Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Humphreys, to the House. I welcome all the people in the Gallery as well. I know they have played a major part in getting us to this stage. I welcome the fact that we are almost at the conclusion of this progressive legislation, which is long overdue, as we have all acknowledged.

I welcome the fact that in accordance with the debate on Committee Stage we have Government amendment No. 7, which relates to the review of the Act as well as a series of Government amendments on the medical evaluation issue. There has been some debate on the difference between Senator Zappone's amendment and the Government amendment. We are all in agreement on the principle and the principle is of considerable importance. It holds that there should be a review of the legislation within a specific period. I offer one observation on the difference between the two texts. We are all in agreement in principle and we all agree with Senator Zappone's criteria relating to how the review should be conducted. The Government amendment is preferable for two reasons. First, it specifies not only the commencement date of the review but also the completion date. The amendment specifies that not later than 12 months after the commencement of the review a report would be made to the Houses of the Oireachtas. This precision is of considerable importance because all of us are mindful of how long reviews can go on for if the timeframe is left open-ended. I welcome this measure. It is rather unusual to see such a measure in primary legislation.

The second point relates to the scope of the review. I prefer an open-ended scope. I agree with Senator Zappone's requirement that the review should assess the issues in terms of compliance with standards. However, I note Senator Zappone's use of "in particular". In legislation these words are critical. Why should there be a particular scope rather than an examination of the practical impact of the legislation on the lived experiences of the people for whom it is designed as well? That is a critical part of the review as well. Why are we not providing for that in particular as well as the provision for compliance issues? The danger of listing specifics that the review should cover is that we leave out things that are equally as important. It would be better to make provision to commence the review, carry out the review and hold a debate in the Houses on what the review should encompass when it is being commenced, but we should examine all aspects of the legislation and its impact on people in particular.