Dan Boyle (Green Party)

This legislation was originally drafted on foot of the findings of the Committee of Public Accounts following its examination of whether certain activities had been supportive of the public good. In the committee's report the use of public money was deemed to be less than perfect. As the Bill was being drafted, we learned that the original findings of the Committee of Public Accounts represented no more than the tip of the iceberg. The Bill was discussed in the Dáil in advance of its consideration in this House and it seems we are dealing with a problem of massive proportions.

For many of its purposes, FÁS is a fine organisation. Many of its staff are doing good work on behalf of the State. When I worked as a community employment supervisor, I spent some of my time trying to justify a wage funded through FÁS. I welcome the aspects of the Bill that seek to bring about the corporate governance changes that are badly needed in FÁS. Some of the measures such as the change in the size of the board are practical. Others relate to the means of appointing the board. FÁS is unusual by comparison with most public bodies because a large part of its membership comes from the social partnership process. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment does not have a great deal of control over FÁS, other than in whether to approve those proposed by the various social partners as members of its board. It would be better to move away from a system that has not been seen to work well for the organisation to an approach, whereby people will be selected on the basis of their skills, abilities and experience. I would prefer a method of more open involvement such as that advocated by Senator O'Toole, whereby the public could submit nominations for posts and Oireachtas committees could be involved in the vetting of nominees. The legislation agreed in the reviewed programme for Government would allow such changes to happen.

In addition to changing the size of the board and the means of appointing board members, the legislation seeks to change the culture within which FÁS, as an organisation, has been managed in recent years. However, it may be difficult to do this. It is obvious, in terms of corporate governance, that the director general has to be an ex officio member of the board. Some activities engaged in in the name of the organisation in recent years do not reflect well on the office. The manner in which recent directors general have left office has not been acceptable to the public. I hope this will not happen again in the future as we reform FÁS. A dramatic change in the organisation's corporate governance culture is needed to allow this to happen.

We need to think even further about these matters. This is an enabling Bill in the sense that it gives the Minister the power to control how the future shape of the organisation will look. We may need to examine how the organisation is constituted. What areas of training should it be involved in? How should it interact with other State agencies? How should it identify future economic needs of the country? To inspire public confidence which has been badly dented by the recent revelations and findings of the Committee of Public Accounts, we should consider whether the name of the organisation needs to be changed. As we wait for FÁS to be properly constituted, to have new board members, a new culture of governance and a proper focus and to become fit for purpose, the renaming of the organisation could be needed.

I welcome some of the other measures included in the Bill such as the introduction of a rolling system of appointment of members and the implementation of many of the recommendations of the Committee of Public Accounts. I especially welcome the whistleblower provision. While it is just one element of what we need to do in the Bill, it is important because public confidence in FÁS is in great need of repair. The legislation is a small step in making sure that happens.

We need to consider how FÁS can be an instrument for fostering economic change and development, as it should be. As I said, it has done valuable work in trying to identify training needs and meet the skills gap. The new and improved FÁS, regardless of what it is called, should be part of the general debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas on stated Government policy on matters such as the smart economy document and the training programmes that need to be provided. We need to meet traditional needs in construction and subsets of construction such as carpentry, electrics and plumbing. There should be greater emphasis on new technologies and green approaches to the economy, which is where our future economic direction will lead us.

In the absence of a radical restructuring and an infusion of new thinking, ideas and people into the organisation, the fecund cultural leap needed cannot be made. The challenge for the Minister and the Department is to make sure FÁS, as an organisation, deals properly with its corporate governance and is structured properly. We should question its reason for existence and means of delivering services in order that it uses the public resources it receives in the best possible way. The period from which FÁS is recovering results from having a huge budget at a time of full employment. There is a need to use public resources properly at a time when such resources are at a low ebb and when we especially need to retrain, reskill and re-employ large parts of our workforce.

This measure is just the tip of the iceberg, not unlike the allegations that were made and the findings of the Committee of Public Accounts which have helped bring it about. It needs to be followed through not only with concerted departmental action, but also with a series of questioning within social partnership itself and as part of the ongoing political process to ensure we have a State training agency that is meeting our economy's needs and in which the public have full confidence.