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

I will not repeat the points that Deputies O'Callaghan and Boyd Barrett have made, although I strongly support them. I want to go back to the other element of our amendment, which is the weaker language in section 22(1). With the greatest of respect, the Minister of State's response to me confused the issue. In the part of section 21 that deals with the documents that come back from the public consultation, it states “the Government shall have regard to any observations made on foot of the consultations under subsection (2)”. That is not just with statutory bodies but also with members of the public and anybody else. In fact, the use of the stronger language in subsection (4) is not just for statutory bodies and it does not even mention prescribed bodies. We had a row with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, yesterday because he would not include prescribed bodies in that section. That also includes observations from members of the public, as it should do, by the way, and includes observations from industry and wherever else.

What I do not understand, and what the Minister of State has not yet explained, is why there is a weaker formulation of language with respect to plans and documents, which I presume means Government plans and Government documents, as set out in section 22(1), where the Government only “may have regard" to them. The Office of the Attorney General and the Minister’s officials carefully choose their language in the sections, so in addition to responding to my colleagues’ questions in regard to the need for a more explicit form of consultation with the Oireachtas committees, I am looking for an explicit explanation as to why weaker language is used in section 22(1), which states “may have regard to”, as compared to section 21(4), which states “shall have regard to”. There is an explicit reason that that language has been chosen and I would like to understand it.