The time limit for this debate is two hours. Notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the time limits for speakers are 15 minutes for the Minister, the speech of the proposer of the motion will be 12 minutes, the speech of each other Senator will be eight minutes and the reply of the proposer or some other Senator nominated by him will be five minutes.
Membership of State Boards: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann condemns the Minister for Finance for his attitude towards public representatives in relation to their suitability for membership of State Boards and calls on the Government not to proceed with any action against members of such boards solely because of their political affiliations.
In a sense, history has caught up with this motion in that the Minister has, as we all know, somewhat ignominiously backed off the extraordinary decision which he made two weeks ago to approach certain members of the board of ACC to try to browbeat them into withdrawing their membership from the board of ACC simply on the basis that they were public representatives, councillors democratically elected by the people in this State.
The actions of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, in attempting to force two county councillors to surrender their position on the board of ACC simply because they were councillors is totally reprehensible. It is anti-democratic. It marks a new high point in pork barrel politics in which the Minister and his colleagues in this Government have wallowed. The Government parties here tonight will be trying to persuade the House that the Minister had some reform in mind. The Minister himself last week showed a breathtaking disregard for the intelligence of the Irish people when he tried to put forward the view that he was not actually asking anybody to resign. They had simply misheard him; there was something wrong with the acoustics in the room. That particular piece of deliberate deception has no more credibility than the amendment which is put before us tonight.
I feel a certain sympathy with my colleagues on the Government side in this matter, because they are having to draw the fat from the fire in this matter. The Senators on the Government side share with me a very wide held respect for councillors of all parties and none throughout this country.
Including Councillor Lawlor.
Absolutely, I am glad that the Senator includes Councillor Lawlor. I am sure he will be appreciative of that. The reality of it is, however, that Senators on the Government side are stuck with this particular issue. They are stuck with a Minister who went on a solo run and who made an ass of himself in this regard.
It is worth examining briefly the role we ascribe to the boards of State-sponsored bodies before analysing who is and who is not suitable to sit on them. Nine specific roles have traditionally been performed by the boards of State-sponsored bodies. First, they are charged with the general task of implementing the Government policy of the day with regard to the State body in question. Secondly, they are charged with the task of appointment of top management. They are charged thirdly with the task of exercising overall financial control, with the responsibility of stimulating development and maximising effectiveness. They are required to supervise the overall staffing practices and personnel policies of the company, to measure and encourage management performance and to liaise with the Minister and the parent Department. They are required to protect the interests of the shareholder and, finally, they are traditionally required to ensure that the company observes the law.
In more recent times a tenth objective has been added to that list. That is to ensure that the company, particularly a monopoly company, does not operate in a way which is inimical to the customer, to the company's employees and staff, or to the public interest. None of these roles is in any way in conflict with the holding of public elected office, particularly not at local level. In the matter of representing consumers' interests, as Members on all sides of this House know, a competent local councillor would seem in a company such as ACC to be ideally suited to the task.
Certainly, when the Agricultural Credit Corporation operated policies a few short years ago which were damaging to the interests of borrowers, among the very first to highlight those deficiencies were local elected representatives, who daily in the course of their constituency work witnessed at first hand the problems caused over the years by an excessively liberal extension of credit by that State company. For my own part, I gained more insight into the nature of the relationship between client or consumer of ACC's products and the company from the reality of constituency work than I did over a very considerable period reading through the academic literature, which is abundant, on the power and status of State enterprises.
It is also worth examining the quite extensive literature which has grown up over the years on the composition of the boards of State-sponsored bodies. This is far from a new topic. As far back as 1972 the Institute of Public Administration sponsored a major conference on the role of boards. Inevitably, at that conference the issue of board composition came up. The topic was addressed by the then Secretary of the Department of Finance. Mr. Murray, noting the problem in getting suitable people to take the large number of places on State boards, addressed the question of who should and who should not be appointed. The only political exclusion — the only political reference, in fact — he made in his speech at that time was to refer to the general policy which had existed since the foundation of the State of excluding Oireachtas Members from the boards of State-sponsored bodies. He was silent on the issue of councillors. Indeed, the law establishing State sponsored bodies over the last 70 years has been silent on the issue of councillors.
Councillors have served over the years in a variety of capacities on a variety of boards and under a variety of political administrations in this country without any particular problem. The silence in the law and in the academic literature on this is interesting and one would imagine that any change to the long established custom and practice would be accompanied by some well argued and publicly presented case. The absence of any well argued case, or indeed any case at all, is one of the hallmarks of this rather sordid and sorry story. The Minister, Deputy Quinn, a man who has developed a certain panache in recent years for head hunting, sought to do his dirty work behind closed doors. That was because no real principle is involved here, only expediency.
As I said at the outset, the reality of this sordid issue is that councillors of all parties and political people of all parties serve this country well and have served this country well on a variety of State boards, management committees and commissions. It is reprehensible and indefensible of the Minister for Finance to start enunciating, without giving his basis and principles for doing so, some form of policy which would regard local councillors as somehow unworthy to serve on State boards simply because they are local councillors.
The amendment to the motion is as vacuous as the Minister's arguments in this case. Members on that side of the House should show some sign of honesty on this matter and that they share our sense of condemnation of the Minister's action. As all Senators on that side are aware, local representatives, who have been democratically endorsed by the public, are eminently suitable for positions on State boards. They should not be excluded from the boards simply on the basis that they have chosen to serve the public through elected office. The Minister and those around him should rethink this policy and reject it.
I second the motion. It is a grossly unfair to imply that councillors are incapable of representing people on State boards. Many Ministers and Ministers of State are insulting themselves if they believe that councillors are incapable, given that many of them came up through councils. I am convinced that councillors are capable and that the best Ministers are those who come up through the council system.
The impression has been given in recent years that councillors should not be recognised in any area. There is a big swing in favour of voluntary groups, but county councillors represent all strata in society. They are elected and are therefore the only group which should be on boards. Elections are held every five years, during which councillors must answer to their electorate. If they are not doing their jobs, they will not be reelected. To whom do the people who are selected answer?
There are many good voluntary organisations, but money is either missing, lost or unaccounted for in others. However, if all that money came through local authorities, I assure the House that every penny would be accounted for and results would be visible. It is almost impossible for county councils to function at present because Governments do not appear anxious to give them money. Other sectors receive funds, but not county councils. This is grossly insulting to county councillors, who are elected and who voluntarily give a very good service.
Many people from the voluntary sector who are appointed to boards receive very good wages and large expenses. They receive much more than county councillors. Where will we end up if this attitude of portraying councillors as inadequate, incapable and unworthy of being on State boards continues? Democracy will go out the window and those whom we expect to keep the country afloat will suffer seriously.
One has only to consider the example of the county enterprise partnership boards and the area partnership boards to which no county councillors have been appointed. Why is this the case? It is time all county councillors got their agendas in order and started asking such questions. It is grossly unfair to accuse councillors of being incapable. They are most capable and worthy of those positions.
The Minister should not ask county councillors to resign from boards. On this occasion, thankfully, he saw reason before it was too late. However, it will still have repercussions for him because councillors from all parties are annoyed that anyone would imply that they are incapable. The Minister should give more power to county councillors. It is time their work was recognised and county councils were given more authority.
As I said at the outset, I guarantee that all moneys which come to county councils are accounted for. Given the work of county councils in terms of roads, sewerage and housing and the poor financing they receive, what would happen if this work was handed over to voluntary outfits? I am sure they would not do as good a job. I appeal to the Minister and the Government to reconsider this policy. The Minister of State was a councillor before he was appointed to his portfolio and I am sure he is aware of the quality of county councillors. He knows their capabilities and I appeal to him to use his influence in Government to bring to heel the behind the scenes promoters of this anti-county councillor feeling. I ask him to ensure that councillors' rights and capabilities are respected.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:
"notes that the Minister for Finance considers that the case for having members of local authorities being members of State banks should be reviewed, and that it is Government policy, consistent with the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, that the primary considerations which should apply in the appointment of members of State boards are the experience and expertise of the individuals concerned.”
Many crocodile tears are being shed in the House this evening regarding the appointment of councillors to various boards. In the last Government, the Fianna Fáil Minister for the Environment showed little regard for any Fine Gael public representatives when appointing councillors to regional committees. Only one from a total of nine who were appointed was a Fine Gael councillor. Given that Fine Gael is the second largest political party in the country, it should have received proportional representation on those committees. The former Minister for the Environment was not complimentary to Fine Gael public representatives during the last Government.
The amendment requests the Minister for Finance to examine the appointments to various State boards and the experience and expertise of the individuals concerned. It is a worthy amendment and this area should be examined. Appointments to State boards is a serious matter and it should not just be a case of jobs for the boys. For example, a number of Fianna Fáil Ministers acted disgracefully in appointing people to State boards in the period before the formation of the new Government. They appointed people to boards at random.
I notice that Senator Magner is smiling. The Senator has a very selective view of history.
People appointed to State boards should not have vested interests.
The Senator is digging a hole; keep digging.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Burke without interruption, please.
If they have a vested interest, they should have to declare it in the same way that Members of the Oireachtas must declare their interests. We do not see many appointees to State boards declaring their vested interests. If they did, I am sure there would be many inquiries into a large number of people who have been appointed to State boards over the years.
The amendment is worthy of discussion. We, on this side of the House, are calling on the Minister for Finance to look at it and to use his offices to come up with criteria which are acceptable to everybody in relation to appointments to State boards. That is all I have to say in relation to this.
Least said, soonest mended.
The motion and the amendment are very important because membership of State boards is often taken lightly by appointees. It would be very hard if, in selecting board members, Ministers only considered the political affiliation of the proposed members. I have had the privilege of being appointed to two State boards — once by a Fianna Fáil Minister and once by a Fine Gael Minister. I do not know whether they thought I was independent or malleable and could be easily got to do whatever was wanted.
The public does not realise the importance of the composition of boards until there is a problem. A large number of those who accept positions on boards do so for altruistic reasons because generally there is no payment and people located in the Dublin region do not even get expenses. It can be quite an expensive activity.
One factor which has not come up yet, and which I think is even more important than the fact that two county councillors of one political allegiance were appointed just before the last Government fell, is the fact that there was such a delay in making any appointment at all——
They were there for years.
The Senator is doing them an injustice.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Henry, without interruption.
Forgive me, I apologise. I thought there had been a delay. This can cause a great deal of trouble. For example, with regard to the Blood Transfusion Service Board there was criticism by the expert working group that there had been long delays in appointing various members of the board. This had led to a situation where there was often trouble getting a quorum.
Rather than torturing ourselves about people's political affiliations and so forth, it would be much better if we concerned ourselves with the fact that it is most important that those appointed to boards should, if possible, have an expertise and interest in the board. For example, I have seen some members of medical boards, which are the ones to which I have been appointed most, not being given sufficient information by the bodies involved to be able to do their work on the board efficiently. Members' interest and expertise are much more important than their political affiliation, and boards should not be left in the position of the Blood Transfusion Service Board which was weakened because appointments were not made.
This is probably the only Private Members' motion in the history of the House to arise from a private conversation. This conversation, as I understand it, took place between the Minister for Finance and the Fianna Fáil appointed chairman of ACC Bank. This motion was triggered by a private and, presumably, confidential conversation. Senator Farrell spoke about the action of the Government, but could I remind him that the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat arrangement only allowed the chairpersons of councils to be members of the enterprise boards? That was changed by the Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn——
I agree.
——who is a great believer in local democracy.
Not on this occasion.
I am afraid this is a pistol which seems to have an open barrel on either end. This just will not wash.
I am very grateful to Senator Roche. and God knows we have crossed swords on much more fundamental issues than this bit of madness. He used phrases like "totally reprehensible", "anti-democratic" and "marks a new high in the pork barrel of politics in which Minister Quinn's colleagues in this Government have wallowed".
He is good at the language.
That is stuff of the Wicklow by-election if ever I heard it. He and I — and, I am sure, the Minister — will tramp the rolling hills of Wicklow in the not too distant future——
The Senator will be very welcome.
——and I hope we have something better than pork barrel politics to talk about. The reality is that nobody in this House does, or should, claim any high moral ground in relation to the involvement of elected local authority members in many areas of Irish life.
The Minister pointed out, in a private conversation, to the chairman of ACC Bank that he felt there was a possible conflict of interest between their membership of the board and the sort of work in which the bank is engaged. He went further and said that perhaps they should be asked to consider their positions. It was a private conversation. If one has a concern and wants to arrive at an amicable solution, if that is possible, then one does it privately, which is what he did. As I understand it, it was the two members of the board who decided to go public. The Minister made his position very clear when he voiced his concern to the chairman and asked him to convey his view to the two members but he said he had no intention of trying to remove them.
He was hoping they would hang themselves.
That is a neat trick, too; we have already had Senator Farrell hanging himself trying to portray the Minister as being in some way anti-elected local representatives when he is the opposite. In fact, any fair minded person in this House would consider him to be one of the most accessible Ministers in any Government.
That is why this action was so surprising.
Frankly, I think that on a nice evening such as this Senator Roche would like to reconsider using language such as "reprehensible" and "anti-democratic" in relation to the Minister because it just does not stand up.
There are boards on which local elected representatives are not allowed to be members — An Bord Pleanála and others — for very good reasons. It is the same concern which the Minister expressed about the banks — there is a danger of a conflict of interests or people being put under pressure. I suggest that it was nothing more than that, a storm in a tea cup. The suggestion was that a witch hunt of Fianna Fáil council members had been orchestrated by the Labour Party. The last Government was not that bad——
We will be there again.
There was a good relationship between the two parties and to make that type of suggestion is gilding the lily somewhat.
The coincidence of the removal of the chairman of CIÉ by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, and the actions of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, happening side by side obviously gave colleagues cause for concern. However, let me reassure them that nothing is further from the Minister's mind than to start a witch hunt of his colleagues in Fianna Fáil.
As I said, this is the only time I can remember when this House was subjected to a Private Members' motion on the basis of a private conversation. There is not a great deal one can say about it; it is a storm in a tea cup, an over-reaction. When this debate is finished we will all gather up our traps and have a little sense. The Minister, Deputy Quinn, was entitled to make the observation in private. If he feels strongly enough that there is a conflict of interests he has the power to remove them. He has already said that he does not intend to do that, so he must have some justification for believing they will act in a proper manner, as indeed they have done.
This is a storm in a teacup. On reflection, the Fianna Fáil Members would prefer it not to be on the Order Paper but we forgive them their trespasses on this occasion.
That is as outrageous a contribution as one will ever see.
I agree with much of what Senator Magner has said. I concur with his observations on the Minister for Finance. I was one of a number of Senators who lobbied strongly when the original proposals published by a Fianna Fáil Government paid only lip service to the membership of local authorities on county enterprise boards. When Deputy Quinn became Minister for Enterprise and Employment the level of representation for county councils was increased. There was a lobby within my party which was difficult and not always responsive. As a result of the lobby those in my party who might have been reluctant to see the light eventually did so with the help of their Labour Party colleagues at the time.
I agree with Senator Magner that there is no question of the Minister, Deputy Quinn, being against councillors. I am concerned about an increasing drift towards the marginalisation of councillors as elected officials. It is like an unstoppable Juggernaut that started following the abolition of rates, effectively removing the revenue raising capacity of local authorities. From that time until recently, successive Administrations had tended increasingly to isolate local authorities and their members by not devolving sufficient power to them or funding them effectively so that they could carry out their duties. Therefore, councillors are increasingly being seen as irrelevant.
As a result of changes in attitude over the last few years whereby councillors are now acceptable persons for inclusion on State boards, is it surprising when two are approached, albeit in an informal way, and asked to consider their positions as if they were potentially guilty of something that there should be a row? I agree with Senator Magner that as it is now history and amends have been made to some degree, it is a storm in a teacup. However, knowing how the political system works and accepting that this was perhaps a personal observation on the part of the Minister, I must set that admission of culpability against the last 20 years of successive administrations which have paid little more than lip service to the status and role of county councillors. For that reason this motion is timely, not necessarily in its wording but in that it gives us an opportunity to ask about the future of local authorities and local councillors.
Councillors are increasingly viewed as irrelevant due to a lack of proper financing of local authorities. In recent years the European concept of providing funding and power to the voluntary sector at the expense of the elected sector has meant that instead of the voluntary sector developing in parallel and sympathy with the local authority system, battle lines have now been drawn. In recent weeks attacks were made at conferences in the Border counties by representatives of the voluntary sector on elected representatives, saying that they were largely irrelevant in the context of EU funding and that the Delors package should be given directly to the voluntary sector, not to locally elected representatives.
The European "bottom-up" concept which influenced the Leader programme is fine in a European model where there is already a highly sophisticated and developed local and regional government. That is absent in this country. Since the collapse of communism we have the most centralised Government in western Europe. My county council must rely for practically every penny of its budget on central Government because of our small population and because we do not have the capacity within our administrative area to raise revenue to influence the issues we would like to influence.
Senator Henry touched on the issue of the ability of people appointed to State boards. For some time there has been an attitude that as a county councillor one is somehow not capable of functioning on a State board, that one somehow lacks the expertise. What expertise have local authority members? We will all agree that the overwhelming majority of locally elected representatives are decent, honourable and fully committed people who want to do their best for their community. Their agenda does not extend beyond that.
There is, of course, a minority on all councils which we can identify as only being there for the ride and which does not seem to realise it has an important function to discharge. In the main, that can be applied to all spheres of human activity. There will be rotten apples in every barrel. We should not focus on those negative elements. The overwhelming majority of locally elected representatives are capable and have proven to be effective members of State and semi-State bodies, irrespective of party persuasion.
The vast majority of the approximately 2,300 appointments in the gift of any Government come from the non-elected sector. Many of those have been pitchforked into State and semi-State boards because of their political connections. They are little more than party hacks who have had sufficient money to fund parties and have then been paid off. One rarely sees them when the real issues are debated. One will certainly not see them at election time when the rest of us have to put our records before the electorate — that is democracy. A significant number of people have served on State and semi-State boards who have been appointed by all Governments and one would question their ability and whether they have furthered the interests of the board or their own interests.
In that context the motion is timely. It is unfortunate that the two councillors — both of whom I have known for many years — should have been put in this difficult position. It is embarrassing for the Minister for Finance, a senior member of the Labour Party and of the Government, that this informal, non-public approach should have come into the public arena. It raises the issue of the serious drift that has been developing toward the continuing marginalisation of local authority members.
By 1998 people who would have contemplated opposing me at local elections will no longer consider the option of going before the electorate for the next local elections because by then they will have had themselves installed on local area partnership boards, Leader boards or county enterprise boards, all of which have been granted substantial funding, have real power and influence in their communities and no public mandate other than accountability to the respective Departments which have funded them.
This is not to castigate the individuals who in a voluntary capacity take part on those boards, but the Government must grasp that local authorities are going down the drain. If they are not properly resourced and given the status and role originally envisaged for them, I will not be surprised if we are in this House in the future criticising a Minister for wanting to remove local councillors from a State board and deprive them of power and influence. That is fundamentally wrong.
The motion is before us because the Minister for Finance holds the strong view that local authority members should not be on the boards of State banks. He gives his reasons for this quite clearly. As a Minister, he appointed local authority members to other boards, such as the enterprise boards. He believes local authority members can serve at local level on certain bodies where there is a legitimate need for county council or public representation.
I have been a member of the premier local authority for the last 16 years. Never in that time has any member also been a member of a State board, to my knowledge. It would be incompatible with their duty as a local authority member to belong to the board of a State body, company or bank. Having said that, a number of members have been members of different local groups. I am a member of the board of the East Link Toll Bridge and represent Dublin Corporation's views on that body. I was previously a director of Dublin Tourism. There is a role for local authority members in bodies outside their local authority and the Minister wants to see local elected members play such a role. Senator Roche may laugh, but his party, along with the Progressive Democrats, decided there would be no public representation on county enterprise boards.
I am simply incredulous at the Senator's patronising attitude towards councillors.
It was the present Minister for Finance, when he was Minister for Enterprise and Employment, who decided there should be representation.
No, he increased the representation. I acknowledge that.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Doyle without interruption, please.
The Senator should be accurate.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
You had your chance to speak, Senator Mooney.
The only provision previously was that the county council chairman was an ex officio member. The Minister, Deputy Quinn, decided there should be substantial representation from local authority members on these boards. There is a role for them to play as directors in some areas, but I concur with the Minister that they should not be on State bodies or State banks.
I welcome the Minister for Finance to the House. I do not want to go into the specifics of the case in which he was involved; rather I will deal with the principles behind the motion, which I support.
It is difficult to get people of quality to stand for election to local authorities. Everyone should be encouraged to stand for election if he or she so desires, because our democracy should be as participative and inclusive as possible. Things which tend to discourage people of quality should therefore be avoided. That is not to say that where conflicts of interest may potentially arise, precautions should not be taken to ensure they do not develop. However, the precaution should be taken by law rather than any other way. No one should be disqualified by virtue of political affiliation from sitting on a board or serving the State in whatever capacity the person may be called on to do. The Minister will know from his experience that it is difficult to get certain people to serve on State boards.
If we suggest by inference that members of local authorities are not good enough to be members of State boards, that devalues politics and politicians. It confirms a feeling which may exist among the public that politicians are not to be trusted and cannot be regarded as suitable to serve on boards. That is regrettable. We should say that what we do is important. Politics is a proper profession and in a democracy it must be regarded as important. There is nothing wrong with proclaiming that in the face of the derision of those who say politics is undesirable. It is at the heart of our democracy and we should be thankful we have party politics and people who are prepared to enter politics and serve the State.
People of merit should not be discouraged from participating in the political process, whether by standing for election or being supporters of political parties. I see nothing wrong in known supporters of political parties serving on State boards; it is preferable than concealing their allegiance under a cloak of secrecy and trying to be all things to all men. That is not to say there are not people of integrity who belong to no political party, and would not wish to, who would not be prepared to serve the country. We accept there are and that they would be desirable people to serve on State boards.
The question arises as to what is permissible and what the Minister might or might not do under law. When I first became a Member of this House I had reason to examine the Unfair Dismissals Act and can recall that political allegiance was not grounds for dismissal. That is one dimension of this matter. Without going into the specifics of the case, from what I know, which is not a great deal, the two people on the ACC board are people of quality who have served for a long time, have a knowledge of farming and farming finance and from that viewpoint could be regarded as suitable. Having said that, in certain circumstances a conflict could arise. Someone in farming might be in financial difficulty, someone who happens to be a neighbour or political associate of a board member, and asks the board member if he can be of assistance and a financial settlement is discussed with bank executives. It would be entirely inappropriate for a board member to interfere with that process.
That conflict of interest might arise irrespective of whether the person had a political affiliation. There is potential for that conflict of interest and in those circumstances the person should state their association with the client and not participate in any decisions which might be made at board level. These matters should be dealt with by law. It is right that Members of the Oireachtas should be disqualified from serving on boards, and if it is deemed correct that members of local authorities should not serve on a board, that should be defined in the Act which establishes it. That is how we should deal with the matter.
When this matter arose I was thinking about my colleagues on Kildare County Council and whether I would appoint any of them to State boards. The answer was yes, there were people in all political parties and indeed on the Independent benches whom I would regard, by reason of their expertise and experience, as suitable for appointment to State boards. They include auctioneers, trade unionists and the chairman of the regional authority, who has wide experience in European affairs. They are people who would have much to contribute to public life and I have no objection in principle to them serving on boards. If precautions are required, they can be instituted by law under the Acts establishing the boards.
In this country everybody supports some political party. We are a political society and I do not see anything wrong with that as it is what our democracy is about. We need to say that quite frequently. It is regarded in some quarters as being highly undesirable that some people should have anything whatsoever to do with this particular business. The consequences of not having a participatory political democracy are, to my mind, very serious indeed.
I am prepared to accept Senator Magner's point that perhaps the particular incident is a storm in a teacup. It does make for very good sport. It makes good reading in the paper and is part of the craic of public life.
It is a pity it is not raining though.
We need not get too upset about it. There was mention of the Minister having a private conversation, almost of a confessional nature, and confidences being retained. I am afraid that is not how society here or elsewhere works.
I would sack them because they spoke out.
If the two people in question found themselves under threat, it comes as no surprise to me that they went to the newspapers with their story because it could be argued that perhaps that was their salvation. I am not close enough to this matter to be able to say definitively——
The Senator should not confuse an invitation with a threat.
I am prepared to speculate. If Senator Magner wants to illuminate me and tell me the real facts or if the Minister would like to——
It is extremely difficult to illuminate the Progressive Democrats, as the Senator well knows.
Senator Magner promised previously that he would be gentle. Every time he is gentle I get worried because I think there is something serious coming down the track at me. I am sure the Minister agrees that we need the best people available for our State boards. If some of those people are in county councils, well and good, let them serve on the State boards.
I hope they recognise that more than the Minister.
I support the amendment put down by Senator Manning. This is quite a useful debate. The system of appointments to State boards and so called "looking after people" is nothing new. At the end of the day the system has served this country well. As Senator Dardis said, there is no point in thinking we can find a bank of people who have never had any dealings with any political party or have no view on anything. If such people existed they would not be the type we would want to appoint to some of these boards anyway.
Various Governments have appointed people to boards, most of which have been very well served by those appointed. Great tribute should be paid to them and the work they have put in. When one considers recent discussions about what executives in certain banks are getting, some of us should be considering our position in this House if we could be appointed to such jobs. Down the years, good people have been appointed to boards and successive Governments have been prepared to reappoint them to ensure continuity.
It has been traditional that Members of both Houses have not been appointed. In some cases members of local authorities have been appointed. I do not know the individuals who recently made the news. They appear to have been decent people who did nothing but work in the interest of the board. Obviously, one must have precautions for certain boards; but, by and large, the party in Government should ensure that the best people are brought forward. Some or most of them will have some allegiance; some may even have different allegiances from time to time. When some appointments come up, it is amazing to observe who comes out of the woodwork canvassing on behalf of certain people, because the other side may have appointed them originally. That is part of the system.
It is important that we look at this objectively. There may be certain guidelines for particular boards as some are more sensitive than others. People must be careful and precautions must be taken where there could be undue influence or where people may have sensitive information. This is a very useful debate. In the Programme for Government we undertake to ensure we get the best people who are qualified to do the job, so that at the end of the day good old Mother Ireland will be the winner. It must be remembered that people are not exactly going to set up a retirement fund on the stipends for serving on these boards. I fully support the amendment. It is a useful debate and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
I thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, for the opportunity to speak and I welcome the Minister. I am sure he did not particularly welcome this motion, but I am sure he welcomed the amendment. The principle I would like to put forward is that semi-State boards should reflect and, even more important, should be seen to reflect the expertise that a board needs if it is going to do its job effectively. I have no doubt that many elected representatives have the expertise that would be useful to various semi-State boards. The problem is that if they are put on boards, they will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as representing that particular political allegiance rather than their own technical expertise. That certainly is not the image of semi-State boards we want to project. Perception is vitally important in this area.
I do not think we can draw the line between TDs, MEPs and Senators on the one hand and other elected representatives on the other. There does not appear to be any logic in drawing a dividing line between certain elected members and others. There are only two places one can draw the line and base it on a particular principle. The first is to adopt the principle that all elected representatives can serve on boards and the second is to adopt the principle that no elected representatives can serve on boards. At the risk of making myself unpopular in this part of Kildare Street, I believe we should follow the first principle and draw the line that excludes all elected representatives.
Blood is thicker than water.
It has nothing to do with blood being thicker than water. I have given thought to this over the years and I would like to touch on some of the experience I had.
Great minds think alike.
We should make our legislation even tighter, which is the reason I support the amendment in this case. Letting councillors on to State boards while excluding everybody else is an anomaly, but letting everybody in would soon create a situation where political parties would be looking for party balance on every board. The boards would be seen as places for politicians rather than for people who have special expertise to offer to that board. We, as elected representatives, should stay well away from this area. It will mean that some of our talents will go unused, but the cost of doing it any other way would be far too high.
Of course people will say that whatever happens, these appointments are politically motivated and the people who get these positions are supporters of whatever political party happens to appoint them. That does not matter a great deal, provided that those who are appointed are always up to the job.
This has not always been the case in the past and it was a justifiable cause for complaint, but matters have improved in recent years. From my own experience, not all the appointments have a political connection. I served for ten years as chairman of An Post and its predecessor. I was appointed by one Government and reappointed by another, but I was asked by at least one Minister to suggest names of suitable people to go on the board of An Post. I suggested some people without knowing if they had any political allegiance or affiliations — it turned out that they did not have any — and a number of them were appointed. I make this point to illustrate that things are not always as they are painted. It seems from my experience that the vast majority of members of State boards were appointed not because of any political affiliation but for their expertise. That was much more common than the other case.
As a country, we do not always have an overabundance of talent — this is certainly the case as far as State boards are concerned — but we do have enough talent to fill these boards without bringing elected representatives into the picture. It is reasonable to suggest that people serving the State should do so in one way or another but not in both, at least not at the same time. On this basis, I have no problem in supporting the amendment to the motion.
Tonight we are discussing the most tongue in cheek motion that I have ever seen coming from Fianna Fáil. It is the last group who should possibly consider bringing in a motion condemning anybody on State appointments. This motion condemns what the Minister did. The Minister did absolutely nothing wrong; he did not sack anybody or pressurise them to leave their position. This matter, which is of serious public concern, has been brought to the attention of our people by the Fianna Fáil Party and the people are having a good laugh at it and anybody reading this motion can understand why — Fianna Fáil has been doing it for decades.
Doing what?
It has appointed people right, left and centre to State boards and democracy never entered into it. I am a member of a local authority. When members were being appointed to the North Western Health Board — I had 26 years experience in that board — it appointed garagemen, barmen and others to ensure that somebody with relevant experience did not get in. This is why the motion is an absolute joke and the public see it for what it is.
This is sour grapes.
Sour grapes is a poor argument.
Deputy Brennan was Minister for Education when Fianna Fáil was leaving Government in 1992 and he appointed 185 Fianna Fáil hacks to educational boards throughout the country. One of them was appointed to Letterkenny regional technical college — I will not mention his name. He had no experience in the educational field and he almost ruined the college.
This is scurrilous stuff.
At the end of the day, the Minister, with the support of the Fianna Fáil Members in Government, appointed an inspector to look into the situation in that college. When the report came out, this appointee had to resign. Then we saw an indication of the regional technical college Act coming in, which was being supported by——
It was one of Senator Maloney's family that gave him his information.
Fianna Fáil supported him because he got all the votes in County Donegal.
Absolutely.
The Senator referred to the nonsense about drugs, but it was absolutely true.
Senator Maloney has family information on this matter and he knows that.
Fianna Fáil got all the votes in County Donegal; that is all that matters. It is not up to Fianna Fáil to lecture to anybody else on this matter.
Senator Maloney, in some respects you are being a little provocative in your own way. I ask you to confine yourself to the motion.
I am sorry if I did this. It was not my intention, but I was slightly provoked by a number of lies, which I am used to.
On a point of order, did Senator Maloney say "a number of lies" or "lines"?
I will take the Senator's word for it.
He said lines.
If the Senator said "a number of lies", I would like him to identify them.
Acting Chairman
I ask Senator Maloney to continue his contribution and I will not tolerate any further interruption.
I have stayed quiet through the Senator's rampage.
Acting Chairman
There is no point of order.
With respect, there is a point of order. If the Senator has referred to "lies", he will either have to identify the liars or withdraw the comment.
Acting Chairman
Senator Maloney will proceed without any further interruption. You will then have an opportunity to reply, Senator Roche.
A bit of line dancing, Chairman.
We are arguing again.
The Fianna Fáil Party are the last ones that should be trying to lecture any of us about appointments.
This is not true.
Out of shame alone, they should withdraw this motion. I will be supporting the amendment.
The Senator is a junior member and he is displaying it.
I thank the Minister for coming to this Chamber and taking time from what must be an extremely busy schedule. In fairness, it is always open to a Minister to send a deputy. The Minister is paying us all a compliment by taking time from his schedule today to listen to this debate.
I wish to contribute on a more philosophical and broader basis than the last speaker and will not necessarily dwell on any specifics. That is not to comment in any sense on the last contribution but I will try and keep my remarks dignified.
The Senator can read about it in the Phoenix.
The question that arises — I know the Minister is concerning himself with it and it was also raised by Senator Quinn — is the ideal composition of a semi-State board. This would be difficult for anybody to answer but it is an important question in a country like ours, with a mixed economy and where, of course, the semi-State sector is important. It is not only important in itself in that it may form part of the machinery for the development of the State, but also because it is primarily dealing with assets in the public domain. These company undertakings are under public ownership.
The legal status of these companies has changed somewhat from the pre-Senator Quinn days when special legislation was set up for An Post and An Bord Telecom. They became statutory corporations with independent boards that were more independent than they used to be when they were more rigorously controlled by Government Departments. It is fair to say — I think the Minister will agree — that in the early to mid-1980s, some of these boards were given a power of independence and autonomy that they may not have enjoyed heretofore. Many people at the time felt that this was a good thing because it would release the energies that could be applied to these organisations for the benefit of the State. The status or the property rights of these organisations remains the same. They are bodies which are directly or indirectly owned by the State on behalf of the people. In those circumstances and given that legal background, what is the ideal composition for these semi-State boards?
I put it to the Minister that the ideal composition of these boards is not one of technocrats or experts. We would all agree that the genius of politics or of those who represent the people is that they are able to say to the experts that something may be all right in theory but that they do not know how it will affect people in practice. In the days of Columbus, if people had listened to the experts they would have believed they would fall off the side of the earth and would never have found out that the earth was round. Numerous other inventions over time have shown that science was incorrect. If these boards are filled with experts, they may make decisions which fly in the face of the people. As Senator Quinn said, we do not want boards which represent one political viewpoint. We want boards which will exercise their knowledge, commonsense and expertise and which will apply themselves freely for the good of that company.
As far as I am aware — the Minister will correct me if I wrong — the emoluments or gratuities paid to people on these boards is supposed to be minimal.
Four thousand pounds.
It is supposed to be a small sum of money primarily for expenses. The reason is that people would not seek to be on such boards for selfish reasons but to do a good public service. Membership of those boards should include a mixture of technical experts, people with a commercial background and commonsense and those involved in their communities, politics, etc.
As I said earlier, I will not get drawn into the events of the past few weeks. If the Minister and others were to come to a decision that no person involved in politics should be on any of these boards, it might be a sustainable proposition in the light of evidence or experience. The Minister will agree that he may have rankled a tradition or sensitivities when he asked people to review their position in circumstances where they had no expectation of their appointment being terminated. I do not know much about their backgrounds, although I vaguely know one of them. However, I accept the word of others who say they have ability and are competent. The Minister slightly ruffled the sensitivities of people, although he is not known to be an insensitive person. In fact, we always found him amenable on the city council. What the Minister did was wrong and he knows that. I hope a wide-ranging review is undertaken in this regard. The Minister might even support what we said today.
Highly unlikely.
I ask him to urge his colleagues to consider crossing the House to vote for our motion.
I support the amendment to the motion. The motion states:" Seanad Éireann condemns the Minister for Finance for his attitude towards public representatives in relation to their suitability for membership of State boards". I do not believe he mentioned all State boards, but a specific one. The amendment mentions the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which was introduced a few years before the Labour Party was involved in Government. It was agreed then by the Government and the various parties that the experience and expertise of the individual concerned should be taken into account.
As regards appointments to any State board, expertise, experience and qualifications are extremely important. I appreciate the Minister's concern because when dealing with a State bank and banks in general we are dealing with a sensitive issue.
Money.
Exactly. There could be a conflict of interests here. People have loans, investments and other private dealings with the ACC and other State banks. I would not like it if somebody from another political party had knowledge of my dealings and I would seriously consider investing elsewhere. I do not believe a bank can survive in this way. There are areas where the sensitivity of the issues concerned and the involvement of politics must be carefully considered.
I compliment the Minister on the way he handled matters as regards local authorities. He has always been pro local authority members and he put four on each of the county enterprise partnership boards. There is no reason why the Minister might be seen to be stepping out of line here. This motion suggests a fear of the "jobs for the boys" concept.
Senator Calnan is on dangerous ground. If the cap fits, wear it. I would swim away from that current.
Throw him a life jacket.
The high moral ground does not work anymore.
I have the floor and Members are laughing at the Standing Orders of the Seanad.
Acting Chairman
Senator Calnan has the floor and that interruption was uncalled for.
I am suitably chastened.
The Minister is concerned about State boards and he said what he did because he was sensitive about the issue. The Minister meant no ill feeling towards local authority members.
Those who have spoken have put forward various points of view. Labour Party Members are here to back up their Minister and I respect them for that. The motion before the House relates to an issue which arose last week.
Senator Cassidy is here to support the councillors.
For a long time I have admired the good work which the Minister has carried out in all his portfolios. He has been an amenable and open man to approach as a public representative and he will go on to greater things
Taoiseach.
I wish him well because he is doing a reasonably good job. I have been a Member of this House for 14 years and I represent public representatives. These people have impeccable characters and one of them has his own business. Another man has a long track record as a member of the board. These two gentlemen would not have been unacceptable on the board of a private company, given their ability and credibility over the years. These are people of the highest calibre and it is unfortunate they were caught in the line of fire.
I do not know what the Government's policy will be in the future, but I hope it will be the same as it was in the past in that appointments made by an outgoing Government will be honoured by the incoming one. I am disappointed that public representatives, county councillors, Senators and Deputies are barred from boards of semi-State bodies. These people have good track records and experience. Many are experts in their own field and they have come up through the difficult world of business and finance. What would their expertise and experience lend to the boards of these bodies? Regulations in this area should be considered by the Government.
This is a Government of openness and opportunity and I would like to accept that at face value. There is a lot of expertise in this Chamber which could be used. I do not accept that public representatives should not be members of boards. On the contrary, public representatives are answerable to the people.
What in the Government's or the Minister's opinion is the definition of an expert? Is it a person with a high level of education, or someone who has been successful in their line of business and has a proven track record? These people are being penalised in relation to appointments. One only has to look at the level of expertise and experience in this Chamber. This is one of the best Seanad in which I have served in terms of work. We should consider that in relation to appointments to boards. For example, Senator Magner is on the Oireachtas Joint Services Committee and through his work he has improved the public's image of the House.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, gave me the money.
Political point scoring should be left aside. The Senator got a fair crack of the whip when Deputy B. Ahern held that position.
I did and I gave him credit for that.
Acting Chairman
Senator Cassidy, without interruption, please.
This is what public representatives stand for. The media are not on our side when it comes to reporting the good which public representatives do.
They are not here now.
We work long hours and make sacrifices at the expense of our families which many people in private enterprise would not do. This is an opportunity to stand up for our occupation and to show that we have confidence in ourselves. That confidence is being diminished, particularly at county council level.
I support the motion and I look forward to the Minister coming back here with future proposals when this matter is not as high on the public's agenda as it is at present.
I will try to address three aspects of this motion, the facts in relation to the event which prompted it, my personal attitude to local councillors and the question of State boards. At the annual general meeting of the ACC Bank the chairman, who had been appointed by my predecessor, was reappointed by me because he was doing a good job and his political allegiances were well known. I learned, because it was not in the documentation in front of me, that two of the members were county councillors. The officials were not aware to which party they belonged, but they knew they were county councillors. I asked if that was the practice in the past and they said it was. I then asked them to get me the facts and figures because we did not have them in the Department of Finance and that was remiss.
I told them I thought it was inappropriate for county councillors of whatever party to be members of a State bank, not a State board. I felt that view should be conveyed in private to the individuals concerned. However, in order to avoid intimidation, I asked the chairman of the board to convey that view to the members of the board in question and to ask them to consider their positions. I did not want ambiguity and I felt that having considered their positions, they should choose to resign.
Out of courtesy to the political and civic society in this country, I took the precaution of and felt obliged to contact the party leader, Deputy B. Ahern, to inform him on the Monday of the action which the chairman of ACC Bank was to take on Wednesday after the board meeting. Since we are now discussing private conversations, Deputy B. Ahern did not indicate his attitude to me one way or the other. He noted the fact that I was conveying this information to him. In fairness, he was then travelling to Brussels.
The rest is history. The matter became public and it became interwoven with other issues. The Fianna Fáil Party came to the conclusion that there was a witch-hunt against Fianna Fáil appointees to State boards, either public representatives or others. That was not the case. On Thursday morning I dealt decisively with the issue and said that if these people made public what was a non-public conversation and clearly indicated — I have had no contact with either of these people — that they would not do anything, the matter would rest and I would not take any further action. I could summarily dismiss one member now and I could direct or request the members of the board to vote the other person out. I have chosen to do neither because I respect anyone who offers themselves for public service, either in an elected capacity or to serve on a State board. I regret that this issue has been publicised to such an extent. I would not give myself any credit for the way I have handled it.
In the interests of brevity and time I will say three things about my attitude to councillors. I served my political apprenticeship on a local authority. My first formal full-time job after training in this country was for a local authority. I worked for over two and a half years with Dublin Corporation's housing architects department. I have the utmost respect for both the officials of a local authority and, in the context of politics and civic society, for the serving members of all parties and no party on local authorities. They have a unique role to play in certain areas.
I share the view expressed by Senator Quinn as regards the conflict in principle between elected members serving on elected bodies and persons on appointed executive agencies. With certain exceptions, that is my view. County enterprise boards which are clearly specific to a county should have local representatives on them. As Senators Mooney and Doyle said, I went out of my way to change the composition so that there would, in effect, be all party representation at council level on the county enterprise boards. Also, in the upcoming ports legislation there is a role for elected representatives because of the interaction between an urban community and a port. While one cannot be absolutely rigid about this, I would support Senator Fergal Quinn's view as a general principle. However, if we are going to implement that it should be done clearly and in advance.
I have been accused of many things in my life but being antagonistic towards local councillors is one that is new to me because on many occasions I have defended their skill and expertise as people who aspire to membership of this House or the Lower House. In serving an apprenticeship for higher office it is a prerequisite to cut one's political teeth on a local authority.
I have a substantial amount of experience in relation to appointments to State boards. When I became Minister for Labour in 1984 I had the responsibility, de novo, of appointing a new team for what became the board of Great Southern Hotels. I sought three things from those who were appointed. First, I wanted people who had never been on a State board before because they would all be coming together. There were two worker directors who were nominated by the then Irish Transport and General Workers Union because massive change had to be negotiated with the co-operation of the workforce involved. Second, while I wanted a team, in football parlance, I did not want 11 goalkeepers or 11 midfield players but a range of skill and expertise.
We were clearly looking at people who would tend to be politically close to you. It takes time to find the people you want and then to see if they are available. You have to see if the company or organisation they work for will make them available and that is not an easy task. I can readily identify with the question that was posed by a Minister, who was not named by Senator Quinn, seeking advice as to who might or might not be available.
In round figures there are probably about 100,000 members of political parties in this country out of a population of 3.5 million. There is a vast pool of people who have no form of political allegiance yet there is also a vast pool of people who do have political allegiance and who get the likes of us elected. When you start looking for talent, whether it is expertise from experience or from education, it is logical, normal and reasonable that your first port of call should be to the group with which you have an allegiance, but it should not be confined to that. You should be able to reach beyond that to complete the best team available.
My track record is proven in relation to the other range of boards that I had responsibility for appointing when we replaced the boards of Eolas and the old IDA with Forfás, IDA Ireland and Forbairt. Anybody looking objectively at the composition of those boards can see a regional, gender, technical skills and political balance. There are people on all three boards who have no political allegiance that I am aware of and as citizens of this Republic they are entitled to conceal or to proclaim their political allegiance. We do, after all, have a secret ballot.
It is a matter of general concern that this debate has focused on the composition of State boards though not for reasons that might have motivated the tabling of the motion. We do have a problem with the composition of our State boards and with the interaction between the State board, the Department to which it is attached, the Minister who appoints, reappoints or partially appoints that board, and the wider Oireachtas to which — through the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies — those boards or companies are accountable. We have an uneven practice. In some cases the chief executive is not automatically a member of the board, which is a major disadvantage. In other cases only the chief executive is a member of the board and you do not have executive directors.
If you look at what is currently best practice in both private and public companies, there is a mixture of executive directors, chief operational directors, a financial controller, production manager and general manager — that triangle of expertise that is found in most organisations — and outside directors. We do not have that in our State boards. We have worker participation which in many cases, but not in all, has worked satisfactorily. However, there is no clear policy on or attitude to nominated external directors. In many cases, as Senator Mulcahy indicated, the amount of time they make available for the stipend or director's fees they get is extraordinarily good value for money from the point of view of the State. In the vast majority of cases they are not on those boards for remuneration or expenses. The Senator may wish to explore this on another occasion and, if I am in order, I would suggest that this matter could be raised on the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies.
What is the ideal relationship between the Minister, the Secretary of the Department to which that State company relates, the chairperson of the board and the chief executive? Many of the problems which we as Oireachtas Members have had to deal with, and which all of us as citizens and taxpayers have had to bail out, could have been minimised or avoided if we had a better relationship between the four key players: the chairman. Minister, Secretary of the Department and the chief executive. Certain examples come immediately to my mind and I am sure they come to everybody else's mind too.
I hope that my presence throughout this debate will be an indication of my respect for all the Members of this House. I was anxious to tell Senators what the facts were, as well as illustrating my own attitude to local representatives, and to give some of my own views on the philosophical question of the composition of State boards.
I respect people who come out and vote, yet only 70 per cent of people do so. I also respect people who work to get people elected, irrespective of who they are working for. I respect people who stand for election, are defeated and stand again. I am deeply committed to the political process which, I recognise, is not confined to the 60 Members of this House, the 166 Members of the Lower House, or to the 1,000 councillors, approximately, around the country at various levels. As a percentage of the population that is the mere tip of the iceberg. None of us would be where we are today but for the support of many others who get us into the positions we hold. In that context I would include individual citizens who come together to support the campaign of independent Senators or Deputies. I am, therefore, acutely respectful of their role in society. Because of that respect I see it as counter productive to the fabric of our Republic that, on coming into office, any new Minister would exercise powers of summary dismissal of members of a board simply because they were appointed by the other side. Not only have I not done that but in some cases I have reappointed people who were appointed by the other side. I have to say that the Fianna Fáil Party also did this when it was in Government with the Progressive Democrats and reappointed the chairman of Bord na Móna, who manifestly came from a different political tradition, because that person was seen by all concerned as doing a very good job.
Is Senator Roche withdrawing the motion?
I welcome the Minister to the House. He is a very honest individual. I am delighted he has come to the House to explain this serious matter, which is important throughout the country, not alone with regard to people in my party who were mentioned but to people in all political parties. The issue goes right across the political divide. I had no intention of speaking until I heard an outburst from Senator Maloney, who made a vicious attack on a prominent member of Letterkenny regional technical college. This was totally unfounded, out of context and out of order.
Acting Chairman
You are again referring to a person in his absence and I advise you to stick to the motion or the amendment, as the case may be.
Senator Maloney did not stick to it.
We will have to bring him back.
The person to whom he referred was not here to defend himself. I am here to defend him and the work he did for the people of Donegal over the past 21 or 22 years.
I was one of the people who fought in this House for local representatives to be included on county enterprise partnership boards. I believe in local democracy and feel local representatives have a great deal to offer. At the time I was chairman of Kerry County Council. I ensured that the four representatives from the council were from each party in the county so they would have a voice for the people they represented. I feel strongly about this. Local representatives are the people on the ground.
Democracy is being totally eroded. If one is a political animal one cannot be a member of anything. New legislation is being introduced to prohibit Members of the Oireachtas from membership of harbour commissions. This means that if one is an Oireachtas Member one is not good enough to be on the board of any harbour commission. I do not agree with this. The right person for a job should be given that job, regardless of anything else.
Officers of local authorities, whether they are in planning or engineers' offices, are all very wary of politicians, whether they are aligned with one party or another. As the Minister rightly said, that is wrong. I admire people who say they support a political party. This would not reduce their standing in my eyes. I make representations on behalf of people I support and I am sure they act with integrity and honesty. I never found any of the people I dealt with in local authorities or other bodies to be anything other than honest. They did their job in a professional way, which they are supposed to do.
The removal of people from bodies because of their political persuasion is totally wrong. Membership of boards should be open to people who are worth their salt and can prove themselves in any field. Former Taoisigh, Ministers and European Commissioners from this country are in the highest demand because they have expertise and knowledge and can do something for the betterment of the country. It is totally wrong that people should be removed from boards because of their allegiance to political parties.
I believe in democracy and local representation on bodies. I have stood in elections and was both rejected and elected by the people on numerous occasions. It is totally wrong that people who become experts in their fields are told they cannot become members of boards because they are aligned to parties. I am glad the Minister has come to the House to explain the position and I hope there will not be any more erosion in the present structures.
May I share my time with Senator Sherlock?
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I acknowledge the presence in the Visitors' Gallery of the former Senator, Mr. Joe O'Reilly, and I want to say how welcome he is.
I can understand why the motion is phrased the way it is. The Minister, in an honest and mature speech, had the courage to say that things could have been done better and differently, not just by him but by others involved. It is possible that there could have been a suspicion that this was the beginning of some sort of a purge of people appointed by the last Government. It is very clear from what the Minister has said that nothing of the kind was or is intended. The Minister was acting for reasons related to public policy. Whether he was right or wrong is another matter but there is no question of any sort of a purge.
Members opposite should be fair minded enough to accept this is the case. For that reason I ask them so show an extraordinary sense of maturity by supporting the sensible amendment in my name. This meets the case to which everybody could subscribe. It says that we should consider the case for having members of local authorities on the boards of State banks. It does not say this is a good or a bad thing. It calls on the House to consider the case for or against this.
Senator Dardis made the point that rightly or wrongly — I have an open mind on this — Members of this and the other House are debarred by legislation from being members of most State companies. There is almost a standard clause in most Acts which lays this down. There is legal clarity on this. We should look at the case of members of local authorities. There may well be a strong case for saying they could or should be members of State boards. If this is so, we should address it in law after a considered debate.
I congratulate Senator Roche for proposing this motion. The debate has been very useful and has raised major issues. My amendment proposes that we should consider the case and, having done so, clarify our minds and bring in legislation. This is what the Minister is saying.
The question of directors and the composition of State boards has been raised. Unfortunately in recent times the public media have been dominated by the enormous unwarranted salaries paid to some members of the boards of building societies. People have effectively parachuted in and paid themselves enormous remuneration with no enormous achievement or risk on their part. We can all accept the case of a person who takes a risk, mortgages his or her house, works all the hours there are, creates jobs and is properly rewarded.
There is a great sense of public unease about that sort of parachuting behaviour and the payments being made. This takes away from the fact that a director in the current climate has an enormous range of complex legal responsibilities. Being a director is not a part-time job. Great care has to be given to the choosing of members of State boards.
The Minister has been exemplary in the way he has tried to find a balanced composition for all the State boards under his control. He has not sought to select 11 goal keepers or 11 half backs but to select a full team which will meet a whole range of requirements such as expertise, common sense, specialisation, integrity and the ability to work within the enormous restraints placed on directors today. My amendment is sensible and, with the suspicion of a purge out of the way, my colleagues and friends opposite should be able to support it. We should begin the real debate from this point on.
I am glad of the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The motion deals with what is essentially a non-issue. Once again Fianna Fáil is seeking to reinterpret history. Members of the House are perfectly well aware that this Government has no intention, and never had any intention, of taking action against members of State boards or against anybody else solely on the basis of their political affiliation.
The motion refers to the issue of public representatives serving on the board of ACC bank. I do not believe there should be a blanket ban on public representatives serving on State boards. However, I acknowledge the reservations expressed by the Minister, Deputy Quinn, with regard to the potential conflict of interest in the case of ACC. It should perhaps be pointed out that the party affiliation of the individuals concerned was never an issue until raised by Fianna Fáil.
While I question Fianna Fáil's approach on this issue I welcome the opportunity for debate provided by this motion. For far too long appointments to State boards and other bodies have been regarded as part of the spoils of Government. Such appointments are routinely handed out to loyal party workers and supporters, often regardless of their qualifications for the job in hand. My party believes that appointments to State bodies should be made on the basis of capability and proven expertise——
We will be watching.
——rather than on the sole basis of political affiliation. The State sector plays a vital role in our economy and appointments to State bodies are far too important to be treated simply as the perks of office. There will always be cases where the best qualified person for the position is known to favour a particular political party.
Provided that political affiliation does not represent a potential conflict of interest, I see no reason why a person should not be appointed. However, experience and qualifications must take priority over political affiliation. The leader of Fianna Fáil accused the Government of seeking to conduct a purge of Fianna Fáil members. He should revisit his dictionary. At no time has the Government or any Minister suggested that a specific party affiliation disqualifies an individual from serving on a State body. However, it is necessary to examine the system of public appointments with a view to enhancing transparency and efficiency.
Halloween is cancelled.
This has been an interesting debate and I acknowledge the Minister's presence to hear all the contributions. The Minister departed from his script to offer us an insight into his approach. I smiled inwardly when Senator Sherlock spoke about purges. He would know more about purges than most of us in this House.
I will make a few concluding points. There is a number of flawed arguments in the Minister's speech. Anybody on the board of a State-sponsored body — whether it is a bank or other State body — who found himself or herself in a potential conflict of interest situation should stand aside and declare their interest in those cases. There are specific rules in that regard. The argument that there is a special circumstance in the case of ACC bank or ICC does not stand up.
The debate has been broadened usefully into the issue of local authority members serving on the boards of banks. The Minister raised that matter in a speech that was both thought provoking and provocative, in the proper sense of the word. When we discuss the issue of the boards of State-sponsored bodies I am always reminded of a speech made many years ago by the late Deputy John Kelly. It was the best speech ever made on the subject of the boards of State-sponsored bodies and I would commend it to anybody. He argued that while political affiliation should in itself never be the sole reason for a person being appointed to the board of a State-sponsored body, political affiliation should also not debar talent from being appointed to those boards.
I disagree with many of the comments that were made tonight. I regret the contribution by Senator Maloney. We discussed the regional technical college in this House before and his attack was premeditated and unwarranted. It did this debate no good. Above all, I disagree with Senator Quinn's view that somehow local authority members should be debarred from all boards of all State-sponsored bodies. The point of the argument made by the Minister can be debated. However, the fact that people put themselves before the people and enter local government should not debar them or their talent from the boards of State-sponsored bodies.
I do not wish to divide the House on this issue. The Minister made a very useful suggestion that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies should come to a definitive view on the issue of board membership of State-sponsored bodies. It has been a thorny issue and it is used as a political football throughout the country. Some people love to haul down all democratic institutions in the State and to denigrate politicians and political activity. By doing that they diminish democracy, the State and the institutions of State.
Councillors of all parties serve this country well to the extent of their talents. They play a unique role. I would have regarded councillors on the board of ACC as being useful. At one time there were problems with ACC and its liberal attitude to dispensing loans and the first people to discuss that issue and the problems being stored for borrowers were local councillors. It is interesting that in all the academic literature about State bodies and how they should be composed, in this country or any other country, there is no discussion about barring local politicians. All Acts since the foundation of the State — and the Minister's speech refers to the 1927 Act that instituted the ESB — are silent on the issue of local authority members being members of boards of State bodies.
We have raised an issue of principle in this motion. I disagree with the Minister's views on board members of the ACC bank but I respect the fact that his views have now been stated. The debate gave the Minister the opportunity to put the basis of his views in this case on the record. I am also grateful for the sake of the two members in question that the Minister put it on the record that their service to the State and to the State bank has been exemplary in every regard. There was no suggestion that they had done anything which would bring dishonour on themselves or their party or that they have ever done anything improper. I accept that this was an issue of principle with the Minister. There is a difference between us about the principle. We could argue the two sides of the issue. The Minister's concluding suggestion that the issue should be examined by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies was exemplary and would find support on all sides of the House. The issue of how we decide who can and who cannot be on a State board is an interesting one.
I take great solace from the fact that the Minister argues for the principle regarding membership of the boards of State banks from the point of view of the pressures that would be put on the individuals concerned. I believe that individual councillors, regardless of what party they represent, would be capable of resisting those pressures. However, I accept that there would be a problem for public representatives on a borrowing authority.
A general point is being made — and the Minister accepts our bona fides — that there is an erosion of respect for politicians evident at present. One could be a mass murderer and be on the board of a regional technical college, for example, but one cannot be a Senator or Deputy and be on the board of a regional technical college. There is also a suggestion that Oireachtas Members will be excluded from harbour boards. That is a fundamental mistake. The exclusion from membership of the boards of regional technical colleges was carried out by my party and I argued at the time that it was a fundamental error.
We should look carefully before we narrow further the range of services on which we are prepared to use the political talent of people who present themselves before the electorate. It was not mean spirited point scoring that prompted this motion. The debate which arose in the last few days, regardless of whether the issue was misconstrued, opens up the issue of the composition of State bodies and it is an issue we should argue.
Senator Manning asked, with his tongue at the back of his mouth, whether we would support the amendment. We will oppose the amendment on a voice vote.
You would probably become a mass murderer after serving on an regional technical college.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit again at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.