Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)

I thank Deputy Varadkar and compliment him on introducing this Bill. I wish to raise two points in the brief time at my disposal. First, what could possibly be wrong with having the relevant Oireachtas committee meet the nominated chief executive officer or whatever to conduct a two-way debate with him or her? Although Members opposite have suggested this Bill would entail finding out every fiddly-faddly detail about a person's background, that is not what is intended. As Deputy Creighton has observed, the aim is to ensure the public can buy into this system. I have often watched how this process works in the United States Congress and ultimately, there is no point in having the proposed chief executive officer of the relevant outfit thinking that he or she must endure a grilling, as that is not the point. Moreover, to bring this a step further, the Minister of State should imagine the image created if one links transparency regarding the political establishment in the minds of the electorate in respect of a person who probably will be responsible for delivering one of the most important services they will receive as individuals. This is the bottom line because it is the delivery of the service in a transparent manner into which everyone can buy that counts. However, we are a million miles from that position at present.

A number of related Oireachtas committees would be suitable in this regard, such as the Committee of Public Accounts. While I acknowledge this committee deals with matters after they have happened, there would be no difficulty in establishing something similar. Those Members who have had the good fortune to serve on that committee for a number of years will appreciate it deals in the kind of detail and information that is sought by the public. The public would at least know who the Government has proposed on its behalf for the job in question. Moreover, were such a committee to be set up on an all-party basis, can one imagine the mandate that successful nominees would enjoy after coming through it? They would be much stronger than would be the case had they not undergone such a process.

I refer to the 6,000 directorships and memberships of boards, etc., of quangos throughout the country. No matter where they are located, they should be made known publicly to all concerned, both locally and nationally, in order that everyone will understand who represents them, even if it is merely on a prison visiting committee. Regardless of what it is, it should be open and transparent.

See this speech in context