Section 3 (2) deals with the annulling of regulations and the laying before the House of regulations. The Minister refers to affirmative regulations at a later point in the Bill. I am assuming the annulling of regulations under section 3 (2) is the passive procedure whereby regulations are annulled unless a motion is tabled. Could we have a response from the Minister as to his willingness to take an annulling motion in Government time? If he is not, then this procedure is undemocratic and should be abandoned forthwith. Recently we had to battle for Government time to take an annulling resolution in relation to the freedom of access to information and even then we could only make statements; we could not debate the motion annulling the regulation. With there greater use of regulations over a wider area, particularly in regard to European directives and so on, we should be very careful about the simple statement "the regulation shall be annulled accordingly". Really there is no democratic procedure for dealing with such matters except during Private Members' Business, with four or five parties in Opposition and the division of Private Members' time it is quite likely that within the 21 days required a particular party who might want to annul a certain regulation would not have Private Members' time. I ask the Minister to look at that. I feel very strongly about what I consider an abuse of democracy, that is, the extensive use of regulations, unless the annulling procedure can be taken in Government time.
SECTION 3.
I sympathise with Deputy Doyle's position on this. In the past I responded as positively as I could in regard to similar proposals. It is a matter for the Whips to decide, but I would like to ensure openess and transparency. Regulations which relate to matters of a serious nature should be fully thrashed out in the Dáil which should have an opportunity to deal with them in whatever way it sees fit, and I will do whatever I can to see that that happens.
I thank the Minister for his sentiments which accord with mine. However, the logistics are such that if a regulation to be laid before the House has to be annulled by a motion within 21 days, if it is not an affirmative regulation, there is no guarantee that we will get Government time to debate a motion. Is there any reason the regulations referred to here and, indeed, at other points in the Bill should not all be affirmative regulations which would guarantee Government time to debate any problems on the issue?
It would be impossible to manage the business of the House if we were compelled on all occasions to do as Deputy Doyle suggests. Where there are regulations which require debate, the Whips should have the opportunity to discuss the matter and, ultimately, we could do whatever the House deems proper in the circumstances. There are circumstances where that might not be possible and if it were an absolute requirement it would be very cumbersome and impossible to regulate and manage. The Deputy should accept my bona fides in this matter in the light of her practical experience in recent times that we are prepared to be — and want to be — wide open in relation to these matters and allow the House the greatest possible facility in dealing with them.