Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. This is a topic we have discussed before. I introduced a Bill last June and the Minister persuaded me to leave it in his hands because he intended to come up with new ethics in public office legislation. On that basis I was happy to leave it.

I remember, way back in 1979, there had been a 19-week strike in the post office as well as a significant failure in the telephone service. A report by Michael Dargan recommended that the then Department of Posts and Telegraphs should be divided and set up as two different organisations, one to look after the post and the other to look after telecommunications. There was quite a concern in Government at the time as to how it would ensure that the public would be put at ease. Michael Smurfit and I were approached to take over the two jobs, and it seemed to work very well and was accepted on that basis. Had we been told that we had to apply for the jobs, I am not sure that either Michael Smurfit or I would have done so. I have some doubt about this proposal that everything should be advertised and open. I understand the reason for it, but one will not always get the right people to apply for a job, partially because a person may not be used to making such applications, but also because he or she may fear being refused. One may say that if an individual is not willing to be turned down, he or she is not considered for the job. When I introduced the Public Service Management (Transparency of Boards) Bill to the Seanad in 2014, the primary objective was to ensure that people who commit to serve on the boards of public bodies do so because they have expertise that they are wiling to share with the country. It was very clear that there was general dissatisfaction about the scandals that have taken place in State boards over the years. Senator Whelan is very good at explaining that changes have taken place. In particular, there was a lack of confidence in the current system, with appointments based on political connections and cronyism. I believe it is important that we find a way around that. How do we manage to achieve a system to recognise and safeguard the role played by people appointed to serve on the State bodies? The word that Senator Whelan used was cronyism.

This can mean not enough skills are sought from those appointed to State boards, resulting in the basic lack of expertise that should in theory exist.

There is also a problem with the advertising of positions. There should be a legal requirement to advertise all jobs, be they in State or semi-State bodies, but this could dissuade people from applying. The lack of transparency in our current system means everyone does not always have a legal opportunity. I have often called for a public website on which information on every cent of taxpayers' money could be accessed easily. The Minister replied that there was such a site, but there is not. Such a website could include the salaries of public officials, including those in State bodies. Our system of parliamentary questions through which Deputies ask questions about salaries and appointments is antiquated. In this information age, those figures should be available on a website. We could save time and expense, particularly in terms of the charade that is parliamentary questions on these issues.

My Bill had three objectives. First, it would have precluded a person from serving on the board of a public body from being paid for that membership. Senator Zappone has discussed this matter, but the majority of people who are anxious to play a part on a State board do not need to be paid. By all means, though, they should be reimbursed for expenses.

Second, people who serve on the board of a public body would be entitled to be employed or engaged by that body only if he or she filed a declaration with the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, detailing the payments received. Third, a person who serves on the board of a public body would be entitled to be reimbursed for vouched expenses only if he or she filed a declaration with SIPO detailing the payments received. The legislation would mean that unvouched expenses would not be reimbursed.

On this basis, I understand some of the criticisms that have been made. Senator Zappone mentioned the money that was being paid to people. In 1979 when my salary was £1,500, Mr. Michael Smurfit told me that he would not take the job unless he was paid £5,000. That was startling.