John Whelan (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have the Minister, Deputy Howlin, in the Seanad today.

We have taken a long time to get around to this debate on the issue of appointments to State boards and the broader question of political reform. It is long overdue. In Deputy Howlin's portfolio as Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, the emphasis has necessarily been on the question of public expenditure and the financial side of it because the country has necessarily been obsessed and drawn down the road of having to deal with the financial and banking crises. To some extent, we must be fair. Senior commentators and pundits have stated that there has been no reform and nothing has happened. That is grossly unfair. It is necessary to acknowledge what the Minister has referred to as a suite of developments and proposals and legislation which have been put into effect and which will be to the good for the future.

I refer to the whistleblower legislation and the broadening and strengthening of the Freedom of Information Acts, which were torn asunder in the past. We in this House called for the establishment of a charities regulator and we now have the Charities Regulatory Authority. The issue of an independent Garda authority is being addressed. Not everybody is happy about that. At present we are dealing with the regulation of lobbyists, and the Registration of Lobbying Bill is currently going through the Oireachtas. One can say that we have come a long way in a relatively short time by providing in legislation to make known the people of influence who are lobbying Ministers, Government and Departments. Lobbying is a job, and we need to know who the lobbyists are and to whom they are speaking and the influence they are bringing to bear on them. It is important to put on record that we have made significant progress.

It was a joke in the past that if there were two people in a race for one appointment, all other things being equal, the Fianna Fáil man got the job. We have to move past that. I think Senator Byrne is not altogether correct in the allegations that he makes. We must be careful not to impugn the integrity of people who serve on State boards, of people who put their names forward to serve and of our Judiciary, which guards its independence jealously. I am not altogether sure we have driven this stake through the heart of stroke politics. I am not altogether convinced that we have finished with political cronyism and that we have seen an end to political patronage. We should be on the lookout, as the Minister has been, for opportunities to improve the protocols and procedures. We must make them as robust as possible. We live in a small country and it is regularly remarked that everyone knows everyone. It is difficult. Would we say that people who are involved in politics or who have political connections and associations with any party cannot be involved? Are we to say that being involved in a political party disbars a person from serving on a board? How far are we willing to go with this? We are trying to encourage people to get involved in public life and civic duties and to become involved in organisations and activities that will ultimately lead them to community politics. I do not think people should be penalised for that.

With regard to appointments to State boards that were made in the past - and this Government has dropped the ball on a few occasions with regard to appointments to State boards; we must put our hands up and confess that did not get it right on every occasion - there have been cases in which people were appointed who clearly had no clue about the responsibilities of a position and who did not have the skill set, qualifications or acumen to serve effectively and in the community interest on those boards. Some of the appointments were mind-boggling. There is no point in trying to point the finger at any individual. Now we are moving forward with a transparent system in which criteria are set down for the qualifications required. I have two questions and would like to red-flag two issues that have emerged with regard to my exposure to this new process. There is the question of transparency, openness and accountability. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, and recently there was a process to recommend names to the Minister for appointment to certain State boards. The joint committee invited expressions of interest and privately conducted cross-party vetting of the persons who applied. Some people have taken exception to that process, stating that it is not transparent enough. Perhaps that is something we must look at. What concerns me more is that, while we want to encourage people to serve on boards, I have a problem where there is an apparent, possible or potential conflict of interest. There is a danger in trying to serve two masters. Where somebody is actively involved in a business or an organisation that has a vested interest in the activities of a board and has a vested interest in the decisions that may be taken by that board, I think it is dangerous if board members have, or are seen to have, a foot in both camps. I accept that people in the course of their lives take part in all sorts of activities, organisations and businesses, but there have been some glaring examples of people who did not have the qualifications for an appointment, and also examples in which people had a vested interest that in my view undermined public confidence in the decisions of the board.

It has arisen that an entire committee, not scoring political points, reached an unanimous decision of no confidence in the name that is put forward to chair the board, yet the Minister still proceeded, regardless, with that appointment. I do not want to impugn any person's integrity, good name or character but I think the process of vetting and establishing the person's bona fides and suitability is weakened if an unanimous recommendation from an Oireachtas Committee is not taken into account.