Bertie Ahern
Question:6 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the recent meetings, if any, he has had with the chief executives of semi-State bodies. [7214/96]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Meetings with Semi-State Companies.
The first point of contact with Government for each State company is through its parent Department and Minister. Each Minister is responsible for the bodies under his/her aegis, and for ensuring the delivery of efficient, minimum cost services to the public. Individual Ministers are also responsible for pursuing the commitments in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and the Government's programme A Government of Renewal in relation to using the expertise of State companies to develop new business opportunities, products and services which will lead to commercially sustainable employment.
In addition, the Minister for Finance has general responsibilities for the semi-State sector as a whole in relation to issues such as public service pay, borrowings and related matters. I have, of course, ongoing informal contacts with the chief executives of State companies in my work.
One of the Taoiseach's predecessors engaged in a practice from time to time whereby he would meet the chief executives of semi-State companies to discuss various employment aspects as well as their potential. It could be argued whether that practice was successful but it was useful and, having attended a number of those meetings, I can honestly say there was a feeling that at least something was being done. I suggest to the Taoiseach that such meetings are useful from an employment aspect — I am not really concerned with the remit of a particular Minister — because many chairmen and chief executives of semi-State companies do not keep in contact with the relevant Ministers.
The philosophy in regard to the best practice in the development of the State sector has changed since the time to which the Deputy is referring. For example, in the immediate aftermath of the 1977 general election an instruction was given by the then Government to State companies to employ more people, almost regardless of whether there was work for them. That type of centralised direction to State companies is entirely wrong. State companies should be allowed to get on with the job. They should act, as near as possible, in a similar way to commercial companies with their board of directors making the decisions with the chief executive with the minimum degree of ministerial interference and certainly without interference from the Taoiseach. If I, with the approval of the Dáil, appoint a Minister in charge of a particular Department with responsibility for a particular group of State companies, I would much prefer to let him or her do the job and not to become involved myself. While I appreciate the reasonable way in which Deputy Ahern is urging his case, I do not agree it would be a useful practice. I am concerned that such meetings could easily degenerate into photo opportunities and that is not what we need.
I was actually talking about the 1987 period. As a result of those meetings Teagasc, Coillte and the developmental aspects of the semi-State companies moved forward. The Taoiseach may hold the view that these companies have reached their full potential but there was a move away from the time when they were seen merely as agencies. The document on the jobs crisis published in 1986 by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions urged the semi-State companies to become developmental agencies and suggested the Taoiseach should play a role in moving that forward. If the Taoiseach believes these companies are now commercially sensitive and that there are no further developmental aspects to be put forward, I will accept his view but much good came from those meetings which were rare but useful.
The idea of having the Taoiseach meet the chairmen and chief executives of all the State companies would have two disadvantages. First, it over-centralises responsibility in one person, which is not a good idea, and, second, it creates an illusion that these boards do not have the responsibility to take any job opportunities that may exist.
The shareholder should meet them.
The Taoiseach is the boss.
If they are good at their job they do not need to be told by me to look for job and commercial opportunities. They know that is their responsibility, it is part of their mandate and they should get on with it. They should not request meetings with me every time they want to do anything. If they have difficulties they should refer to the relevant Ministers or, more preferably, get on with solving the problem themselves.
The Taoiseach is the shareholder.
I note recently the Government appointed a chief executive of one of our State companies to the board of that company. I welcome that move which is a good precedent. May I ask the Taoiseach if the Government intends following that practice with other chief executives of State companies?
Each case will be considered on its merits. I suggest a question of that nature might be put down. In general I believe it is a good idea.
Is the Taoiseach really serious when he says there is not any need to meet the chief executives of State companies? The Taoiseach and the Government are the shareholders of all of these companies, through different Ministers. It would be unthinkable in a corporate structure——
Deputies want me to introduce a Mussolini-style Government.
——for the shareholder not to have regular meetings with the management of the company.
Absolutely not. I do not agree.
Common problems exist across the board such as EU directives, competition, technology, State ownership, privatisation of part of some of our companies, currently taking place under this Government, yet the Taoiseach is not sufficiently interested to meet with the chief executives.
The Deputy is urging on me the una duce uno voce style of Government——
Just duce.
——where one person, the Taoiseach, dispenses instructions to everybody on everything in the State sector. That is not my philosophy of Government.
It is consultation.
The Government is a collective entity. Ministers are responsible for dealing with individual State companies and if they have my confidence and the confidence of the House, which they do, they should get on with that job. The State bodies should get on with the job and take any opportunities open to them in the same way someone in the commercial sector would do. Companies in the private sector do not seek instructions from me on where they should look for job opportunities——
They are seeking leadership.
—— and I do not expect companies in the State sector to come to me for instructions either. That is not leadership. Leadership involves getting the best out of people and giving them the space to do the job without interfering with them or using them as a prop for a photo opportunity.
The Taoiseach is not interested.
I suggest the Taoiseach is misunderstanding what is being asked of him. He is not being asked to take over responsibility for the day-to-day running of the semi-State companies, nor is he being asked to issue instructions to anybody. The Taoiseach is the leader of the Government and the semi-State companies, whose competitiveness is crucial to job creation within those companies and, more importantly, to the maintenance of jobs in the private sector, which occupy the high ground of our economy. Does he agree it would be a positive move if he were to meet the chairmen and chief executives of these companies on an infrequent but timely basis to discuss their future and to ensure they are working in tandem within the overall budgetary and economic framework the Government is operating? These are not private companies. They occupy the high ground of our economy in terms of energy, telecommunications——
The question is too long, Deputy.
If the Taoiseach believes it would not be appropriate to engage in that manner, he does not have any understanding of the social partnership role in this economy.
Social partnership does not exist because of decisions of the Taoiseach.
I did not suggest it did.
It exists because the social partners find agreement autonomously with the assistance of the Government and with the leadership of appropriate Ministers in various areas of responsibility. I do not agree with the centralising philosophy of management urged by Deputy Cowen and other Deputies.
The Taoiseach is misinterpreting me. He is being mischievous. He has more intelligence than he is showing.
I do not doubt the good intentions or the goodwill with which the proposals are being put forward but I believe if such a series of meetings were to become systematic, they could be used inevitably as a form of court of appeal to the Taoiseach by State companies who did not like what their Minister was telling them and in the hope that they would get him to overrule a particular Minister. That system of management is not a good one.
They are very dominant here.
I have, and I am satisfied with, an approach to my responsibilities which is based on the principle of maximum delegation. I believe it works. I am more than willing when the time comes to be judged on my approach to my responsibilities.
I want to deal with the final question to the Taoiseach as I am obliged to take Priority Questions to the Minister for Social Welfare at 3.30 p.m.
There are ten minutes left. As semi-State bodies are responsible for a very large amount of Government expenditure, is the Taoiseach satisfied with the accountability of those bodies to this House? It is a unsatisfactory that we cannot table Dáil questions on the expenditure or the activities of State bodies. Has the Taoiseach any plans to make State bodies more accountable to this House?
The State bodies were established by statute precisely so that they would not be the subject of day-to-day parliamentary questions. That is why they were established as semi-State bodies most of which were set up by the Deputy's party. I presume he understands the philosophy underlying this separation of State bodies, because of their commercial remit, from day-to-day supervision of the Dáil. A Government of which I was a member in the 1970s established a Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored bodies which continues to do its work. To my mind that body strikes the right balance between accountability and commercial freedom. I see no need to change the arrangements in regard to that matter.