David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

In parliamentary terms, this is the most important amendment we have seen today. It may not be the most far-reaching in dealing with climate change but in terms of ensuring openness and accountability, it is crucial. Two months is perfectly adequate time for the Minister in which to provide a reason advice has not been taken. In the context of parliamentary procedures with which I have tangled with various Cathaoirligh during the years, we have had situations where proposals were rejected and no reason was given for their rejection. That is wrong. In a democracy an appropriate and rational reason, not some rubbish, should be given.

In terms of dialogue and understanding issues, it is important to know the arguments on both sides. It is a serious matter for the Government to reject advice from an advisory council that it has established. In these circumstances it is important that the Government's' position be made clear. If it rejects the advice of its own group, Parliament and the public are entitled to know the reasons which could be poor. The Government could resist something because industry would not make such a big profit and it had been lobbied by it and told not to touch it because it would affect its profits at the end of the year. That is not a good reason in dealing with climate change. In dealing with environmental issues it is not a particularly good reason. The people should be entitled to know the reason. Of course, the Government would not want them to know - it is obvious that it would not - because then it could be held to account and pilloried for rejecting advice on inappropriate grounds, but it is very much based on those inappropriate grounds that the public have a right to know.