Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have a problem. None of these issues is mentioned in the screening regulatory impact assessment of the Bill. This completely inadequate document was published approximately six weeks after the Bill was published. It does not attempt to analyse in any way why the Minister wishes to be at odds with four High Court decisions, documents published by the previous regulator in this sector and with the Goodbody report. Can we have a proper regulatory impact assessment, rather than this highly inadequate document of two and a half pages which was published after a delay? I am running up against obstacles all the time and I am not sure the Department has worked through the implications of this measure. It seems to be throwing out things in an ad hoc manner. We should have protested at the time because the regulatory impact assessment was totally inadequate. One cannot include things in the Bill that are not included in the assessment. No mention has been made of the case for this provision. We are relying on the Minister of State's good faith, which I share. Has any thought being put into some of these provisions? Why is the Department so at odds with four decisions, the Goodbody report and the work of Kathleen Doyle when she was the regulator? It is not enough to say, "We decided to do it, so we did it." The Minister of State must agree that the regulatory impact assessment of the Bill is entirely inadequate. If we could have a new assessment in advance of Report Stage, that might soften my attitude towards the introduction of provisions which do not appear to have any economic rationale.