Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

This reflects the Government's attention to detail in respect of legislation proposed by Members on this side of the House.

In the 85-year history of the State, our progress to democratic principles has been largely without awkwardness. We came through a short but bloody civil war and managed to establish institutions of State in the form of a judicial system and a publicly acceptable police force. Within ten years of the foundation of the State, we managed to effect a change of Government by democratic means. Ireland was the first of the post-colonial nations to do so and other colonial nations looked to its example as a template to follow in the context of how independence could be achieved and how democratic structures could be put in place.

Our road to democratic principles has not been easy. Part of the reason there was such calm during the early history of the State relates to the degree of influence certain institutions were allowed to have over public opinion and the unwillingness, through a lack of democratic behaviour, of the public to challenge and question that type of institutional control of democratic procedures.

As the nation grew up, so did its citizenry. We have improved the nature and quality of democracy here. There were, however, some major difficulties along the way. The acceptance of democratic procedures that are less than perfect means that a culture under which corruption is practised and, even worse, tolerated can be brought into being. A number of tribunals dealing with the most obvious examples of the corruption that was practised in the past are currently in operation. There may be a need for further tribunals of inquiry to investigate whether political behaviour has always been of the highest standard.

One of the reasons political behaviour has allowed corruption to be practised relates to the existence of petty levels of corruption, involving the abuse of political patronage, and the onset of cronyism. The latter has everything to do with how we have selected people to represent, and make contributions to, public State bodies. The overwhelming majority of those selected to serve on State bodies are individuals of ability who contribute out of a sense of public spiritedness. However, we must make a distinction between the people who are chosen and the methods used to select them. In terms of winning public confidence and having the highest quality of standards of democracy, the system and the process must always be beyond reproach. Some 85 years after the foundation of the State, there is unfortunately still a perception that many public appointments are made on the basis of who one is, who one knows and on one's political affiliation. This does not stop people of ability from coming through. However, it does not in every instance provide the people of greatest ability.

The Bill is an attempt to make the process of public appointments more open and transparent and, by so doing, to win greater public confidence in our political system. It is a challenge to the Government, which has been in power for ten years — the main party in the Administration has been in office for the vast bulk of the State's history — to say that the type of politics practised in the past did not necessarily serve the best interests of the country and that the time for change has come. It is also a challenge to other parties to join the Green Party's initiative on this area of political reform. We are on the eve of a general election that will be about the process of change. If the election involves merely changing the names and faces of people on the benches opposite, it will be a poor day's work. People must be offered not only a choice but a choice that leads to real change. The Green Party believes changes in the area of political reform are most necessary to reignite public confidence in the political system.

The Bill proposes several simple measures that can help restore public confidence in the system. It suggests that all public appointments to State bodies and agencies — regardless of whether these have validity — should, in the first instance, be approved. We propose that an Oireachtas committee on appointments to public bodies be established. Part of the remit of this committee would be to examine whether what any member of the Government proposes in the context of State agencies, task forces or study groups is worthy of spending public moneys, has a specific remit and is worth following through.

The Bill also suggests that a special unit should be attached to the Public Appointments Commission. This unit would act as a clearing house in respect of applications from people in respect of advertised positions on public bodies. It could assess those applications and make recommendations to the relevant Minister. Instead of, as is currently the case, exercising the gift of patronage, the latter would make nominations that would be placed before the Oireachtas committee on appointments to public bodies, which would be responsible for approving the individuals who would serve as chairpersons on such bodies and those who would comprise their general membership.

What we propose, therefore, is a three-stage process that would consider whether a body is necessary, whether the people applying to serve on it are of the highest ability and whether the Oireachtas was fully involved in the decision to appoint it and its members following a full ratification process. We believe that such a process would be open and transparent.

The Oireachtas should have a further role in ratifying nominations made by the Government in respect of special international appointments. In the past, appointments to the European Commission, the European Central Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and a score of other bodies were referred to as "Government appointments". We argue that those appointed in this regard are representatives of the State and that there should be a wider process of ratification in respect of them. We suggest that the Government should make its nominations and then put them forward to be ratified by the House. There could, if necessary, be a debate — in most cases this might not be required — and a vote. The latter would be unlikely if the person nominated was of sufficient quality.

The prime motivation behind the introduction of the Bill is that public appointments must be seen as being other than a reward for political service, other than compensation for those who have been disappointed politically and other than an exercise of jobs for the boys. If we can make this type of change with this legislation, the other types of necessary political reform, which form part of my party's programme for Government and which we are prepared to implement with the co-operation of others and put to the electorate for ratification, then this is a process that could help clean up Irish politics once and for all.

See this speech in context