Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I accept the point regarding amendment No. 12 and I bow to the cleaner version set out in amendment No. 14 in the name of Deputy Daly. I will therefore withdraw amendment No. 12. Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 24 and 27 are also in my name and they also pretty much overlap with what is provided for in Deputy Daly's amendments.

Amendment No. 21 seeks the substitution of the word "may" with "shall" in an effort to make the Bill more specific. The points listed for inclusion in the code of practice are good but there is too much scope to avoid what should be fundamental requirements for a code of practice. The change from "may" to "shall" is a change from optional to a mandatory provisions for the code of practice. I am of the view that these provisions should be mandatory.

On amendment No. 24, there should be a minimum requirement in terms of education and training for a person to be a mediator otherwise a situation is created whereby mediators who have completed a short course can be placed on the same level as already professionally qualified mediators with hundreds of hours of training. That might not be such a good idea. The Bill as it stands will allow those who undertake significant ongoing education to be equated with those who do not refresh and update their mediation skills and education. This should be avoided. There are people who go the extra mile to be better at their job.

There should be clarity and recognition that they are putting in the effort and trying to advance their ability in order to deal with complex situations. Therefore, I believe it is important.