Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This is one of those caveat phrases that feels a little too like a loophole. It is already implied that the Minister's opinion is in play because it is the Minister who is taking the actions in question. We do not need to say "in the Minister’s opinion" because if the Minister is setting out the roadmap, he or she is giving an opinion because he or she is the one proposing it. Putting "in the Minister’s opinion" into the Bill creates a caveat that the actions do not have to be based on clear evidence or proposals. It would give an incredible weight to a personal opinion.

This is also a concern because we have seen a similar issue come up in areas such as housing and health. Instead of having accountability over a long period of time for Ministers and the Government, we just have the opinion of the individual Minister again and again. Each Minister who comes along can say that certain actions were based on the opinion of the previous Minister, for whatever mysterious reasons. In agriculture, we had three Ministers in a year. If decisions were being made based on the opinions of those Ministers, we would be in a situation where we lacked accountability about the basis of why those actions were taken and why the opinions were as they were. That is why I and others have proposed removing the phrase "in the Minister’s opinion". I support Senator Warfield's amendments in that respect.

However, if the Government is going to include "in the Minister’s opinion" in the Bill and if roadmaps, actions and measures will be based on it, then the Minister should publish that opinion. That is what amendments Nos. 35, 37 and 39 seek to do. If the actions are to be based on the opinion of the Minister, it would be very reasonable for that opinion to be set out and published. That way, successive Ministers could see the opinions of previous Ministers and we could build on that and understand why the decisions were made and why certain measures were chosen or not chosen for a roadmap. The current language is ambiguous, redundant and could potentially be a loophole but if that level of discretion for the Minister is to be included, then let it be transparent and clear and let us have sequential accountability for the many Ministers who will be making decisions on roadmaps and actions under this legislation over the next 30 years.