Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I support Senator Donohoe's concerns about this amendment. If the Minister's desire is to limit the numbers of persons who are representatives of property services then the wording of the amendment should be, "not more than three" rather than to say, "Of the members of the Authority ... 3 shall be persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, are representatives of persons who provide property services". My suggestion would make it an appropriate amendment. Otherwise, in the terms as currently drafted, the amendment would not limit the numbers of persons who would be representatives of the property service providers. Indeed, of the 11, once three are such representatives, one could have any number more than the three, other than the one who would be an officer of the Minister. One could, in fact, have ten representing property services providers. I agree with Senator Donohoe that it sends out entirely the wrong signal to have no reference to the need to have at least a certain number of persons who represent the consumer. The Minister has said that in appointing persons he should have regard to the desirability of their having knowledge or experience in consumer affairs but that is not requiring him to appoint somebody or some number of persons who have experience in representing or protecting the consumer, and at the very least the number should be at least three. I ask the Minister to insert the words "not more than three" which would at least make clear his desire to limit the numbers of persons out of the 11 who would be representatives of property service providers.