Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)

The motion is non-contentious and I do not understand why the Government could not agree to it. The motion invites the Government to act on certain legislation, political lobbying, whistleblowers' protection, good corporate governance and restoring the original provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1997. It does not condemn the Government but invites it to act in these areas. I do not see a problem with that and do not understand why the Government insists on proposing an amendment which bears little relation to the motion.

The main proposal in the amendment is that the Seanad should commend the Government on a number of measures which concern more general economic matters and the management of the economy and public finances. That is rather ironic. The amendment states that the Government has done a good job in the management and control of the public finances by reducing the level of public debt. We know the public debt doubled in the last two years under the Government and Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen. The amendment commends the Government on restoring the credibility and sustainability of the public finances - whatever that means given that the public finances are in disarray - and suggests this provides the basis for Ireland to benefit from the global upswing, whenever that comes. However, everybody knows that restoring competitiveness in the Irish economy is what will lay the basis for Ireland to benefit from the upswing.

The amendment also mentions the supplementary budget and the Government's work on restoring the financial stability of the banking system. However, it has clearly failed to do that. By the day, the proposals relating to the national asset management agency, NAMA, are coming unstuck. To set up a new organisation and structure to deal with the bad debts and toxic assets of the banks would take ten years at the pace at which the Government has attempted to introduce this. The confrontational nature of the Government's amendment is needless, beside the point and does not address the Labour Party motion, which I consider to be well grounded.

The lack of confidence in crony capitalism, the Government and corporate governance all starts with the political process and culture in this country. It is the political culture that has existed under successive Fianna Fáil Governments. An article in today's Financial Times states:

Ireland has come through more than 10 years of judicial tribunals that exposed a culture of corruption in planning and property development. Bertie Ahern, Brian Cowen's predecessor as Irish prime minister, was forced to step down last year amid questioning by the tribunal into his business affairs. Recent banking scandals have merely added to Ireland's image problems.

This Government has created the problem and the political culture. Its appointments to State bodies and key economic organisations within the economy has added to the problem of securing good governance, good control, proper scrutiny and proper standards.

As has been mentioned, there is a series of legislative measures to ensure standards in public life, including the Standards in Public Office Act, the Ethics in Public Office Act and so forth. However, these are just words if they are not adhered to. We know about the obligations of politicians and public representatives, for example, to have tax clearance certificates, but when the Taoiseach of the day does not have a tax clearance certificate, there is cynicism about the political process. The entire Government criticised the work of the Mahon tribunal, which was established to restore confidence in the political process, and Judge Mahon for the manner in which he was conducting the tribunal with regard to the Taoiseach of the day. There must be a change in the political culture that has inculcated and promoted this type of governance, lack of responsibility and lack of transparency in our public affairs. It has permeated the business and banking communities.

Let us start with appointments to State bodies. When questioned about the appointment of a particular gentleman as a director of a State body, the former Taoiseach said he was a friend of his. They are the standards that have traditionally been applied by this Government to State appointments. Qualifications and background checks are not taken into account. In general, significant checks are made on the competence and eligibility of persons to be appointed as directors of companies in the private sector, but those standards have not been applied by the Government.

Fine Gael's spokesperson on enterprise, Deputy Varadkar, introduced the Public Appointments Transparency Bill 2008 to legislate for the appointment of persons to State bodies. He proposes that appointees would be subject to scrutiny by the relevant committees of the Oireachtas and that they would also be subject to being called before those committees to account for the performance of their functions. The Bill also proposes that the qualifications of all ministerial appointees to State boards and other State bodies would be laid before the Dáil and that they would be subject to scrutiny by the relevant committees. That is where it starts, namely, with our respect for the standards with which we, as public representatives, are obliged to comply and where we have an influence on corporate governance in terms of appointments to State bodies. We should start there. In putting forward the Bill, Fine Gael has attempted to do that.

We have much legislation. The Government's amendment points to other legislation that has been introduced. We have the Office of Corporate Enforcement, the fraud squad, the Financial Regulator, the Companies Acts, the possibility of having court appointed inspectors to examine the affairs of companies and, ultimately, the Criminal Assets Bureau. However, when an issue arises, unless there is a public outcry, those provisions and mechanisms do not seem to function very well. When we heard of the disclosure about the Anglo Irish Bank-Seán FitzPatrick loans in December, all the Minister for Finance said about the matter was that it was disappointing, instead of ensuring that the matter was fully investigated and that the law was applied. It was only belatedly, following the public outcry, that the wheels began to move on this matter.

On the same subject, an article that appeared in a newspaper today suggested that auditors warned the Irish Nationwide about loans to Seán FitzPatrick. That all misses the point, namely, whether the standards that were applied in concealing those loans complied with the Companies Acts and directives and regulations on market abuse and sensitive information about public companies. Those are the issues. The problem is that there is no leadership on standards because there is no credibility in the Government and its leadership on these matters. That is where the problem lies. I support the Labour Party motion and commend it to the House.