Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, to delete lines 45 to 53 and in page 5, to delete lines 1 to 11 and substitute the following:

6.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), every order made under Part VIII immediately before the passing of this Act is hereby confirmed save to the extent that such order has been revoked prior to that date.

(2) The following orders are revoked:

(a) the INTELSAT (Designation of Organisation and Immunities of Organisation and its Officers and Employees) Order 1972 (S.I. No. 39 of 1972) (amended by INTELSAT (Designation of Organisation and Immunities of Organisation and its Officers and Employees) (Amendment) Order 1993 (S.I. No. 191 of 1993));

(b) the European Telecommunications Satellite Organisation (Eutelsat) (Designation and Immunities) Order 1993 (S.I. No. 193 of 1993); and

(c) the European Radio Communications Office (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1994 (S.I. No. 186 of 1994).".

Of the three amendments that I tabled, this is the most significant. It provides certainty on a serious problem which arises in section 6. It is not proper to state that an order should have effect as if it were an Act for the simple reason that it is not an Act. This legislation is being brought because a Supreme Court decision pointed out a defect in the 1967 Act, yet we are saying that all Acts taken under that Act shall be constituted as if they were statutorily proper. What, for example, would happen if an order had been revoked?

The first paragraph of the explanatory memorandum states "est legislative practice requires that delegations of legislative power be limited by a clear statement of the principles and policies to be followed in the exercise of that power". However, reference should be made to constitutional requirement rather than best legislative practice.