Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Deputies for their queries and I am sorry that I was not in a position to address them in my reply. Deputy Boyle pointed out that the amendment seeks to increase the representation of the educational sector. The legislation as drafted proposes a representative of the third level educational establishments involved in the education of persons with respect to the practice of the designated profession. That person is nominated by the Minister for Education and Science. Provision exists in the legislation for representation by a third level educational establishment. Deputy Boyle seeks to increase this representation from one to two, one of whom must be representative of the institutes of technology. I believe that is the burden of his amendment.

The legislation provides for a representative from the educational institutions. In legislation of this type we must be careful not to have too many representatives from the educational institutions. Ultimately, these boards prescribe the standard that the institutions must follow. There is a danger in having too many representatives from the institutions that are, in effect, being accredited by the board, which gives rise to the possibility of a conflict of interest. We must be careful about extending that representation too far. I believe the Minister has struck a balance in securing the principle of representation.

The questions raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin were more wide-ranging and philosophical in nature. He is suggesting that this legislation allows the Minister to exercise two very different types of discretion. He was trying to distinguish them and suggested that we might be better sticking with the original formula, which was that the Minister would appoint nine people representative of the general public with the consent of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, rather than subdividing the nine into six appointed in the public interest and three "who have such qualifications, interests and experience as, in the opinion of the Minister, would be of value to the Council in performing its functions", as the Tánaiste has put it in her amendment. It could be considered that the Minister is confusing the issue somewhat.

The new provision introduced by the Tánaiste encompasses a category which is arguably excluded under the existing provision, which is the category of public servants who might have considerable knowledge of these matters. The existing section states that the "9 are representative of the interest of the general public". The view might be taken that the holding of a position as a public servant might be incompatible with representing the public interest. Specifically referring to qualifications, as the Tánaiste does in her amendment, enables her or any future Minister to make an appointment to this board from within the public service. This is one consideration which weighed with her in arriving at this formula.

I would not presume to give an authoritative interpretation as to how the Tánaiste might exercise her discretion under the existing or proposed legislation. While I would not hazard a guess on the matter, the criteria are clearly laid down in the legislation. The essence of the original proposal relating to the nine appointments representative of the general public was that these would be consumer representatives. They are the representatives of the laity. The Minister was anxious to secure some expertise on the board which would still be external to the nominating processes which gives rise to the membership of the council.

See this speech in context