Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 May 1995

Vol. 452 No. 5

European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1995 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill is short and straightforward. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has certain statutory functions under the European Communities Act in relation to the supervision of EC secondary legislation. The purpose of the Bill, following the establishment of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, is to transfer the statutory functions in question exercised at present by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to the new Joint Committee on European Affairs. The transfer of these statutory functions necessitates a simple amendment of the European Communities Act.

The background to the Bill is that after Ireland joined the European Community in 1973, the statutory function in relation to secondary legislation under the European Communities Act was initially exercised by the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. With the establishment of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs the function was transferred to that committee. The most appropriate committee to exercise this task is now the new Joint Committee on European Affairs. Secondary legislation plays an important role in the implementation of directives adopted by the European Union and it is essential that the Oireachtas should continue its constructive role in examining that legislation.

The remit of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, of course, extends far beyond the supervision of secondary legislation. It will, I have no doubt, in conjunction with the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, make an essential contribution across the range of issues arising from Irish membership of the European Union.

The decision to establish the Joint Committee is a reflection of the importance which the Government attaches to European issues and to the role of the Oireachtas in addressing them. I should like to take this opportunity once again to wish the Joint Committee well in its future work. It will certainly face an important workload over the coming years and I very much look forward to working closely with it. Officials from my Department have already appeared before the committee to outline the background to the Council of Ministers' Report on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union, which will serve as an important input to the Reflection Group which is to prepare the Intergovernmental Conference and which will start work next month.

Today is "Schuman Day", named in honour of the French Foreign Minister who on 9 May 1950 put forward the original proposal that the French and West German coal and steel industries be placed under a single High Authority. That proposal, 45 years ago, led to the setting up of the European Coal and Steel Community, thereby starting the whole process of European integration as we know it today. Europe has come a long way in the intervening period. A Coal and Steel Community consisting of six member states has developed to become a European Union of 15 member states. The brave hope of peace and prosperity has been translated into a solid achievement but the European Union cannot rest on its laurels. Most particularly, it must ensure on the one hand that it addresses positively the aspirations for membership of the Union on the wider European continent and on the other that the benefits of membership are fully extended to all its citizens, most particularly through a concerted attack on the problem of unemployment. The European Union is facing a host of new challenges. I do not intend today to dwell in any detail on the vast array of issues which must be addressed over the coming years and which we will have many opportunities of discussing on future occasions. However, I would like to avail of this opportunity to highlight some of the foremost priorities.

First, the creation of employment must remain our top priority at national and Union level. The Commission's White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment identified a number of important avenues for progress. There is no "miracle cure" for the scourge of unemployment, but at both national level and with our EU partners we are working resolutely and imaginatively to achieve tangible improvement.

Second, the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference offers both a challenge and an opportunity for the Union to improve its effectiveness and to begin to equip itself for the challenges of a new century. Imagination and vision will be called for in our approach, all the more so as Ireland will chair the Intergovernmental Conference during our Presidency in the second half of 1996.

Third, the achievement of Economic and Monetary Union represents a central aim of the Union over the coming years. Ireland fully supports that aim and will be ready to participate in the third and final phase.

Fourth, as I indicated, the further enlargement of the European Union to include among others the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will remain a major priority over the years ahead. The emergence of democracies with reforming economies in Central and Eastern Europe means that the political and economic context in which the European Union operates has fundamentally altered. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe legitimately aspire to European Union membership and that aspiration must be met. Working out the arrangements for this in a way which preserves the Union's essential achievements and which permits the continuing process of European integration will occupy much of the European Union's energies in coming years. Proceeding with enlargement in a way which did not facilitate the continued process of integration would not be in anyone's interests, least of all the applicant countries.

As I mentioned in referring to the Intergovernmental Conference, Ireland will hold the Presidency of the European Union in the second half of 1996. Ireland has of course held the Presidency on four previous occasions. It is fair to say that the businesslike, efficient and communautairemanner in which we conducted those presidencies was widely appreciated. The 1996 Presidency will pose a greater challenge for the country in organisation and management terms because there is now an expanded Union of 15 member states and because of the ever widening agenda. The challenge is one, however, which we gladly accept and which I have no doubt we shall meet effectively. Ireland has much to gain from Europe, and I do not mean in narrow financial terms. We also have much to give. If we are to derive maximum benefit from the Union while making a maximum contribution to it, it is essential that we strive consistently to increase our knowledge and understanding of European issues. It is vital that that increase in knowledge and understanding should apply not only to the Government and the Oireachtas, but also to the public generally. The Government has sought in many ways to encourage and develop public debate on European issues, through for example the “Communicating Europe” initiative and through the very successful series of public seminars leading to the forthcoming publication of a White Paper on Foreign Policy. Only through knowledge and understanding of European issues can we attain the full rewards of membership and at the same time make a mature, focused and well-informed contribution to the affairs of the European Union.

Mr. Davern

I welcome this Bill, the purpose of which is to give recognition to the new Joint Committee on European Affairs. I also welcome the decision to establish a separate committee. One of the problems is that little attention has been paid by the House to secondary legislation with the result that there is now a huge backlog. It is a matter of concern that insufficient moneys are available to the committee to employ people with expertise to examine directives and secondary legislation.

It is also a matter of concern that there is a tendency in Europe to seek uniformity. When I visited a chip shop last week I was informed that the owner has to make changes at the back of the shop because someone in the European Commission has decided that a crack in the wall cannot be filled, that the wall must be replastered. Some of the health regulations are too restrictive and, because of this there is a need to provide funds to the Joint Committee on European Affairs to conduct independent research to assess the effect legislation will have.

According to a recent survey 80 per cent of people know nothing about Europe although they say our membership is a good thing. While I appreciate that the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs is making an effort he has not yet managed to increase people's knowledge. Has he been spending money only in Dublin? It is the view of the average person that Europe only provides money for business and farmers.

Unfortunately, the effect of the regulations to which I referred is to impose costs on small businesses. For instance, if a person sells more than half a dozen eggs they will have to register. Dinny in "Glenroe" will be summonsed immediately as he leaves dirt on eggs to give the impression that they are free range. Throughout the country people are making pin money by selling a few eggs or baking bread. This is now illegal under European legislation and if they continue to engage in this activity they will be regarded as criminals. A number of years ago an attempt was made to replace the pint in both Ireland and Britain with a half litre system. This trend should be checked as there is a need for individuality and to retain the character and traditions of each country.

Recently the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry appeared before the committee—I thank the chairperson for arranging this. He explained that the European Union is seeking a pay back of £123 million on foot of the report of the beef tribunal and other matters. The European Union should not pursue this matter as the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, which acts as its agent, has been extremely vigilant and strict and loopholes have been closed.

The pay back being sought from Ireland constitutes a penalty in that the taxpayer will have to pay, given that the companies concerned no longer exist although the managements may now be involved in different companies. As each rural Deputy is aware, if a farmer mistakenly gives the number of a bullock when applying for grants on six heifers he will receive nothing for two years. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is so strict it will not allow the application form to be corrected, even though it was a genuine mistake because of bad eyesight or lack of knowledge in filling out the form.

I understand that last Friday — I was unable to be present — the Minister for Justice appeared before the committee to discuss the drugs issue. There is also a need for legislation in this area. Although there has been tremendous co-operation in recent months and a large quantity of drugs has been seized there is a need for the committee to conduct research to see what it can do. In my naivety I thought that all the drugs seized off our coasts last summer were destined for Holland which is recognised as the major drugs centre of Europe. However, I soon discovered that drugs were being shipped from Holland to this country.

It is extraordinary that in allegedly providing for the free passage of goods and people, with the exception of ourselves and the British, the European Union is facilitating those who deal in drugs because of the absence of border and customs checks. The place of origin will have to be certified if we are to tackle this problem.

If professional help is not available the workload of the committee will be far too great. I am aware that consultants will be appointed but only to examine legislation. Civil servants should be seconded to the committee to conduct independent research from the point of view of Oireachtas Members, not of individual Departments.

I am sorry that Irish people do not enjoy the privilege of being able to travel throughout Europe without a passport. At Brussels Airport Irish people have to take the long way round while everyone else takes the short cut. I appreciate there are restrictions because of the position in Northern Ireland but I encourage the Department of Foreign Affairs to ensure that Irish people enjoy the same freedoms and are not classified as second class citizens in the European Union.

In relation to the paper on growth, competitiveness and employment the European Union has made a reasonable effort but the solution to Europe's problems may not be the solution to ours. We should look at what Europe has done, particularly in the smaller regions.

I spoke earlier about individuals making pin money who are regulated by Europe, but these regulations do not apply to the French farmer who produces wine for local consumption, nor does it apply to the producer who supplies bread to the local shop. Unlike Ireland, France has kept its individuality and its characteristics. A German man who set up business in my constituency making cheese said in a recent radio interview that he does not intend to continue in business because of the EU regulations governing bacteria levels. If he complied with the regulations the cheese would be flavourless and similar to mass produced cheese that is available throughout the European Union. Ministers do not fight for our individuality in Europe but rather agree to uniformity.

I wish the Government every success with the Presidency in 1996 and hope it will be as successful as the last Presidency which was run excellently by the then Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, and the Government. I hope the Government will show the same efficiency now and that meetings will be held not only in Dublin but throughout Ireland so that Ireland in the wider sense can be seen to be part of Europe. I also hope the Minister of State will increase his efforts to make Europe more knowledgeable about Ireland. Our membership of the EU is considered a disadvantage in terms of legislating for Ireland as an individual country and an advantage in terms of money coming in, but that money only goes to a few farmers and big business people. The average individual does not see the benefit of it even though millions of pounds of EU funding are spent on regional schemes such as water and sewerage facilities and tremendous work is being done in every constituency. European officials who visit Ireland to see the work being done should meet local authorities and let them know that European funding, in many cases accounts for 75 to 85 per cent of total funding. Very often people do not realise that the work is being carried out with European taxpayers' money. If we are to give credit to the concept of Europe we must ensure the average person knows from where the money is coming.

As expected, Ireland will not now become a member of the Economic and Monetary Union in 1997 because we have over-borrowed to a large extent this year and will not meet the criteria. I questioned the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance on the statement by the French Presidency early this year that Ireland would not meet the criteria for a single currency. We could meet the criteria before Christmas, and I am not saying the position changed due to a change in Government but it is peculiar and unusual that it happened at that time and suddenly after Christmas we would not be eligible. Ireland will be in a serious financial position if we are not party to Economic and Monetary Union. Pressure must be put on Britain to join the Economic and Monetary Union, otherwise the single currency will not be successful. A single currency will do away with the MCAs and the huge administration which has been subject to fraud and miscalculations. A single currency would play a central role in uniting Europe and, above all, it would give us an equal trading opportunity so that we would not have to depend on one economy.

I ask the Minister to provide greater manpower to the committee, even on a part-time basis, to study this legislation. Otherwise civil servants from the Departments will have to be brought in to explain it and because they argued for it in the first place they will defend it. A greater input is needed before legislation is agreed in Europe. Commitment to a greater input from committees before agreement is reached at Council of Ministers meetings was given by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and will probably be given by other Ministers. If we in Dáil Éireann represent the people and the Minister represents the country surely we should have an input not merely in hindsight, by commenting on legislation already passed in the EU.

Of a total of almost 600 Members of the European Parliament, Ireland has only 15 members and it is impossible for them to cover all the committees. I urge again that extra manpower and finance be given to this committee so that we can do a good job in ensuring that the people are aware of European matters.

As the Tánaiste said, as well as benefiting from EU membership, we have something to give Europe, particularly in terms of our neutrality. Before the accession of Austria and Sweden, Ireland and Denmark were the only two neutral countries in the European Union. We have a tremendous role to play in this regard in the expansion of the European Union towards the Eastern European countries because those countries respect our position and can perhaps trust us more. We can play the honest broker role and ensure Europe does not over-legislate, and does not become the white washed sepulchre, or the roller coaster it tends to become. An input is necessary at ministerial or European Parliament level to ensure the character of each country is reflected in agreed legislation.

Mr. O'Malley

This is a very brief Bill, the details of which need not detain us for very long. The change being made is a minor one and is not of enormous significance. Some of the matters that pertain more broadly to this and other committees should be commented on in the House. I had some doubts about the wisdom of having separate committees for foreign affairs and European affairs of the proliferation of committees in the House, but having been a member of each of these committees since they were established, there is a good argument for two committees. However, servicing the two committees creates difficulties, especially for small parties. While I agree with the existence of two separate committees, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Affairs, I do not agree with the establishment of 17 committees of this House, which is small by international standards. If members of the Government, Ministers of State, the Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle are excluded from its membership, there are fewer than 130 people to service 17 committees. That cannot be done effectively and in a businesslike way. Many of the peripheral committees should be would up after a period, particularly those that seem to have been set up for single issue purposes. This House should concentrate its energies in committee on the main committees. The reasoning for the establishment and maintenance of 17 committees may have more to do with accommodating disappointed backbenchers in positions of limited affluence than with real parliamentary committee work, a wrong reason for the establishment.

These two committees have worked well given that they are only a few months in existence. One of the reasons is that each of them has been able to bring before it people who have submissions to make and who have particular knowledge of some of the problems being considered. It has been particularly helpful that officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and elsewhere have come before them and explained the background to the policy positions Ireland has adopted to a variety of topics. It is welcoming that it has helped to explain that policy in a way that makes it more meaningful to Members and the public.

The purpose of this Bill is to transfer from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to the Joint Committee on European Affairs the functions originally exercised under the 1973 Act by what used to be known as the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities which sat for 20 years but did not really function. In so far as it examined any secondary legislation, it did so months, often years, after it had come into effect. Even if that committee unanimously disagreed with the secondary legislation, the Statutory Instrument concerned, it could not have done anything about it because most of that legislation contains a provision that it can only be set aside within 21 sitting days by a resolution of both Houses. Even if that committee and both Houses were unanimously against such legislation, they could not have done anything about it, which was ridiculous.

The Joint Committee on European Affairs will not fulfil its function of examining secondary legislation unless it can do so very rapidly after it is passed and that seems to be envisaged. However, I suggest to the Tánaiste and the Minister of State that the ideal position, and I accept we cannot achieve it overnight, is the Danish one where draft directives are considered in advance by a similar committee of the Danish Parliament and cannot be adopted by Denmark at the Council of Ministers unless they have been cleared in advance by the appropriate committee of the Danish Parliament.

That is light years ahead and is fundamentally different from our position, but it shows the difference in the relative esteem in which the Danish parliament is held vis-á-visthis House. It is all right for this House to discuss something passed three years ago the attitude being it is only the Dáil. In the Danish Parliament it would be regarded as insulting to its Parliament and, therefore, to the Danish people if its Members did not express their opinion in advance of Denmark adopting a position at the Council of Ministers. That is what we must aim for. It is a democratic position. It does not make for the easiest passage of business in the Council of Ministers because as I remember business was held up frequently to enable the committee of the Danish Parliament to examine it, it used to annoy the then Presidency and some of Denmark's partners, but it was a democratic system.

There should be at least an input from the Joint Committee on European Affairs to matters of fundamental importance being — or about to be — considered by the Council of Ministers. It is not possible in the foreseeable future for a committee like this to examine every line of every directive, particularly if they are of a technical nature, but those concerning important fundamental policy should be examined by the committee even if they are considered initially in an informal way without statutory powers. One way of achieving that would be to table an amendment to this Bill. I do not propose to do that because we need more time in terms of development of these committees, but it might be appropriate in perhaps two years' time to table such an amendment or to introduce a Bill to provide for what I am suggesting.

The former Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities existed for approximately 20 years and I note, with some amusement, that the Tánaiste in his speech said that it is essential that the Oireachtas should continue its constructive role in examining that legislation. He was taking a liberty in saying that because, unfortunately, the Oireachtas did not have a constructive role for the simple reason that it did not really have a role. While the Oireachtas has never had a constructive role in examining this type of legislation, I hope it will have one now. I welcome the fact that these committees seem to have been allocated increased resources. I hope that trend continues as well as the practice of committees of inviting people before them to make submissions.

Incidentally, the title of this Bill is wrong because the phrase "European Communities" has disappeared in practice, if not legally. Therefore, we should begin to refer to it in legislation as the "European Union", even though I know the Communities remain in a technical sense which will disappear at the end of the century if not renewed in a new treaty.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs took the opportunity of referring briefly to some of the large policy issues before us, not least the decisions that will have to be taken at the Intergovernmental Conference to be held next year when Ireland will hold the Presidency. All of the Irish Presidencies have been challenging and difficult for a country as small as ours but we can be justly proud that they have been discharged with some distinction. Obviously, the forthcoming Irish Presidency in the latter part of 1996 will be the most difficult of all. The Union is larger and the issues to be discussed and decided during that Presidency will be larger, more far-reaching than any encountered during our previous Presidencies. I have every confidence that the various Government Departments will be able to cope with these difficulties just as successfully as they did in the past.

Deputy Davern referred to European Monetary Union, as did the Tánaiste, and to the single currency issue as though it was something that would happen very quickly without encountering any major problem. While I congratulate President-elect of France, Jacques Chirac, on his election — I am sure he will be an excellent President — I am somewhat apprehensive about his European as opposed to his domestic policy. Whether he will be as European in his outlook as the outgoing President Mitterand I am not at all sure. He does not appear to have any great enthusiasm for a single currency, which is very regrettable.

I have heard it said that the greatest impediment to trade in the European Union is the diversity of currencies and that the most profitable activity of banks throughout the Union is foreign currency exchange. For example, it has been calculated that currency exchange adds 2 per cent to Irish firms' costs. It is quite an appalling impediment, not merely for us but for the whole Union, that this should remain so. Notwithstanding the views of the British, every effort should be made to achieve a single currency which, in turn, can arise only out of economic and monetary union and a greater convergence in economic terms than at present. I hope there will be no lessening of the resolve within the European Union to try to achieve this greater economic convergence and that the Franco-German axis, the driving force behind these proposals in the past, will not be lessened by the recent political changes in France.

There are many other difficulties to be overcome. Deputy Davern referred to the fact that some countries now cast doubt on our ability to operate a single currency, our ability to operate from within an inner tier or circle, if there should be a two-tier Europe. That is one matter that will have to be examined. Apart from whatever remarks the French made recently, the Germans — in particular a committee of the German Parliament — has looked very seriously at the authenticity of some Irish official statistics, particularly in so far as they relate to our national debt which appears to be understated and to our gross domestic product which appears to be overstated. If one of those is overstated and the other understated it weakens our position so far as adherence to the Maastricht Treaty requirements and guidelines are concerned.

The forthcoming 18 months up to the end of 1996 certainly will be very important and afford an opportunity for such useful work on the part of these two committees. As a result of the establishment of the two committees this House is better placed to deal with that work than it would have been in the past but we still have a long way to go. I hope the respective chairmen of the committees will be able to use their positions to develop further the powers and significance of these committees in a way that never happened in the past. I am given some reason to hope that will be the case and, if it is, I shall be very glad to see it happen. It is vital that we have a much broader debate here on foreign policy issues generally, in particular on matters related to the European Union. We tend to think of the European Union in financial terms only, which is extremely regrettable. We need to do more than give the kind of lip service evident in the Tánaiste's speech today to what we can give to Europe as well as what we can obtain from it.

The Joint Committee on European Affairs should consider the question of overseeing, to some degree, the controls exercised in Ireland on expenditure of European Union funds. I do not share the view expressed by Deputy Davern that the Department of Agriculture is very strict and has nothing of which to be ashamed. While the Department may be very strict on small farmers in County Limerick or Tipperary and impose horrendous penalties whenever they make a mistake in the number on an ear tag on a heifer, unfortunately when it comes to dealing with bigger fish, the Department loses its sense of correctness and anxiety to ensure that public and European funds are properly administered. There have been some very serious examples of huge losses caused by the failure of the Department of Agriculture to supervise what was taking place, a fact which has now come to the notice of the European Commission. The Joint Committee on European Affairs might well be able to perform a useful function in this regard. While a more obvious committee would be the Committee of Public Accounts, its remit means that it must operate in arrears and can only examine matters relating to years of accounts now closed.

What we need is some type of system of continuous supervision so that the types of losses this country now faces in terms of refunds to the European Commission might be avoided in the future. While the committee, of itself, cannot prevent these things happening, if it has an examining role in relation to them, it can encourage the Departments involved to ensure that huge losses of the kind we now face do not recur. It would encourage Departments, such as the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, to ensure that they are as strict with people who have a turnover of several hundred million pounds per year, and who by and large up to now have had a free run, as they are with people who have no more than a dozen beasts from which to derive their livelihood.

I would like to table amendments along those lines, particularly with regard to committee powers, but as the committee system is a relatively short time in existence, that would not be appropriate. I invite the Government to consider introducing a further Bill in, perhaps, two years' time, under which the possibility of extending the powers of committees could be considered. As the committee system evolves it will be seen as very useful. It is regrettable that it is only in the relatively recent past that the value and validity of parliamentary committees has been accepted.

Mr. Ferris

The Tánaiste stated that this is European Day. I compliment the European Parliament office in Dublin and its director, James O'Brien, for the concerts they initiated to mark a very important day in all our lives. This day 45 years ago a Foreign Minister in France, Monsieur Schuman, by way of statement, set out the need for an economic community. By providing us with the enjoyment of excellent young artists, who have been prize winners in Feis Ceoil this year, the European Parliament office availed of this opportunity to show the nation and Europe the tremendous talent and culture we can offer to Europe. As the Tánaiste stated, as well as being major beneficiaries we have much to offer Europe.

I welcome the contributions of previous speakers. Deputies Davern, O'Malley and Andrews are members of the committee and have a wealth of experience because of their past membership of the Council of Ministers, which is very important under the new terms of reference. I also welcome Deputy Haughey. Those Deputies have made a major contribution to the workings of the committee.

As chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs I welcome the Bill. It restores to the committee, charged with scrutiny of secondary legislation of the European Community, the power to recommend to the Dáil and Seanad the annulment of Statutory Instruments. While this power has seldom been used, nonetheless it is important. In a very concrete manner it represents the desire of the Oireachtas, from the outset of Ireland's membership of the European Community, to ensure accountability to the public so far as European legislation is concerned. As a member of the former Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, I share the sentiments expressed by Deputy O'Malley about the ineffectiveness of that committee. It was bound by a great number of Statutory Instruments, had very little power and was concerned mainly with the implications for Ireland of European Directives which could not be annulled.

European legislation can have a direct effect on, or be implemented through, national legislation. The processing and implementation of such legislation must be monitored closely. The Joint Committee on European Affairs has already put in place mechanisms to ensure effective monitoring and scrutiny of European Community legislation and the Statutory Instruments it may implement. They will be thorough and relevant and relate to the points raised by Deputy O'Malley. The committee wants to influence legislation as it is being considered and ensure that Statutory Instruments serve the purpose for which they are designed.

The Joint Committee on European Affairs has a much broader remit than that traditionally fulfilled by the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. Since March last it may also examine matters arising from the European Community or Maastricht Treaty. This means that a broader view will be taken of the duty of the Oireachtas to ensure accountability and transparency on European Union matters. The Joint Committee has been given the necessary teeth to carry out this important responsibility effectively. It has also been given the power to examine policy and to call before it Ministers and officials to give evidence, and intends doing so on a regular basis.

In its initial work programme adopted in April, the joint committee decided to invite all Ministers whose briefs include a substantive European Union issue to address it. To date the Ministers for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and Justice have appeared before it. On 11 April the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry briefed the joint committee on the proposed disallowances on FEOGA payments for intervention beef, a matter referred to by Deputies Davern and O'Malley. We believed it was important, from the point of view of the public, particularly the taxpayer, that such disallowances of FEOGA payments should be explained to members of the public who, at the end of the day, take up the tab for all fines and disallowances. We wanted to assure them that those matters would be addressed properly and adequately. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry gave a broad and effective explanation to the committee of how those matters arose. I share the sentiments expressed by Deputy O'Malley regarding the beef industry. The Minister and his predecessor admitted that proper controls were not in place. If they had been, such problems might never have arisen. The joint committee has assured the Minister of its support in his efforts to ensure that disallowances of FEOGA payments are minimised. The Minister also briefed the joint committee on a Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting which took place the previous day. In so doing he set a precedent regarding Council business on which the joint committee hopes to build.

The Minister for Justice briefed the joint committee on Friday last on aspects of the third pillar of Maastricht, namely, negotiations on the Europol Convention and the implications of the Schengen Agreement for the free movement of people in the European Union. I commend both Ministers for responding to our invitation and for offering their personal co-operation and that of their officials in the workings of the joint committee in the future. We look forward to similar co-operation from other Ministers. The Tánaiste and the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Mitchell, have assured me they will be available to assist the committee in its work.

The joint committee has also been briefed by senior officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs on the Council's report on the reflection group, on which the Minister of State, Deputy Mitchell, will represent the Government. That group will assist in preparing the agenda for the intergovernmental council.

The sister committees in Europe, COSAK, have had a major input through European affairs committees in the preparation for the intergovernmental council. Deputy O'Malley referred to the Danish committee in particular which will address our committee next week. Its members will explain to us the powers of that committee, which exceed those of any other committee in all the member states.

I believe our committee will benefit from the experience of that powerful European affairs committee of the Danish Parliament which has already begun to influence the forthcoming Spanish Presidency in the latter half of this year. That committee is preparing for a meeting of COSAK, which will be held in Madrid, and has suggested to the EU member currently holding the Presidency that, as a result of an agreement reached in Paris earlier this year, there is broad consensus on the strengthening of COSAK and the role of national parliaments in the decision-making process within the European Union. In a letter to the chairperson of that committee, the Danish members suggested that this would be of great significance in regard to public support for the EU, which has been sadly lacking in the past. It suggested that, in the plans for the forthcoming COSAK meeting under the Spanish chairmanship, the president of that group should invite, as part of the agenda, the participation of the reflection group.

I am warning the Minister of State, who will be our representative on the reflection group, that it is envisaged that the group will be asked to put forward its views in the preparations of all national parliaments and the institutions concerned before the Inter-Governmental Conference which will be held here at the end of 1996.

The immediate objectives of the joint committee are to complete its initial programme at ministerial level already approved by the committee. An intermediate objective is to solidify and formalise the committee's broader remit in relation to EU business. One question which I will be asking the joint committee to address is the regular review of Council business both before and after Council meetings. Many member states in the European Union now have this system in place, which is in the interests of both accountability and transparency, and we intend closely to scrutinise Council business.

Another important area the joint committee will be addressing is the leadup to the Intergovernmental Conference which will review a broad range of issues fundamental to the operation and structures of the European Union. It is essential that this process receives in-depth examination at parliamentary level and that the Oireachtas makes a fitting input to it. In this regard, it will be necessary for both the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to liaise closely so that the resources of the Oireachtas are focused constructively on this important task.

This brings me to the point raised by Deputies Davern, O'Malley and others and, indeed, by me at a meeting of the liaison committee when we discussed resources for the committees. This committee and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs must be resourced properly. At this point I wish to pay tribute to the existing staff, some of whom have been seconded from other Departments. In particular, I wish to mention Mr. Ansboro, who has been seconded from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Joint Committee on European Affairs. I pay tribute also to those members of staff who are expected to service not only committees of importance such as the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs but other committees of the Oireachtas. If the Government is serious about the importance of these committees, they must be properly resourced and funded to enable their members carry out the statutory obligations placed on their shoulders by legislation and the other responsibilities given to us in our new terms of reference.

I suggest to the Department of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister that when committee members are required, by law and under Standing Orders, to consult with other committees of member states, we should be able to send representatives to Europe to see, for example, the workings of the European drugs unit. In responding to a European Minister's invitation we should have the facility to visit that country and address the public concern, and that expressed here in this House, about the scourge of the drug culture that has hit our island. We must be able to have an input into the future workings of EUROPOL and, in particular, the European drugs unit which I understand is non-operational but which has facilities to transmit information to our Department of Justice— and the Minister has been forthcoming in this area—through our police force. I am delighted that a member of our Garda Síochána serves in that unit in The Hague. I suggest this as part of the overall requirement of the committee for proper facilities which will enable us do the work given us by Government and by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on a matter which goes to the very heart of our relationship with the European Union and which involves issues fundamentally important to the future of Ireland as a member state. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to the new powers that will be given us to carry out one of our roles. However, as the Tánaiste said, that is not the only role. There are other important roles of the committee and we have already gone down that road to ensure that Ministers and officials are brought before our committee. In that way, the public will have an opportunity for the first time to listen to representatives of Government, who participate in Council of Ministers meetings, responding to the concerns of all of us, particularly Members of the Oireachtas.

As chairman of this committee, I will be reporting back to the Oireachtas on our work at the end of its first year of operation and on those who participated in that work, whether they are Members of the Oireachtas or outside consultants. I intend to make this committee relevant to the needs of the people and the needs of Government in its commitment to transparency and accountability but also to address the deficiencies that existed in the system in the past.

This Bill is a useful instrument. It broadens the power which we presumed from the Government statement would be forthcoming. Our sub-committee on secondary legislation has already examined areas where it is possible to annual if the committee so decides. With the power given to us today we will have an opportunity to examine some of the relevant Statutory Instruments which are in the public domain. This committee will be relevant, up-to-date and will have the full co-operation of all the Ministers and their officials responsible for areas covered by the Maastricht Treaty.

Mr. Haughey

I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber and congratulate him formally on his appointment.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Thank you.

Mr. Haughey

As a Deputy for the Dublin area, a former Lord Mayor and a former member of Dublin City Council, the Minister will be aware that public representatives in the Dublin area perceive that Dublin loses out in terms of resources from Europe and elsewhere. I hope the Minister's appointment will redress the balance and that he recognises the need for resources in deprived urban areas throughout the country. The Minister has already made a number of announcements in that regard.

Direct elections to the European Parliament have changed the perception of Europe. Initially it was thought the European Union was for the farmers and for business but, with direct elections, people representing all sections of society have entered parliament. I hope the Minister, in his new role, will remember his days in Dublin City Council.

Reform of the Oireachtas has been debated in recent years and the development of the committee system has brought about this reform. We may not have needed a committee system in the past but as society is much more complex we certainly need it now. I too question as Deputy O'Malley did the number of committees that have been set up by this Government. All parties in the Oireachtas are not in a position to service adequately all the committees and Deputies mentioned the need for adequate resources if the committees are to do the job well. Committees need personnel and back-up services and all Members have requested such resources. Deputy O'Malley mentioned that committees have been set up to facilitate Members of the Oireachtas being given a special role as chairpersons, convenors and so on. There is some justification for making that claim. However, everybody accepts that the Joint Committee on European Affairs and its sub-committee are very important as new areas of parliamentary and European activity will come under scrutiny by the Oireachtas.

The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs was unable to give sufficient time to European issues, hence the need for this Bill. It is vital that a committee such as this be established to deal with all aspects of the new proposed European Union measures—the 1996 intergovernmental conference, the review of the Maastricht Traty. There are vital areas for this country in particular and for Europe as a whole and no doubt this committee will play a crucial role in the deliberations of the Council of Europe in the run-up to decision making.

Parliamentary scrutiny of the affairs of the European Union have been inadequate and the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, admitted last Friday that vast areas of her Department are dealing with security issues which have never come under parliamentary scrutiny. That clearly demonstrates the need for this committee. Last Friday's committee meeting was very useful and probably brought a European dimension to the question of the availability of drugs in this country which would not have happened if it had not been for the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

The committee has addressed the question of fraud and the proposed disallowance of FEOGA payments on intervention beef. It is suggested Ireland will be fined because of past irregularities in the beef industry. I think the committee broke new ground in investigating this area. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry briefed us on the issues involved and that was the most useful exercise as far as Parliament was concerned. The question of fraud or stealing money from the European Union raises wider issues about how we perceive ourselves in Europe. I know that fraud is rampant in all EU countries but there is agreement that it should be stamped out. We are perceived as holding out the begging bowl to Europe and that we wanted to get as much as we could out of it without putting anything back. That was an incorrect perception and Members have to deal with it. Ireland has a lot to offer the European Union, our cultural identity, our history, our markets and so on. It is a two way process. The Tánaiste said that we are fully committed to the European Union and we have a great deal to give.

We welcome the resources to bring about cohesion. As the years go by we will be a fully integrated and respected member of the European Union. This committee will have to address the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference and the review of the Maastricht Treaty generally. We also need to look at the question of institutional reform.

There are 15 Irish MEPs, a very small number in the overall context. There should be no diminishing of the role of the Council in the overall institutional structure and that will be extremely important for this country. We need to examine the role of MEPs in this Oireachtas and various suggestions have been made as to how they could become involved in internal parliamentary affairs. It was suggested that they be allowed a right of audience to address the Seanad, and the establishment of this committee provides an option for our MEPs. I am delighted that MEPs attended meetings of the subcommittee on European affairs. They should be encouraged to play a full and active role to bring about more accountability and transparency generally in the European Parliament's activities.

Members have examined the issue of bureaucracy and the European Union generally. There is a perception that the European Union and its institutions are bureaucratic in nature and this was raised at our meeting on Friday when we were presented with volumes of submissions on the European Union's activities. We need to bring Europe closer to the people. We need to look carefully at the "democratic deficit". There is still a perception that the European Union is of no relevance to us. There is a view that bureaucracy has gone mad on occasion. Deputy Davern gave some examples of that. Apparently there is a proposal to do away with red lemonade and Ireland is one of the few countries which has this product. The EU has decided that the red dye used in raspberry jam must go for whatever reason. Such proposals need to be explained as they may involve job losses. New mechanisms must be put in place to explain the workings of the EU to the people and I have no doubt the committee will deal with that satisfactorily.

Ireland will hold the Presidency of the European Council next year and we will discharge our obligations efficiently. An effort was made during the last Presidency to include the general public in the activities of the Presidency so that the ordinary people, for want of a better term, would be aware of what was involved. Perhaps provision could be made this time for festivals, carnivals and so on to be held which would bring Europe closer to the people and generate pride in ourselves. I have no doubt that the Minister's office will play a big role in that. The public do not want to see the Presidency in terms of blocked roads, barricades and motorcades through the city with sirens blaring. Let us make the Presidency people-friendly and organise subsidiary activities which will involve everyone.

Another important issue the committee will have to deal with is enlargement of the Union. We had a useful discussion with the President of Hungary who dealt with many of the issues involved. We all welcome the expansion of the Union and support it. However, the agricultural sector will be concerned given that more than 30 per cent of income in that sector is from direct transfers from the EU. Such resources will be under threat with enlargement but, on the positive side, our business will have access to more markets and there will be increased opportunities for exporters. I hope the committee will address the issue carefully.

One of the major topics to be discussed is the question of a common foreign and security policy. We have dealt with it in some detail but it is a crucial area which we must address. We have common positions in the EU on a number of international issues and that is welcome provided our unique traditions can be brought to the table. We have had some success in that regard. The recent accession of other neutral countries will benefit us, less powerful nations and nations with different foreign policies. We have much in common with them.

I have no doubt but that there will be much discussion regarding our traditional policy of military neutrality. My view and that of the majority of the people is that we should stay outside any military alliance. At present we are involved in UN peacekeeping and arising from that we provided airport facilities at Shannon during the Gulf War. We have a unique tradition of fighting injustice throughout the world. Missionaries have led the way in bringing peace and justice and promoting basic human rights in all countries. That unique experience must be brought to bear in any new agreement proposed by the EU. If the Irish Defence Forces are to be involved—that matter must receive serious discussion—they cannot be involved in confrontational military conflicts which are not of interest to Europe as a whole. We should proceed as we have in the past and give every support to peacekeeping. This issue of neutrality must be explained carefully to the people when the time comes as it will generate much discussion, passion and emotion.

It is with some trepidation that I raise the matter of the Eurovision Song Contest as various commentators have derided it over the years. It takes place in Dublin on Saturday. It is a unique experience for this country. Such a cultural exchange brings about European harmony and supports the European ideal. I pay special tribute to RTE for hosting the song contest for the past three years and previously. It has done a magnificent job and promoted the country throughout the world. It has demonstrated that Ireland is a young country with a vibrant, talented population which is to the forefront in the arts. It employed the latest techniques and technology and presented a positive outlook for the country. In the past we did not have much to celebrate but now we have really taken our place among the nations of the world. The promotional advantage from the song contest is incredible. The various clips to promote tourism and so on have done us proud. We should get behind RTE, support it fully, congratulate it and leave aside the begrudgers. It is a magnificent occasion for us and I have no doubt that Ireland will do us proud on Saturday. It is a great honour for Dublin to hold the contest and it will look its best. This country and Europe will gain from the event.

Mr. Dukes

It is hardly necessary for me to say I welcome the Bill. It is an integral part of what has been a welcome and long overdue reinforcement and reorganisation of the committee system in the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is not often that a chairperson of a committee welcomes a Bill which will reduce the workload of the committee, that hands part of it over to another committee. This is a perfectly rational measure, particularly since I have every confidence that the Joint Committee on European Affairs under the chairmanship of my colleague, Deputy Ferris, will carry out its tasks to our satisfaction.

The necessity for the Joint Committee on European Affairs and this Bill goes back to the old Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. I wish to dwell for a moment on the experience of that committee. Members of this House and the Seanad who were members of that committee—I was a member for a short time—will remember it for one thing more than anything else, that is, the absolutely mind-boggling tedium of much of the work it had to do. In a sense this was in the nature of the work but in a more fundamental sense it had to do with the way the old European Economic Community went about its business before the reforms of the Masstricht Treaty. Deputy Haughey referred in passing to some of the items which still cause us some concern. I worked as a temporary agent in the Commission and I remember the apparently endless flow of very detailed directives which used to pass through it. Some of these directives dealt with the most mundane and abstruse matters, things no one ever imagined were required. I remember a directive the purpose of which was to lay down in European legislation the dimensions, location and information to be included on the metal plate attached to the engine of a car so as to identify it. It proved necessary to do this because some of the member states for reasons best known to themselves specified an oblong plate in one place on the car, others specified a triangular plate in a different place and yet others specified an oval plate. They did this to make it awkward to import cars from other member states. It became necessary to have legislation governing the height above ground of the indicators, brake lights etc., as part of putting a Single Market together. Happily we have gone most of the distance to putting that Single Market together, so fewer of these directives are required.

We did something more important in the Maastricht Treaty which has been overlooked in the debate, we brought about a major improvement in the way the European Union makes its decisions, particularly in the relationship between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. We now have a much more focused approach by the institutions of the European Union to the way legislation is passed. To everybody's surprise, the European Parliament quickly made it clear that once it had got the right of co-decision over much of its area of operation it wanted to talk about the general principles of policy and did not want to have to descend every day into the mundane, oily and complex business of detailed legislation. In the coming years, the European Parliament will be thanked by national parliaments and, in particular, by European affairs committees for having taken that very wise step.

However, there is more to be done. One of the issues I hope will be tackled by the Minister of State in the reflection group and by the Intergovernmental Conference is the setting of a hierarchy of laws so that we will see more clearly the functions of different types of legislative enactments in the European Union and will be able to deal with them more conveniently. There is no doubt that as an Oireachtas we need to go about this issue in a more systematic way. I have particular things in mind when I say that. Ever since we joined the European Economic Community the Oireachtas has been much less than adequately involved in the process of working out what should be legislated for by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament and in scrutinising how that legislation is applied here.

That contrasts with the position of a great many interest groups, most of whom have become very adept at making their views known and getting their points across. I would not for a moment contest the right of those interest groups to do that—I worked for one of them for a good many years and in some respects cut my legislative teeth on that type of work. They have every right to do this and by and large they are extremely good at it. However, for many years the contest has in a sense been an uneven one in that the Houses of the Oireachtas which are charged in the Constitution with protecting and promoting the interests of the citizen were almost the last body to get involved in this process. That is why the original Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities was set up.

This committee did a tedious job in previous years when there was an enormous flood of detailed regulations and directives of all types coming from the European institutions. Rationalisation has led to much more manageable legislation but a job still needs to be done. I am sure the chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs will agree that for the Oireachtas to become involved in assessing the impact on our society of European legislation is for it to become involved too late. The Oireachtas should become involved at an early stage of the examination of proposals for legislation. This is specifically included in the terms of reference of the Joint Committee on European Affairs and is almost the most important part of its work. Those of us who take a keen interest in European affairs generally know that hardly a month goes by without the Commission or Council of Ministers announcing some other area where it has a plan to do certain things over a period of years and it needs to be discussed. Happily in recent years the Commission has more often adopted the practice of setting out in a White Paper its plans for a particular area of activity. As a Legislature, we should be much more active in examining those matters at that stage than we have been up to now so that there is a real input from the Oireachtas into the decision-making procedures in the European Union.

I emphasise that if we use that procedure properly we will avoid what seems to be a very ill-advised move to look for ways of involving national parliaments more directly in the process of negotiations between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. There is a natural tendency for national parliaments to want to be involved but we have to look at it logically and with respect for the principle of subsidiarity and the different functions of national parliaments and the European Parliament and what is required to be done to give the national parliaments their legitimate role in forming opinion on these issues before that opinion becomes set and begins to take the form of legislation winding its way through the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

The importance of these things will be seen if we look at some of the areas where European Union policy impacts most on us. For example, there is a vast range of things which the European Union does in agricultural policy which are important for a huge proportion of our population and our economy. Yet the ways in which Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas can be involved are quite limited.

If we want to talk, for example, about any one of the many premium schemes that exist in the Common Agriculture Policy and look at the ways that Members of this House and of the Seanad can be involved in them we find the following: a Member has the opportunity of putting down questions either for oral or written reply; the opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment, in Private Members' time or, once a year, of participating in the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. None of those means available to this House is a legislative function; not one of them gives a Member of this House, in that capacity, any direct way of influencing what is done and yet these schemes are very important to us.

None of the measures open to us is capable of being altered by the way a Deputy or Senator votes. That is because most of these things come before us not as legislation that we have to originate and pass but as legislation passed by the European Union, in proper and due form, the effect of which we must assess. When we look at it from that point of view it becomes even more important that the Joint Committee on European Affairs—and its reporting to the Houses of the Oireachtas—should, at a very early stage of the development of policy proposals, give us the opportunity of being involved and making our points to the Members of the Government who will attend the Council meetings and to Members of the European Parliament who will vote in their forum on it, before the proposals take the form of legislation. That is the only way in which Members of the Oireachtas can have any direct impact on the shape of the measures finally implemented.

There is another area where I believe we have been—I will not say remiss— but lacking in the way we have gone about this part of our job in relation to legislation, that has been in inspecting and supervising the way in which directives are transposed into national law in this country. In the days when I worked in the Commission one of the very tedious jobs we had to do from time to time, about once a month, was to review the number of cases in which infringement proceedings had been taken against member states for their failure to apply European law. We all like to be proud of our record. Ireland figured often enough in those reviews. There have been cases, in the not too distant past, when we have been very lacking in our transposition into national law of directives, for example, in the field of the environment. We need an instrument to make sure we improve on our performance and the function assigned to the European Affairs Committee is an important part of that whole operation.

It would be wrong of me to leave that subject without also saying that I am very concerned that we should have adequate resources in our committee system to do that. While there have been substantial improvements in that area in the last couple of years, I do not think it can be said we have arrived at the point where we can be happy that the resources match the job to be done. I look forward to the opportunity, with some of my fellow chairpersons of committees, of discussing this with the appropriate Government Minister so that the two Houses of the Oireachtas can give full effect to the very useful progress and reforms that have been made, not only by this Government but by the last Government, in the way our committees are set up and in the job they are given to do. I know there are always difficulties with resources. I know it, perhaps, more keenly than most other Members but it would be a pity to spoil this particular ship for the ha'p'orth of tar needed to make the system work as we want it to work.

A great deal more needs to be done. I make the point that in our committee system there has to be a place for our committees to reflect among ourselves on the important issues before us. I say that because there has been criticism, in recent days from an MEP—who is welcome to come to meetings of our Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs although I understand MEPs have difficulties in attending the meetings—of the fact that one particular piece of work being done in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs is in private session. I ask that lady to reflect for a moment on her own experience—I am sure this must be her experience because she is a rational person. Very often one has to think a little before one can express a thought and the same applies to committees. It is a very useful exercise in some circumstances for a committee to debate issues in private session before it makes a statement. There are quite a number of cases that I can think of where it is useful and helps the process of understanding without prejudicing the politics of the situation to have discussions in private session before the committee goes into public session and reveals the full beauty of its thought to the world.

Nobody is more convinced than I of the need for widespread public debate on many of the issues that fall within the competence of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs or other committees of this House. The House and the committees have a right to put themselves in the position of most ordinary individuals, to organise their thoughts before sharing them on a wider basis. I reject the criticism of the MEP; perhaps it was made without much thought being given to it.

There is a big job before us in dealing with what faces this country and the other member states of the European Union at the Intergovernmental Conference. I wish to make one final point —it is an important one for the work of this committee, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the whole House —on the enlargement of the European Union. We are always tempted to look at it from a rather narrow point of view of where the economic costs and benefits might lie. We had the benefit last week of the visit of the President of Hungary who spoke to us about his country's view on this. We should spend a little time considering the following question. If we are serious about all the things we have been saying in our political systems for the past 50 years about the necessity of rooting parliamentary democracy as widely in the world as we can then surely we should take the view that the enlargement of the European Union is not simply a matter of possible economic gains and losses. The enlargement of the European Union is a political imperative which we must recognise and meet. It is not simply a matter of markets or of trade; it is a political imperative to ensure that the values of democracy and of liberality to which we in this country adhere are ones to which people elsewhere who have been denied that freedom can now have access. We should treat the question in that way, not simply as a matter of trade.

Mr. Andrews

I am a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs under the excellent chairmanship of Deputy Michael Ferris, and I want the committee system to work. Unfortunately, I am somewhat out of tune with the general welcome for the transfer from Deputy Dukes's excellent committee to the European Affairs Committee of the examination of secondary legislation. I see this as a hospital pass to the European Affairs Committee. Our own chairman, Deputy Ferris, will agree that what happened last Friday at the European Affairs Committee was quite extraordinary. We were presented with an excellent resumé by the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, on a number of items which were before us but, in addition, we received a wheelbarrow load of paper in advance of the meeting last Friday. It was quite a harrowing experience to have to go through a foot high stack of paper, including translations from French to English, on the basis that some Deputies might complain that the original texts had been omitted from the papers presented to the members of the committee.

I was interested to hear Deputy Dukes, who has a fund of knowledge and wisdom on foreign and European affairs because of his own experience in those areas. At the same time he made the point, correctly I am certain, that secondary legislation is not as frightening now as it was in the past in the context of work output and so on.

It is important it put on the record that there are not 17 Oireachtas committees but 19, including Enterprise and Economic Strategy, European Affairs, Family, Finance and General Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Irish Language, Joint Services, Liaison, Legislation and Security, Public Accounts, Small Businesses and Services, Social Affairs, State-Sponsored Bodies, Sustainable Development, Women's Rights, the Committee of Selection, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, Consolidation Bills, and Standing Orders.

I am strongly of the view that two of the most important committees of the House, in the context of what we hope to achieve at the Intergovernmental Conference and the Presidency of the European Community, are the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Affairs. I want these committee to work, but I am sorry to say that what the Minister of State, Deputy Mitchell, is offering us now causes me grave concern because the amount of work the European Affairs Committee has to do between now and the holding of the Intergovernmental Conference is quite enormous. I am concerned that this transfer of responsibility will add to our creaking burden. The European Affairs Committee is a good committee which is working well and will, I have no doubt, continue to do so. I would like to think that the Chairman will set up a sub-committee to take account of the transfer of these responsibilities and that sub-committee will be made up of as few members of the European Affairs Committee as possible, perhaps one representative from each party.

Mr. Ferris

It is already done.

Mr. Andrews

Another matter concerns me in regard to the 19 committees. I have no problem with committees as long as they work. The legislation currently before the House should have been backed into another committee, for example, the Consolidation Bills Committee or some other committee which is not as busy as the European Affairs Committee is at present and, no doubt, will be in the future. It is of serious concern to me that this passing over of responsibilities will cause considerable problems.

I am concerned also — and I say this deliberately by way of constructive, not destructive, criticism — about the question of the servicing of the committees. The setting up of the committees has brought great strain on the Members and the staff of this House. We should be mindful of the need to add to the existing staff and assist them with the updated technology required to service these committees. The staff are doing their very best — I know it because I see them doing it — but with the best will in the world, there are not sufficient numbers and they have not sufficient time or technology. If we want these committees to work we have to have proper back-up. What happened on Friday at the European Affairs Committee is a sign in the wind. We received this burden of paper, this mass of documents, and I am quite satisfied that there were too many documents and that we did not have sufficient time to study them. If we have to receive documents at that nature in future we should have a summary of what they contain. These are some points that I offer in the context of the working of the Committee on European Affairs. It is doing well but I see dangerous signs in the passing over of this legislation to it. Let us not become bogged down too much with secondary legislation. Much of it, was Deputy O'Malley said, has been effectively passed months or years before we get to scrutinise it.

There are a number of other items with which the committee will be concerned, including the involvement of Europe in the area of Third World endeavour, Ireland's position on neutrality and so on. It is important to note that Ireland is an observer within the Western European Union. Our neutrality is important, and my party Leader has indicated that membership of the United Nations does not in any way compromise our neutrality. We have a peacekeeping role to play in the UN. The question of security and defence policy will arise in our deliberations on the committee. In the context of neutrality Ireland should keep in touch with neutral countries like Austria, Finland and Sweden in view of their traditional policy on neutrality. Another fundamental examination will be required within this committee of the question of the elimination of nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation and a reduction in armaments must be key objects to be sought by the European Union. The question of the European Union having a seat within the Security Council of the United Nations is also a matter that will have to be discussed and examined in the context of our obligations and responsibilities in the European Affairs Committee.

Debate adjourned.