In response to Deputy Crowe, as I stated before, it is not a question of the Executive or the Government trying to minimise the role of the Oireachtas. It is a question of what is constitutionally appropriate. Everybody welcomes the introduction of this Bill by the Labour Party which seeks to ensure we enact workable and effective legislation which respects the constitutional arrangements. Although I do not speak for it, it was not the intent of the Labour Party, and one cannot criticise the proposers of the Bill, but upon examination of the section, as drafted, it would have involved the development of a constitutionally inappropriate situation where it is not possible, under our Constitution, to have the Oireachtas do the Executive's job. The Executive has a role and Parliament has a role. We are discussing how we can enable scrutiny by Parliament to assist in the discharge of Executive functions by Ministers given that job under our Constitution.
When devising the means by which we scrutinise and enhance democratic accountability we cannot accept the position as proposed by the insertion of the amendment as it is unconstitutional for the Oireachtas to do my job or for me to perform the job of the Oireachtas. It is the policy of the Oireachtas and the Executive to work together to improve the scrutiny arrangements of EU proposals so that we reflect the will of the people as we understand it and we make an input which protects our national interests in the context of European Union institutions.
The trend of the Deputy's contribution seems to suggest that Sinn Féin stands for greater levels of scrutiny than the rest of us and that we are diluting or walking away from scrutiny. I reject that contention. It does not have a basis in fact, although the Deputy is entitled to make the political point if he so wishes. However, it misses the whole point of the approach here. The approach is, following the initiative of the Labour Party in putting forward a Private Members' Bill, the principles of which we all agree, we are now in committee fine tuning and ensuring that the sections, procedures and processes are constitutionally appropriate and cannot be challenged in the courts by citizens. This is a normal process. It is not an abdication by Fianna Fáil, the Labour Party or the Independents to the broad principles enunciated in the Bill. It is a question of making sure that the legislative expression is constitutionally appropriate, withstands scrutiny and meets the requirements of the situation. Having these discussions provides further avenues for involvement and participation by this committee representing the Oireachtas in a way which ensures the Executive can do its job.
It is not a question of shying away from effective scrutiny. It is a question of making sure we give sufficient care to the expression of that in legislative terms and it stands up to constitutional requirements. That is what is involved. I have to reject, in political terms, the contentions behind the contributions being made which make the assumption that all was perfect in the original Bill. I am not aware of any Bill that is perfect in its original form. We would not need a Committee Stage debate if that was the case. We obviously disagree on this point but I have to defend my point of view. The proposers are well capable of defending their point of view, which is shared by everybody in the House who wants constructive arrangements. We are not fudging or coming to a compromise merely for the purposes of having a Bill. It is to ensure we have legislation that compares as favourably or more favourably to any other scrutiny arrangements in any other parliament in the European Union precisely because a genuine attempt is being made by all concerned to address a democratic deficit which has been identified.
I fully understand the intent of Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment. It is the Government's intention to provide the Oireachtas with all the information necessary to enable it to carry out its scrutiny function. The notes on new legislative proposals, which we have been providing under the new arrangements since 1 July, provide all the necessary information. Should the Oireachtas request, over time, further aspects to be covered in these notes, the Government will have an open mind. It is intended that the spirit of the Deputy's amendment will be captured by the language I proposed, namely, that each proposal sent to the Oireachtas for scrutiny should be accompanied by a statement from the Minister outlining the content, purpose and likely implications for Ireland of the proposed measure and including such other information as he or she considers appropriate. In other words, it is not a question of me providing the minimum information that I might think, subjectively, I should give. For example, if I receive a request, I will set out the content, purpose and likely implications. The addition of the words "as he or she considers appropriate" enables the Minister to provide a wider range of information to the Oireachtas rather than using that phrase for the purpose of recoiling from the commitment to give the necessary essential information. On receiving that information and explanatory note, it is open to the committee to decide what it wishes to do with it and it is open to the Oireachtas to request additional information based on my note. The committee's acceptance of my note's wording does not deny it the right to seek further information if further questions arise.
The intent of the Deputy's amendment is to ensure that the maximum information deemed necessary is provided. There is nothing in my amendment that precludes that. I am simply outlining the content, purpose and likely implications and, if I can provide further information, I will do so. If one wishes to obtain more information, one can come back to me. This also meets the concerns raised by Deputy Mulcahy who asked if this would allow the committee to bring in wider interest groups. Once I provide the information note, this committee can decide to have hearings and bring before it whom it wishes, listen to all and sundry about their points of view and perspectives on the proposal, receive input into its considerations and report back to me. This is not an encased or closed process between the Executive and an Oireachtas committee. It is a question of providing the committee with what we believe is the content, purpose and likely implications of the proposal, based on our best assessment at an early stage. In reply to Deputy Kirk, it could subsequently, in a consultative process at EU or national level, grow into something far bigger where the implications would be greater. That process of monitoring continues from the initial stage. As soon as practicable upon the proposed measure being presented by the Commission, we present you with the content, purpose and likely implications note. The committee can then go to town on it and ask what it wishes.
For the purpose of understanding the process and going back to Deputy Crowe's point, this is a facilitatory process. I am ensuring we do not end up in a situation where a process of consideration has gone ahead at every level bar the committee which would see me coming to the committee with a fait accomplit. The committee could then ask what is the point in the Minister seeking its views since they cannot be taken into account. From the inception and presentation by the Commission of a proposal initiated by a member state, we provide the committee with a note and can accommodate Deputy O’Keeffe’s requirement for further information through a simple request. The wording of the proposed amendment causes a legal difficulty, as suggested by Deputy Andrews, because it would ultimately leave it to the courts to decide what precise information is necessary. It becomes an objective exercise for others outside the committee system on which to seek a judicial review. That is not necessary and that is not its purpose.
The committee can seek whatever information it wishes and consult with whomsoever it wishes. There is no need to allow a notional complication to be entered into the equation by someone, who is not part of the consultative process between the Executive and the Oireachtas, telling us how to do our job or clogging up the courts with a series of judicial reviews that would not serve any purpose and which would bring the scrutiny arrangements into disrepute. That would suggest an inadequacy in our arrangements due to poor drafting. For that reason I ask the committee to accept the wording I have proposed.
Regarding the second amendment to my amendment, the position addressed therein is largely dealt with in what I have proposed at section 2(4). This provides that if there has not been sufficient time - in practice, this would be exceptional - to consult the Oireachtas in advance of the adoption of a measure, a Minister would send a statement to the Oireachtas outlining, among other things, the circumstances of its adoption which would clearly embrace the reasons for urgency. It would seem superfluous to have two such reports, one explaining why a matter is urgent and another setting out the same thing but in a wider context after the measure has been adopted. Therefore, I do not propose to accept that amendment for that reason. Deputy Andrews made a similar point. It does not add to the existing situation.
In regard to the reporting arrangements, every Minister in every Department, however deeply or otherwise those Departments interface with the European Union institutions, should report twice annually through the committee for two reasons, apart from the fact that it is the right thing to do. Difficulties have arisen in some Departments where there was not that constant link and interface with the European Union, for example, in the habitats directive in the arts and culture area. It could well be argued that we needed to scrutinise and work out the implications of that directive long before getting to the point where it had been set out. While that may have been the only interface that Department has had with the EU institutions in three years, that culture of dealing with European matters needs to be strengthened within our own systems of Government. It provides the prospect of a more joined-up Government where all Ministers recognise that the European aspect of their work is an important one that needs to be fed into my Department as the co-ordinating Department which tries to ensure we deal with policy priorities in a way best designed to protect our interests.
In relation to reports, we have had a situation where the reports were three or four years behind but we are now up to date for one reason, namely, that we got someone to draft a report which was concise and gave the necessary information. Sometimes Departments devise very detailed reports on the most mundane and inane aspects of life for the purpose of making sure one might not read the next one which might contain some important information. Four or five years' reports have been brought up to date very quickly. Other Departments would do well to adopt that reporting methodology. I do not accept it is burdensome, it is a question of providing to the Oireachtas in an accessible and amenable way the important issues without providing a tome of nonsense in which nobody is interested.