Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

As the Minister of State said, these amendments concern the issue of fairness and ensuring there is appropriate participation. I will go briefly through some of the categories of these amendments.

Amendment No. 22 concerns the fairness of procedure and the provision of wide access. She has recognised that this should be one of the principles. This emerges from the context, as do several of the amendments to this section, and certainly those on which I am leading, of the very real concern regarding the category of relevant persons, of which she will be aware.

I commend her on one positive step contained within the Bill. I refer to categories and exclusions and the narrow definition that had initially been proposed in the original draft heads regarding who might be persons, categories of persons or entities able to take appeals. The proposed narrowing of that definition was one of the issues of primary concern. That was a direct obstacle in the context of the question of who was eligible. Indirect obstacles that we have discussed still remain, however, such as concerns regarding time and costs, an issue I will return to later.

The most direct concern, however, would have been the category of relevant person and I am glad that the Minister of State has excluded it from the legislation. I note, however, that there is provision in the Bill whereby the FAC may set its own rules as to the conduct of appeals, at a certain point. There is also provision whereby the Minister of State may set direction. My amendments, especially Nos. 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31, all concern the question of ensuring that any rules or directions, given either by the committee or by the Minister of State, shall "not set limits to the rights of all persons or categories of persons to make an appeal nor create obstacles to the vindication of those rights".

While the inclusion of narrow categorisation has been excluded from the Bill, I am still hearing concerns expressed by citizens and organisations, who had initially been alarmed by the proposed narrow categorisation of relevant person, regarding a fear of the remaining openness in the setting of rules and directives. I refer to the possibility that in the future the Minister could, through a direction, narrow or exclude a category of persons from making an appeal. Similarly, there is the same fear that the FAC, in setting its own rules, could do so in a way that would effectively exclude a category of persons.

My amendments are worded in several different ways. I recognise, for example, that the Minister of State may need to insert a proviso in the legislation, for example, specifying that reference is being made to a person resident, or normally resident, on the island of Ireland. Such provisions are normally contained in legislation. I wonder, however, if she can give us assurances, or explain how we could be assured, that not just the current Minister of State but also any future holder of her office will set a direction excluding a category of persons from accessing appeals under the FAC mechanism, and, equally, that the committee will also not be mandated in its rules to be able exclude any category of persons from making an appeal.Those are two of the key issues. The others relate to trying to embed a principle of access to participation as a positive objective. I in other words, that wide access would be a goal of the work rather than an unfortunate consequence.

I am looking at my notes because this is quite a large grouping and we only received the list of groupings moments before the debate began. I am looking at amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 29. Amendment No. 29 relates to that same principle of ensuring fairness of procedures and providing wide access to the review mechanism. Will the Minister comment on the principle of fairness and wide access and on how we can be assured, and assure others, that there is no danger of categories of person being excluded through an indirect mechanism?