Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Much of the language in the Bill does not reflect standard practice. The language in section 11, which affects the approach we have to take in section 15, is not standard. I have examined a lot of legislation coming through these Houses and have very rarely seen such discretionary power given to a Minister to give directions to an agency. There is not that breadth of discretionary power in most legislation, so the language is not standard. The Minister of State says the language is in other legislation. It is in the HEA Act but it was a problem when it was put into that Act. It was signalled as being out of step and a problem. It is in this Bill, too, and it is not standard practice.

The Minister of State mentioned the code of practice. I have no problem with that. Of course there should be accountability through the code on public expenditure and so forth but we have not limited the provision to codes or guidelines. The problem is the phrase "other documents". What are the other documents? In this regard, let me refer to an approach we could take on Report Stage with a view to being constructive. With regard to guidelines, codes, statutory instruments or other legislation, it is desirable to have reasons and state what the agency is being asked to do, who is asking for it to be done and the authority on which the request is being made. It is the reference to "other documents" that is vague. This is not the norm and I do not recall that language being used elsewhere. Even if it is elsewhere, it gives rise to additional concern because of the sweeping powers given in section 11.

Is amendment No. 69 in the group?