Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Jun 1994

Vol. 444 No. 1

Health Insurance Bill, 1994: Committee Stage.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, subsection (2), line 27, after "provisions" to insert "provided that the substantial effect of the Act shall not be impaired by the partial implementation of its provisions".

We all recognise that this Bill is necessary in order to comply with EU legislation. The reason I am proposing this amendment is that this section provides for the partial implementation of the provisions of the Bill, as necessary, which I understand is normal procedure. This has become an expedient in recent times which is not useful or helpful. I recall that while certain sections of the Child Care Act were implemented on time others were not implemented until a later date. There is a danger that the delayed implementation of a section or sections can have serious negative effects. That is the reason I am proposing this amendment.

In the situation that is likely to develop in the health insurance market during the next few months I do not think we can delay full implementation of the Bill. It is probably the Minister's intention to monitor the position to see when it is expedient to implement particular sections, but there is a possibility that the delayed implementation of sections may lead to the creation of loopholes which will become obvious to those who wish to exploit them. I am not talking here about any companies in this country. I would like to hear the Minister's views on this matter.

As the Deputy rightly said, this is a standard provision to ensure that the Bill will not come into force immediately on enactment by both Houses of the Oireachtas and when it is signed by the President. It allows for flexibility to implement sections as it is deemed appropriate.

As I explained on Second Stage, I do not envisage all the provisions of this Bill coming into force immediately. I want to see how the market develops. I am creating a framework to provide for open competition in the health insurance market. There may be no new competitors for the existing main player in that market. Therefore there may be no need to establish, for example, the health insurance authority or to provide for the mechanism of risk equalisation which appears to be complicated but which has been thought out carefully.

It is vitally important that there be flexibility to review the matter as circumstances unfold subsequent to 1 July. This section allows for flexibility to put mechanisms in place as appropriate to safeguard the principles which we all want to preserve — the principles of open enrolment, community rating and lifetime cover.

Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, would this amendment or an amendment tabled by him strengthen the subsection and be of benefit to the Minister in exercising his powers under the Bill? It might strengthen his hand.

I do not accept that the amendment would strengthen my hand. I am not sure what effect it would have. The Deputy seeks to include the words "provided that the substantial effect of the Act shall not be impaired by the partial implementation of its provisions". Who would make the determination? The best way to preserve the key principles I have outlined is to ensure that there is flexibility so that I can respond as necessary.

The Bill is unique in that we are trying to define market conditions that do not currently exist. We are not sure what type of players or packages will be on offer or the response the general public will make to them. We are trying to protect the consumer and for that reason I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment.

I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. If the Minister were on this side of the House he would readily accept that in the past implementation of some sections of Bills has not worked well notwithstanding the fact that Ministers have various advisory services at their disposal and that it is their intention to implement legislation with due regard for the common good. If I were sitting on the opposite side of the House I would see the wisdom in the Minister's appraisal of the position. However, I am not sitting on that side of the House——

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy might be soon.

——and I do not accept the Minister's view on this matter. As there are a large number of amendments to be dealt with in a short time I will not press my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 form a composite proposal and I suggest we discuss them together. One decision should suffice in respect of these amendments.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, subsection (1), to delete lines 30 and 31.

It may come as a surprise to many general practitioners to discover their services being described as "ancillary health services" in this Bill. I have been lobbied by a number of GPs in respect of this definition. A fundamental issue is at stake here in respect of areas of the health service about which the Minister spoke eloquently. If this amendment is not accepted ancillary health services will include the services of general practitioners for the purposes of this Bill and, in effect, primary care and the services of general medical practitioners will be marginalised in a way that is no longer in tune with the reality of the GP service.

It will also contradict the many statements made by the Minister in regard to the importance of GP services. In that regard I refer to his strategy where he correctly states that the GP service would be better organised and supported in fulfilling a wider and more integrated role in the health care system. The question of integration was a key issue in tabling my amendment. Under the definition in the Bill, primary care and the GP service will be fragmented and marginalised in a way which is not only inconsistent with the Minister's views, but also unnecessary for the purposes of this Bill.

Will the Minister reconsider this definition? For the purposes of this Bill it is not necessary to describe GP services as ancillary and the legislation can be redrafted in the manner I propose. It would be insulting to those working in primary care to promote the idea that somehow primary care is an ancillary service. It would militate against the integration of the service to have that false separation. It is generally recognised that integration is the way forward and the Medical Council has recognised general practice as a speciality in its own right. There is a contradiction between what the Minister stated publicly and what is in this Bill. As we are gender-proofing and carrying out various other types of proofing in respect of legislation it is important that legislation is proofed in the light of the health strategy. I hope the Minister takes cognisance of these points. The provisions in my amendment do not conflict with his view and would not create difficulties for the implementation of the Bill's provisions.

I hope the Minister rationalises this definition and puts the business right. If he does not, regardless of what he might say the signal will be implicit that somehow GP services are ancillary to health services. Surely that is no longer the case. That can no longer be the case if we are to have proper integrated health services in the future.

I support the amendment tabled by Deputy McManus. Health services are developing and attitudes towards them are changing. The provision of services, such as hospitals, has changed in the past number of years and we now have what are known as day beds, outpatients services and so on. It is unfortuante that a reference to ancillary services is included in this manner in the Bill. It gives the impression that those services are of a secondary nature whereas they are fundamental, especially in the provision of services in a modern context. The Minister should accept this amendment as it would eliminate any slight — even though it might be unintended — on those involved in that arm of the service and at the same time strengthen the section.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I, too, support this amendment. Only two weeks ago a woman of almost 80 years in my area urgently required hospital treatment. Her doctor had her admitted to a hospital with which the Minister is familiar, but the specialist had to send her back across the border to Carlow where she had since been cared for by her GP who in the long run plays the role of specialist, house doctor and nurse. To regard the services of GPs as ancillary is misreading the position. When one considers the waiting lists and hospital bed shortages, in many ways GPs are the heroes of the medical profession and it is in our interest that they are seen as playing a major role by excluding them from the ancillary section. I presume the Red Cross is also part of the ancillary services.

We are dealing with the definition sections of the Bill. I sympathise with the views of Deputies opposite. The measure of importance with which we value general practitioners must be clearly underscored. They are core service providers. However, the import of this section is different. I am required to set the minimum benefits package that will be necessary subsequent to the enactment of this legislation and I want to respond to the needs of the consumer in that regard. I do not wish to set the minimum package at such a high level that it will force or encourage people not to opt for voluntary health insurance. That is the import of defining a core package of basic cover and other essential services such as general practice or outpatient services, which nobody would regard as irrelevant. We should not confuse the word "ancillary" with the words "irrelevant" or "less relevant". Perhaps the choice of the word "ancillary" was unfortunate and if we had thought longer and harder we might have come up with a more appropriate one.

What is at issue is the definition of a core package which every health insurer will be required to offer as a minimum. Deputies opposite are asking that general practice be included. We took advice on that because it is something to which I am not averse and which it would be important to do if we could. We asked our consultants to look at it from an insurance perspective and they advised that it would not be appropriate to include general practice because of the economic consequences. I have accepted that advice but I have retained the power to adjust minimum benefit as circumstances dictate and have not closed the door forever on changing the minimum benefit to include general practice at a later stage.

The insurance industry has advised that general practitioner costs are not particularly suited to insurance. In the United Kingdom the major health insurers, BUPA and BPP, do not provide general practice benefit. The objective of this legislation is to regulate a market, to define the terms of the market. In defining the minimum core benefits it is not my intention to pass any judgment on the value of ancillaries that are not included in that minimum core. What I want is a minimum core that will ensure people have a basic range of benefits that they can afford to pay for. Of course, no company will be proscribed from offering additional benefit, including general practice cover, and the company that provides those enhanced packages will be more attractive to the general public. Currently, the only major health insurance operator in the country, VHI, does provide general practice cover. I hope that will be the norm. However, the advice I sought and accepted from the consultants on European norms is that we should not include general practice or out patient cover in the minimum benefit package.

We are taking advice from insurance companies about the shape and profile of our health services and treating the health service as if it is a product like any other. Clearly it is not. I agree with the Minister that there probably is no great attraction to take out insurance for general practitioner services because general practitioners demand modest fees. Having said that, I still favour the principle of providing a free general practitioner service for all and would actively support that.

The Minister has enormous room for manoeuvre in this Bill. He could do anything. Surely it would be better to be consistent with all the statements he has made and include general practitioners in the minimum package.

Few people will take out cover for general practitioner services, but if they do, surely they are entitled to the same protection as people looking for cover for hospital care. It would be far more logical to include general practitioner services as part of the core health care services. If it does not work out, for whatever reason, the Minister can always go back to the drawing board and change the rules. He is adopting the wrong approach and down-grading a core element in the service. He cannot say that he does not mean to do that and that he would like to be able to come up with a better word. The word in the Bill is "ancillary", I am a practical person and if I see that word I know what it means. The Minister knows what it means, as does every general practitioner in the country. I am asking that he make a simple change and accept this amendment. If it does not work out he can always exclude it on the ground that it was tried but did not work. The Minister has made great play of the fact that he is progressive and forward-looking, that he wants to change the face of the health services to focus more on primary care. He has a chance now to do it in a small way. If he does not do so it is an indication that when it comes to making small decisions that have an element of newness he would rather play safe. The Minister has no need to play safe because all the safeguards are there if any problems arise in the future. The Minister does not know what will happen, so why does he not fix the colours to the mast?

This is an insurance Bill flowing from an insurance directive, the third non-life directive from the European Union. To say that we should not be mindful that this is an insurance Bill is to miss the point. The issue is the minimum package that an insurer will be obliged by law to provide for the client.

We could include everything but we are excluding, for example, dental care. Is that an insult to dentists? If a Deputy opposite were of a mind to promote the cause of dentistry, would I not be hearing the same arguments in favour of dentistry which is also excluded from the core package.

We must define a package that the consumer can afford. I do not want to define a minimum package which, because of the inclusion of general practice cover, would be pitched at a premium that would exclude categories of people who would like minimum coverage. That is in no way to say that I do not regard general practice as extremely important. My funding of general practice over the last 18 months underscores my support for general practice development. I have made more strides in the last 18 months than any other Minister in recent times. Including dentistry from the minimum package I do not denigrate or downgrade the practice of dentistry, nor do I expect that dentistry will not be part of packages that will be on offer from insurance companies operating in the Irish market.

What we are talking about is the statutory minimum package required of insurers. That is important. We must take the insurers' advice. We are trying at least to maintain the numbers who are currently insured in the new competitive markets. The advice I have from consuitants who have actuarial and insurance skills is that I should not include general practice. I regret that, but that was their advice and I have accepted it. I will keep a close watching brief on the market as it unfolds and if it dictates that I should change the minimum package to include general practitioner services in the future, I have reserved to myself the powers to do that.

Will the Minister agree that again the insurance companies are trying to get away with the minimum? Everything becomes an extra and it is the extras on which they make their money. In many areas, not just the area of health insurance, people find that when they claim they are not insured for what they want to claim for. Who is setting the minimum cost to provide a minimum package? It is the insurance companies, and if they can get away with excluding general practitioner services or dental services from the minimum package, they will do so because they can treat them as extras and make more money out of them. It suits them to keep the minimal package to the briefest cover possible. They will advertise at a certain price, but many people will realise they need greater cover and will have to pay extra for the services the Minister is excluding.

While I take on board the Minister's argument, he is being sold a pig in a poke by insurance companies. There is merit in Deputy McManus's amendment. The Minister alluded to the fact that he would have preferred to see general practice included. I suggest it should be included and should not be seen as an extra service to be paid for by the consumer. The Minister should seriously consider the amendment. General practice is a core requirement of those who need health care. In many respects it is the first stop in a whole range of services. The minimum requirement is covered by the insurance company, but there must be a balance regarding the health requirement of the average person who would prefer to see general practice included. We would also like to see dental care and other issues covered. It would be wise to include general practitioners for the reasons stated.

I understand the Whips have agreed that the 6.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. sos will remain. The Health Insurance Bill will not conclude at 6.15 p.m. Progress will be reported at 6.30 p.m., the debate will resume at 8.30 p.m. and conclude at 9 p.m.

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

I support the previous speakers. Modern technology has enabled general practitioner services to be extended far beyond their remit of 25 or 30 years ago. The pooling of resources, availability of records, computerisation and so on have given general practitioner services a much more fundamental role. Health clinics are provided by general practitioners in various areas and resources are pooled to such an extent that virtual mini-hospital services are provided, which is very welcome. The points made by Deputies McManus, Cullen and Browne are valid and should be taken on board. There is nothing to be gained by relegating general practitioner services to a secondary role. They are the first line of services to which the consumer has recourse.

A matter that concerns me is the impact of insurance regulations on the Bill. The Minister for Enterprise and Employment will have an input in this area. I am concerned about the commercial aspect that may be introduced by that Department. As a former spokesman on the insurance industry I was not always impressed by the Department's response to questions and I am not becoming more impressed as time passes. The points raised by my colleagues are valid and were raised for genuine reasons, as the Minister has accepted. I see no reason that the amendment cannot be accepted.

I accept much that Deputies opposite have said, but I am making a different point. I address my comments particularly to Deputy Cullen, whose party always advocates the right of the consumer and consumer choice. I am defining the minimim package to be available to the general public. To give the analogy of car insurance, I could make a very strong case that third party, fire and theft should be the minimum package, but comprehensive packages are also offered and it is up to the consumers to decide on the cover they need. If we insisted that everybody should have comprehensive policies — that would be laudable — many people would be unable to pay car insurance premia.

There are many items I would like to include in an insurance package and for which I would like to see people covered, but I want them to make the decision. I do not want to decide in Hawkins House or Leinster House that people should have a certain level of cover and cannot opt out of that. I am defining a minimum and people will have a choice thereafter of other services which they deem appropriate to their personal needs. I would be careful in defining the minimal package too comprehensively because if the minimum package is all-encompassing, what would the other plans consist of? The minimum package I am defining is greater than some of the baselines that are acceptable as insurance cover in other parts of the European Union. For example, I do not want the position whereby people who are hospitalised find they are not covered for their stay in hospital or for consultants' fees. I am concerned that we should not define the package too broadly.

The Deputies opposite are right in that we are trying to look to the future and define the market. Deputy McManus is right in that I have retained powers to change the ground rules as market demand dictates, protecting the basic principles on which there is consensus. On Deputy Durkan's point about the role of the Department of Enterprise and Employment, under the Bill that Department will have a role up to the time the health insurance authority is established, should that ever be done. Its role will relate only to the carrying out of functions that are appropriate to its insurance division that monitors solvency margins and the financial side of the operation of companies. My Department has no expertise in that area. The health aspects will be a matter for my Department. There will be no intrusion in the health aspects of the Bill by the Department of Enterprise and Employment. Its role will be to monitor the solvency margins and the insurance criteria.

It should not have a role.

We need to define a framework within which insurance will operate. We need to protect the desired principles and define a minimum package that should be on offer so that token packages will not be available whereby people think they are insured and find when they need to avail of insurance they are not sufficiently covered. That is the thinking behind defining a minimum package. I am suggesting there is a cogent reason for not defining the minimum package too broadly and hopefully that will in no way be seen as a devaluation of all the other very important health care services, including specifically general practice, outpatient and dental services, all of which are vital health services with great merit. I hope the Deputies opposite will accept my basic argument and let us proceed with the Bill.

I do not think I can accept what the Minister says as the total answer to the points we raised. The Minister has stated that we must have a minimum package. There are many ways to achieve that; we could have had a minimum package which excluded certain specialties, for example, cardiology or neurology. However, the Minister has designed a minimum package which excludes a specialty, general practice. It is not a minimum package but a package with a missing element. What concerns me is that the Minister's package reinforces the fragmentation in the health services. As everybody knows, the relationship between doctors at primary care level and hospital doctors is unique and I do not think it is quite accurate to compare it with dental or other ancillary services — which I recognise are very important, I am not arguing that point — but which are very different.

I am surprised the Minister accepts the idea of the basic principles he included for hospital cover, such as open enrolment, but somehow those basic principles need not apply for cover for GP services. Is the Minister saying that it is all right that the principle of open enrolment does not apply to insurance cover for GP services? That, in effect, is what he is saying. If it is not included in the mainstream, it is not included in the minimum package. The Minister in effect is saying that there will be a minimum package with certain restrictions, which I support, but which excludes one specialty only, yet it is the one service with which most patients have direct contact. The vast majority of patients are more likely to meet their general practitioner than a neurologist.

The VHI has already examined the question of providing GP cover. What is unusual is that the majority of people in Ireland pay for the service of a general practitioner whereas in many other countries they do not have a private general practitioner service. That, perhaps, is the reason the Minister is in the unusual position of having to consider this question but the Minister must remember that it is because we do not have a free general practitioner service that he should accept the points we raise.

We can labour this point for a long time. I do not think it is comparable to say that I could have taken a decision to exclude cardiology or some other specialty that is required at a traumatic moment in one's lifetime. What has to be taken into account is the afford-ability of the service. A coronary arterial by-pass operation is a hugely expensive procedure and it would not be in the interest of the consumer with health insurance to exclude expensive procedures which an individual simply could not afford. General practice, as the Deputy rightly says, is on the other scale of expense and I understand that fees range from £12 to £20. That is affordable.

Not for everybody.

It is not affordable for everybody but 35 per cent of the population have free GP services under the general services medical scheme and more than one-third of the population is entitled to free GP services. It is not true to say, as the Deputy has, that we are unique in having a private general practitioner service. General practitioners have private practices but the State pays for more than one-third of the population to have access to those private general practitioners as well as paying for their drug bills. That is a good system and other countries have looked to it as a model for their service. Those below the income threshold by and large have medical cards and are able to avail of the service. What we are talking about here is defining a package for those who want to buy private health insurance cover. Every citizen is entitled to free hospital care but we are defining a minimum package for those who want to buy private health insurance. I do not think it would be right to exclude very expensive procedures such as cardiology from the minimum package as it would be wrong to encourage people to pay into a health insurance scheme when cover for certain conditions at the time of greatest need is excluded.

I think my approach is right. It defines the minimum package and covers in-patient care for all procedures. It does not cover general practice ab initio but as the market develops we may be able to redefine the minimum package to include general practitioner services. On Second Stage I said that in any event there will be a total review of regulations of the operation of health insurance. At that stage, if not sooner, we can make whatever adjustments are necessary. I ask the Deputies opposite to accept the compelling logic of my argument.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I am at a loss to understand something in this Bill. The language used in Bills always baffles me. In section 2 (1) paragraphs (a) to (g) it is stated what ancillary health services mean, but on the following page it states that it does not include (ii) “any health service (including a health service specified in paragraphs (a) to (g),... Is there a simple explanation for this?

As the Deputy opposite knows, there is a simple explanation for everything. The Deputy quotes subsection (2) on page 4 which refers to the powers given to the Minister for Health under regulation to change the definitions to include general practice at a future stage should that be necessary.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): In fairness, language must mean something. How are we supposed to know a hidden clause states that if the Minister wants to introduce something, he has the power to do so? On page 3 it states what is covered under ancillary services but paragraph (ii) on the following page appears to contradict it.

I understand that the Deputy, like me, spent some time teaching basic English. The Deputy should read the paragraph in full. Paragraph (ii) states:

Any health service (including a health service specified in paragraphs (a) to (g)), or any health service included in a class of health service, prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph;

It is the prescription of them by the Minister which will include them or not. They are excluded specifically in section 2 (1) but I have power under section 2 (1) (ii) on page 4 to include them at some future date by regulation if the circumstances of time demand.

Why not say so?

We are all subject to the draftsman's writ and I understand that is the expression in the clearest parliamentary language.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is as clear as mud.

I do not want to labour this point. I was not proposing that cardiology should be excluded. I am simply making the point that it is illogical to exclude a speciality such as cardiology. If this were part of the core health service, including the GP service — a person who took out insurance could well find that as they got older their need for GP services became considerable and expensive. As we get older we are inclined to become more prone to illness. Regardless of how the Minister tried to "dress up" GP services and the GMS, he is aware that thousands of people, particularly the elderly, cannot afford to go to a GP. To include that service within the core health service would mean that it is treated on a par with the other costs that might arise but which may never arise in a person's life. For elderly people the likelihood is that the cost requirements of going to a GP service are greater than that of any other speciality service yet the Minister is specifically excluding it and treating it as somehow ancillary to the health service. That day is gone.

I intend to press my amendment because I believe the Minister is wrong and that he is being led by the nose by insurance consultants who have no interest in the health service. I respect the Minister because he has an interest in the health service but I am surprised he is taking this attitude which is unnecessary and is holding back progress in a petty way. The Minister could accept the amendment and, if it does not work out in practice, he could simply change the rules.

I think the Deputy is confusing "core" with "minimum". We are defining minimum benefits. I hope most people will buy a package that is greater than the minimum required and I have to take advice in relation to what should be the minimum level prescribed. I accepted the view that we should not include general practice as a minimum level as is the practice in many other countries, particularly the United Kingdom.

Because it is free.

General practice——

Does that mean the Minister is bringing in a free GP service?

As I have said — although the Deputy continues to ignore it — we have provided free general practice services for more than one-third of the population and I would like that to be greater. The Deputy and I share the same view in relation to the development of the general practice service and we agree that great strides have been made in that area in the past 18 months. There are great strides to be made which are clearly outlined in the national health strategy which has been embraced by the Irish College of General Practitioners and, I believe, by the IMO. My Department will cooperate fully and help in its development but that is not the issue here. I know the Deputy is passionate about this issue, and I am in agreement with her on it, but what is at issue here is defining a minimum package of benefits which every insurer operating in the new environment will be required to provide in law. There is a compelling logic to what I have said.

The insurance provided for GP services will, of course, be subject to community rating, as will all other ancillary services, under the terms of this legislation. The situation will not arise, therefore, where a person in their twilight years will find it unaffordable. If they want to buy a package at a later stage which includes general practice they will be able to buy it at a community-rated premium and not at a loaded premium because they are in their twilight years. That is the whole basis of community rating that will apply to all services that will be insured under the scheme.

The argument has been exhausted on this issue. I hope Deputies will accept my good faith in this regard. I intend monitoring the situation closely and I have accepted good advice regarding the minimum that should be defined to offer the maximum number of options to the consumer to buy the package that suits him or her best. I will not be determining what suits the consumers; they can make that choice and a variety of packages will be available to suit their individual needs, subject to the three principles on which we have consensus.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

"(ii) out-patient services and general practitioners services, or".

Amendment put and declared lost.

We now move on to amendment No. 4 in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 5 is related and the suggestion is that amendments Nos. 4 and 5 be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, line 32, before "principal" to insert "sole or".

This is a technical amendment to make it clear that a health insurance contract means a contract of insurance, the sole or principle purpose of which is for the discharge of liabilities to meet the cost of in-patient or ancillary health services. The existing wording covers only schemes the principal purpose of which is to discharge such liabilities. The amendment is adding the words "sole or principal" purpose and I am advised by the draftsman that that is necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 38, to delete "under which payments are made" and substitute "the sole purpose of which is to provide for the making of payments".

This is a technical amendment to make it clear that a scheme of insurance that is mainly for the indemnity of medical expenses but which includes also some cash payments based on the duration of sickness, injury, etc., is not excluded from the definition of "health insurance contract". We have been reflecting on this and we do not want to allow a loophole to exist where a mixed policy would escape the definition of "health insurance" and the impact of this Act. For example, if they were providing a cash payment as well as some modicum of cover they would perhaps define an insurance package in such a way as to slip through the requirements of this Act.

Some types of mortgage protection plans would be included in that general area. Are they covered?

They are not covered.

Amendment agreed to.

We now move on to amendment No. 6. Amendments Nos. 9, 12, 14 and 16 are related and it is suggested we discuss those amendments together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No.6:

In page 5, line 13, after "Minister" to insert "and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas".

This amendment proposes to insert the words "and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas", which would be beneficial. I know the Minister will say that there is a provision already made for that in the Bill but through the same English language to which my colleague, Deputy Browne, referred earlier, vague loopholes appear in legislation from time to time and I do not understand why these words cannot be included here. They have obviously been included later in the Bill to provide for a situation where a Minister — not as open minded as the present Minister — might decide not to lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas his proposals in regard to regulations he or she might make to a Bill of this nature. For that reason it would be useful and protective of the Minister and his Department that any such regulations should be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Progress reported. Committee to sit again.
Top
Share