Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)

Looking at the line "having regard to the acts or omissions of which the offence consists", would they trust any Minister or Minister of State with such a power? I think they would reject it overwhelmingly. It is simply too much power to vest in one Minister. They would reject the provision to make this power retrospective without oversight from the Oireachtas. Many do not know we are having this debate and do not know its outcome or impact. The people elect us as Teachtaí Dála, messengers to the Dáil, to look after their best interests. They do not elect us to rubber-stamp a decision made by a Minister, but to have an involvement in the process. The Minister of State is denying us that right, but he is also denying the people their right, which is the critical issue.

Do the people really know what is going on? If they did, would they support the Bill? I know the Attorney General has advised the Minister of State to take this route. As an aside, Attorneys General do not always follow their own advice, as is the case with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Attorney General's advice may solve the immediate problem caused by the Supreme Court decision, but what are the implications in the long term? Has the Minister of State considered the sidelining of the Oireachtas and all that will entail? Has he considered all the possibilities that may be covered by introducing retrospective legislation going back 34 years? Has he considered the possibility of abuse or misuse of this power by a subsequent Minister? Has he given his opinion that this is fully constitutional? Even if he is sure that it is, has the Minister of State forgotten the precautionary principle? Will he accept some of the amendments and put in place some safeguards to ensure the checks and balances work? That is necessary if the Minister of State is to be sure any legislation enacted on his watch will stand the test of time. I understand the need to deal with this situation — we must deal with it — but I think the Minister of State is compounding mistakes which have already been made. He is trying to push a huge mess under the carpet by giving sweeping retrospective powers to Ministers to deal with problems by getting them out of the way and moving on. Somebody will trip over the pile of rubbish that will remain under the carpet.

The Minister of State spoke about putting transparent and effective procedures in place. These procedures may initially seem effective because they will get rid of the problem, but they will not be transparent by any stretch of the imagination. They will not even be visible — we will not be able to tell that the new powers are being used. The Minister of State said the European Union will not work unless member states implement community law and decisions in a reliable and consistent manner. He gave the impression we are trying to ensure in this Bill that the rules are the same for everyone, as they must be. However, I can give the House a list of penalties which are different in various EU member states. I do not have time to mention them all, but I will highlight one of the inconsistencies on which this legislation will have no impact. If one is found guilty of falsifying fisheries control documents in the UK, one will be fined €132,000. The equivalent penalty is €4,500 in Spain, €400 in Portugal and €270 in France. I do not know what it is in Ireland, but perhaps the Minister of State can tell us. I have a list of penalties, for breaching various rules and regulations, which differ substantially in various EU countries. I am aware of an offence for which one can receive five years' imprisonment in one country, but no penalty in another country. It is not true to suggest this legislation will make all EU countries implement penalties in the same way.

The Minister of State said this Bill represents a response to the serious implications of the Supreme Court judgment, which requires this country to update the way it uses secondary legislation to give effect to EU obligations under Irish law. He told us it is that straightforward. If the Bill is a response, it is an ill-judged response. This measure is not that straightforward. It is not just a question of updating the way we use secondary legislation. This Bill makes some fundamental changes in that area. It will allow sweeping retrospective legislation to be introduced.

When I discussed this issue with Mr. Pat Cox, a former President of the European Parliament, he mentioned that he was able to introduce an inter-institutional agreement, running parallel with a process called comitology, to allow for review, stand-still and call-back. In other words, he negotiated the right of the European Parliament to call a particular issue back if it feels there is a problem with it. I am asking the Minister of State to do the same thing. He should give this House the right to engage in a process of review, stand-still and call-back. If he does that, he will be taking a reasonable and balanced approach to this legislation.

See this speech in context