Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Jun 2001

Vol. 539 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - European Union Bill, 2001: Second Stage.

Mr. Quinn

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I wish to share my time with Deputy McDowell, if the House agrees. This is an important debate, given added impetus by the result of the referendum on the Nice treaty. It is a debate that should have taken place regardless of that referendum. The Government's response to the result of the referendum has been confused and divided, and in some cases opportunist and cynical. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government is led not by the Taoiseach but by the coterie around the Minister for Finance and the Tánaiste and that these people hold the Taoiseach in contempt. Such people believe in the philosophy of big business and small government, they embody establishment and powerful interests in this country and they see a social Europe as a threat to their interests.

Having failed to lead a campaign, the Government is abrogating its responsibility to deal with the issues raised. It belatedly accepted the need for a forum on Europe as advocated by the Labour Party and this evening, again at my party's prompting, it can go a great deal further to resolving the issues that distance the European Union and the State from citizens. In our policy document on the Nice treaty, Good for Them, Good for Us, the Labour Party highlighted the issue of the democratic accountability of the European Union. As committed Europeans, we have believed for a number of years that there should be a debate on this country's role and relationship with the European Union. Having campaigned against the terms of entry into the EEC in 1973, the Labour Party is now the greatest advocate of an accountable and socially progressive European Union.

Until the outcome of the Nice referendum, the Irish people were perceived as among the most committed to the European project and I do not believe that has changed. We had an incentive to be pro-European in previous years when we received large amounts of financial aid via the cohesion and structural funds programmes and the Common Agricultural Policy, funding that helped to transform the country. I say "helped" because Europe was not the only factor involved in the transformation. We have much to be proud of, but it would be delusory not to recognise the extent to which Europe has assisted. In many ways the contribution of the EU went beyond mere pounds, shillings and pence.

Economic growth has brought to an end the era in which we received European transfers. Whether enlargement happens or not, Ireland's days as a recipient of EU largesse are numbered, which is something we should celebrate as it is a testament to how far we have come since 1973. The end of the era has also broken the financial link that bound us to the European Union in the minds of many, so it is right that we reassess our role within the EU. The Labour Party proposed the forum on Europe that has now become the National Forum for Europe. One of the key issues in the deliberations of the forum will be the relationship between European institutions and our national institutions. This is a new debate for Europe and it will dominate the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference. The issue of subsidiarity has been around for some time. It figured greatly in the debate on EU membership that took place in the United Kingdom during the mid 1990s and it remains relevant.

During the Nice campaign and before it I pointed out that the treaties governing the European Union are unintelligible for the average citizen and even for legal practitioners. A quick glance at the Constitution's references to the European Union proves my point as it amounts to a series of references to European treaties without any statements of principle or practice. Our membership of the EU as expressed in our Constitution is value-free. Perhaps a European constitution that determines precise competencies between European and national institutions will prove to be the best answer in the long run. It might also help to resolve the issue of what it means to be Irish and European at the same time.

Nonetheless, the lack of constitutional and institutional clarity creates confusion and the impression, often the reality, of the European Union as a monolithic and unaccountable body. Those opposed to the European Union like to exaggerate its powers. They fail to refer to the role of national Governments in determining EU policy and seek to scapegoat the European Commission, an un-elected but nationally appointed body that is often charged with implementing the laws agreed by member states. It is a deeply unfair analysis. That is not to say that EU procedures do not need reform, they do. They are not nearly as open and transparent as they should be although Ireland has hardly been a leading advocate for change on that front.

Much of the problem of accountability, and thereby the legitimacy of the European Union, lies within our domestic law and not within the inadequacies of the European Union, a point strongly made by the Labour Party in our Nice treaty policy document. It has since been made by the Attorney General, Michael McDowell, and was made during the referendum campaign by the former Attorney General, John Rogers. Specifically, the point made is that decisions taken in Europe are not subject to sufficient domestic scrutiny, and that is a fair point. This Bill primarily seeks to address the problem, but it needs to be seen in context. Until the radical transformation of our committee system here it could have been argued that neither European nor domestic legislation was subject to sufficient scrutiny. That is changing but issues remain about the relationship in this country between the Executive and the legislature. As the volume of legislative and administrative activity by the State has increased, the capacity of the Oireachtas with the resources available to it to keep up has come into question.

Socially our attitudes to scrutiny and transparency have been transformed too. In recent years we have seen all too clearly the inadequacies of our less questioning ways of doing business, particularly with regard to the treatment of children in institutions. We simply did our business in an excessively uncritical fashion, as we did with Europe. Times have changed, thankfully, as Ministers are increasingly held accountable for their actions, committees are doing much good work and Parliament is changing. Unfortunately, the media has not changed and work done in committees does not receive the attention it deserves. The impression that nothing happens unless the Dáil is in plenary session is an unfair one that receives excessive currency in some quarters.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Quinn

Decisions taken by Ministers in Europe with more far-reaching consequences than many domestic decisions do not receive a similar level of scrutiny. In many cases European decisions receive no attention, which is simply not good enough anymore. I do not wish to criticise the Government in making this point as successive Administrations showed a similar lack of accountability and scrutiny which this Bill aims to correct.

I understand the Government will accept this Bill although to do anything less would have been a disgrace, particularly in light of the strong views put on the record by the Attorney General last week. I do not share his analysis and I disagree strongly with much of it. It is amusing to listen to his reference to the arrogance of those he calls federalists, bearing in mind his comments about Fianna Fáil, monkeys and the Maastricht treaty. It is similarly amusing to listen to the Attorney General's jibes about unelected advisors. Some of his comments, nonetheless, are worth repeating in this debate because he is right to identify the "Dublin deficit" in our dealings in Europe. In his speech to the Institute of European Affairs, the Attorney General said: "That an Irish Minister should be technically at large free to negotiate a regulation or directive which as a matter of European and Irish law the Oireachtas is absolutely bound to accept is a striking proposition". He added: "It is remarkable, therefore, that present legislative practice has imposed no prior obligation of consultation in routine legislative matters and an obligation to seek at least the consent of the Oireachtas where such a measure would inevitably control or delimit Constitutional guarantees". He is right on both accounts but if his Government accepts the legislation before us, that situation will be at an end.

In addition, the Bill will also put into law beyond doubt that Ireland cannot participate in the rapid reaction force without a UN mandate. The Government should not have any difficulty with these sections of the Bill – after all, it claims that this is already the legal position. However, sufficient doubts were raised during the course of the referendum debate to warrant removing any doubt about this and this is what the Bill seeks to do. I do not believe though that this should be the end of the debate about Ireland's role in the RRF or its competences.

We are all on the horns of a dilemma in relation to the UN Security Council. Reform at the United Nations is essential. There is too much scope for the blocking of humanitarian action by major powers acting in their own selfish interests. Is China, for instance, in the moral position to adjudicate on the appropriate response to human rights abuses or even genocide on the European continent? The United Nations is not the only font of international law either – general principles exist, particularly since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

The difficulty is that the alternative to the United Nations is worse. Countries acting independent from and without recourse to international law are not acceptable either. They would set dangerous precedents and be subject to abuse. There is also no doubt the United Nations should be the ideal interpreter of such law. However, there is no getting away from the fact that this leaves us in a difficult position, particularly as a neutral state. Too often within living memory the United Nations and the European Union have stood aside in the face of massive human rights abuses and even genocide, recently too. It is something on which to ponder.

I will now outline the details of the Bill. The legislation has two purposes. First, it introduces a set of procedures to enhance scrutiny by the Oireachtas of measures proposed to be taken by the Council of Ministers of the European Union. Provision is made for reporting to and consultation with relevant committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas by Ministers. These new procedures relate to measures taken under the first, European Communities, second, common foreign and security policy, and third, justice and home affairs, pillars of the Union.

Taken by itself and without other reforms, the Bill will have no effect other than to overwhelm Oireachtas committees with paper. Complementary amendments to the Standing Orders of the Houses will be required in order that the Houses and their committees can adapt their procedures to cope with the additional workload. For example, a committee should be able to appoint one of their number as rapporteur on a particular issue and, if the Bill is accepted, additional resources and staff with appropriate expertise will also be necessary. The second purpose of the Bill is to amend the defence Acts to provide for participation by the Defence Forces in the EU's rapid reaction force, but only where the RRF is operating under a UN mandate.

The first proposal is that no Minister may, at a meeting of the Council of Ministers, commit the Minister, any other Minister, the Government or the State to support for any EU legal instrument, such as a directive, regulation or convention, unless the proposal is first laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas by the Minister having official responsibility and referred by him or her for consideration by the appropriate committee of the Houses. This requirement for prior publication to the Oireachtas will also apply to meetings preparatory to formal meetings of the Council of Ministers such as COREPER and extend to Ministers of State and all other persons, such as civil servants and ambassadors, authorised to act on behalf of or represent a Minister, the Government or the State.

The publication before the Oireachtas of a proposal for a legal instrument will have to be accompanied by a statement outlining the background to and the purpose and likely impact of the proposal and the position proposed to be adopted by the Minister. The committee will then be in a position to hold hearings on the issue with written or oral evidence from interest groups and the Minister.

If an appropriate committee decides within 21 days to consider a proposal for an EU legal instrument, the committee will report its findings and conclusions to either or both Houses of the Oireachtas and a resolution rejecting the proposal will be passed by either House within the next 21 days after the report, the Minister will not have any competence to support that proposal or bind any other Minister, the Government or the State in support of it. Rejecting a proposed legal instrument is the "big stick". One might more easily imagine a committee calling for particular amendments or safeguards but it would be doing so from a position of strength.

The Bill might be criticised because it will give the committees the "big stick" power to reject proposals but it will not give them a legal power to instruct a Minister on a negotiating position that must be adhered to. However, it is not practically feasible to try in legislation to confer power on the Oireachtas to bind a member of the Executive to a particular negotiating position on what might be a very complicated set of ongoing talks, compromises and deals. How would a court assess whether a plenipotentiary had exceeded his or her riding instructions? This is essentially a political rather than a legal issue. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure prior and public scrutiny. The consequences of ignoring the process should be for the Minister and political parties, rather than result in an attack on the validity of the legal instrument eventually produced.

Every Minister will be obliged to report to the committee appropriate to his or her Department not less than once every two months on all significant developments in the European Union and the European Communities, relevant to his or her responsibilities, which have taken place since the last report or which he or she anticipates will arise within the next six months. The report must include a statement of the position adopted or proposed to be adopted by the Minister on every matter covered.

Under the European Communities Act, 1972, there is a much less onerous requirement for a single report, on behalf of the Government as a whole, dealing with developments that have taken place in the Communities within the previous six months. Understandably, a six monthly report dealing with the entirety of EU activity is not taken very seriously by anyone. The last such report dealt with the first half of 1999 and was published 16 months later in October 2000. These reports do not give rise to Dáil debates, since they are of historic interest only. It is deliberate, therefore, that the Bill proposes a six month prospectus for forthcoming issues from each Minister, with only a two month look-back.

When the Council of Ministers and Parliament make a directive, it is binding as to the result to be achieved but it is left to each member state as to how to give effect to it. The European Communities Act, 1972, is the vehicle by which Ministers transpose European law into Irish law. It states the treaties governing the European Communities, and the existing and future Acts adopted by the institutions of those Communities, shall be binding on the State and part of the domestic law thereof under the conditions laid down in those treaties. It then states that any Minister has power to make regulations to enable this provision to have effect.

Every Minister has power to make statutory instruments under the 1972 Act to give effect to European directives. The content may be anything from consumer protection, audit requirements for limited companies to rules for the stock exchange. Essentially, it is a decision for Ministers and their Departments as to whether they should give effect to a directive by introducing primary legislation for debate in the Oireachtas or just take the short cut and bring forward a statutory instrument.

The leaning should be in favour of legislation by the Oireachtas, both on grounds of constitutional propriety and because such a process enhances public scrutiny. The SI route is too often chosen simply on grounds of convenience or because it is quicker and the Government is already behind in its implementation schedule. The only major issue that cannot be dealt with by way of statutory instrument under the 1972 Act is that such regulations may not create an indictable offence – a serious offence triable by judge and jury in the Circuit Court. Therefore, when the SI route is chosen, no matter how serious the subject matter, penalties for their breach are limited to District Court levels.

The nod in the direction of Oireachtas scrutiny is found in the 1973 (Amendment) Act. The central provision is:

If the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities recommends to the Houses of the Oireachtas that any regulations under this Act be annulled, and a resolution annulling the regulations is passed by both such Houses within one year after the regulations are made, the regulations shall be annulled accordingly and shall cease to have statutory effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

The relevant committee is now the Joint Committee on European Affairs. There is provision in the Act for the recall of the Houses if regulations are made when they stand adjourned for more than ten days.

In the 1970s the Houses did not have the comprehensive set of select and joint committees which now exist and which shadow Departments. There is no more logic in sending all statutory instruments under the European Communities Act to one committee than there would be in sending all Bills to one committee. It must be the case that that committee is overwhelmed by regulations and its scrutiny could, at best, be selective and cursory. No one can recall if the committee or its predecessors has recommended the annulment of a statutory instrument or considered a motion to do so.

Rather than one committee being expected to scrutinise all statutory instruments made under the European Communities Act regardless of subject matter, such scrutiny should be carried out by the joint committee which has specific responsibility to deal with the area of public administration to which the statutory instrument relates. The Bill proposes, therefore, that each Oireachtas joint committee dealing with a Minister and Department be given this power in relation to its Minister. This "after the event" review procedure, taken together with the prior scrutiny of proposals for EU legislation and the bi-monthly reports, should add up to an opportunity for comprehensive and ongoing examination of legislative action taken by the Government at Council of Ministers level.

The European Union's common foreign and security policy does not result in legislative acts, such as regulations or directives. It can, however, produce proposals for joint action by the member states. The Bill provides that, subject to certain qualifications, such proposals will have to be laid before the Houses and referred to the appropriate committee where they can be proposed for approval or rejection in reports to the Houses. Given that proposals for joint action may arise in a much shorter timeframe than applies to proposals for legislation, the Oireachtas will be empowered to shorten the normal 21 day time periods within which the committees can decide to act. The new rule will not prevent a Minister from agreeing to joint action under CFSP in a case where it is, in the opinion of the Government, urgently required. A decision may be needed on sanctions, for example. In such a case the Government will have to lay before both Houses a statement of the joint action agreed to, the reasons for the action and the grounds of urgency.

The Bill makes two amendments to the defence Acts. The law at present states that, subject to limited exceptions, a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force may be despatched for service outside the State as part of an international United Nations force, but only if a resolution has been passed by the Dáil approving the despatch of a contingent for service as part of that international United Nations force. The relevant section does not state that service outside the State by Defence Forces contingents can only be with a UN force or by a body which has a UN mandate; it stipulates that service with a UN force can only take place pursuant to a resolution of the Dáil. The Bill amends this by providing that a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force may be despatched for service outside the State, but only if such service is as part of an international United Nations force and a resolution has been passed by the Dáil approving the despatch of that contingent for service outside the State as part of that international United Nations force. The effect of the amendment will be to stipulate that the only service outside the State authorised by the section is with a UN force.

The Bill repeats the limited exceptions set out in the existing Act where a Dáil resolution is not required, such as service with an unarmed force, service of not more than 12 personnel and replacement or reinforcement of a serving contingent. There is also a new exception in favour of service outside the State for the purpose of engaging only in joint training or joint exercises with the military or armed forces of member states of the European Union – the rapid reaction force.

The definition of international United Nations force will be amended. The definition at present provides that such a force must be an international force or body established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations. There is no provision in the definition to cover service with forces other than those established by the United Nations and which have been given a mandate by it. The reason is that the idea of the United Nations authorising peace-making by regional organisations, rather than creating its own specific force for a certain purpose, such as UNIFIL, is relatively recent. However, this idea has since been accepted as a more likely and workable approach.

However, as a matter of Irish law, as it stands, legislation neither specifically enables nor lays down any conditions or restrictions for service by the Defence Forces with the rapid reaction force. There are no circumstances in which it could be argued that the rapid reaction force is an international force or body established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Bill will insert a new definition to provide that international United Nations force means an international force or body established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations or an international force or body established by the member states of the European Union, where that force or body has had particular functions given to it by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations, but such a force or body is an international United Nations force only in connection with and for the purposes of the performance of the functions so given.

The effect of the two amendments taken together will be to confine service by Defence Forces contingents outside the State to international United Nations forces, but to provide that the rapid reaction force may fall within the definition of an international United Nations force, but only if and for so long as it is discharging a specific United Nations mandate.

I gather and appreciate the Government will accept this Bill. As usual, my party is prepared to play a constructive role in any Committee Stage debate. We do not purport to have a monopoly of wisdom on this issue. However, I do not accept it should be sidelined by referring it to the National Forum on Europe. This is primarily a power for the Oireachtas. If we do not sign another European Treaty, these measures should be in place as they are long overdue.

As a democracy, we are going through a difficult maturing process. Tribunals, the DIRT committee and challenges to the power of parliamentary committees in the High Court are proof of this. However, we will come out of this process a stronger and more committed democracy. As I said, I understand the Government will accept the principle of the Bill tonight and not oppose it on Second Stage. I hope it is a genuine acceptance of the principle of the Bill, not a device to delay taking crucial decisions. The whistleblower's Bill was accepted on Second Stage in September 1999 and has yet to move to Committee Stage, despite the Taoiseach's attempts to own the legislation.

The most cynical use of this tactic by the Government has been in relation to the issue of political funding. The Labour Party had the Electoral (Amendment) (Donations to Parties and Candidates) Bill accepted on Second Stage in May last year, only to find that the Government blocked all further progress and refused to allow the committee to consider it. It then introduced its own separate legislation which sought to retain corporate donations, the direct opposite to the key aim of the Labour Party Bill it had accepted on Second Stage. I hope that will not be the case on this occasion. Had the Government accepted our suggestions on the Nice referendum, it might not now be in this mess. I hope having accepted the principle of the Bill, it will now facilitate an early discussion at the committee.

Mr. McDowell

I am obliged for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I have not had the opportunity to speak on this issue since the defeat of the Nice referendum and I am sure you, a Cheann Comhairle, will forgive me if I touch on some of the issues which inevitably arise in that context.

I speak as someone who is persuaded of the merits of the European project, as it is usually called. Participation in the European Union and, before it, in the EEC and the EC has been unambiguously good for Ireland politically, socially and economically. We are a different country and people from what we were 30 years ago and most, if not all of that is for the good. I say that as an Irish person but also as someone who comes from these benches and holds the political views of democratic socialists. We have found great solace in participating with those of a similar political view and advancing on a multinational level throughout the European Union the political views we hold strongly, such as exerting and extending the rights of workers and women. The progress made in this country might not have been made, or made at the same pace, were it not for participation in the European Union. It has been good for us both politically and socially.

The question of identity is central to the way we approach this issue. I am a Dublin person, but I am also Irish and a European. I see that as being rolled up in one. There are no choices to be made and one is not diminished by being more of the other. They are all complementary. My pleasure in despatching the Minister's county football team to the obscurity from which it came is no less diminished by the fact we are both Irish.

Mr. Cowen

And from which the Deputy has just emerged.

Mr. McDowell

My pleasure and pride in things Irish are no less diminished by the fact that I also consider myself to be a European. It is important to put that on the record because if one listens to the people who are primarily making the case against the Nice treaty, that is not the way they talk. According to them, Europe is out there, things are forced on us by Europe and Europeans are other people; we are not Europeans but Irish. It is the splendid isolation theory of bygone decades and centuries where it should have been left. If there is a problem, and there is, with the democratic deficit in Europe, it is as much a problem for us as it is for Europe and it is as much caused by us as it is caused by the European institutions. The fact that we do not have a proper reporting mechanism to the Dáil is not the fault of the European institutions as such; it is very much the fault of this House and this country and is something we have failed to grapple with in any serious way over the past 30 years.

I had the pleasure, if that is the right word, in the previous Dáil of being a member of the committee which dealt with secondary European legislation and it was one of the most turgid, tedious experiences I have ever had. For the three or four meetings we had, we were confronted with tomes of draft regulations, statutory instruments and so on, usually inches thick, which some unfortunate civil servant had been asked to go through to try to identify some of the major issues that might arise. It is fair to say that nobody on the committee felt it was a worthwhile process. Certainly none of the unfortunate civil servants who were charged with doing most of the work involved thought it was worthwhile and, other than providing a fig leaf in terms of accountability, it was a worthless process and one we should not repeat.

We must work out some mechanism whereby we can have reporting to and through this House and through the media to our citizens at large that is relevant and can, in the first instance, distil the issues of interest to people and provoke some sort of debate, ideally at the time it is relevant and not six months or a year later. The mechanism set out in the Bill is a reasonable effort to do that. What we are suggesting, in effect, is that Ministers should come into committees, whether it is the Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs, the Committee on Finance and the Public Service or whatever, before a relevant council meeting, set out, broadly speaking, the stall of the Department and the view the Minister will take at the Council meeting, take on board any suggestions the committee might make, and seek to represent those at the Council meeting. It would obviously make sense if that Minister were to report back to the same committee within a short time of arriving back from the Council meeting and reaching whatever agreement or compromise that is reached. We would have consultation in advance of the decision and a reporting back process after the decision is taken at European level.

It is fair to say that much of this will not be controversial or even interesting, but it does provides a mechanism, as do all of the other committees of this House, in that when an issue of interest, controversy or relevance arises, it can be dealt with in a fairly expeditious way which will not unduly tax the committees and which, I hope, will provide a platform whereby it can be reported more generally. If, for example, the Taoiseach had been obliged to appear before the Committee on Foreign Affairs in advance of the treaty being negotiated in Nice, set out the Irish position and report immediately afterwards on how it had gone, that would have been a healthy development. It did not happen in that way, however, and it does not happen in that way with regard to General Affairs Councils either.

We also have a difficulty with the European Parliament, and the solution is not all that obvious. We elect our Members of the European Parliament once every five years and, to all intents and purposes, we then forget about them. They have a limited platform in the committees of this Dáil, which some of them take up while others do not, but, sadly, there is no real mechanism whereby we hold our Members of the European Parliament to account in relation to European issues. When one considers that many of them were probably elected despite their views on European issues rather than because of them, that is no surprise.

I want to refer to the rapid reaction force. The Minister and the House will be aware of the back ground of the Labour Party on issues of neutrality. We have been strong supporters of Irish neutrality over the years and it is fair to say that was particularly the case before the fall of the Berlin Wall during the Cold War when the neutrality as espoused by this party was not only one of military neutrality but would also have had a distinct ideological tint to it. Those days are gone. We have moved on and there is a need, which everybody acknowledges, to redefine what we mean by neutrality within the context of the European Union.

The events in Bosnia in the mid-1990s were decisive in determining my attitude to these matters. If we recall the establishment of the United Nations safe havens in Bosnia in places like Gorazde and Srebrenica, and what subsequently happened there, it is very difficult to make any serious argument against the rapid reaction force. If we recall, in particular, Srebrenica, where teenage Dutch and Spanish soldiers were obliged to stand by when the male occupants of the town were literally taken out and shot in the woods, I do not believe anybody could argue for non-intervention in those circumstances. I found it morally impossible to argue that the United States and its President could effectively have vetoed our capacity to intervene in those circumstances to stop the bloodletting that happened in those awful days, and it should not be allowed to happen again.

Throughout the 1990s, and a relatively benign US Presidency under Bill Clinton, we were incapable, as Europeans, of intervening to prevent widespread bloodshed and genocide which was operated as a matter of policy by a European Government. That should have given all of us cause to stand back and consider how we go from there and the design that would be necessary in the future to give us that capacity. The capacity comes in two ways; it is military and political. As Europeans, we have to find within ourselves the political will to say that cannot happen ever again within the boundaries of Europe. We have to insist, if needs be by the threat of force, on the primacy of democracy and sorting these matters out by political exchange only.

In order to find that political will and to make it happen, however, we need to have a military capacity available to us. All of us in this House, and everybody in Ireland with our traditions, will insist that could only come into play by decision of this House and that we should be entitled to withdraw whatever capacity we make available if we decide that a particular operation is not appropriate. We should insist on a whole range of other preconditions such as a United Nations mandate before intervening, but ultimately we cannot allow genocide and widespread bloodshed in Europe to happen simply because the President of the United States will not intervene, and we cannot intervene. That is the bottom line.

Coming back to the issues that have been raised by the Nice referendum, I read with interest the article written, under the Tánaiste's name at least, in The Irish Times last week and I found to my surprise that I had a great deal in common with it. In the article the Tánaiste, or whoever wrote the article on her behalf, sought to make the case that the argument between those of us who are basically in favour of the European project is not about sovereignty but the kind of Europe we have, and in many ways she is right. I think she described herself as a Dutch type liberal and that she was not in favour of – she did not use this phrase but this is what she meant – interfering with the free market on a European basis because she was not in favour of interfering with the free market in Ireland and that she was not in favour of the social Europe because she is not in favour of the social Ireland. That is a reasonable point for her to make. There is an important difference of political philosophy which is at the centre of political debate both here and on the European stage, but she made the important point, and this is why I repeat it now, that this does not necessarily coincide with the argument made by others about sovereignty because sovereignty is based on national control. For example, the Tánaiste was opposed to regulation of any kind. She did not want it happening in Ireland or Europe and it was not really a matter of whether sovereignty was ceded.

Most of those who opposed the Nice treaty do not come from that point of view. They talk about sovereignty as if it was something indivisible, as if retaining our sovereignty necessarily guaranteed something which it does not guarantee. It does not guarantee that we would have more of a say over our own future. As a social democrat, we have a duty to intervene in the free market and to secure for our citizens and workers rights which will not be guaranteed by the free market. At the start of the 21st century, that intervention can only take place on a supranational level because to do it on a national level would bring with it economic consequences which we should not contemplate. It is a necessary corollary for us that if we believe in those rights, as we do, they can be most effectively agreed on an international basis.

I protest against the sanctimonious nature of some of what has been said by the "No" campaigners since the defeat of the Nice referendum, as if the "No" vote were the settled view of the Irish people. I am a democrat and I respect the right of the people to say "No" to the Nice treaty. I disagree with that vote and over the coming period we need to take the argument forward to deal with some of the issues which came up, hopefully with a view to persuading people to change their minds.

However, I resent that people, some of whom are not known for their democratic credentials, who have opposed our participation in Europe for the past 30 years, suddenly expect that now that they have managed to bring off one victory, the rest of us will say, "That's the end of that little matter". That is not the case. This result is part of a healthy continuing debate which those of us who lost the referendum are as entitled to a part of as those who won this victory.

Mr. Cowen

I commend the contributions of Deputies Quinn and McDowell which set an interesting context for the contents of this Bill and what is seeks to achieve, and made some interesting observations in the aftermath of the referendum. However, the analysis of there being a competing view between those who wish to see a liberal, non-social Europe and those who favour a social Europe which takes on the responsibilities of civilised nations is an attempt to create a gap where none exists. The Treaty of Rome and subsequent treaties incorporate all of these social rights, and all parties have been proponents of pursuing those rights and entitlements.

We do not do ourselves a service if, in trying to analyse the situation and how we go forward, we try to suggest that there are greater differences between pro-European parties than we would like to be the case. I have seen this kind of analysis articulated in the media for some time. It succumbs to the tyranny of the soundbite in trying to extrapolate an argument from a Berlin versus Brussels analysis which itself does no justice to the speech concerned. It is always a problem that some seek to encapsulate considered policy positions in nice soundbites for editorials. However, such soundbites are not practical in terms of a considered political debate in this House in the aftermath of the referendum or as part of the continuing European debate.

Antonio Guterres is a socialist whom I respect. At the Feira summit Mr. Gutteres ensured that we set as an objective that the EU would become the most competitive, knowledge-based economy in the world in the next decade. This does not suggest that his commitment to a social Europe is in any way diminished, nor does it suggest that the Heads of State and Government who agreed to these conclusions are more committed to competitiveness than to the social objectives which European integration and the European ideal will bring about.

It must always be stated that one needs to ensure economic progress to provide sustainable social advances. One of the lessons which has been learned, particularly by socialists, is that it is an unsustainable false argument to promote the idea of social advance in isolation from the need for economic progress.

I was taken by Deputy McDowell's contribution. Sometimes our analysis over-emphasises points of difference which, when examined, are not as great as some would like to suggest. It is more about people creating a political space in terms of their electoral prospects than it is about the reality. However, it is a legitimate party exercise in which to be involved.

Mr. McDowell

I must mark Deputy McCreevy in whose case the differences appear to be at least as wide as they really are.

Mr. Cowen

The Ministers for Finance and ECOFIN comprise a powerful Council. The conclusions of the European Council and the ability of the Council to set the agenda for all the sectoral Councils has been one of the outcomes of the Feira process for which Mr. Guterres is to be congratulated. However, these are general points which are not germane to the specifics of this debate.

I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government to the European Union Bill proposed by Deputy Quinn. The Government fully recognises the need to bring the work of the European Union closer to its citizens. A key element in achieving this objective is to ensure greater transparency in the conduct of Community business, and, thereby, give the citizen a renewed sense of ownership of what is being done in his or her name. It is obvious that on-going and effective parliamentary scrutiny and participation is essential in this regard. Such a process contributes to building a culture of trust and to reinforcing the sense of democratic accountability which is the key to public confidence in any legislative process.

It is in this spirit that I welcome Deputy Quinn's Bill as a useful contribution to the debate on how we can best strengthen national procedures in this important area. We will obviously wish to proceed with this matter on a basis which takes full account of the complexity of the issues involved, and which at the same time commands the widest possible support in the House.

This debate takes place in the context of the outcome of the recent referendum. In this regard, and in response to those who have suggested otherwise, I emphasise that our partners, whose political leaders the Taoiseach and I met most recently at Gothenburg, fully respect the views of the Irish electorate, and recognise its sovereign right to decide as it sees fit.

We as a Government have a duty to proceed in this area in a manner which best protects the national interest. In doing so, we must take account of a number of realities. The first is that the commitment to enlargement must be maintained. All sides to the debate agree on that. However, while appreciating our assurances, it has to be said that the candidate states are in no doubt that the Treaty of Nice remains essential to realising their ambition for membership. They welcome our commitment to enlargement but are anxious that we also provide them with the means to implement it.

The second reality is that the other member states are not prepared to re-negotiate the treaty agreed at Nice. This is an important statement by the other 14 member states, supported by the applicant countries, of their political and legal position. It demands respect, just as our position requires respect. It means that each member state is fully entitled to pursue national ratification in line with its own democratic procedures. The insistence by some on the "No" side that other countries halt their national ratification pro cedures itself constitutes a refusal to respect the independence of the individual member states.

The third reality is that the treaty can only come into effect if all 15 member states choose to ratify it. In our case that decision, for which the deadline is December 2002, is, and will remain, the prerogative of the Irish people. However, the heads of Government did reaffirm their readiness to do everything possible to meet the particular concerns highlighted by the Irish referendum result.

The fourth reality is that the referendum result clearly showed that many ordinary citizens feel disconnected from the Union's decision-making process. It is in this context that the Government, well in advance of the referendum, signalled its readiness to proceed with the establishment of the national forum on Europe. In the same spirit we have also recognised that it was necessary to address the question of improving our procedures for scrutiny by the Oireachtas of European Union business.

Issues relating to parliamentary oversight are matters entirely within our competence. It was for this reason that I was surprised during the referendum campaign that some commentators invoked the need for reforms in this area as a justification for voting against the Nice treaty. The treaty contains nothing which precludes the organisation of our domestic monitoring arrangements on the basis judged most appropriate by the Oireachtas.

It is in many respects ironic that discussion of this issue is proceeding in the aftermath of the negative result of the Nice referendum. In the declaration on the future of the Union, the Treaty of Nice provides for an intensive process of debate and consultation on the future development of the European Union. Among the issues which it identified for further consideration was the role of national parliaments in the European Union framework. This would examine in detail a range of proposals for more active involvement by national Parliaments in the work of the European Union.

There are already arrangements in place which, through the Joint Committee on European Affairs, provide an important role for the Oireachtas in reviewing and advising on EU developments. The committee's terms of reference empower it to consider a wide range of matters arising from Ireland's membership of the European Communities. For example, under the European Communities (Amendment) Act, 1973, the joint committee can recommend to the Houses of the Oireachtas that regulations made by Ministers under the Act be annulled. The recommendation is then debated in the House which can pass a resolution to that effect. This is a severe sanction which has not been put into effect here.

Of perhaps greater operational relevance is the committee's power to consider proposals for Community legislation, as well as drafts of regulations, directives, decisions and recommend ations of the Council of Ministers. It is recognised on all sides that in this complex area the committee has worked hard and effectively to discharge a difficult and constantly expanding task. However, I would be the first to acknowledge, as has been argued eloquently by the chairman of the committee, that there is scope for considerable improvement of the existing arrangements. The volume of material coming before the committee continues to increase and poses a major challenge, not only in terms of quantity but also as regards the technical complexity of the issues involved.

The case for a significant overhaul of our oversight procedures is well made. There is clearly a need for an extensive and detailed examination of how best our current arrangements can be strengthened and made more effective. The Bill tabled by Deputy Quinn is a welcome and important contribution to that debate. The Bill rightly raises the issue of how best our oversight machinery can deal with proposals within the EU system while draft legislation is still in preparation. It also highlights the question of the role of Oireachtas committees with specialist briefs in relation to various Departments, and how this could complement the work of the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

The question of the most appropriate procedures for briefing of committees by Ministers and Departments is also usefully highlighted. We wish to examine all these issues fully and carefully, taking into account also the need to ensure the most effective use is made of modern information technology systems. However, it will also be necessary to ensure any new procedures are workable and compatible with our obligations at EU level. The Bill does not differentiate sufficiently between the wide range of EU decision-making procedures where the timescales for implementation can differ considerably. The Bill also omits other categories of measures which one might wish to bring within its scope, for example, resolutions, declarations or statements in the Council minutes. The Bill also does not indicate with sufficient precision at what moment a measure would come within its scope.

The proposed timescale which could delay the taking of a position for up to 42 days, two periods of 21 days each, will also need to be considered very carefully. This could prove very difficult to operate in the context of fast moving negotiations. The Bill also does not take account of the fact, as anyone who has participated in Council will be aware, that proposals are amended in the course of negotiations, and it is essential that the Government's representatives are in a position to respond, including in situations where a vote is called in the Council before the domestic parliamentary procedure has been completed.

I note, for example, that there is some recognition of the need for an urgent procedure in respect of joint actions under common foreign and security policy matters, but not in respect of the first or third pillars. In addition, it would be necessary to make appropriate provision for the necessary resources for both the committees and the Departments concerned in implementing improved review procedures. I raise these points not in any negative sense but simply to illustrate the fact that this is a complex area which requires detailed examination before decisions are taken with potentially very significant implications.

Recently, I have also had an interesting and productive discussion on these matters with Deputy Durkan, the chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, and the convenor of that committee, Deputy Pat Carey. Deputy Wall was unavoidably absent on that occasion. They have been in a position to give us the benefit of the valuable experience gained by the committee in the practical implementation of the oversight arrangements. In this regard, it is fully recognised that the overall objective is an optimal level of accountability which ensures effective parliamentary oversight, while at the same time enabling Ministers and their representatives to operate within the Council with the degree of responsiveness and flexibility necessary to ensure the interests of the country are fully protected in any fast moving negotiating process.

There is recognition on all sides of the need to get that balance right. Given the far reaching implications of changes in this area, the Government will consider carefully the changes which might be made, including the proposals in Deputy Quinn's Bill, and, in due course, bring forward its own considered response in this regard. Decisions in this area are primarily a matter for the Oireachtas. We wish to proceed to the greatest extent possible on a cross-party basis, recognising our common interest in the effective functioning of our democratic institutions.

Section 5 of the draft Bill relates to the European Union's common foreign and security policy. The Government is fully committed to openness and transparency about the EU's role in the world and Ireland's input to that role. In the course of this year, I have answered approximately 300 parliamentary questions from Deputies about our approach to EU foreign policy on issues ranging from, for example, the Middle East and the western Balkans, to East Timor. In addition, debates in this House, the Seanad and the Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and European Affairs have provided opportunities to discuss and review these and other important issues.

The Government is certainly open to suggestions for ways in which it can improve understanding in the Oireachtas and the public at large of what the EU's role in the world is and should be, and what contribution Ireland can and should make in that regard. Enhancing Ireland's national role in the development and conduct of EU foreign and security policy has certainly been a priority for the Government. This has also been reflected in the read across to our membership of the UN Security Council.

It is worth recalling that Ireland has been participating in consultations and co-operation on foreign policy issues with our partners in Europe since we first joined the EEC in 1973. Starting with European political co-operation, as it was then called, through to the development in the Treaty of Maastricht of what we now call the common foreign and security policy which came into operation in November 1993, Ireland has had the opportunity to consult, debate, and very often, agree on foreign policy positions or courses of action with our EU partners across a whole range of foreign policy issues.

On those occasions when the EU member states reach agreement and speak with one voice – for example, in the United Nations on many issues, or in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe – our combined weight can be very important in building international consensus and in promoting our world view in favour of the peaceful settlement of disputes, democratisation and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Ireland's experience over nearly 30 years is that our involvement in the formulation of EU foreign and security policy enhances our voice in the world.

I want to stress that Ireland was at the table and negotiated as full and equal partners the treaty provisions on the European Union's common foreign and security policy. The EU treaties set out the objectives of its common foreign and security policy which include: the preservation of peace and strengthening of international security, in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter, as well as the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, and the objectives of the Paris Charter, including those on external borders; the promotion of international co-operation; and the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Ireland contributed to the formulation of these objectives which reflect principles and objectives that have always informed our own foreign policy traditions. These objectives inspire and provide a yardstick for the conduct of the European Union on the world stage. Among the concerns voiced during the debate on the Treaty of Nice were concerns that the European Union was becoming a super state with ambitions to throw its weight around on the international stage. Others, on the other hand, have criticised the European Union for failing to live up to its obligations in the wider world and contribute more effectively to conflict prevention and crisis management. We need to explore these concerns and criticisms in depth and achieve a much better public understanding about the European Union's role in the world, and how EU foreign and security policy is negotiated and implemented.

In this regard, I welcome the suggestions in the Bill. I am, and the Government is, open to considering any suggestions or ideas that can enhance discussion, debate and understanding of the role of the European Union on the inter national stage, and the scope that this gives to Ireland to pursue our foreign and security policy goals and objectives.

Deputy Quinn's Bill also contains proposals for amendments to the defence Acts in relation to service abroad by members of the Permanent Defence Force. While the Deputy will appreciate that responsibility for this legislation lies with my colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, I am glad, on behalf of the Government, to welcome any suggestions consonant with the position consistently articulated by the Government, namely, that the deployment of Irish personnel and resources in any overseas missions will only be considered by the Government where a UN mandate is already in place. The Government is open to having this position clarified further. As part of its ongoing efforts to dispel fears and anxieties which arose in the lead-up to the referendum, we are examining what steps can be taken to allay people's concerns.

I note that the Bill contains specific provision for Ireland to participate in crisis management activities which might arise in an EU framework and under an UN umbrella. I welcome this approach which acknowledges that developments within the EU and UN in this area have proceeded in concert and will continue to do so. This point has been made clear by both sides on numerous occasions, including at a meeting between UN Secretary General Annan, and EU Foreign Ministers held in May and in formal conclusions adopted subsequently by the General Affairs Council.

As with all aspects of our involvement in the activities of the European Union, but particularly when we have such an extensive history of involvement in UN peacekeeping activity, it is essential that the issues are debated thoroughly on the basis of the facts. We should not proceed on the basis of scare-mongering, unfounded perceptions of what the EU is doing in this field or, in particular, as if the horrific events which we witnessed in the Balkans region over the past decade had never taken place. The efforts we are contributing to in the EU context are fully consistent with Ireland's tremendous record of involvement in UN peacekeeping operations over the past 40 years. I want Ireland to continue to play its part in preventing conflict and to have a positive role in international peacekeeping. To do otherwise is to fly in the face of efforts to try to prevent events such as the terrible ethnic strife in the Balkans region from recurring.

An equal if not greater disservice is done to the electorate if we do not make a positive contribution in keeping with our traditions and values. Whether by the design of some or through genuine misunderstanding and fear, doubt and confusion have crept into the debate on Ireland's role in European security and defence policy issues and how we should play our part in the international community. For instance, there has been confusion regarding the description of the capabilities for the EU headline goal as a rapid reaction force. It is emphatically not a standing army nor does it impinge on Ireland's policy of military neutrality to which the Government remains firmly committed. Rather the rapid reaction force is a catalogue of capabilities available to provide the means to carry out humanitarian or crisis management operations.

It is also important to highlight that European security and defence policy is not an exclusively military project. Extensive work has been done by the outgoing Swedish EU Presidency to ensure progress on civilian crisis management capabilities, particularly in the area of policing. Sweden has also presided over important developments in the field of conflict prevention. As the EU programme agreed in Gothenburg points out, "The development of ESDP has, since the outset, been intended to strengthen the EU's capacity for action on the crucial field of conflict prevention".

I have regularly briefed the House on these developments and on those under previous presidencies. I accept that greater efforts will have to be made to keep both the Oireachtas and the public fully informed on these matters. I will, therefore, approach future debates regarding Deputy Quinn's Bill in full listening mode.

I thank Deputy Quinn for the Bill he has put before the House. Action in this area is important, both in itself and also to underline the seriousness with which the Government takes the message conveyed by the electorate on 7 June. The Government is accountable to the Dáil and this fact must be fully reflected in our activity at European Union level. The Government will act quickly in this area and bring forward its views at an early date.

Transparency and accountability are not discretionary add-ons, they are the entitlement of the public in a democratic society. Moreover, I am confident that as the public becomes more familiar with what transpires at European level as distinct from the distortion and misinformation which is put in circulation by those who should know better, it will come to appreciate the enormous benefits which we in Ireland derive from our full participation in the European Union, and recognise that our continued active involvement in an enlarged Union on a basis which protects the essential role of the individual member states offers by far the best approach to the protection and promotion of our vital political and economic interests in the years ahead.

The Government does not propose to oppose the Bill on Second Stage this evening. I have indicated that the Government has a very positive disposition on the principle of greater parliamentary scrutiny and participation. We will need to examine very closely the detailed proposals in the Bill. I have asked the Attorney General's office to proceed with the necessary detailed examination as soon as possible. Observations will also be sought from the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. When that is done, we will consult again with the Opposition. The Government will, in due course, bring forward considered proposals in respect of the issues raised by the Bill. We welcome its overall purpose without committing ourselves as to its specific content at this stage, pending careful further examination and consideration of the issues involved.

It is the wish of the House that we get this right. I am aware that, in particular, we will want to ensure that the room for manoeuvre essential for Ministers involved in Council negotiations is maintained. As presently drafted, there could be a delay of up to 42 days between tabling a proposal and the Government taking a position. Flexibility is conceded only in relation to CFSP joint actions in the Bill as it currently stands. We are all agreed that in improving the situation that presently pertains, it is not anyone's intention to limit our capacity to operate effectively in Council. I am sharing my time with Deputy Carey.

Mr. P. Carey

The Bill addresses issues of particular importance not just in the context of ongoing debate prompted by the Nice referendum result, but also on the fundamental functions of the Oireachtas. As is appropriate with proposals of such importance, the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated the Government's intention to study them carefully and respond in detail and at length without undue delay. The Minister also correctly pointed out that this is fundamentally not a party political matter. All-party consensus is critical if such reforms are to have the desired effect of allowing the Oireachtas to properly exercise its oversight functions, while enabling the Government of the day to continue to function effectively at the Council of Ministers.

We have procedures for reviewing actions taken by Ministers at EU level. As a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs I have firsthand experience of assessing the impact on Ireland of proposed EU legislation. I, like Deputy Durkan and others, have had to deal with those turgid inches of documents that we receive on a fortnightly basis. The committee's terms of reference allow fairly wide-ranging powers. I acknowledge the reference in the Minister's speech to our meeting with him last week. However, it is correct to recognise that the volume of EU business exceeds the resources of the committee to monitor it all.

Because of such developments the Government is anxious that reforms be made which meet the requirement for full accountability and transparency of Government activity at EU level. Extending the oversight role currently exercised by the Committee on European Affairs to other committees would, if adequate resources are made available, allow fuller and more detailed examination of legislation. The Bill fails to distinguish between the different types of EU instruments which may be relevant or the different stages involved in adopting EU legislation. It will serve no-one's interest for committees to be sub merged in a deluge of paper. What is appropriate is parliamentary oversight of key elements of legislation and of Ireland's role in the adoption of such instruments. The Committee on European Affairs will examine those matters very shortly.

While there is pressure for an immediate response and a sense of wishing to be seen to do something following the "No" vote, rushed or incomplete legislation is not the answer. The Government has repeatedly said that it wishes to reflect on the "No" vote and consider the concerns expressed in detail. The Minister has pointed out that the need to improve our domestic scrutiny procedures somehow became a reason for voting against the Nice treaty. Such a position is simply illogical. Nothing in the Nice treaty affects the ability of the Oireachtas to hold the Government to account for its actions at EU level. This remains a purely domestic matter which we must resolve in accordance with our assessment of best practice. However, it is fair to say that this was far from being the only reason outside the scope of the treaty which caused people to vote "No".

In developing the national system of scrutiny of EU activity, the Oireachtas will be serving two purposes. It will ensure the accountability of Government activity in Europe and show the public that EU business is conducted in a transparent and democratic manner. A greater public awareness of what transpires at EU level will dispel some of the worries which exist. People will, we hope, come to understand those areas in which the European Union is empowered to act and those in which it is not. They will see that, in the vast majority of cases, Ireland's national interests coincide with those of the rest of Europe and we are rarely, if ever, in a minority with regard to legislative proposals. They will also see the vital role played by the directly elected European Parliament in the Union's legislative process.

While I and the Minister have pointed out that such developments are independent of the Nice treaty, the willingness of the Government to address itself to such proposals indicates the seriousness with which we view the concerns reflected in the outcome of the referendum. The Government is particularly anxious to respond to such concerns in the knowledge that those who raise them are not opposed to the essential purpose of the Nice treaty which is enlargement of the Union. It also offered, purely in the context of a future debate on the development of the European Union, a chance to review the role national parliaments play in the European framework. At present COSAC, of which the Joint Committee on European Affairs is the Irish constituent, allows parliamentary committees from all member states to consider matters of mutual interest. It is widely recognised that national parliaments continue to be the primary source of democratic identification for citizens throughout the European Union. It is precisely in recognition of this that the declaration on the future work of the Nice treaty suggests that the role played by national parliaments in the EU framework be considered further. Many would like to augment or enhance this role, but the Nice treaty does not prejudge any decisions that might be made some way down the line. In voting against the treaty, those who claim they were protecting democracy have ended up hindering this debate, which will also address the need to improve and monitor the democratic legitimacy of the Union and its institutions to bring them closer to the citizens of member states. Such questions will no doubt be addressed at some length at the forum on Europe due to be established in the autumn.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I wish to share my time with Deputy Durkan.

This is a very useful debate but it would clearly have been even more useful had we had it before the referendum on the Nice treaty. The reason for this debate is the "No" vote. If there had been a positive response from the electorate to the proposals to endorse the treaty, there would have been the usual cursory comments about the need for more debate on European issues and there the matter would have rested. That is what happened on each of the previous occasions. The world has changed since the "No" vote in the referendum. Though I am strongly in favour of the treaty going through, that is the silver lining in the cloud. Let us be clear on what we are talking about this evening. We are talking about the inadequacies of national procedures for reviewing Community legislation and the Irish democratic deficit.

Some raise the issue of the democratic deficit in Europe but that is an altogether separate issue. There is a question of how the Commission is appointed and the fact that there is a virtually unelected body in Europe with the powers it has. I say that not as a criticism because I am a great supporter of the Commission and the way it operates. In my experience it has always been very favourable to smaller member states and for that reason there has been an affinity between the views of Irish representatives and those of the Commission. However, it is an unelected body. There is also the issue that the decision making body, the Council of Ministers, meets in private and Ministers do not always explain in detail how decisions were arrived at. That is another issue on which there could be a debate some day. It is important to be clear that here we are talking about the Irish democratic deficit. I noted the newspaper article before the referendum written by the former Attorney General, John Rogers. I strongly disagreed with most of what he wrote with the exception of his highlighting of the existence of an Irish democratic deficit. The conclusion he drew was utterly erroneous when he pointed to it as a reason to vote against the Nice treaty. The treaty had nothing to do with it. It is a matter entirely in our own hands.

The world has changed and no Government, not this one or the next – which will I hope be drawn from this side of the House – can take the result of any future referendum for granted. In this case the Government took the complacent view that the people would do what they had always done and vote the treaty through. It will not happen again. From that point of view alone Governments will have to be cognisant of the future need to deal with the Irish democratic deficit. This discussion is therefore very useful. There will always be proposals for further treaties – there is already one around the corner – and a need for more referendums. The people will not accept such treaties in the future, here or elsewhere. Remember, in some other member states referendums may also be necessary. Denmark has had a number of them, as have some of the others. The people must have ownership of the European project. Unless they feel they are part of the decision making process they will not accept that the decisions are theirs. The only way they can be part of the decision making process is to have their own parliament with the constituent parts thereof being involved. That is the merit of this Bill and the reason I support it in principle.

The Joint Committee on European Affairs carries out its Trojan work in virtual secret, not because the chairman has issued a diktat, but because it is largely ignored by the media. How can the media be encouraged to take an interest in European affairs? It is understandable that when there is a referendum or an issue at the hustings the media take notice. It is also understandable when there is an upset, as there was in this referendum, but already the interest has faded. Count the numbers in the press gallery for this debate tonight.

Mr. Broughan

They are watching it on the monitors in their offices.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

That is what was often said about Deputies when they were criticised for not being in the House. It is another problem that we will possibly have to address separately. The main point is that there has to be greater transparency. It is a question of how to make up for the democratic deficit in Ireland.

Apart from coping with the rejection of the treaty, there are already issues to be discussed at the next Intergovernmental Conference in three years time, a conference which we may be chairing. There is the question of the division of responsibilities between the member states and the Union. There is the question of the status of the charter on fundamental rights and the question of the simplification of the treaties to make them clearer and better understood while retaining their meaning. The role of national parliaments in the EU framework will also have to be considered. These are the four issues which have already been selected for discussion at the next Intergovernmental Conference. There have been a number of visionary speeches from Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröeder and Lionel Jospin and the question is how do we react to them. We should put together our own thoughts as to what we want and not be reactive, we should be proactive. We should set down the vision we, as a small member state, have of the best way forward for Europe. We should involve the public as much as possible in order that when the Ministers of the day project that view at an Intergovernmental Conference or elsewhere, they have behind them the weight of the people's support. That is the way to ensure any subsequent referendum will have massive support.

There needs to be greater focus on what is happening in Europe. Even at this late stage, in the dying days of this Administration, the Taoiseach could make a modest contribution by appointing a Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs. If we are to have more discussion on Europe, greater contact with committees and interfacing with the public, a Minister of State for European affairs must be appointed to take responsibility for that. I say that without criticising the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has other responsibilities. When I raised this during the Estimates debate in committee last week I was told that the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs was performing a useful role. However, she is a Minister of State with responsibility for development co-operation and the budget for that will develop enormously. In proposing the appointment of a Minister of State for European affairs I am not criticising the work of the present Minister of State who has another job to do.

It is right that we should adopt this Bill in principle and say well done to the Labour Party for producing it. We should tease out aspects of the Bill and see how best to establish procedures which will deal with the problems I have highlighted. There is a problem and all sides would accept that. I differ slightly from the Labour Party in that I do not think there is a single solution to this problem and that merely passing a Bill such as this will resolve it. Going back to my early days in the Dáil, I served on the committee which dealt with secondary legislation of the European Community and I saw what was referred to earlier as the dry, turgid and uninteresting work that was involved. It did not excite me in any way and never excited any media interest. We should adopt a more broad-based approach. This matter was examined by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution four years ago. It issued a second report identifying the problem and said that Ireland's membership of the EU had created a broad bridge over which a huge volume of regulations, directives, recommendations and opinions were carried. It stated that there were insufficient checks on that traffic. The report suggested that the Seanad could play a major role in ensuring that the important task of surveillance and monitoring would be carried out.

It is not a matter of using either the Seanad or an Oireachtas committee, there could be a role for both – the Joint Committee on European Affairs in particular – as well as having more debate in the Dáil on such matters. Such debates should follow the sifting of items that could be or are controversial. John Rogers mentioned the fact that there was no debate on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial cases with reference to the famous Brussels II document. There was, as an opt-in proposal had to be adopted by the House and Seanad but one might ask if there should have been more debate thereafter before the Ministers finally committed themselves to the proposal. Should there be some procedure where we could sift out controversial proposals and then have whatever debate is considered necessary on those?

We should also consider what is happening in other member states. We should have a clear idea of that and I would like reports on what other member states are doing. Someone referred to the House of Lords. When I went to Council meetings, the Danish Foreign Minister often referred to the activities of his foreign affairs committee. I would like to know more about what happens there and in other member states.

This is not the end of the debate on this issue but the beginning. The Labour Party has rightly identified the need to do something about the democratic deficit and has come up with a very good proposal which is part of the solution. From here on we must tease out this and other proposals so that we can do something positive about this problem. If we do not put a package together now to deal with this we will face the same problem in the near future. The public will not understand what is happening and will refuse to accept any further change by way of future referenda on the development of the EU.

Mr. Durkan

I thank Deputy O'Keeffe for sharing his time and I congratulate the Labour Party on introducing this Bill, which has the effect of focussing on an issue which is in everyone's thoughts, nationally and internationally. It also focusses on the need to bridge the gap between European institutions and national Parliaments and between those Parliaments and the people. Various remedies will be suggested as to how best to address the complex issues and in the aftermath of the Nice treaty referendum there is a strong body of opinion that the contents of the treaty have been rejected and that as a result it will have to be modified.

We know how the European system works. Any differences between the 15 States are dealt with by derogations or an opt-out, as in the Danish case, with regard to certain matters. However, the European Union will not work that way, as very quickly each country will decide to cherry-pick and opt-out of any issues in which it does not want to be involved. That would lead to the Union falling apart.

I compliment Deputies Jim O'Keeffe, Quinn and McDowell on the reference to one of the thorny issues dealt with in the recent referendum debate, European defence and security. There may be a notion in some parts of Ireland and Europe that this could be a possible opt-out area but we know it is not. Those with the original vision of the Europe that is now emerging envisaged that each country would contribute in one way or other and, as a result of that, there would be a return in terms of benefit to that country and to the Union at large. That was what the founding fathers wanted. They were inspired by the dire circumstances in which Europe then found itself. I was amazed during a debate on the Nice treaty just before the referendum when a person put forward as a reason to vote "No" the thousands of Irish people killed in the two World Wars. That had nothing to do with the Nice treaty but it implied that as a result of voting "Yes" Irish people would be conscripted into foreign armies and slaughtered all over the world, which was the expression used. This is where misinformation, peddled without authority, has done great damage to the European project. The sooner this Government and others throughout the Union recognise this problem and address it the better. If it is not addressed, from what I have seen of the internal workings of the European Union there are serious difficulties ahead.

Deputy McDowell referred to the kind of Europe we have. We should ask ourselves about the kind of Europe we want as we must determine that in the shortest possible time. When we do that we cannot back away. We have to sell it and pursue it and let people we know we are in favour of it. We must encourage and facilitate the debate that is necessary if we are to achieve the consensus we want. If we welch on that or shirk from our responsibilities then Europe will be stranded and becalmed, which would be a great tragedy. Some believe that the way we were was a better way, and that old traditions and living in isolation were best. We were independent and could survive alone, but that is no longer the case. We used to export our population in those times. The majority of our people had to seek a living abroad and we imported most of our consumer goods. There is a dramatic beneficial difference between the way we were and the way we are. The way we are is vastly better. We must sell that message to the electorate.

Debate adjourned.