Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Barrett for tabling these amendments. This is an important debate. I have previously been in the House when Senator Barrett raised the issue of the number of people in the Department of Finance with economics qualifications. I expected the Senator would raise the issue again today and have with me the statistics in this regard.

I am glad to inform the Senator that 99 civil servants in the Department of Finance have qualifications in economics, including two PhDs, 37 masters, 46 degrees, 7 diplomas and 7 certificates. There are approximately 300 people working in the Department of Finance which means at least one third of them have economics qualifications. I am reliably informed that, since coming into office, the Government has been focused on bringing in people from the outside who have another perspective to add to the dimensions of the discussion. Approximately 40% of new recruits are from outside the public sector and have economics qualifications. The Senator's figure of 36 is as such outdated.

I do not propose to accepts amendments Nos. 17 and 18 for the following reasons. In filling vacancies on the council, the Minister for Finance will have cognisance of the need to have people with the right competence and experience. However, other factors may need to be considered. For example, gender balance or the provision of local knowledge and presence if the remainder of the council are from abroad. In such circumstances, it is prudent to retain some slight flexibility in the legislation. We are not against what the Senator is suggesting. However, tying this to legislation may prove difficult. The existing council is made up of Professor McHale based in Galway, Dr. Barrett based in Dublin, Dr. Barnes from the OECD in Paris, Ms Róisín O'Sullivan, USA, and Dr. Donal O'Donovan who is retired from the IMF and lives in Washington. One could argue that this composition of members represents a broad reflection of international and domestic experience. These are people with knowledge internally and externally, coming from an academic background having worked with large scale international organisations and, like Senator Barrett, universities.

That is reflected in the composition of the council. However, I suspect it will never be possible to get it entirely right. The Minister requires flexibility in order to ensure he can balance all of these factors in reaching a decision on the membership of the council.

I cannot accept amendment No. 17 for two reasons. First, the Fiscal Advisory Council is in place to advise on fiscal matters. The Government may or may not take advice on such matters. However, in the case of EMU, monetary policy is a matter for the European system of central banks. The Government has no functions or powers in respect of such a policy. The second reason is that the amendment would require any person appointed to the council to have competence and experience in domestic or international macroeconomic monetary and fiscal matters, that is, all three subject areas. This might make matters difficult in identifying candidates with the correct qualifications.

The spirit of amendments Nos. 17 and 18 is very much in keeping with what we are trying to do, namely, achieve the correct balance between international and domestic experience such as that possessed by persons who work with large-scale international bodies and in universities in order that the council will speak with authority. To date, we have done a good job in getting the balance right, particularly in the case of the five individuals whose names I have given to the House. I am sure that would be the intention of any future Minister for Finance, but Senators may be of the view that I would say this anyway. However, there might be unintended consequences if we were to accept amendments Nos. 17 and 18. As a result, we do not propose to accept them.