Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 27 February 2013
4. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to reform State board appointments; if he intends to ensure appointments are not influenced by political affiliations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10589/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs the Deputy is aware, in 2011 the Government introduced new arrangements for the appointment of State board members. Under the new arrangements, Departments now invite on their websites expressions of interest from the public in vacancies on the boards of bodies under their aegis. It is open to all members of the public, regardless of gender, political affiliations or geography, to apply for appointment to fill these vacancies.
Persons being proposed for appointment as chairpersons of State agencies or boards will be required to make themselves available to the appropriate Oireachtas committee to discuss the approach they will take to their role as chairperson and their views about the future contribution of the body or board in question. Following that discussion, decisions will be taken by either the Government or me, as appropriate, to confirm the nominee as chairperson.
I am satisfied that these new arrangements introduced by the Government in 2011 have significantly improved transparency in the making of appointments to State boards, compared with the making of appointments in previous times.
I acknowledge that the Minister has put in place what looks, on the face of it, to be a perfect system. While it is perfect in theory, it is not working in practice, which is why I tabled this question. It is clear to anyone who has been following this issue that 60 appointees to State boards since the Government took office were specifically affiliated to and had connections with either Fine Gael or the Labour Party. An agreement has been mentioned by Ministers and seen under FOI legislation which suggests there is a ratio of 2:1 in the political affiliations of appointees.
Let me be very clear. I am not saying the appointees are not suitable for the job, but there is an over-emphasis on political connections. While many of them may have good experience, I do not consider that the system is broad enough. The proof of this is in the appointments to HIQA, where only one of the 40 people who had applied got onto the board, whereas the majority of appointments made by other Ministers involved people who had never applied in the first place. The old system is alive and well. The majority of appointees should not be coming through this system.
Will the Deputy, please, frame a question?
Is the Minister satisfied that more than 60 people who have been appointed to State boards since the Government took office had connections with either Fine Gael or the Labour Party, including councillors, people who had donated money to these parties, party advisers, party candidates, former party public representatives, party activists, party canvassers and friends of individual Ministers? Is he satisfied that this practice is continuing?
I was delighted to see this question because we need a debate on these matters. This is a small country. I read the published list of the 60 people mentioned. While I was not going to mention names, I will mention one. Ms Adi Roche who was appointed to the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland is regarded as a crony. How could someone who has spent most of her life championing the Chernobyl issue not be a suitable candidate to be on the board of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland? Should she be debarred from membership because she offered herself for public office?
One of the things that was regarded in the article as serving to debar a person or make him or her a crony was that he or she had worked on a policy committee of a political party or had given advice to a political party. In opposition I chaired the policy committee of the Labour Party and invited in experts whose political affiliation I did not know to work on policy development. Academics and many others gave us the benefit of their expertise to shape policy. It would be extraordinary if participation in the public democratic sphere in that way debarred such persons, or if being a councillor or speaking publicly in favour of a political view was to debar them. That would be extraordinary in a small economy.
We need to have a rational debate on this matter. There is a downside if we label everybody who has a political opinion or works on a policy committee. I am sure the Deputy's party has policy committees working and, without knowing their politics, is inviting experts such as economists or statisticians to work with them. That they should be debarred or regarded as cronies is an extraordinary, limiting and perverse view. Purity means one has to be almost apolitical. It would be a hugely damaging perspective with regard to the way public business is done if that was to be the norm.
I concur with everything the Minister has said and he will acknowledge that I said the people appointed might be well qualified. I just want this process to be opened up to others who are equally well qualified. I am clear-cut in saying people who have shown an interest in public affairs, whether it be through the democratic process, are regularly very suitable to be appointed to State boards because they have expertise. However, I am concerned about the undue preponderance of people in that category. I have always believed there should be a democratic balance and that people with an interest in the democratic process on all State boards. While I am not saying such persons should not be appointed, we need to see more from the broader citizenship category.
I do not disagree with that and there is probably a meeting of minds on this issue. We need to get away from the notion that to be political is somehow unworthy because that is hugely damaging. However, we need to make sure people who have something to contribute and are not involved in the political system in any shape or form also have a path to serve fully. We have to strive to have better systems, if the current systems are not helping us to do this. On balance, however, we have made a significant improvement and will look again to ensure that, if further changes or tweaks need to be made, we will make them.
Question No. 5 answered with Question No. 1.
