I wish to present to the House the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs on its review of EU legislation and to bring a number of issues to the attention of Members. This report concerns the review undertaken by the committee in 1999 which was published in March 2000. The most important point we must recognise is the need for the House to debate reports at more regular intervals, particularly when they are first produced. It is useful to discuss a report at any time. However, discussing this report almost one year after its production will not be as effective as it would be if it was discussed, for example, last March.
A review of the report will indicate the full extent of the work undertaken by the committee during the year. The committee produced 12 interim reports. Because of the magnitude and intricate nature of European directives and statutory instruments which come before it, the committee rightly decided that it could not sift through all the documentation produced in Brussels and identify the relevant sectors unless it sat for four or five hours every day, which is not feasible.
As a result, the committee decided to engage the assistance of consultants whose job it is to vet legislation, examine its relevance from Ireland's point of view and report to the committee. The committee then examines these reports which are enclosed in the tabular statements and takes advice as to whether there were relevant issues involved. On some occasions the committee decided against the consultants' recommendation that there was a relevance and sought further communication from Departments. On other occasions the consultants rightly identified at an early stage the possible relevance of some legislation from an Irish point of view and the committee was able to get up to speed early in the process.
As regards the production of reports of this nature, we must bear in mind the varying speeds with which European institutions move when they wish. On almost every occasion the committee sought a briefing document from the relevant Department and, in many cases, from the Commission. This enabled the committee to compare the two briefings and evaluate the extent to which it might be necessary to intervene. The process is very time consuming. We were lucky to have Curtin Dorgan as consultants who spent a great deal of time carrying out the initial sifting of the regulations.
We must also bear in mind that the degree to which the EU will control our daily lives is increasing at quite a substantial rate. I do not wish to refer to the Nice agreement at this stage as it will be the subject of further discussion on the House in the not too distant future. However, the changes taking place in Europe post Nice are such as to give greater significance to discussions in the European Parliament as well as the thinking of the European Commission. This is because the European Parliament will have greater powers under the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties.
In such a scenario, smaller member states will have to be more vigilant regarding decisions taken at central level. The natural reaction of smaller countries is that we should have more control over our own affairs and determine for ourselves what we wish to do. However, this runs counter to the concept of European integration. If each country decides to go its own way at any level the result will be disaster for smaller countries. This is because larger and more influential countries, and former colonial powers, know they are best placed to circumnavigate the system and have the most experience in this regard.
This is why we must be vigilant and carefully vet the progress and origins of EU directives. I hope the House will be able to discuss reports immediately they are produced. It is difficult for the committee to get up to speed quickly enough to fully review a directive or statutory instrument or whatever.
The committee has often been faced with a fait accompli where it is told that a directive has been agreed between governments and the European institutions so there is no point discussing it further. We now know that is not true because every directive can be amended at a later stage. When it has suited them, other countries have brought about amendments to directives already in place. It is important to emphasise this aspect of the committee's work.
I thank my colleagues on the committee for their commitment in terms of time, energy and patience through this important but often tedious and technical work. Without their commitment, it would be impossible to do the job. I thank past and present staff of the committee for their help and assistance. I also thank the members for doing the work everyone criticises them for doing. For example, membership of the Joint Committee on European Affairs means travelling outside the country, whether we like it or not. If we did not go outside the country to examine the submissions made, we would not do our job properly. Unfortunately, we are criticised for that. However, it is better to be criticised for doing our job than for not doing it. I record my appreciation of the members of the committee for the forthright and cohesive manner in which they did their job.
I hope the next time we have such a discussion, which I hope will be soon and on the Nice agreement which needs a thorough debate, we will have a longer period and that all Members of the House will be able to participate. I commend the report to the House.