Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 10, subsection (1), lines 26 to 32, to delete all words from and including "or for securing" in line 26 down to and including "operation" in line 32.

On Second Stage I mentioned the issue of delegated legislation. The Minister has said, regarding the amendment proposed by Senator Bacik for section 4, that he has concerns about overuse of delegated legislation. The same issue applies here. While the Minister should be able to introduce regulations to implement details of this legislation because the principles have been set out, I am concerned about this provision and the precedent that any such regulations might modify any provision of this part of the Bill which continues: "in so far as may be necessary or expedient". That provision might be in many Bills. It means the Minister can amend the primary legislation.

When we implement and transpose EU directives, we are able to do so by regulation because of their volume. However, when the legislation is of this type, it is unwise to have this type of provision whereby regulations or statutory instruments can amend primary legislation. This is a bad precedent if only for the sake of having transparency and clarity in the legislation.

When I raised this matter on Second Stage there was a response to the effect that there had been a precedent in another Act. I suggest that this precedent may have been unfortunate and should not be followed here. I ask the Minister to consider this amendment which I do not believe can be classified as merely a technical amendment. It is the principle that concerns me, however, namely, that we would be able to change primary legislation by a statutory instrument.

The matter is referred to in the Oireachtas Library and Research Service Bills digest in respect of the Fines Bill. Reference is made to the Supreme Court case, Cooke v. Walsh. There are other precedents in regard to this matter but specific reference was made in the Library research to the effect that this is something that has been frowned upon by the Supreme Court.

I ask the Minister to consider my amendment. It does not contradict another amendment tabled by Senator Bacik in which the Minister is asked to make regulations to provide for a centralised system of data collection and retention on sentences. That is a most worthwhile and important proposal but such a proposal does not amend the Act. It is on the principle of having clarity in the law and because of an unwelcome precedent that I put the amendment to the Minister.