Alex White (Labour)

The issue to which I wish to refer also arose in the context of the 2007 Act. The Minister of State may be familiar with the position my party took on that occasion. I take this opportunity to reiterate that position. This matter may also have been raised during the debate on the Bill in the Lower House.

My concern relates to the authority given to the Minister to specify indictable offences by way of secondary legislation, namely, statutory instrument. It should be a cardinal rule, in respect of which we should admit few, if any, exceptions, that when an indictable offence is being established in this jurisdiction, it should be done on foot of debate and the enactment of primary legislation in the Houses of the Oireachtas. It simply is not appropriate that a Minister - I am sure he or she would be well meaning and act in good faith and in accordance with the principal legislation - should have the power to establish by way of statutory instrument indictable offences which are serious and often attract extremely large fines. That which I am describing is wrong in principle and flies in the face of what everyone agrees is the considerable advance included in the Bill, namely, the opportunity for the Oireachtas to become far more deeply involved in European affairs and law-making, particularly in the context of what has been done in the Lisbon treaty. Section 4 runs counter to the very laudable principle of involving the Legislature, legislators and, by extension, the wider community in discussing what is being done in their name.

For the reasons I have outlined, it is wrong in principle for the matters to which I refer to be the subject of a statutory instrument. This provision flies in the face of the wider achievement that has flowed from the passing of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. We are changing and enhancing the role of Members of both Houses. Why, therefore, should the latter not be involved in the proper fashion in the determination of laws which deal with indictable offences? While it may be argued that the matter does not strictly arise in respect of this Bill because it was dealt with in the 2007 legislation, it is important to again record the fact that this decision is bad and wrong and contradicts the remainder of the very good work being done.