David Norris (Independent)

I support this valuable and practical amendment. Senator O'Toole tabled a similar amendment with a time requirement in respect of other legislation and it was accepted. In this debate the Minister of State has relied extensively on a promissory note to the effect that this will be dealt with in the regulations. In return for that, it is fair enough that we are given a timeline. We cannot have an indefinite situation where we are waiting for these regulations to be made. All too easily it could turn into a continuous deferral of matters that are very substantial to the Bill. The Minister has relied extensively on postponing directly addressing certain issues until his regulations come into effect. For that reason, it is incumbent on the Minister to give a target date by which this work must be done. It must not be long-fingered, and the Minister would not wish it to be, but this would provide that degree of impetus.

We are all human. One of the achievements of which I am proudest is that for three and a half years I contributed a page every Thursday to a tabloid evening newspaper, the Evening Herald. I like to think I raised its tone somewhat. I tend to postpone things. I am, by nature, what Sean O'Casey would call a "prognosticator". I am proud that I met the deadline every week for three and a half years. I would have put things off, but the deadline was a help and an incentive. In light of those various factors I would like the Minister to seriously consider this matter. If, upon advice, he finds six months are too short he can return with his own timeline. We must know when this material will come into operation, since the Minister has relied on the regulation provisions so extensively.