I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Os rud é gurb é seo an chéad ócáid go bhfuil an córas nua aistriúcháin le bheith againn, ba mhaith liom tús a chur leis an díospóireacht seo i nGaeilge, agus ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an córas agus moladh a thabhairt dos na teicneoiraithe a chuir isteach é. Mar sin féin, os rud é go bhfuil an méid atá le rá agam sa ráiteas seo beagáinín casta, is fearr leanúint as Béarla.
There is also before the House, in addition to the European Communities Bill, 1972, a motion for the approval of the Treaty of Accession. I would propose, a Cheann Comhairle, with your permission and with the agreement of the House, that this motion should be discussed concurrently with the Second Stage of the Bill which is now being taken.
I have taken the opportunity, in view of the technical nature of the statement in connection with the introduction of the Bill, to circulate copies of that statement. Deputies will see in the course of what I have to say, the need for the circulation of the copies, because unfortunately some of the language that I shall be using will be rather technical. I tried to avoid using that kind of technical language but I was advised that for the sake of accuracy it would be necessary.
The purpose of this Bill is to make the legislative provisions necessary so as to enable Ireland to fulfil the obligations which will arise from her membership of the European Communities and, of course, to exercise the rights which membership will confer. The necessary constitutional provision to enable this country to accede to the European Communities has already been made by the amendment of the Constitution which was approved by the people on 10th May of this year. This vote represented an overwhelming endorsement by the people of the Government's decision that Ireland should join the European Communities and their approval also of the terms of accession which had been negotiated by the Government.
Now that the necessary constitutional provision has been made, the way is clear to make the appropriate legislative provisions. The treaties governing the European Communities and the secondary legislation of the Communities must be given the effect, in this country, required by the treaties. It is proposed to authorise the making of ministerial regulations, where necessary, to enable the provisions of the treaties and of the secondary legislation to be fully effective here.
The White Paper on the Accession of Ireland to the European Communities which was published in January of this year indicated in chapter 4 the constitutional and legislative measures which would be necessary to enable this country to accede to the European Communities. It was explained that, in general, the treaties provide only a framework for the achievement of their aims, leaving the implementation of these aims to the Community institutions created by the treaties. For this purpose the treaties establishing the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community confer on the Council of Ministers and the Commission power to make provisions of various kinds by means of regulations, directive and decisions. In the case of the treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, the power conferred is to make provisions by means of decisions and recommendations. In addition to conferring the powers I have mentioned, the treaties themselves contain a number of provisions which are directly applicable in the national law of member States.
Chapter 4 went on to indicate that, to make the legislative changes necessary, the Government would introduce a Bill after the referendum providing for the enactment into our domestic law of the Community treaties and secondary legislation. This is the Bill now before the House.
In discussing the actual provisions of the Bill, it is necessary to advert to certain provisions of the Treaty of Accession to the EEC and Euratom and of the Decision of the Council concerning accession to the European Coal and Steel Community as well as to the Act Concerning the Conditions of Accession and the Adjustments to the Treaties which is annexed to the treaty and the Council Decision. Article 1 of the treaty and Article 1 of the Council Decision provide for membership of the three Communities by Ireland and the other acceding countries and for these countries becoming parties to the treaties establishing the Communities, as amended or supplemented. These Articles also provide that the provisions concerning the rights and obligations of the member States and the powers and jurisdiction of the institutions of the Community as set out in the original Community treaties shall apply in respect of the Accession Treaty and Decision. And Article 2 of the Act setting out the conditions of accession to the Communities provides:
From the date of accession, the provisions of the original treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities shall be binding on the new member States and shall apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those treaties and in this Act.
In order to give effect in Ireland to these treaty provisions, the Bill provides that from 1st January, 1973, the treaties governing the Communities as well as the acts adopted by the Community institutions, which are known as the secondary legislation of the Communities, shall be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic law of the State under the conditions laid down in those treaties. The Bill further authorises Ministers to make regulations which are necessary to enable the provisions of the treaties and of the secondary legislation to be fully effective in the State.
It might perhaps be useful if I were to clarify for the information of the House the nature of the Community instruments, that is the treaties and the acts adopted by the Community institutions, which this Bill proposes to enact into Irish law. The treaties by which the three Communities were established have over the years been supplemented or amended by a number of treaties and other acts. In the Act concerning the Conditions of Assession and the Adjustments to the Treaties, to which I have already referred, the expression "original treaties" is defined to mean the treaties establishing the three Communities, as supplemented or amended by treaties or other acts entering into force before the accession of the new member States to the Communities. These supplementing and amending treaties and other acts are not listed in the Treaty and other documents of accession but a list is contained in the Appendix to the Explanatory Memorandum on the documents of Accession which has been circulated to Deputies. It will be seen that these instruments, many of which are of very minor importance, number more than thirty treaties, protocols, conventions, decisions and regulations. The Government decided that the principal instruments among them should be specifically listed by name in section 1 of the Bill which deals with definitions. Therefore, the expression "the treaties governing the European Communities" is used in the Bill to mean the treaties establishing the Communities together with the principal instruments supplementing or amending those treaties, which are listed in section 1, as supplemented or amended by further treaties or other acts. The net result is that "the treaties governing the European Communities as defined in section 1, are the same treaties as the "original treaties", as defined in the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession, taken together with the Treaty of Accession to the EEC and EURATOM and the Decision on Accession to the ECSC.
There is further provision in section I that any treaty or act amending or supplementing those listed in the definition which enters into force between the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession, that is 22nd January, 1972, and the date of accession, that is 1st January, 1973, will not be included in the definition of "the treaties governing the European Communities" unless the Government make an order, to be approved in draft by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Thus the Bill ensures that no instrument of which Deputies are unaware when considering the Bill will be made part of our law unless both Houses of the Oireachtas subsequently agree to the addition of that instrument to those covered by the Bill. I should say that no such instrument is under consideration in the Community and that the Government do not anticipate, therefore, that they will be seeking approval for an order under subsection 2 of section 1.
In section 2 of the Bill the effect and application in the State of the treaties and the secondary legislation is set out. It is most important for a clear understanding of what section 2 and also section 3 are intended to achieve that a distinction should be made between the two categories into which the provisions of the treaties and of the secondary legislation fall. There are, in the first place, those provisions of the treaties and the acts of the Community institutions which are directly applicable in member States without further legislative action on the part of national Governments. Secondly, there are the provisions which are not directly applicable and which require implementing measures by member States.
Furthermore, as explained in the White Paper, the secondary legislation of the Communities takes a number of forms which it might be as well to recall here. In the case of the EEC and EURATOM, directly applicable secondary legislation is comprised mainly of regulations which apply generally and are binding in their entirety without further enactment on the part of member States. Secondary legislation of the EEC and EURATOM which is not directly applicable usually takes two forms. There are directives which are binding as to the results to be achieved while leaving the national authorities the choice of form and methods. There are also decisions which are usually concerned with a particular question and may be addressed to a government, a firm or an individual. In the case of the ECSC, decisions apply directly in member States in rather the same way as EEC and EURATOM regulations, and recommendations apply indirectly on the same lines as directives in the case of the other two Communities.
In the case of provisions, both of the treaties and secondary legislation, which are not directly applicable it is left, as I have said, to the member States to decide on the appropriate means for achieving the prescribed objectives. Section 3 of the Bill makes provision for the implementation of these provisions by empowering Ministers to make regulations for this purpose. The powers conferred by section 3 are also intended to be employed for the purpose of supplementing the provisions of directly applicable legislation, where this is necessary to make them fully operative in the State. For example, the texts of Community regulations frequently state that member States are required to take all necessary measures to make the regulations effective. Such measures may, for instance, include provisions for the enforcement of the regulations. Sometimes the Community regulations themselves provide for their own enforcement by empowering the Commission to impose monetary penalties for infringements. However, where this is not the case, it may be necessary for the member States to establish their own systems of enforcement. Or it might be necessary, in order to give full effect to a particular Community regulation or an implementing Ministerial regulation, to repeal, amend or apply an existing enactment in the same sphere. Section 3 confers on Ministers the necessary power to make regulations to these ends.
The powers conferred on Ministers to make regulations, under section 3 of this Bill, are admittedly considerable. These powers are, however, necessary for the fulfilment of Community obligations and I am confident that Deputies will fully appreciate this. Recognising the extent of the powers conferred under section 3, the Government have decided that there should be provision made that regulations shall cease to have statutory effect unless they are confirmed by Act of the Oireachtas not later than the end of the year following that in which they are made. This provision is contained in section 4. The Government believe that this provision represents the best and most practical means in all the circumstances for enabling the Houses of the Oireachtas to have an effective voice and to exercise effective supervision and control over legislation flowing from our Community obligations. The application of section 3 will require the introduction each year of a Bill providing for the confirmation of Ministerial regulations. Thus, the opportunity will be afforded for an annual debate on legislative action taken by Ministers as a consequence of our membership of the Communities. I believe that Deputies will welcome the opportunity for such debates. It will also, of course, be open to Deputies to raise in this House matters relating to our membership of the Communities under normal Parliamentary procedures.
I should also draw attention to the provision in subsection 2 of section 4 of the Bill for the convening of the Dáil if it has been adjourned for more than ten days, at the request of a majority of Members, for the purpose of considering Ministerial regulations under the Act.
I should like to deal further with aspects of section 3 of the Bill relating to the making of Ministerial regulations to implement Community legislation which is not directly applicable, or to make supplementary provisions. As I have said already, the powers conferred on Ministers by this Bill are considerable. However, the Government believe that they are not excessive. Many of the Community provisions requiring detailed implementation are of a minor nature and would not warrant implementation by statute.
Ministerial regulations would quite clearly be the most suitable method of implementation. A cursory reading of the first appendix to the explanatory memorandum on the Bill makes this clear. Very many of the Community directives listed therein are of an administrative or quasi-administrative nature and to enact them into Irish law by means of statutes would be inappropriate.
Deputies may consider that some Community provisions are of such importance that they should be implemented by statute. Certainly, Community instruments can be distinguished on the basis of their relative importance. Some are more important than others and it may be that it will be found desirable, in particular cases, to implement by statute Community legislation which might not be directly applicable. This is not precluded by the Bill. However, the Bill now before the House is a measure of broad principle rather than of detail, and it would be inappropriate to distinguish between Community provisions by dealing with some of them and not with others in such a Bill.
There are a number of further points I wish to make on the question of the making of ministerial regulations under the Bill. Such regulations will provide specifically for amendment and repeal as appropriate, in accordance with the usual practice of our legislation. Furthermore, in the case of ministerial regulations made under section 3 as in all other ministerial regulations, our courts will be the ultimate safeguard against any attempted use of the section in excess of the powers conferred. The courts can examine and, if appropriate, declare null and void any regulations made in excess of the powers granted by the Section.
It is important also to remember that a small part only of the total body of Community legislation will require the making of ministerial regulations. Most Community legislation—mainly in the form of regulations—is directly applicable and, following its adoption by the institutions of the Community, the Houses of the Oireachtas, like the other national Parliaments of member States, shall have no function in its implementation, except when, in relatively rare cases, it is expected that it will be necessary to make supplementary provisions to give it full effect. The volume of Community legislation which is not directly applicable— particularly directives — is much smaller. In the latter case we shall have to make any domestic legislative or administrative provisions which may be required in order to achieve the results prescribed. However, the result to be achieved is normally spelled out in considerable detail in such Community legislation, and there is little scope, therefore, for discussion as regards the content of the implementing measures.
There is a certain loss of freedom of action involved here. This, I think, is fully appreciated by Members of this House and by the people. It was discussed in the White Paper on the Accession of Ireland to the Communities and received a great deal of attention in the referendum campaign. The treaties establishing the Communities assign certain powers of decision to the Community institutions. As a consequence, there are corresponding limitations of freedom of action at the national level, limitations which relate however only to the economic, commercial and related social matters covered by the treaties. There is a pooling of decision-making at Community level, and the corresponding limitation of national freedom of action is accepted by member States because their interests are best served by membership. We, in deciding to become a member of the Communities have similarly accepted the necessary limitations on our freedom of action within the limited fields involved.
I am confident that the House will accept that it is reasonable to provide that in the relatively limited number of cases in which it will be required, domestic legislation, the substance of which will in any event be decided by the Community institutions, may be in the form of ministerial regulations. As I have already indicated, this does not preclude enactment by statute in particular cases, and ministerial regulations will be subject to confirmation by Act of the Oireachtas.
Finally, I should like to advert to the question of statute law revision in the context of our impending membership of the Communities.
As Deputies are aware, a statute law revision Act provides for repeal of provisions of statute law which are no longer in force because they have become obsolete, or have been impliedly repealed, and which have not been specifically repealed. Repeals are effected under such an act only of provisions concerning whose effective obsolescence or repeal there is no room for doubt. In the circumstances of our membership of the Communities and the direct application here of community legislation, it is desirable that our own enactments should be subjected to continuous examination with a view to relatively frequent elimination of "dead-wood" provisions in this way.
The Government accordingly intend to make greater use of statute law revision Acts which are an existing feature of our legislative process and the Attorney General has been instructed to be prepared for such a programme of statute law revision and, indeed, to include within it a general revision of much of our statute law which is generally regarded in legal circles as being badly needed.
With regard to the motion for the approval of the Treaty of Accession I would refer the House to the memorandum explaining the provisions of the treaty which has been circulated to Deputies. The terms for our admission to the Communities contained in the Treaty of Accession and related instruments were explained very fully in the White Paper laid before the House in January last.
There are, however, two matters on which I do wish to comment. The first of these concerns the arrangements to be made for dealing with prospective Community legislation.
The Government have been considering the question of arrangements for the Houses of the Oireachtas to examine proposals for Community legislation; that is an examination before decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers on the proposals. Deputies will appreciate that this is a difficult question which raises a number of problems requiring the most careful consideration. Not least of the problems is the very heavy flow of proposals and communications produced by the institutions of the Communities. The volume of paper involved is vast and poses problems for any Parliament of a member State or any individual member of Parliament in dealing with it.
Some of the present member States, for example, Germany, have the advantage of an established system of specialist parliamentary committees which has to some extent facilitated the examination of draft Community legislation. However, even in member States which have such arrangements, we understand that considerable difficulties have arisen for the parliamentary committees in dealing with the large mass of Community documentation and in distinguishing the more important policy documents from the essentially technical proposals.
Other member States, for example, France and Belgium, have not established any special procedures for the consideration in the national Parliaments of proposals for Community legislation.
A further difficulty is the need prescribed by the Communities to preserve the confidentiality of certain documents. In any parliamentary arrangements made, it would, of course, be necessary to respect these Community requirements.
These are some of the considerations involved. I mention them at this stage to let the House know that the Government have certainly not lost sight of this question and that the difficulties that present themselves have been under examination. I have in mind that there might be consultation in the matter between the parties in the near future.
The second matter on which I shall comment is the meeting of the heads of State or Government of the member States. By now Deputies will doubtless have seen the communiqué issued at the close of last week's Summit conference in Paris. This statement was the outcome of much prolonged and dedicated work, not only at the summit itself, but also during the preceding months. The preparatory work, carried out under the direction of the Council of Ministers, had aimed at identifying the areas in which decisions and actions were necessary, as well as the nature and extent of differences in views on the best methods for achieving progress. This ground work by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Finance meant that the nine States approached Paris with a clear picture of the possibilities and the problems.
The conference itself was characterised by a spirit of friendliness, a desire to make substantial progress, and a determination to overcome problems. This keynote was immediately apparent from the opening statements, all of which sought to highlight areas of accord, rather than to dwell on sources of potential friction.
The first subject area related to questions of economic and monetary union. The decisions, announced in the communiqué, to set up a European Monetary Co-operation Fund, to define a common community position on international monetary reform and to effect the transition to the second stage of economic and monetary union on 1st January, 1974, demonstrate the will to proceed with the goal of complete EMU by 1980.
Progress on these monetary aspects, apart from their general importance in the development of the Community, is also of particular interest to us in that it is a necessary step to safeguard the framework within which the Common Agricultural Policy of the Community operates.
Progress towards economic and monetary union also however gives rise to the question of the undeveloped regions, since in the absence of specific countervailing measures, there would be a tendency for development to concentrate in established centres. For this reason, we, in common with some other countries were especially interested in securing progress on regional policy. In view of the importance of this topic, and the misunderstandings which appear to surround it, some elaboration on this question will be of interest.
Prior to the Summit, proposals for regional policy measures had already been drawn up. These were in two forms
(1) to use the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for regional development activities, and
(2) to establish a Regional Development Fund together with any related administrative mechanisms.
The initial budget allocation suggested for each of these two funds was of the order of £20 million per year.
The Summit communiqué affirmed the desire of the Community to give a high priority to correcting regional and structural imbalances.
It was agreed that the Regional Development Fund should be set up before the end of 1973. It was also agreed that from the beginning of the second stage of EMU—that is from 1st January, 1974—this Fund will be financed from the Community budget. I should add that in discussing such financing it was clear that all the member States were thinking of a substantial fund, with a budget many times in excess of the earlier proposal of an initial £20 million. Since the Community Budget for 1973 is aready fixed it would clearly not have been practicable to provide substantial funds before 1974. This latter date is also appropriate in that it ensures parallel progress in regional policy comparable with that on other aspects of economic and monetary union.
I may also point out that these decisions to take substantial action in 1974 do not preclude decisions being taken in the interim on the more modest existing proposals. These latter will be on the agenda for the Council of Ministers' meeting in December, and it is our hope that progress would be made then.
The Community concern to deal effectively with the human problems posed by development was demonstrated not only in the sphere of regional policy, but in other subject areas also. In the realm of social policy, for example, they invited Community institutions to draw up by 1st January, 1974, an action programme covering working conditions, training, measures for consumer protection, and other areas of importance in work and leisure activities.
On the question of external relations the Summit affirmed the desire of the member States to become a positive beneficial force in the international sphere. There was general agreement to aid the developing countries on a larger and more effective scale. In the realm of trade relations it was agreed to define a common Community approach as soon as possible, and the institutions are to prepare a report on this aspect by 1st July, 1973.
The many decisions taken at the Summit will clearly mean a heavy burden of work for the Community institutions. In addition to considering the effective functioning of these institutions, related issues such as a wider participation in the European Parliament were also discussed. Since the latter topic was the subject of some debate at the conference itself and of considerable comment elsewhere, I may perhaps be permitted to outline our position.
There was a proposal on this subject from the Dutch delegation. This was that the European Parliament should draw up a plan on the basis of Article 138 of the Treaty, to provide for direct elections to the Parliament, and that Council decisions on this plan should be taken by the end of 1973. We supported the Dutch proposal in general, but it became obvious that several difficulties surrounded these suggestions. We therefore eventually agreed with the formula which appeared in the communiqué. This indicated the general agreement to strengthen the powers of the Parliament, while leaving open the question of a date by which direct election would operate.
The blend of principle and pragmatism which went into the preparation of this solution was a splendid example of the Community's ability and will to forge a Europe which can command loyalty, admiration and respect; a Europe which can provide peace, prosperity and a spirit of idealism for its peoples.