Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Thursday, 23 Jun 1994

SECTION 19.

Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill".

Mrs. Doyle

Section 18 allows the Minister to remove a member from office at any time apparently without reason and justification. The section deals with casual vacancies. Will casual vacancies be filled by a representative of the group which was represented by the person whose removal created the vacancy?

It would be dreadful if the Minister could remove a person from a board at the request of a supporter in the food industry, to repay favours or for some other reason. Why is a Minister given power to remove people without reason? I agree that the Minister should have the power to remove a person who might act contrary to the interest of the food industry and that should be stated in section 18. However, in theory a Minister could remove a person because he or she did not like the colour of the person's eyes and replace the person with a friend. I am not saying the Minister will do this, although it could happen in theory. As other speakers said yesterday, this legislation will last longer than any of us and we do not know who will be the Minister in the future. The legislation should protect the food industry and An Bord Bia from any possible abuse, political or otherwise. I am not directing my comments at the present Minister. I want to ensure that the legislation will protect An Bord Bia and the food industry from any possible abuses. If the Minister can remove people from this board, without a reason, he can appoint who he likes. We should be given the understanding that if a representative of a producer group, for example, is removed, he or she will be replaced by a representative from the same sector of the industry.

Mr. O’Shea

The spirit of the legislation is that the rules of natural justice would apply to the removal of any person. There is no intention to remove people willy-nilly from the board. Within the rules of natural justice, there would be restrictions, perhaps even legal ones, prohibiting one from stating publicly why someone was removed. If someone is removed and a new member appointed to the board, it would be of paramount importance to retain the balance on the board. Although we do not want a sectoral board consisting of nominees from various sectors, certain balances need to apply and that strategy would be maintained with new appointees. However, I could not go so far as to say that a person from one sector would be replaced by somebody from that sector.

Mrs. Doyle

These two sections are related because one deals with removing people and the other deals with filling any casual vacancy. Yesterday we discussed the membership of this board and the fact that the ten or eleven members will be political appointees. The Minister refused to accept any amendments to make them anything other than political appointments. That the members of the board will be political appointees compromises their independence, particularly if the Minister can remove a member from office at any time, without reason or justification. The Minister can be sure that his politically appointed board will nod and genuflect in the direction of the Minister of the day, regardless of whether it is in the best interests of the food industry. If the members of the board step out of line, they can be removed from office, without an explanation from the Minister.

The politicisation of this board causes me serious concern about its efficacy, its ability to operate efficiently for the food industry and to do the job we hope it will be able to do. The Minister can make political appointments, remove any members from the board, without explanation, and replace them with other political appointees. Usually there are three or four political appointments on a board, which I accept as political reality. However, the board should not be totally political. That factor, together with these provisions, compound the damage and mean that this board will start off carrying a weight of 12 stone seven.

This will be a political board of old school friends. If the Minister does not believe what I am saying, he should look at what his senior Minister did with the Irish Horse Racing Authority. Its board consisted of old school pals, a triumvirate who directed the legislation, and he only had ten out of 14 appointments on that board. However, the Minister is making every appointment on this board. When we criticise the politicisation of An Bord Bia — and it is total politicisation which is not in the best interests of the industry — we are not criticising the Minister of State or the Minister but a system which is open to abuse while this legislation is on the Statute Book.

Mr. O’Shea

The sectoral interest on the beef and livestock subsidiary boards would be maintained. I do not propose to discuss all the arguments advanced last night, except to say that I have given serious consideration to the points the Deputy made. My honest view is that the model for the appointment of the board, contained in this legislation, is the best one. It is an important board and I am not convinced the sectoral model would produce the type of people we need because it is a vast industry. We must get the best people for the board.

Question put and agreed to.