Priority Questions
1. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if the savings in payroll he is seeking in 2013 are contingent on a successful conclusion to talks to extend the Croke Park agreement; the way he will ensure that public services including front-line public services are maintained following completion of the talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10588/13]
Amharc ar fhreagra5. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the measures he is taking in the current negotiations on an extended Croke Park deal to protect the current pay of low and middle income workers. [10490/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 5 together.
Last December, on behalf of the Government, I extended an invitation to the members of the public services committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to enter discussions with public service management on a new agenda for reductions in the cost of delivery of public services and substantial longer-term productivity improvements and workplace reforms. Intensive engagement has taken place in recent weeks between the parties to the discussions, which were facilitated by the Labour Relations Commission. The discussions concluded last Monday morning. I attended a plenary meeting of the parties to the discussions at which the Labour Relations Commission tabled proposals of an agreement.
This has been a remarkably challenging and complex process. The Government had sought to reach an agreement that allows substantial costs to be extracted and enhances public service productivity to the benefit of all those who rely on public services while also ensuring that savings were achieved in a way that is broadly equitable and that impacts most on those who are best able to afford it. The Government stated from the outset that to support its determination to restore order to the public finances and to meet its fiscal targets an additional saving of €1 billion in the public service pay and pensions bill would need to be achieved by the end of 2015 and that €300 million of this saving would be needed this year to meet our spending targets.
I am pleased to report that the revised measures as recommended by the Labour Relations Commission have been evaluated as meeting the budgetary targets of the Government over the lifetime of the agreement. They address many of the concerns expressed by the staff representatives during the negotiations as well. I recognise that all public service workers have already made a significant contribution to our economic recovery. However, these further measures are absolutely required to achieve a sustainable reduction in payroll costs sufficient to enable us to meet our fiscal targets. I acknowledge that the negotiators for the public service unions were able to mitigate the effect of several management proposals.
The draft agreement will run for three years from 1 July 2013. It contains several measures aimed at significant cost extraction and changes to terms and conditions of public service workers, all of which have the objective of returning the public service pay and pensions bill to a sustainable path. Detailed proposals were published yesterday evening and copies have been placed in the Oireachtas Library.
I will outline the main elements of the proposed agreement. This is a three year agreement to run from 1 July 2013. Over the course of the agreement the overall savings target set by Government will be achieved. There will be direct pay reductions for those on remuneration in excess of €65,000. An increment freeze of varying lengths at different pay ranges is provided for. There will be a three year freeze for those earning over €65,000, two three month freezes, that is, two 15 month increment periods rather than 12 months periods, for those earning between €35,000 and €65,000 and a single three month freeze for those earning under €35,000, that is, instead of a 12 month increment cycle there will be a 15 month increment cycle. In the interests of equity there will be balancing measures for those on the maximum of the scale through loss of leave or partial temporary recoupment of an increment.
There will be additional productivity through extra hours worked from most public servants. Those currently working 35 hours or under will in future work a minimum of 37 hours. Those working between 35 and under 39 hours will in future work 39 hours. Remaining overtime costs will be paid at a reduced rate of time and a half at the first point of the scale for those on less than €35,000, and time and a quarter to individuals on the scale above €35,000. Public servants on 39 hours who work overtime will make available one unpaid hour of overtime per week. Twilight payments will be eliminated and a reduced rate of time and three quarters for Sunday pay will be implemented. Supervision and substitution payments in the education sector will be eliminated. A range of additional savings associated with the agreement relate to the defence and prison sectors and public service pensions etc. and all of these are laid out in the published document.
A range of additional savings have been proposed and a series of long-term workplace reforms have been agreed as part of the deal as well. These include: revision of flexitime arrangements and work sharing patterns, revisions to redeployment provisions, strengthened performance management arrangements and proposals in the area of grade restructuring.
I have made clear throughout the process that this is a draft agreement based on proposals by the Labour Relations Commission. It is now a matter for the trade unions and the representative associations to consider the proposals in advance of putting them to a ballot of their members in accordance with their rules and regulations.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposed agreement on public service pay with the Minister in the House. This is the first opportunity we have had to do so since the proposed agreement was announced earlier in the week. The Minister should agree that there is a lack of fairness in the proposals as they stand. There is nothing in the proposals about protecting all public services, especially front-line services, for the people. The document is rather light on reform. There is nothing in it about protecting emergency and 24 hour services needed by people on weekends. In particular it is most unfair that low paid workers who work weekends including people in the health service, whether nurses, nurses aides, or cleaning and catering staff in our hospitals, gardaí, firemen and prison officers are facing a cut of up to 8%.
The Minister avoided telling us the level of savings to be achieved. He did not mention a single figure. I think he is speaking about €1 billion over three years but some people thought it would be €1 billion per annum to 2015. He wants to save approximately €350 million per annum, which is 2% of the public sector pay and pensions bill of €17 billion. To achieve that 2% cut he will make certain weekend workers sacrifice up to 8% of their pay.
Absolute rubbish.
I ask the Deputy to put a question.
I will be putting a question.
Any day now.
I want a commitment from the Minister that he will equalise the pay of new recruits not only for teachers but also for nurses, gardaí and prison officers. It is not fair that some people earning €30,000 will suffer cuts of 8% while others earning €60,000 will not suffer cuts. Some people on similar pay rates will face different levels of reduction based on the amount of premium or weekend pay they earn.
I also ask the Minister to reconsider the issue of redundancies. The commitment to have no compulsory redundancies is heavily qualified and the document indicates that voluntary departure will be appropriate in some circumstances. I ask him to remove that clause and answer the question on the targeted redundancy package he has announced on several occasions. Will this provide additional savings to the Croke Park extension, or is it part of the agreement?
Does he not accept that when he is seeking a cut of 2% in the public sector payroll bill it is unfair to ask some low-paid workers to take cuts of 8%? That is the definition of unfairness.
I am surprised and somewhat disappointed by the attitude of the Deputy opposite. The premise on which he asked his questions is false. The annual amount of savings required is €1 billion. It starts this year, although clearly this will be a half year, and it will ratchet up to €1 billion in annualised savings by 2015. The Deputy's percentages are wrong, therefore.
In regard to the Deputy's point about fairness, this is a fundamentally fair deal and many objective observers have taken the time to analyse the document. We have considered this very carefully. One of the Government's prime objectives was to extract the money we need in a way that is fair and affects everybody to some degree, and to ensure it affects those who are best able to bear it the most. This is why we are introducing a pay cut for those earning more than €65,000.
With regard to those in receipt of premium payments and on the front line, there are people who work relatively short hours and maximise their pay by making sure it is in the premium sector. Some of that is required. There are various elements to it, the first of which is how the rosters are determined. Some people find themselves rostered for an extraordinary amount of Sunday and holiday work and, obviously, the rate is paid. We intended to reduce Sunday pay by one quarter, from double time to time and a half, but we settled on reducing it by only one eighth, to time and three quarters. We have examined who would be affected by this change and found it is fair and balanced. If one was to pick somebody who works only on Sundays or works a disproportionate number of Sundays and premium days, one might find him or her to be well outside the norm. However, taking 290,000 public sector workers, this has to be a complicated agreement in order to be as fair and objective as possible. We have made it complicated but, objectively, it is fair, unless one takes the extreme.
We did not have to travel far to find somebody to give the lie to the Minister's claim that the agreement is in any way fair or equitable. In fact, people came to us. A sample of the workers who are badly hit by this agreement were the firefighters who assembled outsides the gates of the Houses yesterday. Having studied the agreements, the firefighters clearly understand they will face cuts of between 8% and 10% to their take-home pay. Like others in the public service, these workers are just about getting by at present. They are just about meeting their bills, rent and mortgages and many of them have young families. The question they ask, not as commentators but as individuals who will experience the full impact of this deal, is what kind of bubble surrounds this Minister and his Government colleagues that prevents them from understanding the impact this deal will have. They reckon it will drive them into debt and many of their colleagues across the public sector will be driven into poverty. As the Minister will be aware, up to 10% of those currently in receipt of family income supports work in the public sector.
My question was about whether the Minister was going to protect low- and middle-income workers. The answer is that he did not protect them. He claimed, disingenuously, that the only pay cuts were for those earning in excess of €65,000. He might play with words but he knows full well that workers across the spectrum are going to experience real and substantial cuts to their wages. Nurses who earn €35,000 or €40,000 are looking at cuts of 8%. I ask him not to play the game of make-believe that only a certain section will experience the cuts.
I share the public frustration that certain people in the public service are overpaid and over-pensioned. There is no debate about that. These individuals include Ministers and Secretaries General. There are 6,000 of them across the system. The demand for fairness and reining in the pay bill should have been directed at that set of people. It is not fair or sustainable to ask the State to pay multiples of a fair salary to senior public officials, but the Minister was not prepared to go after them.
I must call the Minister to reply.
He was not prepared to go after them other than in the most light-handed of ways.
The Deputy has tabled a question on pensions.
This is not about pensions; it is about pay. I have other issues to raise.
I will call Deputies McDonald and Fleming again.
The Deputy is not asking questions because she does not want to hear answers.
I asked my question.
She came to her conclusion before the document was even published. Within an hour of the conclusion of the talks she was on the national airwaves denouncing the agreement and those who had negotiated it, in a shocking and shabby abuse of people who had worked hard to represent their members. She did not even have the courtesy to read the document before she came to her venomous conclusion.
In regard to the general argument that she has made from the beginning, to the effect that we could make the savings by dealing with the 6,000 people who earn more than €100,000 out of the 290,000 people working in the public service, it is clear that if we had done so we would have achieved less than 20% of the savings we require while destroying our health services and the Judiciary. It is nonsense, but the problem is that Deputy McDonald and her party know it is nonsense. One need look no further than her party in Northern Ireland to see the policies it is implementing. She thinks she can perpetuate this falsehood to the future advantage of her party. This is a complex deal which was negotiated by professional and competent negotiators representing 390,000 workers. Some walked out of the process but the vast majority stayed in.
It is now a matter for workers in the public service to make their judgment. I ask Deputies not to use this House as a bully pit in terms of charging one way or the other on this issue. The facts are laid out and the agreement has been negotiated openly over many weeks by professional, competent negotiators. They will give advice to their members and each public sector worker will make his or her decision in that light.
Deputy Sean Fleming may put a question, but I ask for his co-operation in keeping it brief.
I wish to make two quick points. I do not believe whoever drafted the answer to my question read it but just issued the Minister with a statement on the Croke Park agreement. I asked about savings, but the Minister did not mention any figure. The only figure he mentioned was the €1 billion he mentioned in response to my follow-up question. He should have given us some of the figures for savings and I ask him to correct that omission.
Second, I put a simple question as to whether the agreement was contingent on the successful conclusion of the Croke Park deal. In other words, if there is not a successful conclusion, will the Minister legislate to have the proposals implemented? He did not deal with that issue. Will he confirm whether he will legislate if the deal is not agreed to?
On the issue of Members not contributing, it would be helpful if the members of the Labour Party national executive involved in the talks did not mention Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael every time they appeared on television. They are politicising the process already.
The answer to the question I put is a clear "No," the Minister is not prepared to prioritise low and middle income workers and he was certainly not prepared to prioritise front-line staff. This is an ongoing discussion in which we continually ask the Government to name and deal with the minority who are overpaid. The agreement reflects the fact that the Minister is not prepared to do this, although he will put his hand in the pocket of a garda, a firefighter or a nurse. He has no difficulty in doing this. People should bear in mind that the cuts being made in respect of front-line workers and clerical grade staff across the public service have an impact in terms of the services delivered.
The Deputy should put her question.
The statistics are startling. Some 9,500 carers are waiting for their applications to be processed. The average waiting time is now six months.
The Deputy should be fair and put her question.
All of this is connected to a strategy that has been about shrinking the public service, hammering workers on very average incomes and protecting those at the top at all costs.
I must call on the Minister to make his final reply.
I would be equally critical of the trade unions which are protecting people they, the Minister and I know are overpaid. They earn more than the British Prime Minister or the French President. We cannot continue with that system-----
This is Question Time. I must call on the Minister to make his final reply.
-----or that level of overpayment while hammering workers further down the line.
The Chair might well say this is Question Time, but Deputy Mary Lou McDonald has never been interested in answers, just in back of the lorry speeches denying the realities and the facts. This is a fair deal and it is now a matter for individual workers to come to their own conclusions on it. We need to make these savings. This is a negotiated deal that the workers' representatives determined as far as they could do so. They reshaped the proposals on the table. There is no magic formula. Deputy Gerry Adams can have his magic formula, suggesting we can get rid of the troika and that we do not need its money. Why would we need it if we could go abroad to avail of health care rather than depend on the health care system here? In his imaginary world or bubble, everybody lives on the average industrial wage, but he or she has a lifestyle to which no worker on the average industrial wage in this country can aspire. That fantasy land is hollow. The job of the Government is to provide real solutions to the economic crisis facing the country. We are making the necessary repairs incrementally and rebalancing the public pay bill.
I acknowledge the extraordinary work of public sector workers. Nobody defended the Croke Park agreement more than I in the past two years, on the basis that we ultimately needed to look at how we could ensure the payroll and services were fit for purpose and matched our income stream. This deal will allow us get to that position. I have made a commitment that if it is accepted, we will not ask more of public sector workers. I hope they will accept this on that basis and not be distracted by the fantasy or rhetoric of those who are not interested in the recovery of the country but only in political pointscoring.
2. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will consider reducing the annual pension payments to former senior public servants, office holders, Taoisigh and Government Ministers. [10489/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe position on the pensions of senior public service retirees, including the groups referred to in the Deputy’s question, is kept under review constantly by my Department. In this context, it is important to point out that, over the course of recent years, several measures have been taken by the Government which serve to substantially reduce pension awards and pensions in payment to former senior public servants, office holders, Taoisigh and Ministers.
A key measure in this context has been the public service pension reduction, PSPR, which applies to all public servants who retired on pensions of over €12,000 up to the end of February 2012, including retirees in the groups referred to in the Deputy's question. This progressively structured imposition on pensions was introduced on 1 January 2011, based on a set of income bands and percentage reductions and bearing most heavily on higher pension retirees. Acting on foot of my concerns with regard to high public service pensions - I acknowledge this is a concern for the public - I subsequently acted to make the PSPR even more progressive in application by legislating for an increase in the rate of PSPR on pension amounts in excess of €100,000, from 12% to 20% on the excess amount, effective from 1 January 2012.
In the case of former public servants who retired from March 2012 onwards, pensions have also been subject to a significant effective reduction, in so far as they have been impacted on by the pay reductions applied under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act, the FEMPI legislation. These reductions have again been progressively structured such that higher paid public servants and public service retirees, including in the groups referred to by the Deputy, have proportionately been harder hit. In this context, some of the deepest pay cuts of all have been imposed on ministerial pay and these pay cuts will be fully reflected in the pension awards to current and future Ministers.
Future pension awards will also be moderated by the general pay ceiling of €200,000 for appointments to higher posts across the public service which I introduced immediately on coming into office. Revised salary rates in line with that ceiling are now in place for Secretaries General in the Civil Service who, in addition, can no longer receive notional added years or immediate pensions before preserved pension age.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The LRC recommendations this week for a new public service agreement contain further pay reductions which are concentrated on higher paid public servants. When implemented, these pay cuts will in due course impact on the pensions awarded to future retirees from the groups covered by the Deputy's question. In line with the LRC's recommendations, the Government also intends to align the reductions in public service pensions in payment with the reductions applied to serving staff, in respect of pensions in payment greater than €32,500. Further details of these pension impacts, including details of the necessary legislative changes, will be drawn up shortly.
Looking further ahead, the recently commenced single public service pension scheme which applies to all new joiner public servants, including civil servants, office holders and Ministers, will in time deliver significant savings to the public purse through reduced public service pensions. These long-term savings will derive from key features of the single scheme, principally an increase in pension age, inflation linkage of benefits and career average accrual.
The various FEMPI Act and other measures I have outlined indicate the significant action already taken in reducing the pensions payable currently or in the future to former senior public servants, office holders, Taoisigh and Ministers. In this general context it is important to point out that legal advice from the Attorney General states it is possible to apply proportionate reductions to existing pensions, as has been done to date in the FEMPI legislation. However, due account must be taken of the fact that pension benefits are generally regarded as vested property rights, which must be considered in the public interest when taking action.
Let us look at a sample of the figures involved in these pensions. The figures I am about to provide are net of the PSPR or the pension levy. Mr. Charlie McCreevy has a pension of €119,000-----
The Deputy should ask a question.
Mr. Michael Woods receives €122,000; Mr. Dick Spring receives €120,000; Mr. Bertie Ahern receives €150,000, while Mr. Brian Cowen the same amount. These are the pensions of which former office holders and others are still in receipt from the State. The Minister has bragged again today that he has introduced emergency legislation to deal with this issue. I believe and hope he understands privately that he has not even begun to deal adequately with this issue. No retired official, politician, Minister or Taoiseach should ever have been in receipt of pensions of that order, certainly not now when we are in the depths of an economic crisis and the Minister is putting his hand in the pockets of the working and middle classes. He told me previously that he could not deal with this issue and cited repeatedly concerns around property rights and pensions. Is that still his position? Is it the issue of property rights that is stopping him from dealing with these pensions?
We talked about the Croke Park phase two agreement a few moments ago. The reduction the Minister envisages in that agreement in the case of pensions of this order - a reduction of 5% - is a joke and a very bad one at that.
I have acknowledged from the outset of this Government's term in office that I regard the pensions of former officeholders and some retired senior public servants as excessive. I sought to deal with the matter virtually immediately when I took up my current position. That is why I introduced the additional pension reduction in the 2011 FEMPI legislation. It is true that I sought the advice of the Attorney General on how far I could go in that legislation. I went as far as I could, without putting the entire FEMPI edifice in danger, by increasing the pension reduction rate from 12% to 20%. Whether we like it or not, the formal advices are that pension benefits constitute a vested property right and are therefore protected by the Constitution. For that reason, there is a limit on what we can do. There are also constraints within the FEMPI architecture itself. I have explained this to the Deputy on several occasions. The argument that has to be made when introducing FEMPI legislation is that it is required in the national interest. Any FEMPI measure must accrue sufficient money to justify it as being required and must have wider application beyond a tiny cohort of the citizenry. To the best of my ability and to the greatest extent that I could, I crafted the legislation in a way that met those constitutional imperatives. Objectively, that is a fact. I share the Deputy's concern. The money involved is small in terms of reducing the overall national debt or solving the nation's finances. The Deputy is right when she says this is important to people who want fairness. We will strive again and again to find ways of doing this. If the new pay deal is agreed, there will be an incremental reduction of 5% in addition to how far we have already gone to claw back more.
I was interested to read the preamble to the legislation that was rushed through this House when IBRC was being wound up. It states that "in the achievement of the winding up of IBRC the common good may require permanent or temporary interference with the rights, including property rights, of persons". It is clear that property rights were interfered with when that institution was wound up. The Minister has never published the Attorney General's advice on this matter. I have never believed-----
That is not done, as the Deputy knows.
I know it is not a matter of normal convention. In light of the level of public concern about this issue, I think that advice should be published. Frankly, I do not buy the suggestion that the Minister cannot go much further in respect of these pensions because of constitutional constraints. I do not believe he is politically willing to take on this matter. The suggestion that the individuals on these extraordinary pensions have been hit hardest, as the Minister has described it, is really very troubling.
I did not say that at all.
The Minister used that language in his initial response to me. These people have not been hit really hard at all. They should not be in receipt of these pensions at this level. The national interest and the common good require these pensions to be reined in.
We should really call this "speech time" rather than "Question Time". I have acknowledged that there is an issue here. I have sought to deal with it. Objectively, people will agree that my efforts have been fairly substantial in the context of the constraints within which I have had to operate. As the Deputy has acknowledged, it is not the convention to publish the views of the Attorney General. If one asks for advice from any lawyer in this regard, one will get the same advice. All one needs to do is read the case law. The McMahon judgment in the High Court was issued on foot of one of the cases that was tested. The pretence of doing something is always much better than actually grappling with the reality of having to find a way of doing things.
The Minister should just publish the advice.
The Sinn Féin way is to engage in the pretence of it-----
The Labour Party way is to take 5% off these pensions.
The Deputy should not shout people down.
It must be a joke.
I listened to her back-of-the-lorry speech. I ask her to listen to my answer. The Government is grappling with an array of economic difficulties that were presented to us by the disastrous Government that preceded this one. We are making steady progress on the way. Employment figures to be published today will indicate that the number of people in employment has increased for the first time in five years and that the unemployment rate decreased from 14.6% to 14.2% in the last quarter of 2012. We have largely moved the path of restructuring the banks to a place where there is growing confidence for investment in them. That is having an impact on the confidence of people in society. We have a way to go yet. I think the nihilism, negativity and destructive views we have heard from those, particularly in Sinn Féin, who are willing our country to fail will be rejected by voters.
3. Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will ensure that public bodies that engage the services of legal firms and legal practitioners are compelled to publish annual payments made to each legal firm or legal persons, relating to each calendar year; and the systems in place to monitor this and ensure that public moneys are not being wasted. [10587/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraIn principle, I am in favour of the annual publication of details of the cost of payments by public bodies to legal firms and practitioners. However, there needs to be an examination of how this is to be achieved. For example, should the information be included in annual reports of public bodies or made available in other sources of information? To what degree should the details of individual payments be divulged? The publication of information concerning payments may need to take account of the needs of commercial confidentiality in the context of any competitive procurement arrangements that might be in place. I envisage that my Department will, in consultation with relevant Departments and offices, set down guidelines on the level of detail to be divulged by public bodies on their legal payments and devise systems for monitoring adherence to such guidelines. The publication of such information would not of itself lead to a reduction in expenditure on legal costs. Such reductions have been effected in recent years through multiple across-the-board reductions in the level of fees paid by Departments and offices and the development of competitive tendering in the procurement of legal services by public bodies.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Departments have historically paid exorbitant legal fees. The HSE probably has the highest expenditure to legal firms. The payment of crazy sums of money was recently revealed in The Sunday Business Post on foot of freedom of information requests. Some €71.5 million has been paid to solicitors' firms. One firm received €11.5 million in a 12-month period in 2012. A barrister received approximately €968,000 in 2010. Child care proceedings are proving to be very lucrative. A top-earning barrister received €1.3 million from the HSE in 2012. A host of other payments was highlighted by the newspaper. What procedures does the Minister intend to put in place to deal with this significant draining of the State's scarce resources? It is way over the top. Procedures will have to be put in place. At the moment, the legal sections of Departments deal with legal advisers, make arrangements and negotiate with legal firms. We need to get senior executives from the Departments and the HSE highly involved in this.
There is a great deal of merit in what the Deputy has said. Some of the legal fees that have come into the public domain in recent years, such as tribunal fees and fees for legal cases taken by the HSE and others, are disturbingly high. That is why we have embarked on a new procurement regime. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor has taken a number of initiatives in this regard. It would be useful to bring the details of these payments into the public domain, as suggested in the Deputy's question. I will try to ensure that process is concluded this year. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, is devising procurement regimes that will save money across all areas of public procurement. As the Deputy is aware, we have appointed a new chief procurement officer. The area of legal fees needs particular and focused attention. I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I assure him that the advice he has given will be heeded.
The Minister needs to cap the fees by setting a maximum fee for senior counsel and junior counsel.
I hope the Minister will advertise publicly for the services of senior counsel and solicitors who will be placed on a panel to act for the State. We recently learned that child services were being fleeced in terms of legal fees at a time of great financial scarcity in that sector.
Again, I agree entirely with the Deputy. The way to go is not so much to have a cap because, in a way, it is a stab in the dark, but to have true competitive tendering. I know competitive frameworks are being devised in order to do this. I have looked, for example, at how some of the big American companies do it. They have an open on-line tendering competition to avail of reduced legal fees. They put up the opening bid and legal firms have a period of time in which to bid and offer a reduction. While that might be one way to go, we want to ensure the best advice is available to the State and its agents. In any case, the devising of a system to address the concerns of the Deputy is certainly in hand.
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.
