Joe O'Toole (Independent)

That is healthy. It is an indication of grown-up politics, which is important and something we should applaud. When they discharge those responsibilities with distinction it reflects well on political life and public representation.

Senator Hayes touched on a very valid point which has been abused by all parties, namely the interregnum appointments. No party is clean on that one. I remember the appointments made in 1977 by the outgoing coalition Government, and I have seen it done by other Governments. Decisions that are made in those areas are always problematic and should not be allowed. We should have a very clear view on that because it is not appropriate.

We should make a distinction between chairpersons and other members of boards. Where a person has been appointed chairperson of a major semi-State company, as listed on Schedule A, he or she should speak to the appropriate committee of these Houses. I trust the committees of these Houses to take a clear view of what is best for the national interest and it should not be followed along political lines.

Senator Ross is correct. The problem is the lack of process. We discussed during the week the proposal in the Garda Bill that the Government will have the power to appoint people from the rank of superintendent upwards. There is nothing wrong with that in itself but it is wrong if there is no process by which we can examine these appointments and have confidence in them. What is happening here is just too loose.

I have spoken to Ministers. I know Ministers who have delayed the appointment of people to boards because they cannot find suitable persons and it has nothing to do with their political colour. That is a problem. I do not welcome what is happening in the United Kingdom where they advertise for board members and people apply for the jobs. The people who apply for those jobs are those I would tend not to want on the boards in the first place. That is the difficulty.

Between the two positions where appointments are made privately by a Minister to one where it is done publicly and transparently, people of real merit with a certain sense of humility or modesty may not be prepared to put their names forward. The balance is somewhere in between but there should be a process. That is the real issue. Somebody should question the reason a person was appointed and the reason should be that he or she fulfilled the necessary criteria and that is the basis on which they were nominated.

I do not support the motion but Senator Ross has touched on an issue of some importance. It is time Governments took this matter in hand. I do not believe what I or the proposer have said is the answer. Nor do I believe what Senator Hayes said is the answer but a process is required which should be used in all cases and on which the Minister would have the final decision. We should not just have political people or people with no political views. We elect the Government to govern. It has a policy and it is important that its views are reflected in the appointments it makes. I do not have a difficulty with that but it should have a process. I congratulate the proposer on putting down the motion.