Dan Boyle (Green Party)

I move:

That Seanad Éireann, acknowledging that an ongoing examination of State agencies and public bodies is occurring, recognising that those who are and have been appointed to such bodies have done so with the purpose of commitment and the following of principles of strong public service believes that the review should further examine how such appointments can best be made in the future.

As is usual for Green Party Private Members' time, a general motion has been tabled to allow the House to anticipate events that are taking place and contribute to better informing the process relating to such events. In structuring motions in this way, it is the Green Party's hope that the House will not divide on their subject matter. On the six or so occasions on which we have moved Private Members' motions, the House has invariably chosen not to divide on them. Unfortunately, for the second successive time, an amendment has been tabled to the motion. That amendment is in the names of the Fine Gael Members. It is the entitlement of the main Opposition party to table such amendments. I hope Members will acknowledge the spirit in which the motion was put down, namely, that we live in a time of change, that many of the matters to which the motion refers must be re-examined and that the House is in a better position than other institutions to influence the change to which I refer.

A matter of particular interest at present involves the forthcoming recommendations from an bord snip nua to the Cabinet regarding the number, role, purpose and composition of many State agencies. These recommendations will excite a debate in their own right. Many of these bodies were established for particular purposes and certain of them were only meant to be in existence for specific periods. Some of them have remained in existence for much longer than was originally envisaged. A number have acquired roles and responsibilities that are unnecessary because they duplicate the roles and responsibilities of other entities. Everyone involved in public life is looking forward to reading an bord snip nua's report and is prepared to scrutinise the recommendations it will contain.

The report should not merely focus on the number of public bodies and State agencies that should exist, it should also consider how many people are involved and assess the experience, commitment and ability to serve of those who have been appointed to these bodies and agencies. In framing the motion, we were extremely conscious to highlight that the current system, as it has evolved, has tended to serve the country well. In general, those who were appointed have served the public good. However, questions have arisen at times when access to information and the notion of accountability have changed, partly as a result of the ability of the public, through the media, to participate more in democratic structures. There is a need to change the system by which we appoint people. We must first ask why we appoint people and then inquire with regard to the purpose for which they are appointed. We look forward to Members posing questions in respect of these matters.

The traditional manner of appointment to State bodies is through being known to the person responsible for deciding who is appointed to which agency or body. That process is often informed by the Civil Service, which assists in identifying people of particular expertise and commitment in certain areas. Whether we have always achieved the best and most appropriate blend of people — by choosing those who will serve either on the basis of their backgrounds and experience or on foot of the fact that they are well known to those responsible for making the decision — is a matter for debate. I am sure several Members will comment on that aspect of the matter.

Recent attempts have been made to change the way in which we appoint people to State agencies and public bodies. The Broadcasting Bill, which was initiated in this House and which is currently before the Lower House, contains a novel mechanism whereby the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will be involved in choosing members of the RTE authority and the soon to be established broadcasting authority of Ireland. Earlier this week, the Minister for Transport placed a number of public advertisements requesting that people of suitable background, expertise, drive and commitment apply for public appointments to be made through his Department. I welcome these two approaches because they display a willingness to engage, diversify and involve as many people as possible in the process of public service on State agencies and public bodies.

A criticism that has been levelled in the past relates to the members of an identifiable and small group being appointed to several State agencies or public bodies. While these individuals have often been people of ability who have been appointed for reasons relating to their suitability for public service, their being chosen has led to a larger group of citizens who could and should have been considered for appointment being ignored.

Another matter which might be discussed as part of the debate is how best we might inform the process of appointments to State agencies and public bodies in the future. I wish to submit for the consideration of the House a number of potential methods that might be employed in this regard. The first of these relates to the establishment of a new agency that would serve as a clearing house in respect of public appointments. In the current economic circumstances the appointment of any new agency is not a runner. It might help administratively but I do not believe it would find widespread public acceptance, or even political acceptance in this House. There is a possibility that the functions of the Public Appointments Commission to appoint people to the public service could be extended to allow it to undertake a type of filtering process in terms of the appointments made to State agencies and public bodies.

The other role could be played by either of these two Houses, particularly this House, and the committees of the two Houses. It has been widely suggested that a role can be played at least in the questioning of people who are appointed chairpersons of public bodies and State agencies in that they could come before the relevant joint Oireachtas committee before their appointment. It is possible also that such committees, by way of votes, could appoint the list of people which has been suggested by the relevant Minister in each case.

In the last Seanad reform report, which was the 11th in the series, it was suggested that this House could play a particular role in the processing of public appointments. In terms of the more senior appointments to important public bodies and State agencies, that is a role well worth considering. In overall terms there are a number of options available and it could be that collectively, following the an bord snip nua report, we can decide on an approach that is a mixture of all of them but it is important to ensure that whatever system, or amalgamation of existing systems, is put in place it works, is efficient, produces the people of quality and the public has confidence in it. It must also be a system that can correct itself.

We have had difficulties with some State appointments where people have been asked to stand aside because of conflicts of interest. We would argue that the need to change our system of appointments and our system of vetting appointments before they are made would help avoid those situations if there was more clarity, openness and transparency prior to any appointment being made.

I look forward to others in the House contributing to the debate. I ask that at 7 o'clock we have some synthesis of approach because the spirit in which we are moving the motion is very much about examining how we can have better public appointments rather than being prescriptive as to how precisely we go about doing that in the future.