Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have a question on the process of removing the chief executive. Why did we not go with a provision for a two thirds majority of the board? I appreciate that section 22(4)(b) there is the issue of natural justice, which I support fully. I am nonetheless curious why we did not go with a two thirds majority rather than a simple and straight majority, which could potentially split the commission.For example, a GAA congress requires a two thirds example. I am curious as to why we did not go down that avenue here to preserve the integrity and functioning without having a split board. I know a simple majority is 50% plus one, which is fair enough, but the removal of a chief executive is a very serious step and I know there is a process to get to that point. Should we have that in the interest of preserving the harmony and working relationship the executive?

Although the chief executive is not a member of the commission, I presume that he or she will be able to participate in its workings. I know the Minister of State has said the chief executive may bring proposals to the commission. I presume he or she will have a very proactive role in the board meetings or in the decision-making process without having a vote; I accept that. I hope we do not tie the hands of the chief executive in the workings of the board or the commission. I use the word "board" because that is probably what it will be. As the Minister of State quite rightly said, it is about ensuring that we have a process and independence. I hope we do not tie the hands of the chief executive completely.