What is a Declaratory Order?

NoQuarter

loremolis wrote: »

I'm not saying you're wrong, but where is this from? I had thought that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources was the Minister responsible.




Thanks, I'm not looking for any opinion on whether the policy is right or wrong when looked at in the light of the legislation.

I'm trying to understand how and whether a statutory body can have a policy for particular situation when legislation is in place to deal with the matter.

Check the very bottom of the SI for the signature of the Minister.

Well, legislation is usually very broad and will need further clarification and that is usually done through regulations. But when it all transfers down to an actual entity, sometimes the regulations are too vague and need actual policy to implement the regulations through administrative procedures etc etc. Again, I havent looked closely at this case. As long as the policy and actions of the entity arent inconsistent with the regulations and the main Act, there should be no problem. If, however, the policy is inconsistent with the regulations and Act and if it directly affects you, you should seek legal advice.

loremolis

NoQuarter wrote: »

Check the very bottom of the SI for the signature of the Minister.

Well, legislation is usually very broad and will need further clarification and that is usually done through regulations. But when it all transfers down to an actual entity, sometimes the regulations are too vague and need actual policy to implement the regulations through administrative procedures etc etc. Again, I havent looked closely at this case. As long as the policy and actions of the entity arent inconsistent with the regulations and the main Act, there should be no problem. If, however, the policy is inconsistent with the regulations and Act and if it directly affects you, you should seek legal advice.

The SI only transferred the powers of Sections 19 & 20 so it's the Minister for Industry and Commerce (now the Minister for COmm, En & NR) who is responsible.

I know this may be more relevant in a history forum than a legal one but and I'm not sure if modern day Oireachtas discussions on aproposed Bill shed any light on the considerations given to the particular reasoning behind a new law but the old debates on Sections 19 & 20 are particularly interesting, well, at least to me they are.:)

Small extract in relation to discussions on Section 19 in 1934.
It's amazing that they could keep records like this from so long ago.
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0019/S.0019.193408230007.html
Reference was made to that part of the Bill dealing with the prohibition of building in the danger area and the removal of transmission wires. It is not proposed to pay compensation. The Bill provides that no order can be made dealing with any building at present in course of construction, or at the time the order prohibiting [209] building in that area is made. A case might be made in theory for the payment of compensation in other cases, but certainly in over 80 per cent. of the possible danger areas no buildings are likely to be constructed at any time. If we put in a provision for compensation it would mean that any person who owned land would only have to propose to erect a building in the vicinity to become entitled to compensation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce decides whether the removal of transmission wires to permit building to be undertaken would involve unreasonable cost. If someone came alone and said that he proposed to erect, at a cost of £500,000, a factory employing 2,000 people, and if there is only one suitable site near the board's transmission lines, we would not hesitate to tell the board to take the transmission wires out of that. If it was proposed to erect some building of no particular value or importance it is obvious we would have to take into account what the cost of taking down and removing the transmission wires would be, before authorising the erection of the building or the removal of the wires.

NoQuarter

loremolis wrote: »

I know this may be more relevant in a history forum than a legal one but and I'm not sure if modern day Oireachtas discussions on aproposed Bill shed any light on the considerations given to the particular reasoning behind a new law but the old debates on Sections 19 & 20 are particularly interesting, well, at least to me they are.:)

.

I agree with you there!

Try reading far flung legislation all day and you'll soon enough grow tired of it!