledge of the non-executive directors. He stated they had received the report after it was issued. He then clarified that they had not received the Baker Tilly report. Not only had they not received the Baker Tilly report, the Minister had not received it either. This was a report into corruption at one of the State's most heavily subsidised companies and even the Minister did not know what was going on. He did not know about the report, he had not read it and he did not know the cost of the report, which at €500,000 must be a world record.

What is happening is that political appointees, and all of the people we are looking for are political appointees, who earn €17,000 a year from the State - I am open to correction - are being asked by the State's representatives, that is Deputies and Senators, to come in and explain their stewardship of a company which receives €300 million, and they are saying to go jump in a lake, that they will not do it, that they are not answerable and will not answer the questions that are necessary. There is no excuse for this. What is going on in CIE is very murky. There is a continuing dispute in CIE, particularly in Iarnród Éireann, about whether the losses reported on by Baker Tilly were €2.7 million or €8.6 million. The evidence is contradictory. In the earlier report Baker Tilly found it was €8.6 million and in the later report, when it was picked up on by CIE, it was found to be €2.7 million because CIE or Iarnród Éireann stated it was two different things. It is a really sorry situation.

There are two groups of people who can clarify this. One is the group which brought in Baker Tilly and told it the terms of reference were wrong. This group comprises three people, all of whom are employees of Iarnród Éireann, one of whom had a court case against Iarnród Éireann which has just been settled. He has been asked to appear before the committee and it is hoped he will agree to do so in September. He may shed some light on this. The other people who can shed real light on this are the non-executive directors. They can also shed light on their own participation in board decisions and on whether they are simply passengers or sleepers in this controversy.

This goes to the root of whether Iarnród Éireann is being run by a cabal or small executive of very powerful people, or whether the non-executive directors are hands on and know what is happening. It seems to me that by their refusal to appear before the committee, they have reneged on their duty to the Minister and to the State. The appropriate action for the Minister to take now is to sack them and replace them with people who are prepared to be transparent, appear before the committee and answer questions which tell us what is happening with this very important but extraordinarily expensive drain on taxpayers' money.