Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 24, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: “(4) A person designated as the first Chief Executive Officer under subsection (3) shall hold office for a period not exceeding 30 months.”.

This amendment seeks to amend section 28 by requiring that the person designated as the first chief executive officer under subsection (3) should hold office for a period not exceeding 30 months. Currently, the Minister has the power to unilaterally appoint the first CEO before the establishment day and the individual appointed may not go through the public appointments process. This is to suggest that there is a public appointments process attached to subsequent appointments but the first person appointed will effectively predate the establishment of that process. As this person is not going through the public appointments process, it would be appropriate that he or she would be appointed for a term of two and a half years. It is a bit of a cart and horse situation, whereby the executive will be appointed and the process will then be put in place for the appointment. That may be necessary for a transition period but the person should certainly not be appointed for a five-year term without having gone through any kind of process, other than a ministerial appointment. A term of two and a half years would allow for the establishment of the agency and the establishment of appropriate Public Appointment Service processes for the finding of a replacement or indeed if the same candidate were to apply again.

Amendment No. 75 seeks the deletion of section 31(9), which currently provides that in the performance of his or her duties under the section, the chief executive officer shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy. Again, this is part of a really worrying and general tone of overreach that we see. This is a kind of muddying of the line between what is an independent agency, operating independently and bringing separate expertise, and what is basically a Government puppet character to be created, somebody who cannot question the Government or say one word questioning any Government policy. We want to have somebody of an exceptional standard in this role of chief executive officer of this incredibly important agency. As was pointed out, this agency has a crucial role in the disbursement of funds and in driving the areas of research and innovation that will be crucial for setting the agenda for the future. If that person is gagged and unable to speak in any way that criticises any policy, it will effectively undermine confidence, nationally and internationally, in the agency and undermine our credibility as a State. Imagine attaching such a gagging order to prevent he head of the Climate Change Advisory Council prevent from criticising or commenting on any Government policy. We would have a Climate Change Advisory Council that could not speak about any issues or policies that might relate to climate change. That role would become effectively meaningless. It would be a purely administrative role and would no longer be giving guidance. The same would apply if we were to have a gagging order attached to this CEO role.

I refer to the exact language proposed in section 30 because it is quite significant. It states:

In the performance of his or her duties under this section, the Chief Executive Officer shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy.

That is extraordinary. Separately, in section 11, the agency is required to implement any government policy on "any matter or thing referred to in this Act or any other enactment". That is literally the language used. It is then proposed to have a chief executive officer who is not allowed to question or express an opinion on the merits of a policy. An Oireachtas committee may question a chief executive officer but he or she will not be allowed to speak about any Government policy or even speak about the objectives of a Government policy. This measure creates a gagging order on the future chief executive officer as regards important questions, such as how things are going in research innovation in the State, what are the areas of priority or focus, are they the right areas and are they delivering, all of which are likely to count as an opinion on the policy of a Government or a Minister of the State. Not only does it gag that individual and limit the agency in its independence, but it also represents an overreach in that it limits the power of an Oireachtas committee to do its job of holding the chief executive officer to account and of asking the CEO to give full and frank statements and answers to questions from committee members. We would have a chief executive officer who will have to decline to answer probably half the questions of any committee. This is overreach by the Government in that it tries to curtail the voice of an independent agency. It is overreach by the Executive into the Legislature in that it seeks to curtail the powers, transparency and accountability tools of the Oireachtas. It is not for the public good to have such a restrictive measure. I ask that consideration be given to shifting the language here in order that we can have a CEO who can perform the job effectively and a committee that can get effective answers, opinions and input from the CEO.

I will deal with amendment No. 76 separately.