Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

First, I make the point that we have an expectation, whenever a very wide provision is put in, of how it might be used. Expectations are effectively meaningless unless we either clarify how it will be used or we acknowledge that we have left something wide open. I do not see that it might not be used in relation to the same matters because it specifies a "matter referred to in this Act". Perhaps these will be regulations in respect of the management of risk that will bypass the process under section 6, for example. If there is a specific reason and anticipated use of this power to make use of this regulation, it is clear that there is, why not specify that and address that? I have no doubt the legislation will go through but if Ireland is keen to show it has understood the concern as to how these are matters to be dealt with through primary legislation and not solely through regulation and secondary statutory instrument, would it not be better to address that issue and name the plan to address those issues in the primary legislation?Instead of making a statutory instrument regulation, we are putting forward primary law to say we can make statutory instrument regulations. Why not name the purposes intended if they are the key purposes? There is a bit of the law of unintended consequences with that matter because there are also a number of other provisions in this Bill and other issues addressed. We will come to some of them later.