Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It might be me or God knows who will be there. I am just trying to tie down the incoming legislation by making it as broad as possible at the early stage. That was the essence of listing all those bodies. As the Minister knows, many of them are public bodies, including regulators. There is no commercial issue involved in any of those.

I wish to clarify a point. I spoke about an organisation that had been in contact with members of the committee. Since Committee Stage we received e-mails from the Convenience Stores & Newsagents Association, CSNA, asking about the volunteer issue, storeowners and whatever. I might have mentioned some other organisation. I want to make clear that is the particular organisation. I thank its representatives for the trouble they went to - I think they sent e-mails the morning after Committee Stage was held.

I am delighted to note that somebody out there was watching it - I was also impressed by that aspect of it. I know the Oireachtas proceedings are carried on television to quite an extent, but the Committee Stage can get utterly lost down in the committee rooms. It is heartening to note that people who have an interest were watching closely and were able to follow the minutiae. Other organisations also contacted us and that is appreciated. At least people were aware of what we were discussing.

Amendment No. 4 refers to "a consultant employed to carry out work for or on behalf of a public body". I mentioned Goldman Sachs, which is just this week's example. There will be other examples next week and NAMA or some other body will appoint people to do something the following week. The Minister said the inclusion of the word "consultant" was too broad. A consultant could be brought into some public body just to do a bit of word processing - it could be as small as that. It could be also a massive situation. I accept the word "consultant" is broad. What one person might call a consultant the next person might call a contractor or a subcontractor - I understand that. However, I think the Minister understands the essence of what I was saying.

I know the Minister has said they could be brought in under the annual review under section 6. Section 6 is probably the section that will be of most interest to people. This relates to the bodies that can be brought in at a later date. Section 6(g) refers to "any other prescribed office holders or description of persons." They can be included by the Minister in due course after the annual review. It could include people who are carrying out designated work on behalf of a public body.

The Minister will share my concern that this leaves it quite open. I know he wants to get it on the Statute Book. However, in his effort to get a simple workable piece of legislation on the Statute Book, there is a compromise between simple and workable, and broad ranging and perhaps bureaucratic. I am concerned that he has not achieved the appropriate balance. The Minister is resisting entirely anything he feels is broadening it. I had hoped he would have been a little more open-minded on those issues.

On amendment No. 58, I just mentioned an organisation that referred to the issue of volunteers. I accept what the Deputies alongside are saying. Is it not good that all Opposition Members are not ad idemon everything because it would be a boring old place if there were only two points of view - those of the Government and those of the-----

See this speech in context