Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

Given the motion before the House one wonders whether the Green Party is in Government. It does not seem to have any input into reform and it is looking for ideas from other parties. We are quite willing to provide those. We have put forward our own ideas in the Public Appointments and Transparency Bill and the Green Party would do well to adopt it. That would solve many of the problems. We suggest the chief executive or chairperson should appear before the relevant Oireachtas committee to be questioned regarding his or her capability. That would be fair and would give more meaning to Oireachtas committees. Others suggest this could be done by the Seanad and perhaps this could take place in the context of Seanad reform. That said, I have no problem whatsoever with Ministers appointing directors, provided they are people of high calibre, well versed on the functions of the board.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, had an embarrassing situation in which he appointed a councillor to a board. Since councillors were precluded from sitting on a board he had to remove the person following the initial appointment. I believe that councillor was eminently qualified to be on the board in question. However, because he was a member of a local authority he was precluded from doing so.

In Bills before this House, local authority members may as well be treated as criminals because they are excluded from membership of boards in every case. If people are well qualified with an interest in a given area, they should not be excluded. I do not imply local authority members should be on boards by right. However, if they are people of good calibre they should not be excluded and should be allowed to sit on boards.

I have seen such exclusion in Bills before the House dealing with, for example, Aer Lingus and the Harbours (Amendment) Bill was the most recent example. In that case, local authority members have been removed from the boards on which they have served and of which they have been throughout the years and since the formation of the port companies the best attenders and, possibly, in many instances the best contributors. However, simply because such people are members of local authorities they have been removed from the boards. I question this policy.

Senators Butler and Walsh spoke in the same vein, but when it came to the crunch and to voting on whether to retain local authority members on boards, they voted against the retention in line with their party and for the Bills in question. Obviously, they did not have sufficient influence within their parties to keep local authority members on the boards. I challenge the Fianna Fáil Members in this regard that if they believe local authority members should be on boards, let them bring proposals to that effect to the House and we will support them. However, upon scrutiny, their record is in question regarding the way they have voted on the question.

Senator MacSharry's contribution was interesting. He practically stated that there was a cosy cartel whereby unions and employers had their representatives on various boards and that there was a duplication of membership on a number of boards. These are facts. There should not be such duplication and the social partners should not have so great a hold on the positions in question. I have no problem with a Minister appointing people of the highest calibre who have an interest in the boards to which they have been appointed, but the chairman and chief executive should come under greater Oireachtas scrutiny via committee or the Seanad.

Young, enthusiastic and energetic people must be placed on the boards, many of which need to be freshened up. There is no doubt that Ministers of every political ilk have appointed their supporters. I have no problem with that provided the supporters are qualified to sit on the boards. As I have often stated, I am perturbed by calls in the House for the exclusion from boards of local authority members. I do not know why the Civil Service seems to want to exclude them, but I would hope the Government would agree that there is no reason for a Minister not to choose them if they are eminently qualified. I gave a specific example of an eminent local council member who, after being appointed by the Minister and despite being qualified to sit on the board, was removed from it.

I look forward to the Government's proposals. My party's Public Appointments Transparency Bill 2008 should be examined in detail. The Government has asked this side of the House for ideas on many matters and we have risen to the challenge, be it in terms of the Bill, our own budget or other measures. We have not been found lacking when debating or proposing ideas, but I hope they will be better received than our previous suggestions have been, especially those on the economy. The country could have been in a better position as a result. Ideas are grand when they suit the other side. When they do not, the Government tells us that it will run everything its own way. I am sceptical of this motion and I hope that the Green Party will accept our amendment, which would fit the motion well. The Green Party looked for ideas and we supplied them. We have even drafted a Bill to which Green Party Members can table amendments if they wish. We on this side of the House have not shirked our responsibilities and we never will.