Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

It is, and I agree with it. I have no argument against the principles outlined in the judgment. Primary legislation should basically be quite broad. Legislation coming before the House should relate to principles which one should not be able to oppose. The courts tell us that, in secondary legislation, we should not amend an Act so as to make it contrary to the primary legislation. That is what is being ruled out, and I have no argument against that.

In the years to come I would not like to see a position develop whereby, every time legislative change is being considered, it must involve primary legislation. I fear that the system might view the judgment in that way. A great many Acts, statutory declarations or orders are straightforward. In that light, the suggestion by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe is valid. I accept that primary legislation should not be contradicted, although legal personnel might come up with an opposite argument. I hope the judgment does not undermine the basis of primary legislation, as that would only clutter the business of the House for years to come. As I have long argued, the House should spend more time debating the principles of primary legislation rather than the detail.

As Deputy Jim O'Keeffe is aware, better perhaps than I am, an appeal has been made to the Supreme Court on the issue of the statutory instruments. The argument of the eminent judge involved is that statutory instruments should be part of legislation. I disagree with that because I do not see how this House could work on that basis. I will have to accept and abide by the Supreme Court decision on the appeal, but I do not see the sense in the original argument. We must await the decision.

See this speech in context