Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, in the name of Deputy Michael D. Higgins, are consequential and may be taken together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
European Communities (Amendment) Bill 2003: Committee and Remaining Stages.
SECTION 1.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 11, after "by" where it firstly occurs to insert "the deletion of paragraphs (a), (k) and (n) and by”.
The purpose of this set of amendments is to delete references to the European Coal and Steel Community from the definition of treaties governing the European Communities, the treaty having expired on 23 July 2002. The reference there is the third protocol to the Treaty of Nice. Accepting these amendments would assist housekeeping.
I understand precisely the point that Deputy Michael D. Higgins is making. However, although the European Coal and Steel Community is now defunct, we believe on the best legal advice that the references in the Bill are necessary. The right time to remove them is when it is decided that it is appropriate to consolidate the legislation relating to EU transposition. In plain as opposed to official language, the appropriate context in which to deal with a number of issues is the constitutional treaty. I mentioned to Deputy Michael D. Higgins privately that there is a reference in our own legislation to the Kingdom of Norway, which is of course not a member of the European Union. Much work will be required in the context of the European constitutional treaty which will impact on and regularise all those issues. I understand his point and that he wishes to achieve clarity, but the strongest advice we have is that it is necessary to leave this here at the moment but that consolidation will take place in the context of the constitutional treaty. I am not sure whether the Deputy wishes to press the amendment. We accept the sense of what he is proposing, but this is not quite the right time to do it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, not moved.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
The Ceann Comhairle's office has been in communication with me regarding amendment No. 6, but I wanted to make the point. I wished to insert a new form of text before section 2. The net effect would have been an amendment to the European Communities Act 1972 regarding procedures. The amendment's purpose was to terminate the power to amend Acts of the Oireachtas by ministerial regulation where necessary to comply with European Union law. The power is misconstrued. This is a power which should only be used in genuine emergency and such emergencies are allowed for during a recess period plus 28 days.
My point, in seeking to insert this form of words is that where the EU law must be implemented by a Bill, involving the amendment of a statute, the process should be one which is much more accountable to the Oireachtas. It offers further scrutiny. Regulations which do not amend Acts can be made in the normal way and are not affected by my amendment. I am drawing a distinction and seeking to define that which it is appropriate to do by way of transmission in regard to ministerial order. I suggest that the facility allowed in the 1972 Act should be curtailed, otherwise there will be a suggestion – rather like taking the Minister of State's argument – of constitutionalism, which we can discuss another day. If the Minister of State were to take the letter of that into account, he would see that he should accept such a formulation.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Strictly speaking, the amendment is not before the House. It is out of order.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, subsection (1), lines 19 and 20, to delete "Communities (Amendment)" and substitute "Union".
This is again a matter of exactitude. The references to the European Communities seems to be somewhat out of date, although the Communities still have a separate legal existence from the founding treaties. However, it struck me that it would be more consistent with the Minister of State's advanced position in regard to removing language which confuses if we referred to the "European Union". The time might have come for such a reference, rather than such tediously-derived legalistic usage.
I will not contest the fact that it is tedious, pedantic or legalistic. However, it is a requirement. If we were to use the word "Union" in this context, it would be misleading. The Bill deals with the Community measures only, which are the first pillar or elements in the original treaties. The Union deals with the wider issues of the matter, which was subsequently added. We had a lengthy discussion on this matter in the Convention. There is a rather bizarre situation where there is reference to the "Union" on the one hand and the "Communities" on the other. We will be consolidating the position in the next constitutional treaty, when the Union will become the title for it. It is not possible to make the amendment the Deputy seeks, although he is echoing my sentiments in trying to make things as logical and clear-cut as possible. However, as the legal position stands, we cannot go that far. The issue is addressed in the constitutional treaty. Therefore, I am not accepting the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, subsection (3), line 24, after "day" to insert "(being a day which will ensure compliance by the State with Article 2(2) of the Treaty of Accession referred to in section 1 of this Act)”.
This amendment is an attempt to eliminate confusion and achieve clarity. The purpose of this short Bill is to enable the Minister to specify any day for commencement. I presume that is not the Minister of State's intention since the accession treaty specifies 1 May 2004. The purpose of the amendment is to clear the apparent possibility for discrepancy. Why is the Minister of State retaining the capacity to differ on the date of 1 May?
The actual accession date is determined in the treaties. As a general rule, it is undesirable to retain the level of prescription in legislation regarding a commencement date. I do not see that anything will cause us to move from 1 May, particularly given that all the plans I have put in place for celebrations are for that date. It must be presumed that the Minister will comply with his or her obligations and direct himself or herself properly within the timeframe I referred to in the accession treaty. Therefore, this is excessive prescription. There is no intention to demur from 1 May and it is therefore not necessary to make this amendment.
I will restrain myself from my desire for precision on this occasion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank Members for their valuable and positive contributions. In a small way we have made another little piece of history in Dublin today. The work which we commenced during an Irish Presidency so many years ago will appropriately be concluded in Dublin on 1 May next year and we can all celebrate that day together.
Question put and agreed to.