Before lunch we adjourned this debate in the hope that perhaps after lunch other Senators would be offering. It is unfortunate that there are not other Members who wish to contribute to this debate. I believe, even though we only had three contributors this morning, that we had an interesting and I hope a useful debate. I have said in this House from time to time that the new committee system that has been established will only be worthwhile if its reports are debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas. We run the risk of destroying that committee system, with its many advantages if, in fact, there is not a reasonable discussion on the reports as they come to the House. I am, of course, extremely conscious of the fact that the existence of the committees themselves has added to the burdens on Members, added to the demands on their time. Nevertheless I feel that, if this committee system is to work, Members must make a substantial effort, both Members who are Members of the committee concerned and Members who are not. Coming into the subject as it were, from the outside, they must make a considerable effort. Of course, it may be that Members do not like this burden of committees and perhaps this is a good way of killing the system and relieving themselves of this burden. I feel, in fact, this is what will happen.
It is a matter of particular regret that, in the case of this report, which once again highlighted the question of the method of implementation of EC directives by Irish regulations, a point of principle to which the committee and their predecessor have returned again and again, is that not one of the seven Seanad representatives on the committee was here to take part in the debate and to put forward the case which must have been discussed in some detail. I feel it incumbent on me, as Leader of the House, to deplore this. Senators accept a responsibility when they accept a nomination to represent this House on committees.
In regard to the discussion itself, the subject has been well aired. The Minister, in his contribution, seemed to indicate that I should now be well satisfied, that my fears should now be mollified. I am very sorry to disappoint him on that point. There are still distinctions that have to be made and difficulties that have to be removed. When the Minister, in his contribution, says that surely it is reasonable that the meaning of a directive should be a matter for determination in the European Court of course he is right. Of course there is no quarrel between us in that regard. When we come to the question of what is the effect under Irish law of a particular method of implementation adopted in an Irish statutory instrument, then that is another question.
The Minister also put forward, since he still retains vestiges of his legal training and his legal approach, the tremendous importance of certainty. Certainty is a valuable thing, but it is not an absolute good. There are indeed legal systems, which manage to attain a very high degree of certainty by making assumptions, for example, that the public prosecutor would not bring anybody to the court unless he were guilty. There is a great degree of certainty under such legal systems. What we are looking for here is certainly a higher degree of certainty but a degree of certainty that is compatible with the rights of Irish citizens and that is compatible with the sovereignty which we still possess under the accommodation of the European Community legislation.
The question of delegated legislation is always a difficult one. This House has always recognised that it is a difficult one. This House many years ago set up a committee on statutory instruments because the Seanad felt at that time that it was necessary that these should be thoroughly examined with all the advantages of the committee system in the name of the Oireachtas. Seanad Éireann took this role upon itself, originally as far as my memory serves me, as a result of the prompting of Senator Luke Duffy of the Labour Party and, indeed, in later years vigorously pursued by Senator George O'Brien and Senator Bill Sheldon. This work was extremely valuable work. It behoves us in the Seanad to be completely satisfied that this work is now being done at least as adequately under the new dispensation.
In regard to the main question on which the Minister seemed almost to move from an initial agnosticism to a faith different from my own in the course of his speech, I would like to say that his wish that he would not hear from me on this subject again——
