The Minister said that my estimate of 16 out of 23, if you like to put it crudely, of the Minister's creatures on the governing body was way out. I still submit that 16 out of 23 is a valid estimate. At the lowest the Minister will have a negative or veto power because surely if "on the recommendation of the Minister" means anything, it means the Minister will clear the nominees in these various categories. If he is not satisfied with a nominee for some reason, he will not have him appointed and is that not a ministerial appointment?
Subsection (4)(a) gives him nine and down to (e) gives him another three, (f) another two and (g) gives him two, and that is 16. I will point out something very interesting here which did not escape my eagle eye, I am glad to say. If you compare section 5(4)(e) in the Dublin Bill with section 5(4)(e) in the Limerick Bill, you will find that in the Limerick Bill three members were to be appointed on the recommendation of the Thomond governing body: three members of the governing body in the NIHE, Limerick, were to be appointed on the recommendation of the Thomond governing body. There was no reference in section 5(e) to ministerial recommendation, yet here we have “on the recommendation of the Minister'. Ministerial recommendation grows apace as the Bills move on. Perhaps not, because the Thomond Bill inexplicably does not give the Minister the same kind of majority at all. Section 5(4)(e) gives the Minister at least the power of veto, the power of negative approval. It is very easy for me to exaggerate and easy for the Minister to reduce my position ad absurdum, but I would ask him to accept that it is very bad psychologically to be starting off the life of a new institute with “on the recommendation of the Minister” stamped all over the Bill, and particularly in section 5. I regret that we will not have more members of the governing body elected by democratic procedures.