Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Dec 1977

Vol. 302 No. 6

Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities: Motion.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. O'Kennedy)

I move :

(1) That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas (which shall be called the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities) be established consisting of—

18 members of Dáil Éireann and 8 members of Seanad Éireann (none of whom shall be a delegate to the Assembly of the European Communities)

to examine—

(i) such programmes and guidelines prepared by the Commission of the European Communities as a basis for possible legislative action and such drafts of regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions of the Council of Ministers proposed by the Commission,

(ii) such acts of the institutions of those Communities,

(iii) such regulations under the European Communities Act, 1972 (No. 27 of 1972), and

(iv) such other instruments made under statute and necessitated by the obligations of membership of those Communities,

as the Joint Committee may select and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(2) That provision be made for the appointment of substitutes to act for members of the Joint Committee who are unable to attend particular meetings and that members of either House, not being members of the Joint Committee, be allowed to attend meetings and to take part in the proceedings without having a right to vote.

(3) That delegates to the Assembly of the European Communities be notified of meetings and be allowed to attend and take part in the proceedings without having a right to vote.

(4) That the Joint Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members to be Chairman, who shall have only one vote;

(5) That all questions in the Joint Committee shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting and in the event of there being an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative;

(6) That every report which the Joint Committee proposes to make shall on adoption by the Joint Committee be laid before both Houses of the Orieachtas forthwith whereupon the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report together with such related documents as it thinks fit; and

(7) That five members of the Joint Committee shall form a quorum of whom at least one shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and at least one shall be a member of Seanad Éireann.

I should first like to say something about the Community's law-making process and the need for scrutiny of Community secondary legislation. When we joined the Communities we adopted a new legal order which takes precedence over our national systems of law-making in the areas covered by the Treaties. The ability of the Community to enact laws in many areas, affects National Parliaments and this required the setting up of a joint Committee on Secondary Legislation—the object being to allow the Oireachtas to influence the formulation and implementation of Community legislation in those areas where the Houses would not have exclusive powers and to supervise the implementation of such legislation in Ireland.

Once its early difficulties were overcome the Joint Committee, under the last Dáil, did extremely valuable work in examining draft Community legislation, Community Acts and statutory instruments made under the European Communities Act of 1972. The magnitude of the task is formidable since it has been estimated that the Council of Ministers alone passes on average 300 measures every year, many of them of a highly complex and technical nature. In preparing their reports the Joint Committee selected for examination those draft acts which they considered to be of particular importance to this country, taking the views of various interest groups into account. They also examined all statutory instruments made to implement Community laws.

The expediency motion which is before the House today will establish a new Joint Committee which I hope will continue the good work of its predecessor. In deciding on composition, terms of reference and so on set out in the motion, the Goverment have taken into account the recommendations which the last Joint Committee made in their 55th report published in March, 1977, in which they examined their function and performance and suggested possible changes to improve the workings of their successor.

The new Joint Committee will consist of 18 Members of Dáil Éireann and eight Members of Seanad Éireann, a total of 26, which is the same number as the last Joint Committee. However, delegates to the European Parliament are no longer to be ex-officio members. It was originally felt that membership of the Joint Committee would be helpful to delegates to the European Parliament and that the experience gained by these delegates in the European forum would be of assistance to the Joint Committee. In practice the arrangement was not a success as Members of the European Parliament found that they were unable to take a full part in the very considerable amount of work involved in membership of the Joint Committee due to their commitments in Europe.

The valuable contribution which delegates to the European Parliament have to make to Community business in these Houses will not, however, be completely lost to the Joint Committee. Provision has been made for these delegates to be notified of meetings of the Joint Committee, to be allowed to attend and speak at meetings without, however, having a right to vote. As suggested by the last Joint Committee in their report of March, 1977, I think it would be useful if formal meetings between the Joint Committee and Members of the European Parliament were held from time to time on particular topics of special importance. It is intended also that the arrangements whereby the Joint Committee secretariat supplies delegates to the European Parliament with briefs should be continued.

The last Joint Committee found that, due to the necessary frequency of their meetings, particularly of sub-committees, and other commitments of their members, it was not always possible to secure an adequate attendance. Accordingly, they recommended in their report of March, 1977, that in regard to their successor provision be made for the appointment of substitutes to act for members who are unable to attend particular meetings. Such provision has been incorporated in the motion now before the House. The motion also provides that Members of either House, who are not members of the Joint Committee, will be allowed to attend meetings and take part in proceedings without having a right to vote. This provision will give an opportunity to Members with a special interest in a subject coming before the Joint Committee to express their views and will thus allow for the widest possible involvement in the process and implications of European legislation.

While speaking of the composition of the Joint Committee, I would like to say that it is the Government's hope and intention that the independent Senators should be represented on the Joint Committee as heretofore and that the Chairman should come from the Opposition, as heretofore.

I would like now to turn to the terms of reference of the Joint Committee which, Deputies will have noticed, have been extended as compared with the last Joint Committee to include the power to examine and report on programmes and guidelines prepared by the Commission as a basis for possible legislative action. I think it is important for the Joint Committee to be able to consider such documents as they provide the broad framework for legislation in the particular areas they deal with.

As before, the motion gives the Joint Committee authority to examine and report to the Houses of the Oireachtas at three stages in the process of adoption of legislation by the Communities, and of its implementation in Ireland.

The Joint Committee can first examine draft Community legislation, that is to say proposals by the Commission for legislation to be enacted by the Council and report on what they feel this legislation would mean for Ireland and what our attitude towards it should be during negotiations. The views of the Joint Committee can then be taken into account by the Government in deciding on their policy.

In the second stage the Joint Committee can examine Acts of the Community institutions and consider how best any obligations for Ireland might be implemented.

The third and final stage allows the Joint Committee to examine ministerial regulations made under the European Communities Act, 1972, and instruments made under other statutes in order to implement our Community obligations. The power of the Joint Committee at this final stage is reinforced by the provisions of the European Communities (Amendment) Act, 1973, under which the Joint Committee can recommend the annulment of any ministerial regulation made under the European Communities Act. If both Houses subsequently pass a resolution annulling the regulation in question, it will cease to have statutory effect. Thus the Joint Committee can make their views known on Community legislation before it is adopted, can say how it should be implemented in Ireland when it is adopted and can supervise its implementation.

On the question of debates on the reports of the Joint Committee, it is my intention that these should be held twice yearly at the same time as the debates in each House on the Reports on Developments in the European Communities. These debates would then provide the House with the opportunity to examine and comment on all aspects of European affairs. While it is my hope that such debates will be held regularly, this will be subject to the overriding consideration of the ordering of parliamentary business.

Mr. Bruton

It is with some degree of pleasure that I welcome the resolution before the House to re-establish the Joint Committee. During the accession negotiations I remember I placed a number of questions to the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, now President of the country, in relation to this matter and I sought to ensure that Ireland would follow the most advanced practice adopted by the then members of the EEC in establishing committees in relation to EEC legislation. European Community legislation has as much effect on ordinary life in this country as has much of the legislation that we pass amid great controversy and publicity and it can pass into law with very little publicity.

It is very important that Members of this House who are in close touch with the needs of their constituents have an opportunity of expressing their views clearly to the Government through their representatives in Europe on the implication of this legislation. It is well known that the volume of legislation, in terms of paper, which has to be studied coming from the European Community is far greater than anything we can imagine in this House from our experience in scrutinising national legislation coming before us. Therefore, quite clearly if the implications of this massive legislation are to be adequately understood as they affect us special measures are necessary to ensure that it is so examined. A special time must be set aside in which Members can engage in its study. For that reason the setting up of this committee in previous Dáils and this one is a welcome and important step in maintaining democratic responsibility by the EEC. We must realise that democratic responsibility at present is not given full expression through the European Parliament. That parliament does not have the powers of a parliament such as ours in respect of the matters which come within the competence of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Therefore there is a need for a democratic check, at national level, on the activities of the European Commission, given that the powers of the European Parliament are not sufficient and are not equal to those of the existing national parliaments of the nine member countries.

Given the huge task conferred on that committee I would ask the Minister to consider very carefully whether it is given an adequate number of staff and support in terms of research for its numbers. Where a particular regulation is drawn to the members' attention and they request their staff to seek information on it that information can and will be obtained for them. But they have a role which is more than that of merely responding to requests from members of the public to investigate particular Bills. Theirs is a watchdog role. It is their job to scrutinise all legislation coming before them regardless of whether there may be any agitation about it at that time because they may be the only people in a position to express a view on it or who would be taking an interest in it. Therefore they need to have sufficient staff at least to have some acquaintance with the implications of every single item of legislation coming from the European Community, whether in the form of a directive or regulation. Again, I would ask the Minister if he is satisfied that sufficient staff is available for that purpose.

The provision under which the committee can examine draft legislation as well as regulations made by the Minister under existing directives of the Community is a most important one because it is at that stage that an influence can be had by the committee, through the Minister and the Members of the European Parliament, on the final decision.

I should like to ask the Minister also if he is satisfied that the findings of this committee are given sufficient attention in the various Departments of State to which they are directed. My experience—admittedly I was not perhaps paying as detailed attention as I should to this matter during the time I was in office in various Departments—was that perhaps sufficient attention is not given either by the office-holders or their civil servants in the various Departments to the findings of this committee. Perhaps there is need for a special procedure to be adopted through which officers in individual Departments would be specifically charged with bringing to the attention of their Minister, in respect of any issue on which a file is submitted to him, that a view had been expressed by the committee on that particular directive and that that would be specifically noted on the file. Otherwise, if the Minister is left to inquire of his own accord whether or not the committee have considered this matter, he may not do so and, in his decision, may not take into account the fact that a committee of this House, set up specifically for that purpose, has expressed a view on it. Perhaps the Minister would consider some special procedures in that respect.

There is a last point I should like to draw to the Minister's attention. All of us who were Members of the last Dáil are aware of the form in which these reports of the committee are circulated. They are circulated in relation to specific topics on roneod, rolled-off paper. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to have them published in a bound form, in a way they could be more attractively presented to the public through the Government Publications Sales Office.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Just for clarification, the Deputy is speaking of the actual reports from the committee themselves?

Mr. Bruton

Yes, on individual subjects. The committee may publish a composite report on thir total activities, but in practical terms what people will refer to and make use of, what individual groups will be interested in is not the overall report of the committee, through which they may have to plough to find one item of direct concern to them, but rather individual reports on individual subjects. That is really what any man in a hurry wanting to reach a decision will want to refer to; he wants the bit of paper dealing with his particular interest and not a larger report he will have to plough through—of which we get loads every day in the week anyway and which probably most of us do not get round to reading. I would ask the Minister to consider affording the committee an opportunity of some special form of publication, in an attractive form, of their reports so that every interested group in the community affected and who should know what the committee have done in relation to their matter of interest, should have this available to them.

Perhaps I may make one last point. It is not one on which I am sure I am right; indeed, maybe the Minister is right and I am wrong. The Minister is suggesting that there should be an opportunity for debating the reports of the Joint Committee. He says it is his intention that this debate will be held twice yearly at the same time as the debates in each House of the Oireachtas on the Reports on the Development of the European Communities. That is welcome. I merely wonder whether, from the point of view of focusing specifically on the work of the committee—which is a committee of this House—it would not be better to have a special debate on the report of the committee, separate from that on the general developments in the European Community. That would ensure that the views of a committee of this House, rather than the broad canvas of issues—which may end up becoming very political, talking about European Summits, integration and other such material—will be brought into the debate. The result is that perhaps rather detailed and important matters of specific concern to the committee contained in their report will be lost sight of in this great, broad, general debate. Perhaps the Minister would consider allowing a debate of a relatively limited time on the specific findings of this committee.

I shall conclude by welcoming the re-introduction of this Committee and the innovative and open approach the Minister has taken on this matter.

Mr. Boland

I was a member of this Joint Committee of both Houses during the lifetime of the last Seanad.

In relation to the remarks the Minister has made, I welcome a number of the changes that have been brought about in the operation of this committee since its inspection. It is a good idea that it is being increased in size. It is interesting to reflect that, through experience, the delegates to the European Parliament are no longer to be statutory members of the committee. Indeed those who have their eyes set on Europe, following the direct elections, may well ponder over the question of a dual mandate when one remembers that the existing appointees to the European Parliament have found, from experience, they were unable to attend the rather occasional meetings of this Joint Committee. Therefore, it is fair to ask how candidates elected to Europe will manage to fit in the heavy commitments of being Members of this House with their commitments in Europe, when the experience in respect of this committee has shown already that it is not practicable. This was because, on many occasions, the committee and this House sat on the same days and for the same periods as did their European counterparts. Be that as it may, I am glad to see that a formal link will be maintained between the European representatives on the committee, that they will have the right of audience and attendance. I am glad to notice another innovation, that is, that Members of either House who are not formal members of the committee, will now be allowed to attend and give evidence, or express points of view on topics on which they have special knowledge, because from time to time over the past number of years many of us on the committee felt that the benefit of the expertise and experience of Members of either House could have been more than useful to the operation of the committee. But they were excluded because they were not members of the committee.

It is a very good idea that the entire membership of both Houses will now be given the right of attendance and the right of audience and that the statutory members, if they are unable to attend, will now have the right to appoint a substitute. This was introduced in relation to the informal committee set up to discuss the appointment of an ombudsman in the lifetime of the last Dáil and it was something that was found extremely useful.

I listened with interest to the remarks of Deputy Bruton in regard to the appointment of staff. It is no secret that the committee had initial teething problems in regard to the staff it regarded as essential and the number the Department of the Public Service thought adequate. That problem was to some extent surmounted but not in an entirely satisfactory way. It was surmounted because the staff seconded were of such high calibre that their input made up for the lack of numbers. However, I do not think that is good enough. On a whole range of topics, if it had not been for the extensive nature of the research carried out by the small staff available, the committee would have been at a great loss in discussing many detailed and complex issues.

One suggestion that might be considered is the appointment of at least one person, a local gauleiter as it were, to act on behalf of the committee. This person should be attached to the Irish Mission in Brussels so that when draft legislation or directives begin to circulate around the murky corridors of the Berlaymont he would be in a position to draw attention to that legislation or directives floting around in whatever the European equivalent of the Think-Tank is before reaching the stage at which it is almost too late for anyone here to do anything about it. An earlier suggestion on those lines never came to anything but it is an idea that might well be considered at a future date.

Another recommendation is that members of the committee ought to be brought on a regular basis to visit the institutions of the Community and have regular meetings with senior Community officials either in Brussels or here. From time to time community officials visited here but those visits very often occurred at times that did not suit the members of the committee.

This was a useful committee. Being new it had teething troubles. From time to time there was an air of unreality about the proceedings and the report and recommendations that eventually emerged dealing for the first time with very complex matters were extraordinarily useful despite the unreality that existed. I compliment the Minister on the change and innovation he has introduced in the new committee. If the new committee has as much attention given to it as the thought the Minister has obviously put into its inception it will in the course of this Dáil fulfil a very useful purpose.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. O'Kennedy)

I thank the House for its response to the motion. While I acknowledge the recognition Members opposite have given to me I would like to say that, by and large, I have simply accepted the recommendations of the previous committee and to that extent I hope the changes which are obviously acceptable will make the work of the new committee more effective and the burden on the members a little more tolerable. I regard this as a very important committee indeed. It is a committee of this House. If we are concerned with the supremacy of Parliament, which has prompted all of us to be here, we must be equally concerned that a committee of this nature, representing Parliament, will have every facility and service to undertake and carry out its heavy responsibilities.

The purpose of the committee is to analyse regulations and legislation emanating from the European Community. It is fair to say that legislators generally are committed members of the European Community in a sense but possibly some other countries are not. That is not to say we overlook the responsibilities of the national Parliament. That is not to say we will take as read regulations without taking into account the special position and problems we have. For that reason it is essential we should have available to us the service of this committee which will take these things into account and point out to Departments and, through Departments, to the Government changes that should be made thereby making our role in the Community all the more significant. That is the basis on which my predecessor acted. That is the basis on which I will approach this committee. The terms of reference derive from the experience of the last committee. I was a member of that committee but other responsibilities prevented me from attending as often as I would have wished. I recognise the burden of work imposed on the committee and the need to have adequate and effective support and services available to the committee.

Deputy Bruton asked if I were satisfied that adequate staff and research facilities will be available to the incoming committee. The answer at this stage has to be "no" because I am not aware of what the position will be or the extent to which I could possibly guarantee that extra staff and facilities will be available. However, I would refer to the final report of the outgoing committee—Deputy Boland referred to it. Far from expressing dissatisfaction with the staff support they were receiving, the committee were at pains to express their indebtedness to the staff for the excellent advisory service they were providing. Deputy Boland acknowledged this and I join with him and with the outgoing committee in acknowledging on behalf of the Government the wonderful contribution the staff made and their readiness at all times to go to extremes to try to solve complex problems that arose. They came up with enlightened advice, not always simply related to the direct work of the committee but in regard to associated matters within the Communities. While we can rely on public servants as informed as they are, committees such as this will not have too much to worry about. If during the course of the new committee's work there is need for consideration from the point of view of staff, obviously I will look favourably on it.

Deputy Bruton commented that the Department of the Public Service have an interest in this, and in so far as I can support the effective work of the committee I will do so. Deputy Bruton asked if the findings of the committee had been brought to the attention of the various Departments and Ministers as quickly as they might have been. He admitted this was not a query arising from his own experience but it was still a reasonable question to put.

Mr. Bruton

I was referring specifically to the Department of Industry and Commerce, with which I was associated.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I cannot talk with experience from the last few years but I hope seriously that the recommendations and views of the committee will be brought to the attention of the Departments. The report of the committee to which I referred earlier refers specifically to the assistance they got from the officers of the various Departments, who explained the application of the various regulations; and this we hope to be able to continue and, if possible, improve. There is no point in getting a committee established to do a lot of work and research and then not have machinery available to enable their findings to be brought to the attention of Departments and Ministers.

The from of the report was mentioned, and I should like to think that we could be guided in the first instance by the committee in this respect. I am not aware of any suggestions from the outgoing committee as to the from of the report. That is not to say that the Deputies' apprehensions may not be well-founded and we will try to see that the attention of the new committee will be drawn to them.

On the question of debates in this and the other House, up to recently, in the last three or four years, debates on the progress reports of the European Communities did not take place within a reasonable time of the publication of these reports and, as spokesman for the Opposition, I suggested that it was unsatisfactory sometimes to have to wait almost two years after publication to have a debate on a report. So far I have succeeded in having debates on the reports as soon as possible after publication and I hope to be able to maintain that situation. From my recent experience I know the responsibilities and the obligations resting on the Minister who finds himself away from the Dáil for periods, but it is important to try to guarantee debates at regular intervals soon after publication of the reports.

It would be desirable that we should debate reports of the committee at the same time. That is not to say that the reports of the committee should be swallowed up in a broad debate on the general course of European progress or lack of it, but it is not beyond the wit of Deputies to deal with the general reports and then to turn to the reports of the committee. The two motions could be taken separately, subject to the convenience of the House, and the two debates could occur simultaneously. The two topics would be related. However, knowing the pressure of parliamentary business, I cannot guarantee that what was not done in the past can be done in the future.

Deputy Boland welcomed the provision effectively to increase the size of the committee. It will be noticed that the membership will be the same but there will be an effective increase in size because EEC delegates who are also Members of the Dáil will not be ex-officio members of the committee. It will be easier, therefore, to get quorums which was not so in regard to the outgoing committee which had some difficulty from time to time because of absence of EEC delegates. Here we are arranging for an increase in the active and available membership. I am glad the House has welcomed the innovation that Members of either House who will not be members of the committee will have the right to attend committee meetings. More publicity should be given to the committee work of this House. It involves a lot of detailed study and research and much hard work, sometimes unrewarded. It should be acknowledged that these committees play a very significant role in the effective functioning of this House. I might mention that some of the most hard working members of the last committee from both sides of the House did not get their just merits at a later stage in the election. Nevertheless— and I say this for the benefit of our friends in the Press and the House generally—some of the most important work is not noticed and taken into account. I recall that some members of that committee put quite a lot of work and research into it but because it was done quietly and effectively it was not acknowledged. It is regrettable that this kind of very effective legislative work should somehow not be acknowledged for the important contribution it makes to the workings of this House. The fact that Members of the House can now attend those meetings should give an extra degree of prominence and I hope that the Press will take note of the importance of this committee and the significance of the work they are doing.

Regarding the right to appoint a substitute, I intend to leave it to the members of the committee to decide how a substitute will be appointed. They are the best judges of the effective procedures for themselves. Whether they will limit themselves to one substitute for each member is a matter for themselves. I expect that they will work out a reasonable and acceptable arrangement.

There are two other points in relation to Brussels. The first point concerns liaison with the Commission in Brussels. At any time that the committee feel they need effective and direct contact with our mission in Brussels I should be very glad to promote that kind of liaison as effectively as possible. This matter was not mentioned in the report of the committee so I could not say that I would anticipate in advance suggestions of this nature. At the same time, it would be premature to make any suggestions as to how this could be done until such time as the committee get under way. When they have suggestions to make I hope that I will be able to respond effectively. Whatever advance information, based not on rumour—incidentally, Brussels is a fairly fertile source of rumour——

Mr. Boland

So is every political institution.

Mr. O'Kennedy

None more so than Brussels, as far as I can see. I am not talking about Council meetings but things emanating from documents which are supposed to be coming out and have not, in fact, come out. We have had some unfortunate evidence of that during the past few months. In so far as there is hard documentary evidence available to our mission about what has emerged or is about to emerge, I would be anxious to have that information conveyed to the committee. For the benefit of Members from the other side who will be serving in the European Assembly, even pending direct elections, I have already instructed our permanent representative in Brussels to make available to all members of the European Parliament such information in relation to the policy of our Government in the Community as they feel is necessary in the discharge of their duties. Their response to that information is a matter for themselves. I would hope that in matters of national interest—there are many such areas—we could see a degree of co-ordination between our members of the European Parliament which would represent a slight improvement on what we have seen over the past few years. The facility will be there but the response to it will be a matter for the members concerned.

The final point concerns regular visits to Brussels. I thought this was a matter for a motion of the committee itself. I am not sure. To the extent that any committee think that the proper discharge of their duties requires or obliges them to maintain effective liaison with the Commission or the European Parliament, I would support that. If the occasion arises it is essential that we should support the committee of this House in the work they do and the visits they might find it necessary to undertake.

I should like to thank the House for the response they have given. I hope that the deliberations of this very important committee will be effective.

Question put and agreed to.