I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after " 'four members appointed by the Government' ".
It is important that Members are aware of what is happening.
There is a proposal to change terms of reference for this committee that the Dáil already agreed to, and people should examine that. In my opinion, there is no necessity or justification to introduce what is an effective ban on having a substitute on the committee. That kind of decision is normally reserved for the likes of the banking inquiry or the Committee of Public Accounts, where findings can be made against individuals or institutions with potential legal ramifications. That is why the idea of not having any substitute and that a member must be there at all times was introduced.
If this is introduced, it will discriminate against smaller parties which only have one nominee, which means five or six different groups. It means that should anything happen to that one nominee, there cannot be any substitute at all, for example in the case of a single parent or someone having any family emergency or illness. This arose for me, for example. I do not go into personal issues in the Dáil, but I was on the Committee on Housing and Homelessness last year and my husband was seriously ill, which led to him requiring a kidney transplant. I had to get a substitute to go to a very few sessions, because I wanted to be on that committee. What if something like this arises again?
Members should consider that there are democratic issues here where small parties and groups which only have one nominee will not have the right to be replaced should such circumstances arise. There is also the question of new politics. It is now a reality, whether people in the big parties like it or not. It is a reality that groups are sharing speaking time and so on. It has been accepted by the Dáil reform committee that this would be the case. If two groups are sharing time, so what? As long as they give a commitment that they will listen, that they will co-operate and there is a method and structure there, is there an issue?
It also hits at pro-repeal and pro-choice smaller groups. They are the only ones that agree with the Citizens Assembly proposals, which is ironic, since the purpose here is to discuss the work of the assembly. There are a number of women in particular - gender does not seem to be a consideration on this committee although it should be - who have played a role in the pro-repeal and pro-choice movement who want to give each other a chance to have an input into it. What was being proposed was discussed in the Seanad, where the Civil Engagement group has an issue with this as well. It had a meeting yesterday and proposed that one should be allowed to have a single named substitute, although one cannot have three or four different people going in, which has happened at previous committees. I believe that is fair, and I therefore ask people not to change the rule, but to implement something like that as a code of practice.
