Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 9, to delete lines 34 and 35.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I note the Minister of State has tabled 43 Report Stage amendments. He also introduced 44 amendments on Committee Stage. It is important that the Seanad has been of assistance to the Minister of State in progressing this Bill.

That is the spirit in which we conduct our business and I welcome the Minister of State in that light.

Amendment No. 2 addresses one of my key concerns with this Bill. Statutory instruments are crucial to this discussion, particularly SI No. 250 of 2010, which sets the industry on the wrong course. The statutory instrument should not have been used to limit numbers because it contravened four decisions by the courts on the right of persons to enter the taxi sector and the public's right to the services of such persons. I agree with the requirements that a statutory instrument or regulation should be published on the website when proposed and that representations should be considered. Section 3(3) states: "the Authority shall publish notice of their making and the regulations, rules or order or a description of them and reference to their statutory instrument numbers on its website." However, subsection (4) appears to undo that by stating: "The validity of any instruments made under this Act shall not be affected by any non-compliance with subsection (2)or (3)." In view of the importance of statutory instruments in this area, non-compliance certainly undermines their validity.

We have to debate these issues in Parliament. The section as it currently stands - I may have interpreted it wrong, and I welcome the Minister of State's judgment - appears to provide a get-out-of-jail-free clause for somebody who makes a mistake in drafting a statutory instrument. He can say, "That is okay, because anything I do here is not affected by non-compliance." I acknowledge the Minister of State's interest in the deliberations of this House, but it is a strange request to make of us - to say that if someone makes a mistake or errs in some way, it does not matter. All that was required under preceding subsections was that the proposed statutory instrument be published on the website with 21 days' notice, that representations be considered and that the regulations be made with or without modification. Why would anybody need to resile from such a commitment? I do not mean this in a partisan way, but the open government to which we all subscribe seems to be set at naught by this provision. Let us ensure our statutory instruments are subject to scrutiny, particularly given their importance in this area and the impact of the decisions made in SI No. 250 of 2010. We must be sure they are properly drafted.

This get-out clause is wrong and I am putting this forward for the Minister of State to respond to it.