Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We get off to a positive start on the grouping, at least. The words used in the amendment are "not greater than" which means the Minister is not locked into making eight appointments. He is not locked in to a maximum of six appointments either but has flexibility in other areas of importance which must be reflected in the make-up of the envisaged directorate. That is good to go and I will support it.

Amendment No. 4 is not about demanding that the membership of the directorate is made up of people outside the Health Service Executive. It is about having the option of appointing - I repeat - the best possible people to take on these roles of responsibility. I emphasise that these are responsible roles. Next to the Minister's own role, the members of the directorate will have the responsibility of oversight of the single largest swathe of public moneys expended annually. It is a phenomenal responsibility. While I have no issue at all if all appointments are made from within the service and expect that many if not all will be, I am concerned that the door is closed. It is strange because only in the last number of days, we have heard that serious consideration is being given to the idea of ministerial appointments from outside the elected make-up of the House. The issue has been reflected on over the course of the weekend gone by and in other fora. There is precedent for it. This is about circumstances in which someone presents who can bring an expertise to bear. Clearly, he or she is not going to come from a background which is not associated with or reflective of the roles and responsibilities with which he or she would be entrusted as a member of the directorate. He or she would come from a background in health. There are many precedents, including precedents in other Departments, where appointees have not come through the respective departmental strata but have been brought in from within the citizenry of the State and beyond. It is something we should always leave open to consideration, which is all the amendment seeks to do.

Removing the restrictive language of subsection 3 on page 6 allows flexibility. That is all it does. It does not lock in the Minister to anything. It is worthy of support for that reason. It is important to those who have given advocacy to this argument. I acknowledge the efforts of Mental Health Reform, which is the backdrop to the argument in this instance. However, amendment No. 4 is not confined to mental health considerations. It could apply to any of the directorate roles within the make-up of the new directorate.

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his position on amendment No. 4. It is not at variance with the Minister's amendment, No. 3, and the two can work well in tandem. I am supporting No. 3 and the Minister is due to support No. 4.

See this speech in context