Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

They are equally important elements and I am proud of the job done by the Government in balancing the books, which is absolutely necessary if we are to have a sustainable future achieved through reform. I have mentioned political reform but there has also been public service reform. Much of this happens below the water line and it grieves me to see people who should be informed commenting about the lack of Civil Service reform. A Member of this House has made such a claim in a newspaper, quoting a publication that is five years old, but I will deal with that separately. The indication was that nothing had happened in those five years. We have downsized the public service by 10% and moved 12,000 public servants from places where they were under-utilised to where they were needed. We introduced groundbreaking sick leave arrangements through legislation in this House, and I was challenged in the High Court - and it will probably be challenged in the Supreme Court - for my trouble. We have changed holiday entitlements because people did not know what entitlements various sectors of the public service had. People looked askance at some of the holiday arrangements of county chief executive officers, which were formerly county managers.

We have introduced common procurement, which will save €500,000 by having a professional system across the public service. We have established shared services in human resource management, payroll and financial management. Instead of having 60 centres of payroll, we have one such centre. I have already spoken about Civil Service accountability and the tremendous work done by the team lead by Professor Rafter in that regard. We have also joined the Open Government Partnership and we are piloting open data. There is much we can lay out in terms of a reform agenda that, bluntly, is unprecedented, and I am very proud of all that. I will not accept criticism that this is not a truly reforming Government, even in the teeth of having to deal with a financial crisis of unprecedented proportions.

I will refer to the Judiciary. It is important to say that I have no idea of the political affiliation of anybody brought before the Government, except one or two people who previously served in the Oireachtas. I am certainly unaware of any proportionality with regard to judicial appointments. Senators may recall a judicial appointment issue which brought down a previous Fianna Fáil-Labour Party Government, and I was involved in ensuring a judicial advisory board system, chaired by the Chief Justice, that shortlists suitable candidates. It is only from candidates submitted by that process, which is entirely outside political interference, that there can be a selection. It is important that we do not undermine processes in that way.

I thank Senator Sheahan for his support. Senator Zappone touched on many real challenges in getting this balance, and the point was made very forcibly by Senator Quinn as well. There can be an open process which gets people who are no good at the job. I have had three Ministries and sometimes we can see an important job to do. We might persuade somebody to take this on, and I am sure that was the case with Mr. Smurfit and Senator Quinn. It is not that these people are looking for extra work but that people are particularly suitable for a particular job. How can we create a system that is completely transparent but which allows us to reach out occasionally to find people of real talent not only in this country but abroad? With the accountability system for our public service, for example, I hope we find somebody outside this jurisdiction entirely so that there can be a different perspective. We should not rule that out. It is a condition of my approach, and I want it as open and transparent as possible.

I strongly agree with the Senator's point about diversity, and that links to his argument about remuneration. We need diversity in income levels as well. Senator Quinn has indicated that nobody should be paid - he argued that no Senator should be paid either - but one of the first actions of the Labour Party when it entered government in the early part of the 20th century was to demand that Members of Parliament got paid. This was so it would not be a rich man's job, with barristers coming in after hours in the law courts or landed gentry doing the work on a part-time basis. Some people need a few bob to do the job and not everybody is "independently funded" in that regard. We must have real diversity in that regard. The Senator made a very strong point in terms of diversity tracking and I will keep it in mind.

I do not wish to pre-empt debate on a future piece of legislation but one of the amendments from Fianna Fáil I did not accept with the lobbying regulation Bill would have outlawed lobbying for State board appointments. I want to encourage lobbying for such appointments, as I want the National Women's Council of Ireland, the Irish Farmers Association, the National Youth Council of Ireland and others to argue that they have great people. As long as the process is open and transparent, it should happen.

I have answered Senator Whelan's point regarding the reform agenda, which will stand up to any scrutiny. He mentioned another couple of points. There is a question of determining suitability by a committee, which is a very tricky question to be teased out. People situate it as a dilemma but do not tend to provide a solution. If somebody has national or international standing or expertise, will he or she want to be presented to an Oireachtas committee to be parsed and analysed in public? He or she will not. For example, will professors of economics being considered for the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council present themselves so that some can be labelled crummy and others can be labelled good, with the determination being made by an Oireachtas committee? That may be an extreme example but all of us have a sense of our own pride and we do not want to be presented in that way. Finding a process to ensure we find good candidates rather than "grey" candidates that might be both unexceptional and inoffensive is the way to go.

To get that balance right is a challenge.

I do not accept that people with expertise or a track record would be rejected. Consider the question of whether a teacher should be debarred from a board dealing with education because of a vested interest. A teacher has expertise, and it is difficult to have expertise without having a vested interest or track record. Sometimes we need people with a track record. A women's advocate should be on the National Women's Council of Ireland and should be not debarred for having a track record on an issue, a vested interest or point of view. This is important, as long as there are balancing voices regarding all these matters.

I have dealt with most of what Senator Quinn said and I hope I have addressed the points he raised.

Senator Landy talked about political diversity. His was an important point made by number of Senators, and I have made it repeatedly. It is like when people say the only objective people suitable to chair a tribunal are judges because, by definition, they are somehow impartial. It is believed that when they walk across the threshold of judgeship, all their previous partial decisions evaporate into the skies and they suddenly become impartial in all their dealings. We have to say that at least or we might be answerable to them. However, we have to be aware that people have track records all their lives. I strongly agree with the point made by Senator Landy in that if we were to have a future in a robust political system, we need to attract people to become involved in their communities, including the political system. With all due respect to distinguished Independents gathered here, being independent is not a unique purification in and of itself. Being involved in grassroots activism for Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Labour Party is good and we must encourage more of it. If we kill the political system by saying those associated with it are somehow contaminated and unworthy, it is absolutely destructive of politics and, ultimately, of democracy. I do not believe we should state everybody appointed who happens to have been a politician previously is somehow unsuitable. This is certainly not how any other political system I know operates. Exemplary politicians get other jobs. For example, Ms Christine Lagarde visited this country this week. She had been an exemplary French politician, and that gave her the authority and qualifications to become the senior person in the IMF. It did not debar her from it. We need to consider people's experience in the round in that regard. That is a matter I feel strongly about.

I started with Senator Craughwell and will revert to him now. I thank him for his kind remarks on these proposals. He posited questions without necessarily positing a solution. One job I must do all the time is make matters practical. Sometimes one can design a perfect system that does not work. Therefore, we need to have a system in which we can get people to serve rather than one in which one just cannot get people of quality to serve. The system to which I refer is very fitting in this regard.

I wrote down a remark Senator Craughwell made that very much merits reflection. He said he wants to remove the appointments system from the political arena, yet he wants to give a role to the Oireachtas. I do not know how he regards the Oireachtas as being apolitical. My experience is that a lot of politics takes place in these Houses. Perhaps that is my unique perspective.

I strongly agree with much of what Senator Reilly said, including the policy position she laid out. I produced the Labour Party policy position that she quoted. I just read through that document again. I will be bold by saying the quote I used at the beginning of it was from the former leader of Fianna Fáil, Mr. Bertie Ahern, who said he did not appoint people to boards because they gave him money but because they were his friends. We need to move away from that. Being a friend of Mr. Ahern should not debar one but it should not be the unique qualifying criterion either. There is a balance to be struck somewhere between the two. We must temper our pureness in regard to lecturing others. I looked at the list of the North–South body nominees of the Sinn Féin Party. I am sure they are all perfectly qualified but they are all Sinn Féiners. It is not true to say that we can somehow veto them by agreement. All nominees put forward by either of the parties are accepted, for fairly obvious reasons. Understanding all our individual foibles in that regard, let us determine whether we can build a better system in which we can all have confidence. That is certainly my absolute objective.