Section 2 deals with the establishment day and states: "The Minister shall by order appoint a day to be the establishment day for the purposes of this Act". Could the Minister tell us when he intends the Bill to come into operation and the establishment day? The Minister has, in effect, preempted the legislation. It was technically a mistake when in late April he removed the existing board and appointed a new board under what he assumed at the time would be the outcome of this legislation. He was wrong to have done that and should have continued with the existing board until the new provisions were available, which woudl be the normal practice. He assumed what the new provisions would be and the decision he made to change the ten year requirement to the seven year requirement——
SECTION 2.
Chariman
I do not want to put the Deputy under pressure but I have a responsibility to keep to the Bill. Is this relevant?
It is relevant to the establishment day. I am asking the Minister when he intends the establishment day to be. He made a mistake in the way he approached the establishment day. The normal procedure would have been to leave the board in place until the establishment day, which I have done it in the past. When the new legislation was debated and finalised he should then have taken whatever steps he felt were desirable or necessary, based on the outcome of the deliberations.
I know that this is not the worst offence in relation to boards but, nevertheless, the Minister should have continued with that board until the establishment day. The Minister made the change and presumptions about the decisions which would be taken in the statutory instruments which have not been finalised. He has probably worked out that they will match one another at the end of the day because the Government has a majority. However, it is not giving due respect to the normal proceedings of the committee or the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Deputy Woods is incorrect in stating that I removed the previous board. The term of office of the previous board expired and I appointed a new board in its place. Deputy Woods seems to be suggesting that I should have continued with the all male board which his party appointed but gender balance is a very important issue and I appointed a new board with an appropriate and fair gender balance. That in no way precludes or interferes with the operation of this Bill, which is not yet law. I do not know when exactly it will be law. The term of the previous board expired and a new board had to be put in place, which is standard practice. I did not remove anybody from the board.
I am not in a position to give a specific date for the establishment day. There is good deal of preparatory work to be done after the Bill is passed by both Houses as regulations have to be prepared and so on. I intend to nominate the establishment day and have the new board up and running as soon as possible after the Bill is passed and the preparatory work has been put in place.
Will the board which the Minister appointed in April go out of office on the establishment day? Will he appoint a new board?
That board will go out of office.
Will the Minister appoint a new board on establishment day?
There will be a new statutory board appointed; the existing board is a non-statutory board.
I was not suggesting that the Minister should fire the whole board. The board's term of office was completed and, in my experience, normal practice would be to extend the term of office until the new statutory arrangements were ready. That is an option for the Minister. It is a mark of the Government that, notwithstanding the fact that there was a board in existence which had done a great deal of urgent work for the Minister in establishing many new centres and so on, the Minister did not continue its term of office until the new statutory provisions were available.
It is not quite as simple as the Minister suggested because he changed the requirements in accordance with the new statutory requirements. For example, he changed the length of time a person must serve as a barrister or solicitor from ten years to seven years. That was anticipating what would happen. I do not disagree with the Minister that seven years is a reasonable length of time. Nevertheless, it was anticipating the legislation and was not the best way to transact the business. The Minister said he would set the establishment day as soon as possible after the Bill has passed all Stages.
It is true that I altered this and the gender balance and the provision that there was to be staff representation on the board. Deputy Woods is overlooking a critical point when he suggests that the same board should have been reappointed and allowed to continue. Many of its members were ineligible for reappointment as they had completed two terms in office.
The normal procedure in such circumstances is that the board would fill those vacancies and in this case it would have appointed female members. I do not think the Minister understands that he is anticipating what is happening in the House and moving towards a new statutory position.
There are serious issues with regard to this Bill which need to be discussed. With all due respects to Deputy Woods, the issue he raised is false and, if I were him, I would say little about Fianna Fáil's appointees to the board because it never sought to achieve a gender balance. A number of people were appointed to the board by previous Governments, in which Fianna Fáil was a majority party, for no other reason than that they were members or supporters of that party. Some excellent people were appointed but others were not renowned for having any great interest in this area and it was always a mystery to me why they were appointed.
The board's term of office expired, the Minister appointed new members, which he was perfectly entitled to do and we should not waste our time on this fruitless discussion when there are substantive and serious issues to discuss.
Deputy Shatter raised separate issues which relates to this section and we will have to address them. If Deputy Shater takes the trouble to examine the membership of the new board——
As Acting Chairman I do not want to overrule Members of the committee. The Bill states that the Minister shall, by order, appoint a day to be the establishment day. We have discussed anything and everything and I do not want to be seen to be preventing members from discussing issues but I appeal for co-operation from everyone because we will be very busy later discussing serious issues.
The only opportunity the Opposition has to make points on Bills and the behaviour of the Government is on Committee Stage when Ministers have to reply to points raised and provide information. In the Dáil Ministers frequently evade issues and say Deputies do not ask the right questions. I am not prepared to accept the line suggested by you, Chairman, and the Minister. If this is the way we will deal with the Bill, there is little point from the Opposition's point of view of doing what the Minister and the Government would like and not raising questions asked about these matters.
I believe the Minister broke with normal practice by not maintaining the existing board while the debate was taking place in the House. The board consisted of distinguished lawyers and senior barristers, all of whom had satisfied the ten years requirement. The committee is now deciding that this requirement should be reduced to seven years.
Is that proposed in this section?
No.
That is the point I was making. We must discuss what is relevant.
With regard to appointments and establishment, the Minister anticipated that change. I do not think the behaviour of the Minister and the Government in this regard is right. It is not right for the Minister to introduce a Bill and to say the establishment day will not be for some time and that he will make these changes anyway. Deputy Shatter should look at the composition of the present board and note the political relationships of its members. I will not spell them out but I could.
I was not involved.
I am not saying Deputy Shatter was involved.
I do not know anything about it beyond what I read in the papers.
I am happy to accept the Minister's statement that he will appoint the board as soon as possible.
I am shocked at the hypocrisy of Deputy Shatter's contribution. If we look at the membership and political relationships of not just this board but of every board appointed since the Government took office, it is clear it has looked after its supporters. To be a member not only of a board but of the Bench, a person must be associated with one of the Government parties. A person was appointed to this board last April on whom my naturally charitable disposition prevents me from expounding but it was totally inappropriate.
You should ensure your remarks are relevant to the Bill.
I advise Deputy Shatter not to draw me too far down that road.