Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)

We may as well discuss them all together. The scrutiny of possible appointments to the board of FÁS is important and this is a positive amendment before the House. I do not subscribe to the type of scrutiny that takes place in judicial appointments in America and that is not because I am a barrister. That involves delving too much into the past or into some things one may have done as a very young person. One's views mature as one goes along and gains experience. I would be uncomfortable if something someone did early on were the subject of intense scrutiny or speculation as to the way someone might act. I do not envisage any Oireachtas Members or committee ever embarking on such a route, which would be self-defeating. However, it is important that some basic scrutiny would apply to a curriculum vitae and that a person would be subject to questions related to their knowledge of the board to which they seek appointment, the question of why they seek the appointment and the qualifications they bring.

It is not simply a matter of academic experience but of life experience too. It is time to put a halt to the notion of the importance of academia. One may have a bag of letters beside one's name but that does not signify anything. There are many people who live in cottages and small farms with a well of wisdom into which we would do well to tap and that may be where the country went somewhat off the rails. As someone who went through the education system, I can state it only prepares one in a certain way. Some people never get an opportunity to participate, which is why I am in favour of the openness of this process; at least it is opened up.

I trust this will not simply be a window dressing operation because otherwise we are at nothing and the opaqueness of the whole process would be accentuated rather than diminished. I trust any changes will be real and tangible. The Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts is present and as a Chairman of a committee I have no wish to allow any prurient invigilation, investigation, examination or anything of that nature. I would stop any such activity. Most members would agree that I am very flexible but where people are concerned I hold a particular view. I am not in favour of any historical, prurient assessment or invigilation process.

However, a schematic approach in respect of what could be asked could be agreed among the committees. A consistent approach should be taken such that a candidate with a masters degree in law or medicine would not be asked if he knows anything about the latest in respect of a given business regulation. That could come across as Members trying to present themselves as knowledgeable but the candidate might open up and devour us with his knowledge and we would be none the wiser. Such an eventuality is no use. One way forward might be for us to bring life experience to bear on the matter. Any approach would have to be corralled and properly streamlined such that it would not be like an amoeba that could spread into every corner. One should not be able to ask a question on whatever comes into one's head and I would not subscribe to any such method. That would be dangerous and it would resemble moving forward one inch but going back two feet. However, Oireachtas scrutiny is of benefit to the community, to society at large and to the organisation to which appointments would be made.

See this speech in context