Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I am glad the Minister will examine this again. The formula used in amendment No. 3 was trying to follow the Minister's wording in section 10(4)(a). That is why I used the wording, "in the opinion of the Minister, [these people would be] representatives of the interests of consumers". I believed this gave the desired degree of flexibility in this regard. I accept there may be all sorts who may claim to represent the interests of consumers, so there must be some criteria for judging whether they do.

Another formula would be to use the model of section 10(5) which affords the Minister positive guidance in making board appointments. Given the large political focus on alleged cronyism in appointments to State boards, it is good to see provisions in this legislation that give parameters and guidance to Ministers in making such appointments. It is important to see gender balance being one of these considerations. The Minister may consider an alternative approach to amendment No. 3, along the lines of section 10(5), which would read: "The Minister shall, in so far as is practicable and having regard to the knowledge or experience of matters relevant to the functions of the authority of the persons concerned, ensure an appropriate representation of those representatives of the interests of consumers upon the authority." This might be a less prescriptive way of ensuring consumer interests are adequately represented on the authority, given it is prescriptive about representatives of persons who provide property services. Perhaps the Minister will take on board my alternative wording when the Bill goes to the other House.