Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

I thank Deputy Higgins and the Labour Party for sharing time. When I find myself agreeing with Deputy Varadkar, I must examine the matter very carefully. I have done so on this occasion and found that, notwithstanding the reservations that I understand to be mutual, I wholeheartedly support this Bill. The title, Public Appointments Transparency Bill, is brilliant. I also agree with a number of points made by Deputy Higgins.

Let us not cod ourselves about political cronyism. It does not just apply to the current Government. Deputy Higgins made the point but it is worth repeating. The political cronyism in respect of appointees has existed for decades and possibly since the establishment of the Oireachtas. Perhaps it did not apply to those at the very beginning because there were people of major political conviction. I am not sure that the House has been peppered with similar sentiments since then but perhaps they were well-intentioned. I refer to political cronyism not just in respect of appointments to boards and public bodies but also judges. I understand there have been some honourable exceptions in the case of judges. I hope that is the case. One of the difficulties when people are appointed to boards is that they forget their function. Their first obligation is not to the politician who appointed them but to the Irish people. We hear talk of patriotism from a Minister, referring to someone not shopping in Newry, and it shows how mistaken these Ministers are. Patriotism is about working honestly and openly for the people of one's country. We have not seen too much of that.

A few years ago a man from Sligo was appointed to a public body in Louth. During a tea break at one of the meetings, a colleague of mine asked how it came to be that a man from Sligo was appointed to a body based in Louth. Without any sense of irony, the man replied that he had gone to school with a Minister, whom he named. Apparently, this was laudable qualification to be appointed to the board. Perhaps the expenses for coming such a significant distance and the overnight stays were an attraction. It shows how casually these matters are taken. In some cases people appointed in the fashion I have described take it casually.

Dáil accountability has been referred to and it is particularly important. We submit parliamentary questions and are told that the Minister for Health and Children has no responsibility to the Dáil for the HSE. It is a similar situation with the NRA and the Department of Transport. Accountability and transparency in respect of these bodies is not being brought back to the anchor, with Ministers responsible to this House. We also see this in social partnership, which I am not against even though I have problems with some of the framework of the current model. Deals are done in Government Buildings and it is a done deal when legislation is published to implement the deal. The voices in this House carry almost no value.

Everyone agrees that more transparency and accountability is needed; but where is the action? The Government has the apparatus to influence and effect legislation and put this accountability in place. The Government chooses to ignore this opportunity, which would go a long way to begin this process to ensure some type of accountability.

I was working in my office a few moments ago and I thought I heard the Minister of State, replying for the Government, say there was a swift and speedy response to the FÁS carry-on a few weeks ago. For goodness sake, Mr. Peter McLoone said he considered offering his resignation to the Government but was told by the Tánaiste to remain in position and continue working. How ridiculous is that? I can appreciate that there are situations where it is better to leave a board in place rather than create a void but matters should have been speeded up to ensure legislation was passed to replace the board and ensure proper strands of accountability. This does not just apply to boards.

With public contracts, we see that the Dublin Port tunnel began as a €22 million project in 2000 and ended as a €580 million project in 2006. Who sanctioned these increases and what measurements were brought to bear on how the taxpayer was being ripped off? The M50 widening project began at €190 million and ended up costing €562 million. Apparently, taxpayers' money has very little value in the eyes of this Government and the previous Government. That is grossly unacceptable. The Luas began as a €290 million project and ended up costing the taxpayer €750 million.

The previous speaker referred to the example of county managers. After having been elected a county councillor in Louth, I tried to be punctual for my first meeting and was there 15 minutes early. The second person to arrive was the then county manager. He offered his hand and I shook hands with him. He welcomed me to the best club in Ireland. I immediately responded to tell him that I was not part of any club but was there to represent the people who had elected me and those in the constituency. Thanks but no thanks to club membership, I will carry on my function as best I can.

Some of the carry-on that emerged from the FÁS debacle beggars belief. There was a culture of malpractice within the hierarchy of FÁS. One can compare and contrast the activities of a small number of executives and the people they were supposed to serve, those who had been made unemployed and who were doing their best to be retrained so that they could get back into employment. It could not be more black and white yet this was allowed to go on for many years. The FÁS bosses breached their financial procedures but did so at great cost to the taxpayer. This was grossly unfair.

See this speech in context