Madam, – The publication of the two reports into the banking crisis means that the upcoming vote of confidence in the Taoiseach is in fact a vote on the economic stewardship of successive Fianna Fáil/PD governments.
An examination of the Dáil debates during that period shows that the Green Party consistently opposed the economic policies of these governments and the reports validate much of their criticism of Fianna Fáil and the PDs.
The Green Party now has an opportunity to put principle before party. Will it remain true to the position it held when part of the opposition or will the perks of office see it retrospectively endorse Fianna Fáil/PD economic policies?
No doubt the Green Party spokespersons will claim they will vote for the motion because they have confidence in the policies of the present Government and they will try to distance themselves from the failures of the past. The Green Party has nowhere to hide this time. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Having been involved in risk management for over 20 years in both business and professional capacities, neither banking report surprises me (Front page, June 10th).
The lack of regard for governance and risk management is endemic in Irish business, despite the efforts of a very small number of practitioners and professional bodies.
Poor governance and risk management is attributed to the directors and senior management of the banks, to mortgage brokers and to auditors and accountants.
The reasons are equally simple: 1. It is not taught in colleges. 2. It is not taught by the accounting bodies. 3. It was not a core skill of the vast majority of bank board members. 4. It is not seen as a core requirement, but rather as a niche skillset within all of the bodies above.
Companies/borrowers are not blameless either. My best guess is that 10 per cent of Irish medium-to-large corporates have the most basic risk policy in place.
A recent discussion with a major UK bank put the figure at three times this level in the UK! One senses that the vultures may be circling – where, as indicated in one of the reports, policies were overruled by human intervention, then the source of such intervention should be easily identified.
Where policy was either poor or nonexistent, then the boards are culpable (all directors of all companies have a duty to manage risk under companies legislation). However one only has to look at the most recent board appointments to Anglo and ILP to note that multiple directorships and “cross fertilisation” of boards has not ceased. The players have merely changed.
If you pardon the pun, the bottom line is that risk management in corporate Ireland is a bit like a bidet – most know it has a function but few know what that function is – and fewer still can put it to good use.
It would be funny were it not so serious. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – The reports rightly criticise the government, the banks, the regulator and the Central Bank. However, they appear to be silent about one other agency. This agency advises government, has up until recently provided every governor of the Central Bank and was, of course, responsible for the drafting of the legislation which set up both the Central Bank and the regulator.
That agency is the Department of Finance.
What advice did it give government about taxation and fiscal policy generally? What values inspired its successive nominees who were governors of the Central Bank? Why did it support “light touch regulation“? It will, as always, avoid accountability. And courtesy of the (Department of Finance-driven) emasculation of the Freedom of Information Act, that is unlikely to change in the future.
We all know whose prerogative it is to have power without responsibility.
It’s time someone changed that for an agency which seeks to control everything and be accountable for nothing. – Yours, etc,