Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

There is a balance to be struck here. I am not sure I really agree with either extreme. A board chairman appointed by a previous Government could start to adopt a very political role in opposing the Government policy, which would be undesirable. However, there should be reasonable freedom as shown, for example, by the chairman of the IDA during the debate on the Nice Treaty. He clearly had something important to contribute and it was right he did so. It is a reasonable requirement that the chairman of a State body should not act in an overtly or even covertly political way.

It is legitimate to bring important considerations to Government, even if they are not necessarily fully defined by Government policy. My concern is with the way it is drafted. It is a throwback to a more authoritarian culture, which, I am glad to say, has largely gone from the public service in recent years.

The Taoiseach permitted me, as a special adviser, to make considered contributions to public debate. They were not at variance with Government policy, but some of them might have strayed into areas where Government policy had not yet been defined.

Without necessarily agreeing with the amendment, the Minister should look at the rather draconian wording. The way the Bill is worded uses a sledgehammer to batter a nut. However, I am not saying it is covering something on which there could never be any possible concerns. Although I do not want to define the particular area, I have experience of an individual in charge of a public authority who uses it systematically in a very political and confrontational way. That is quite wrong and the Minister has a valid point in that regard.