Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Two of these amendments were discussed thoroughly on Committee Stage in the Dáil. At the time, Senator Reilly's colleague, Deputy Pearse Doherty, asked for a fuller response from the Department of Finance to the reports of the fiscal advisory council. When the Minister, Deputy Noonan, committed to get such a response, that was accepted by Deputy Doherty. The same amendment was not moved on Report Stage by Deputy Doherty, who noted the Minister's response. The evidence of the commitment given by the Minister, Deputy Noonan, can be seen in chapter 6 of the medium-term fiscal statement that was published last week. I understand that the chapter in question includes an assessment along the lines of that requested by Deputy Doherty. The Bill does not require to be amended because we have agreed to act in this manner from now on when we publish medium-term fiscal statements. A section covering the matters that Deputy Doherty asked about will be included. We do not think there is a need to put it into the Bill because we are already doing it. I hope I have explained that properly.

The common principles adopted by the European Commission require Governments to comply with the assessments set out in section 8(3), or explain why they are not complying with them. If I were to accept the amendments that have been proposed, the Government would be required to respond to all assessments and reports provided by the council. The Government does respond to the assessments of the council. The Minister, Deputy Noonan, has responded to the council's reports in its stability programme updates and in its medium-term fiscal statements.

Placing this requirement on a legislative basis would be difficult. The assessments arising from the council's general functions under subsection (4) can be wide-ranging and contain a great deal of analysis and a large number of recommendations. Would Government have to respond to every line of the recommendations or analysis or just a few of the main items? In any event, the Government answers to the Oireachtas and the mechanisms available therein can be used to elicit further responses to council reports.

It is a matter for the Houses to decide what they want to debate. It would be a little previous for the Government to dictate what the Houses should do. It is a matter for them to decide what they want. There is nothing to prevent the Houses from deciding to debate these reports at times suitable to them.

The reference to subsection (3) is a reference to the core functions of the fiscal council under the treaty. In the assessments in question, the fiscal council will analyse, if exceptional circumstances exist or have ceased to exist, and also examine the Government's compliance with section 6 regarding the corrective mechanism. The specifics of the assessments arise from the provisions of the treaty and are precise requirements. They are treaty requirements with which we must comply on the basis of acceptance of the treaty.

With regard to providing for placing requests for a debate in this legislation, requests for debate are as I said earlier, a matter for the Oireachtas. As stated by the Minister, Deputy Noonan, on Report Stage the Government is never reluctant to have debates on any issue. It is clear that a special report of a more crucial nature should take priority and we will be bound to debate that. However, the provision for a Dáil debate need not be written into every piece of legislation. Debate is the normal work of the Dáil and is arranged between the Whips. In addition, it is not appropriate to place in legislation a requirement for debates.

With regard to the shorter timeline as set out by Senator Barrett, as stated earlier this legislation aims to prepare for all eventualities. At the risk that a Government could not prepare such a statement due to an event such as a general election could result in non-compliance with the legislation. It is a type of unintended consequence argument that frequently crops up in legislation, if one attempts to be too prescriptive. While this could be the case with a two month deadline the chances are lessened. As such, I do not intend to accept this amendment, although I do understand the intent behind it. It is the intention of the Government to do so within a month anyway but there could be difficulties if it is prescribed that it do so within a month.