Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

One fifth is quite a lot. Since the foundation of the State, public bodies, State agencies, State-sponsored bodies and semi-State bodies, however described, have made a tremendous and indispensable contribution to our national development. Within a year of independence, the first agencies had been established, among them, the Irish Film Censor's Office, with the support of, I am sure, a majority in the Free State Senate and with James Montgomery at its head. In 1923, imminent dangers to the moral fibre of our people took precedence even over material needs. While it still is there 85 years later, what Lemass called "the green curtain" has been lifted and now it is called the Irish Film Classification Office and operates without censoriousness. The continuing importance of agencies in our public service was highlighted as recently as yesterday when the Minister for Finance announced the establishment of a national asset management agency under the aegis of the National Treasury Management Agency to address the issue of asset quality in the banking system which is at the centre of debate in the budget, of which more tomorrow.

In the early years, there was recognition by the State that the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 did not provide enough flexibility for the performance of certain functions by the State. The 1920s and 1930s saw the establishment of very important bodies such as the ESB, Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta and Bord na Móna, to name but a few, which have contributed greatly to national development. These bodies established a model that was replicated over the following decades. In the non-commercial field, State agencies have contributed to industrial and agricultural development and promotion, the provision of services, the regulation of economic and professional activities, research, education and training, the promotion of employment, as well as our cultural, artistic and sporting life.

I am a strong supporter of the independence of, for example, the Arts Council. It is not appropriate for Ministers to become too involved in deciding which artist, drama company or whatever should or should not be supported and there is a case in certain instances for a certain arm's length relationship. Unlike many Members of all parties in both Houses, I am a great admirer of the professionalism and efficiency of the National Roads Authority, even if I occasionally have had disagreements with it on particular points.

Unlike in some other jurisdictions, State bodies in Ireland have largely been established for practical rather than ideological reasons. A particular need was identified and an organisation was established or taken into State ownership to deal with it. Agencies have been established as a pragmatic and flexible response for provision of support to the Government and services to the public. However, this approach has not always been characterised by sufficient coherence. Freedom from Civil Service constraints, while necessary and desirable in many respects, has nevertheless led to a wide variety of agency forms. Since the early 1990s, as the business of Government has expanded, so too has the number of agencies.

I have never shared the view of some commentators who habitually characterise agencies as bloated and inefficient, probably as a means to appeal to newspapers' readerships. While the reform of State agencies is necessary, one also should recognise the important contribution that such agencies have made to the country and national life and should acknowledge the hard work of their dedicated staff. The Green Party motion recognises the commitment and ethos of strong public service displayed by those who have served and continue to serve on State boards. A strong public service ethos has been one of the striking features of State agencies down the decades and the Government values their contribution.

As someone who has been a public servant for some three and a half decades, as a permanent civil servant, a special adviser and latterly as an elected Member of this House and then the other House and now as an officeholder, recently resigned but with delayed effect, I consider that by and large, the public service has served this country exceptionally well, with loyalty, ability and integrity and has made a major contribution to major national achievements, such as the peace process, Ireland's successful membership of the European Union, and the exceptional economic and social progress that characterised the past 20 years, even if that has been abruptly brought short for the moment.

On the other hand, I also am conscious of the type of considered critique that was made in Ronan Fanning's history of the Department of Finance and in Ireland 1912-1985, which was written by former distinguished Senator and historian, Professor Joe Lee, and that such critiques undoubtedly also could be made today. The present challenge for our public service is to contribute to charting a way out of our current economic difficulties, which it is doing, as I have had many opportunities to observe. We have been through dark times in the past and have come through them and we will do so again.

Since the launch of the strategic management initiative approximately 15 years ago, there has been significant progress in the ongoing modernisation programme of the public service. There has been improvement in areas such as the delivery of quality customer services, regulatory reform, financial management and human resource management. Implementation of the modernisation agenda has been underpinned by the various partnership agreements across the public service. I consider that, notwithstanding present crises and difficulties, social partnership has an important future role to play.

No organisation, public or private, can afford to stand still and many more changes are both awaited and needed. In 2006, the Government turned to the OECD and asked it to undertake a comprehensive review of the public service. What the Government wanted the OECD to do was to examine how its priorities and decisions are translated into services and outcomes for citizens and how these processes can be improved. While much change has taken place, there is a need to ensure delivery on the ground. The OECD review was intended to highlight what was working and what was not, and help the Government make better informed choices about where to allocate resources. Put simply, the Government wanted to know how the decisions it is making in Cabinet are translating into services for the citizen and how this process can be improved. Where things are not working properly, the Government wanted to know.

In general, the OECD gave the Irish public service a clean bill of health. As part of its review the OECD carried out a study of State agencies. It found the agencies gave the Irish public service additional capacity and flexibility to deliver services during a time of major growth in public spending and increased citizen expectations. However, the OECD believed that, when compared with international experiences, we may have set out to achieve too much. There is a need for an improved governance and performance dialogue to address what it described as the current disconnects between the central Civil Service and the broader public service. It notes that there are neither formal nor informal criteria for establishing agencies in Ireland, either at the national or local level. The opportunity should now be taken to rethink the agency system to take better advantage of this organisational form. The Government supports the need to take a hard look at the approach to agencies, why and how they are set up and the proper reporting relationships with parent Departments.

The Government responded to the OECD review by establishing a task force to prepare a comprehensive framework for renewal of the public service. It was asked to recommend an appropriate framework for the establishment, operation and governance of State agencies.

In the budget last autumn the Minister for Finance announced a process for the rationalisation of State agencies and the decision to proceed with 30 rationalisation proposals that will reduce the number of bodies by 41. To date, nine of the proposals announced have been completed with a further eight targeted for completion in 2009. This is only a first step. To this end, the terms of reference of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes is required to examine and make recommendations for further rationalisation and report by the end of June 2009. Without going into detail, a process is under way and a Cabinet sub-committee is examining this. As Senator Boyle stated, this is under active review and in gestation. Various comments made by Senators in this debate must be taken into account.

Currently, the arrangements for appointments to the boards of State bodies are normally set out in the legislation establishing the bodies in question and are aimed at ensuring the efficient management of the organisation. Appointments to the boards are generally made by the Minister with responsibility for the body in question, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance. In making appointments, Ministers seek to ensure the people appointed bring a diverse range of relevant skills and experience to the body. The decisions are approached in a conscientious manner, following consultation, and usually take time.

The ministerial freedom to make appointments is not unfettered. They must take account of any specific legislative requirements that exist, such as requirements to appoint worker directors or representatives of nominating bodies, and of relevant Government policies, such as the policy on gender balance on State boards considered by Senator de Búrca. I am in agreement with her and the reasonably long-standing policy of 40% should be implemented. Where appropriate, Ministers also consider representation from the different strands of society such as the business community, consumers, trade unions, the other social partners, or other stakeholders depending on the nature of the agency.

State agencies in most cases exist to execute Government policy with a delegated power to make more detailed decisions and policy choices or to act in an advisory or consultative capacity. Subject to legislative requirements, Ministers will generally seek out people willing to work in harmony with the objectives, both statutory and policy, that have been set out. In many cases, Ministers have a Civil Service representative on the board. Many of the appointments are of people who are not primarily political at all but who have a reputation in the field in question. Sometimes figures associated with Opposition parties, like a former Fine Gael Leader of the Seanad who was chosen as first head of the Irish Human Rights Commission, are appointed. To be fair to Fine Gael, a former Fianna Fáil Cathaoirleach was reappointed by a Minister to the board of a State company.

There have been arguments about the element of patronage. All parties in a coalition are involved in the nomination process, not necessarily to a particular body, but overall. There has undoubtedly been some disquiet from time to time over whether a particular individual is the best qualified for the job but the vast majority of appointments are not the subject of criticism, unless something subsequently goes badly wrong, which has been the exception. Some of the criticisms would apply with at least equal force to non-executive nominees to private companies where there have been many problems in certain instances in recent times. It is important to state that involvement in our democratic political life should not be regarded as a disqualification. Most people, even with strong political backgrounds, will try to serve to the very best of their ability in a non-partisan and public-spirited manner.

While the current arrangements have worked reasonably well, I recognise the need to examine how best such appointments can be made in the future. Senator Boyle detailed the procedures adopted by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in the Broadcasting Bill 2008.

The political vetting of appointees by Oireachtas committees, as proposed in a Private Members' Bill by Deputy Leo Varadkar and reflected in the Fine Gael amendment to the motion, has not pressed by the Deputy's party in the Dáil. It would be akin to the American confirmation system. It would require further consideration as it might tend to politicise such appointments and deter suitable candidates. The notion that all appointees, which could run to several thousand, could be overseen by the Seanad or either House is not feasible. There would be far too many and it would clog up the system. The issue of chairpersons and chief executives is a more limited proposal.

I am glad to have had the opportunity to take part in this debate. The report of the task force highlights the need review the governance arrangements for our State boards. We should recognise that we are fortunate in this country to have a strong tradition of public service where people of proven ability are prepared to give the very best of their talents, experience and energy for relatively modest reward to lead State agencies and account for their stewardship in these demanding roles. Any reforms should try to enhance that ethos.