Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 10, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:“(2) Every direction (other than an order under section 1(3)) made under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the order.”.

Tá plé déanta againn ar an stiúir gur féidir leis an Aire a thabhairt go dtí an eagraíocht, agus a chaithfidh an eagraíocht a chomhlíonadh. Tá mé ag moladh go mbeadh sé riachtanach achan stiúr atá tugtha ón Aire a leagadh os comhair Tithe an Oireachtais. Ba cheart go mbeadh deis ag Tithe an Oireachtais deireadh a chur leis an stiúir sin trí rún a ghlacadh taobh istigh de 21 lá, ach gan aon rud a bhí déanta taobh istigh den 21 lá sin a bheith curtha ar ceal. Tuigim agus mé ag léamh an leasú arís go bhfuil cuid de na focail ann mícheart. Sílim go raibh plé fada againn ar an ábhar seo ar Chéim an Choiste agus go dtuigeann an tAire an méid atá ráite agam. Tá cúpla tagairt do "ordú" in áit "stiúir". Is é an rud atá i gceist anseo ná go mbeimid ag déileáil leis an stiúir atá tugtha ón Aire.

Much of this has come from Committee Stage proceedings. The concern is that directions issued by the Minister of the day will not be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and could not be annulled by a resolution of the Houses within 21 days. A concern raised by the Minister of State on Committee Stage was that this amendment could prejudice the validity of anything arising within the 21 day period. While there is a mistake in the wording, what we have done conceptually to address that concern is to provide that anything which has taken place in relation to a direction would not be invalidated by a resolution of the Houses where it occurred within the period prior to the resolution being made. It is very important given the other sections in Act.

The Minister of State said that a direction by a Minister is not as important as an order. An order under section 4 must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and could be annulled but it is stated that a direction does not carry the same weight. I point out to the Minister of State section 19(5) of the Bill, which allows the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to give a direction with the consent of the Minister to the agency as to the performance of its function under the section and requires that the agency shall comply with any such directions. There are numerous references to directions within the Act. This one is more severe than others as it also provides that the agency shall comply with any such direction. It refers to directions under section 19, which are directions whereby the Minister can direct the agency to sell off some of its assets. Section 19(3) deals, for example, with the acquisition or disposal of any interest or asset of the designated body. This is where the potential privatisation of a State asset comes into question. Where that happens, it will not be by way of an order but of a direction of the Minister.

When we look at the definition and rules governing directions, we see no requirement to lay them before the Houses of the Oireachtas, nor do we see a provision that the Houses can annul them within the next 21 days of sitting. That is what our amendment seeks to do. I do not understand why this provision would not be accepted by Government. The Minister has said that the Government has a majority in the Houses of the Oireachtas and that this is just run-of-the-mill stuff. Why do we allow for an order in that case? If an order must be subject to the safety net of being laid before the Houses and to a power to annul, why is the same safety net not provided for in respect of a direction, particularly given the significance of the directions that can be given under section 19(5) of the Bill?

See this speech in context