Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

We were responding to the views expressed that in the original drafting it could be the case that a majority could consist of representatives of property service providers or of those with their interests at heart. This is the reason this amendment contains the reference to representatives of persons who provide property services and to the number of three. I am prepared to come back on Report Stage to amend the section to say "not more than three".

With regard to including a specific reference to a property service user, it is a case of defining who is a property service user. Most of the population have been property service users at some stage. How could I say that, for instance, Senator Donohoe is a property service user? He may have been previously but he may not currently be a property service user. This could create a problem with regard to the definition of whether, over the lifetime of a board, a person is a property service user. This can be considered for Report Stage. If the amendment provides for a representative of consumer interests in the compilation of the board, this might be tying the hands of the Minister. He may then have to adhere to the letter of the law. In my experience, if a regulation becomes too specific with regard to the composition of a board, this causes difficulties, in particular when gender balance and other balances in other legislation, such as trade union and employer interests, must be considered. There could then be very few opportunities for a private citizen. This is the reason it was left relatively vague. There is no point in putting a private citizen or a man or woman off the street on a board such as this because such persons would need to have some financial management and administrative skills as well as consumer skills.