Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

It is wonderful that the arguments can be marshalled to suit the case in need. In virtually every Bill of late, the Civil Service has inserted a catch-all phrase as a norm. I dealt with one last week, ironically from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, where such a catch-all phrase was used whereby, notwithstanding any other provision, the Minister may basically do anything else he sees fit under the section. When sitting on the Government side of the House, it is a useful little clause that would run foul of the pronouncement the Minister of State made regarding the constitutional separation of powers and the right of the Oireachtas to legislate. Would that this were true. More law is made by order of the Minister through statutory instrument every day of the week than is made here. We have dealt with some Bills where the regulations are many times more complicated, longer and more voluminous than the prime statute. I recognise the argument for the important legislative role that the Constitution gives the Oireachtas. I wish this was the normal view given by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and its Ministers.

Having said that, there is some merit in the argument put forward by the Minister of State. It is not the case regarding the secondary legislation provision. However, there is something to be said for the argument that it might capture offences outside the scope of the ICC. If the Rome Statute were to be amended, it would be more appropriate to amend this legislation in due course. However, this was a convenient suggestion to bring new international jurisprudence developments into effect here in a speedy manner, without being obliged to wait for new primary legislation to be dealt with by the Houses. That said, I will not win the argument. There are too many constitutional barriers conjured up by the Minister of State to my proposal and I will withdraw the amendment.

See this speech in context