I am glad the Deputy has raised this matter so I can put some facts on the record. This issue has been discussed on local radio and a selective view of history has been put forward by Opposition politicians. Deputy Enright will know from my record in this House, locally and nationally, that to suggest I have not been magnanimous on a range of occasions is to do an injustice to my record. I will let the record stand and I will refer to the minutes of Offaly County Council and any other local authority body in which I have worked with Deputy Enright or others.
I should like to start by expressly rejecting the contention that my actions in rescinding the purported appointments of the councillors named in any way amounted to, or could be construed as, "sacking" the individuals concerned. In my view, the appointments purported to have been made by my predecessor were not valid and I had, therefore, no option but to act to regularise the situation.
For the information of the House, I should like to explain clearly the situation in regard to appointments to boards by the Minister for Health. In total, there are 40 boards under the aegis of the Department of Health. The Minister for Health has the power under the relevant legislation to nominate members to 39 of these, including the eight health boards.
Normal procedure is that, when a vacancy has arisen on a board, the Minister makes an appointment to the board following consultation with interested parties and having regard to statutory constraints and factors, such as gender balance and the need to ensure the inclusion on the board of as wide a variety of appropriate interests as possible.
In the weeks from 1 May to 26 June 1997, prior to leaving office, my predecessor, Deputy Noonan, made two series of appointments. In the first case he made 43 appointments to nine boards under his aegis where vacancies already existed. These appointments have consequently been validly made and I have no intention of challenging any of them.
However, the purported appointments to which Deputy Enright refers which the Minister made to the eight regional health boards for vacancies which had not yet arisen at the time of the appointment are in a different category, and I challenge Deputy Enright to find any precedent since 1970 under the Health Acts for this attempt by the Minister to make such purported appointments. That which the former Minister did, and not that which I have done, is unprecedented. The former Minister attempted to fill a vacancy when one did not exist during his tenure.
I take the point Deputy Enright makes that, had those vacancies arisen on 25 or 26 June, on the last day of leaving office, I could not and would not challenge those appointments, but I will challenge on a matter of principle any attempt by a Minister to make appointments when vacancies do not exist while he is Minister. That is the reason for the present situation.
I would remind Deputy Enright that I put the former Minister on notice on 11 June by way of a statement suggesting that were he to purport to make such appointments he would leave me with no option but to rescind. That was before any individual was mentioned by the then Minister Noonan for such a purported appointment. The suggestion by Deputy Enright's colleagues — and not by the Deputy, in fairness — that I acted vindictively is given the lie by the fact that I put the former Minister on notice of what I intended to do should he proceed on the road on which he was about to embark. There is no question of any personal vindictiveness on my part and I reject that comment with contempt from whatever quarter it has come because the facts belie that. That did not happen because I said what I would do before any name was mentioned in relation to these purported appointments.
When I became aware that my predecessor might purport to make such appointments, I made that clear. I advised him on 11 June not to proceed with such appointments to the health boards and it was reported in the national media the following day. I also said at the time that it would be unconscionable for the then Minister to even contemplate actions on appointments which did not fall vacant until 1 July. I added that it would be a demeaning exercise for the purported appointees themselves as they would not subsequently be able to stay in office. Deputy Noonan was therefore aware that the purported appointments would be immediately challenged by me.
However, I regret to say he ignored my advice and made a total of 24 purported appointments, three to each health board, including the three appointments to the Midland Health Board cited by Deputy Enright. On taking office, far from acting arbitrarily or covetously, as has been contended, I obtained the benefit of legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General and in the light of this advice I concluded that the appointments were invalid. In the circumstances, I felt it was inappropriate and unsatisfactory to allow the situation to continue. I had no option but to regularise the situation, otherwise the boards would have been improperly constituted and as such their actions might have been open to challenge subsequently.
In the light of the advice I received I wrote, before the date of their purported appointments, individually to all 24 persons concerned, including the three councillors mentioned by Deputy Enright, rescinding their purported appointments. I explained in my letters to each of the individuals my reasons for taking this action. I also expressed my regret that this situation had arisen through circumstances beyond either my or their control and I assured them that my action did not in any way reflect on them, or my appreciation of their good standing. Any suggestion to the contrary by any politician in my area is not true, the facts speak for themselves.
