John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. There is no doubt he has given considerable time to this House on many occasions in recent months and it is to his credit.

This motion is about appointments to State agencies and public bodies. There is no doubt that State agencies have served us very well. From the very outset, the Cumann na nGaedhal Government set up the Shannon scheme in 1925 which subsequently became the ESB. At a time in the 1930s when there were not opportunities in the business world and when the Great Depression had hit, the Irish State established a number of companies, including Bord na Móna, the Irish Sugar Company, Irish Shipping, Aer Lingus, with the result that a significant number of State companies were involved in the economy. Across all sectors by and large, although there are always exceptions, the people who served on these boards served the State and those companies well. For instance, ESB is now a major national company.

By and large and despite the shadows that have been cast about political appointments, no matter who was in Government and despite that others may have appointed the directors from a particular business section of their political party, these appointees served the State first. This is a feature of the public service. I am conscious of the need for reform of the public service. During the good days we ensured the money was spent in Ireland. The national debt was very low, our tax wedge was exceptionally low and we put money aside in the National Treasury Management Agency but we also provided jobs for people in the public service. It sometimes disappoints me to see how easily people take a swipe at the public service.

France has a large public service and does not have the same banking crisis as the British have. It is possible to see that State intervention and the involvement of the State in agencies can be a good thing with some balance. More important and perhaps even against the tide, it is time to remind ourselves how well the public service has served the country. The gains to date would not have been made without the Ken Whitakers of this world and the sacrifice of public servants throughout the years. In earlier days the terms and conditions were only a fraction of what they are now. There has been consistent development and growth.

I question how far we can go with the procedures in place. Let us consider when someone is going through what is supposedly an independent process to determine whether there should be appointments to a State board by a Minister. There are valid reasons a Minister would seek appointments to a State board no matter who is in power. This is because those appointed by another party previously in power will serve the Minister well. We have seen something of a circus in other countries where people were questioned about events that occurred 20, 30 or 40 years ago. They may be completely different people now but were still not allowed to take up the position applied for or the position they were asked to take up. There were three candidates for the position of Secretary of State for the Treasury in the United States of America who were not appointed because of various findings of committees. Who guards the guardians? Who decides who should be on the committee to decide who sits on a State board? Before we throw out everything that took place in the past and elect for sweeping reform we would be well advised to take incremental steps.

There have been suggestions that the Seanad with a universal franchise would be an ideal place to vet appointments. I am especially against a universal franchise for the Seanad. This is not because I have no wish to stand for election. I have already done so, I was elected to a council and I would not fear it in any way. However, given a universal franchise for the Seanad with 60 Members as opposed to the Dáil with 166 Members, there would be of necessity a higher quota to be elected. There may be nothing to stop someone from the Seanad who may have been elected with 40,000 votes from telling the Taoiseach with his great vote of 20,000 — perhaps twice the quota — that there is no reason he should not deal with financial matters and that he has the mandate to do so.

We should work things out very carefully and slowly and take incremental steps as necessary while recognising the way the State has been served in the past. It is also a good benchmark for us. If the economy had turned as bad as some people had feared, there would always have been the option to start again as we did in the 1920s with State boards providing jobs for people. In a sense it is a comfort to know that if world economies ever again fell into a depression, we have the template for the way out of the problem through these boards. Many people have served with distinction and some may have had very strong connections with different parties, including those of Fine Gael and the Irish Sugar Company. Let us be careful.

I refer to the duty of directors, including fiduciary and corporate governance duties, which are becoming more important. I further refer to the question of whether directors should serve on cross-directorships. Such questions would need to be closely examined as well as the question of a person serving as chief executive and chairman at the same time. We must ensure the highest standards are always maintained and that we move with the times. Many people in the State would regard it a singular honour to serve on a State board. For those who do so, in many cases it is not for the money. Such people serve the State in many other ways and bring years of experience to bear with a full interest in the company and in the State.