Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I welcome the Minister of State. It is the second time we have met this week and I am delighted to see him again on this basis. Being appointed to serve as a member of the board of a public body is, in many respects, an honour. Appointment on merit is an endorsement of the expertise of the person in his or her chosen field. People do not accept appointments to the boards of State bodies because they are attracted by the pay and want to make money. My first appointment to a State board was to An Bord Phoist, way back in 1979. At the same time as An Bord Phoist was established, An Bord Telecom was established, and I asked the chairman of An Bord Telecom, Michael Smurfit, what condition he made. His only condition was that he be paid £5,000, in breach of the guidelines or strict rules that had been put in. He had no intention of taking the money, but intended to give it to charity, as I did with my salary from An Bord Phoist.
During the 11 years I served on that board, there were no members who would have been unwilling to serve had the positions been unpaid. There is no need to pay a person for serving on the board of a State body, although board members should receive an allowance and expenses, which is covered well in the Bill. Those who want to be paid have no place on such boards. An appointment to serve as a member of the board of a public body invariably brings with it the right to be paid fees for that position, along with the right to claim expenses. When the economy was in good stead this may have been justifiable. However, in the age of austerity, where people are having to do more with less, it is appropriate that we look at the boards of public bodies to see if greater efficiencies can be gained.
This Bill is not about saving a relatively small amount of money. The objective at the heart of the Bill is to ensure that people who commit to serve on the boards of public bodies do so because they have expertise which they are willing to share. Although very many of the people who serve on the boards of public bodies are experts in their fields and face many competing demands, they find the time to dedicate to the service of public bodies. In most cases the fees paid to them fall well short of recognising the time, energy and commitment they put in, yet they persevere and give their all. They do so because they are motivated by the goal of improving the future of the public body they serve. For many, I suspect financial gain does not even enter the equation. The service they give is the essence of public service.
Recently I have become concerned at the extent to which board membership of State bodies has become discredited and demeaned. Recent events surrounding certain boards of public bodies - their memberships, fees and expenses and so on - have, regrettably, done a great disservice to all who serve as board members of public bodies. The Bill seeks to go some distance towards undoing some of the damage caused to those who serve on the boards of public bodies. While some may see it differently, this Bill is about recognising and safeguarding the role played by people appointed to serve on the boards of public bodies. I know very many people who would like to be able to share their expertise with State bodies for no pay and no expenses. However, many are deterred by the controversies associated with State body membership and do not wish to be portrayed as serving for the wrong reasons. Rather than limiting the pool of talent available to serve on the boards of public bodies, this Bill will make board membership more attractive to a great many more people in society.
The Bill has three objectives. First, it would preclude persons who serve on the board of a public body from being paid for their membership of the board. Second, people who serve on the board of a public body would be entitled to be employed or engaged by that public body only if they file a declaration with the Standards in Public Offices Commission detailing payments received. That is a very important aspect of the Bill. Third, persons who serve on the board of a public body would only be entitled to be reimbursed for vouched expenses if they file a declaration with the Standards in Public Offices Commission detailing payments received. Unvouched expenses would not be reimbursed.
The Bill highlights an issue which needs to be addressed and provides an appropriate and reasoned approach to resolving the problems in this area. I urge the Minister of State to accept this very worthy Bill and see to its enactment as a matter of priority. Recently, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, invited existing State board members to waive their fees if they wished. While I do not have the answer, the Minister seems to share my opinion that people would be willing to consider waiving their fees. We would have just as efficient, competent, capable and enthusiastic members of State boards even if they were not paid for their membership of State boards but were reimbursed for any expenses and costs they incurred. I urge the Minister of State to give it every consideration.