Feargal Quinn (Independent)

On amendments Nos. 36 and 65, I would have preferred to have noticed an aspect previously and it is probably too late to insert an amended wording now, but I would like the Minister of State to clarify or even further amend the section, if possible. I refer to page 13, subsection (2), line 43. Would it possible for the Minister of State to add to the text the words "something which cannot be justified on objective grounds"? I would appreciate if he could give some consideration to that. It is probably too late to amend the text now, but I would like to think he could do so.

On amendment No. 65, I would like to clarify the text and to think that it could be amended, although it is probably too late to do so. I think there is a faux pas. I would like to add to subsection 1(1) the words "Such a complaint may be referred to a rights commissioner only after recourse to the internal dispute resolution procedure, if any, usually used by the parties concerned has failed to resolve the complaint". I am concerned that any person could go to a rights commissioner without even checking what is the internal procedure. I would like the Minister of State to give some thought to this proposed amendment to amendment No. 65. It would strengthen the Bill. I did not notice the need for it earlier. Problems could arise if an internal procedure is in place and someone was to ignore it and go straight to a rights commissioner. I believe it would be better to have that provision stitched into the Bill, in some form or other, and the wording I suggest is that "such a complaint can only be referred to a rights commissioner, only after recourse to the internal dispute resolution procedures, usually used by the parties concerned, have failed to resolve the complaint". This would strengthen the Bill. I know it is too late to do that now, but I believe it is a mistake to leave it out.