Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As Senator Higgins quite rightly says, the amendment operates on section 11, in particular section 11(1)(b) allowing for certain remuneration, if any, and allowances for expenses, if any, as determined to be paid to certain members of the commission. The amendment seeks to insert into the subsection a particular category of expenses, namely, expenses for training appropriate to the functions of the commission.

I have listened to the debate and I fully understand where Senator Higgins is coming from. I said earlier in response to a question from Senator Clifford-Lee that of course there should be training available to members of the commission and everybody involved in the process, whether that training is done individually or as a group. I acknowledge that they will have to become familiar fairly quickly, and I use the words "fairly quickly" advisably in response to the point raised by Senator McDowell in so far as when this commission will be established and be engaging in the work that is designed for it. Individual or group training will be necessary to ensure that the responsibilities, duties and obligations under the new Act, including on good selection processes, are clearly understood.

I am not sure, however, if it is necessary to stipulate training in the Bill in this way. First, the provisions of section 10, which stipulate that the commission is independent in the performance of its functions and that the commission should have all such powers that are necessary or expedient for the performance of its functions, are more than sufficient for the commission to spend necessary resources for the training of its members, either individually or as a group. This will be the case with any new organisation seeking to start up and be in compliance with governing legislation in terms of the new board and the governing authority. The commission will have the necessary resources and it will be empowered to utilise these resources as necessary in such areas. I expect that one of the first things it will do is assess what assistance and training is needed to provide for members of the commission so they can do the job properly.

Apart from the fact that I think it is covered in the legislation anyway, I have a second reservation about the amendment that by expressing the training issue in the manner in which Senator Higgins does, it seems to provide that necessary training would not necessarily be procured by the commission for its members but that the commission would set aside a sum of money which would be payable by way of expenses to members to defray the cost of their own training. I am not sure if that is the most efficient way of bringing about what I would agree with the Senator is the desired result here, namely, that there would be assistance available, and it would be expected that such assistance would be in the form of training.

I say to the Senator, going back to what she said about not wishing to divide the House in terms of whether we take amendments Nos. 26 and 29 together, that the expenses and the remuneration in section 11(1)(b) do not apply to the Judiciary or the Attorney General if section 11(2) is looked at. What I will do, if Senator Higgins accepts, is to have a look at it between now and Report Stage. I concede the principle to be important and laudable, but I am not sure about giving the provision of expenses in the form of money to members and sending them off to get their own training. I am not equating this in any way with the experience at local authority level, and while I do not disagree with the principle, let me see if we can agree a form of wording for Report Stage. I would be reluctant to see the House divided on it. I ask Members to accept my bona fides in that regard.