Vol. 357 No. 12
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 27, before the First Schedule, to insert the following new section:
60.—Every offence under this Act may be prosecuted by the Board.".
This is a very simple amendment, which is largely technical. The amendment inserts a new section to provide that every offence under the Act may be prosecuted by the board. The offences are set out in section 50.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 28, to delete lines 4 to 11 and substitute the following:
"(b) Whenever a casual vacancy occurs among the members of the Board appointed by election, the Board shall co-opt the person who received the next highest number of votes in the previous election for the category in which the casual vacancy occurs. The person so co-opted shall serve as a member of the Board for such period as is unexpired of the term of office of the person whom he replaces.".
It is very difficult to get back into the swing of things on this debate because it has been up and down so often in the last year. It is a number of months since we debated the matter before. The amendment relates to appointments by election to the board and the position that will occur in the event of a vacancy arising out of a resignation, a death, illness and so on among the membership of the board. Our proposal is that the person co-opted should not be just anybody but the next in line from the original election. Those next in line should be listed in the order of the number of votes they received and in the event of vacancies occurring the person co-opted should be the next one who received the next highest number of votes. The term of office of the person co-opted should be the term of office remaining unexpired at the time of the co-option. I am not certain about the Minister's proposal in regard to filling casual vacancies but by opinion is that the proposal in the amendment is the fairest method for dealing with casual vacancies. The purpose of the Bill is to give the nurses charge of An Bord Altranais. They will be elected by members of their own profession, but if casual vacancies meant co-option other than on the basis of the original election it would be evading the main point of the Bill.
The Bill, in regard to casual vacancies states:
6. (a) Whenever a casual vacancy occurs among the members of the Board other than those appointed by election, the Board shall forthwith notify the Minister who, following consultation with such body or organisation as he considers suitable to advise him shall, as soon as is convenient, appoint a person to fill such vacancy.
In other words, any nurse in any category will be eligible for co-option by the Minister. The Bill also states that any person so co-opted shall serve as a member of the board for the unexpired period of the term of office of the person being replaced.
It would be worthwhile if the Chair would ask Members at the back for some order.
We should not have prolonged conversation by Members which might interfere with the business of the House.
It would be simple and straightforward if on the election of the original board a list of those next in line was kept and that the co-options be on the basis of the people the nurses want to be next in line rather than having ministerial co-options.
Basically, I am in sympathy with the views expressed by the Deputy but I have difficulty in going along with the proposed amendment. It would be expected that the board in the normal course of events would follow the procedure envisaged by the Deputy, that they would co-opt the person who received the next highest number of votes in the previous election for the category in which the casual vacancy occurred. Certainly, it would be fair that they should look at the election results for the category and co-opt a member on that basis. However, a number of factors could conspire to make such a procedure unworkable. For example, if a considerable amount of time had elapsed between the time of the election and the co-option it could happen that the next person in the category might no longer be available. I have seen that happen. That is one of the considerable difficulties involved. It could also happen that the person with the next highest number of votes would no longer be eligible to fill that category vacancy.
In those circumstances if I were to accept the Deputy's amendment it could happen that the filling of a casual vacancy would not be done in accordance with the provision in the Bill. That is why I have left the provision open enough to allow the board a direct discretion to either adopt the procedures suggested by the Deputy — I hope they would adopt them — or, if they could not do so, to co-opt another eligible and suitable person. If it is tied down rigidly over a period of five years the board could finish up being minus one member quite rapidly. This could happen when rigidity of that nature is inserted in the Bill. That is why I have made that point at this stage. In these circumstances it would be unwise to accept the amendment.
Why is it necessary for the board to consult with the Minister before they would appoint a member to fill a casual vacancy?
I have no hard view on that aspect. If the Deputy wishes and if it would strengthen the section the provision that it would be necessary for the board to consult with the Minister could be removed on Report Stage. In the matter of boards co-opting to fill casual vacancies sometimes disputes develop in the boards. One would ask them to consult with the Minister and he might express a view, and it is only consulting, it is not a mandatory role for the filling of a casual vacancy. I have no hard view on it and if the Deputies feel that the section could be strengthened by the deletion of the consultation I would be easy on it. On the other hand, sometimes in boards all hell breaks loose on the co-option and they may refer to the Minister for his view on the matter of whether a person is eligible or what exactly occurred in terms of the election. He might express a view but it is no more than consultation. They still have the power to make the co-option. I take the steps necessary to secure the appointment of members of the first board. Section 10 provides that:
...the board shall take all steps necessary to secure the appointment of members to any subsequent Board.
Therefore, the board themselves could decide in accordance with section 10 of the Bill on a co-option procedure. Presumably it could be open to them to decide what procedure they might follow for the filling of casual vacancies. In that framework they might decide as a matter of principle to co-opt the next person under that election in accordance with section 10 and they might consult the Minister of the day about that procedure, saying as a general principle that they will follow that line. The flexibility is there. I, and I am sure subsequent Ministers, would follow that in relation to, for example, casual vacancies in the health boards. I have rigorously followed the principle of appointing the next elected person in those categories and appointed him straightforwardly.
We are on the final schedule on Committee Stage and I do not want to hold up the Bill any further. I accept the points made by the Minister in regard to the possibility of the next in line not being eligible or available, but I would like to see some guidelines given to the board to adhere to this principle that in co-options they should first go to the next highest on the list. If the Minister accepts that principle on the health boards it would be worth while, if it is not necessarily in the legislation, at least to have some guidelines for the board indicating that this principle would be the best to adhere to. It would prevent the usual controversy that might arise within the nursing profession about a co-option when somebody might allege that it was for such-and-such a reason. I would be happy if something on that line could be done.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
On the point of consultation with the Minister, while I have no strong views one way or another on it, it is hardly necessary to have it in the Bill because when it is in the Bill it puts an obligation on the board to consult with the Minister and the board might have a very definite and a very good view. The consultation with the Minister might cause the confusion that the Minister referred to earlier. I am sure the board would consult with the Minister of the day if they were in difficulty and felt that he could help them in any way. On the question of casual vacancies amongst the Minister's nominees the section states that the Minister would take advice from various organisations. Is the Minister obliged to follow that advice?
Not necessarily. There is no mandatory obligation on him to follow the advice but he is obliged to consult.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Next Tuesday, 7 May 1985, subject to agreement between the Whips.
