Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 May 1982

Vol. 335 No. 1

Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities: Motion

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Barrett

, Clare): I move:

(1) That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas (which shall be called the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities) be established consisting of—

18 members of Dáil Éireann and 8 members of Seanad Éireann (none of whom shall be a representative in the Assembly of the European Communities)

(a) to examine

(i) such programmes and guidelines prepared by the Commission of the European Communities as a basis for possible legislative action and such drafts of regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions of the Council of Ministers proposed by the Commission,

(ii) such acts of the institutions of those Communities,

(iii) such regulations under the European Communities Act, 1972 (No. 27 of 1972), and

(iv) such other instruments made under statute and necessitated by the obligations of membership of those Communities

as the Committee may select and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas; and

(b) to examine the question of dual membership of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann and the European Assembly and to consider the relations between the Irish representatives in the European Assembly and Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas;

(2) That provision be made for the appointment of substitutes to act for members of the Joint Committee who are unable to attend particular meetings and that members of either House, not being members of the Joint Committee, be allowed to attend meetings and to take part in the proceedings without having a right to vote;

(3) That representatives in the Assembly of the European Communities, who are also Members of either House, be notified of meetings and be allowed to attend and take part in proceedings without having a right to vote;

(4) That the Joint Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its Members to be Chairman who shall have only one vote;

(5) That all questions in the Joint Committee shall be determined by a majority of votes of the Members present and voting and in the event of there being an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative;

(6) That every report which the Joint Committee proposes to make shall, on adoption by the Joint Committee, be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith, whereupon the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report together with such related documents as it thinks fit; and

(7) That five Members of the Joint Committee shall form a quorum of whom at least one shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann and at least one shall be a Member of Seanad Éireann.

The Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation was first established in 1973. It is dissolved when the Dáil and Seanad are dissolved, and must be reconstituted by orders passed by each House of the Oireachtas. It was decided, when we joined the European Communities, to set up a committee to examine Community legislation, and to supervise its implementation in Ireland. It is vital that such a committee should exist in order to monitor this body of external law which is now a part of our national system.

The terms of reference of the Joint Committee, as formulated in 1977, give the committee authority to examine Community legislation at three stages in the process of its adoption. It may examine legislation at the draft stage, it may examine Community Acts, and, finally, it may examine Ministerial regulations made under the European Communities Act, 1972, and instruments, made under other statutes, in order to implement our Community obligations.

The new Joint Committee will consist of 18 members of Dáil Éireann, and eight Members of the Seanad, thus totalling 26 which is the same number as its predecessor. Unfortunately, the most recent Joint Committee did not have the opportunity to meet during the period of the last Dáil and Seanad. This was because the various steps establishing it took some months to complete. It is all the more urgent now that the new Joint Committee should be set up without delay.

The terms of reference before the House today are identical to those agreed by the Oireachtas when in the process of constituting the most recent Joint Committee. I should like to explain again, for the benefit of the House, the additions to the terms of reference which were agreed on the last occasion. In a report of March 1980, the Joint Committee recommended certain amendments to its Orders of Reference taking cognisance of the fact that the European Assembly is now a directly elected body. The first of these has been incorporated in the motion before the House, namely that the phrase which provided that: "delegates to the Assembly of the European Communities be notified of meetings and be allowed to attend and take part in the proceedings without having a right to vote", be amended to read that: "representatives in the European Assembly, who are also Members of either House of the Oireachtas" have the privilege set out above. The effect of this change is merely to formalise an existing state of affairs, namely, that members of European Parliament are no longer appointed by the Dáil, apart from those filling casual vacancies, but are elected by direct universal suffrage.

The second recommendation concerns the question of membership of the Joint Committee by MEPs. Before the 1979 European elections, members of the Oireachtas nominated as members of the European Parliament, were ex officio members of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation. This arrangement was not, in practice, a success, and the terms of reference of the Joint Committee appointed in 1977 expressly stated that members of the European Parliament would be precluded from membership of the Joint Committee. They would, however, be notified of meetings and be allowed to attend and take part in the proceedings, without having a right to vote. The Joint Committee also recommended that the phrase which precludes members of the European Parliament from membership of the Joint Committee be deleted. This suggestion has not been adopted. Rather, the whole question of the relationship between MEPs and the Dáil and Seanad will be examined by the Joint Committee. Provision has been made for this by an addition to the terms of reference of the Joint Committee, which gives it a mandate “to examine the question of dual membership of the Dáil or Seanad and the European Assembly, and to consider the relations between the Irish Representatives in the European Assembly and the Dáil and Seanad...”. The Government consider that the Joint Committee, which has already touched on aspects of this question of the dual mandate, and the overall relationships between the Oireachtas and the European Assembly, is the proper forum for the examination of these questions.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I note again the absence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs from the House although this motion is in his name. The setting up of the Joint Committee is an important matter and I would like to have heard the Minister's views on the activities of that Joint Committee. I will leave the matter at that.

There is a further point which is worth considering. The motion is framed on the basis that it is expedient that a joint committee of both Houses be established. The matter will go to the Seanad and then come back to this House for the actual establishment of the committee. We have been without this committee for a considerable time and much work has piled up. I suggest that it is in order at this stage to examine this rather cumbersome procedure whereby joint committees are set up. Why is it necessary to have the matter on the Order Paper today on an expediency motion, while in due course it must come back again for the establishment of the committee? We must consider how to make the procedures of this House more effective. I see no reason why we should not revise our procedures to ensure that the job in this House today could be completed today, then dealt with by the Seanad and the matter put into operation. That cannot happen under present procedures.

I am glad that the Government have included in the list of guidelines under which the committee will operate the additions suggested by the previous Government regarding examination of the question of dual mandate and relations between MEPs and the Houses of the Oireachtas. I compliment the Government on their adoption of the additions introduced by the previous Government. It is of prime importance that these issues be examined without delay. European elections will be held in 1984 and the question of dual mandate must be examined as objectively as possible and suggestions made as to its continuance or otherwise.

Perhaps more important will be consideration by the committee of the relationship between MEPs and the Oireachtas. If the dual mandate ends there is a possibility that all contact between Leinster House and the European Parliament will be lost and we will lose as a result. MEPs are involved in a different forum where they are dealing with representatives from countries of the EEC and involved in various committees of the European Parliament. It is important that we know as much as possible about what is going on and have the benefit of the views of our MEPs, particularly in relation to the position of Ireland in the EEC. How this is to be achieved I am not sure. Although constitutional problems may be involved, it might be appropriate for MEPs to have the right of address in this House on European issues. They would have a lot to offer in such debates and I hope the committee will consider this possibility in detail.

The motion provides that representatives in the European Assembly who are also Members of either House be notified of meetings and allowed to attend and take part in the proceedings but not allowed to vote. What about those MEPs who are not Members of the Oireachtas? This provision seems to be discriminatory to some degree. I understand that this is a joint committee and technically there are reasons for this provision; but it seems highly improper that while, for instance, Deputy Tom O'Donnell might have something to offer to that committee, Mr. T.J. Maher, MEP, would not be in a position to attend. This whole matter must be examined.

Since this committee was first established in 1973 it has been traditional for the chairman to be appointed from the ranks of the Opposition and I should like an assurance from the Minister of State that this tradition will be continued.

As someone who served on this Committee between 1977 and 1981 I wish to put on record my appreciation of the outstanding service given by the staff of the Committee. I do so on my own behalf and on behalf of others who have served on the committee.

Mr. Higgins

I welcome the establishment of this committee. We need it, and in view of the backlog of work its early establishment is essential. I served on the committee from its foundation in 1973 until 1977 and it was chaired at that time by Deputy Haughey, the present Taoiseach. I acquired a view about the work of the committee during those four years and came to the opinion that the manner in which they organised their work between 1977 and 1981 by the setting up of sub-committees was a significant improvement in the work of the committee.

My first point concerns the manner in which the proceedings of the committee come before the general Dáil and Seanad for consideration. It is not satisfactory, and we must consider the most appropriate manner in which the work of the committee can come before the Dáil and Seanad in general session. I am not sure whether this is a matter for the committee or for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Other parliamentary assemblies in Europe have different strategies for handling the question of secondary legislation. Questions must be raised in the minds of those who are worried about parliamentary accountability when one looks at our Order Paper with its thousand questions. Every week we make provision for a large number of questions, many of which are very particular and one must look at the same time at the total amount of Dáil time devoted to considering the impact of legislation. We have been deficient in allowing time within our existing arrangement for the work of the committee. All Deputies need to do is to look at the Official Report and see how little space has been given in the printed record to reports of the sittings of the committee. Yet, the implication of matters discussed by the committee are immense. That is my first point.

Secondly, I should like to repeat a point I made in 1973 when I represented the Labour Party on the committee. In the Minister's speech he referred to the manner in which the committee can examine legislation in three stages: at the draft stage; secondly, it can examine Community Acts; and, thirdly, it can examine ministerial regulations. In the period between 1973 and 1977 we had a problem as I saw it which arose in relation to the terms of reference of the committee.

I believed that documents that had been leaked to the level of the Community semi-formally should be put before us and that we should be free to discuss matters of a more general nature before they had arrived at the status of draft laws. Between 1973 and 1977 there were two views in the committee. The more general view argued that we should be able to discuss general matters which arose shortly after Ireland became a member of the Community and there was the narrower view that argued we should monitor things closely and narrowly as they came before us. This second view tended to be reinforced by the vast amount of work that had to be processed. The result was that those of us who considered the more general issues should be discussed felt that at the end of the day we had to accept we would be delaying work and we had to accept that matters should operate very pragmatically and, I felt, very narrowly.

There are other points in relation to the media. The general attitude was that there was very little interest in the work of the committee, almost creating a disincentive to the members to put in work on it. In the four years between 1973 and 1977, honesty compels me to say that there were considerable difficulties on many occasions in getting a quorum. I felt there was not sufficient public interest in the work of the committee.

To tie my two points together, I would favour rearrangement of the procedures of this House in which European matters would be discussed on a regular basis rather than in terms of a full report. Secondly, I would prefer media response to the work of the committee that allowed work in Europe to be discussed on a regular basis, particularly in the provincial press.

On the more general points raised, there is an importance in having people who have a definite experience and they should be facilitated in attending. At the same time, the committee must contain efficacy in terms of its own operation. When I left the committee in 1977 and looked back on the four years and when I thought of the various groups affected by the regulations and instruments, my impression was one of vast unaccountability. One could say one had formally gone through the motions of examining matters but often at great speed and with little interest on the part of the Dáil or the Seanad. I recall speeches in the House where people spoke of difficulties with regard to catching planes and the difficulties of travelling from one part of Ireland to another in comparison with travelling from one part of Europe to another, but these were general remarks and had little to do with the precise detailed work of the committee. I came to the conclusion that if one balanced the peripheral nature of many of the questions on the Order Paper and looked at the impact of much of the work of the committee on the day-to-day life of Ireland, commercially and socially, one might have been better served in having an easier mechanism for the work of the committee to be brought before the Dáil and Seanad in that way encouraging better participation by elected Members in the work of the committee and arousing greater interest in the public with regard to the working of the committee.

I welcome the formation of the committee and wish it success.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Barrett,

Clare): I should like to thank Deputies for their contributions. With regard to the points raised by Deputy Higgins, some reports were debated but they were not many when one considers the number of reports issued. Out of a total of 90 reports, two were debated in this House and nine were debated in the Seanad. I suppose it depends on the Order of Business.

The question of the dual mandate was discussed. I do not know if it was discussed often or extensively in the committee but I do not think any firm proposals or recommendations resulted. That will be a matter for the joint committee when it gets underway. I do not know any reason why the chairman should not come from the Opposition parties.

The question was raised about attendance of MEPs. As we have said, MEPs who are Members of the Oireachtas may attend the committee but it is a committee of Oireachtas Members. For that reason people like T.J. Maher, MEP, and our own MEPs would not be entitled to attend at the committee as it is at present constituted, but Deputies such as Deputy Tom O'Donnell and others who are Members of the Oireachtas would be able to attend. That would be a matter for the joint committee to debate and to find out what ideas they may have on the subject.

I gather Deputy Higgins was disappointed at the operation of the committee. Quorums are often a problem with committees of this House. That has been the case with regard to the Public Accounts Committee. I was a member of that committee and I know that frequently we had difficulty in getting sufficient members for a quorum. I should think it depends considerably on when a committee meets; for instance, I should think that it would be more difficult to get members to attend on a Thursday afternoon rather than a Wednesday afternoon. This kind of difficulty has always prevailed.

I thank Deputies for their contributions and their co-operation in this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Noonan,

Limerick West): I take it that the House agrees that a message be sent to Seanad Éireann requesting its concurrence in this resolution.