Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I thank the Green Party for tabling this important motion for debate. The political process is such that I will be supporting the Fine Gael amendment but if we are fair and honest we must concede that the gulf between the motion and the amendment is not the widest to be bridged in politics. The Fine Gael amendment, which derives from our Public Appointments Transparency Bill of last year, as referred to by Senator Bacik, is a bit more advanced than the thinking to date of the Green Party and the Government but I hope we are all moving in the same direction and that we will arrive at a solution resulting in full confidence in the appointments process. Thus, the best possible people will be appointed to what are generally regarded as important roles.

We are debating this motion at a time when the political process is subject to considerable scrutiny, as has been the case for quite some years. The public has become very cynical about the political process and political parties. All the individuals appointed to high office by political parties seem to come under the same spotlight or radar. It is only fair to agree with the motion's contention that the vast majority of people appointed, politically or otherwise, to various State boards and agencies are of the highest standing, have the best intentions and put the country first.

The Minister of State was in this House and, I presume, the other House on many occasions when Members were debating Bills providing for the establishment of agencies or groups. A common cause of disappointment among all politicians, particularly Senators given their close connection to local authority members, including county councillors, is that many new Bills prescribe that public representatives, namely, local councillors, not be appointed to certain State boards and bodies. In spite of this, we can all make the Minister of State aware of very many local councillors, of all parties, who have served various State agencies, boards and bodies to very great effect and prioritised the interests of their constituents and country very much above those of their political party.

When debating State boards, agencies or quangos, we must acknowledge that while there have been a number of difficulties and a small number of appointments that may not have been the most appropriate or ideal, the vast majority of appointments were positive, constructive and helpful and resulted in much good work being done. However, there is a new political and economic environment in which the concept of transparency has become very important, and we must therefore appreciate the need to do business differently and better. The Fine Gael amendment, based on our legislation of last year, places a much stronger obligation on the political establishment, including the Members of the Oireachtas, to examine appointments in more detail.

I was interested in the contribution of Senator Butler, whose comments were quite similar to some of the views contained in our amendment. He argued, as did Senator Bacik, that the Seanad could be used as a vehicle for scrutinising prospective appointees. I do not see it taking on a role such as that of some of the big committees in the US Congress, which ask every sort of question and examine every angle. However, the Seanad could validly and effectively hear the cases and views of nominees when appointments to a senior position on a State board are being considered by the Government. The Opposition amendment refers to the relevant committee having this function but the Seanad could fulfil it also. We could have an interesting exchange of policy positions, ideas and ideology. This would be a step in the right direction in ensuring transparency and accountability.

The backdrop to this debate is the questioning of the role of many State agencies, committees and advisory groups. While Fine Gael has its own view on how certain appointments could be made, the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, and Senator Boyle, will be well aware of Fine Gael's strong view, publicised very much over the past 12 months or so, particularly on foot of the work done by my colleague, Deputy Varadkar, that there should be a significant examination of many of the agencies and their roles. Every effort should be made to reduce the numbers to the maximum degree.

If one considers all Departments and all the various advisory groups, boards and consultative agencies, one will realise there is some scope, if not significant scope, for reform and for trimming down. We sometimes debate the role of Ministers, and Ministers of State in particular, and complain about the role of advisors and programme managers, but at least most of these people are tightly tied to the political process and are in some way accountable to this House and the other. Sometimes the agencies and support groups that advise the Government and often influence policy significantly are not accountable to the same extent and this is why I hope that, over the coming years, we will thoroughly review the role of agencies and reduce their number in a meaningful, effective and reasonable fashion.

There will always be State boards and bodies that will need to be staffed by part-time employees. Board members, chairmen and chief executives will have to be appointed and it is important that we put the very best people forward. The day of making political appointments through political cronyism must come to an end. As a country, it is in our absolute interest to ensure the best possible people are appointed, be it to the smallest board or largest agency. I acknowledge that some recent appointments made by the Government, particularly by the leader of Senator Boyle's party, seem to be very fair, reasonable and appropriate. I congratulate the Minister on his endeavours in this regard and I wish his appointees well.

A fortnight ago, a difficulty arose on which we reflected in this House in a very measured fashion. We expressed certain concerns over the media hunting the gentleman in question. The appointments made by the Government over the past five, six or 12 months are less likely to be regarded as totally party political than those that may have been made prior to this period. That is certainly a step in the right direction.

I recall the debate some months ago on transparency and generating public confidence. While I have not fully digested the content of the legislation proposed by Fine Gael in this regard, for which I apologise, I know it is a step in the right direction. It is possibly the most appropriate response to the broader issue of making political appointments. I accept that the motion before the House is moving in the right direction but we must progress at a faster rate. In the new political and economic circumstances, which have resulted in such a significant spotlight on the political establishment, of which we are all part, and in the demand that we all ensure the right thing is done for the country, political appointments, even to the most junior positions, must be made fairly and properly. Our Public Appointments Transparency Bill would be positive and welcome in this regard.