I welcome the opportunity to resume the debate on this motion which we last discussed here early in May. I welcome the motion itself. The purpose of the motion, as I understand it, is to extend the power and the mandate of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies in relation to their examination of the performance of the commercial State-sponsored bodies concerned.
I would like very much to compliment the joint committee on their work to date and indeed on the many reports that they have issued. Their work and the reports proved beyond any question the need to examine and report on the performance of commercial State-sponsored bodies. Furthermore, the work of the joint committee has heightened public awareness and interest in this matter. I regret to say that, coupled with some unhappy results from some of the bodies in question, public interest in this area is at a level which had not been reached previously.
I also welcome the motion as it is an indication of the commitment of the Minister and the Government to respond to the request from the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies to extend their powers of examination. It is also evidence of the Minister's commitment to ensure that there is more control and accountability on the part of these bodies.
The Minister indicated that the Government in their White Paper on Industrial Policy had decided to ensure that there would be better control and that overall examination would be exercised by them of the operation of these bodies. The White Paper on Industrial Policy indicated a number of steps being taken by the Government to ensure that there would be more effective control in this area.
Briefly, I refer to a number of points which emerge from the White Paper. First, the decision of the Government in relation to corporate planning by commercial State-sponsored bodies includes the five year rolling corporate plan in respect of the activities, the achievements and the work of these bodies.
Secondly, it includes the commitment to improve monitoring of State boards by the Government. Enshrined in the second commitment is the decision that the performance of each particular body will be subject to regular review by the Minister concerned.
There is another welcome improvement contained in the White Paper which refers to the improved procedure for the appointment of people to State boards. There is a very clear indication there of the Government's commitment to obtain among the appointees to these bodies people possessing the proper skills and expertise for the job required of them. I welcome this. This is the measure that should have always been applied to appointments to State boards and bodies, particularly in the commercial field. Too often in the past we have had the unfortunate experience where some of the appointees were selected as a reward for their efforts in other fields far removed from the duties they were expected to fulfil in their new role. Therefore, I compliment the Minister on taking that decision because in the future it will be people with the proper skills, experience and expertise in related fields who will be selected and nominated for appointment to State boards.
There is another point in the White Paper which I also welcome. That is the creation of machinery for better monitoring and control of investments by State boards. All these represent determination on the part of the Minister to ensure that we get better performance and better results. Commercial State-sponsored bodies are owned by the State and they are responsible to the taxpayers. Their contribution, if they are successful in achieving their appointed objectives, can indeed be enormous. Their need to be successful is crucial, particularly for the economic wellbeing of the country and for the benefit of so many people who are dependent on, or are involved in, or have a certain interest at stake in the fields in which these bodies operate.
Equally, the risk of failure can be devastating. I regret that we have had some unhappy examples in this area in the past. I will refer to one or two of these events, but first of all I feel that I should recognise and acknowledge the success and excellent performances of some commercial State bodies. I had the experience a number of years ago of being on the board of an Bord Bainne representing milk suppliers in its early days. There can be no doubt that that organisation inherited a very difficult situation and within a relatively short period succeeded magnificently in bringing about progress and success in that field.
It would be right to acknowledge also that, as a board member, I could easily see that the success Bord Bainne achieved then was largely related to the calibre of the people they had at management level there. When we look at State boards, that is one of the factors which make for success or failure—the capacity and the ability of the boards in question to attract to top management people with the capacity and the enterprise to achieve the results that are necessary. I had firsthand knowledge of success in that board. There are others who have done a magnificent job for this country, a magnificent job for many people who depend on the success of these boards. Many of them filled a void that would not otherwise have been filled but for their creation and successful operation. Unfortunately, some have been less than successful and it is these less than successful ones which often attract most attention—and I suppose rightly so.
In relation to some of these bodies there appeared to be a certain reluctance to co-operate fully with the joint committee in its examination. That, of course, is a cause of major concern. It is recognised here and it is recognised by the Minister that so long as commercial State-sponsored bodies are in the ownership of the State and are responsible to the taxpayers there can be no question about their obligation and their duty to co-operate fully and in every way with a joint committee appointed by the Oireachtas to oversee and examine their operations. Where commercial State-sponsored bodies have been in difficulty it has, as far as can be established, almost always been as a result of a bad decision at board level or at management level. I want to emphasise that where that is the case responsibility must clearly rest where it belongs and the standards of the commercial world must apply within the commercial activities of State-sponsored bodies. We cannot under any circumstances tolerate the avoidance of responsibility by those who are responsible for bad decision making, which in some cases has resulted in the imposition of substantial financial burdens on the State and, through the State, on the taxpayer.
Many of these bad commercial decisions taken by these bodies have been inspired by a desire to engage in empire building. That is apparently done in the knowledge and the belief that if things go wrong the taxpayer is always there as a fallback, and the Government are always there and available to bail them out in these situations. We must have reached the end of the day as far as that attitude and that mentality is concerned. Responsibility for bad decision making must in future rest where it belongs, particularly if such decisions, as would appear to have been the case in the past, have been taken without full consultation with either the Department, the Minister or the Government.
I want to emphasise precisely what I mean. Where bad decision making has resulted in substantial losses being incurred by the board in question and where the State and the taxpayer have been called upon to bail out that particular organisation, then the board of that company should be fired and, if necessary, top management with it. It is only when we indicate that we are prepared to take that kind of attitude that we can insist and ensure that the standards of the commercial world will prevail within the realm of commercial State-sponsored activities.
I know it is easy to be misunderstood on this point and it is easy to go overboard on it also. Therefore, I want to say that I am not advocating day-to-day interference by any Minister of any Department in the activities of these boards. If you start out on the basis, where these bodies are concerned, that their objectives and their obligations are clearly defined and that the frontiers of their decision-making are equally clearly defined, then if the bodies live within these objectives interference should and can be held to a minimum. I draw the line in relation to substantial policy changes being made by boards within the semi-State field and substantial investment decisions being made without consultation, without reference or advice from the Minister responsible or the Government.
I hope we have reached the stage where we can look forward with confidence to a situation within the State commercial field or the semi-State commercial field where we will not have to contend with any further disastrous investment decisions.
I conclude by saying that I welcome the motion. I welcome the attitude and the response of the Minister and the Government to the request of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored bodies and I commend that committee for the excellent work they have done to date.
