asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the job creation programme agreed with representatives of various commercial State bodies at the meeting held on 4 December 1989.
7.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Meeting with State-Sponsored Bodies Executives.
6.
asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the purpose of his meeting with the chief executives of commercial State-sponsored companies on 4 December 1989; if he issued any new instructions or advice to the chief executives; if any new job creation initiatives are planned as a result of this meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together.
I would refer the Deputy to the statement issued after the meeting I had on 4 December 1989, with the chief executives of State-sponsored bodies, copies of which were placed in the Oireachtas Library on 5 December 1989.
The meeting reviewed the job creation achievements and proposals of the commercial State-sponsored bodies under the Programme for National Recovery. As the appendix to the statement makes clear, these cover a total of over 7,000 new jobs.
I assured the chief executives at the meeting of the full support of the Government for their efforts. The chief executives expressed their appreciation of the positive and encouraging attitude being taken by the Government towards their development proposals.
Other matters considered at the meeting included (a) development co-operation between agencies; (b) management assistance to community bodies; (c) the concept of an Ireland House in capitals abroad; (d) the need for cost-effective services by the bodies to the economy as a whole; (e) the scope for training and management programmes in eastern Europe and (f) contributions by the State-sponsored bodies to events and activities during our EC Presidency.
Would the Taoiseach agree that if commercial State-sponsored bodies are to play a real part in job creation a way must be found to afford them the necessary investment capital? Would the Taoiseach say whether he has any proposals to privatise any of these State-sponsored bodies either by way of minority shareholding or in any other manner he may feel to be necessary? Would the Taoiseach also agree that if we are to expect commercial State-sponsored bodies to operate on a totally commercial basis it would be necessary to review the manner in which their executives and staff are remunerated, for example, offering the going rate for the job as chief executive in addition to possible participation in profits or bonus schemes?
I do not think there is any great problem of capital in the case of most of the State bodies; certainly at the meeting to which I referred they did not put that forward to me as constituting a problem. Of course, they are encouraged to engage in joint ventures and from many points of view, that would be the most satisfactory approach. Again, I would have to say they did not raise with me the question of restrictions on remuneration. I am not sure that is the same sort of problem as it was at one time.
Would the Taoiseach agree that in other countries where commercial State bodies have been extremely successful the level of remuneration of their staff, in particular, by way of profit sharing, bonus schemes, and in some cases share participation, has led to a vibrant commercial State sector? Would he agree that tremendous opportunities obtain here if we got our act together in relation to all our commercial State bodies becoming totally commercially-minded so that their staff could see they would get a slice of the profit if success ensued?
I would have to take issue with the Deputy on the general thrust of his question because a number of our semi-State bodies are as successful as those anywhere in the world. In fact, a number of them have now gone abroad, are performing brilliantly abroad and achieving very satisfactory results on the international scene. Therefore, I do not think we need hold up the semi-State sector in any other country as a model for ours to follow because, by and large, they are doing very well. Of course the Deputy knows that the whole history of remuneration in semi-State bodies is a complex one. When the semi-State concept was put forward, the original idea was that one of the advantages they would have would be that they would be freed from the restrictions normally applicable to the public service. That went through many convolutions of policy over the years. At one time there was a very determined effort made to bring them right back within the ambit of public service pay régimes. We have now loosened that policy again in that there is now a fair amount of freedom in the semi-State sector in regard to remuneration but if the position warrants it I will certainly be prepared to consider any improvements that might appear necessary. I have a great deal of admiration for a number of our State bodies on the way they are at present performing.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the major issue about which we are talking here is what contribution State companies can make to job creation and whether any additional opportunities have been identified whereby major State companies could diversify? In this respect would the Taoiseach say whether, on reflection, he does not consider that the point raised by Deputy Barrett about additional capital could be an obstacle; and whether, in any circumstances, he might be prepared to look at the example followed in Telecom Éireann where——
I am glad the Deputy did not mention eastern Europe; I was afraid he was going to.
The Taoiseach should be patient; he has promised to mention it a great deal himself over the next six months. Perhaps we could remain with the point in hand — whether the telecommunication investments bank established by Telecom Éireann as a vehicle to raise capital for investment in the company might be something that could be considered in the context of some of the other semi-State companies or perhaps centrally for a group of them?
That idea for Bord Telecom Éireann was brought forward and implemented by my colleague, the Minister for Finance. We are well aware of that particular mechanism. If a similar mechanism is needed in the case of any of the other State companies, certainly that can be considered but, as of now, I am not aware that any of them are in dire need of additional capital. Certainly they did not make that point to me in the course of our recent meeting, which was a long, constructive and very satisfactory one. I might point out to the Deputy, for instance, that in the course of a recent major development undertaken by Aer Lingus they had access to IDA grants in the implementation of that project. Therefore, the Deputy will see there are a variety of ways in which State companies can have access to any capital they need for diversification of their efforts.
Can I press the Taoiseach on the point of capital not being an obstacle? For example, if one were to instance the food industry——
Ceist, a Theachta.
Does the Taoiseach agree that, having regard to the apparent collapse of the Goodman-IDA venture, if a company like the Sugar Company were to diversify into the food industry, then capital would be a problem and it would have to be raised in alternative ways?
There is no suggestion from the Sugar Company that they have any problem about capital. In fact, they are very actively pursuing all sorts of projects at present, and some are by way of joint venture. They certainly have not indicated that they have any problem with regard to capitalising these ventures but if they have it can be considered.
Does the Taoiseach consider that the suggestions concerning a number of State companies are compatible with the aims he has just outlined, for example, the threat to privatise Irish Life, the threat to sell off the Great Southern Hotels and whatever future——
The Deputy is expanding out of all proportion the subject matter of this question. It is not in order.
Arising from the Taoiseach's original reply in which he specifically identified the opportunities for management and marketing training in Eastern Europe, is he in a position to indicate that it would be the policy of the Government during our Presidency, when it is probable that there will be a number of visits of either the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs or indeed himself to countries in Central and Eastern Europe, to ensure that representatives from the various State companies——
The Deputy is straying very much from the subject matter of these questions.
Since the Taoiseach is in a position——
The Deputy should put down questions on these matters.
My supplementary question relates to the Taoiseach's reply when he mentioned the opportunities specifically in Eastern Europe——
The Chair is concerned about the subject matter of the questions before him; nothing else.
My question relates to the possibility of State companies opening up new markets which will create jobs. I am asking the Taoiseach whether it would be the Government's policy to maximise the opportunity of the Presidency to provide opportunities for trade for State companies.
Absolutely.
Let us have finality on this question. Deputy Barrett may ask a final question.
Is the Taoiseach saying that he and the Government have no intention of privatising any of the State companies or selling off any minority shareholdings?
The question of privatisation does not arise now.
I did not say anything of the kind.
You are considering it.
We are neither servants of the right nor prisoners of the left. We are the pragmatists of the centre. Whatever is in the best interests of the people of this country we will do. We are not the slaves of any ideology.
That is a Government decision which should be taken.