On a point of order, there are a number of amendments on Committee Stage and as we have only an hour to discuss the Bill it is suggested that we debate them together.
Labour Services Bill, 1987: Committee and Final Stages.
That is not agreed.
That is not agreed.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides that there shall be established a body to be known as An Foras Áiseanna Saothair. In the debate on this section I propose to deal with a number of amendments and suggestions in relation to the Bill. It seems likely, in the light of the decision taken by the Progressive Democrats, that my contribution may be a rather lengthy one and that it may not be possible to go beyond this section.
That is a filibuster.
Precisely.
That is up to the Deputy's party and Fianna Fáil.
Deputies should speak from their places in the House.
I indicated last night that my first reservation was not a fundamental one. It is reflected in an amendment to the title of the Bill and it concerns the choice of names, An Foras Áiseanna Saothair, which replaces the National Employment and Training Authority which was the proposed designation under the last Government. I do not wish to make a big deal about this but it appears that the title decided upon in the 1986 Bill gave a clearer indication of the purpose and intent of the measure than the one proposed by the Minister. It is also curious that the title now proposed does not have a form in the Irish and English languages which is the usual procedure adopted when we are labelling newly formed bodies. My desire is to see the body named as The National Employment and Training Authority in the English language and to use the Irish version that appeared in the previous Bill, An tÚdarás Náisiúnta Fostaíochta agus Oiliúna.
One of the reasons put to me was from a colleague who was commending the Minister on the choice of title, FÁS, which she saw as being imaginative and giving a certain warmth to the institution, was that the abbreviation might suggest a different meaning to some critics of the measure. She put some suggestions to me how FÁS would appear on the gable ends of some of the properties that might be owned by this body. I note that the Ceann Comhairle has some thoughts on what might be made of all of this. In all the circumstances, the previous designation of NETA is preferable and on balance I opt for it.
In the Bill, we deal with the functions of the new Authority and I want to suggest some additions to them.
On a point of order, I understood we were dealing with section 3 alone at this stage and not other sections which deal with the functions of the Authority.
That is what we are dealing with. Section 3 provides that an agency will be established to perform the functions assigned and I am about to suggest what some of those functions might be.
Section 4 deals specifically with the functions.
I am not going into the specifics at all.
The Deputy should wait until we reach section 4 to deal with the functions in detail.
It is not my intention to deal with the functions in detail now. Obviously, the functions the Authority will be carrying out are in the employment and training area and it is recognised that they will have functions operating beyond the borders of the State. That arises in relation to the commercial activities that the subsidiary will be carrying out and I welcome that. There has been a doubt about the capacity of AnCO to carry out training activities outside the State and that has given rise to some difficulties in the past. I recall that in the days immediately before polling day I sought to make contact with the present Minister for Labour in order to put beyond doubt that there would not be any controversy about AnCO proceeding with some contracts that were on offer to them. I welcome their opportunity to get involved, with a licence, in extra-State activities.
Another issue that arises is the services to be provided for people within the State who are anxious to work outside the State. As I understand it, there is a legal obligation arising from our membership of the EC to facilitate people seeking work within the Community. In the past that was provided by Manpower advertising such vacancies within the wider Community as they became aware of them.
On a point of order, there is not very much time to debate the Bill and it seems that the speaker is wandering into an area of section 4 to which amendments have been tabled.
I am sure the House will have regard to the fact that this item must be disposed of by 12 noon. Deputies should try to afford other Members an opportunity to contribute, including the Minister.
An extra function which should be given to the Authority is the question of giving advice and support to those who are at the stage of considering whether they want to seek employment outside the State. We all know that for many years, even in the good economic times, the attractions of working abroad were considerable for many young people and that in the recession those attractions have become even more alluring. We are aware that more and more young people have opted to go abroad in recent years. Some have gone abroad well prepared——
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but he is clearly straying from the section before us. Sections 4 and 5 deal with the matters he is referring to.
There is a difficulty in regard to time and if we are to proceed in this way other Members will have problems. I suggest that Members should speak to all the amendments and I be given an opportunity to reply to them at the end. In my view it would be more helpful if I listened to all contributions and replied at the end.
I should like to assure the House that I will not be taking a lot of time on my amendments. I do not think there is a long argument to be made on them and I would be interested to hear the views of the Minister and other Members. I would appreciate being given an opportunity to deal with the amendments.
Will the Deputy agree to the suggestion put by the Minister that a number of amendments be taken together for the better utilisation of the limited time available to us?
I do not think I could agree to that. There are a number of amendments listed for debate.
It is clear that I will not get agreement on that and, therefore, I must go through the amendments seriatim. May I take it that Deputy Birmingham has concluded his remarks on section 3?
Will the Minister explain why he referred to the EC? That might help Deputy Birmingham.
There is an understanding among EC countries that the manpower agencies in member states should assist each other.
I thought there was some legal obligation to do that. Many young people working in the US are working in a state of semi-legality and it seems to me not unreasonable that the new body should be asked to give advice to such people as to how they could set about regularising their status and advice on the labour prospects. They should be put in the position, if they feel they must go, of going with the best prospects of making a go of their new job.
The Deputy is straying into the area of the functions of the Authority. I suggest that we move on to deal with section 4 which is more appropriate and to which amendments have been tabled by a number of Deputies. May I have agreement on section 3 so that we can move on to the topic that is taking up the time of the House at present?
I understand the wish is that when we discuss section 4 and other sections Deputies will make their contributions and I will reply at the end. Is that agreed?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
We have a number of amendments to this section in the names of Deputy Colley and Deputy Birmingham.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (1) (f), line 7, to delete "enterprises of any kind", and substitute "enterprises of a kind to be designated by regulation by An Foras,".
I am worried about the wording of section 4 (1) (f) because the type of assistance community groups and co-operatives would receive and have received in the past, is restricted. There have been problems relating to enterprises which were profit-making and which were not accepted because of that. The inclusion of the words "enterprises of any kind" is a move in the other direction because there will be no restrictions of any kind. I am worried about that. I believe the words I have substituted, "enterprises of a kind to be designated by regulation by An Foras" would be a reasonable compromise. This would give some protection to the Department of Labour and An Foras in the types of enterprises to be assisted. I hesitate to indulge in scare-mongering about the enterprises which might apply for help if we left "enterprises of any kind" in the Bill. I will not speak about this any longer because it is a small amendment but I would like to hear the Minister's comments.
Do you want the Minister to reply now?
I understood we were to discuss all the amendments now. I have three amendments to section 4. I have already dealt with one in my earlier remarks and I will not repeat them.
On a point of order, could we not deal specifically with Deputy Colley's amendment first because she raised a number of important points which need to be teased out.
I presumed Deputy Birmingham was going to speak on Deputy Colley's amendment No. 1.
My understanding was that we were going to deal with all the amendments to section 4 together.
I have not been able to get agreement on that. I sought such agreement but there was dissent and we must go through the amendments seriatim. We are dealing with amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Colley. Does the Minister wish to speak now?
I do not mind proceeding along those lines but I can see difficulties. Deputies went to considerable trouble to draft amendments overnight. If we deal just with one amendment or one section I have enough notes to keep the debate going until 12 o'clock but there are other amendments on which I would like to have an opportunity to say something. If Deputies do not move those amendments, I will not have an opportunity to comment on them and the Bill will pass at 12 o'clock. I think it would be more desirable if Deputies moved their amendments and I will reply at the end. Of course, this is for the Deputies to decide.
Do I have agreement on that suggestion?
Speaking to this amendment——
The Chair was seeking to get agreement that Members would discuss all the amendments to section 4 together. Is that agreed?
I would be happy to take all the amendments that have been printed.
What happens if there is a difference of opinion on an amendment? Will we be able to call a vote?
The amendments will be discussed together but if they are challenged they are put separately.
I accept that.
I have already discussed my amendment dealing with those seeking employment outside the State. This section basically only responds to our obligation of membership. This is designed to respond to the interest a number of people have in seeking work abroad, in some instances in countries outside the Community like the United States, and it suggests that the agency could do something to help.
My second amendment proposes to add to the functions of the Authority the responsibility to collaborate with, to co-operate with and to participate in joint projects with those bodies engaged in the provision of labour services in Northern Ireland. AnCO in particular established very good working relations with their opposite number in Northern Ireland. The area of cross-Border projects has always had the possibility of support from the European Social Fund and there is a share of the budget specifically targeted to projects operating on a cross-Border basis. It is also consistent with the spirit of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I think it would be appropriate to say to this body that they should establish contact and work with their opposite number in Northern Ireland. A number of joint projects, including those linking people in the Finglas area with the people in Omagh and the linking of people in the inner city with the people of West Belfast and bringing together some of the voluntary bodies, has been particularly successful and well worth while.
My third amendment is, in a sense, to give an overall instruction to the agency that in carrying out their other functions the area of youth unemployment should be regarded as a priority. I touched on my anxieties in this area on Second Stage.
There is a concern about the scrapping of the Youth Employment Agency, the fact that the designated levy will no longer be the preserve of those under 25 and that youth unemployment could be pushed down the list of priorities as we properly give attention to other areas such as the long term unemployed. I do not think that would reflect the wish behind this measure. It is proper that the agency should be told from the beginning that this House regards youth Unemployment as an area to which they have to give priority attention.
Those concerned in the youth area are also influenced by the fact that they anticipate in the review of the Social Fund, which has to take place with the coming into being of the Single European Act, that there will be pressure to end the distinction between those under and over 25 and to end the privileged funding position of those catering for people under 25 years of age. It is appropriate that the agency should be told that this House feels that youth unemployment must have their utmost attention. I know the Minister responded part of the way by saying he would be giving a directive in these terms to the agency, and I welcome that fact, but it is appropriate that it should find expression in the legislation itself.
Deputy Colley has moved amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 2 is related to amendment No. 2a in the name of Deputy Birmingham, Deputy Colley also has amendment No. 3.
Am I to discuss them individually or together?
The agreement is that we take them together.
My amendment No. 2 reads:
In page 5, subsection (1) (g), line 15, after "European Communities,", to insert "providing that the state employment agencies operated by the member country are not in a position to do so,".
I put down this amendment because the position seems to be open to further duplication of services provided by the Irish State in countries in the European Community where that service is available to a citizen of our State already. There is an agreement between the European Community members relating to manpower services but the section does not seem to take that into account. I should like the Bill to ensure that there is no duplication of services or inefficiencies.
The same rationale is behind amendment No. 3 because the whole subsection relates to the collection, etc. of information, statistics and so on. No doubt, many of those statistics would be supplied by the Central Statistics Office and their staff might be in a better position to provide that information. I see no reason for duplication between FÁS and the CSO. I agree that particular information could only be gathered within the new body but there should be room for the Central Statistics Office and other agencies to be consulted as there is no point in FÁS looking for those figures, extrapolating and publishing them.
I have no objection to amendment No. 2a tabled by Deputy Birmingham offering advice, support and assistance to those who are considering seeking employment outside the State. We must recognise that many of our young people not alone go to Europe but to America, Australia and Canada and we must take account of that. In so far as amendment No. 2b is concerned, it would be an excellent idea if there could be further communication and co-operation between the labour services in the North and South.
I oppose amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Colley as it is restrictive and could be a disincentive to groups setting up businesses which would provide very necessary employment. I also oppose amendment No. 2 because the obligation is on us to provide the necessary services for our young people rather than depending on other countries. There is the danger that some people would not be catered for as we would assume that they were being trained in another country. We have a young and highly educated population who can achieve a lot abroad but, if they have to emigrate, they should be properly equipped before they go.
I support amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Colley because it is a reasonable request. I oppose amendment No. 2a in the name of Deputy Birmingham because the Minister has already spelt out the reasons for having arrangements with other countries in Europe. These arrangements need to be exploited instead of embracing the whole world, as suggested by Deputy Colley, or depending on the United States as suggested by Deputy Birmingham. We do not have freedom of movement in countries outside Europe and, therefore, the Minister's proposals are quite reasonable.
I support amendment No. 2b in the name of Deputy Birmingham because there should be greater co-operation and understanding between North and South. I also support amendment No. 3a that "An Foras shall as a priority respond to the needs of the young unemployed."
I have a couple of points to make in relation to section 4. I realise that in drafting legislation it is difficult to give priority to certain objectives. The emphasis in the new body should be on the creation and changing of skills and a building up of a national patrimony of skills. Amendment No. 3a touches on this but, unwittingly, it could have a negative effect.
At present most of the emphasis on the activities of AnCO seems to focus on the training of the unemployed. This is understandable but they fulfil another objective which should be more heavily emphasised in this section — or in the operations of An Foras when they come into being — the creation and training of skills. Under their technical advisory service, AnCO provide a very valuable activity which we have tended to lose sight of. Not alone is this largely a self-financing activity because it is covered by levies, but it also provides a whole range of other services as well as training actions. If we went to the root of amendment No. 3a we would probably find that it would not sufficiently emphasise this aspect. For example, the training advisory support services and rescue activities for small firms are not sufficiently emphasised. There should be an attempt to balance the training of blue collar and white collar workers. As that is a current activity under the technical advisory services of AnCO, I should like to see greater emphasis placed on it by An Foras because many of our problems, not just industrial relations, but in product and market development, lie in this area.
There is another point in which AnCO technical advisory services are involved on which I should like to see greater emphasis — if not in the legislation, certainly in the objectives of FÁS — the graduate training service provided at the moment. It is a very valuable service. At present they have 150 graduate students, mostly in the marketing field, from Singapore, Japan and Denmark. I hope when FÁS come into being this aspect will be more heavily emphasised than at present.
From my own experience in a variety of civil and public service agencies, when you have a long list of objectives — which of necessity you must have here to cover the full range of objectives — there is always a temptation and an impetus towards focusing on one or two and a certain degree of empire building is set up when various people try to emphasise their own interests.
Amendment No. 3a, by emphasising social desirability could unduly focus attention on one area of a wide range of objectives, all important in their own way.
I cannot support the amendment in the name of Deputy Colley. There is a clear distinction between the amendments of Deputy Colley and Deputy Birmingham; Deputy Colley's amendments appear to be negative in that they try to restrict and confine the activities and initiatives of the new body.
Amendment No. I seeks to delete "enterprises of any kind" and put in "enterprises of a kind to be designated by regulation by An Foras" which would have the effect of unduly restricting the capacity of An Foras to respond to new developments and initiatives. Amendment No. 2 seeks to insert "providing that the state employment agencies operated by the member country are not in a position to do so". That would be a normal process by An Foras and the board and the chief executive or director general would ensure that there would not be this kind of duplication. In any event the functions already outlined in some detail here provide that kind of safeguard.
Amendment No. 3 deals with An Foras providing information not available or already being provided by another State agency. Information which it is said would be collated by An Foras is related specifically to their own activities and to the need to monitor what is happening with regard to the various courses and services being provided. That need is highlighted by the statement of the Minister here some weeks ago, and repeated yesterday, that neither the bodies nor the Minister knows how successful or otherwise the funding of the 17,000 jobs assisted by various funds has been, whether any or all, or what proportion of those jobs are still in existence.
That is a serious gap in the knowledge of the Department. It seems foolish to be spending money on services when we do not know whether those fundings are being wasted. Amendment No. 3 is negative and would tend to restrict the functions of An Foras. It could lead to disputes as to whether a particular job should be done by the CSO or by An Foras. I think there would be needless wrangling as a result.
In relation to the amendments put down by Deputy Birmingham, I am in general agreement with him, particularly on amendment No. 2a which seeks to add that An Foras should offer advice, support and assistance to those who are considering seeking employment outside the State. That is essential. There are quite a number of private groups, companies, call them what you will, advertising jobs in our daily papers, particularly as au pairs, baby minders and the like in the United States and perhaps other countries. I have certain knowledge which I gave to the House last year of young people being exploited in the United States as a result of taking up these positions. It is essential that the Department, through An Foras, should be in a position to have available to people who approach them information and advice on how they would stand if they went to the United States on a holiday visa or, indeed, with the normal correct visa and green card. They should be in a position to assist them on where they can get work at proper rates of pay and where they would be protected by whatever labour legislation exists in that country. I fully support amendment No. 2a.
Amendment No. 2b concerns joint projects with those bodies engaged in the provision of labour services in Northern Ireland. That is a good idea. I should imagine it is implicit in the functions already stated in the Bill before us. I do not know if Deputy Birmingham intends to press that amendment, but it is common sense. A considerable amount of work I understand has already been done between the Department of Labour and their sister organisation in Northern Ireland in training people. A body, the name of which I cannot remember for the moment, have been having some difficulties recently; they organise the transfer of young trainees between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That is a very good idea.
Amendment No. 3a in particular should be inserted. I know there is no intention to ignore the youth unemployment problem but I made the point yesterday that there is a specific problem in relation to young unemployed, a particular problem also in disadvantaged areas where young people, because of their family background, or the level of their educational abilities, or whatever and, indeed, because of the particular quality of the educational facilities in their area, can be placed at a disadvantage. There is a need for An Foras to have a specific remit in connection with youth training and youth employment so that that will be an objective which is up front. Something like 30 per cent on the live register of unemployed are under 25 years of age and I am not aware that there is any other group of that significance on the register. It is important to emphasise that An Foras have a particular responsibility here. By far the largest proportion of the funding is being provided by the PAYE sector and it was initially agreed that that money would be provided for youth employment specifically and youth training as a by-product of that. That would be my attitude in relation to the amendments. I hope the Minister can see his way to accepting them.
A number of points have been made which I think I should answer, although I know the Deputies are keen to move on. On my first amendment to section 4 relating to "enterprises of any kind" and a substitution for those words, we must recognise that in this day and age any State enterprise is under the restriction that it must be operated on the most economic basis possible. That should be put into legislation so that it is quite obvious to all concerned that that is the case. It is unrealistic to assume that something of that kind should not be put into legislation which deals with State enterprise.
On the second amendment, I do not think there is an implication that the State employment agencies would not operate unless the employment agency in another country were in a position to do so. I intended by this that we would not be sending groups of trainers and trainees into Europe, or wherever, because funding was perhaps available from the Social Fund. It is worth saying that that kind of thing has happened in the past. We must restrict our ambit to Ireland. Unless the services are simply not available to the employee or the trainee in the other countries, we are not in a position to provide them and we should not leave that open to confusion.
Deputy De Rossa said the situation was open to wrangling between, say, the Central Statistics Office and An Foras as to which would provide certain information. I draw his attention to the latter part of subsection 1 (h) stating that the details of such other matters respecting An Foras's function as the Minister may specify should be gathered by An Foras. That could well include matters already collated on behalf of the State in other agencies. That is what I was getting at. It is not unreasonable to expect that we should bring in the other State agencies if they have the information available. It is not implicit in that section that that will be done.
There is an error in one of the amendments circulated this morning and I want to put the correction on record now. It occurs in amendment No. 9. In subsection (4) (a), the phrase "in carrying out" should be "in carrying on".
I want to go through the amendments fairly quickly. With regard to amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Colley, the term "of any kind" was deliberately chosen to allow the flexibility, which a number of Deputies have mentioned, in the types of projects being funded by FÁS. Essentially what is involved is a continuation of the community enterprise programme at present operated by the Youth Employment Agency. Many of the projects operated under the programme have a social orientation as well as an economic orientation. The programme is designed to help communities and similar groups to state whether they are in a position to go on their own and avail of the incentives available to development agencies. There is substantial control built into later sections but this was to allow flexibility. The amendment could be considered to be over-restrictive on that basis.
With regard to amendment No. 2, we are talking about assistance in the form of information and advice. When a person arrives in another EC country the agency involved is the employment service in that country. Deputy O'Sullivan asked me earlier on to clarify that point. There is an arrangement between the manpower agencies in other countries. In so far as the welfare agencies help Irish people under the scheme, the Department give money direct to those welfare agencies. I take the point made about trainees wandering around different projects.
With regard to amendment No. 2a, I agree with Deputy Birmingham that on the points he made. We should be offering advice and support to people. This is done as a normal ongoing activity and is part of the programme. I agree with what he said but it is not necessary to build it into the legislation. Information is available on the job markets in the EC member states but it is not readily available in respect of other countries like the US. However, FAS will provide whatever information is available. I think it was Deputy De Rossa who said there are a number of things we can do to research and build on the information we have and under the new agency we can make a lot of progress on this. One research unit is working on much of this information. The questions that were asked highlight the fact that we do require this information.
With regard to amendment No. 2b, there are regular contacts with the manpower bodies in the EC and, hopefully, these will be continued and built up. We have also good relations with Northern Ireland in relation to this and I am advised it does not require legislation.
Will the Minister check that between now and when the Bill comes before the Seanad because I was told on the last day that there was a possible legal problem?
I will check that. With regard to amendment No. 3, the Central Statistics Office were consulted in the preparation of the Bill. It was agreed that the general controls to which Deputy Colley's amendment refers would be more appropriate in legislation currently being promoted by them which proposes a new statutory basis for the collection, compilation, extraction and publication of official statistics which would apply to all statutory bodies including An Foras. The aim is that we would not in all legislation have to build in a particular amendment but that there would be amendments on the legislation dealing with the Central Statistics Office and they would be automatic.
In regard to amendment No. 3a in the name of Deputy Birmingham, this matter will be taken up in the context of the annual plan. Youth have not been forgotten and 80 per cent of AnCO training is for youth. Because of the way the legislation is drafted, any future plan would have to come back to the policy unit in the Department. I can give an assurance to the Deputy that we will take in all the points he made yesterday and this morning in relation to youth. As the Deputy knows, much of the European Social Fund is spent on projects for youth. I give the Deputy the commitment that in the formulation and clearance of the plan in the Department the points he made will be taken into account.
I understand that before I arrived there was general agreement that all the amendments would be discussed together in an omnibus fashion.
Section by section.
We will move on if the Chair is correct in assuming that amendments already discussed are not being pressed.
I disagree but I am not calling a vote.
We have to retain some kind of order. Even though we make agreements we must return to the basics.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2, 2a and 3 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, subsection (5), lines 25 and 26, to delete", and may be removed from office at any time by the Minister" and substitute "by an appointments commission comprising the chairman designate of An Foras, the Secretary of the Department of Labour and the Director General of the Irish Management Institute and may be removed from office at any time by An Foras with the consent of the Minister".
This amendment relates to the appointment of the Director General of An Foras. The appointment of the first appointee presents a problem and the Minister has taken it unto himself in this Bill to make the appointment. That is a mistake for a number of reasons. One is that it will become from the beginning a political appointment and this will affect the way people will regard the office. In this country political appointees are recognised as such. The appointment will present problems if there is a change in Government. With a body such as this it would be better to start with an appointment by an independent commission. I named three members because I felt it was required to do so when I was putting down the amendment but I am not absolutely pressing for the three members I have named. I am suggesting that a balanced membership on such a commission should comprise a Department of Labour input in terms of the secretary, somebody who would know about An Foras who would be the chairman or chairman designate, and another person who would have management skills. This will be a very large body employing 3,000 people and to head that up would require a degree of management skills. It would be unfortunate if we started off with a political appointment. I would ask the Minister to consider changing the arrangements. Also, the Minister should not have the sole power to remove the first director general from office. In the Bill the Minister may have that power in relation to the first appointment. The board of An Foras will be in place almost immediately, and the power should be left to them.
I have an amendment on the same point. The section as drafted distinguishes between the appointment of the first director and subsequent directors. I can see why people would have thought like that, but it does not have to be the case. The Garda Complaints Body recently established contained no such provision. The board of that body held interviews and appointed their first director. There is no reason that procedure cannot be followed in this case.
Deputies will recall that when the YEA was being established the legislation contained a provision similar to this. A very fine appointee was appointed but there was some political controversy surrounding that appointment. That always had an effect on the relationship that that body had with sections of this House. That was unfortunate. I do not agree with the approach taken by Deputy Colley, while sympathising with her objective. We are too willing to give our functions away to other bodies with the result that decisions are often taken which are no longer subject to scrutiny in this House and thus no longer subject to public scrutiny. In the mid seventies it was very fashionable for politicians to divest themselves of power lest they exercise those powers unwisely. That happened in planning, in the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions——
Wisely, in the planning area.
I see why it was done, but there have been actions and decisions which have been made since by An Bord Pleanála which have not been subject to discussion in this House and many of us would have wished to have been able to say something about them. There has been controversy surrounding the Director of Public Prosecutions. We might all be happier if his actions were subject to greater control in the House from time to time. I am dubious about the idea of politicians always divesting themselves of powers and assuming that other people will carry them out in a more upright fashion. Given that this is an Authority who will be exercising appointment functions in the future, there is no reason they cannot appoint their first director.
A lot of mythology has been created in this House during debates about political appointees. There is some concern among the general public about political appointments but the people appointed should not be prejudged. One can think of ministerial appointees past and present who have served this nation with distinction and who have conducted their affairs correctly. The Bill gets it about right on this issue. I cannot see the need for grave concern here. I welcome the provision about the treatment of staff.
That relates to section 7 which deals with staff conditions. Deputy Roche is jumping the gun. Can we deal with the amendments?
The point I am making is that we do not need to have concern about this appointment. Appointments made in the manner prescribed in this Bill have been made in the past and we have been served well. In the interests of brevity I will only refer to a very lengthy debate in 1973-74 on this issue in the House.
I understand Deputy Colley's amendment, but I will not be supporting it. I fail to see why Deputy Birmingham has put down this amendment as this section is identical to section 6(5) of the 1986 Bill. During that time both Deputy Birmingham and I were junior Ministers in the Government. There is no change in the attitude now. There seems to be a guilt complex among members in relation to appointments, as if the Minister of the day is less than worthy to appoint anyone. At the rate we are going there will be little power left to any Minister. For that reason I will oppose both amendments. The people have placed the responsibility on the Minister of the day and it is up to us to ensure that he does his job efficiently. I fully support the Minister in this.
There is a strong argument for the Minister not having the power to appoint persons to boards. Every case must be taken on its merits. The Minister who presently holds the position has my utmost confidence and I would have no hesitation in saying that he will make the correct choice but as a matter of principle we must ensure that the public are happy that functions of this kind are carried out impartially without political bias. Not all past appointments have been without political bias. In the planning area, referred to by Deputy Birmingham, there appears to have been abuse. That is not to say that it is not being abused at present, because I have heard disquieting rumours in relation to the planning area which I might raise at a later stage. There is a feeling abroad that Ministers can, and in some cases have, abused their positions. For that reason there is a need to reassure the public. There is nothing wrong with the present position, as I have the utmost confidence in the Minister for Labour whose responsibility it will be to appoint the first director general and afterwards it will be An Foras.
I thank Deputies for their contributions. I could not help thinking, when Deputy Colley said she was not hung up on the names she suggested, that if we had a committee of the speakers here this morning, it would probably be helpful rather than anything else.
We will accept that amendment.
We would probably get agreement. However, it is the responsibility of the Minister of the day. I have considered over quite some time what is the best way to deal with it. I think Deputy O'Sullivan raised this matter. I examined why the Minister in the last Government had it this way and why this Government thought it was best as well. It is a crucial decision to the organisation, and I am extremely conscious of that. If the Minister makes the decision and for so long as the legislation is there he is answerable directly to the people. Deputy Birmingham made a very good point: we tend to give away too many of our powers to those who are not directly answerable to the people. That is not to say they would not do a very good job. I think the reason the former Minister made provision to appoint the first board and that thereafter it would be the duty of the authority is that it is a fairly mammoth task to bring these organisations together to have good people nominated by the nominating bodies, which I know they will do. I will consult so that I pick the right person. At this stage I have no view whatsoever of who that person is. It will be a process of watching, listening and consulting, which I will do.
I thank the party spokesmen for their co-operation in taking this Bill so that we can proceed with the extensive programme over the summer. I thank the Deputies for their co-operation.
As it is now 12 o'clock I am required, in accordance with the Order of the House of this day to put the following question: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Labour and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, the Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee and is reported to the House, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put and declared carried.