Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

Deputy Hogan very adroitly pursued the amendment and its meaning. What I was trying to ascertain was how the Minister would determine the board member was suffering from ill health. Would it be on the basis of missing a number of board meetings at which major decisions could and should have been taken? Coming to the conclusion that the person was suffering from ill health because he or she had missed a couple of board meetings might be a dangerous area for a Minister to delve into, notwithstanding all the powers conferred on Ministers. The reason I tabled the amendment was that in the event of a dispute it would be no harm for the board member to be able to say he or she was or was not suffering from ill health. There is no necessity to get into the minutiae of it. It should be quite simple to explain or to verify the decision a Minister has arrived at, based on whatever evidence has been provided. For example, there could be a row on the board, a dispute within the board or somebody could say a particular member is suffering from ill health and should not be on the board. That may or may not be a correct assessment. It might be helpful if the Minister was to have another look at the amendment. I do not know if it can be incorporated in the Bill. That is what we were trying to do. We were not suggesting that the Minister would take on the work of the general practitioner.

See this speech in context