Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I welcome the amendment. As a matter of practice I am unhappy with the phrase, "the Minister's opinion", whenever it arises. The Minister's opinion is unchallengeable. He is entitled to his opinion. If the reference was to "the Minister's judgment" or "if the Minister was satisfied", it would be capable of some judicial test, although I am not suggesting one would want to do that, as to how the Minister was satisfied or came to a particular judgment. The phrase "in the Minister's opinion" appears to have been inserted by the Parliamentary Counsel to ensure that whatever the Minister does is unchallengeable. The Minister can have a perverse opinion — I do not refer to this Minister — but as long as he has an opinion he can do it. For example, if the Minister wanted to appoint someone he knew to the board and that person had worked with the homeless, having spent a week 20 years ago working with the Simon Community — I know something about this area — the Minister could decide it was his opinion that this person had knowledge and experience relating to that area. It would be a perverse opinion but because the phrase is "the Minister's opinion" and not "the Minister's reasonable judgment" or anything like that, there is nothing anybody could do about it. Therefore, the Minister would not be in a position to be held to account, other than people like myself giving out about him. The phrase "in the Minister's opinion" is unsatisfactory in legislation because it does not bind the Minister to anything other than saying "I think", and Ministers should be a little more accountable than that.