Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will stick to amendment No. 36 for the moment and come back to amendment No. 37 afterwards. First, just because something has been done in the past does not mean it should be done in the future. A Green Minister of State should know that better than most people. In addition, the Minister of State has not explained what the function of the word is. I would have thought "necessary", which is the word that precedes it, is the only word we need. Surely we would not want regulations that are unnecessary, that are unrequired. If something is necessary, then we do it. What does "expedient" allow the Minister to do? What kind of regulation would be expedient, but not necessary? I just do not understand. Legislation is all about the established meaning of words. Given the fact the definition of this word is broader than the original drafters of the 2000 Act may have understood at the time, it is quite concerning. In rejecting the amendment, the Minister of State is not telling us why that word needs to be there at all. My worry of course is that by leaving it there, we open the door to regulations that are not necessary at all but that someone thinks are politically expedient. That would be a very bad thing indeed.