Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This is like the legislative equivalent of unauthorised development. We have a provision, which allows that the Minister can modify any provision of the Act. It means that without due process through the Oireachtas, the provision of the Act can be modified by him or her within three years. We are told that is okay and not to worry, because they will then retrospectively look for retention of that change through regularising the amending legislation. By that stage it will be too late. What happens if the provisions of this subsection are used, a provision of the Act is altered, and then at some later point undefined amending legislation is brought before the Oireachtas and the Oireachtas rejects that legislation? That would be a bizarre position. I am reassured that the Minister of State has mentioned the provision was never used in the previous Act. However, I have to ask myself: if it was never used in the last Act, why have it in this one? Everything that is needed is in sections 4(1) to 4(5), inclusive. This makes no sense at all. One of our concerns is that this is not just any legislation. This is hugely important. complex, and potentially litigious legislation impacting on all aspects of public, semi-State and private development. I see no reason this should be there.

On the one hand, the Minister of State is making the case for not having it there because it was never used the last time, so it will never get used and we should not worry. However, at the same time, he is telling us that the Minister will still be allowed have the power to modify a provision of the Act by way of regulation and subsequently come to the Oireachtas to look for that to be regularised by way of amending legislation. Why not just introduce the amending legislation in the first place, which is what really should happen? I am not encouraging the Minister of State to ram through non-consequential amendments in tens of pages at the end of a Dáil session, but that is typically what government does when it wants to change other legislation. Why not just bring forward the amending legislation? Why have this deeply undemocratic and problematic procedure of allowing amendment of primary legislation by way of regulation? That is something, until I had properly read this Bill, which I did not fully appreciate. On that basis, we will press the amendment.