Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 29, line 37, after “Part,” to insert “including a review of any regulations made under this Part, in consultation with the Commission and the relevant committee,”.

Amendment No. 52 seeks to impose a requirement on the Minister such that, when conducting a review of the part of the Bill relating to high-risk or relevant vendors, he or she would also review any regulations he or she has made under this Part and that this would be done in consultation with the commission and the relevant committee. This is to prevent a situation whereby the Minister would review the operation of his or her own regulations without any consultation with the third parties. It aims to ensure there is consultation with the commission and the relevant committee. It is a bit of a safety net in respect of the regulations the Minister may make under this section.

Amendment No. 53 inserts a requirement for any report on the review of the operation of this Part to include detailed information. The Minister of State mentioned the ComReg report. I am not sure whether I accept that this document, as a report to the Minister that relates to matters that touch on national security, will be available to the public or to the Legislature at large. Amendment No. 53 seeks to ensure that the report on the review would include information on the number of confidentiality orders issued in respect of high-risk or relevant vendor notices, the number of High Court cases taken in relation to these matters and the number of times access to an appeal was denied. It would also require that the report be shared with both Houses and the relevant committee. While we would not have information on individual instances, this would allow us to identify patterns. For example, we might see appeals being denied in large numbers or a large number of confidentiality orders issued. While the parties subject to confidentiality orders cannot raise it as an issue and the Minister is not obliged to review those orders after a period of three years, having this information would at least allow the Legislature, parliamentarians and the public to identify patterns that are emerging and to seek clarification on them.