Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

Historically, Ministers are reluctant to name organisations in legislation wherever there is a relevance that they should be so included. I was somewhat surprised that two organisations are named in this regard. Looking back, the responses of Ministers have shown a reluctance to name such organisations and inherent in that response is the possibility that they might leave out some body. Moreover, it gives some wriggle room if bodies are not named.

I approach my question in the context of Senator O'Toole's point that he would not have tabled the amendment had it referred only to "interested parties". Why was it that the draftsman and the Minister's departmental experts did not stop short and simply state "interested parties" or "interested persons", which covers a multitude? One can argue until the cows come home, Uncle Tom Cobley and all, that there could be 50,000 organisations among those that have been named under the generic term of "interested parties". I am curious to know why it was decided that just these two organisations would be mentioned and why the Minister did not stop short and decide not to name any organisation.