Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The concern is that, in the past, if an institution or public body did not adopt or perform a regulatory or inspection function, it could end up slipping out. I will reserve the right to come back to this on Report Stage. In general, it would be better to provide in the Bill the widest possible scope rather than relying on persons having to prove the exceptions to the rule because we have had many years of that. That is why in many of the provisions we are putting forward we are going wide. Yes, there is the risk of going slightly wider than is necessary, but it is a lesser risk than the risk of going more narrowly than is necessary. That is why we should err on the side of an encompassing power. Again, this does not bring in every institution; it just gives the scope to a Minister to provide for institutions to be brought in. The Minister mentioned people bringing cases to him but, at the moment, under the legislation, if people bring an example to him or a future Minister whereby the institution or public body did not have a regulatory or inspection function, the Minister is not empowered to bring in that institution. Therefore, if an example emerges, the legislation does not empower the Minister to include it on the list of institutions. It is to be hoped that that gap will not emerge, but the Bill as drafted constraints the Minister. Again, in these amendments we are seeking as wide a provision as possible. If that wider provision were not required by a Minister, that would be fine, but it would be better to make a wide provision. Again, it is a matter of the maximalist versus the minimalist approach and the culture shift around the whole process.