Dr. Roderick O'Gorman:

I will look at a number of current pieces of legislation that set targets as a legislative practice. A number of people have referenced the Fiscal Responsibility Act and there are also targets for achieving the debt and budgetary rules. We see this as a target because there is a contingency or provision that if these targets are not met, there is a correction mechanism. For example, the recently introduced gender quotas include a target set out in legislation, that is, 30% in the next general election and 40% subsequently. If the Government had wanted to, it could have stated parties must, compulsorily, have figures of 30% and 40%, but it went for a target and consequence approach instead. The consequence is a loss of funding if the target is not met.

Most usefully, section 47 of the Disability Act 2005 sets a target for public bodies to employ people with disabilities at a rate of 3%. That legislation was included in the Statute Book in 2005 and there have been annual reports on the moves made to achieve that target. It was only in 2011 - six years after the legislation was enacted - that it was finally achieved. The failure to achieve it did not result in the Government facing litigation during that time. However, the annual report showed that it was not just a case of ensuring people with disabilities were employed in public bodies; there was a goal to work towards and it has been achieved. I hope it will be achieved continuously. That indicates that there is no presumption against the use of targets in legislation in an Irish context.