Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Like the previous speaker, I have concerns about this Part of the Bill. I do not know if his concerns extend to the whole Part but mine certainly do. As I previously stated, not only have I concern with the content of it, I also have a major concern with the process by which it was passed. As Deputy Ó Murchú pointed out, where the power is given to the Minister to proscribe a certain so-called high-risk vendor, it means any communications network will have to take it out of its network. That will involve a cost, of course. It was previously determined to be absolutely lawful and then suddenly it has become unlawful. Arguably they will incur a cost, almost certainly they will, and it will have to be borne by somebody. In Ireland it is usually the taxpayers who bear the cost, whether it is defective apartments, defective concrete blocks or using materials from a high-risk vendor. Somebody is going to carry the can and it is invariably going to be the taxpayer.

I had a look at this issue of money messages. The purpose of a Bill has to be recommended to the House before it goes to Committee Stage. If the purpose changes, and of course it was completely changed by Part 3, then it follows that a new money message is required. Be that as it may, the Acting Chair has ruled on it. It does seem to me to be problematic. The problem flows not from the Acting Chair's determination but the manner in which the Minister chose to implement this. Amendments were brought to committee the night before it was to hear them. It was not possible to put down amendments to those amendments or even to properly scrutinise them.

There was no revised explanatory memorandum. To this day there is no explanatory memorandum. There is a standing order to the effect that the Chair can require an explanatory memorandum to be provided. That can be done at any stage. There is an explanatory memorandum for the Bill but it did not include this. I suppose somebody decided not to bother our little minds in the House with this as it is high-level geopolitics. They decided to deal with it in that manner rather than have it debated here in the House. There is no explanatory memorandum. Does the Acting Chair wish to have an explanatory memorandum so that the House can fully understand what it is voting for? It is important that the House knows what it is voting for; it is the essence of a democracy. It is why we have this Chamber and why people are elected to it.

See this speech in context