SELECT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 2 Oct 2002

Vol. 1 No. 4

European Union Bill, 2001: Committee Stage.

NEW SECTIONS.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, before section 1, to insert the following new section:

1.-(1) In this Act, save where the context otherwise requires-

'European Communities' has the meaning assigned to it by the European Communities Act, 1972;

'measure' means-

(a) a regulation or directive adopted under the Treaty establishing the European Community;

(b) a joint action adopted under Article 14 of the Treaty on European Union;

(c) a common position adopted under Article 15 of the Treaty on European Union;

(d) a measure requiring the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas pursuant to Article 29.4.6° of the Constitution not otherwise mentioned in this definition;

'Minister', in relation to a measure, means the Minister of the Government performing functions in relation to the measure or, if there is more than one such Minister of the Government, such one of them as may be agreed upon by them.

(2) In this Act-

(a) a reference to a section is a reference to a section of this Act unless it is indicated that reference to some other provision is intended,

(b) a reference to a subsection or paragraph is a reference to a subsection or paragraph of the provision in which the reference occurs, unless it is indicated that reference to some other provision is intended, and

(c) a reference to any enactment shall be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended, adapted or extended by or under any subsequent enactment.”.

I thank you, Chairman, and the Select Committee for making the arrangements to allow us consider this Bill on Committee Stage.

The Government attaches great importance to addressing public concerns relating to democratic accountability on European Union issues, concerns which are shared by all parties and Independent Members in this House. It is important that Government and Opposition work closely in pursuit of this key objective. The new arrangements for Oireachtas grouping which have been in place since 1 July will, if effectively implemented, give Ireland one of the most advanced systems of parliamentary oversight in the European Union. The Government's aim in the amendments proposed to the European Union Bill is to place the thrust of the new arrangements on a legislative basis. The Government's decision to proceed with this Bill underlines its commitment to enhanced scrutiny arrangements and our debate today illustrates the progress which has been made.

I do not believe that in implementing this legislation we will be saying the last word on Oireachtas scrutiny. We should keep the new arrangements under review and adapt them as necessary. It is in that spirit and with a commitment to the thrust of the Bill that I move this amendment.

This amendment is intended to clearly set out the measures to be covered by the legislation. These include regulations and directives in the first pillar, joint actions and common positions in the second pillar on the Common Foreign and Security Policy and all measures requiring the prior approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas under Article 29.4.6° of the Constitution which embraces the third pillar of framework decisions and conventions. These measures have a wider remit than the new arrangements which currently apply under the Oireachtas scrutiny procedures that came into effect on 1 July in that they include joint actions and common positions.

The terms "European Communities" and "Minister" are also defined in this section. The amendments proposed in section 1(2) are technical in nature and are normally included in legislation. They are designed to provide legal clarity regarding references to a section, subsection or paragraph and an enactment. Subsection 1(2)(c) states that any reference to an enactment should be taken to mean the enactment as amended, adapted or extended.

There are a number of other provisions in the current administrative arrangements for enhanced Oireachtas scrutiny, notably briefings by Ministers in advance of Council and European Council meetings which will continue. However, it is not proposed to include these because such arrangements are not appropriate to legislation. The Government also intends to continue to provide to the Oireachtas information notes on Commission Green and White Papers. This is not specifically mentioned in the proposed amendment because the focus of the Bill is essentially on legislative instruments.

Mr. Wall

I also thank you, Chairman, for organising the meeting to discuss this Bill. It comes at an opportune time given the imminent Nice treaty referendum. I am pleased to note that the Government has taken on board what was originally a Labour Party Bill. It is important that we have this Bill on our Statute Book as a matter of urgency so that when we are canvassing for the referendum we can talk to people and show that the Government has a responsibility to refer proposed legislation from the EU to the Houses of the Oireachtas. As the Minister rightly said, this is only the first mechanism in the procedure and it will have to be maintained and reviewed to ensure that this legislation is equal to the demands that will come from the EU and that the Oireachtas is au fait with all changes and proposals.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I am glad we are meeting to discuss this important Bill. The importance of this meeting is highlighted by the comprehensive set of amendments before us. Examining the Bill, it is clear it has been completely recast. There are a number of points I wish to raise about the Bill generally before coming to this amendment.

The Bill was originally circulated by the Labour Party immediately after the failure of the referendum of 7 June last year and a Dáil debate later that month. Strictly speaking - and this is the parliamentarian in me surfacing - we should have a Second Stage debate again because we are in a new Dáil and we are dealing with a Bill that has been completely recast. However, we can cope with that through the process of the Committee Stage debate, if the Chairman will allow a few general points to be made.

It is clear that there was at least one good outcome of the failure of the Nice treaty referendum last year. There was a recognition that there were problems, that there was a democratic deficit and, from that point of view, I fully supported the thinking behind the Labour Party Bill because it tackled a problem that was of our own making - the solution to which lay in our hands. It was wrong to point the finger at Europe because we were not properly dealing with European proposals in Ireland. The Labour Party did the State a service by promptly circulating the Bill.

The Bill, as recast, is more tightly drawn than the original proposal of the Labour Party. The Government's lawyers have clearly got their hands on the Bill and, for reasons I can understand, have ensured that the present proposals are more tightly drawn. The politician in me would wish to see the widest possible powers, but the lawyer in me understands that, in certain instances, it is better to ensure that decisions of the Oireachtas, the Government and this committee stand, rather than our being walked down to the Four Courts every second day because of the way we draft legislation.

I seek a solemn political assurance from the Minister that, despite the fact that the Bill is more legally watertight, the powers of this committee will not be circumscribed in any way as a consequence of accepting this Bill. As I understand it, about 1,200 documents come from Europe each year to be examined and scrutinised. Only about 250 of those qualify under the terms of this Bill, as amended, as being within the context of amendment No. 1 covering regulations, directives, proposals or common positions.

I understand that many of the other documents would not, strictly speaking, come within the terms of this Bill. I am thinking of Green and White Papers, consultation documents and proposals. I seek an absolute political assurance from the Minister that the powers of this committee will not be circumscribed because of our acceptance of the Bill which, as I see it, deals with legal proposals from Europe. The powers of this committee relate to its terms of reference from the Oireachtas rather than Government and henceforth this committee with be an addition - a second pillar of power. I wish to ensure that both pillars will continue to fully underpin the work of this committee and that the passing of this Bill will be looked at in that context and not used in any way to circumscribe those powers.

In that context, I refer to an amendment I have tabled which seeks to extend the powers of the Bill beyond those originally proposed by the Labour Party and those included in the Government's recast amendments. The amendment seeks to give the committee the power to vet nominations for appointments to EU institutions. I do not see the Government accepting this proposal immediately. I gather there may have been difficulties at a technical level about whether it is in order. However, in the context of opening the debate on the future extension of powers of the committee, I suggest that this power be considered in the future. In the USA, as anyone who has read Advice and Consent will recall, Congress has major power in relation to appointments. I am not saying we should immediately adopt that position but the reason I proposed that this committee have the power to vet appointments was to open the debate.

In time, when the Government nominates a person to a major position within the EU, including the European Commission, the Court of Auditors, the European Investment Bank and other similar institutions, the name of any such appointee should be brought before the committee for discussion. Whether it should be on an advice and consent basis or merely on a consultative basis will be a matter for discussion. I will continue to press this issue even if it is not to be accepted within the terms of this Bill.

In terms of the powers of the committee, it is essential that we look at its future status from a number of angles. Though not part of the Bill, we must consider the resources of the committee. All members accept that if we are to do our job properly the committee must be properly resourced, particularly in terms of manpower. We must consider the position of members of the committee, the position the Chairman will have in relation to other similarly important positions in the House and what kind of support he will have in terms of resources and staff. We must also consider the kind of support available to members who will work with the Chairman during the days of heavy work ahead. It is in the national interest that this committee does its job well and from that point of view I stress the need for proper resources for the committee, the Chairman and its members.

I see nothing wrong with the Minister's amendment. It deals with a definition of the measures this committee will have power to consider. It is important that those items defined as such are fully considered by the committee, but I want to be absolutely clear: our acceptance of this amendment will in no way circumscribe other powers of the committee or debate on the extensions of such powers for the future. I wish to draw attention to what is happening in other parliaments. The Minister, in his opening remarks, mentioned that the passage of the Bill would put us in the forefront of member state parliaments from the point of view of scrutiny. I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that in Germany the chairman of the committee, in consultation with the president of the Bundestag, has the power to seek special sittings of the House to discuss EU matters of import. While we are taking major steps forward, there are further steps we can take and I hope to see us taking them in the months and years ahead.

Chairman

Deputies Haughey, Mulcahy, Kirk and Crowe wish to speak. I will allow members a certain amount of latitude in their opening comments because there was no Second Stage debate on this in the Dáil. Thereafter we will be confining ourselves to the sections.

Mr. Haughey

I welcome the fact that we are giving a legislative basis to the scrutiny of EU measures. That is an important task and will improve the effectiveness of this committee. It is interesting that the countries who have rejected referendum questions on the European Union in the past now have very strong European affairs committees, which is as it should be. The amendment contains a reference to regulations and directives. Could the Minister, who has a legal mind, explain his position on statutory instruments and their role in the overall legislative process? Is there any need to mention statutory instruments in this section?

Mr. Mulcahy

I welcome the Bill and add my voice of thanks to the Labour Party and to those who proposed amendments. It is good to see Governments of whatever hue accepting worthy Bills and taking a positive, constructive attitude in that regard. This is a very important Bill because it plugs the hole created by the so-called democratic deficit. I am sure all of us as politicians are spending time on streets and in houses talking to people on both sides in this second Nice referendum, and of great concern to many people are the bread-and-butter issues that affect them, one of which is alienation from the institutions of the EU. This process of scrutiny can play a part in demonstrating to the public that their directly elected representatives in the Oireachtas are playing a part in monitoring proposed EU legislation, activities and so on. We should remind ourselves that it is the bread-and-butter issues upon which the EU will ultimately be judged - the cost of food, our environment, the cost of insurance and so on. At the end of the day it is these issues that make the EU sustainable for the ordinary person.

I particularly welcome the complete rewording of section 2. The second amendment——

Chairman

We are dealing with section 1.

Mr. Mulcahy

Section 1 speaks for itself. It is simply an expansion of the original section 1. I thank the Minister for making the extra resources available so that the scrutiny process can commence, as it will shortly. Deputy O'Keeffe's point is that we are at the beginning of uncharted waters on this journey and it may well be that as the complexity and volume of European activity reaches this committee we will need extra assistance. The Minister is committed to helping us if that arises.

Mr. Kirk

I add my voice to those who have spoken in welcoming the proposal. There can be no argument on the point that accountability is important to the electorate, and it is very important in the context of the upcoming referendum. For a long time the feeling has been that decisions were taken in Brussels or Strasbourg and the directives and regulations were handed down to be implemented by the different Departments and agencies here. It is good to see that this culture is to change. Deputy O'Keeffe referred to vetting or scrutiny procedures in other parliaments. Although the parliaments of the UK and Denmark are actively considering that, we do not have much information available about what other states are doing within the Community. It is clearly important, for the overall good of the vetting or scrutiny procedures, that other parliaments have a broadly similar arrangement in their jurisdictions. It is reasonable to ask how this will function.

The committee might not have the wherewithal to deal with every issue that arises when such a range of directives and regulations is regularly brought forward. Inevitably matters will be referred to other committees of the House. We could proceed on the basis that this committee will have sole responsibility for the vetting procedure and that then some committees will have more responsibility than others. That, in turn, raises the issue of the status of the committees and their functioning. Specialist advice must be available to ensure scrutiny is effective. Will there be provision for interest groups to attend and participate as opposed to just listening to the debate?

Mr. Crowe

Like many others, I approached this on the basis that we would discuss the Bill proposed by the Labour Party which addressed the worries about neutrality so obvious in the previous referendum. We appreciate the positive intent in this Bill, particularly the increase of Oireachtas scrutiny of EU legislation and the actions of our Ministers within EU bodies. We also welcome the attempt to clarify that Irish defence forces may only participate overseas with UN forces and only after such participation has received Oireachtas approval. We feel such clarification is necessary even if we do not agree with parts of the Bill.

We oppose in the strongest possible terms both the Government's amendments and the Labour Party's subsequent capitulation to the gutting of the Bill. The Labour Party should withdraw the Bill rather than let it pass as amended by the Government. Given that we have our own concerns with the Bill, this puts us in the unenviable position of having to argue for large sections of the original Labour Party Bill since the Labour Party has forfeited the right to do so. This Bill was supposed to reassure voters about neutrality and scrutiny of Europe but it fails to achieve this. It emasculates the democratic proposals of the original Bill.

We oppose the Government and Labour Party amendments to section 1. The original section attempted to include all EU legal instruments as objects for scrutiny. We had no problem with that. We support full scrutiny of all EU legislation by the Oireachtas. Even the originally drafted definition of "legal instrument" might have missed something. It would be better if section 1(b) stated that the making of an instrument is subject to assent, co-decision, co-operation or consultation with the European Parliament or otherwise. It may appear fussy but we do not believe anything should be inadvertently left out. We want a thorough definition so no opportunity for scrutiny is forfeited. If the definition is not thorough, it will undermine the spirit and intent of the original Bill. We must consider what it will exempt from scrutiny and decide accordingly.

We have not tabled any amendments on this Stage but we wish to raise our concerns and may table amendments on Report Stage. We would like a comprehensive definition of "legal instrument" and find the proposed Government and Labour Party amendments unduly restrictive in their definition of "measure".

Ms Sexton

It is vital that the Committee on European Affairs, the Dáil and the Government gets this legislation right because it is a central plank of the Government's response to the defeat of the Nice treaty referendum last year. There is no point in proclaiming that there is increased scrutiny if it is ineffective. Procedures will have to be enhanced to ensure Members are fully informed.

The Bill will provide for scrutiny very late in the process of deciding on a legislative proposal. It provides for a role for the Oireachtas only at the latest possible stage, when the Council is making a decision. This is a fundamental issue because it is the difference between rubber stamping or carrying out proper scrutiny. The Bill mentions the Council of Ministers drawing up and making directives, regulations and other instruments. The European Commission draws up the proposals and the Council of Ministers decides on them, sometimes in co-decision with the European Parliament. The Bill should be clearer on this and should be clearer on when the Oireachtas will be involved in scrutiny. It should be when the Commission makes the proposal as that would give the committee and the Houses a greater opportunity to consider the proposals. Deputy Wall's amendments address some of my concerns on that.

The Convention on the Future of Europe is considering recommendations whereby the Commission would have to present its proposals to the national parliaments as soon as it makes them. The European Convention, reporting back to the presidium on 20 September on the outcome of its talks, stated that in future the Commission will have to present legislative proposals to the national parliaments so they can be vetted to see if they comply with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles in keeping with domestic procedures. A six week period would then start at the end of which a reasoned opinion may be forthcoming. If just one parliament expresses reservations the Commission will be required to review its proposal. One third of national parliaments, should they issue a reasoned opinion challenging the justification of the Commission, may stick with the proposal, revamp it or withdraw it. This demonstrates thinking at EU level.

Section 1 takes a confined approach concerned only with legal instruments. Should the Houses look at White and Green Papers such as the White Paper on Governance issued last year? These often provide the initial framework for future legislation and it would be important for the House to have a role in influencing the initial stages of the legislative proposal because it is better to be involved at that stage rather than later on. Processes co-ordinating policy on health, social inclusion, immigration policy and pensions at EU level are only presented via non-legislative communications. It is important that the Bill does not preclude us from examining these issues. I will have further comments on section 2.

Ms Harkin

As a new Deputy, this is my first time to read the Bill. I agree with other speakers who have referred to its importance in the context of Nice and, of course, it is also important in a much wider context. The Labour Party is to be congratulated on introducing such a Bill at this time. It will go some way towards allaying some of the fears of ordinary people regarding the democratic deficit and the scrutiny of legislation from Europe.

While I welcome the extra resources given to the committee, I still have real concerns. As an Independent Deputy, I have nobody to brief me or to provide any backup. I do not know if others have such backup but I assume that is the case. Since I have the same responsibility as other Deputies, it is absolutely critical that the necessary backup and specialist advice is readily available. Otherwise, I cannot function effectively as a member of this committee. I put it to the Minister that it is his responsibility to ensure adequate resources are provided in that regard.

Chairman

Both the Minister and Deputy Wall are entitled to reply.

Mr. Cowen

I thank Deputies for their remarks, generally welcoming the Bill and its purpose. The process for dealing with secondary legislation since 1973 is now clearly inadequate in the context of the workload of important European legislative instruments coming forward, including regulations directly applicable in Irish law without the need for national enactment and directives which require enactment through primary or secondary legislation. It is important to have a workable and efficacious method of enabling public representatives to prioritise their work in that regard. On section 3 we can deal with the practical steps whereby that will be done.

It is important, as Deputy O'Keeffe said, to have a Bill which is legally watertight. The legal instrument, as defined in this section, covers all issues which are appropriate to legislation. In answer to Deputy Sexton, the committee is not precluded from seeking and obtaining information notes on any measures emanating from the European Union's legislative process. It is untrue to suggest that we have only a rubber stamping role or that we come in only at the end of the process. We are involved at the beginning of the process. This Bill clearly provides that, within 21 days, a committee will receive an information note from the relevant Department as to the nature and importance of a proposal. The committee can then provide its input at the very early stages of what might be either a very long process or a relatively speedy process leading up to its adoption by the Council of Ministers, depending on the importance and complexity of the relevant proposal.

This Bill is concerned with providing an open, transparent and accountable system which will ensure all relevant information is brought to the notice of the appropriate committee so that, within 21 days of receiving that information, the committee can decide if it wishes to apply the arrangements for scrutiny of the proposal, having regard to the committee's overall priorities in terms of its workload. The process is open and transparent. It provides for committees to have an input at the very earliest stage. It would be a complete misrepresentation to suggest that committees would merely have a rubberstamping role at the end of the process. I know that was not the intention but, in the presence of the media, it is important to note that we are providing for an advanced level of scrutiny arrangements, comparable to anything which applies elsewhere in the European Union, to enable committees to have an input to legislative instruments at an early stage.

With regard to the concerns raised by Deputy O'Keeffe and others, I assure them that, in addition to the specific provisions of this Bill in relation to legal definitions, we will continue to provide information notes on other non-legislative matters. In response to Deputy Harkin's point with regard to briefing requirements and resources, information notes can be supplemented by further information at the request of a committee, which can also invite Ministers and Department officials to come before it to provide additional briefing. Apart from the additional resources now being provided, it will have to be examined more fully by the Oireachtas Commission, one of whose functions will be to ensure the committee system is adequately resourced. That independent Oireachtas Commission will be in a position to prioritise the allocation of resources within the Houses of the Oireachtas, as distinct from operating at the behest of a Minister. That is part of the reform process to improve parliamentary accountability and to enable Oireachtas committees to make a very necessary and welcome contribution to the consideration of EU and national legislation. Accordingly, I am happy to give the assurance sought by Deputy O'Keeffe that information notes will be provided on Green Papers and White Papers and that the arrangements introduced on 1 July will be equally applicable to matters not specifically covered by the Bill.

Deputy Haughey referred to statutory instruments, which are the normal means of implementing EU directives. Provisions in relation to scrutiny of statutory instruments are already covered in the European Communities Act, 1973 and therefore there is no need to amend those provisions in the context of this Bill. I assure Deputy Crowe that the definition of the measures which are being put forward is very wide, for the reasons I have already given. It embraces all significant legislative measures as well as joint actions and common positions under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which are not legislative instruments but are within the area of the second pillar, where there is an intergovernmental character to EU action. That is distinct from the first pillar, including the Single Market, where there is an institutional and legal basis for the Commission and Council decisions.

As Deputy Mulcahy said, the Bill will improve scrutiny arrangements, which I welcome. I want more national debate on European issues. There are issues of day-to-day importance affecting the lives our people lead and they are derived in many instances from European legislation. I have always said that I look forward to being invited before this committee on this or any other matter because people need to see that the national Parliament has a role in this context. That is one of the strongest positions we are putting in relation to the convention.

Thankfully, there is a growing recognition at the convention on the future of Europe of the need to enhance the role of national parliaments in the formulation of policy and the scrutiny of legislation. I assure Deputies in relation to this section that we have a very wide definition that is appropriate to the legislation. It does not preclude the same scrutiny arrangements for other administrative measures which are set out in Whips' agreement of 1 July last. It allows for a process and intervention at the earliest possible moment. It is not a rubber stamp but a matter of agreeing that the assurances sought by Deputy O'Keeffe and others, and the practicalities of that, will not lead to the taking of a restrictive view but of ensuring that our legislation does not result in us going down to the Four Courts to explain our position every time we make a decision.

Mr. Wall

I thank all speakers for their remarks in relation to the Labour Party input on this Bill. Deputy Crowe need not worry; the Labour Party will be able to look after its legislation. He need not be concerned that we are unable to do that.

Mr. Crowe

I am sure the Labour Party will do that.

Mr. Wall

Everybody has said that it is an important step, at a vital time for the Nice treaty, that the media, and we as elected representatives, will be able to state that we have this in hand. We must be able to state that we have legislation that makes the Government accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas and that, as Deputy Harkin mentioned in relation to interested groups, we can look at that issue and see what can be done to facilitate those groups in the debate and to partake of their views in relation to the European Union.

We have put great faith in the committee system of the last two Governments. This is a first step in assisting those committees in achieving further success and in putting in place a mechanism that will allow them work far closer with the Government than previously. I appreciate what the Minister said. He has never been found wanting when this committee has asked him to come before it. Other relevant committees can take cognisance of what we have done and in that way we will try to build the committee structure to the betterment of the workings of the Oireachtas and its Members.

Mr. Cowen

On a point of correction, I mentioned 21 days as the period within which the information note was to be given. The guideline is 28 days and for the purposes of the legislation, the words "as soon as is practicable" are being inserted. I assure Deputies that is due to legal advice not to exclude subsequent consideration because of that specific 28-day period being inserted. It is our intention to work within the 28-day period.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 1 deleted.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 4 are related and will be taken together, by agreement.

Mr. Cowen

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

2.-(1) As soon as practicable after a proposed measure is presented by the Commission of the European Communities or initiated by a Member State, as the case may be, the Minister shall cause a copy of the text concerned to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas together with a statement of the Minister outlining the content, purpose and likely implications for Ireland of the proposed measure and including such other information as he or she considers appropriate.

(2) The Minister shall have regard to any recommendations made to him or her from time to time by either or both Houses of the Oireachtas or by a committee of either or both such Houses in relation to a proposed measure.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply, if in the opinion of the Minister, there is insufficient time for the carrying out of the procedures aforesaid and the performance of the functions of the Houses of the Oireachtas in relation to the text aforesaid.

(4) Where, pursuant to subsection (3), a text of a proposed measure has not been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the measure concerned is adopted by an institution of the European Communities, the Minister shall cause a copy of the text of the measure to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas together with a statement outlining the implications for Ireland of the measure and the circumstances of its adoption and including such other information as he or she considers appropriate.

(5) Every Minister of the Government shall make a report to each House of the Oireachtas not less than twice yearly in relation to measures, proposed measures and other developments in relation to the European Communities and the European Union in relation to which he or she performs functions.".

In relation to amendment No. 2, the Government proposal for a new section 2 sets out the essence of the scrutiny procedures and, notably, the action required by Ministers in relation to the measures listed in section 1, the definition of which we have just discussed. It reflects in appropriate legal terms the new arrangements for Oireachtas scrutiny introduced from 1 July, which was the commitment I gave when before the committee when I undertook to bring all of these matters onto a legislative footing.

The proposed amendment will require Ministers to lay the text of measures listed in section 1 before each House of the Oireachtas together with a statement outlining the content, purpose and likely implications for Ireland of the proposed measure, and including other information as he or she considers appropriate. Subsection (2) stipulates that Ministers will have regard to any recommendations made by the Oireachtas.

Subsections (3) and (4) provide for cases of urgency, which in practice will be exceptional, where there is insufficient time to lay the text of a proposed measure before the Oireachtas in advance, in which case the Minister concerned will be obliged to do so afterwards, together with a statement outlining the implications for Ireland, the circumstances of its adoption and any other relevant information.

There is also provision in subsection (5) of this section for a report by each Minister every six months in relation to measures, proposed measures and other EU developments relevant to their Departments. Such reports will provide an opportunity for Ministers to keep the Oireachtas informed of developments in relation to legislation which will already have been brought to the attention of the Oireachtas and on which views may have been expressed or be pending.

I am convinced that the involvement of the Oireachtas as envisaged in the Government's approach will, if properly implemented, achieve our shared objective of enhancing parliamentary scrutiny and improving accountability 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 that the interests of the country are fully protected.

In relation to Government amendment No. 4, Deputies will be aware that the Government produces a report every six months on developments in the European Union in accordance with the terms of section 5 of the European Communities Act, 1972. The report for the last six-month period, January to June 2002, has just been received from the printers and will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in the coming days in view of the new requirement in this legislation for reports from Ministers to each House of the Oireachtas every six months on measures, proposed measures and other developments in the EU within their areas of responsibility.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I had hoped to deal with the question of reports separately.

Chairman

Does Deputy O'Keeffe wish to speak on his amendments? He can move them when we come to them but perhaps he wishes to speak on them now.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2:

In subsection (1), to delete "he or she considers appropriate" and substitute "is necessary to facilitate effective scrutiny of the proposed measure by members of the Houses of the Oireachtas".

To which amendment on the list does the last point raised by the Minister about reports relate? Is it not part of the proposed new section 2(5)?

Mr. Cowen

No, it has been grouped. It is part of the new section 4.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I intend to deal separately with the question of reports, as it needs to be looked at on its own. There are a number of references to reports in the Bill. I wish to speak about my amendments to the Minister's amendment No. 2. As the Minister has outlined, the new section 2 will set out the procedure for the scrutiny by the Houses of the Oireachtas of measures proposed by the European Union. I am glad that amendment No. 2 refers to a requirement "as soon as practicable after a proposed measure is presented by the Commission of the European Communities or initiated by a Member State" for the Minister to "cause a copy of the text concerned to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas together with a statement of the Minister outlining the content, purpose and likely implications for Ireland of the proposed measure". We will be primarily interested in the statement, although not exclusively.

The nub of the issue, as far as my amendment is concerned, is that amendment No. 2 goes on to state that the Minister's statement should include "such other information as he or she considers appropriate". If my amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2 is accepted, this section of the Bill will state that the Minister should include other information that "is necessary to facilitate effective scrutiny of the proposed measure by members of the Houses of the Oireachtas". I am interested in maintaining a balance between the Executive, as represented by the Minister, and the committee. If the legislation requires the Minister to give information as he or she considers appropriate, power and discretion will be too heavily vested in his or her hands.

Since Deputy Cowen became Minister for Foreign Affairs, he has shown a transparent and responsible approach to the activities of the Committee on European Affairs. He has appeared here on many occasions and has responded to many of the committee's suggestions. My comments do not relate to the Minister on a personal level, but to my problems with the Bill. I have to take into account recent reports that the Minister may be moving to another job and we may have to deal with a different Minister for Foreign Affairs quite soon.

Mr. Cowen

The Deputy will be disabused of that notion.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I imagine I will, in the short-term at least.

Mr. Cowen

There are too many conspiracy theorists around here.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I will leave the Minister and others to deal with such theories. On a more serious level, I wish to make clear that I did not have the same confidence in the former Deputy, Raphael P. Burke, who was appointed to the Department of Foreign Affairs immediately after the 1997 election, as I have in Deputy Cowen. Democracy is based on a government of laws, not on a government of men, so we have to ensure that the contents of Bills do not relate to the approach or goodwill of an individual Minister. In the interests of balance, therefore, the new section 2 should state that further information to be provided should not be that deemed appropriate by the Minister, but that which could objectively be considered necessary to facilitate effective scrutiny of European measures by Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

My second amendment to amendment No. 2 is quite similar. I accept that there may be cases of urgency, which is the principle of the proposed section 2(3). The Government, which I hope will not always be constituted as it is at present, should not be restrained if there is insufficient time to consult the Oireachtas. The national interest decrees that we should not be constrained in Europe in such a manner. What will happen, however, if the procedures are not followed? The proposed section 2(3) says that the Minister will decide whether there is insufficient time. If the Minister makes such a decision and decides to avail of the provisions of this section, he or she should be obliged to report to a committee of the Oireachtas, setting out the reasons for that opinion. This measure is necessary to tilt the balance in favour of the Legislature, rather than the Executive. Such a readjustment would be justified if a Minister decides to ignore the procedures laid down in the proposed sections 2(1) and 2(2).

An element of restraint is necessary to ensure the provisions of section 2(3) are used only when entirely necessary. The Minister should be required to submit a report outlining the reasons why he or she decided not to consult the Oireachtas. I appreciate that the proposed section 2(4) provides that the text of a measure which has not been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas must be subsequently made available. My amendment No. 2 simply suggests what should happen if the Minister of the day does not comply with the procedures of sections 2(1) and 2(2).

Should I address the question of reports? The proposed section 2(5) says that "every Minister of the Government shall make a report".

Chairman

Perhaps the issue of reports can be discussed when we deal with the section as a whole.

Mr. Mulcahy

I do not understand the explanation as to how the amendments are grouped.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

My two amendments should be taken together.

Chairman

We have dealt with section 1 by inserting a new section 1 in its place. We are addressing section 2. The Minister and Deputy Wall have tabled an amendment to replace section 2 with a new section 2. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe has moved an amendment to the Minister's amendment. We will move on to amendment No. 4 in the name of the Minister and Deputy Wall.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

What is amendment No. 4?

Mr. Kirk

If we assume that the new sections proposed by the Minister and Deputy Wall are agreed, the existing sections will be deleted. If Deputy O'Keeffe's amendments are agreed, they will amend section 2.

Chairman

No, they will amend the Minister's amendments.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

What is amendment No. 4? I thought the Minister's amendment in relation to reports was included in the amendment which will create a new section 2. Reports will therefore be addressed in the new section 2(5).

Chairman

The Minister's amendment No. 4 is grouped with amendment No. 2, as well as amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 2, for the purposes of debate. We will vote on amendment No. 4 when we reach it, just as Deputy O'Keeffe's amendments will be voted on in turn when they are reached.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Is the Chair referring to the amendment to section 4?

Chairman

Yes, the Minister's amendment No. 4 will amend the existing section 4.

Mr. Cowen

We are discussing it now for the purposes of debate.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Does that mean that reports can be discussed at this stage?

Chairman

Yes. The issue of reports on developments in the European Union is dealt with under amendment No. 4, which we are currently discussing.

Mr. Mulcahy

I do not understand the sheet which sets out the grouping of amendments. Does the number 2 refer to section 2?

Chairman

It refers to amendment No. 2. I did not understand it when I looked at it first. Nos. 2, 3 and 10 refer to amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 10. Amendment No. 2, amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 4 are being discussed together. I agree with the Deputy that it is not very clear - I have to sort it out myself.

Mr. Mulcahy

We should put the word "amendment" before the figure "4" on the first line.

Chairman

Yes. Amendment No. 2, amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 4 are being taken together.

Mr. Mulcahy

The word "amendment" should be before the figure "3" on the second line.

Chairman

Also, the word "amendments" should be before the figure "10" on the last line. I had to write them in myself so I accept it is confusing. Does the Deputy want to speak on amendment No. 4?

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I want to make a few comments in respect of the whole section on reports. I understand the old procedure which operated for quite some time provided for a twice yearly report to the Oireachtas. I think successive Governments have been very much in default in respect of the timing. There have been very few debates in the Houses on such reports, partly because they could nearly have been put in the history section rather than the current policy section by the time they arrived. Therefore, it is important that we look at the question of reports on their own and ask what is the best way of proceeding. Let us make a good resolution, but let us keep it.

As of now, there are three separate proposals or lists of amendments in respect of reports. The first is the Minister's amendment No. 4. Let us be clear that it involves reducing the existing procedure of twice yearly reporting to an annual report.

Mr. Cowen

Interspersed with twice yearly committee reports.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I accept that. We are starting with two, and reducing it to one. I accept that if the other reports are made. I would like an assurance from the Minister, which I hope will bind his successor - whom I hope will come from the Fine Gael party but who will possibly be from his own - that these reports will be produced on time. That is important as they are no use once they pass into history. We will have an annual report in the place of the present system, which was supposed to have resulted in biannual reports, which we did not get.

We now have a proposal that every Minister shall make a report to the Houses at least twice yearly in respect of proposed measures and other developments, which is interesting. Does it mean we will have 30 reports per year?

Mr. Cowen

Yes, it is quite a radical proposal, made in good faith——

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

We will be drowned in paper. In the context of a Government that has not been able to produce even two reports per year on time——

Mr. Cowen

That is not true.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

——it is not the best precedent for suggesting that we can have 30 reports per year on time. On a practical level, what is the position in respect of the Ministers for Arts, Sport and Tourism or Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs or Ministers who do not have any proposals?

Mr. Cowen

I hope they will produce very short reports.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

The Minister is actually talking about 30 reports.

Mr. Cowen

Absolutely.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Does that include the Taoiseach?

Mr. Cowen

He is the Prime Minister, not a Minister. One can bring him here and ask him questions on all 30 reports if one wants.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Is that a promise?

Mr. Cowen

Absolutely.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Will there be a facility for debating these reports if required? I think we will have to sit permanently.

I have a proposal to amend the Bill. The committee should produce one report to the House each year on the operation of the Bill. That is an extra proposal I ask the members of the committee more so than the Government to accept as necessary. We could confine ourselves to one report per year. If the Minister feels it is practical to have all these reports, I will certainly support the proposals. Perhaps he will spell out the practical way in which this will happen and state who will be responsible for the reports. Will it be each Department or each Minister or will the Minister for Foreign Affairs take responsibility? Who will we haul before the committee if we do not see the reports appearing in time?

Mr. Cowen

The responsible Minister.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

If the Minister, Deputy Cowen, feels it is workable, I will buy into it.

Mr. Mulcahy

I do not have to go on as long as the last Deputy, nor do I have to speculate on the future of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I hope he is Minister for Foreign Affairs for a long time.

I welcome this section. It sets out with clarity and great simplicity all that is required in terms of EU draft legislation. Furthermore, the idea of a biannual report from Departments is essential. It could become the way by which agencies, non-governmental organisations, trade unions and representative associations could keep themselves abreast of what is happening in Europe. If one was involved in the medical world, for example, one would make it one's business to read the biannual report of the Minister for Health and Children on all issues pertaining to Europe. That would be one's primary source of information. I hope those biannual reports detail not just things that have been done but things that are coming down the track.

I share Deputy O'Keeffe's concern that there will be many reports, but they are necessary because there is currently a general feeling that there is so much information nobody knows how to grasp it all. Will the Minister give a commitment to ensure the other Ministers take this obligation very seriously and that the reports are comprehensive? They do not have to go into huge detail on every measure, but every proposed measure should be mentioned so people could refer to them and see on a one - to two-year basis what is coming down the line in their particular areas of expertise. That is very important.

An annual governmental report will be more than adequate. Deputy O'Keeffe's idea for this committee to provide an annual report is excellent and we should all support it. I think Deputies Kirk and Harkin mentioned the publicity of reports made by the Government or Ministers to this committee on proposed measures pursuant to subsections (1), (2) and (3). Does the Minister feel there is enough scope within this section for interest groups to come before this committee or to be briefed or notified of all that is happening? I notice in particular that the copies of these texts are not required to be published in Iris Oifigiúil. Is it proposed or would they be published automatically in Iris Oifigiúil if that was necessary? The level of publicity should be sufficient. The public will have an interest in this and much of our work should involve using this mechanism to spread the knowledge of forthcoming matters. The Minister's amendment should be supported.

Ms Sexton

I am conscious that I have not submitted an amendment and am making suggestions to the Minister which may not be dealt with feasibly today. I am also conscious of the Minister's earlier assurances that any possible deficiencies that might be identified will be constantly reviewed with a view to ensuring amendments are made to the Bill if necessary. I reiterate that I might be misreading the Bill in some way.

In section 2(1), would it be possible, regarding the Council of Ministers, to consider making it explicit that this could include the European Council heads of state and foreign ministers? It is appropriate that this should apply.

Mr. Kirk

Will the Minister talk us through the preparation of the directives and regulations which the EU intends to introduce so we can get a picture of how this committee could participate in a meaningful discussion on them? I am sure there are varying timescales between the introduction of various directives. I presume they will be published in draft form followed by a debate on proposed amendments, etc. How will the work of this committee fit into that scenario?

Chairman

While Deputy Allen is substituting for Deputy O'Keeffe, Deputy O'Keeffe is required to move his own amendments even though we have discussed them.

Mr. Andrews

May I comment on Deputy O'Keeffe's amendments?

Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Andrews

The first amendment proposes to delete the words "he or she considers appropriate". The difficulty is that any case is decided at the discretion of a person or body and in this case such discretion rests with the Minister. In the amendment it is not clear who is to exercise discretion in deciding whether such information is necessary. It is an unworkable amendment.

The second amendment proposes to insert a subsection (4) requiring the Minister, in circumstances where he is of the opinion that there is insufficient time to carry out a procedure, to report the reason for his opinion. Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment would mean it is simply a matter for the Minister, in discharging his function under the proposed subsection (4), to say there is insufficient time. Again, that is ineffective and I do not see how it achieves the Deputy's point. I support the Minister's amendment.

Mr. Crowe

We oppose the Government and Labour Party amendments to section 2. We believe the retention of this section, as originally drafted, is crucial in that it provides that no Minister or Government representative may support proposals for legislative instruments without prior consultation with the Oireachtas. We supported that view.

The proposed Government and Labour Party amendments are totally inadequate and render the exercise tokenistic at best. We object to the words "as soon as practicable" - the idea that the Minister should only have regard to recommendations - and the provision for the Minister to decide not to consult if he so wishes under sections 2(3) and 2(4). These amendments make a mockery of the original spirit and intent of the Bill. They do not amount to scrutiny, transparency or accountability - indeed, they actively undermine these objectives. I understand why the Minister would want to remove this section, but I cannot understand why the Labour Party would wish to do so.

Mr. Cowen

In response to Deputy Crowe, as I stated before, it is not a question of the Executive or the Government trying to minimise the role of the Oireachtas. It is a question of what is constitutionally appropriate. Everybody welcomes the introduction of this Bill by the Labour Party which seeks to ensure we enact workable and effective legislation which respects the constitutional arrangements. Although I do not speak for it, it was not the intent of the Labour Party, and one cannot criticise the proposers of the Bill, but upon examination of the section, as drafted, it would have involved the development of a constitutionally inappropriate situation where it is not possible, under our Constitution, to have the Oireachtas do the Executive's job. The Executive has a role and Parliament has a role. We are discussing how we can enable scrutiny by Parliament to assist in the discharge of Executive functions by Ministers given that job under our Constitution.

When devising the means by which we scrutinise and enhance democratic accountability we cannot accept the position as proposed by the insertion of the amendment as it is unconstitutional for the Oireachtas to do my job or for me to perform the job of the Oireachtas. It is the policy of the Oireachtas and the Executive to work together to improve the scrutiny arrangements of EU proposals so that we reflect the will of the people as we understand it and we make an input which protects our national interests in the context of European Union institutions.

The trend of the Deputy's contribution seems to suggest that Sinn Féin stands for greater levels of scrutiny than the rest of us and that we are diluting or walking away from scrutiny. I reject that contention. It does not have a basis in fact, although the Deputy is entitled to make the political point if he so wishes. However, it misses the whole point of the approach here. The approach is, following the initiative of the Labour Party in putting forward a Private Members' Bill, the principles of which we all agree, we are now in committee fine tuning and ensuring that the sections, procedures and processes are constitutionally appropriate and cannot be challenged in the courts by citizens. This is a normal process. It is not an abdication by Fianna Fáil, the Labour Party or the Independents to the broad principles enunciated in the Bill. It is a question of making sure that the legislative expression is constitutionally appropriate, withstands scrutiny and meets the requirements of the situation. Having these discussions provides further avenues for involvement and participation by this committee representing the Oireachtas in a way which ensures the Executive can do its job.

It is not a question of shying away from effective scrutiny. It is a question of making sure we give sufficient care to the expression of that in legislative terms and it stands up to constitutional requirements. That is what is involved. I have to reject, in political terms, the contentions behind the contributions being made which make the assumption that all was perfect in the original Bill. I am not aware of any Bill that is perfect in its original form. We would not need a Committee Stage debate if that was the case. We obviously disagree on this point but I have to defend my point of view. The proposers are well capable of defending their point of view, which is shared by everybody in the House who wants constructive arrangements. We are not fudging or coming to a compromise merely for the purposes of having a Bill. It is to ensure we have legislation that compares as favourably or more favourably to any other scrutiny arrangements in any other parliament in the European Union precisely because a genuine attempt is being made by all concerned to address a democratic deficit which has been identified.

I fully understand the intent of Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment. It is the Government's intention to provide the Oireachtas with all the information necessary to enable it to carry out its scrutiny function. The notes on new legislative proposals, which we have been providing under the new arrangements since 1 July, provide all the necessary information. Should the Oireachtas request, over time, further aspects to be covered in these notes, the Government will have an open mind. It is intended that the spirit of the Deputy's amendment will be captured by the language I proposed, namely, that each proposal sent to the Oireachtas for scrutiny should be accompanied by a statement from the Minister outlining the content, purpose and likely implications for Ireland of the proposed measure and including such other information as he or she considers appropriate. In other words, it is not a question of me providing the minimum information that I might think, subjectively, I should give. For example, if I receive a request, I will set out the content, purpose and likely implications. The addition of the words "as he or she considers appropriate" enables the Minister to provide a wider range of information to the Oireachtas rather than using that phrase for the purpose of recoiling from the commitment to give the necessary essential information. On receiving that information and explanatory note, it is open to the committee to decide what it wishes to do with it and it is open to the Oireachtas to request additional information based on my note. The committee's acceptance of my note's wording does not deny it the right to seek further information if further questions arise.

The intent of the Deputy's amendment is to ensure that the maximum information deemed necessary is provided. There is nothing in my amendment that precludes that. I am simply outlining the content, purpose and likely implications and, if I can provide further information, I will do so. If one wishes to obtain more information, one can come back to me. This also meets the concerns raised by Deputy Mulcahy who asked if this would allow the committee to bring in wider interest groups. Once I provide the information note, this committee can decide to have hearings and bring before it whom it wishes, listen to all and sundry about their points of view and perspectives on the proposal, receive input into its considerations and report back to me. This is not an encased or closed process between the Executive and an Oireachtas committee. It is a question of providing the committee with what we believe is the content, purpose and likely implications of the proposal, based on our best assessment at an early stage. In reply to Deputy Kirk, it could subsequently, in a consultative process at EU or national level, grow into something far bigger where the implications would be greater. That process of monitoring continues from the initial stage. As soon as practicable upon the proposed measure being presented by the Commission, we present you with the content, purpose and likely implications note. The committee can then go to town on it and ask what it wishes.

For the purpose of understanding the process and going back to Deputy Crowe's point, this is a facilitatory process. I am ensuring we do not end up in a situation where a process of consideration has gone ahead at every level bar the committee which would see me coming to the committee with a fait accomplit. The committee could then ask what is the point in the Minister seeking its views since they cannot be taken into account. From the inception and presentation by the Commission of a proposal initiated by a member state, we provide the committee with a note and can accommodate Deputy O’Keeffe’s requirement for further information through a simple request. The wording of the proposed amendment causes a legal difficulty, as suggested by Deputy Andrews, because it would ultimately leave it to the courts to decide what precise information is necessary. It becomes an objective exercise for others outside the committee system on which to seek a judicial review. That is not necessary and that is not its purpose.

The committee can seek whatever information it wishes and consult with whomsoever it wishes. There is no need to allow a notional complication to be entered into the equation by someone, who is not part of the consultative process between the Executive and the Oireachtas, telling us how to do our job or clogging up the courts with a series of judicial reviews that would not serve any purpose and which would bring the scrutiny arrangements into disrepute. That would suggest an inadequacy in our arrangements due to poor drafting. For that reason I ask the committee to accept the wording I have proposed.

Regarding the second amendment to my amendment, the position addressed therein is largely dealt with in what I have proposed at section 2(4). This provides that if there has not been sufficient time - in practice, this would be exceptional - to consult the Oireachtas in advance of the adoption of a measure, a Minister would send a statement to the Oireachtas outlining, among other things, the circumstances of its adoption which would clearly embrace the reasons for urgency. It would seem superfluous to have two such reports, one explaining why a matter is urgent and another setting out the same thing but in a wider context after the measure has been adopted. Therefore, I do not propose to accept that amendment for that reason. Deputy Andrews made a similar point. It does not add to the existing situation.

In regard to the reporting arrangements, every Minister in every Department, however deeply or otherwise those Departments interface with the European Union institutions, should report twice annually through the committee for two reasons, apart from the fact that it is the right thing to do. Difficulties have arisen in some Departments where there was not that constant link and interface with the European Union, for example, in the habitats directive in the arts and culture area. It could well be argued that we needed to scrutinise and work out the implications of that directive long before getting to the point where it had been set out. While that may have been the only interface that Department has had with the EU institutions in three years, that culture of dealing with European matters needs to be strengthened within our own systems of Government. It provides the prospect of a more joined-up Government where all Ministers recognise that the European aspect of their work is an important one that needs to be fed into my Department as the co-ordinating Department which tries to ensure we deal with policy priorities in a way best designed to protect our interests.

In relation to reports, we have had a situation where the reports were three or four years behind but we are now up to date for one reason, namely, that we got someone to draft a report which was concise and gave the necessary information. Sometimes Departments devise very detailed reports on the most mundane and inane aspects of life for the purpose of making sure one might not read the next one which might contain some important information. Four or five years' reports have been brought up to date very quickly. Other Departments would do well to adopt that reporting methodology. I do not accept it is burdensome, it is a question of providing to the Oireachtas in an accessible and amenable way the important issues without providing a tome of nonsense in which nobody is interested.

Mr. Wall

The value of this legislation far outweighs the efforts of Sinn Féin to put the Labour Party off side in relation to the original Bill. Our legal team was in constant contact with the Department of Foreign Affairs in regard to amendments tabled. I thank the Minister for the way he accepted that and for the way the Department of Foreign Affairs met and consulted the Labour Party about it.

As regards the number of reports which will be published as a result of this legislation, we should not hold our breath about the attention the media will give to them. A number of excellent reports were published by the Committee on European Affairs during my time as a member of the committee, but they got little media attention. Those reports are available in the Library. I am sure all the reports which will be published as a result of this legislation will also be placed in the Library. They will give valuable information to interested groups and to Members of the Oireachtas who are not on the committee. If a certain matter is brought to their attention, they will be able to investigate what way it was dealt with by the committee.

All the political parties have highlighted the fact that the Bill is of major significance in terms of the Nice debate. It was introduced as a result of a lack of information during the first Nice treaty referendum. It is seen as a way of overcoming the major problems associated with that deficiency.

Chairman

Deputy Crowe asked me earlier about section 4. We normally deal with the amendments first and then the section. However, what we are doing today is unusual. We are amending a Private Members' Bill, therefore, we are deleting many sections. The acceptance of amendment No. 4 involves the deletion of section 4. Deputy Crowe can either make his comments now because the amendment will delete the section or when we reach section 4. We will keep going until 6 p.m. and then, if we have not finished it, we might take a short break before resuming. The intention is to try to complete Committee Stage today.

Mr. Kirk

When must we report to the Dáil?

Chairman

We must report to the Dáil by 9 October.

Mr. Crowe

It was not my intention to put one over on anyone. According to the Labour Party, I am trying to put one over on it. I was asked to do a job. Although I may not be doing it well, I have spent a great deal of time going through the Bill and the original one proposed by the Labour Party which then decided to drop many of its sections. That was unfortunate because there were many positive things in them. Some of the things I say may be off the wall, but I am trying to do an honest job. I want a more democratic Bill, but I do not know if that is in line with what the Minister thinks. Every time I spoke, he seemed to consult his advisers. The Bill is not great, but I accept there are many important aspects to it. I am trying to strengthen the Bill and that is why I made proposals. Some of them may not stand up to scrutiny, but my party is trying its best with limited resources.

Ms Sexton

The Minister might consider including the European Council and the Council of Ministers in section 2(1). I did not table an amendment.

Chairman

For the information of members, if a member raises a point on Committee Stage which is not in the Bill, he or she is free to raise it on Report Stage in the House. The Deputy will have time to think about that now that she has signalled her interest.

Mr. Cowen

I welcome the question. The reason that is not in the Bill is that the enactment of legislation or the making of decisions on legislation is done by the Council of Ministers. The European Council does not make legislative decisions. Within the ambit of this Bill, therefore, which has defined "legal instrument" in section 1, the European Council would not be relevant. It does not make legislative decisions. Those are made within the sectoral councils. The European Council deals with general policy issues. That is the reason it is not appropriate to include it in that section.

Chairman

As regards amendment No. 4, the wording is slightly different from the wording in the European Communities Act which I looked up yesterday. The amendment refers to "developments in the European Communities and the European Union", whereas the 1972 Act refers to the "European Communities". What is the significance of the difference?

Mr. Cowen

The European Union as an entity has come into existence since then.

Chairman

If we did not change that, could we still ask questions? I raised this question separately.

Mr. Cowen

It is for the purpose of being able to report on developments in the European Union and the European Communities. It is a question of legal definition. The European Union treaty, for example, is in existence. There are previous treaties in existence. It is about updating and ensuring that all developments relevant to the Ministers' brief in the European Union, as we know it, would be reported in that report where there are any implications for Ireland. There is nothing more significant to it.

Chairman

We must now put the amendments to the amendment. Is Deputy Jim O'Keeffe pressing amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2?

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I will give full consideration to the points raised in the Minister's full response. While I reserve the right to reopen the issue on Report Stage, I will not press the amendment now.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 2 not moved.

Amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Section 2 deleted.

Mr. Cowen

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

3.-(1) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 2 shall not apply to a proposed measure which, in the opinion of the Minister, is confidential.

(2) Where by virtue of subsection (1), subsections (1) and (2) of section 2 do not apply to a proposed measure, the Minister may make a report to either or both Houses of the Oireachtas or to a committee of either or both such Houses in relation to the proposed measure as he or she deems appropriate in the circumstances.".

The Government amendment is intended to provide for those exceptional occasions when it might be necessary to guarantee the confidentiality of EU proceedings. It is proposed that where this procedure is invoked, the Minister may make a report to the Oireachtas as he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances.

This provision is necessary in view of the wide remit of the Act which embraces all three pillars and proposals by member states under the second and third pillars. It is envisaged that it would only be used in exceptional circumstances and is most likely to arise in the CFSP and in the justice and home affairs areas. The example in the Common Foreign and Security Policy area would be a proposal to impose sanctions, for example, such as those in force against the regime of former Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic. In such cases the proposal normally includes details of proposed targets for sanctions. The publication of this information in advance could jeopardise the successful implementation of the sanctions. Of course, to the extent possible, information on any such measure would be brought to the attention of the Oireachtas as soon as possible.

In the justice and home affairs area, an example of a measure that could remain classified after adoption is a list of terrorist organisations and their members. For obvious reasons of security, such information could not be publicly made available. Clearly where proposals are essentially publicly available through Brussels or elsewhere, the relevant Minister would not have recourse to these provisions. This applies to the majority of proposals. For example, since the new Oireachtas grouping arrangements were introduced in July, not one proposal of this kind has been tabled and it would be a very rare occurrence.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 3:

In subsection (2), to delete "may" and substitute "shall".

I accept there are rare occasions when a proposed measure would be confidential and that in such a situation different rules would apply. To some degree, what we are talking about is perhaps related to subsection (3) of the last section when we spoke about insufficient time, but here we are talking about an "out" clause to avoid going through the procedures where the proposed measure is confidential. It makes sense to have an "out" clause, but my amendment proposes to ensure it is tight and circumscribed as much as possible, that it is totally ringfenced and could not be availed of by a future Minister who did not have a proper outlook in relation to transparency and dealing with the committee.

If it is considered by the Minister of the day that the scrutiny measures should not apply because the measure is confidential, the section states that the Minister "may" make a report to the House or a committee. If the Minister avails of this "out" clause, there should be a requirement on him to make a report to the House or the committee. That is why I propose changing the word "may" to "shall". It removes the discretion from the Minister to make such a report if he avails of this option and introduces a requirement on him to do so.

My second amendment is along the same lines. As put forward in the Minister's proposal, the Minister may make a report to the Houses or a committee in relation to the proposed measures as he or she deems appropriate in the circumstances. That seems to be a further "out" clause which gives even greater discretion to the Minister in that situation. At the very least the Minister should defend the basis on which he framed his amendment and explain why he cannot accept my amendments which at first glance are reasonable.

Mr. Wall

Did the Minister say a final text would be put before the House or the committee when the full circumstances of the measures are decided on? The section states that the Minister may make a report to either or both Houses of the Oireachtas. Will it be an internal report or will it be the final text of the report made to both Houses of the Oireachtas?

Mr. Cowen

As I said in my opening remarks, we are discussing the most rare and exceptional cases. The amendment proposed by Deputy O'Keeffe appears to oblige a Minister to make a report even in exceptional cases where, because of the confidentiality of the issue, he or she is not in a position to provide information. I explained the pretty extreme circumstances in which sanctions against a regime would be applied. If one was to make available knowledge on where accounts, for example, are located, the money would be moved out of the accounts. That would not serve a public purpose.

There are times when it is in the public interest to maintain confidentiality because of the nature of the proposal to be adopted by the EU. If I am required to make a report on something which must remain confidential, I cannot give information so what am I to give in the report? Even bringing to Members' notice the existence of something of that nature may in some way prejudice the effort being made by the EU to deal with the matter.

We are talking about rare and exceptional cases. We are committed to an open and transparent system. I only envisage recourse to this section in the most exceptional circumstances as I have explained - essentially where EU rules preclude making public confidential information. That has happened.

Our amendment proposes that the Minister may make a report to either or both Houses of the Oireachtas or to a committee of either or both Houses in relation to the proposed measure as he or she deems appropriate in the circumstances. In other words, whatever is deemed appropriate without breaching the confidentiality which is required for the effective decision to be put in place will be provided but I cannot go beyond that.

I know what the Deputy is getting at and the need to legislate for good faith in all circumstances. This Act will be kept under review and this provision can be revisited in the light of experience as well as any developments at EU level, including a possible strengthening as a result of the convention on the future of Europe and the Intergovernmental Conference on arrangements for consultation with national parliaments, for example, or of any procedures which may be developed with the Oireachtas for the handling of confidential proposals.

It would not be prudent of me to go any further given the examples I have outlined where EU rules preclude us from divulging the fact that the decision has been taken which is, itself, confidential. There are rare and exceptional cases and it can be kept under review. The purpose of this proposal is not for a Minister to be in a position to suddenly ascribe to themselves a confidentiality clause to something which is not confidential. It is a transparent system. Nothing happens without things coming to the fore in Brussels because 15, and probably 25, countries will be asked to consider them. However, in the most exceptional circumstances, and for obvious reasons, decisions are, and have been taken, which are regarded as, and remain, confidential. As a result, they have proved effective.

Ms Sexton

With regard to section 3(1), the Bill refers to the background to, purpose and likely impact of the position to be adopted by the Minister. Could this also include the background, purpose and consequences of proposals, including aspects such as subsidiarity and proportionality, the financial and the legislative impact?

Chairman

We are concerned with section 3.

Ms Sexton

I am referring to section 3(1). I have been referring to the Labour Party Bill. My apologies. Could there be more flexibility on the 21 days provision?

Chairman

Normally we consider the section after amendments have been dealt with, however, the Deputy has made her point and perhaps the Minister will address it. I call Deputy Kirk.

Mr. Kirk

It is difficult to argue with the logic of the Minister's response to Deputy O'Keeffe. I am sure the Deputy appreciates this and that he will withdraw his amendments.

Mr. Cowen

To answer Deputy Sexton, the acceptance of amendment No. 3 involves the deletion of section 3, to which she has referred, and its replacement with a new section. It is proposed to delete the reference to a 21 days provision in the Labour Party Bill with a provision that reads "as soon as is practicable". The guidelines outlined here provide for 28 days.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I understand the case on the question of confidentiality argued logically by the Minister and supported by Deputy Kirk. As a lawyer, I understand the need for confidential discussions. The section as drafted gives a discretion to the Minister which, effectively, gives him complete control. Accepting the occasional requirement for confidentiality, the Minister has to an extent undermined his well argued case when he pointed out that in Europe nothing remains confidential given that 15 and soon, I hope, 25 member states will have an input. What may be confidential at an early stage will probably not remain so because of leaks, either through Brussels or the capital cities of the other member states. In view of this, a confidential proposal in this country could appear in the media of other member states at a time when the Minister was seeking to utilise these provisions. Were this to happen the Minister should change his opinion or a provision should apply as prescribed in my amendments. Nevertheless, I propose to withdraw the amendments on the basis that I can reintroduce them for Report Stage if I consider it necessary.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 3, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 3 not moved.

Amendment No. 3 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

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

Mr. Crowe

I support the section to the extent that it provides for a more rigorous and accountable consultation procedure to include ministerial reporting, committee review and reporting and House resolution followed by further ministerial reporting. I also support it to the extent that it restricts the Minister from supporting legislation rejected by the House. While I appreciate and support the efforts to ensure that the committee is not over-loaded with work and to ensure more effective over-sight by committees which specialise in various legislative areas, I am concerned that these provisions may have the unintended effect of unduly restricting the over-sight remit of this committee. If most legislation is automatically farmed out to other committees, there will no longer be a central point of over-view or over-sight at committee level. I may have that wrong and although I am not submitting amendments now, I may raise this on Report Stage.

Section 3(2)(a) and (c) makes provision for a time period during which proposals must be considered. Is 28 days sufficient given the present and likely future volume and present pace of Dáil business? Given these time restrictions and the anticipated additional burden posed by the volume of EU legislation in addition to national legislation we are likely to be out of time before committees of the House can deal with such matters. If this is so, will it undermine the original intent and spirit of this Bill? Similarly, we need to ascertain, whether the current pace of EU legislation will allow a 42 day window for national parliaments to consider EU legislation. We are not confident that the clause to vary the time periods in section 5(2), as drafted, sufficiently deals with these concerns. I take on board what the Minister said about confidentiality and that EU rules preclude this, but the section needs to be looked at. People will ask what is confidential. The Minister outlined what is involved, but it will raise questions in the future.

Mr. Cowen

I take the points raised by Deputy Crowe. We drafted it specifically for the reason of avoiding any idea or perception by the public that the confidentiality clause was being inserted for the purposes of undermining the thrust of the Bill or the debate we have been conducting. I am setting out the legislative intent of it so that if a Minister was to try to use that section in a way which clearly is not envisaged, he or she could be held to account because he or she would be abusing the confidentiality clause.

The confidentiality clause will be dictated by the circumstances which would emanate from the EU's consideration of a very sensitive proposal. For example, it will occur only in the areas to which I refer - sanctions against corrupt regimes, reference to the naming of terrorist organisations or something of that nature where clearly there are security implications. It is obvious to the ordinary man in the street that one could not provide that information willy-nilly in the public domain because that might enable people to avoid the purpose for which this confidential arrangement was being set up at European Union level. For example, if one was to publish proposals to freeze a bank account in the next two weeks, we all would know about it but there would be no money in it by the time it was frozen. Clearly the circumstances confirm the confidential nature of any particular issue.

In the main, the culture in the European Union has been one of transparency. I often wonder about the criticism that is sometimes directed against the Union that business is conducted behind closed doors. There is a huge consultation process from the time a proposal is made until a directive is agreed or a regulation is enacted by the Council of Ministers. This process can take months or years. All 15 member states provide an input and there is a need for compromise, consultation and re-drafting. It comes before the Council of Ministers again and may be referred to an expert group before coming back to it. EU legislation is almost talked to death. For that reason, there is no question of a confidentiality clause being used here for the purposes of trying to undermine all that because it will all be out in the open anyway.

The reason I made an issue about that fact is to confirm that it is not open to a Minister to subjectively decide what is or is not confidential. It is in rare circumstances, where there are security issues involved which would be obvious, that one could defend bringing this section into effect in the case of a particular proposal, but one could not do it arbitrarily or subjectively. A Minister who, for example, does not want to come before a committee on a Common Agricultural Policy issue which might cause him or her problems could not rely a confidentiality clause.

When a Minister is going through the negotiating procedures, he may need to say that he will not show his negotiating hand at that stage, but he can have a general discussion with the committee about his general approach, what he sees as the dangers to State's interests and how he might be able to provide allies for his argument, etc. That would occur in the normal course of political debate at parliamentary committee level, but one cannot oblige the Minister to show his hand because it would not be in our interests to do so. The point I made originally is that it is a question of finding the right balance between the needs of the Executive and the needs of the Parliament to be notified and to know what is going on without tying one's own Minister's hands behind his back so that when he goes out, he cannot defend a position with which we all would probably agree.

The reference to 21 days, which was contained in the original Labour Party Bill, has been replaced by the term as soon as practicable. The guideline for the time within which an information note will be provided will be 28 days - within a month of receiving it.

On the question of whether there will be enough time, it is not a question of us having to get this information within 21 days and making known a view on it where the committee's input is recognised. Normally the pace of legislative change in the European Union is fairly slow. By the Minister giving the committee the information note, the committee can ask the Minister for further information and bring him or her before the committee. There could be months of consideration of an issue which was regarded as sufficiently urgent or important by the committee. The committee is not being tied to these time periods for the purposes of its input. It is merely that the Minister must come back to the committee within a certain time to make sure that the committee is notified of what is happening in order that it does not go so far down the line that it cannot make an effective contribution or feed into the formulation of the Government's position on the policy concerned.

We are not saying something specific about the remit of the Committee on European Affairs because it is not for the Executive to tell the committee system how it should arrange its work. On these EU issues, it is a matter for the Chairman and other committee chairmen to decide how to farm out the work. That will be a practical arrangement and the Minister will comply with the committee's request to send information notes to a particular committee in order that it may consider the issue concerned. That is a matter for the parliamentary committee system. It is not a matter for me.

Question put and declared lost.

Section 3 deleted.

NEW SECTIONS.

Mr. Cowen

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.-The European Communities Act, 1972, is hereby amended by the substitution of the following section for section 5:

'5.-In each year, beginning with the year 2003, the Government shall make a report to each House of the Oireachtas on developments in the European Communities and the European Union.'.".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 4 deleted.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 5, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

"5.-In each year, beginning with the year 2003, the Joint Committee on European Affairs shall make a report to each House of the Oireachtas on the operation in the preceding year of this Act.".

I am making two proposals regarding section 5. The first proposal relates to reports. We have discussed reports already and I like the notion of trying to introduce a culture of reports among Departments and Ministers. I fully agree with the Minister, Deputy Cowen's approach that these reports should be sharp, concise and provided on time. From that point of view, I am happy with the changes introduced already. It is, however, important that we in this committee should also be responsive to the need for reports and that we should place a statutory onus on the committee in this regard. If we require Ministers to produce reports, we should similarly require ourselves to produce reports. My amendment proposes a new provision which would require the joint committee to report to each House of the Oireachtas on the operation in the preceding year of thisAct.

I see our approach to the democratic deficit as a work in progress. We have made a good start, but I do not believe this matter has been dealt with in full. Apart from providing information on the operation of the Act in the preceding year, it might be appropriate for the annual report to include proposals to amend the Act in light of experience and of views such as those expressed in my other amendment, which refers to granting additional powers to the committee.

I have long held the view that the Oireachtas joint committee should have power to vet nominations for appointment to European Union institutions. I have considered the experience in other countries and I have always been impressed by the powers held by congressional committees in the United States. Granting the joint committee the power to vet nominations would allow it to become part of the sifting process. There is no doubt that even a Government with good intentions may, from time to time, produce proposals or nominate individuals who do not stand up to scrutiny. I have no wish to resurrect past or more recent controversies, but such a process would avoid instances where names are put forward——

Chairman

We are dealing with amendment——

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I thought I would save the committee time by dealing with both amendments simultaneously.

Chairman

The difficulty is that the next amendment is out of order.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Mea culpa. I proceeded to deal with the amendment because I had expected the Chairman to make such a ruling. I tried to employ a measure of procedural legality in my approach by incorporating my views on the——

Mr. Cowen

The Deputy is suggesting that the reporting mechanism should cover a wide ambit.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

The Minister has seen through my approach. It would be appropriate for the report to include proposals to broaden the powers of the committee. In producing any such report, consideration should be given not only to the operation of the Act but to how the committee could have a more effective input in the future. Proposals which would have to be justified, could be put forward for additional powers to be granted to the committee. To a degree, I am laying the foundations for such a development by referring to amendment No. 6, which has been ruled out of order, which could be reconsidered as a future amendment. The approach I advocate would help us avoid difficulties in the future and would ensure that those strange animals, the party hacks, would not be put forward for responsible positions in Europe. It would also help to ensure that the controversies we have had in the past could be avoided. In addition——

Chairman

The Deputy should confine his comments to the debate on amendment No. 5.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I will merely lay the foundation stone for my argument, which I will continue to press——

Mr. Cowen

The chairmanship of the Human Rights Commission refers.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I have no doubt that the chairman of the Human Rights Commission would be delighted to come before this committee and would ably defend himself. The same cannot be said for others who came out of the Minister's stable in recent years.

Mr. Cowen

Where is the Deputy's sense of magnanimity?

Mr. Mulcahy

I will not comment on the amendment that has been ruled out of order. With regard to amendment No. 5, however, the question of Oireachtas committees reporting back to the Dáil at the end of each year is interesting. As I understand, committees do not yet report to the Dáil in this way.

Chairman

This specific proposal would oblige the Joint Committee on European Affairs to report on the operation of the Act in the preceding year.

Mr. Mulcahy

I do not see how anyone could have a principled objection to that proposal, per se, but it would be more appropriate for the committee to submit a comprehensive report at the end of each year which would incorporate information on both its general activities and the operation of the Act, which would be of interest to the Oireachtas, particularly if EU commissioners, the President of the Commission and various delegations appear before us. There is a certain merit in the suggestion.

Mr. Cowen

I accept the amendment because it is a good proposal. I agree with Fine Gael's suggestion that there be an annual report on the operation of the Act. That will strengthen the role of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. Our approach is designed to ensure that the committee will be granted that degree of prominence. On behalf of the entire committee system, it will be in a position to comment on the operation of the Act and on issues of scrutiny. Operational annual reports can be made to plenary sessions of the Dáil, but, as a matter of policy, the committee will have the opportunity to report on the scrutiny arrangements in general and how these are working. It will also be in a position to highlight those Departments and committees which operate the Act as envisaged and those which may not do so. It will, therefore - I am sure the Chairman will see to it that this happens - be able to exert pressure where appropriate, to ensure that enthusiasm for the Act will be shared by people beyond the committee itself.

Mr. Mulcahy

Perhaps the Chairperson could write the report.

Chairman

That is absolutely out of order, Deputy.

Mr. Crowe

Are we dealing with the section?

Chairman

No, we will dispose of the amendments before doing so.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendment No. 6 is out of order and I have already supplied Deputy O'Keeffe with a note explaining the position.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.

SECTION 5.

Chairman

Amendment No. 7 is in the name of Deputy Ó Snodaigh. Deputy Crowe is deputising for Deputy Ó Snodaigh and is entitled to move the amendment.

Mr. Crowe

Are we speaking on section 5?

Chairman

It is normal to speak to the amendments and dispose of them before speaking to the section. However, the Deputy can speak to the section. The Minister is opposing the section so there will be a general debate in any event.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

The amendment suggests the deletion of subsections (3) and (4) whereas everyone else wants to delete the entire section. Therefore, Deputy Crowe will find that the proposal will be accepted and subsumed into the overall proposal to delete the entire section.

Chairman

The Deputy does not have to press the amendment if he does not wish to do so. However, if he wishes to speak to it he may proceed.

Mr. Crowe

I am confused about section 5. I have a large number of notes in front of me and I am dying to read them to the Minister.

Chairman

If the Deputy formally moves the amendment, I will call the Minister to speak on it. If the Deputy then wishes to reply he may do so.

Mr. Crowe

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, lines 21 to 29, to delete subsections (3) and (4).

Mr. Cowen

Section 5 in the original Bill deals with Common Foreign and Security Policy matters. We propose that the section be deleted because the substance of the section has been included in the proposed amendments to sections 1 and 2. As Deputy O'Keeffe stated, the amendment in Deputy Ó Snodaigh's name which has been moved by Deputy Crowe has been overtaken by the decision to provide in section 3(3) and (4) for cases where there is insufficient time for the Oireachtas to apply the normal scrutiny arrangements. These provisions will refer to all measures and not just those of a Common Foreign and Security Policy nature as set out in section 5. The joint actions referred to in section 5 have also been included in measures cited in section 1 and I, therefore, oppose the amendment and propose the deletion of the section.

Chairman

Deputy Crowe, do you wish to press your amendment?

Mr. Crowe

I have speaking notes on this amendment. May I read them for the record?

Chairman

That is your prerogative.

Mr. Crowe

I wish to speak about sections 5 and 6.

Chairman

You may speak on section 5. The Minister has indicated his opposition to the section but you may speak on it. You may not speak on section 6. We have not reached that section yet.

Mr. Crowe

In section 5, I propose the deletion of lines 21 to 29. Ministerial discretion is too wide in this matter and there is no definition of urgency. Such discretion may be warranted in a genuine emergency if it is explicitly defined but the definition of urgency would be subjective.

Subsections 3 and 4 may be unconstitutional and are certainly unnecessary. They also undermine the intent of sections 2 and 3. Situations of war, invasion and national emergency are already covered under article 20.8.3° of the Constitution and Standing Orders, likewise, allow for an emergency recall of the Dáil. This section is, therefore, unnecessary to allow for decision making in situations of genuine crisis.

Apart from war and national emergency, in what situations does the Minister envisage the provisions of this section would be needed? Provisions for reporting do not satisfy the tests of transparency and accountability. In addition, we seek confirmation that the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Foreign Affairs would be covered under sections 2 and 3 and, in a similar way, that these sections shall apply to matters of common foreign and security policy, as stated in section 5(1). If this assurance is not received, my party may wish to table an amendment on this issue on Report Stage.

These subsections should be deleted.

Chairman

You have put your views on record, Deputy. The Minister proposes to delete this entire section. In that circumstance, are you pressing your amendment.

Mr. Crowe

Yes.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Question, "That section 5 stand part of the Bill", put and declared lost.

SECTION 6.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 may be discussed together.

Mr. Crowe

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 6, to delete lines 14 to 18 and substitute the following:

"(3) No contingent of the Permanent Defence Force may be dispatched for service outside the State for the purpose of engaging in joint training or joint exercises with the military or armed forces of another state, nor participate in such joint training or exercises within the State, where-

(a) the military or armed forces of the other state are currently engaged in or are preparing to initiate an armed conflict in which the State is not a participant;

(b) the joint training or exercises include preparation in the use of nuclear and/or other Weapons of Mass Destruction;

(c) the military or armed forces of the other state are or have recently been engaged in human rights abuses against civilian populations or deployed in a manner inconsistent with the principles of international law;

(d) such joint training or joint exercises are for a purpose other than preparation for participation in an international force or body established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations.”.

Mr. Cowen

The amendment of the Defence Acts is a separate and distinct matter and the subject of Oireachtas scrutiny of EU business. As such, it is not appropriate for inclusion in this legislation. For that reason I oppose these amendments.

Chairman

In these circumstances are you pressing the amendments, Deputy Crowe?

Mr. Crowe

I am.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Crowe

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, lines 24 to 32, to delete all words from and including "Nations" in line 24, down to and including "given."." in line 32 and substitute "Nations.'.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question, "That section 6 stand part of the Bill", put and declared lost.

NEW SECTION.

Chairman

The acceptance of amendment No. 10 involves the deletion of section 7. Amendment No. 11 is related and both amendments may be discussed together.

Mr. Cowen

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 6, before section 7, to insert the following new section:

7.-(1) This Act may be cited as the European Union (Scrutiny) Act, 2002.

(2) The European Communities Acts, 1972 to 2001, and section 4 may be cited together as the European Communities Acts, 1972, to 2002.

These are technical amendments. Amendment No. 10 deals with the casual Short Title and collective citation and is intended to replace the existing section 7.

Amendment No. 11 relates to the Long Title and reflects the amended content of the Bill, namely the provision for Oireachtas scrutiny of certain EU measures and the amendment of the European Communities Act, 1972.

Chairman

I wonder that all the Acts are called European Communities Acts. None are called European Union Acts. Is that correct?

Mr. Cowen

Yes.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Question, "That section 7 stand part of the Bill", put and declared lost.

TITLE.

Mr. Cowen

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 3, to delete lines 5 to 19 and substitute the following:

"AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE SCRUTINY BY THE HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS OF CERTAIN PROPOSED MEASURES, TO AMEND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT, 1972, AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS.".

Amendment agreed to.