Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

We may not be pleased with this argument but we must weigh the risk. We should be careful about what process is most conducive to getting the sort of people we seek to serve on State boards in the public interest. In this regard, the House will be aware of the measures which it recently passed for board appointments to public broadcasting corporations in the recently enacted Broadcasting Act. Under these provisions, the joint Oireachtas committee will be able to recommend up to one third of the candidates for membership of the RTE board. These arrangements were well debated in the House and a balance was struck in the final provisions of the Act, which does not involve the vetting process for nominees proposed in the Bill.

In the case of chief executive officers the board involved makes the selection, a normal corporate governance arrangement. The appointment is usually advertised. The board may choose to use the services of a senior executive recruitment agency, especially in the case of a large organisation operating in a complex environment. In fact, the Public Appointments Service recruits to senior positions in the HSE, the HIQA, local authorities and the Vocational Educational Committees. Recent appointments include the national director of human resources in the HSE, the chief executive of the Dublin Transportation Authority, the director of the EPA and director general of FÁS.

State boards are accountable to the Minister and the Departments they serve. The annual reports and, where applicable, statements of strategy of such bodies are first examined by the parent Department involved and then presented to Government before publication. Salient issues are brought to the attention of Government in the memorandum submitting the accounts. In this way, the responsible Minister may give an account to his or her colleagues of the bodies under the aegis of his or her Department. The annual reports and accounts of State bodies are then laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

If State bodies are companies, they are subject to the corporate governance provisions of the Companies Acts, which have been greatly expanded in the past 20 years. All State bodies must have regard to the corporate governance guidelines set out in the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies promulgated by the Minister for Finance, the most recent version of which is dated May 2009. This comprehensive code reinforces the requirement for high standards of corporate governance in all State agencies, whether in the commercial or non-commercial sphere. State bodies and their subsidiaries are required to confirm to the relevant Minister that they comply with the up-to-date requirements of the code in their governance practices and procedures. The latest version includes proposals made by the Public Accounts Committee in its report on FÁS earlier this year. This shows that the system is responsive to the concerns of the Oireachtas and that it can take speedy action to absorb Members' recommendations designed to improve the standards of governance of State bodies.

There are myriad State bodies identified in the Deputy's publication of 2008, in which he proposes a wholesale culling of State bodies. While he may, rightly, take the view that there are too many such bodies, he cannot seriously put the view that many or most of such bodies are unreformed or lack probity in how they carry out their tasks. The terminology referring to State boards in the Bill can cover areas such as local authorities, harbour authorities, hospitals, universities, industrial development and non-commercial State bodies. I envisage a total overload for Oireachtas committees dealing with all these, and issues arising concerning independence and academic freedom in some cases. Must we go to all these lengths and to risk unnecessarily politicising every State appointment for years to come?

The impact on the conduct of Oireachtas business by taking on executive functions in addition to its legislative and parliamentary scrutiny obligations would be vast, not least given the number of such State bodies and agencies. It is laudable to seek transparency and balance in the matter of public appointments, but it is questionable whether the proposed system would be workable. It is also questionable whether it would deliver the right candidates to the State boards or guarantee that the boards involved would perform better than those currently in place.

It is now common practice to prescribe in the legislation for a State agency that the chief executive will be the accountable person to the Committee of Public Accounts in its examination of reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. This is an important component in enhancing standards of corporate governance and exposing lapses to the full glare of publicity and probing questioning. Examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General may be scrutiny after the event, but it has a demonstration effect and underlines the public accountability attaching to these bodies. No doubt others will proceed with caution, when they witness State bodies being brought to account where there have been weak controls or mismanagement of resources.

With reference to performance matters, irrespective of the manner of appointment of its members, the board ultimately reports to the relevant Minister and to his or her Department. This is an area of oversight that deserves attention and strengthening.

The call by the OECD for improved governance arrangements for the public service is supported by the Government. In this regard, it is not merely the manner of appointments that matters but the quality of the framework in place for governance and reporting. The follow-up Report of the Task Force on the Public Service was published last November. The report built on the findings of the OECD review, while at the same time taking account of the new economic circumstances. It set out a three-year framework, which the Government has adopted, for what amounts to a radical transformation of the public service. In the case of State bodies, it is proposed that Ministers will be required to demonstrate a clear business case for any incremental resources associated with the creation of a new agency or the conferring of new functions on an existing agency and, in particular, why an existing agency or Department cannot take on a given task with existing resources. All agencies will be required to publish output statements relating to the resources allocated along with target achievements. Departments will put in place, with those agencies involved in service provision, service level agreements which commit agencies to delivering agreed volumes and standards to the public. All this means more supervision, more accountability and more transparency. In this light, it is not clear that it is necessary to add the extra layers of oversight proposed in the Bill. The current arrangements, which follow the practice of previous Governments, have generally worked well, and the State benefits from people with skill and experience serving on State boards.

Earlier, I referred to the change made by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in the role of the Oireachtas relating to RTE, which seeks to strike a balance between the interests of the executive and legislative branches of the State. In another sector, the Minister for Transport has invited expressions of interest from suitable candidates for appointment to the new Dublin Transportation Authority. For reasons of sound public interest, the Government is therefore opposing this Bill.

In response to the remarks of Deputy Bannon, and as a former spin doctor and adviser but one who is now an accountable Minister of State, the system of policy advisers was introduced by a former leader of the Deputy's party, namely, Dr. Garret FitzGerald. I am proud to have contributed in that capacity as part of a longer period of public service, although I never regarded myself as a spin doctor. However, they have a role to play and they will have a role to play in any Government of which the Deputy may be part.

See this speech in context