Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)

This is a sensible amendment. The Minister may be concerned that his hands, or those of his successor, will be tied, but I do not see it that way. I am not a fan of nominees on boards because, as I said on Committee Stage, some people are good at getting elected to these positions, but they may not be the people one would want. The Minister is proposing an emasculated version of the present board. The board operates in an area where, as the Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Noel Ahern, stated on Second Stage, approximately €200 million is involved.

One person will be nominated to represent the community and voluntary sector, another to represent the educational sector and a third to represent the disability sector. I will not go into detail on the personalities on the board, but there is not much difference between the proposal in the Fine Gael amendment in the name of Deputy McGinley and that in the Bill. The amendment tightens up the provision slightly.

The first proposal is that the Bill should include an officer of the Minister not below the rank of principal officer. There is a principal officer from the Department on the present board. On Committee Stage it was stated that sometimes the nominee of the Minister, a Department official, is considered as the Minister's spy, but I take a different view. Someone who has reached the level of principal officer in a Department is highly experienced, would have good general knowledge of the law obtaining in various areas and would bring expertise to the position. There are few, if any, State boards that would not benefit from having someone of that calibre from the State sector on the board.

The proposal in the Bill and in the amendment seem to be ad idem. As I understand it, there was no responsibility on the Minister to appoint someone who was not below the rank of principal officer. It is no harm including this in the Bill. For instance, a Minister may be at odds with the public service and may, for revenge, decide not to appoint a member of the public service. There is no harm in closing off that possibility. There is probably general agreement among Members in favour of having someone of senior rank from the parent Department on State boards.

There is a person on the present board who represents the interests of the financial industry. I am not sure the interests of that industry are paramount, but this person is useful in the context of knowledge of the financial industry. The former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy saw that, with such large sums involved, the expertise of someone from the Irish Bankers Federation, in this case, was important. I do not see what the problem is here.

Paragraphs (c) and (d) bring a certain order to the composition of the board and refer to knowledge or experience relating to matters that appear to the Minister to be relevant to the functions of the board. One cannot have people with minute knowledge of every sector, whether the voluntary, community or disability sector. The amendment would improve the Bill and the Minister has not presented any argument that alters my view in that regard.

See this speech in context