Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Nov 2001

Vol. 545 No. 3

European Communities and Swiss Confederation Bill, 2001 [ Seanad ] : Committee and Remaining Stages.

SECTION 1.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I will extend the meaning of the word "interpretations" to allow me interpret a few of the comments made by the Minister of State in his closing address. I note that the delay in bringing the Bill forward was caused by the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, who has been in the wars this week. This was because of the original decision to allow the ratification procedures to be included in a Bill being brought forward by him and as usual there was a delay on his part in doing so. I am glad that the issue has been taken forward by the Department of Foreign Affairs and that we are not now delaying ratification any further.

Perhaps the Minister could resolve a point for me. I understood until recently that the Belgians and the French were holding things up. The Minister has now mentioned other member states. When I spoke about Belgium earlier, I was referring to the Minister's speech in which he said:

My understanding is that all of the EU member states with the exception of Ireland and Belgium have completed ratification procedures.

I am not going to fall out over the issue as to whether a country has ratified in the last week or two. As a general principle, it is not in Ireland's interests to be tardy in dealing with EU matters. We have gained much from our membership.

Because of the failure of the referendum on the Treaty of Nice, we have sent a very negative signal throughout Europe. We have burnt much of our credit and we should now be trying to undo the damage that has been done and redevelop that credit. It is in that context that I am concerned about the delay. I would have been appalled if we had been the ones holding up the ratification of the agreements with Switzerland. We should have been at the forefront rather than at the bottom. I would be utterly appalled if Ireland were the country holding up ratification of the agreements with Switzerland. We should have been among the first to do it rather than being at the bottom of the league. It is in that context that I spoke.

I am glad the Minister has had the good grace to acknowledge and welcome the Fine Gael proposal on the Treaty of Nice. I reply, hopefully with the same good grace, that I would welcome Government proposals on the issue – a programme of action. That is what I have been demanding. One of the reasons that, with advisers, I went to the trouble of producing this document was to encourage a response from the Government. Merely telling me that there is something happening in that circus at the Castle is not a response.

The Government genuinely has a duty to provide leadership. It is a duty which has been ignored. It may be because there are divisions – I know that different strands exist but I will not go over that now. I ask that the message be passed on to the Government to put forward its proposals. We will give them a fair hearing. I doubt that, in the end, there will be a whole range of differences between my proposals and the Government's, but the sooner we get going the better. I am happy with the interpretations that are in the Bill and I am prepared to agree section 1.

Mr. E. Ryan

For the purposes of clarification, in France it has gone through parliament but it has not yet been ratified.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Someone got it wrong in the speech the Minister of State read.

Mr. E. Ryan

The debate on Europe is important and I do not doubt Fine Gael's commitment to the EU and to a proper debate. To call the event in Dublin Castle a circus really does not help any of us in debating what both the Deputies have said is a very important issue.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The debate should be here.

Mr. E. Ryan

I know, but it is not a circus. It is a serious debate.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

With the Minister having to come into Parliament to disown what happened there—

Acting Chairman (Mr. D. O'Malley)

Deputy O'Keeffe may not address this House sitting down.

Mr. Kenny

Deputy O'Malley would make a great Ceann Comhairle.

Mr. Durkan

This is effectively an EU treaty. It paves the way for eventual membership of the EU. It is also a recognition of the inability of a state to exist within the Union on its own. There is a salutary lesson there for us.

This section sets out, in various stages, what the Bill is all about. It intends to unify the thinking within the EU and within Switzerland itself. I cannot understand why we did not do this a year ago. There was no reason for not ratifying it then. If it is necessary, it is necessary to do it quickly. There was nothing to stop us – it was not as though we needed a referendum. We could have had it over and done with in Parliament. If Parliament is not seen, outside, as recognising the urgency of complying with certain requirements or agreements of the EU, how in heaven's name can we expect the general public to react positively? This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

I have no problem with any part of section 1; we know what it amounts to and we accept and agree with it. We do have a problem with the length of time it took to get here, for no reason at all. It was not as though we were so badly pressed for time – we could have sat on a Friday if we had wanted to. In the context of this section, perhaps in the future we could accord debate of this nature its proper place in the parliamentary calendar. We should seriously consider having debates on Fridays in the normal course of events. How else is the House of Parliament to keep in touch with its requirements as set out under this agreement and similar agreements, whether they be with member states on a bilateral basis or with the EU or treaties that are now contemplated? If we cannot generate debate here and make a contribution to it—

Acting Chairman

Could we have a debate on section 1 now?

Mr. Durkan

With reference to the European Communities Act, 1972, section 1 is what I am talking about. That is the area in which we are negligent. We need to generate debate on that subject, bringing it to the attention of the people, including the people of Switzerland, on whose behalf this agreement has been reached.

I hope that this agreement or similar agreements with other countries, either within or without the Union, is not seen by some as the answer to all our prayers. I hope we can have a loose arrangement with the EU that can be as flexible as it needs to be at any time and that we can move to the right or to the left or opt out altogether as befits the occasion, to meet political requirements at particular times with the member states. I hope that this agreement is not seen by some who are negatively disposed towards Europe as a way out for them. It would be seriously debilitating to Irish interests within the context of the European Union.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 2

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I anticipate that, pending the debate in Switzerland on full membership of the EU, there may be possibilities of further such agreements, perhaps in the short to medium term. Perhaps that is the proper step on the road to membership. The reason this Bill is before the House today is that the Union could not complete this agreement – one of the seven that was negotiated as mixed competence – without ratification by the individual member states. If there are further such agreements of mixed competence between the Union and the member states, will the Government of the day – hopefully led by Fine Gael – be able to ratify them without having to come back to Parliament for further legislation?

Mr. E. Ryan

It depends on the contexts of the agreements, but the section will enable the European Communities Act, 1972, to be used for the future development of six of the seven sectoral agreements and, depending on the precise terms of any development under the seventh, the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons, to be used also for the future development of that agreement. Depending on the legal basis upon which future developments of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons are premised, alternative legal mechanisms may be required to provide for the application of such developments in Ireland.

Mr. Durkan

This section is of importance. I presume that we, the Swiss authorities and the European Union will adhere to the spirit and the letter of the agreement. Currently, some member states ignore specific clauses in agreements of this nature when it suits them. I do not wish to go into the minutiae of that now as there are some cases before the European Courts but there is no sense in entering into an agreement unless both sides intend to keep to the letter of the law. I can think of one or two larger countries which have been party to similar agreements in the past and selectively decided to ignore them. That is completely in breach of the bilateral agreement and of European law. Yet by virtue of their alleged influence within the Union, some countries decided to ignore that. I fully expect that everyone who is party to this will keep to the letter and spirit of the agreement. Otherwise we tend to bring the agreement and the institutions involved into disrepute. I strongly emphasise that point from previous experience.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Section 3 provides that regulations made under the original section of the 1972 Act which are in force immediately before the coming into operation of section 2 of this Act shall essentially have legal effect. I am not sure I fully understand what is going on here. Are we giving legal effect to regulations that have been made in so far as they apply to Switzerland or what is the purpose of the section? Has the Minister of State a note outlining the need for this section and its effect?

Mr. E. Ryan

The seven agreements that are listed are covered, if I understand the Deputy.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

There are seven agreements between the Union and the Swiss Confederation. We need this legislation in relation to one on the free movement of persons, although the seven are covered. It is a little legalistic but I am concerned about the effect of section 3 from the point of view of regulations which have been made under the 1972 Act. I do not see a need for section 3 but the Minister of State might explain the thinking behind this provision.

Mr. E. Ryan

Section 3(1) will have the effect of adapting all existing legislative provisions, whether primary or delegated, giving effect to any of the EU instruments listed in the seven agreements to apply to Switzerland and Swiss nationals as they apply to EU member states and their nationals. In addition, the six sectoral agreements other than the agreement on free movement refer to other EU directives and regulations whose domestic implementation requires to be adapted to give effect to the agreements. To ensure that all the necessary adaptations required to give effect to the agreement are made in the State, the safest course is to provide for a general adaptation provision. Orders made previously will now apply to Switzerland if required by the agreement.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

That satisfies me. I am happy to accept the section on that basis.

Mr. Durkan

I hope so too. There could be a danger in the future. With the seven main headings such as this and the adaptations in this section to take account of agreements the general proviso mentioned by the Minister of State should be sufficient, but only the passage of time will prove that. I hope he takes account of the point I made regarding the previous section and compliance among all states as that is how the loophole opened up in the first place. If a particular country decides that it is repugnant to some other Act or agreement and that the proper course of action is for them to do nothing, that is the worst of all possible options. It could be lethal in terms of the future evolution of agreements of this nature within European Union countries and those outside.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.