I understand Deputy McManus wishes to raise a particular matter.
Business of Joint Committee.
Thank you. I am grateful to you for giving us the opportunity to raise a pressing matter. It is of concern to every member of the joint committee that appointments to four positions on the RTE board and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland have not been made.
As the Chairman will recall, the committee — he, in particular — put in a lot of time, made a great effort and gave great thought to the matter to ensure our involvement in the statutory process was watertight and that if it were put under scrutiny in a legal process, it would stand up to such scrutiny. I am fully satisfied that everything we have done is in order and line with the legislation. We fulfilled our obligations and came up with eight recommendations in all which the Minister was free to reject if he so chose. However, I was concerned because it had become clear that people who had been named, come before the committee, presented themselves for public service and been selected as the best choice by the committee experienced the discourtesy of not being told whether the Minister had accepted the recommendation to appoint them. My understanding is that to this day the people concerned have not been informed.
I became very uneasy about this and decided to pursue the matter but the Minister has not come up with an explanation. I learned that the Office of the Attorney General had been contacted about an unspecified legal issue. I have raised the issue many times on the Order of Business. Since he was clearly unaware of it, the Taoiseach undertook to get the Minister to respond but that has not happened. I have also been badgering the Chairman about the matter and understand he has not been informed of what is taking place either. Meanwhile, eight people are in the curious and, I imagine, unsatisfactory position, or limbo, of not knowing whether they will take up their positions, even though they have been recommended by us.
The Minister and I held a conversation about the matter. Although I have no wish to go public, I pointed out to him that he was perfectly free to reject any appointment if that is what he chose to do. Now it turns out that not only are the appointments recommended by us subject to a legal question, the nature of which we do not know, but also some of the Minister's appointments are subject to an unknown, unspecified legal question mark. This is total incompetence.
We must have clarity on this matter. We have been involved in a unique, unprecedented process and are being treated with discourtesy. I propose that we invite the Minister to appear before the committee in order that we can deal with the matter in public. I call on the Chairman to invite the Minister at the earliest opportunity. We should write to him. I would be grateful if the Chairman also discussed the matter with him to underline the concern about public accountability. The Minister was responsible for ensuring the legislation was passed through the Oireachtas and was sound and robust. It is also his responsibility to ensure public accountability when decisions or recommendations are made through that statutory process.
I support Deputy McManus on this matter. Members of the joint committee have, rightly, questioned this process, none more so than the Chairman. We have gone to great lengths to adhere to the responsibilities given to the committee in respect of making recommendations to the Minister for the appointment of four members of two nine member boards at RTE and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI. We were very careful to be up-front and transparent in performing our role in this regard.
We have found after completing that process which was very time consuming that not only have our recommendations not been accepted, but that there is a question against whether they are even valid. There is also a question mark against whether the Minister's appointments are valid, whether decisions being made by the BAI are legally valid and whether the board currently in place is legally valid. There have been considerable decisions made related to the levy issue and the budget allocation for the BAI. This represents, therefore, a real problem. On one level, it is an embarrassing problem because of the way people who went through the process and assumed they would be members of the board have not even been informed of what is taking place. This shows discourtesy and is very unprofessional. That we do not know what the status of our appointments is also is very unsatisfactory.
I expect the Minister will ask to meet the committee in camera or in confidence but I do not believe we should do so. We should deal in public with whatever mistakes have been made and should be seen to do so, even if it is an awkward conversation. We should try to do so as quickly as possible rather than allow the matter to linger which is what the Minister seems to be doing. Perhaps he has not received final advice from or the opinion of the Office of the Attorney General but several weeks have passed since the appointments were to have been finalised. We have an obligation to try to bring the matter to a head.
I support completely the points raised by the previous two speakers. We went through a process, made a huge effort to get it right and people came before the committee to advise us on the structure which we stress-tested at various levels. We also argued whether we were doing things properly. At the end of the process we re-evaluated it and proposed ways to change it. We spoke with the Minister on a number of occasions. We followed exactly the brief we were given and the legislative requirements. There is now an impasse which creates a cloud over the committee, which has done its work legitimately and properly, and over those who put themselves forward for public service and who came before the committee when in public session. They were asked difficult questions and outlined their backgrounds. Everything has been done properly and openly. If there is a problem, I want it to be clear that it is in the Department or the office of the Minister; I do not want the committee or its work to be undermined. We will go through the matter, as the Chairman has done. I am opposed to anything happening in private. We had a long discussion and reached a decision about the need to do our business in public as much as possible. In terms of the involvement of personnel, we have protected confidentiality. The process has been conducted completely in public and open to scrutiny at all times. I want that to continue.
I want the word to go out that this is unprofessional. If the Department has not dealt with the matter, it is a case of mismanagement. If there was a problem, this should have been made clear at an earlier stage. The Chairman will recall that we sent at least two letters to the Minister, asking him to give a further indication that we would be required to proceed with what we were doing. We received a response from him and worked on that basis. If there is a flaw or weakness, let it be clearly seen. The weakness is not at this table or with the people who went through the process. The problem lies somewhere else. If issues of conflict have arisen, they have not been brought to our attention before now. We were told very clearly, under 12 headings, what we had to deal with. For example, we had to have people from within the industry. All of these issues are outlined in the legislation. If there is a problem, somebody must come before the committee, engage openly and directly with us and point to the problem. We can all then deal with the issues involved.
I concur that it is a pity there has been a delay. Members of the joint committee, in particular the Chairman, put a tremendous effort into this exercise to get it right. We received the advice of the Commission for Public Service Appointments at every step of the process. My comments are at variance with some of the others made in that there is a legal issue which has to be resolved in a satisfactory manner. There is not much point in bringing the Minister before the committee if he has not received the necessary advice. Therefore, time should be given to allow that to happen.
Members of the committee have stated the process was transparent. Owing to the sensitivity and confidentiality attached to the process, other members of the committee and I only had one exposure to the applicants. We only met those selected by the sub-committee at the end of the process. I recall that during that short exposure I pinpointed concerns about a conflict of interest which were answered by those who had come before the committee. As a committee, it would serve us better to wait until the Minister receives advice on the matter. By all means, we can then bring him before the committee to discuss the matter. The committee has done a fantastic job. We did everything openly and transparently, as distinct from how the process worked elsewhere. If there is a conflict with the legislation, that is not our fault, but that may not be the case. We could rush into this process and find ourselves in an embarrassing position.
I do not accept that it is terrible for the eight people who have been selected. They were aware of the process which had to be gone through and were familiar with the exercise to be undertaken. Perhaps we should communicate with them to say an issue is being investigated and that we will revert to them in order that they will at least know the process is still in train. I understand no dates were given to the people concerned. I, therefore, encourage the committee to adopt a wait and see approach. The Chairman, other members of the committee and I spoke to the Minister about the issue. It seems he is genuinely trying to resolve whatever issues have arisen with regard to the process. We should allow it to continue without dancing up and down about it.
Does anybody know what the problem is?
Exactly.
We should identify the problem and then discuss how we might deal with it.
That is why I want the Minister to come before the committee.
The issue has been raised on the Order of Business on a number of occasions. We were told by the Taoiseach that he would get the Minister to respond directly. Deputy McManus was the first to raise the issue. We have heard nothing.
I understand the Minister is disposed to coming before the committee to discuss the matter. We should avail of that opportunity.
I agree totally with that suggestion. The Minister should come before the committee in order that we can find out what the problem is.
It is our job to criticise the Government and we will continue to do so.
That is not the committee's job.
That is the point I am making. This is an all-party committee. The Chairman has not been given the information and respect which he is entitled to receive as Chairman of this committee. He has shown absolute commitment to the process. I am shocked that he was not advised on a continuous basis about the problem, that someone was trying to sort it out and that information was awaited. He was not, in turn, in a position to advise us. This shows disrespect to the committee.
An issue arises on the departmental side, something we raised at the beginning of the process, namely, that if the process is challenged, the eight people concerned should be able to follow every step of the paper trail, see why each of them reached a certain stage and what marks they received. Once one begins to examine the process, the question that arises immediately, which was raised by every member of the committee, concerns those nominated by the Minister. I am not casting aspersions on the people in question, but we struggled to work out which of the headings included in the legislation they met. That is where a difficulty may arise.
As we obviously do not know what the problem is, the sensible thing to do is to try to find out what the current position is and move on.
It is agreed, I will make contact with the Minister and try to arrange a meeting as soon as possible to deal with the matter.
Sitting suspended at 10.19 a.m. and resumed at 10.20 a.m.