Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 10, line 33, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

The Bill contains no minimum training standard or protection for the designation of mediator. I proposed amendments relating to minimum training standards on Committee Stage and I note that Deputy Madigan is proposing the insertion of a reference to minimum training for mediators in amendment No. 22. After discussions with Department of Justice and Equality officials since Committee Stage, I understand there is a worry certain difficulties might arise in terms of possible judicial reviews based on such amendments, particularly with regard to those who are already practising as mediators but who might not meet the minimum training standards in the code or codes of practice published or approved by the Minister. Although I have not brought forward my amendments on Committee Stage relating to minimum training standards to Report Stage, I still believe the lack of provision for this in the Bill is unfortunate. However, without a reference to such minimum training standards at least a provision for continuing professional development training requirements for mediators in section 9(2)(a) should be an essential part of any code of practice, hence my proposal to change "may" to "shall" in line 33.

The Bill as it stands will allow those who undertake significant ongoing continuing education to be equated with those who do not refresh and update their mediation skills and education. Indeed, there are many good provisions listed already in the Bill and they should all be essential requirements for a code of practice. The insertion of "but is not limited to" is intended to allow for the inclusion of other or extra provisions in any code of practice beyond the essential provisions listed in section 9(2)(a) to section 9(2)(g). This is necessary if we amend "may" to "shall", as proposed in amendment No. 19. The proposed deletion of "any of" is intended to make all of these provisions mandatory or essential requirements of the code of practice. 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 provisions in the code are non-binding as the Bill stands. The change from "may" to "shall" and the deletion of "any of", therefore, would be a change from optional to mandatory provisions for the code of practice. These provisions should be mandatory.

Amendment No. 23 is necessary if we accept amendments Nos. 19 to 21, inclusive. The provision for inclusion in the code of practice, as it is, states "(c) procedures to be followed by mediators in the conduct of a mediation requiring consultation, by a mediator, with a child;". Clearly, this provision will not always be relevant, hence the need to insert "where relevant" if we make the provision in section 9 mandatory, as I believe we should.

See this speech in context