David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 14, to delete lines 8 to 16.

With the indulgence of the House, I will read out the paragraph I propose to have deleted before analysing the reasons I am so very much against it. The paragraph reads as follows:

If, in any respect, any difficulty arises in bringing any provision of this Act into operation or in relation to the operation of any such provision, the Minister may, by regulations, do anything which appears to him or her to be necessary or expedient for removing that difficulty, for bringing that provision into operation or for securing or facilitating its operation, and any such regulations may modify any provision of this Act so far as may be necessary or expedient for carrying such provision into effect for the purposes aforesaid, but no regulations shall be made under this section in relation to any provision of this Act after the expiration of 3 years commencing on the day on which the provision comes into operation.

This provision gives swingeing powers to the Government. These types of provisions are emerging as a frequent phenomenon in legislation. I object to them because they concentrate excessive power in the hands of Ministers. The first part of the paragraph refers to the removal of difficulties.

I do not think it is a particularly good idea to remove difficulties. One does not just bulldoze one's way through them and flatten them out. The best practice is to examine them, see why they exist, address the situation and cure the difficulty. There is a little too much of the Denning judgment - the appalling vista - that we must sweep things under the carpet. This seems to me to give the Minister or any Minister - it is not particular to the current, Minister, Deputy Hogan - a very big sweeping brush for shoving things under the carpet if he or she wishes. I would prefer the difficulties to be confronted and addressed rather than removed. The language is sinister, although it is becoming standard. I want to fight against the fact that this kind of language is becoming standard.

Turning to the phrase "Also necessary or expedient", in politics, expediency has an unsavoury ring to it. Expedient could mean that it is in the interests not particularly of the people but of the parties in government. That is expedient. I do not like that word either and it occurs no less than twice.

The paragraph ends by saying that no regulations will be made after three years but by that stage it will be done and dusted so that is no huge concession. Section 3 states that where regulations are proposed to be made under this section, a draft regulation should be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulation shall not be made until a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each House. My first concern is this needs careful management because sometimes these kinds of regulations slither through on the nod. People have to be watchful or this can happen. I would be concerned that not enough attention would be paid to the fact that these things, which could have some requirement to be teased out in the House, would go through on the nod. I hope that will not happen. The Seanad has been recharged and revitalised by its recent endorsement by the people but at the same time I would be concerned.

On another point, this is still a very whipped House. In Senator Hayden and Senator Coghlan, the Government has the Mr. and Ms Whippy of this Chamber, because they are extraordinarily good at it. There is no suggestion whatever that accidents are likely to happen. We had a classic example last night when we almost got a Bill to stalemate, at least, but the Whip on the other side was very good - that is their job and they do it. I hope that the reforms of this House will mean that it resumes its role which has been, for the majority of my tenure here, the situation that it is much less confrontational than the Dáil. This Chamber should not be a Chamber to be set in confrontation with the Dáil; it should be less whipped. We should have more expertise in it and we should be prepared to advise rather than confront the Government. This is all part of my reservation. To give such very swingeing powers on the grounds of needing to remove any difficulty instead of confronting it, the use of the term, "expediency" and the Whip together, make it clear to me that whatever answer is produced will give such power to the Minister. I am not impugning the character of this Minister nor am I saying he would be likely to give in to these venal party impulses. I have always found him to be a decent man. Anyone who is on the side of Laois must have a good heart. However, I do not like this in legislation at all and I want to register a protest against this kind of clause. I will be voting against it.