Public Appointments Transparency Bill 2009: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I am happy to support the remarks made last evening by my colleague, Deputy Higgins, and the modest reforms contained in this Fine Gael Bill. It is important that we introduce more transparency and accountability into public appointments and into how such public bodies are required to account for the discharge of their functions.

When asked to deputise for my colleague, Deputy Penrose, who is at the ploughing championship, it occurred to me that it might not be a bad thing if we started with the Parliament. It is a matter of regret that the package of reforms submitted by the Oireachtas commission to the Minister for Finance for approval earlier this year has not been implemented in full. This morning, this matter was addressed by the Chief Whip, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Pat Carey, who made it plain that the Government has no intention of cutting back on the number of Oireachtas committees. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will recall, the commission proposed that the number of committees be reduced from 23 to 15. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, elegantly sidestepped this issue in his Budget Statement when he implied that the number of committees was a matter for the commission but that he, of course, supported a reduction. It is not a matter for the commission. Rather, it is a matter for the Taoiseach and the Minister. It is plain that neither supports a reduction.

It is all very well and fair for the Chief Whip to take the opportunity to point out that there have been reforms in this regard. For example, the stipends for vice chairmen and convenors have been abolished, the stipends for chairmen have been halved and staff levels have been cut. However, the number of committees remains the same. A House of 166 Members cannot support a network of 23 committees. The Government persists with this number for the same reason for which they were designed by Deputy Bertie Ahern in the first instance, that is, they are a convenient reward for disappointed would-be officeholders.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

That is right.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

The reason for reducing the number is not primarily about financial savings, although that is an issue. Rather, the reason is to improve the committee system. There are so many committees that it is not possible for them all to function well. In larger parliaments, there are usually sufficient non-officeholding parliamentarians with an expertise or specialist knowledge to support a larger committee structure. Our House of 166 Members does not have that resource. The legislative committees are usually carried by the Minister and two Opposition spokespersons. In addition, since chairmen are so disproportionately drawn from the Government side of the House, they usually emerge as another string to the Government's bow. When it suits, the chairman is a stand-in for the Minister. When it does not suit, he or she emerges as a media advocate of reform instead of the Opposition. The Opposition does the heavy lifting and the others sign in to decorate their curricula vitae.

Like the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I remember not so many years ago when the introduction of a committee system in the House was regarded as being at the leading edge of parliamentary reform. Some of the committees have demonstrated the value and quality of the work done, but we do not need 23 of them because a House of this size cannot support so many. The capacity to confer powers on a particular committee to compel witnesses and to send for persons and papers would enable a smaller committee system to hold public bodies to account, as envisaged in the Fine Gael Bill. Recent developments in many public bodies have demonstrated the necessity for a functional, informed committee system with the powers required to hold senior executives to account.

In recent days, a Minister of State appeared on RTE and wondered aloud what all of the fuss was about with FÁS. Was everything in the public domain not uncovered by FÁS in the first place, he wondered. That is true, but what he did not say was that the report of the internal audit system within FÁS was suppressed by the people running FÁS. My good friend, Deputy Conor Lenihan, forgot to say that. Sometimes, he has a problem in fleshing out his sentences to convey the full truth of a situation. Television lights have that impact on him. The internal audit function uncovered the skulduggery occurring, but it was suppressed and, from what I have been told, vindictive action was taken against a small number of staff.

Therefore, I support the Bill's measures to bring more transparency to public appointments and to provide for public bodies to be properly held to account. I agree with Deputy Varadkar's comments when introducing the Bill, that one ought not be excluded from serving on a public body by virtue of one's political affiliation, but there ought to be criteria other than——

Deputy Michael Ring

One would be a fool if one thought that did not count.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

——political affiliation. In recent times, there has been no evidence in some of the cases known to each of us in the House to suggest that the criterion brought to bear was anything but political affiliation.

The entry of my colleagues in the Green Party who shared my concern has reminded me of the disgraceful happenings in the Equality Authority. Before the chief executive was forced out, the Minister teed it up by cleaning out the authority's board and bringing in a new board. He stated that he was worried about the cost, so he appointed four extra directors. Whereas the previous directors had functioned free, gratis and for nothing and gave of their time and their expertise, he caused a stipend of just under €10,000 to be paid to the enlarged board. I do not want to be personal about some of the people now on the board, one of whom is the director of elections for an Independent Deputy. I could comment on some of the others. The first action was to dismiss the chief executive, who was doing his job as envisaged in law. Unfortunately, the Green Party did not take a stand on this matter when one would have expected it to, since I do not doubt the bona fides of its Members’ horror about what occurred.

There are too many public bodies, some with enormous budgets and, in certain cases, established to obviate the necessity for a Minister to answer questions in the House. The written reply from the Minister tells one to apply to an bord such and such. By the time one gets an answer, whatever was the pressing urgency has passed. There is no adequate mechanism in the House to hold bodies with large budgets of public money to account. The Bill is a modest step in the right direction and, for that reason, it has our support.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

With the permission of the House I wish to share time with Deputy White.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is Deputy Cuffe sharing with Deputies Michael McGrath, Collins, Cyprian Brady and Kennedy as well?

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

That is news to me but I am more than happy to share with those eminent Members of the House as well.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

Congratulations.

Deputy Michael Ring

They are still dictating.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

We will talk to Deputy Ring outside. I welcome the Fine Gael contribution to the debate on public appointments but I regret that the Bill is limited in its ambitions.

On a personal note I give credit to Deputy Varadkar for the good work he has done in bringing transparency to the operations of his own office in terms of his role as a Deputy. I would be delighted if his colleagues within the Fine Gael Party would bring the same level of transparency to their allowances and expenses as he does on his website. I give him credit for that.

The problem with the Bill before us is that, in essence, the Fine Gael Bill retains the "who one knows" aspect of public appointments. That is the devil in the detail. It is that very issue we want to move away from. The Fine Gael Bill only addresses the larger State bodies and agencies. Under the model it proposes the Oireachtas acts as a rubber stamp for ministerial appointments. The Fine Gael Bill does not give the power to the Oireachtas to nominate persons to boards, merely to approve them. It will not remove political patronage and it will not open up membership of State boards to qualified and talented persons from outside the political system, namely those with no connections to political parties or lobby groups.

The real flaw in the Fine Gael Bill is that it does not address the issue of diversity in our State boards, both of background and of skills. On the other hand, the Green Party in government has already begun to make fundamental change to how appointments to boards are made. As part of the Broadcasting Act 2009, my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, has ensured that the Oireachtas has an essential role in nominating members to the Broadcasting Authority. Unlike the proposal in the Fine Gael Bill, the Oireachtas committee will nominate half of the members of the board, and not merely approve them. The Green Party has already gone far beyond what Fine Gael is proposing in the Bill. The Green Party in government will build on that innovation.

Deputy Paul Connaughton

I am sure Deputy Cuffe does not really believe that.

Deputy Ciarán Cuffe

Among the options under consideration are an extended use of Oireachtas committees in both nominating and auditing board membership; an extended role for the Public Appointments Commission, or similar bodies, in the appointments to lesser boards; and an opening up of appointments to those currently outside of the political elite. That will ensure we have a transparent system, free from political patronage, which will attract talented and capable people from across the full spectrum of society.

In the limited time available I wish to stress that what we want to ensure we have is a system based on merit, transparency, equality and diversity of skills and background. Several models exist. One model is to have a public appointments unit in the Standards in Public Office Commission or the Office of the Commission for Public Service Appointments. A second model is to use an Oireachtas committee together with ministerial discretion. A third option is to use the Committee of Public Accounts to regulate and oversee the making of appointments.

We should continue with the excellent discussion Deputy Varadkar has introduced to the House. Every model has advantages and disadvantages. The good work that the TASC think tank has done in this regard is worth considering in detail. The Green Party has put forward a good model in the Broadcasting Act 2009. In fairness to the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, his appointments to the Dublin Transportation Authority have gone a long way towards creating a better system that is less prone to political patronage. I commend Deputy Varadkar's Bill. However, if anything, it is limited in ambition. We can and will go further than he has proposed.

Deputy Mary Alexandra White

I, too, am delighted to take part in this debate. I thank Deputy Varadkar for his work on this issue. While I and my party do not believe his measures go far enough to reform the system of appointments to State boards it does represent a positive contribution, and is another opportunity for the political system to debate this issue, which is important. This country has, regrettably, a chequered history in terms of political appointments to State boards, with many appointments over the years bringing into the realm of public service people chosen for reasons of acquaintance and loyalty, not competence or suitability. Those examples amounted to nothing more than political cronyism.

There are several positive aspects to Deputy Varadkar's proposals. They bring greater accountability into the realm of State bodies and their work. We have seen from recent incidents how a lack of accountability from State bodies has led to serious problems. The proposal includes Oireachtas participation in the ratification of certain appointments, which could be a positive and more democratic way of making appointments. It also envisages Oireachtas committees playing a more active role in the process of public appointments. However, I do not believe Deputy Varadkar's proposals go far enough. The Bill would not remove political patronage and it would not open up membership of State boards to qualified and talented people from outside the political system. We need to walk a further mile in that regard.

As Deputy Cuffe indicated, my party has shown its commitment to reform of the public appointments system in recent years. In 2007 my colleague Senator Boyle produced a fine Bill which would have had positive implications for all appointments to public bodies. That Bill provided that the Minister would retain responsibility for appointments but a public bodies unit within the Office of the Commission for Public Service Appointments would take charge of overseeing the appointments. It would advertise positions openly and transparently and following its selection of candidates a new joint Oireachtas committee on appointments to public bodies would be involved in scrutiny of the system and scrutiny at the end of the terms of office of appointees. In addition, the commission would have the power to dismiss chairpersons or board members. Under that Bill special appointments to certain international bodies would be subject to Dáil approval. Although Senator Boyle's Bill was rejected by the then Government he raised the issue again in frequent Seanad debates. He most recently initiated a further debate on governance in that House in April of this year.

Deputy Cuffe referred to the changes introduced by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, in the Broadcasting Act 2009. That was another Green Party initiative to re-shape public appointments. The Oireachtas, through the relevant committee, will nominate half of the members of the Broadcasting Authority, as well as approve them. This is the first time nominations and appointments to a State board have been legislated for in such a manner. The party has also shown a non-partisan approach in some of the appointments it has made to State boards. It is working in government to produce broad reform of this area of public appointments.

Any system of public appointments would need to be based on allowing the wider public access to jobs on State boards so that those outside the political elite are able to get involved. A new system should entail greater use of Oireachtas committees, or perhaps the Seanad, to nominate or audit board membership. In addition a State body such as the Public Appointments Commission should be used to regulate and administer a fair, transparent and meritocratic system of public appointments. Dáil inclusion in the ratification of certain appointments to international bodies should also be considered as part of this reform.

I once shared a car journey from the North with Deputy Varadkar, where we discussed many things as we negotiated the roundabouts and traffic lights going back to Dáil Éireann for a vote, among them, Oireachtas reform, Dáil reform, and public appointments and other things that shall remain between the two of us. His sincerity in bringing this Bill before the House is genuine. I would like it to go further. It has brought the discussion of the range of appointments to State boards once more into the public domain, which can only be good. I look forward to further progress on this area of governance in the near future from this side of the House.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Deputy Varadkar's Private Members' motion on the Public Appointments Transparency Bill. We all agree on the need for greater transparency and accountability for State appointments, whether the appointment of the chairperson of a board or the chief executive of any given State agency or authority. However, I do not agree with Deputy Varadkar's statement last night that people should be rewarded for participating in the political process, nor do I believe people should be penalised for it. In recent months we have seen the appointment of public interest directors to the financial institutions by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan. A non-partisan way forward is the best approach. People from all sides of the House, those with political experience or those outside with no political experience but with the correct commercial experience should be appointed where they are deemed to be appropriate. Once appointees are in position on a board or acting as chief executives, they are acting on behalf of the State, not on behalf of a political party or the Government. Therefore, it is fundamentally important for the democratic process that such appointments are properly made and are seen to be properly made.

I refer to a point made by Deputy Rabbitte, elaborating on another point made by Deputy Frank Feighan last night concerning the accountability of some State bodies to this House. Deputy Feighan remarked that if a Member poses a question about the National Roads Authority, he or she receives a standard letter that the Minister has no responsibility to Dáil Éireann on the matter raised. I agree with Deputies Rabbitte and Feighan that this system must be changed because wherever public expenditure decisions are made, whether by a State agency or authority, ultimately, the Minister has political responsibility for those decisions. Answers should be made available in this House when questions are put.

We are all aware of the system with regard to the HSE and the cumbersome process in place to answer parliamentary questions, which can take up to three, four or even five weeks. It is symptomatic of the way this House has devolved power away from the political process over many years and it is time we re-assumed that power to the House. We are the elected public representatives with a mandate and we should not be afraid to take responsibility for decisions or to be accountable for those decisions in this House.

I refer to the issue at the heart of Deputy Varadkar's Bill. There is no question that the traditional system of State appointments to boards and the appointment of chief executives should be reviewed. The process must be publically transparent and appointments should be above party politics. The single greatest qualification that a person should demonstrate in securing such an appointment is relevant experience, not a background in a political party nor that he or she is friends of anybody. This should be the most important criterion. It is important to draw a distinction in the vetting process between the appointment of a non-executive chairperson of a board and a chief executive because these are completely different roles. The latter role is an executive position including the role of Accounting Officer before the Committee of Public Accounts, following any report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, whereas the chairperson is an non-executive member of the board in many instances and it is a different role. A one-size-fits-all procedure in the Oireachtas would not necessarily be the most appropriate way forward.

It is important we do not put in place any barriers to finding the best people. If a vetting system is in place involving Oireachtas committees, would such hearings be held in public or private? Does this have the potential to degenerate into a circus? In fairness, Deputy Varadkar mentioned that personal issues or people's backgrounds should not be the subject of vetting in such an eventuality.

I am not convinced that the most appropriate way forward is for the Legislature to be directly involved in the vetting of candidates, whether in the appointment to a board or a chief executive, because not only are the appointments by the Minister to the boards important but, through other legislation, the appointment of other directors to boards, whether worker directors or appointments by other nominating bodies, are equally important. Are we suggesting all such appointments would come before the House? Everyone on the board is equal and has an equal responsibility.

Those are some initial comments and I thank Deputy Varadkar for putting forward the Bill. It is important that we hold a thorough debate and once the task force on public sector reform reports back on this issue we must try to achieve a consensus and improve the current system.

Deputy Niall Collins

I welcome the opportunity to partake in this debate. I followed it last night and listened to the contributions this evening which have been informative, and credit should be extended to Deputy Varadkar. His intent is genuine, good and non-political. There is no doubt that in today's age of openness, transparency and accountability the public demand openness in terms of appointing people to our State boards. Equally, to maintain a balance, I do not know of any Minister who appointed a person to a board knowing he or she had the intention of doing a bad job. Also, many people have been appointed to State boards throughout the years who have done very fine work. Such people have been fine public servants who served the public interest above and beyond the call of duty and we should all acknowledge as much. Obviously, there have been examples of actions which were not up to standard and they have been discussed, debated, reviewed and investigated by many committees and other agencies.

In terms of how we vet people, it is worth considering the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board which vets the people nominated to Government for appointment to the Judiciary. Such a model is workable and credible and people's credentials, qualifications and suitability for appointments may be assessed and then processed. The Standards in Public Office Commission should have a positive role to play in this regard.

Much enabling legislation which comes before the House disbars Deputies and Senators from sitting on the boards of agencies, which is correct. We should, however, go one step further. Local authority members should be also disbarred because local government has become a very busy place. Those working in the sector are paid public representatives. A representative may have 12 official local authority meetings in one year but there are many other meetings which take the form of briefing sessions. The prohibition on Deputies and Members of the Seanad should also apply to local authority members.

We should consider putting a cap on the number of appointments a person may hold in State agencies. We all receive the annual reports as they land on our desks via the postman. There are instances of people who seem to appear on the boards of many State agencies. We must critically examine this and possibly impose a cap on the number of positions an individual may hold. We must also appraise the role of civil servants on boards. There is an increasing trend whereby several State agencies have one or a number of civil servants on their boards. We should flesh out this matter because these people have a responsibility as a member of a given board. However, when something takes place the role of such people is not to become the eyes and ears of the Department because such people are bound by board confidentiality. We must examine the role of civil servants because the chief accounting officer reports to the Department and the chairperson of a board reports to the Minister. Why, therefore, are there so many civil servants on boards? I am not saying we should not have any in such positions but we should examine the matter.

We should also examine the age of appointees to boards. There is a retirement age of 65 years within the civil and public service for a reason. A Government decision dating from the 1970s precludes people more than 70 years of age from being appointed to State boards. I am not being ageist and I am not suggesting it is right or wrong, but in the light of equality legislation we should examine the matter. I refer to the issue of gender. There is a minimum female gender requirement of 40%. We should consider moving to a 50-50 requirement, or at least to have the 40% threshold upheld, because it is not upheld in all areas.

With appointments to State boards where a group structure exists, the original appointee is often a director on subsidiary companies and when the term expires on the parent group company, the member often remains as board director of subsidiary companies ad infinitum. That should be examined. There is good intent in this discussion as there are many anomalies that should be considered.

Deputy Cyprian Brady

I welcome this timely debate. The introduction of this Bill by Deputy Varadkar highlights the necessity to ensure that whatever public moneys are being spent are spent correctly. Over the years I have had much interaction with State bodies and other statutory agencies, as well as voluntary boards. In the majority of those cases, the people involved, from the chairman right through the members of the board, have been excellent and contribute greatly to the sphere of work in which they are involved. I notice this in particular with statutory boards such as the community policing forums around this city and other agencies.

I have a problem with Deputy Varadkar's Bill in that we should not throw out the baby with the bath water. There are some relevant and specific points within the Bill but we must ensure not to lose much of the experience and expertise that has been built up in this country in recent years. When placing people in positions of responsibility, particularly where public money is concerned, there is a need for experience and people who know what they are doing. Such appointees must be able to work with others, although that has not always been the case. In the majority of cases, people — particularly those giving their time voluntarily — have much expertise to contribute, and we should not make the mistake of ignoring it.

In the present climate and in recent months our focus has been particularly pointed towards some State agencies which have floundered for whatever reason at board, staff or management level. Incidents over the past months and years have caused concern for everybody in this House. No more than members of the Opposition, Members on this side of the House are every day of the week dealing with individuals, families and groups which interact with such agencies on a daily basis. It is as much in our interest as anybody else's to ensure those agencies deal specifically with the tasks given to them in an efficient and open manner.

We have had much discussion in recent weeks and months on the Dublin Docklands Authority, for example. I have personally experienced the significant work done by that body in my constituency and it has been successful in turning what was a derelict part of Dublin into a thriving community, business and otherwise. We should learn from mistakes which have been made rather than making a blanket contribution, and use expertise built up over years.

The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has thought outside the box and considered alternatives. He has openly advertised senior posts to people who may have an interest and got the best person for the job in that way. We should consider such an approach, a prime example of which was used with the Dublin Transport Authority and the appointment of Mr. Gerry Murphy. He was with the Grangegorman Development Agency and is a man of great experience and a very shrewd operator. He will be of significant benefit to the city. We must be careful in how we approach our business but we should proceed in a proper fashion, ensuring all agencies act correctly in future.

Deputy Michael Kennedy

I thank Deputy Varadkar for opening the debate on this matter. Some aspects of the Bill are premature but it is useful to have the debate nonetheless. I hope that further down the road we will be able to get agreement across the House on the way forward.

As Deputy Brady indicated, the Government has moved on this issue. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, have gone outside their previous remits in dealing with the appointment of CEOs. Generally speaking, the chairmen appointed by a Minister are of the highest quality. Reference has been made to the Dublin Transport Authority, to which the former county manager of Fingal, Mr. William Soffe, has been appointed. He is a man of integrity and vast experience and he is very familiar with the Dublin area from his time as deputy manager of Dublin City Council and subsequently as manager of Fingal County Council.

The appointment of a chairman by a Minister is not bad, per se. We must appoint people of quality, probity and integrity. The Ministers I mentioned publicly advertised positions and fortunately we are getting the right people for positions. That is the way it should be.

Fine Gael should wait for the publication of the OECD report on public service appointments and we could then have a completely informed debate. I hope the combination of the report and the input of the Opposition could bring about a position of transparency, which we all want to see. Organisations like the HSE and the National Roads Authority should be accountable to the Houses, and that should be the next stage in terms of accountability and transparency.

I congratulate the Deputy for initiating this debate and facilitating the airing of opinions on all sides of the House. We should also hear professional views such as that of the OECD report. As a Dáil we should not make decisions without reference to professional bodies; we should listen to professional recruitment firms, for example, which help appoint top executives in the biggest businesses in the country on a daily basis. They would also have much international experience and, collectively, such ideas could facilitate the publication of a Bill which could be supported by all parties, either by way of Private Members' Business or a Government Bill. I am not concerned about who introduces it as long as we get the right result.

The reference to the position of chief executive is very important. It is essential for us to get the right people into position in order to make the important decisions required of all our State bodies, particularly in the current recessionary climate. I remain to be convinced that the Dáil having powers to sanction appointees is the right way to go. I would hate to think of us sitting around checking out an individual, asking whether his or her granny beat his or her grandad, for example. We have seen how in America the gory details can be brought into the public domain. There are aspects of a person's life which do not impinge on his or her ability to do a job and, whatever way we tackle the issue, I would hate to think of this Dáil engaging in a personal attack on a private individual.

Deputy Damien English

I wish to share time with Deputies Creighton, Connaughton, Coveney, Ring, Durkan and Perry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is agreed.

Deputy Damien English

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The Bill before the House has nothing to do with Irish soccer and is not about the grannies and grandads of new CEOs. Under its provisions, the questions to be put to candidates would relate to their credentials and expertise and not to their families or what they had for breakfast. It is important to clarify that point. If the Deputies opposite read the contributions already made by Members on this side, they might come to realise what we are trying to achieve.

During the debate on another motion last week, I referred to the desire for a new kind of politics. This Bill is another step in that direction. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Mansergh, and others are missing the point in respect of this matter. Members of the public want a new kind of politics and they want to see changes introduced to the system. They want accountability, responsibility and action and are fed up with Ministers establishing bodies and committees to carry out research and make decisions. People no longer want to hear, "We will make a decision in six months' time when we receive a report". The people elect politicians and Ministers to lead and make decisions. We waited approximately eight or nine months for an bord snip nua's report but any Member could have compiled it. There was no need to employ someone else to write that report. What are Members doing here?

The Bill is an attempt to restore accountability in respect of what happens in State bodies and boards. It suggests that a procedure be put in place in order that the names of all appointees be placed before the Houses and that the chairpersons of boards should present themselves to the relevant committees for a discussion regarding their credentials and their plans for the position in respect of which they have been nominated. It is quite simple. We are not blaming anyone or stating that people have done anything wrong. We are merely stating that a new system which will restore accountability and show the public that we are willing to put in place a proper system. What is wrong with following the example of the United States or other countries? We must learn from the political systems in which people believe.

The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Mansergh, stated that there is no need for the Bill. He also stated that everyone wants to promote the public interest. The issue is that people no longer believe that. They have lost faith in the House and in how it does its business. We have a duty to act fast in order to restore that faith.

Government Ministers do not realise that the election of President Obama in the United States has raised the bar for everyone involved in politics. The standard set by President Obama is that which people want all politicians to meet. A few weeks after taking office, President Obama named those who were to serve in the equivalent of our Cabinet. He indicated that these people were to perform certain jobs, that they would be obliged to discuss with him what they wished to achieve and that he would make the final decision, for which he would be accountable. I am not stating that we want the Taoiseach to be responsible for everything. However, President Obama stated that he is accountable and that if something goes wrong, it will be his fault. That is not the way matters operate in this country but it should be.

Deputy Varadkar's Bill will start us on the road towards having a system of that nature. It refers to people who are nominated for appointment to top jobs being obliged to come before the relevant committees of the Houses and outlining their qualifications. This would give Members on all sides the opportunity to pose the relevant questions. As already stated, such questions would not relate to what sport someone plays but would rather focus on his or her qualifications, expertise and plans. It is not rocket science. What we are seeking would be easy to implement.

There are close to 1,000 public bodies in existence. Earlier today I discovered that in future the NRA will be responsible for filling in potholes on county roads. I was under the impression that this was the job of the county council.

Deputy Michael Ring

The county councils are not doing it.

Deputy Damien English

That is correct. Rather than being able to approach the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in respect of matters relating to county roads, Members will now be obliged to submit their questions — in respect of which they will not receive replies — to the NRA. If one tables a question relating to road safety to the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, one receives a reply which indicates that he no longer has responsibility for the matter and that one should approach someone else in respect of it. One cannot ask the Minister for Health and Children questions about particular health matters without being informed that one's query has been forwarded to the HSE. The legislation under which the HSE was established specifically states that its CEO cannot question Government policy; it can only implement it. However, we are continually informed that the HSE rather than the Minister has responsibility for particular matters.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Hear, hear.

Deputy Damien English

I have serious misgivings with regard to that matter.

The Bill represents a step in the right direction and relates to the modernisation of politics. There is absolutely no reason the Government should not accept it. I suggest that we could add to it by proposing that Deputies should be allowed to serve on State bodies in order that people can see that we are doing our job. There are many Deputies who do not receive recognition for the work they do on Oireachtas committees. Such work often goes no further than the relevant Minister's desk. They should be appointed to the various bodies and boards — such as, for example, FÁS — in order that they might monitor their activities. This would assist in creating the type of political process of accountability and responsibility the country deserves and needs. It will obtain such a process if Bills of this nature are accepted.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

Deputy English hit the nail on the head in respect of this matter. Members of the public feel angry, hurt, helpless and, most of all, completely and utterly frustrated. If we do not get our act together and respond, we will all — particularly those in government — receive our answer when the next general election is held.

Cronyism has completely discredited politics and all politicians. It is time we dealt with it head on. People are fed up with the nod-and-wink culture that has developed, like a cancer, in Irish society and public life, particularly during the past 12 years. Certain individuals have wielded enormous influence and acted with absolute impunity. The obvious example in this regard relates to FÁS. However, there are many other State and semi-State bodies which have acted in a similar fashion. The individuals involved in the cases to which I refer were appointed to multiple State boards. Some of them were continually reappointed to their positions on virtually every State board going during the past 20 or 30 years.

An incentive has developed for politicians on the Government benches to create more of these bodies. I do not merely refer to semi-State organisations in this regard. Rather, I refer to county enterprise boards and similar ancillary bodies which should be part of county councils. Deputy Hogan introduced proposals to deal with the position in this regard.

As already stated, there is an incentive to encourage the proliferation of these organisations in order that those in government might provide their friends and cronies with jobs and thereby keep them happy and ensure they remain on board. This is simply not satisfactory. The people have had enough and so have Members on this side of the House. If the Minister of State opposite, Deputy Barry Andrews, and his colleagues do not deal with this matter, then the public will deal with them. It is as simple as that.

Since 1997, 207 new State bodies and some 600 new bodies in total have been established. The Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, has made numerous calls to the effect that this matter should be dealt with and during the past two years Deputy Varadkar and many others in the House have highlighted the need for action. However, nothing of substance has happened.

The Bill seeks to put forward and develop a new way of doing things. At the core of this new way is something simple, straightforward and easy to implement, namely, that public appointments should be made in public. The Bill suggests that when the Government appoints someone to a State board, this should be done in public and on an accountable basis. It also suggests that in respect of the most important appointments, the relevant committee should have the power to accept or reject a nomination.

One does not need to look to the United States for an example in this regard. One need go no further than the European Commission. As Deputy English stated, we are not interested in character assassination or in what people had for breakfast. However, we want to know about their qualifications, character and suitability to hold some of the most important positions in the country. We deserve to be provided with information relating to nominees' qualifications and these should be laid before the relevant Oireachtas committee. There should be nothing surprising about that.

Some of the excuses and blather offered by the Government in respect of this matter are, quite simply, ridiculous. It was stated that the committees are overloaded with work. They are overloaded in the context of being obliged to listen to Ministers read scripts that have been prepared by civil servants. As Deputy English asked, what are Members doing here? We are here to serve the people and to make politics relevant and accountable to them. Citizens are fed up with the creeping cronyism that has destroyed public life and destroyed people's confidence in the political system. We all suffer as a result of this. What is happening is simply unacceptable.

The real problem arises in the context of the arrogance that exists at the highest level in government, where people feel they can act with impunity and do not have to account to anyone. These individuals are of the view that they can make appointments and account for them at a later date. This is ridiculous and unsustainable and the public will not stand for it. What is the Government afraid of?

Deputy Paul Connaughton

I thank Deputy Varadkar and compliment him on introducing this Bill. I wish to raise two points in the brief time at my disposal. First, what could possibly be wrong with having the relevant Oireachtas committee meet the nominated chief executive officer or whatever to conduct a two-way debate with him or her? Although Members opposite have suggested this Bill would entail finding out every fiddly-faddly detail about a person's background, that is not what is intended. As Deputy Creighton has observed, the aim is to ensure the public can buy into this system. I have often watched how this process works in the United States Congress and ultimately, there is no point in having the proposed chief executive officer of the relevant outfit thinking that he or she must endure a grilling, as that is not the point. Moreover, to bring this a step further, the Minister of State should imagine the image created if one links transparency regarding the political establishment in the minds of the electorate in respect of a person who probably will be responsible for delivering one of the most important services they will receive as individuals. This is the bottom line because it is the delivery of the service in a transparent manner into which everyone can buy that counts. However, we are a million miles from that position at present.

A number of related Oireachtas committees would be suitable in this regard, such as the Committee of Public Accounts. While I acknowledge this committee deals with matters after they have happened, there would be no difficulty in establishing something similar. Those Members who have had the good fortune to serve on that committee for a number of years will appreciate it deals in the kind of detail and information that is sought by the public. The public would at least know who the Government has proposed on its behalf for the job in question. Moreover, were such a committee to be set up on an all-party basis, can one imagine the mandate that successful nominees would enjoy after coming through it? They would be much stronger than would be the case had they not undergone such a process.

I refer to the 6,000 directorships and memberships of boards, etc., of quangos throughout the country. No matter where they are located, they should be made known publicly to all concerned, both locally and nationally, in order that everyone will understand who represents them, even if it is merely on a prison visiting committee. Regardless of what it is, it should be open and transparent.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

Hear, hear.

Deputy Paul Connaughton

My next point pertains to a matter about which I continually have a bee in my bonnet. While it is not specifically related to this Bill, the principle is the same. National partnership is no such thing when half the elected Members of this House have nothing to do with it. In other words, only 50% of Members, by way of the Government side, are represented. Every other so-called pillar of the community is represented but half the membership of this House is disenfranchised for a reason I have never understood. Finally, on a practical matter, I have never understood the reason I am unable to discuss health issues on the floor of this Chamber on behalf of the constituents I represent.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Hear, hear.

Deputy Paul Connaughton

I should not be obliged to go halfway around the moon to get an answer that will be a year late and will be out of date.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Five years ago, I was deeply involved in a committee hearing process for the approval of the European Commission through the committee system in the European Parliament. The nominee for whom we had responsibility for questioning and debating with was Charlie McCreevy, because I was a member of the internal market committee of the European Parliament. It was a good system that was open, accountable and transparent. Journalists were present, people made their judgments and it worked. I cannot understand the arguments made by many of the speakers on the other side of the House as to the reason they will not support the Bill proposed by Fine Gael. They stated that it is because it has not gone far enough or has not been thought out properly or because Members must wait for an OECD report or another task force. Alternatively, the view expressed by the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, is that the current system is satisfactory.

Deputy Barry Andrews is a new and young Minister of State who I assume wishes to try to change and improve politics and to dispel the cynicism, anger and suspicion in which people in this profession now are held by so many members of the public. The current system of selecting, nominating and approving State board positions represents everything that is bad and secretive about politics. We need to change it and Fine Gael is bringing forward practical suggestions, based on what works elsewhere, as to how that may be done. Moreover, we do not suggest this is the perfect solution, which is the reason it has been put forward for a Second Stage debate in this Chamber. However, the Government could accept and then change the Bill.

Is it too much to ask that the principle be accepted that someone who will lead a State agency and who will work on behalf of the State, supposedly for the people's benefit, should be obliged to explain the reason they seek and are suitable for the job and to take questioning on that basis? The people who run the State bodies with which I am familiar would be delighted to do so because it would give them a greater mandate to provide the kind of leadership they wish to give. It would separate them from cosy connections with a Minister or relationships with the senior party in Government. This Bill is an attempt to move away from this and the Government should at least accept it in the spirit in which it was meant. It should take on board what Fine Gael Members are trying to suggest in this Bill, namely, an accountable system that enables Members to hold people to account, rather than setting up more State agencies, task forces and new bodies to do that on their behalf.

Deputy Michael Ring

I compliment my colleague, Deputy Varadkar, on introducing this Bill to the Dáil. I cannot understand the reason the Government will not accept it. I have listened to the Green Party Members, who should stop the hypocrisy. If the Bill is not perfect, it would be simple to have a Committee Stage debate in which the Government could then introduce whatever amendments it wishes. I am glad that Deputy Varadkar introduced this Bill because an examination of the Official Report for the last ten years would reveal that in common with other Members, I have been clamouring about the issue of lack of accountability to Dáil Éireann. The people elect Members to this Parliament. However, I refer to the previous Administration and the former Taoiseach, who has done much to the discredit of this House. Every time a problem arose, an agency or quango was set up by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, in respect of which he had a building constructed in his own constituency. He told builders that they should build a building and that he would put something into it. Members should note all the State agencies are located in the former Taoiseach's constituency, which is no way to run a Government.

I will provide the Minister of State with an example. A man who was very upset and frustrated once approached me. This man worked for a company as a carpenter and had many qualifications, including that of electrician, and had been a foreman for a major company. Having been obliged to be away from his wife and family for many years, he came to an interview process for a job with Mayo County Council. After three days of interviewing, during which former county secretaries and officials were paid for their attendance, the overseer's son was appointed. It is somewhat like FÁS in that the county council should not even have bothered. It should simply have paid for the advertisement without putting it in. This is what is wrong and Deputy Creighton's point is quite correct, given the anger and frustration of that man. While he had the qualifications, he did not mind if someone better got the job but he knew he was better. The job was only as a general operative and the only reason he sought it was to be home with his wife and family after the birth of their fourth baby. He did not want to be working away from home in a major company and nor did he wish to be in receipt of social welfare because he had worked all of his life.

Fine Gael wants to get rid of the quangos because there are too many of them. Deputy Coveney is correct in that regard. County managers are appointed through the Civil Service system. Every county manager should appear before the Oireachtas committee with responsibility for the environment every year and should be accountable to the Dáil for what is happening. Every time a Bill is being debated in the Dáil, I ask one question, that the agency, the NRA or the quango be accountable to the Dáil.

If any Member wants to table a parliamentary question it should be answered. Deputy Connaughton made the point that when one tables a question to the Minister for Health and Children or the Minister for Transport, the response is that the Minister has no responsibility. There is responsibility in this House. The people of this country are elected to the Parliament, the Parliament makes the laws and every agency should be accountable to the Parliament, not to the Minister. One should not be on a State board because one supports the Minister or because one supports Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or any other party. It should be because a person has the qualifications required.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I compliment Deputy Varadkar on introducing this Bill, which is progressive and is needed at present. The country has become complacent and has accepted the rule as laid down. Unfortunately, there has been very little change of Government in the past few years. As a result, the same people are being appointed again and again, as referred to by previous speakers. Terms of reference are drawn up by the same people, appointments are made by the same people and, although the appointees may be good people in their own way with excellent qualifications, by virtue of the fact that they are appointed by the same people they feel allegiance to them. An example is the way one tables questions on the HSE, NTR or any topic under the sun. The response is that the Minister has no responsibility to the House. To whom does the Minister have responsibility? Is it to himself or herself? No one can ask a question or receive an answer. Freedom of information queries have now taken precedence over parliamentary questions because one is more likely to get a reply.

Why is it that Members of the national Parliament are excluded from asking questions on certain areas? Another example concerns the health repayment scheme. A Member may ask a question regarding legislation passed by this House concerning someone awaiting payment. Eventually a general reply will suggest that the body administering the scheme is prevented from replying to the Member because of the Data Protection Act. This is the last resort. People fail to recognise that it does not matter about the Data Protection Act because Members are also subject to it. Collectively, the House is subject to the Data Protection Act. No one has the right to hide behind the Data Protection Act when asked a question by a Member of this House or by someone outside this House by way of letter.

Public bodies and quangos are no longer accountable to anyone except privately to the Minister. Why should that be? Have we no respect for ourselves? Is it not time that someone recognises that, in fairness to everyone, people would like to know that they have been treated equally, that they have access to information and that certain procedures are being followed? Previous speakers have set out instances where matters could be improved.

The only way to change the system is to have a change of Government through a general election. I do not think we will achieve a change of Government in the one minute that remains in my contribution. When the change of Government comes, it will have the effect of ensuring that those appointed to these bodies will not be as secure as they thought they were. They will no longer be accountable only to one Minister or one party, which is a total corruption of democracy. It has happened in this country. I do not have to go into the subject dearest to the Minister's heart at this time, NAMA. God and heaven protect us. I cannot believe that, in any other country in the world, what has gone on over the past five for five years in this country would not lead to charges being proffered against the people concerned. Nothing happens in this country but I cannot understand why.

The Bill is progressive and useful. It has no chance of success because the Government has no intention of introducing transparency or accountability or of taking any steps to reprimand those who may have erred, greatly costing the people, the country and the taxpayers.

Deputy John Perry

I thank my colleague, Deputy Leo Varadkar, for introducing the Public Appointments Transparency Bill. This is important legislation and is timely in view of recent developments such as the resignation of the FÁS board and the serious questions being asked of all State appointed boards. The Bill proposes necessary changes in the manner in which individuals are appointed by Ministers to Government bodies by bringing greater transparency and accountability to the appointment process and by bringing greater scrutiny to the operations and activities of various State agencies, boards and quangos. Recent events have demonstrated that these reforms are urgently needed. We see the necessity for Dáil reform and the changes to the business that are needed.

Having nominees for senior positions on such boards appear before the relevant Oireachtas committee to give evidence as to suitability, qualifications and other matters relevant to nomination will bring greater clarity to the appointment process. It is important that the individuals who take on such roles are seen to have been appointed in an open and transparent manner, and that their qualifications and suitability for such rules are publicly questioned and examined. The experience to date has shown that ministerial oversight is often insufficient and inadequate.

Members of boards of State agencies and quangos are often not directors of the activity in that they do not direct any specific function of the organisation. They have no status or function other than when meeting as members of the board. Generally they have no authority or right of access to management except through the chief executive officer, who controls everything. Friends of friends are on boards. The legal function of board members often covers such areas as remuneration, disclosure and board procedures but generally the legislation establishing the organisation is a vague in respect of the specific duties of direction and control of the business activities of the organisation. All of these factors make it imperative that persons being appointed to board level positions of State agencies and quangos have the necessary experience to enable them to fulfil the expected role of responsibility for the public interest in all aspects of the operation of the organisation. This is important legislation if we are to do business differently. Questions have been asked about the number of Oireachtas committees. This could be a major role of a committee, bringing in people, checking their capabilities and making them accountable. The person appointed would feel a greater responsibility. Putting people on boards because they have the expertise in one area does not mean they have expertise and qualifications to make a difference.

The Minister's appointments to the board of NAMA will be critical. It is important that, in appointments to bank boards, the citizen's viewpoint is represented and that the public interest nomination on these boards reflects the interests of the people. People see members of State boards appointing relations and appointing people to other boards. It is a special, elite club like a public members club. People are frustrated. There should be a national register of appointees to all boards. The appointments should be in the public domain. Appointed members should occasionally make a statement on what they bring to the board. It is a privilege to be appointed to a board but there is also the responsibility of accountability. In government, Fine Gael will make appointments through a public, open forum. Deputy Varadkar's Bill is about change. Change in business is important and, as a businessman, I know that what was right last year might be wrong this year. One must keep changing and discussing improvements with the management team. In the 12 years I have been in Leinster House nothing has changed. We are using the same procedures and little or no Dáil reform has taken place. A very effective mechanism of Dáil reform would be for the committees in the House to have a real role. As Chairman of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Scrutiny I believe that scrutiny of legislation and appointments is very important. The Minister should seriously recommend this to improve politics and to make this House more accountable to the people who elect us.

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan)

The Bill with which we are dealing here this evening raises important issues of public interest and I thank Deputy Varadkar for allowing the House the opportunity to discuss them. While the Government is opposing the Bill on a number of grounds, we acknowledge the concerns that have been voiced by many Deputies. We agree that the aim to achieve best practice in the corporate governance of State bodies and statutory agencies is paramount. It is fundamental to the public interest. However, there are a number of different ways in which that aim can be achieved.

As already pointed out in the debate, individual Members of the Government have taken a number of initiatives in their own sectors. The Minister for Transport advertised for expressions of interest for suitable candidates when he was filling vacancies on the board of the Dublin Transportation Authority. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has given the relevant Oireachtas committee a role in the appointment of certain State boards. In my Department, I have consulted the main Opposition parties about the appointment of public interest directors to the State guaranteed financial institutions.

It is fair to say that in recent years the system of appointments to State boards has been refined and the overall calibre of appointees has improved. It is increasingly the practice to specify in the governing legislation the attributes required of board members. The legislation governing the establishment of NAMA is a case in point. I will consult with the Opposition parties about the chairmanship of the agency and I have written to the Opposition leaders in that regard.

The Government is anxious to innovate in this area and is keen to bring more accountability into the system of State board appointments. Having said that, it is not clear that the approach proposed in the Bill is the best way of delivering the improvements we all want to see. I am not convinced of the case for departing from the well-established corporate governance arrangements for the appointment of chief executives. The current practice whereby chief executives and other senior executives are appointed by the board is the norm internationally and is often specified in legislation. These appointments are conducted through a well-tried and independent process involving open competition and sometimes the use of recruitment agencies.

I am not aware of any dissatisfaction with this system and I am not sure that the legislature is the correct body to vet these appointments. There could be considerable operational difficulty with an Oireachtas committee assessing an appointment to such key positions as chief executives and chairmen in such a wide range of bodies. It might deter candidates from coming forward.

Deputy Paul Connaughton

It should not.

Deputy Brian Lenihan

I have my doubts that an Oireachtas committee would deliver appointments to a wide variety of State bodies in a timely and efficient manner, a prerequisite to ensuring the continued smooth operation of the bodies in question. We should study the experience in the United States in that regard. Last night, Deputy Varadkar acknowledged there could be some difficulties. However, he was more optimistic than I would be that they could be managed.

The proposal contained in his Bill that the Dáil should confirm Executive appointments by resolution would be unprecedented. The only appointment made in this manner is that of Comptroller and Auditor General who is a constitutional officer. Looking narrowly at the matter of transparency, it should be noted by the House that the names of directors of State bodies and statutory agencies, as well as their professional activities and qualifications, are publicly available in the annual reports, which must be laid before the Houses prior to publication. An examination of recent appointments will show that the qualifications of many of those nominated to serve of State boards have been impressive.

The selection process for senior positions is important but it is not the only means of ensuring best practice in the governance of State bodies. There are a wide variety of obligations on board members including the corporate governance obligations set out in the recently revised code of practice for the governance of State bodies. The code is very clear on the matters that are reserved to the board and for which it is responsible and will be held to account.

This evening, I had the pleasure of conferring certificates and diplomas for training courses for directors at an Institute of Directors function. We must deepen this area, as the office of director carries serious fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders and legal obligations with regard to creditors, debtors and employees. It is important that those who undertake such an office understand its responsibilities and I am open to all suggestions for improvement in that regard.

Proper oversight of State bodies by the parent Department is fundamental. The Government accepts the recommendations in the OECD's 2008 review that the framework between Ministers and State bodies should be strengthened. The task force established by the Taoiseach on foot of the review set out a three-year framework, which the Government has adopted, for transformation of the public service. The Department of Finance will lead the work in the development of models of performance and governance frameworks. These models will cover the issues raised by the OECD, including the role and function of the boards of State bodies. Any major change to the system of appointment of the chairmen and CEOs should await the outcome of that work.

The Government and I share Deputy Varadkar's concern to ensure the highest standards of corporate governance of statutory bodies. We do not accept the Bill as currently drafted will achieve our shared ambition. Therefore I oppose the Bill.

Deputy Deirdre Clune

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill and I am very disappointed to hear the Minister state that the Government will reject the Bill. That is a mistake. The Bill may not be perfect but it could be amended. It is a very important Bill and the Government should fly a flag to state it is willing to make changes and ensure that openness, transparency and accountability are introduced throughout the public service. This is particularly so for Members of the Green Party who, when in Opposition, proposed a similar Bill which contained similar structures to what we are discussing this evening. Now that they are on the other side of the House they are bringing down the shutters and keeping everything under wraps and behind closed doors with appointments made in private.

The political establishment has lost favour with the electorate. A series of bad news stories on the abuse of power, or perceived abuse of power, and a failure by some to live up to the standards required of those of us who operate in public service has undermined confidence in the structures of the State. That is wrong and is unfair to the many individuals who want to serve the electorate and give of their time and expertise to the State. We can all point to incidents where individuals did not fulfil their obligations to the public, the taxpayers and stakeholders. The tribunals have been well documented and their published findings have shocked many members of the public. Their findings have been deeply disappointing and the public has become cynical not only of the politicians who represent them but also of those who have served in public office. The facts have been laid bare and recent reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General into the activities of FÁS are factual and tangible.

Another area the Bill proposes to tackle is allegations of cronyism and jobs for the boys and suggestions that it is all about who one knows and that if one supports the Government parties of the day one will receive favours and be appointed to State boards. This insinuates that it is not about one's knowledge, personal skills or the contribution one can make. This thinking undermines confidence in many of our State institutions. Now is the time to put things right and to ensure we put in place a more transparent system of appointment to our State boards for the good of politics and, more importantly, for the good name of our State institutions that have served this country so well in many ways. They need to have the confidence of those they serve.

All parties in the House should support a more transparent system that would see those appointed as CEOs and chairmen to State boards come before an Oireachtas committee and give an account of their attributes. I am sure many people would be glad of the opportunity to come before a committee in a public and open fashion and participate in a question and answer session, give of their time and hear what Members of the Oireachtas have to say about the State board on which they are due to serve.

It is very important to renew public confidence in our State institutions. I do not accept what many contributors said that it could amount to a witch-hunt. That would not be the case. The qualifications and expertise of the individuals would come into question along with their ability to serve. Many people serve on State boards and give their very valuable time. We acknowledge that but in the interests of openness and transparency, a move towards a public appointments system is what is needed.

I was interested to read a report in one of today's newspapers about yesterday's Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting. I was not in attendance but perhaps the Minister for Finance was. The report stated that a backbencher questioned the appointment of the chairwoman to the Arts Council. The Tánaiste is reported to have been upset that the matter was raised at a Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting. I believe she said she said she may as well talk about it on the streets and that the Deputy should have raised it privately with her. The report also stated there are allegations that there are concerns in Fianna Fáil that too many of the same people are getting the same jobs and that there is fishing from the same pool all the time. Perhaps the Minister for Finance can clarify that.

The report to which I have referred sums up exactly what we are about this evening. Why not have these appointments out in the open? I am sure the individuals appointed would be willing to discuss their relevant attributes. The Tánaiste's reported comments from yesterday's parliamentary party meeting sum up the thinking on the opposite side of the House.

Deputy Brian Lenihan

I fish in all pools.

Deputy Deirdre Clune

I do not believe the Minister's backbenchers share his hopes in that regard.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

Did the Deputy check the record from 1995 to 1997?

Deputy Deirdre Clune

I did not check the record because I was not at the Deputy's parliamentary party meeting. It sums up the thinking around public appointments.

I heard people say we should wait for the report on public service appointments to come out. Let us not do that, let us make decisions for ourselves. Why wait for a report on public service appointments? Surely the Government has the confidence and ability to make decisions without waiting for yet another report. We are elected to make decisions and have the power to do so. Let us use that power and, in some small way, give back politics to the people and take a step towards giving them confidence in the structures of the Oireachtas and the State bodies there to serve them.

Many very important appointments will be made in the future, including appointments to National Asset Management Agency. A chief executive officer to the Health Service Executive is due to be appointed and the FÁS board is to be restructured which is due to be discussed tomorrow. They are very important positions and as we move from a period in which we have created cynicism and undermined confidence in politics and our State institutions, let us take this small step forward to try to revert to that position.

I commend Deputy Varadkar on bringing forward this Bill. I hope we will get some support from the Government in the near future on it.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I do not know how many pools in which the Minister for Finance fishes but I am sure after recent weeks, he would prefer if the Tánaiste kept all her comments to herself in that they seem to be endlessly unhelpful to him and the Taoiseach.

I would like to reflect on some of the points made by the many speakers who contributed to the debate, which was a very good one. We do not often have good debates in this House but this was a very interesting one. Deputy Frank Feighan suggested that all appointments should be advertised. That is not in the Bill but is something with which I very much agree. He also pointed out the extent to which Ministers will not answer parliamentary questions or say they are not responsible for the Health Service Executive or the National Roads Authority and yet they are the first to cut the ribbon to open a new hospital wing or a new motorway. That shows the hypocrisy of the way Government works in this country, that when asked to assist somebody, Ministers are not responsible but if it comes to a photo shoot or taking credit for something, they are the first people lining up.

Deputy Andrew Doyle spoke about the extent to which the change in the HSE has undermined services — first centralising, then decentralising and then centralising again. Deputy David Stanton pointed out the extent to which parliamentary questions are not answered and when they are answered, it is by way of private correspondence between the agency and the Deputy and therefore, it does not go on the public record. That, in itself, reduces accountability. That is a point I had not considered but it is valid.

Deputy James Bannon focused on the fact so much power is now vested in people who are not elected. The Government's continuing decision to denude local government of power and to set up new agencies has very much continued that process.

I refer to the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh's, response. He gave five reasons for not supporting this Bill. The first was his concern about chief executive officers being subjected to vetting by Oireachtas committees as it cuts across normal corporate governance arguments for boards to appoint chief executive officers. I take a very different view. The successor to Professor Brendan Drumm should come before this House. His appointment should be preliminary and we should interview him. The same should apply to the new governor of the Central Bank, which is a good appointment, but it would be appropriate for him to meet and testify before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service prior to his appointment. If the Government has such concern about that provision, there is no reason it cannot support the Bill and delete that section on Committee Stage.

The Minister of State indicated that he did not believe there was anything wrong with the current system. He said Ministers can be questioned and held responsible to the Houses of Oireachtas to justify their appointments. However, that is not the case. They can only be held accountable after the fact when the appointment has already been made, and therein lies the problem.

The Minister of State and a number of other speakers, including Deputies Seán Ardagh and Michael Ahern, suggested that candidates may be discouraged by the prospect of presenting their credentials in a public forum before a committee. That is nonsense. Those who want to be, or who believe they are competent to be, chairmen of State agencies should have no hesitation coming before an Oireachtas committee to make their case. They are called to do so subsequent to their appointment so why should they not be called to do so prior to, or on, their appointment?

We could learn much about the kind of people put in charge of State agencies if we did this. When the chairman of the Labour Relations Commission, the chairman of the Labour Court and so on have appeared before committees, I have asked them if they would be prepared to do this. They have said they would welcome it and that they would have no difficulty doing so. They said they would feel they had more authority having received the approval of the Oireachtas and not only the Minister. I do not know who is afraid. Is it the potential candidates or, for some reason, Ministers who want to cover up some of the appointments they have made which are most inappropriate?

Another argument the Minister of State made was that there would be a total overload for Oireachtas committees. That is nonsense. Most of what Oireachtas committees do is not relevant. They should be given a more relevant role beyond select committees and this is one area where this should be done.

The Minister of State and other speakers pointed out that there have been some initiatives, including the Minister for Transport advertising positions on the Dublin Transport Authority and the moves by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in regard to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. They are only two agencies out of 1,000 and in those cases, it is only advertising the appointments. In the case of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, the Minister intends to appoint half the members which is exactly the way it is done currently with no transparency whatsoever. That is very little progress.

Interestingly, of the other Government speakers, very few spoke substantially against the Bill. Deputy Mary O'Rourke spoke largely in favour it. She supported the provisions in it with the exception of the chief executive officer provision and spoke about her role as a Senator in proposing that the Seanad should have this sort of role. Similarly, the principle was accepted by Deputies Seán Ardagh and Michael Ahern, except for the chief executive officer section.

What was most strange was the contribution of the Green Party. In contrast to his Fianna Fáil colleagues, Deputy Ciarán Cuffe said the Bill did not go far enough and that it is limited in its ambitions. That is a totally contrary view to that of Fianna Fáil. He said it did not apply to enough bodies and nor did it provide for enough diversity. Deputy Mary White claimed the Bill did not go far enough. In contrast to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, she supported explicitly the principle of Oireachtas ratification of public appointments and that Oireachtas committees should review them. She also said overseas appointments should be confirmed by the Dáil, an approach which the Minister for Finance regards as unprecedented, except in the case of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Again, one wonders how long this coalition will last when the Government parties are united in opposition to a Bill but for divergent and contradictory reasons. This is a bizarre Government.

I thank the Labour Party, particularly Deputy Higgins, for his contribution. I took on board his points about the flaws of corporate governance in, and the bad example set by, private sector boards. We should not think that in trying to change how public sector boards are appointed what goes on in the private sector should be honoured or followed.

Deputy Creighton summed up the essential thrust of the Bill. Fine Gael believes public appointments should be public, public bodies should be accountable and government should be transparent. Any Member who shares these views should have no hesitation in supporting this Bill.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 70.

Tá

Allen, Bernard.
Barrett, Seán.
Breen, Pat.
Broughan, Thomas P.
Bruton, Richard.
Burke, Ulick.
Burton, Joan.
Byrne, Catherine.
Carey, Joe.
Clune, Deirdre.
Connaughton, Paul.
Coonan, Noel J.
Coveney, Simon.
Crawford, Seymour.
Creed, Michael.
Creighton, Lucinda.
D’Arcy, Michael.
Deasy, John.
Deenihan, Jimmy.
Doyle, Andrew.
Durkan, Bernard J.
English, Damien.
Enright, Olwyn.
Feighan, Frank.
Flanagan, Terence.
Gilmore, Eamon.
Hayes, Brian.
Hayes, Tom.
Higgins, Michael D.
Kehoe, Paul.
Kenny, Enda.
Lee, George.
Lynch, Ciarán.
Lynch, Kathleen.
McCormack, Pádraic.
McEntee, Shane.
McGinley, Dinny.
McGrath, Finian.
McHugh, Joe.
McManus, Liz.
Mitchell, Olivia.
Morgan, Arthur.
Naughten, Denis.
Neville, Dan.
Noonan, Michael.
Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
O’Donnell, Kieran.
O’Dowd, Fergus.
O’Keeffe, Jim.
O’Mahony, John.
O’Shea, Brian.
O’Sullivan, Jan.
Penrose, Willie.
Perry, John.
Rabbitte, Pat.
Ring, Michael.
Shatter, Alan.
Sheahan, Tom.
Sheehan, P. J.
Sherlock, Seán.
Stagg, Emmet.
Stanton, David.
Tuffy, Joanna.
Upton, Mary.
Varadkar, Leo.

Níl

Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.
Ahern, Noel.
Andrews, Barry.
Andrews, Chris.
Ardagh, Seán.
Aylward, Bobby.
Blaney, Niall.
Brady, Áine.
Brady, Cyprian.
Brady, Johnny.
Browne, John.
Byrne, Thomas.
Calleary, Dara.
Carey, Pat.
Collins, Niall.
Conlon, Margaret.
Connick, Seán.
Coughlan, Mary.
Cregan, John.
Cuffe, Ciarán.
Curran, John.
Devins, Jimmy.
Dooley, Timmy.
Fahey, Frank.
Finneran, Michael.
Fitzpatrick, Michael.
Fleming, Seán.
Flynn, Beverley.
Gogarty, Paul.
Gormley, John.
Grealish, Noel.
Hanafin, Mary.
Haughey, Seán.
Healy-Rae, Jackie.
Hoctor, Máire.
Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Peter.
Kenneally, Brendan.
Kennedy, Michael.
Killeen, Tony.
Kirk, Seamus.
Kitt, Michael P.
Kitt, Tom.
Lenihan, Brian.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
McGrath, Michael.
McGuinness, John.
Mansergh, Martin.
Moloney, John.
Mulcahy, Michael.
Nolan, M. J.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O’Brien, Darragh.
O’Connor, Charlie.
O’Dea, Willie.
O’Flynn, Noel.
O’Hanlon, Rory.
O’Keeffe, Edward.
O’Rourke, Mary.
O’Sullivan, Christy.
Power, Seán.
Roche, Dick.
Ryan, Eamon.
Sargent, Trevor.
Scanlon, Eamon.
Treacy, Noel.
White, Mary Alexandra.
Woods, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan.

Question declared lost.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 23 Sep 2009

Public Appointments Transparency Bill 2009: Second Stage (Resumed).

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Sep 2009