Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Nov 2000

Vol. 525 No. 2

Ceisteanna – Questions. - Ministerial Appointments.

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the number of appointments made by him to bodies or organisations under the aegis of his Department since taking office; the number of these to full-time paid positions; the number in respect of which a fee is paid; the number in respect of which expenses are paid; the consideration being given to an independent system to examine or scrutinise appointments or nominations made by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19832/00]

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will list each appointment or nomination made by him since 1 July 2000 to bodies, boards or organisations under the aegis of his Department; the method used by his Department in selecting people for such appointments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19833/00]

John Bruton

Question:

11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will list, and make a statement on, the appointments made by him to bodies or organisations which come under the aegis of his Department. [21074/00]

Joe Higgins

Question:

12 Mr. Higgins (Dublin-West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the bodies or organisations that come under the aegis of his Department; and if he will detail the appointments or nominations to those bodies or organisations which have been made by his Department. [23033/00]

Bernard Allen

Question:

218 Mr. Allen asked the Taoiseach the number of appointments to State boards made by him since taking office; if he will give details of each appointment; and the annual payments to each appointee. [23811/00]

The Taoiseach:

I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 to 12, inclusive, and 218 together.

The list of bodies and organisations under the aegis of my Department, the manner and process through which appointments are made to these bodies and organisations, the full list of membership and information relating to fees and expenses are contained in the tabular statement which will be circulated to the Deputies.

There are no proposals for procedures to set up an independent system to examine and scrutinise appointments or nominations to bodies or organisations under the aegis of my Department. We are following the routines and practices of previous Governments.

Only one appointment has been made since 1 July 2000, to the National Statistics Board.

Mr. Quinn:

Will the Taoiseach agree that given the fiasco which surrounded the unfortunate attempt by the Government to appoint Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty to the post of vice-president of the European Investment Bank and the manner in which that was pursued by the Cabinet, there is a lesson to be learned by every Member of the House? That lesson was learned first, perhaps, by Fianna Fáil activists in south Tipperary. Will he agree that, notwithstanding what might have been practice in the past, it is time for the State to move forward? Against that background and the painful experience the Cabinet undoubtedly had, not to mention the personalities directly involved, will he not reconsider his reply and see that there is greater transparency by involving the Oireachtas or a committee of the Oireachtas in appointments to posts of the importance of either European Commissioner or, in this instance, nominee to the European Investment Bank?

The Taoiseach:

With regard to Deputy Quinn's point, in terms of the overall reform mechanisms, there are many elements in this House that should be reformed. The committee system and some of the good points presented by all parties regarding the overall process are aspects I support and consider have merit, and I am prepared to consider them.

Almost all the appointments to the boards of the bodies, including the National Economic and Social Council, the Economic and Social Forum, the National Statistics Board, the National Centre for Partnership and the Law Reform Commission, under the aegis of my Department are nominated elsewhere. I have little or no control over or say in those appointments. The number of appointments I make to those boards that have not been discussed and decided on by the social partners or the agencies are few and far between. I am prepared to consider proposed changes to systems and mechanisms. I agree with the Deputy regarding the lessons to be learned.

Mr. Quinn:

Can I take it from the last part of the Taoiseach's reply that he agrees there is a sense of objection, if not rejection, among the public at what they perceive to be cronyism by Governments in the appointment of various individuals to particular posts, that the day of cronyism has come to an end and that it is desirable, irrespective of who is in Government, that the appointment of persons to public bodies should be subject to some degree of transparent scrutiny that meets the standards of this Republic at the beginning of this millennium? Is that the import of what the Taoiseach is saying?

The Taoiseach:

Most of those posts are already open to some scrutiny and I object to the interpretation that perhaps they are not. The level of openness, transparency and accountability such post holders have to their relevant organisations is not always understood. When I issue this schedule Members will realise that with regard to these several hundred appointments, the Government has no role other than to rubber-stamp them. As far as I am aware successive Governments in the past 20 years have not made a change to any of the nominations made by the nominating bodies. That fact of life is not clearly understood.

Consideration should be given to the credibility of the people who take up such positions. The type of quality people we want to serve on our State boards will not answer ads in weekend newspapers and thereby put themselves forward to take up such positions. As Deputy Quinn is aware, in many cases it is not easy to get suitable people to take up many of these posts, regardless of whether they have a political allegiance. Increasingly in the past ten years, more and more Governments have appointed to boards, people who would be known to have other political views, because it was necessary to do so. I do not have a fundamental difficulty with examining a system that helps to make that more transparent providing it would not be objectionable to the people involved.

Mr. Quinn:

Will the Taoiseach agree that when the changes were made regarding the appointment of judges it was argued that members of the Bar would be reluctant to let their names go forward indicating their availability for consideration on the grounds that it would be contrary to their best professional prospects, but that has not been the experience? While I accept the Taoiseach has not changed the method of decision-making from that of previous Governments, in light of the widespread cynicism and collapse in public trust in the perception of the way in which certain appointments are made by the Government of the day, does he consider there is a need to change the way in which appointments are made to major key posts? Does the Taoiseach see the Oireachtas having a role in providing the kind of democratic scrutiny that the public manifestly desires?

The Taoiseach:

Deputy Quinn has based his arguments on one case. He has a valid point, as there has been considerable controversy about that case, but I detect no difficulties or cynicism regarding the generality of posts filled in statutory bodies. If the Deputy is saying there is cynicism regarding some important posts and that we should consider Oireachtas involvement in filling them, I would have no difficulty with that. Some of the ideas being mooted regarding posts in general – not necessarily by the Deputy – include advertising the posts and bringing applicants before a star chamber. I do not think those ideas would work. No one would apply and we would never fill those positions.

Mr. Quinn:

The Taoiseach is hardly comparing an Oireachtas committee or the Civil Service Commission to the Star Chamber.

Mr. J. Bruton:

When responding to one of Deputy Quinn's supplementaries the Taoiseach said he had learned lessons from the Government's experiences with the attempted appointment of Mr. Hugh O'Flaherty to the EIB. What are those lessons?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

We are wandering away from the question.

The Taoiseach:

Lessons learned in politics do not necessarily need to be spelt out, but I have spelt these out in the public domain on a number of occasions.

Mr. J. Bruton:

What are they? I know the Chair is anxious to move on, but the Taoiseach said he had learned lessons from this experience. In view of the fact that he is not proposing changes to the method of appointment, those lessons are a matter of curiosity to many people. What are the lessons the Taoiseach learned? It is a fair question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

It is well outside our scope.

Mr. J. Bruton:

It is a very fair question. The Taoiseach said he learned lessons. What are they?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

It may be a fair question, but it does not come under Questions Nos. 9 to 12 and 218.

Mr. J. Bruton:

Is there another reason the Chair feels we should move on?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

No, and I would not want Deputy Bruton to pursue that line.

Mr. J. Bruton:

Then the Chair should let me pursue the line I am pursuing. What are the lessons the Taoiseach has learned? This matter has taken up acres of print and the Taoiseach said he has learned lessons. What are they?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

We must move on.

Mr. Rabbitte:

If the Taoiseach is prepared to contemplate some changes in the system for making appointments in what is, I gather from his answer, a narrow area, will he bring forward such proposals in the context of the Dáil reform proposals which have been indicated as being approved by Government?

The Taoiseach:

I would certainly consider that.

Mr. Quinn:

I would not like the Taoiseach to think that I am putting this question down exclusively in the context of what has become known as the O'Flaherty affair. Does the Taoiseach agree there are certain posts which are full time and salaried, such as county solicitor and city sheriff, which were previously in the gift of successive Governments but that in the light of what we now know and the demand for greater accountability, those posts might be better decided by the Civil Service Commission or Local Appointments Commission? Should major posts, such as the appointment of a European Commissioner or director of the EIB, not require some involvement of the Oireachtas? There is a limited number of such posts and I do not propose the Government should lose the right to initiate, as that should always stay with the Executive. However, does the Taoiseach not agree that there is a benefit to be had from having some dialogue with the Oireachtas on those high profile posts to underpin democratic legitimacy in this Republic?

The Taoiseach:

I do not disagree with the Deputy. It is a fair point.

Mr. Quinn:

Do it then.

The Taoiseach:

I was asked if I would consider these matters for reform and I said at the outset that I would. However, it should be done in the correct way and with regard to particular posts. I would be against doing this with all posts, as it would not be the way to get quality people for most posts. In respect of other posts, we have reached a stage where we would gain from a discussion of that kind. I do not have a difficulty, in principle, in that regard.

Mr. J. Bruton:

Does the Taoiseach agree that there should be transparency and accountability in respect of State appointments? Does he also agree that an element of political responsibility is necessary if there is to be political accountability and that if Ministers are completely removed from the process they cannot be held accountable for what happens? If there is to be transparency there must be some method of examining proposed appointees, perhaps by way of an Oireachtas committee. Given that Governments are ultimately accountable to the electorate and that this accountability should not be sub-con tracted out to those who are accountable to no one, perhaps we should take the approach of maintaining political initiative and ensuring that the House, through its committees, retains the power to scrutinise. We will, thereby, achieve transparency. I suggest that this mixture of political accountability and transparency might be the best way to proceed.

The Taoiseach:

I do not wish to make policy for the House. However, there is no doubt that we can consider this area and make progress in respect of it. Matters have already changed dramatically. I am not sure how it worked in the old days but most of the men and women who serve on State boards today do so out of a great sense of national duty. The majority of these individuals do not serve on such boards because of their political allegiances. By and large, the level of work these people are obliged to do is far greater than was the case when I first became a Minister.

The position of State boards is changing. Some of them are in transition, a number of them may change in the future and some have already been placed on a statutory footing. It would be beneficial to involve the House in a more detailed manner in making appointments to key posts.

Mr. Howlin:

I welcome the openness to change evident in the Taoiseach's reply. Given that once judicial appointments have been made there are no further avenues for democratic oversight from this House or anyone else, is he satisfied with the current appointment system in statute law or will the judicial appointments system be considered as part of the review to which he referred?

The Taoiseach:

That has already been reviewed. In the next six weeks the report of the judicial ethics committee is due to be published.

Mr. Howlin:

That has nothing to do with appointments.

The Taoiseach:

It does, it will match in with the report on Oireachtas reform. The committee in question will bring forward a set of proposals in respect of a number of areas. That system has only been in place for a short period and Deputy Quinn excluded it during his questions. The only matter of a legal nature to which he referred involved the Chief State Solicitor.

The Nally report recommends that county solicitors should be removed from the remit of the Attorney General and placed under that of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That proposal is under consideration.

It may be my fault or that of the House, but the view among members of the public that all of the positions on statutory committees and boards are filled by means of appointments made by Ministers of the day is incorrect. It is obvious that the Cabinet of the day has no responsibility for the majority of appointments to the various boards and statutory organisation. Considering the involvement of the Judiciary, local authorities and the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission and the fact that State boards are now in the private domain, there are not that many positions to which appointments are made by the Government. However, I take Deputy Quinn's point that there are certain important, full-time, permanent and pensionable posts to which appointments should perhaps be made in another way.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I will take a brief final supplementary from Deputy Bruton and a final reply from the Taoiseach.

Mr. J. Bruton:

Does the Taoiseach agree that there can be no political accountability for appointments if there is not some political responsibility for such appointments and that if appointments are entirely removed from the political sphere there can be no political accountability for them? If Hugh O'Flaherty had been appointed by a commission to the EIB, there would have been no political accountability for the mistake made. There was accountability because there was political responsibility and the Government suffered embarrassment. There is a need to recognise that political responsibility goes with accountability, one cannot have one without the other.

The Taoiseach:

While I agree with that principle, I also agreed with Deputy Quinn that, as the initiator, he is not trying to move the Executive from that position.

Mr. Quinn:

Absolutely not.

The Taoiseach:

What he is saying is that in some key positions where the political initiative still lies with the Executive—

Mr. Quinn:

Should always be so.

The Taoiseach:

—there is no argument about that – those elected on behalf of the people should be entitled to express a view. Provided this is not done in a star chamber – in other countries it is considered that there are star chambers – I do not see any reason a system cannot evolve. I acknowledge that I do not have one—

Mr. Quinn:

We have one prepared; I will send it to the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach:

I saw some reports—

Mr. Quinn:

If the Taoiseach looks at our website—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to conclude.

The Taoiseach:

I have concluded.

Mr. Rabbitte:

Provided prison visiting committees are protected.