Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Quinn for raising this issue which relates to section 23 and the issue of data sharing and exchange. Section 23 deals with data sharing and exchange of information between the Courts Service and Revenue. This has to happen in a circumstance where attachments to earnings are made. The section also deals with social protection as a body and such other body as may be prescribed. If another body is prescribed the regulation must be laid before both Houses and can be annulled by either House within 21 days. The point being made by Senator Quinn is whether legal change should be required in the first instance. The Senator knows that this is a standard feature of Bills of this type. Where there is a substantive change, the sponsoring Minister is required to lay information before the Oireachtas Library.

Then it effectively becomes law unless there is no resolution quashing it within a 21-day period by either or both Houses of the Oireachtas. Senator Quinn is concerned that the provision allowing for another body to be prescribed is at large. It is in place so that if in future it is deemed that some other body has information which could be used in the collection of fines, then the Bill will not have to be amended to cover that possibility.

The point Senator Quinn makes is that it should be amended to cover the possibility and that if we are to include another body then we should come back to the Houses for the purposes of amending the Bill. The parliamentary oversight provided by the requirement to lay any regulation made under the Bill before both Houses along with the power of either House to annul such a regulation is sufficient protection and is proportionate to the issue at hand. The alternative, which would require the Act to be amended to add another body should the need arise in future, would be disproportionate and unwieldy. In these circumstances the Minister will not be accepting the amendment.

Were another body to be included, the amendment would require the Minister to lay that provision before the library of the House. Then both Houses would have the opportunity of a 21-day window to annul the order. I know from my time in opposition and in government that these matters come up on the Order Paper on a daily basis. I presume the Minister of the day would issue a statement to the effect that he or she was including the other body or bodies for whatever reason. It is on this basis that the House would have an opportunity to debate the matter if the House so determined. It is standard in most similar legislation that this particular parliamentary oversight would be in place. For this reason the Minister's view is that the provision is standard and difficulties that may emerge in future in terms of an additional body or bodies being added for the purposes of data exchange should be dealt with in this way.