Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 12, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:"(3) Section 232 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting the following subsection after subsection (3):

"(4) The Minister shall provide a copy of any regulation or variation to a regulation that she proposes to make under this section to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education and Social Protection and the Committee shall, having considered the proposal or proposals, report back to the Minister before any such regulation or variation to a regulation may commence.".".

This deals with a section which, in the main, is a positive one.

It refers to the meaning of "family" in the context of the family income supplement. It changes the definition of "family" for the purpose of the family income supplement to allow for a person whose child is not normally a member of the household to be entitled to FIS. The change the Minister has proposed would mean that a person must be wholly or substantially maintaining a spouse or civil partner also. The Minister will define in regulation what normally residing in the household means. I do not have a problem with the proposal per sebut often the problem with regulations made in the House is that we see them after the Minister has made them. The proposal in the amendment is that a copy of the regulation or any future variation thereof would come before the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection for consideration of the matter before reporting back to the Minister. That could be done in much the same way as we now have a pre-legislative stage of a Bill. It would allow for views other than those of the Minister and the Department to be gained on various issues. That would be a useful exercise for Ministers in general to consider. In many ways committees give their imprimaturas well as the Minister. In some cases certain aspects of the practical application of regulations could be missed by those who compiled them and they could be highlighted by Members of both Houses from a variety of backgrounds who are more aware of the situation in practice. That is the intent of the amendment.

The Free Legal Advice Centres, in particular the Northside Community Law Centre, made a submission on 6 June very soon after the publication of the Bill and raised questions about the wording “wholly or mainly”. We do not have the amendments before us and some of our amendments were ruled out of order but perhaps some of what they intend to be captured might be addressed in the regulations because it relates to the definition of family. The intention is to have as broad a definition as possible to ensure nobody who should be entitled to FIS is prevented from getting it. If the amendment is accepted, we could have a discussion in the joint committee to see whether the definition of family is appropriate.

See this speech in context