I move amendment No. 10:

In page 17, line 9, to delete "one quarter" and substitute "one third".

A commitment was given to reconsider this amendment which seeks to increase the representation of travellers or their representatives on local committees. The Bill provides that the members of a local authority cannot exceed half of the membership of the committee and that the representatives of local travellers and traveller bodies should not be less than one quarter of the membership. This leaves a maximum of one quarter for local authority officials.

This committee composition is designed to achieve a fair working balance between the groups represented. The large representation of members is in view of the need to allow representation of different electoral divisions and urban districts within the functional area of the appointed authority. It should be noted, however, that as traveller representation should not be less than one quarter, there is scope for higher representation by travellers or traveller bodies. The existing provision is designed to allow maximum flexibility to authorities, particularly where travellers are not willing to participate in such a committee or where there are fewer travellers in the functional area of the authority.

May I take it, therefore, the Minister will not accept the amendment?

I will not accept the amendment.

The Minister's response is disappointing. This proposal stemmed from a submission from the Irish Traveller Movement which represents most of the traveller bodies. It believes that to achieve a proper balance on the committee at local level, traveller representation should be increased from one quarter to one third. Notwithstanding the arguments I made earlier about the extended composition of resident and community organisations on local committees, I encourage the Minister of State to reconsider this proposal. It is not good practice on Report Stage to refuse to accept amendments discussed on Committee Stage which strengthen the legislation. This is not a major change. Many of the groups who made submissions to us requested it. I urge the Minister of State to reconsider the matter.

(Dublin West): I urge the Minister of State to accept this amendment. For decades travelling people were ignored and were not consulted on their accommodation needs. Society as a whole, as well as the travelling people, paid a price for that. So-called solutions were foisted on the travelling people, which were neither suitable nor acceptable from many points of view. Therefore, strengthening the travelling people's position on consultative committees such as this is absolutely essential and will reap good rewards. The more representatives of the travelling community who are involved in drawing up their accommodation needs, designs and sites — and in overcoming the problems that unfortunately arise between them and settled people in some instances — the more it will be a real factor in overcoming those problems. With that in mind I support the amendment.

I apologise for having been delayed in returning to the House. I was attending another meeting. The composition of the local committees is a very important issue. On Committee Stage we had a debate on the relative strengths of the different component parts. It is quite clear that those people outlined in section 22(1)(c) as "representatives of local travellers and traveller bodies" should have a significant voice.

Since the Minister of State has not accepted the previous amendment from Deputy Hayes on a specific voice for resident groups, the three component groups will be local authorities, travellers' representatives and officials. It is important that the travellers or their representatives should not be intimidated by being in too much of a minority. One third of the overall membership is a much more acceptable proportion than one quarter. In terms of voice and representation it is a little bit more acceptable to be outnumbered two to one than three to one. I hope the Minister of State has had a chance to reflect upon that reasonable request from the traveller movement. I hope the Minister of State will accept the amendment in the spirit that I know he wishes to bring to the Bill.

To take up Deputy Howlin's point, it would be a pity if we were to see this as a two to one representation because that is not the purpose of the local consultative committee. Everybody, including public representatives, officials and travellers' representatives, is there to deal with this problem which, we all agree, has gone on for far too long.

Section 22 states that the number of "representatives of local travellers and traveller bodies. .. shall not be less than one quarter of the membership of the local consultative committee". There is no reason it cannot be higher.

We know it will not be, though.

That would be at the discretion of the local authority. It is important for a clear message to go out that this is not about a two to one representation. I hope all the representatives, whether they are public representatives, officials or travellers' representatives, will be there to try and deal with a problem that has gone on for too long. We are trying to deal with it now and I hope we can do so effectively.

I am sorry the Minister of State has not changed his view since Committee Stage. While he made a valid point in saying this matter should not be seen as "them and us", we are providing for representation. Section 22(1)(c) refers to "representatives of local travellers and traveller bodies". It is intended that they should be representative. I suggest that representative group should comprise at least one third of the overall, which is not an outlandish request.

On Committee Stage I asked if we were dealing with a group on women's rights, would it be necessary even to put an amendment that one third of the membership be women or their representatives? Would it be the case for any disadvantaged group? If we were talking about a group providing accommodation needs for people with a physical disability, would their representatives not have a significant proportion of the overall membership? It would not even be an issue, so why is it an issue in relation to the representatives of travellers?

I appeal to the Minister of State to think again about this matter and to accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is moved; to bring a balance to the consultative committees at local level so that, while we have a balance in terms of representation, the voices of those most directly affected by the legislation — the travellers — will be heard with significant force. That can only be done by having sufficient numbers.

It is not good enough to say there is a possibility the representation will be higher than the minimum allowed for. In reality we know that what is allowed for will become the norm. I hope I am not wasting my efforts on this matter and that the Minister of State is still open to accepting the arguments I am trying to put forward.

There is adequate provision in the section for dealing with this matter. There is flexibility in relation to an official representation at local level, if it is so desired.

Is the amendment being pressed?

Yes.