Now we have a report on our other function and that is looking at Irish Statutory Instruments. The main statutory instrument is the Oil Stocks Regulations. Does anybody want to raise any point on any of these Regulations? The main thing in our circumstances is that we have this ten days supply at Whiddy Islands.
Six Statutory Instruments made under the European Communities Act, 1972.
From a legal point of view the report makes an important point in relation to the implementation of the Directive requiring the holding of the minimum stock, the 90 days requirement. We are not implementing that fully and, yet, the method of implementation chosen is by statutory instrument under the European Communities Act, 1972, and the Joint Committee draws attention to that on page 3, item No. 4 of the report. We draw attention to the fact that the Statutory Instrument does not purport fully to implement the Directive and we consider it may become doubtful as to whether this is proper use of the delegated power under the European Communities Act. Section 3 of the European Communities Act, 1972, provides:
A Minister of State may make regulations for enabling section 2 of this Act to have full effect.
Section 2 refers to enabling Directives or, in some minor cases, regulations to have full and not partial effect in our law. It is proper that attention should be drawn to this use by the Minister of his power of delegated legislation partially to implement this Directive. The Minister could bring in a Bill and explain in the course of the debate, with a full discussion in both Houses that, for the various reasons given, we were not fully implementing the Directive, but he is bypassing the democratic process to try to do this by an exercise of delegated power which is not clearly given in the European Communities Act.
That is a valid point.
Yes. I am not so sure that the Oireachtas when it put the word " full " in there before " effect " really meant that. I think it meant the effectiveness of the instrument rather, but that is the wording now and we are stuck with it, as it were.
I agree. It could be thought to be a rather legalistic construction, but in fact the power given to the Minister under section 3 of the European Communities Act is very broad—power to amend earlier Acts, or to vary them, or to vary existing provisions of Irish law. In my view these powers are so broad we should not allow the Minister to extend them further by a construction which is not a clear construction of the word " full effect ". I do not think the Minister should be allowed partially to implement a directive by Statutory Instrument. If he is only partially going to implement it, this should be a matter of full discussion in both Houses and we should know what the position is. There should be a debate and questions about our holding of minimum stocks and why we are not able to reach the required minimum standard of the European level. The matter should be debated on the floor of the House.
Surely, in practice we are heading in the right direction. It is unreasonable to expect that we can just up our capacity from 60 to 90 days overnight. These things have to be planned and storage built and paid for. I think the Minister is right to aim at least and go as far as he can in that direction while, at the same time, having regard to the cost of the project, and while he is not paying for it he is imposing as it were, on the people concerned to provide the extra infrastructure.
It is a valid point.
I am not disagreeing with the point put forward by Deputy McDonald but, if that is the position then the democratic process requires that it be done openly through a Bill to that effect being debated fully in both Houses and that we hear what the difficulties are and what the cost of reaching the European point would be.
Anyway, apart from anything else, accepting that legal point, our report does help to inform the public exactly what is happening to our oil stocks.
This rather bears out my argument on this question of introducing Statutory Instruments on foot of a Directive.
On the contrary.
I pose a nice question: supposing there was a requirement saying you needed a 100 days supply and already there was machinery there for 50 days supply, does the instrument have to be produced to say that there should be 100 days' supply and another 50 days supply introduced? Surely this is not correct.
No. I should like to draw attention to our comments on page 4 on the European Communities (Units of Measurement) Regulations. I think we strongly object to a particular part of that regulation, which I quote:
The provisions of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1961, and any other relevant enactment shall be construed subject to these regulations and, in the event of any inconsistency between these regulations and any such provision, that provision shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, seek to have a foree of law.
I think the Committee should rightly call attention to that most objectionable contortion of our legal process that undermines certainty in the law. Nobody knows the extent of the inconsistency between these Regulations and Irish Acts dating from 1878 to 1961 and I think there is a very strong onus on the Department at the first opportunity to bring in clarifying legislation which shows the extent to which there has been any amendment of our weights and measures legislation, particularly because of the fact that weights and measures provisions do not come up in court and there is need for legal advice. This is most objectionable and on the next occasion when a provision like that is concluded in a Regulation we should recommend an annulment of the Regulation.
I fully agree with that. To coin a phrase, there is no knowing where it would end.
Exactly.
If you are being charged it is a wonderful position to be in because doubts according to our law must be exercised in favour of the person charged.
Paragraphs 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Draft Report agreed to.
Ordered : To report accordingly.