Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

If this debate has revealed anything, it is an undercurrent of concern among Senators regarding the process involved in how information relating to the laws, directives and statutory instruments of the European Union emerges and is communicated to the public. In that context, I again suggest to the Minister of State that when he is reflecting on this matter and on the wider issue of the European constitution which, as the Taoiseach indicated, will soon be before the people, the administration and execution of business of the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny be reviewed.

A number of Members have had experience of the sub-committee to which I refer. Its work is obtuse, complicated, highly technical and complex. I fully appreciate that the directives are highly technical and legalistic in nature. I am grateful to one of the Minister of State's officials who pointed out that a number of countries adopted an attitude that is the opposite of that which obtains in this country in respect of the processing of directives. The parliaments in the countries to which I refer deal with directives, statutory instruments and regulations as primary legislation, with the result that their business is now in a tangle. Italy is one of the countries in question and its Parliament must debate, ad nauseam, every item that comes from Europe. That is the other side of the equation.

I will not repeat what I said earlier. However, I hope that, in the interests of all the issues raised in this debate, namely, accountability, transparency, due process and, most importantly, the needs of the electorate, to the members of which we are all responsible, a review might be carried out into how directives, statutory instruments, etc. are transposed into Irish law. We might then, perhaps, be in a position to take a more positive view of Europe. As the Minister of State indicated, the figure in this regard — 87% — is quite high. If, however, people were obliged to listen to what we have been obliged to listen to in this debate, would it remain at that level?