Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

It was in 1999.

I have a preference for doing what the Laurentiu ruling suggested we do, that is, set out specific guidelines and principles that to an extent direct and constrain, on a legislative basis, the manner in which the Minister might exercise his discretion. This is a very important issue and goes to the root of this legislation.

This is legislation produced in haste. Such legislation, no matter how well intended, has a horrible habit of bouncing back into this House and, on occasion, proving to be disastrous. What detailed consideration has been given to this aspect of the legislation? This is relevant to the amendment. What attention has the Office of the Attorney General given to the constitutionality of this legislation? Can we tell the House whether there is a likelihood, in the opinion of the Attorney General or the Government, that it may be challenged? If it is challenged, will the Minister have addressed the possible impact on our banking system of the interregnum between the challenge being launched and the outcome of a court case? Has the Minister considered the possibility of the legislation being referred by the President to the Supreme Court? If so, what are the implications of this? There is no point in our enacting the legislation and waking up on Friday morning to discover a meeting of the Council of State has been called to consider its constitutionality and that no one has prepared for this eventuality.

I am conscious of time and do not want to subject the House to a legal treatise but I have not contributed on this legislation thus far. There is a vast array of case law in this area. One particular case of relevance, O'Neill v. the Minister for Agriculture and Food, dates from 1998. Somewhat esoterically or exotically in the context of this Bill, it dealt with an entirely different area, namely, controlling the practice of artificial insemination of animals.

See this speech in context