David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Okay, the Minister says she did, so I will reread the transcript. I was not satisfied that this was the case. Basically, it is increasingly emerging from this debate that what is at issue is making the Government uncomfortable and the expression of a contrary opinion on policy by the CEO might make the Government uncomfortable. I think that is a damn good thing. Governments should be made uncomfortable on a regular basis. It is part of the whole process of accountability.

The section refers to "the regularity and propriety of the transactions recorded or required to be recorded in any book". Do they just say, "Oh, yes, that's wonderful", and maintain themselves in what has been described as neutral mode even though they know there is something absolutely stinking there as a result of Government policy? Surely they should be allowed to warn.

The section also refers to "the economy and efficiency of the Board in the use of its resources". What would happen if, as a direct result of a Government policy, inefficiencies are created? The CEO is not permitted to answer on that. The section also refers to "the systems, procedures and practices employed by the NCH for the purposes of evaluating the effectiveness of its operations". If something in Government policy inhibits this, again they are not able to say.

So their testimony to the Committee of Public Accounts is thereby rendered virtually useless. It is of no help in teasing out issues. If something is wrong, instead of covering it up in order to render the Government more comfortable than it would be if the situation was open, they should actually expose the situation so it can be amended. I feel quite strongly that there is no reason the chief executive should not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such a policy. I think it is critical that they be given the freedom to do so.

I presume that if there is a fundamental disagreement on policy, CEOs, if they are an honourable people, would remove themselves because they are not in a position to continue to fulfil a policy with which they disagree. This happened to me as a member of a board. A policy I proposed was opposed by one other member who engaged in very devious stratagems in order to discomfort me and ensure the policy sank. She was successful and I immediately resigned because I said, "A fundamental policy of mine, as CEO, has been destroyed. Therefore I have lost the confidence. Therefore I go." That is how things operate, not by restricting freedom of speech through legislative means.