Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his answer. I accept his argument in respect of the language I have proposed. As it could create an ambiguity, I will withdraw the amendment, although I am still not reassured as to the absence of a chilling effect.

As I said, I sat for five years on the Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection. I am well aware that every time an additional level of work or compliance is required, a strong lobby is made for cost being a reason for delay, a lowering of ambition or a curtailment or dilution of regulations. That argument is made at each point. I am concerned that this clause will allow a future Minister, not necessarily the current Minister, to use the cost of compliance with these measures as a reason to dilute the intent in some way.

I accept the Minister's argument in respect of the language I have put forward. I am concerned, however, because I still believe the current phrasing leaves a hostage to fortune. I may revisit this matter on Report Stage. I would appreciate if the Minister and I could engage on this before then. The phrasing suggests that the potential cost of compliance is something to which the Minister would have regard. I do not know why the Minister would have regard to cost in this area, if not to affect the way in which he may make the regulations. I am concerned about that dynamic. I will not press the amendment at this point because I accept the Minister's argument. I do not want to create a positive framing rather than an additional liability.