Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

The language used in amendment No. 76 is very definitive. It requires a "meaningful engagement with all persons with disabilities in the State". That is an incredibly broad and onerous obligation to put on IHREC in legislation. It is not generalised; it refers to all persons with disability in the State. IHREC could do a detailed consultation and miss out on engaging with one person. I am not being hyperbolic; this is a possibility based on the language used here. We are not in a position to accept language of such a broad nature.

On amendment No. 78, the definition in the Disability Act 2005 is broadly consistent with a social model conception of disability. It is important that the legal definitions within the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 are consistent with other definitions contained within primary law. As Senators will be aware, there are important provisions on disability contained within the Equal Status Acts and the Equality Employment Acts and any definition needs to be aligned with them. The meaning that is assigned to "disability" within the 2005 Act is well established, widely known and widely used. While I accept the intention behind this amendment, the term provided in it is not suitable and will not align with other terms used throughout legislation. For this reason, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

On amendment No. 77, if the Senator is prepared to withdraw this amendment, I will consider the issue of changing the membership requirement from 50% to two thirds. I want to look at the language around that but we can consider the matter.