Furthermore, there must be sufficient guidance in the parent act for the order or regulation to follow. This was ultimately the problem in Bederev where the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, which vested the Government with powers to declare certain substances to be ‘controlled drugs’, was challenged as unconstitutional on the ground that it contravened Article 15.2.1. Under the act, there were two means by which a substance could be defined as a ‘controlled drug’ and therefore be banned. First, the schedule of the Act contains a list of drugs which are designated as ‘controlled drugs’. Section 2(2) also empowered the Government to make an order adding a particular ‘substance, product or preparation’ to that the schedule. In other words this section delegated legislative power to the Government to change to the parent act by adding substances to the ‘controlled drugs’ list. Bederev argued that there were no principles and policies contained in the section to provide guidance to the Government in relation to the granting of orders. State argued that the Act was to be construed as a whole and that the guidance was to be found in the long title and the schedule so that any order made by the Government would have to be in respect of drugs which had the same character, properties and propensities as those controlled drugs already contained in the schedule to the Act. Ct concluded did not contain sufficient principles and policies. The difficulty was that the Act determined that only ‘certain’ dangerous or harmful drugs would be controlled, thus leaving important policy judgments to be made by the Government rather than by the Oireachtas. While the Oireachtas has responsibility for the passing of legislation and did pass the Act, it also delegated limited power to the Government to amend this legislation. However, this power granted to the Government is only valid if it is curtailed by the original Act and does not allow for the Government to create new law under the auspices of the original legislation. Unfortunately, because of the manner in which the legislation was set out, the power given to the Government in the act was too vague, gave a power to the Government which was not limited by principals and policies, and did not contain sufficient guidance in relation to the exercise of this power. This was therefore an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power under Article 15.2.1 and so it was struck down. This also meant that the 2011 Order made under the Act, which had banned many psychoactive substances being sold in ‘head shops’ and over the internet, was also made invalid.