Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies have been received from Senator Maria Byrne. As members are attending via Microsoft Teams, I will read the note on privilege while the Minister of State is getting settled. I remind witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise, or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex to participate in public meetings. I cannot permit a member to participate if he or she is not adhering to this requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts of the Leinster House complex will be asked to leave the meeting. I ask any member participating via Microsoft Teams to confirm that they are in the Leinster House complex prior to making their contribution.

I welcome the Minister of State and her officials. The Minister of State had to move items in her schedule in order to be here. We very much appreciate this. As she knows, the purpose of today's meeting is to engage with her on the work of the committee and the emerging issue it has encountered in conducting its work in the context of the availability of draft statutory instruments to the committee.

I invite the Minister of State to make her opening statement.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair and the Senators for inviting me to meet the committee today to discuss the issues relating to the transposition of EU directives. The committee's letter of invitation indicates a wish to discuss the provision of draft statutory instruments to the committee by Departments, as well as the matter of their publication by the committee. I received a letter from the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, Senator Buttimer, on behalf of the Seanad Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight. My remarks today are intended as a response to the different concerns raised. I am aware that this committee's orders of reference were also extended on 9 July to include oversight of infringement actions against Ireland, including where financial penalties have been applied. I am very enthusiastic to speak to the committee about this, particularly as there is very good work we can do.

I agree that it is entirely right that the Houses of the Oireachtas should hold the Executive to account for not transposing EU law on time or for transposing it incorrectly. That is also the objective of the Government. However, it is worth highlighting that the number of infringement actions against Ireland is currently at a record low of 46. Fines have been imposed on Ireland on only six occasions during our EU membership. More than 4,000 directives have been transposed during that time. Nevertheless, we would like it to be lower again.

Returning to the scrutiny of draft statutory instruments by the committee, I am aware it met with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and Minister for Transport, Deputy Ryan, on 24 June last where these matters were discussed. Our meeting today is also timely as, since I last met with the committee, I have had a series of engagements to try to bring matters as far forward as I can. I met recently with the Attorney General, Rossa Fanning, and his team to discuss these very matters. My remarks today will be guided by these discussions and the advice provided by the Attorney General. It is also important to say that my wish here is to try to facilitate the committee as far as I can within the legal parameters and I have a number of suggestions and issues I would like to discuss with the committee on how it can best do its work within the constraints of this legal advice.

The key points of the Attorney General's advice are as follows. It is important that information notes on new EU directives are provided in the first instance by the relevant Department concerned. I understand the committee is starting to review the 24 directives that were published in 2023 and that will come into effect on different dates from December of this year onwards. Indeed, most of these will fall to be transposed in 2025 and 2026. While some of these directives are quite substantive, a number are more technical in nature. These information notes should assist the committee in prioritising its work on these 2023 directives over the coming period. The Attorney General's advice was that there is no difficulty with Departments providing the committee with the initial draft instructions for regulations to transpose EU directives as sent by them to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. These should represent the substantive if not quite settled policy of the Department on particular directives. This is, of course, after the major substantive work in agreeing the directive in the first instance has already been done much further upstream. Again, I would like to discuss this with the committee regarding where the policy is fully settled in large part. These initial publications can be examined and published by the committee and forwarded to the relevant joint sectoral committee for detailed scrutiny should this committee so decide.

The difficulty is that subsequent drafts of such regulations exchanged between the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and individual Departments represent a form of legal advice in the same way draft Bills back and forth between the Department, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the Office of the Attorney General represent an iterative legal advice process. At that point, it becomes legally privileged and is, therefore, subject to legal professional privilege in a manner similar to a legal opinion prepared in any other way, particularly with regard to the stage between the publication of heads or general scheme of Bill and the drafting of the Bill until it is published as a Bill. That is protected by legal professional privilege. Unless and until a Minister makes the regulations, every iteration of the draft regulations, stamped or unstamped, is subject to legal professional privilege and cannot be provided to the committee. Only the regulations, when made by a Minister, can be provided to the committee apart from the initial draft prepared by the Department, as I stated earlier. I know what the committee wanted, namely, to have available at every stage access to the iterative process. That may or may not be so. What I had discussed last week and what I think represents a step forward where the directive comes into force, for example, on 1 January 2024, and we have a period of two years in which to transpose it is a substantive document being published to the committee, and published generally for transparency, within a period of, say, three months. This would be a new process within Government and would be a better discipline in terms of the management of directives. I would suggest this be published at that early stage, at which point the committee can investigate. What is difficult is the period after that where there is any iterative process between the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in terms of the subsequent drafting of the statutory instrument and final publication of that. That part is difficult in the same way it is difficult with a piece of primary legislation. The committee was right to highlight its concerns about the late publication of statutory instruments where there is no opportunity for scrutiny, including by the Minister. The difficulty with timing generally relates to avoiding fines. There is a new approach by the Commission, which is essentially to impose fines or a problem from the very day in a way it not had done before, so doing it earlier would be a better process generally for the discipline of Government and this committee. We can do some things but not everything and we can do some things an awful lot better, which would give this committee a much stronger role.

One year or more into the life of this committee, it is important there be clarity and legal certainty around what may or may not be provided by Departments to assist the committee in its important work. My intention as Minister of State is to do the best I can by the committee to ensure it is getting information that can be useful to it and make sure Departments transpose directives in a timely way. We now have the settled advice of the Attorney General on the matter.

Also following our meeting today, I will write to Ministers to advise them of the Attorney General’s advice. I began this process with Departments last week. I impressed on them the need for much earlier engagement with the committee with regard to their respective directives. I will encourage Ministers, and I have spoken to many of them already, and the Departments to provide the committee with the initial draft statutory instrument, where possible, six months before the deadline, but to be honest I think we can do better than that. That is something I would like to talk to the committee about. It depends on the nature of the directive. There is quite a lot of work we can go into regarding getting this right so I will be flexible about timelines. What I am trying to do is improve the process.

I will turn briefly to the additional powers of the committee to oversee infringement actions against Ireland, in particular where financial penalties may be applied. I recall there are currently only 46 infringement actions against Ireland, which is an all-time record low for this country but not necessarily anything to be proud of. It should still be as close to zero as possible. It certainly represents a better standing than many of our counterparts in the EU. Nevertheless, as members are aware, we want it to be lower. Other member states have well over 100 live cases. Nevertheless we want the figure to be lower.

Last week, I chaired a meeting of the interdepartmental committee on EU engagement. At this meeting, we went through in great detail the infringement cases currently against Ireland. Not all of those 46 cases are at the more serious end. Fifteen are awaiting closure. Departments have transposed the 15 directives in question, in many cases more than one year ago, and we are simply waiting for the Commission to formally close these cases. I have tasked the relevant Ministers and their Departments with engaging urgently with the relevant Commission services to seek early closure of these cases. That is happening this week and next. Accordingly, I expect that over the coming months, the number of live infringement cases will continue to fall. This may very well be something where the Department has completed all of the tasks asked by the different directorates and the Commission but the file has not been closed because of the passage of time, because it has not been followed up, or because the Commission may be treating Ireland as a one of a number of countries it is waiting to resolve en masseand Ireland is simply stuck in that group. I was keen to examine these 46 cases in greater detail so that we would not treat them all the same way but separate them to see what are the actual issues blocking or not blocking the closure of the file. I expect that, with some management, that number will fall. The number of cases is 46, of which 15 are essentially closed but require closure by the Commission. I have gone through the other ones and am happy to discuss them with the committee.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity of coming here today to clarify to the committee the position of the Attorney General and discuss what we can do to better enable this committee to have a role at an earlier stage. The real opportunity to influence the work done is prior to the directive being agreed between the Council and the Parliament. That is where Departments must play a stronger and better role upstream in terms of the communication of what is happening. It is also an opportunity for this committee and the sectoral committees to engage in a much more structured way at that stage because, of course, that is where the substantive policy lies. Once the directive is agreed between Ireland and the Parliament - Ireland is part of the Council and Parliament - substantive work is done and it is not really for Ireland or its legislative processes to reopen or re-litigate that question. We do not have that competence. I am trying to find different ways where the committee can have a stronger role and I suggest this is a body of work we can work on.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the Minister of State's commitment to this committee since she took up her new role as Minister of State. She has genuinely taken an approach of transparency and has assisted this committee as much as she could. That is important. Whatever engagements are here, that personal commitment from the Minister of State must be acknowledged and I am very happy to do so as Cathaoirleach of this committee.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and her officials. I will deal with the easy point first. The Minister of State said she chaired a meeting last week of the interdepartmental committee on EU engagement. Of 46 cases, 15 are awaiting closure. That means 31 of those cases are not awaiting closure. In respect of those, there seems to be no reason why we should not be briefed on each of them in detail. If they can tell her about it, they should be able to tell us about it. That is all I am saying.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I could not agree more.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On that front, I ask about a briefing on all of them but particularly we would be interested in the cases against Ireland that are not yet awaiting closure and are still effectively open, and the financial implications. Are fines being imposed? Are they being threatened? Where are we on that kind of issue? I think we are entitled to a table setting that out.

The second point is that, in relation to the Attorney General’s advice, the Attorney General, Rossa Fanning, has furnished the Minister of State with advice. I accept the first proposition, namely, that information notes on new EU directives are provided in the first instance by the relevant Department concerned. Information notes are one stage in the process. That is simply kind of a background document as to what the situation is. What the Department proposes to do about the situation is a second level of decision-making and whereas this committee should have no objection whatsoever to receiving the information notes, when it comes to the Department then engaging the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in the Attorney General’s office, you can have something equivalent to heads of Bills as they are generally understood – a detailed document that states, for example, “Regulation No. 1 provides X and regulation No. 2 provides Y”. I can well imagine that takes place sometimes but, in other cases, it may not. It may simply be a statement transposed by saying, for example, that the provisions in the schedule should have application or whatever, and just slapping in the whole of the directive, regulation or whatever it is into-----

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It depends on the-----

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There would be very little to be learned from that. However, at least it would be clear, if that approach is being taken, how the Department proposes to address the issue.

The second thing is that if we simply say – this is the point – that the initial draft instructions for the regulations are all that this committee should see, first, are we to be told that a later instruction will not be shown on the basis that either there has been a change of mind, or the Attorney General has, for instance, told the Department its initial approach was wrong and to come back with another approach and it is coming back with another approach? I do not see what is secret or confidential about the fact that they have decided on a second approach. We do not have to have the whys and wherefores of the Attorney General’s advice on the matter but what they actually propose to do at a later stage is not secret.

I appreciate that the Minister of State is operating on the advice of the Attorney General. However, the third bullet point in the very helpful statement provided states, “You will understand that subsequent drafts of such regulations exchanged between the OPC and individual Departments represent a form of legal advice...” A draft coming from the Attorney General’s office to the Department may be legal advice but as for a revised approach to how to deal with the issue by the Department, whether considering the Attorney General’s advice it received or the OPC’s advice it received or else further second thoughts on the issue, however, I do not see that as confidential. I can see advice going in one direction - from the OPC to the Department - as being legal advice from the Attorney General’s office, just as advice from the Attorney General’s office or the OPC’s advice to a Department prior to the drafting or the publication of a Bill is privileged. However, I do not see it the other way around. For instance, if you have a Green Paper and then produce a White Paper on a topic, the White Paper does not become privileged because it reflects Attorney General advice which it does not actually recite. I ask the Minister of State to refine the third bullet point, which is the assertion made by the Attorney General’s office that subsequent drafts of such regulations sent by the OPC to an individual Department represent a form of legal advice. What the Department then decides it wants to do is, in my view, not privileged. In other words, it is part of the legislative process. Once the Department makes its mind up, the fact that it is subsequent to a first document does not seem to impress it with a confidentiality legal privilege status. I am prepared to concede that one-way traffic on that street, from OPC to the Department, is privileged, but I do not see the other way - traffic down the street from the Department to the Minister, the OPC, other Departments and anywhere else - as privileged in that sense. The Minister of State’s third bullet point, which doubtless reflects the Attorney General’s advice, is too extensive. I do not accept the proposition that anything exchanged is privileged and amounts to advice. If a lawyer advises me to do something, that is advice. If I then communicate to some third party or whatever that I am going to take a different course, that is not privileged, even if it is taken on foot of the Attorney General’s advice.

Third, I do not at all accept the proposition that unless and until a Minister makes the regulations, every iteration of the draft regulations, stamped or unstamped, is subject to legal professional privilege and cannot be provided to the committee. That is a huge overstatement of the extent of privilege. If the Minister has made up his or her mind to go down this road and a document is prepared for the Minister to do that, the statement that unless the Minister actually makes the regulations, any document in his or her hands is legally professionally privileged and cannot be disclosed to anybody else is simply wrong. It can be disclosed to other people. To take a simple example, suppose there was a sectoral organisation that had an interest in a particular regulation. The first thing that happens is that the Department sends off initial instructions like heads of a Bill to the Parliamentary Counsel’s office and it comes back with a whole series of other proposals. Is it suggested that if the Minister decides to engage with the Irish Farmers Association on his reconsidered position, that it is subject to legal professional privilege? That cannot be right. If the Minister can go to the Irish Farmers Association and tell it what he is going to do about brucellosis testing under an EU directive, how can he not come to us and say, “This is what I now propose to do”? It is a gross overstatement by the Attorney General’s office that until the Minister puts his or her biro down to paper, that is legally professionally privileged.

That is grotesque as a proposition. It would make a farce of this committee if we accepted the proposition that the Minister would be free to show draft regulations to any sectoral organisation, any interested party or Members of Dáil and Seanad Éireann and all the rest to show them how he or she proposes to deal with an issue, but the one group that cannot see it is the committee of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann because it has not yet been signed by the Minister. I know the Minister of State is acting on the advice of the Attorney General and the OPC. I am not saying this in any sense personally, but it is grotesque to suggest that proposition. If it is the case that until the final iteration is signed, the matter is subject to legal professional privilege and cannot be provided to the committee, how could it be shown to anybody else?

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the Senator like me to respond?

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is bizarre. If that is the position the Office of the Attorney General wants us to accept, we might as well wind up the committee.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the Senator would like me to respond. I will respond to each of the points in turn. On the list of infringements, I would be greatly pleased for the committee to have a substantive involvement in the detail of the directives and the transposition process, as well as the broad powers of the committee, which is what we have discussed to date. There is a substantive body of substantive work which I am trying to get through with the different Departments. I would greatly welcome the committee's assistance on that work. I will give the committee a briefing in relation to that. For the committee's information, I am trying to manage this process in a close way. I will meet the Departments again in early September to go through what the status of everything is, having sent the different closure notices or made the different efforts to close the files.

I have concerns about the duration and the approach taken by Departments going back some time. There are a number of files in respect of which I can see why we are incurring fines. I can see the scale of the substantive work, the investment and the change that are necessary. I understand that. I can also see the scale of the efforts being made by some Departments to have those resolved. There is a process to close that out. There are others which are dependent on other pieces of legislation, such as the planning Bill, being completed before they can be completed. They are all at different levels of seriousness or of investment required. It is well worth going through them in a substantive way so the committee can fully understand, have the same information and be aware of the same concerns as I am. They are not all the same - that is basically what I am saying. I am trying to find ways to manage them to reduce the list as much as possible, in particular before the Presidency. I would greatly welcome the committee's assistance with that.

I assure Senator McDowell that even though many things in this world are "grotesque", the transposition of EU directives is not one of them. It is not "grotesque", "gross" or "bizarre". It is an established legislative process within an established parliamentary democracy with a competent Attorney General. Of course the Senator was also a competent Attorney General. I agree with the Senator on some points and I disagree on others. A White Paper or Green Paper process is a policy-based process, essentially within a Department. It is not possible to equivocate that in any way with the development of legislation, which is, of course, of completely different seriousness and import in a legislature, and the nature of legal advice attached to that. It is also the case that a Bill goes through an iterative process. Forget about statutory instruments and general schemes. In the old course of things, before we did that and before pre-legislative scrutiny - and indeed since we have had pre-legislative scrutiny - a Bill goes through an iterative back-and-forth process between the Department and the OPC. That exchange has always been subject to legal professional privilege. The reason for that is that it involves teasing out what is possible within the concepts, the desire of the policy, the constraints of the legal structure or the read-across to other legislation because of policy positions adopted by a single Department and how that potentially reads across other legislation. As the Senator is more aware than I am, issues are always thrown up in that process and always have to be teased out between the Department, the OPC and the adviser. That back and forth is necessarily privileged. It is not correct to say that one side is privileged and the other side must not be; firstly because that is not how it works in respect of primary legislation and secondly because it does not allow for that iterative process to happen in a genuine and open way, intellectually, between the two different entities. If one side is constrained in genuinely trying to think through something - I am talking about this in terms of the development of primary legislation - and work out what the parameters can and may be, and is constrained by being aware that they would constantly have to publish that also, it is not a real iterative process. At some point, the Government has to be able to do that. It is the same with the draft legislative process in respect of statutory instruments.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, can I just say-----

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not saying that we have to see all the correspondence or that the OPC said this is lawful, unlawful or disproportionate. I am not asking for any of that information. I am simply saying, and I ask the Minister of State to deal with this issue, that if it is lawful for a Minister-----

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have not dealt with the Senator's third issue-----

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----to deal with a third-party institution-----

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the third issue the Senator raised, which I have not yet addressed. Will the Senator let me continue?

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, I thought the Minister of State was finished.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I was not. The Senator asked if he could interrupt me for a second. I will complete my points. The Senator raised three matters and I am on the second. Let us leave the third-party issue for a second - that is the third issue, which I will come to in a moment. The Senator mentioned the exchange. He specifically said that while he understood that the exchange from the OPC - or the advisory counsel, presumably, or both - to the Department had legal professional privilege, he did not accept that the exchange back had legal professional privilege. Does he now accept that?

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That depends. I will give an example. If the OPC or the Attorney General's office said that the proposed fine in regulation 3 was grossly excessive or, on the other hand, was not sufficiently punitive to comply with the requirement of dissuasive penalties under EU law, I would have no problem with the dialogue between them being a matter of privilege. If, in the end, the Department says that we increase or decrease the fine and this is where we are, the document in that forum is not privileged.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not agree with the Senator. I want to agree with him because I want to try to do as much as I can to help this committee, but I just do not agree with the Senator on that. The reason I do not agree with him is this: if I read it across to the legislative process where fines are set, for example, that advice may very well have come about because of the read-across for other legislation or a more broad read-across generally. The communication is not properly privileged if one side of it is not privileged. They must both be privileged for it to have legal professional privilege.

The Senator's third point was about the sharing of regulations with third parties. I am very interested in this because I am concerned not just about transparency and how we can maximise that, but also about the process generally in terms of the consultation or the time it takes. We are dealing with 46 infringement cases. I have also identified with the Departments the statutory instruments to come. I do not want a new list, basically. I want to deal with the statutory instruments that are coming in a more proactive way in order that we are not just replacing this list with another list by the time we get to the Presidency, or indeed by any other time. Having gone through all 46 with the Government Departments, I specifically identified five or six, I think - I cannot recall exactly - where I was concerned about the detail I was given by the Department, the process or the timeline. I asked for a deep-dive into the background of those files so I could understand why they took as long as they did and what the processes were. It may be entirely justifiable that it took that length of time; for example, if there were consultations with certain external bodies and the timelines were such. Could those timelines have been managed better? Was the Department waiting for the enactment of other legislation? If so, had it already begun its work on the relevant statutory instrument? Will the Senator allow me to finish?

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, you are not dealing with the third question.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But I am telling you something important.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, no. I asked you a plain, simple question.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And I am answering it.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, no. I am asking you a simple, plain question. If it is alright for a Minister to show a draft statutory instrument to an interested sectoral body, how is it wrong for him or her to show it to us in this committee?

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point I am trying to get to, in order to answer your question, is that I would like to spend more time reflecting on that. One way I can usefully do that is by investigating the process to date, the extent to which there has been outside consultation, the circumstances under which that was understood and whether privilege was indeed attached to that.

I can get a better answer and a better outcome by undertaking an historic look-back at five or six different-----

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that-----

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, Senator, I have not finished. I want to do this because I have a question in regard to the process. When I said to the Senator I did not agree with him on the first point, it was in the context that I have a question that is yet unresolved in my mind. It may well be that there cannot be a way to proceed other than what I have outlined. However, I want to go through the process of an historic examination of five or six of the different directives to see whether regulations were circulated and, if they were, the circumstances under which they were circulated, and to determine the understanding of privilege that did or did not attach to them. I have identified September as the date by which I want everything to be ready for me to be able to undertake that process. By doing so, I hope to gain a better understanding of the Department's positioning on this matter. If I can do that, I potentially can look at the third question in greater detail. While I disagree with the Senator on the second point, I am asking him to let me work a little further on the third point. I may come back with the same answer but, equally, I may not.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are two points to consider. There is the question of principle. If a Minister or a Department, before signing a document to make a regulation, can, or, in certain circumstances, is required to, consult a third party like An Taisce, that document cannot be the subject of such legal professional privilege that it cannot be shown to this committee. The Minister of State either accepts that principle or she does not.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not deal in black and white. I do not deal in the theoretical. I deal in trying to establish as much data as I possibly can. For example, I want to know whether all the bodies in question are statutory bodies or external, non-statutory bodies.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we take An Taisce, which, as a prescribed body, has to be consulted on some issues-----

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is exactly what I would like to examine. The Senator can either ask me to give every answer today or he can let me do more work. I would like to do more work on this. I am not accepting anything on principle because I have more work to do.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have asked a simple question of principle. I am being told it cannot be answered because the Minister of State has not looked at practical examples. In setting out the Attorney Genera's advice, she stated the following:

Unless and until a Minister makes the regulation, every iteration of the draft regulation, stamped or unstamped, is subject to legal professional privilege and cannot be provided to the committee. Only the regulations when made by a Minister can be provided to the committee, apart from the initial draft prepared by the Department, as I stated earlier.

That is what the Minister of State has told the committee today. I am saying that if that is correct, it means no Minister who goes to an outside body and tells it what he or she is proposing to do can be acting lawfully. Presumably, if Ministers are prohibited from showing such a document to us, they are prohibited from showing it to a sectoral organisation.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring the Minister of State in on this. I am conscious that she has to leave at 2.30 p.m. I also want to bring in other members. I ask her to respond to that point.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I said a version of what the Senator has stated. In my subsequent remarks, I softened it to specifically say I would come back to the committee later because I want to address the matter further.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, in the meantime, we will see nothing until it is law.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am here as a Minister of State who wants to work to get as much as possible done for this committee. I am asking for the opportunity to do more work, which I think will be of benefit to the committee. The Senator can either work with me or not.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the Minister of State's bona fides on this issue. I know she wants to make it work. This situation has been going on for 50 years. I and others fought hard to have this committee established. It was set up on foot of a Cabinet decision. Its title is the Seanad Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Draft EU-related Statutory Instruments. The title reflects what we are supposed to be doing here. A previous Attorney General said at Cabinet that it was okay for the Oireachtas to have a committee to engage in this scrutiny. If EU statutory instruments are drafts, it means they are not signed into Irish law at the point at which they are being scrutinised. The current Attorney General is saying we are not allowed to see the draft laws. He is saying the Minister will sign them into law and we can then have a look at them. Will the Minister of State clarify that this is the advice that has been given?

The reason the committee was set up was to ensure people can have confidence that the Government is making law in an open and transparent manner. The work of the committee is about scrutinising laws in advance to make sure they are done correctly. As I have said previously, the worst example of a law being made in secret, without any committee, TD or Senator ever seeing it, was the first law in the history of the State to deal with organ donation. It was 36 pages long and no health committee, TD or Senator saw it. It was signed into law without anybody seeing it. Does that sound like open and transparent government? No, it does not. That law was so badly drafted and got so little scrutiny that, two years later, the same Department of Health that had introduced it added 16 more pages. The Department then got another Minister to sign it without anybody seeing it. Again, it was signed into law without any TD or Senator, or any member of the public, seeing it. This committee was set up to stop that from happening.

The Attorney General is now saying it is okay for a Minister to sign a draft statutory instrument into Irish law without any scrutiny. In fact, the Minister is not allowed to share it with TDs, Senators, any committee or, worse still, the citizens of Ireland whom it will affect. After a whole year, we have come to this point.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I disagree.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are being told we are not allowed to see the legislation that is about to be signed into law. If I am wrong on this, I will stand corrected. The legislation we are discussing is analogous to laws initiated by the Oireachtas. In that case, a process of over-and-back engagement is fine. We have White Papers, pre-legislative scrutiny and so on. We are all familiar with that process. There are exchanges between the Attorney General's office and Departments. One could argue about privilege and all of that. In the case of primary legislation, the outcome of that process is called a Bill, which we all then go on to scrutinise. In the instances we are discussing, the outcome of the process is a draft statutory instrument, which we are not allowed to scrutinise. We are not allowed to see it and it will be signed into law by a Minister without anyone having scrutinised it.

That is making laws in secret. It lacks transparency. No government should accept it as a way of doing business, bearing in mind that there are more laws made in Ireland relating to EU directives than there is legislation originating in the Houses. In the case of the latter, we are allowed to engage in scrutiny and there is a whole process of over-and-back engagement. That will not be allowed to happen with EU-related draft statutory instruments. An example of that was the corporate sustainability reporting statutory instrument, which ran to more than 100 pages. We asked for it but never saw it. It was signed into law by the Minister, as reported on "Morning Ireland" on the morning of Monday, 8 July. No Member of the Oireachtas or any citizen of Ireland saw the document that was signed into law in advance of its being signed into law

I am conscious that my colleagues are waiting to speak. May we get a figure from the officials as to the daily fine being imposed on the State for late transposition of directives? I understand there are fines of €10,000 a day, which adds up to €3.65 million over a year. There are still fines outstanding. Am I correct that fines in the region of €10,000 are being incurred every day? That gives a total of €70,000 this week and €3.65 million by the end of the year. How many such fines are being imposed? I give way to my colleagues.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will let the Minister of State respond before bringing in other members.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Cathaoirleach not allow everyone in before calling the Minister of State? It is up to him. I know she has to leave. I appreciate she is genuine.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Senator to let me answer. I think I can be helpful. May I do so, a Chathaoirligh?

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. After that, I will bring in the other three members.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Daly knows I want to see this committee working as well as possible. I hear what he is saying. However, the way he is saying it is to suggest that everything is being done in secret, absent any other processes. It is as though these laws are being produced entirely in secret without other processes coexisting with them. Let us not forget-----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that all the processes are being followed but the final legislation, which could have different wording, is not allowed to be scrutinised by TDs, Senators, this committee or the sectoral committees that are supposed to examine such matters.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Statutory instruments are the product of a legislative process in which Ireland is fully participating. Irish MEPs are participating in it, as is the Government. Oireachtas sectoral committees have the power to scrutinise such proposals at a much earlier stage. Scrutiny is happening at every level. There are also the existing post hoc annulment powers of the Oireachtas, which remain-----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must respond to that.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to state it.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know the Minister of State was given a note by her officials. What she referred to has happened once in the history of the State.

It is laid before the library. It requires a process that has happened once, and even that did not sustain itself. In the context of comments to the effect that it can be put on the record and we can annul it afterwards, we do not want to annul legislation. We want to see it before it is signed off.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the Senator, but I must still state that these processes exist. The real trick is to get involved upstream when the law is being scrutinised and developed between the European Council and the European Parliament. That is obviously the place where most of the work should be done, including by this Oireachtas, rather than after the fact-----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not given the law that is about to be signed into place.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am trying to work to do the best I can with the Senators on that-----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but these things are not the only part of the legislative process-----

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very conscious of time now.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fine.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Higgins.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State introduced the analogy in terms of primary legislation. Rather than Green Papers or White Papers, we are talking about primary legislation. The language is interesting. There reference in our Standing Orders, which were, of course, agreed by the Government as the Standing Orders of the Houses of the Parliament, is not to a draft statutory instrument but, rather to a proposed statutory instrument. This is important. Who exactly is proposing the statutory instrument? Who is proposing this new law?

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the Government.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Following agreement by the Irish parliamentarians and the Parliamentary Counsel-----

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, let us go through it. If the Government is proposing this-----

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Following the legislative process.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. To be very clear, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government is not proposing legislation.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Correct.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If a Department is proposing legislation in terms of a statutory instrument, then the key issue, the gap and the space where this committee was designed to sit - a space now being encroached upon by what I believe is this overreach in terms of the advice from the Attorney General - relates to the process between a proposed statutory instrument and a new statutory instrument that is law. The gap is between a Bill and an Act. Yes, back and forth may happen, and it may well be privileged in terms of the drafting of a Bill, but a Bill is nonetheless published and is subject to a process of parliamentary scrutiny before it becomes an Act. The Bill that is published, whether or not it reflects advice that may have come from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel is published by and is therefore a proposal from the Government and the relevant Department at the time. Given that the Government is proposing the Bill, similarly, the proposed statutory instrument, that is, the instrument about be signed, potentially, by a Minister, is proposed by the Government. That document, the one in between, which may reflect, as a Bill reflects, the advice of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, is a proposed statutory instrument. What we are being told, effectively, is "No, you can only see Acts".

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse me. To be very clear, this is exactly what we are being told.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are being told that any copy until-----

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

----the regulations have been made by the Minister will be subject to legal professional privilege.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Effectively, it is being stated that the version of the statutory instrument that is about to be signed by the Minister is privileged until it has already been made and becomes law. An Act becomes law and a statutory instrument is law.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A proposed statutory instrument is the point at which we, as a committee, should be in a position to carry out parliamentary scrutiny. This is the piece that matters, namely where something as solid as a Bill is ultimately proposed by a Department. It might be stated that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel put together that draft of the Bill and that the intention was to get the relevant Minister to sign it. If there is an issue on the part of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in between its providing advice, the drafting process and the Minister signing off, then, frankly, it is the job of the Government to insert a new piece into the process such that the Department is responsible for and writes the final version, which is a proposed statutory instrument. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel does not have to choose to let us see that or to have it be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny. The Department can say that it is its proposed statutory instrument and is no longer the property of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, regardless of whether it reflects the latter's advice. The Department can, and, indeed, should then share it. This comes back to another crucial point. It is not just a problem for this committee. Nobody is here for fun. We are not here simply to hurry things up or play some kind of cheerleading role in the context of getting things through quickly. This is about the serious fact that almost half the legislation coming through is not being subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. It is not equivalent to talk about the EU, directives and-----

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, it is.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. It is equivalent to saying-----

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hang on.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----that if 50% of the Bills published become Acts without any parliamentary input on the text of those Bills -----

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Higgins, two other colleagues who wish to contribute as well.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will let them in, but this is a crucial piece. It is the definition, effectively, of failing to have laws scrutinised. As an example, in the context of the corporate sustainability reporting directive, we were told there was a list of stakeholders who were regularly updated by email during that process. The parliamentary community, however, was not.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am now bringing in Senator O'Reilly.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to say respectfully that I indicated my desire to contribute 20 minutes ago. I have to deputise for my colleague Senator Ward in the Seanad at 2.30 p.m.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My sincere apologies.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been indicating for 20 minutes. That is not fair. A normal courtesy obtains in this regard.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for that. I did not see the Senator indicating-----

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going to insist on making my couple of points now.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, 100%.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is bad form that I did not get in 20 minutes ago. I was indicating very clearly to all the officials as well.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept-----

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must represent Senator Ward in the Seanad at 2.30 p.m.

To get to the point here, I wish to start backwards. I am serious about that. I thank the Minister of State for being here. It is great that she is here and that she responded so quickly. I am going to look at a variation of today's debate. I am going to look at some positives. It is important that we do so. It is wonderful that the Minister of State has engaged in a process with her Department whereby she is looking at infringement cases. She has identified that 15 are awaiting closure and that she is continuing to look at these cases in order to speed up the process, get them dealt with and quantify the cost to the country.

In the Seanad yesterday, I raised the question of children waiting for child and adolescent mental health services and disability assessments. If it is the case that we have these fines, if they can be curtailed, reduced and saved, then that is real money and it can be used to make a difference there. I commend and congratulate the Minister of State on identifying those cases. It is important to the taxpayers of Ireland and to those children are awaiting the services to which I refer.

The Minister of State said there is no difficulty with the initial draft instructions for the regulations. She stated, "These should represent the substantive if not quite settled policy of the Department". Let us look at the positives here. That is an extraordinarily important start. In response to a very distinguished former Attorney General, who does know the ground here, she also stated that she is prepared to look at the other scenario and to expedite and look at processes, accepting that legal privilege must exist, as the current Attorney General says, in exchanges between the legal advisers, the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers, the Department officials and the Minister. Initially, that piece must remain as privileged. In response to Senator McDowell, the Minister of State has said she is prepared to see where there are potentialities within that to make material available.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I trust the Minister of State's the bona fides. She is an eminent lawyer. She will get this aspect right. With great respect to our distinguished company here, and I have been on this committee for a year, I am of the view that we are soon going to have to move away from the navel-gazing and semantic discussions that have been going on ad nauseam.

A number of members do not have the self-confidence to say it here - not that I have an abundance of it myself, but I have enough to make this point - but they are disgusted at the way this committee is going. It is constantly a semantic debating society, with us splitting hairs the whole time and nothing actually happening. Let us start making things happen. Let us start accepting the Minister of State’s bona fides and that she will sort out the third scenario to the degree possible within the law. She cannot break the law. She cannot put the State at risk of significant legal action arising from advices and responses to advice. Insofar as she can provide the information without putting the State at risk, though, she will do so. She has already stated that we will get the initial position of the Department, which we all know will be substantively the finished product. She has moved extraordinarily expeditiously and seriously on the cases against our country. That is the most important use of today’s meeting, although the rest is critical, too.

We should accept the Minister of State’s bona fides, await her reverting to us after a round of discussions on and analysis of the third scenario, and proceed with our work. There is an old expression in rural Ireland that has merit in this discussion: “You cannot spend all the time weighing the pig; you have to spend some time feeding it.” We are perpetually weighing the damn pig.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was aware that the Senator had indicated, but I did not realise he was under time pressure.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am. I have to go. I mean no disrespect to colleagues with my comments.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are talking about similar-----

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to run upstairs to deputise for Senator Ward.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that, but Senator Ward is no more important than Senator O’Reilly, me or any other Senator.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a Seanad committee and we are entitled to deal with our business without regard to what is happening in the Seanad chamber.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Martin, after which the Minister of State will respond.

Vincent P Martin (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like other members, I thank the Minister of State for her attendance, but I also thank her for her full engagement. I recognise and accept her bona fides in this matter, but I have to disagree with Senator O’Reilly’s comment about this being a semantic point. It is a substantive point, not an interpretation of linguistics. It is a serious issue that goes to the core of why this committee was formed. I accept that there have been important add-ons in respect of other important work, but my willingness to sit on this committee was based on my understanding that it was never to have a post factum role. We are legislators. If someone wants commentary, he or she should go to The Irish Times, the Law Society Gazette or The Bar Review.

I hope the Minister of State can navigate through this. If anyone can, she can. I have great confidence in her. She has to respect the advice she received and I do not doubt that good advice was given in the best of good faith, but we are now in a serious quandary. There is a state of perplexity that could logjam us unless we navigate around it. This committee will become an evaluative talking shop, and that is not the intention of Senator Daly and others who fought for it for many years. Bizarrely, it was not the intention of the Government when it granted us our terms of reference either. There is often disagreement between the Houses on the separation of powers, but there now seems to be a disagreement within a power. To quote the record one last time, “Only the regulations when made by a Minister can be provided to the committee.” That is an accurate quote and I do not see a role for us unless we can overcome that. I am trying to be constructive and we will stay at this for as long as possible, but that is called “scuppering”. It is a fundamental scuppering of the terms of reference.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point is this: what the Attorney General is effectively saying is that TDs and Senators are not allowed to see that law before it becomes law. Am I misinterpreting anything? We are being told that the draft regulation the Minister gets is privileged, that when the Minister puts his or her signature to it, it becomes law, that TDs and Senators are not allowed to see it, scrutinise it or look at the “may”, “shall”, “will” and “will not” until the Minister signs it-----

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and that, when the Minister signs it, we can look at it then and only then.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister of State to respond.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will respond to a range of matters. Perhaps I should not have accepted the invitation, it was premature to do so and I should have insisted on waiting until September or October until I had had the opportunity to do the body of work I am proposing to do to attempt to be of assistance to the committee. I will reflect on that the next time I receive an invitation. I am here to try to be of the best service I can to the committee.

With that in mind, it is important for the committee to remember that it is scrutinising statutory instruments, which are the product of a legislative process. Members are legislators, but they are not the primary legislators in this instance, and it is wrong to equate the role of this committee to that of a primary legislature, which in this instance is the European Parliament and the codecision process at European level. It is not correct to say, infer or equate in any way this legislative process with a primary legislative process either in this House or in Europe. It is not correct to align this process with the transfer of a Bill into an Act, which is a primary legislative process. It is wrong for this committee or members of it to suggest that there is some measure of secrecy, hiding behind anything or keeping things quiet. It is not a primary legislative process. It is the transposition of secondary legislation. The primary legislation has already received full transparent scrutiny in a competent legislature. That is a really important point.

I agree with the committee, however, and the best measure of transparency possible is what I would like to see. I am trying to work for the committee as well as with the committee to achieve that. Already, I have managed to achieve a process update, that being, a much earlier publication, not just of an information note, but of the draft statutory instrument. I hope the committee will at least acknowledge that. I am trying to work on achieving that with Departments at a much earlier stage and getting that standardised process for the committee. If the committee-----

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will clarify something. It was the instruction that we were to be-----

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, Senator.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have not even received a draft statutory instrument from any Department.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And I believe that was the instruction. I just wanted to clarify that.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The committee-----

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot-----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have not received one. Am I correct, a Chathaoirligh?

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How may weeks exactly have I have been in this position? I am trying to introduce a new process. Perhaps the committee would listen to the words I am saying rather than refer back to notes, which I qualified as I read them. Listen to what I am saying. I am trying to introduce a new process for the benefit of this committee and of the management of statutory instrument processes more generally so that they happen in a more timely way and do not risk fines where those can be avoided, thereby benefiting the State. I am trying to get a process agreed across government for the committee, not just to get an instruction note, although I believe that would be sufficient on the more technical statutory instruments. Other statutory instruments require a more substantive document from a Department – in essence, the draft statutory instrument – to be published to this committee and more broadly within a specified period. I have suggested six months, but I would like to lower that.

The work by the Department should have been done upstream prior to the directive being agreed. The work of this committee and the sectoral committee should also have been done upstream. There is a substantive opportunity for the committee to do that, not just to act post factum. Of course, the very essence of statutory instruments is post factum, but there is an opportunity to do the upstream work also and to have a much more substantive role. I would like the Departments to place their weight and engagement at that stage because that is the opportunity for Ireland to have more meaningful engagement on the outcome of the directives. There is that piece of work as well, but I am trying to introduce a process more broadly where the instruction note and, more importantly, the draft statutory instrument are published at an earlier stage because they-----

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must call Senator McDowell. I am conscious of the Minister of State’s time, but-----

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First of all-----

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must say that I am genuinely trying to work through this to see what the history has been. Does Senator McDowell know-----

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me put the Minister of State’s mind to rest. I have no doubt that she is trying to do her best on this. I have no doubt about her good faith or have ever implied the opposite.

Vincent P Martin (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am deeply concerned about what I am reading because it reflects the Attorney General’s view of this matter. That is what I am worried about.

The Minister of State said a number of times that all directives were the outcome of a legislative process. That is true up to a point, in that they are considered by the European Parliament, but many directives give to member states significant discretion in how they implement those directives.

If these things were simply regulations that we had to stamp and put into position, that would be one thing but when it comes to directives in particular, member states are given very wide latitude. They can choose between options A, B and C. They can choose to go further. They can choose to reject. They can do a lot of things, so it is not correct to say that every statutory instrument made under the EU Acts is something that has gone through a full legislative process. It certainly has not.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Because of that, Senator-----

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, let me finish. The member state has the primary duty to legislate on foot of directives. This is primary legislation, done by statutory instrument. It is law and I just want to emphasise that to the Minister of State.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator, I do understand. This is precisely why I am trying to get a process in place. I cannot determine this. I can only look for agreement to it, to publish that draft statutory instrument. This is essentially going to be the policy direction that the Department takes. It is right that the committee has that. It is totally appropriate that the committee has it as early as possible. I also think the public should have it. I acknowledge that is not what has happened to date but I am trying to do something different.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is one other thing. We do not intend to take part in the legislative process. Our function is extremely limited. It is to look at a draft statutory instrument and to say that this is of sufficient importance. This is all we can do. We can look at it and say that the sectoral committee should be warned in advance that something is coming down the track. That committee should ask the Minister to explain why he or she is proposing to address it in the particular manner that has been signalled to us. That is all we are asked to do. It is a very narrow and limited thing. We are not here to second guess any Minister.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister of State to conclude.

Vincent P Martin (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We cannot have everything comprised in the regulation, when we get it.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am bearing in mind that the Minister of State has only been in her position for about 100 days.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Exactly, I am making every allowance for that.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think that you have not just hit the ground running but you have hit the ground speeding. As Cathaoirleach, I take my hat off to you for your engagement and your attempts to wade through a lot of history to try to put a proper, transparent process in place. I want to acknowledge that.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a body of work we can do together before this Oireachtas finishes. We can improve the process across Government. I want to do that for the next Oireachtas. We have a chance here to work together to get a new process in place, which, as the Senator says, will be a different process for the first time in 50 years. It will be a better scrutiny process. I will not be able to get the committee everything it wants but I will be able to make it very much better if the committee works with me.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for accepting the invitation and I thank her officials. I think we have made great progress today.