I should like to repeat what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill with regard to the manner in which this new system of law is being received into our legal system here without any attempt being made in the instrument enacting it to harmonise the existing provisions of the domestic law, where they have to be harmonised, with the new code of law. The United Kingdom, when enacting similar legislation, set out the whole schedule of enactments which were amended by the Act receiving into British law the Community law. The Act itself contains a number of sections, one at least of which should be repeated by a similar type of section in this Bill. That section clearly sets out in relation to companies the means by which the first directive on company law is to be complied with and amends British legislation to the extent required for compliance with that directive. That is section 9 of the European Communities Act.
Section 10 makes a similar amendment to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. I presume an examination has been made with regard to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act and a series of Acts which were enacted pursuant to the principal Act, to see to what extent, if any, it is necessary to have a formal amendment. All that has happened is that Senators have been circulated with a memorandum setting out, in a way which is declared to be not exhaustive, the legislation which it is thought will be affected by the reception into our system of this new law. Why has it not been possible for our Government to provide us with the legislation with which the British Parliament has been provided, showing the actual effect on existing legislation of the law which we are now receiving into our system? Why do we not have this for the assistance of the countless business enterprises which will be affected in their obligations as of and from 1st January next? Why are we not told, today, and not by virtue of some ministerial order to be made before the 1st January next, what precise means it has been decided should be adopted to achieve the objective of the first directive?
It is not necessary to follow the same means which the British have followed. Maybe it would be easier, if we wanted to take an easy way out, to draft, for the Report Stage, a parallel to what the British have done. They need not have followed the course they did. There has been debate within the profession in England as to whether they have been unwise in what they have done and in adopting the precise method they have adopted. It is important, in regard to such a matter which affects the competitive position of Irish business enterprises that they should know what is the Government's view and that we should have an opportunity of saying whether we think the Government's view is right.
I suspect that the reason why we have been merely told of the legislation which it is thought is affected and have not been provided with a schedule of the actual nature of the amendments is that there was a possibility of an omission. But can we not have a catch-all subsection to deal with any omission? Let the omission be dealt with by ministerial regulation and the known affected amendments be dealt with in a schedule to this Bill.
It will be extremely difficult for people to know what their rights and obligations are. It will be extremely difficult for people trained in one legal system to advise us as to the meaning and significance of language coming from the minds of people trained in another legal system. It will be very difficult to harmonise these two groups. We ought to have a decision by the Government presented to the Legislature, a debate on that decision and a measure adopted. I understand that there will be regulations and then we will have Acts enacting these regulations. I presume we will be able to table amendments to the regulations which will be the matter of enactment at that time.
I should like to know if I am correct in understanding that that is the position. It is a less desirable position than the one we would be in today if we had before us all the proposed amendments, because, as and from the 1st January, we will be able to see if they are in the form we think best. Whereas the regulation which the Minister will make under the appropriate section of this Bill will have force and effect from the time of his making it and will not depend during its lifetime, prior to the enactment, for its validity during that time, we may have a curious situation in which a ministerial regulation under this Bill will be operative for a time and then may be amended by virtue of a debate in this House or in Dáil Éireann. I know someone objected to some other Senator saying that the Minister's Department had not done their homework. I do not wish to use any particular phrase with regard to this matter. The amount of homework they have chosen to publish is before us. It is patent to me that, with the 1st January coming so quickly, they must have done a great deal more homework than that and that there must be a set of regulations being drafted in a whole series of Departments.
It is unfortunate for Irish business houses and Irish lawyers that they are not given the same assistance here by this administration and through the processes of this Parliament as their British counterparts are given by the decision of the British Government and administration and the debates which took place on these very amendments in the European Communities Bill. I should like to repeat in this way what I have already said on Second Reading.