I introduced this amendment because, as I said on Second Reading this is largely an enabling Bill. What it does or what will happen under it depends on the Minister making regulations, and there is a very wide power to make regulations. I have sympathy with the Minister in this. The Bill is just a skeleton which will be filled out by regulations of the Minister from time to time.
Nevertheless, I am very concerned that Parliament should have control, to the greatest extent possible, of the way in which these regulations and this power are implemented. Therefore, I welcome the fact that in section 12 there are two sorts of regulations and there is a different provision for each. In relation to the first type of regulation —these are regulations under section 3, subsection (2) and I want to add "and subsection (5)". The Minister has first of all to obtain the consent of the Minister for Finance for the regulations and lay them before the House and they must be passed by resolution of the House, as the regulations which we considered earlier today had to be passed in draft by resolution of the House.
This is very valuable. It gives the Seanad an opportunity to discuss these regulations. It is important in areas like this that the regulations should be laid in draft. This can be contrasted with the other type of regulation which is laid before the House but which is only subject to a provision that if it is annulled within 21 days it will no longer be operative. All of us have been long enough in the House to realise that these regulations are very rarely referred to and very rarely debated. This is not a very good method of holding a watching brief on regulations; it is not a very good method of control and does not compare with the laying of the order in draft before the House.
Referring back to section 3, subsection (2) provides that the health contributions shall, in the case of persons other than those mentioned in section 46 (1) (c) of the Act of 1970, be at a rate related to the person's income and fixed by regulations made from time to time by the Minister for the purposes of the section, and also under section (b), and these are the regulations to be laid in draft. Subsection (5) of section 3 states:
The Minister may, by regulations made with the consent of the Minister for Finance, define income for the purposes of this section, either by reference to any other enactment or in such other manner as he thinks fit.
I think this is crucial to section 3, subsection (2). If the Minister can define income "either by reference to any other enactment or in such other manner as he thinks fit," then he can use this definition of income by regulation, which does not have to be laid in draft before the House and which might not come to the notice of the House, to get around the provisions of section 3, subsection (2). He could use the redefining of "income" to avoid the necessity of any regulations under section 3, subsection (2) and yet substantially change the range of people who would be provided for in section 3, subsection (2). In drawing up the provision for the regulations in section 12 it is logical there to include subsection (5). This is something to which the Minister should have no objection because it is the type of control that is intended in the Bill.
I am not saying that the Minister would abuse his powers and evade the subsection by redefining "income" at his discretion—and I think he will admit he has a very wide discretion there, "either by reference to any other enactment or in such other manner as he thinks fit". I do not think the discretion to define income could be wider. I do not think the Minister would abuse this, but we are now drawing up legislation for the future and we must be concerned with the way in which it is drafted; and it is logical and desirable that subsection (5) be included in the types of regulations which must be laid in draft and which would come to our notice and require a positive resolution of the House.