Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for bringing forward his amendments. On the first amendment, I appreciate that he is concerned to ensure members of the agency are well qualified and suitable for appointment. I assure him the Minister for Finance shares that concern. It is because we share that concern that we have included a detailed list setting out relevant areas in which potential appointees must have expertise and experience at a senior level. However, I must put it to the House that we cannot be overly prescriptive because if we take, for example, the area of investment - the first area of expertise mentioned - we are likely to find that there are perfectly suitable candidates who came to it with a background in engineering, mathematics or the liberal arts. We should not, therefore, be too prescriptive in legislation in this regard. We are clear on the expertise we need, but our concern is that the Senator's amendment would be overly prescriptive.

The Senator also proposed reducing the requirement for expertise in "economics and economic development" to "economics". I am not persuaded by this proposal. I can envisage a situation where a person could have a useful background, not necessarily in conventional economics but perhaps in working with a development bank at a senior level. That individual might have first hand experience of investment and working with developing economies which could be very useful to the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, in terms of investment strategies. Again, a person with that background would have to have expertise and experience at a senior level.

In regard to the proposal to expand the phrase "corporate finance" to "corporate finance and appraisal", I do not see how this would add to the area of expertise. If we are looking at someone with expertise and experience at a senior level in corporate finance, I would be very surprised to find that that person did not have expertise in appraising the finances of a corporate body or its activities.

The Senator's rationale in moving the amendments is that he does not want senior civil servants to be eligible for membership of the agency. That would unnecessarily exclude potential worthwhile appointees. The provision is wider than departmental civil servants, being civil servants of the State, and includes persons working in other organisations such as a utility or energy regulator. It is important to note that the Civil Service is much more open than it was and we see people being recruited at all levels, right up to Secretary General level, from outside the Civil Service. Therefore, if we look at the roles of the agency, it could well be that a civil servant, whatever his or her career background is, who has particular expertise in an area such as public capital projects would be a very good fit for the ISIF which has the potential to invest in public infrastructural projects just as much as it does in SMEs, provided the investment is on a commercial basis. I am satisfied that the provisions within the legislation cover the qualifications required to be a member of the agency. The provisions are reasonable and should remain as they are. I respect the Senator's view, but that is my rationale for not accepting the amendments.