Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 15 Feb 2001

Vol. 530 No. 5

Report of Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs: Statements.

Mr. Durkan

I wish to present to the House the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs on its review of EU legislation and to bring a number of issues to the attention of Members. This report concerns the review undertaken by the committee in 1999 which was published in March 2000. The most important point we must recognise is the need for the House to debate reports at more regular intervals, particularly when they are first produced. It is useful to discuss a report at any time. However, discussing this report almost one year after its production will not be as effective as it would be if it was discussed, for example, last March.

A review of the report will indicate the full extent of the work undertaken by the committee during the year. The committee produced 12 interim reports. Because of the magnitude and intricate nature of European directives and statutory instruments which come before it, the committee rightly decided that it could not sift through all the documentation produced in Brussels and identify the relevant sectors unless it sat for four or five hours every day, which is not feasible.

As a result, the committee decided to engage the assistance of consultants whose job it is to vet legislation, examine its relevance from Ireland's point of view and report to the committee. The committee then examines these reports which are enclosed in the tabular statements and takes advice as to whether there were relevant issues involved. On some occasions the committee decided against the consultants' recommendation that there was a relevance and sought further communication from Departments. On other occasions the consultants rightly identified at an early stage the possible relevance of some legislation from an Irish point of view and the committee was able to get up to speed early in the process.

As regards the production of reports of this nature, we must bear in mind the varying speeds with which European institutions move when they wish. On almost every occasion the committee sought a briefing document from the relevant Department and, in many cases, from the Commission. This enabled the committee to compare the two briefings and evaluate the extent to which it might be necessary to intervene. The process is very time consuming. We were lucky to have Curtin Dorgan as consultants who spent a great deal of time carrying out the initial sifting of the regulations.

We must also bear in mind that the degree to which the EU will control our daily lives is increasing at quite a substantial rate. I do not wish to refer to the Nice agreement at this stage as it will be the subject of further discussion on the House in the not too distant future. However, the changes taking place in Europe post Nice are such as to give greater significance to discussions in the European Parliament as well as the thinking of the European Commission. This is because the European Parliament will have greater powers under the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties.

In such a scenario, smaller member states will have to be more vigilant regarding decisions taken at central level. The natural reaction of smaller countries is that we should have more control over our own affairs and determine for ourselves what we wish to do. However, this runs counter to the concept of European integration. If each country decides to go its own way at any level the result will be disaster for smaller countries. This is because larger and more influential countries, and former colonial powers, know they are best placed to circumnavigate the system and have the most experience in this regard.

This is why we must be vigilant and carefully vet the progress and origins of EU directives. I hope the House will be able to discuss reports immediately they are produced. It is difficult for the committee to get up to speed quickly enough to fully review a directive or statutory instrument or whatever.

The committee has often been faced with a fait accompli where it is told that a directive has been agreed between governments and the European institutions so there is no point discussing it further. We now know that is not true because every directive can be amended at a later stage. When it has suited them, other countries have brought about amendments to directives already in place. It is important to emphasise this aspect of the committee's work.

I thank my colleagues on the committee for their commitment in terms of time, energy and patience through this important but often tedious and technical work. Without their commitment, it would be impossible to do the job. I thank past and present staff of the committee for their help and assistance. I also thank the members for doing the work everyone criticises them for doing. For example, membership of the Joint Committee on European Affairs means travelling outside the country, whether we like it or not. If we did not go outside the country to examine the submissions made, we would not do our job properly. Unfortunately, we are criticised for that. However, it is better to be criticised for doing our job than for not doing it. I record my appreciation of the members of the committee for the forthright and cohesive manner in which they did their job.

I hope the next time we have such a discussion, which I hope will be soon and on the Nice agreement which needs a thorough debate, we will have a longer period and that all Members of the House will be able to participate. I commend the report to the House.

Minister of State at the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation (Mr. E. Ryan)

I thank Deputy Durkan for presenting this report and I congratulate the Joint Committee on European Affairs for its work in this important area.

The committee's ongoing work in reviewing the draft regulations and directives and the corresponding statutory instruments must at times be unglamorous. The minutiae of regulation necessary to implement the Common Agricultural Policy, the Union's Common Commercial Policy and the Single Market do not lend themselves to easy reading. However, in the interests of enhancing the democratic legitimacy of EU legislation, it is clearly desirable that our national Parliament should be directly involved in examining legislation which will directly affect the people.

The co-decision procedure, adopted at Amsterdam and likely to be extended by the agreements reached at Nice last year, will increase the involvement of our directly elected representatives in the European Parliament in the legislative process, and this is to be welcomed. However, this does not detract from the importance of the direct involvement of the Oireachtas in the process. A distinctly national viewpoint must also be applied to EU legislation which will affect the daily lives of citizens. While this is a vital role for Irish Ministers in Council meetings, the input of the Oireachtas is also valuable. I am also keenly aware that the importance of involvement by national Parliaments in the EU's activities was recognised in a protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty.

In addition to the democratic accountability which this process serves to engender, the publication by the committee of this report also aids the transparency of the EU legislative process by pulling together in one place and in a digestible form the key items of EU legislation for the period. The documentation on which the committee bases its examination is currently made available to the public by the European Commission and through the Official Journal of the EU, but it is often in a form which is difficult and time consuming to follow. Transparency is a key imperative specifically provided for in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Article 1 specifically mandates that decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely to the citizen as possible. Article 207 calls on the Council to allow greater access to documents when the Council is acting in its legislative capacity. A draft decision is currently before the Council to ensure that. Article 255 gives the public a general right to access EU documents, subject to certain principles of public and private interest. A draft regulation on access to documents of the Parliament, Council and Commission is before both the Parliament and Council to implement this imperative.

Access to all these documents, however, is insufficient unless there is informed consideration and debate of the issues. The work of the committee, both in terms of this report and in terms of its wider responsibilities, serves to inform and facilitate this debate and is, therefore, to be welcomed.

As Deputies will be aware, later this month the Minister for Foreign Affairs will sign the Treaty of Nice on behalf of Ireland. The treaty is subject to ratification by each of the member states, a process all are committed to completing by the end of next year, thereby allowing the enlargement of the Union to proceed on schedule. In Ireland, the Government is actively considering the question of whether a referendum will be required to ratify the treaty. A decision will be made once the final text has been signed and in light of the relevant legal advice. Should a referendum prove to be necessary, the Government will have no hesitation in recommending a strong "Yes" vote, confident that the public will support this latest stage of EU development as it has in three previous referenda.

Mr. Broughan

I thought the Government was committed to a referendum.

Mr. E. Ryan

The public will vote to approve to make the structural and procedural changes to the Union necessary to allow enlargement to take place. Enlargement is an historic necessity both for the countries of eastern and central Europe which, having made the painful transition to democracy, now deserve the economic development opportunities the Union can offer and for the existing member states for whom the strengthening of democratic stability in Europe and a radical extension of the single market will provide unparalleled benefits, both political and economic.

The changes agreed in the Treaty of Nice will benefit the Union and its institutions as a whole, enabling it to continue to function efficiently and effectively post-enlargement, while safeguarding the position of individual states, such as Ireland. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have already outlined in detail both in the Oireachtas and elsewhere the content of the treaty. It was a good and necessary deal and one that reflected the degree of commitment shared by all the member states to resolving the difficult issues, including those left unresolved at Amsterdam, necessary for enlargement. Naturally in any negotiation, especially one involving up to 15 different interests, one cannot expect to get everything one wants. What is important is securing one's essential goals. We entered negotiations determined to ensure the maintenance of the overall institutional balance on which the Union is built including between large and small states, a balance which has made it so attractive to applicant states. In this we were successful.

As regards the Commission, we secured a move from a position where five member states have two Commissioners each to one where every member state will have one representative until, eventually, in a Union of 27 a reduced Commission will operate on the basis of strict equality between the member states. On re-weighting, as envisaged at Amsterdam, weights were adjusted to compensate those member states giving up their second Commissioner, while the requirement for the Council decision to have at least a majority of states in favour provides an important safeguard for the rights of smaller states.

We favoured the extension of qualified majority voting, knowing that a greatly enlarged Council could not operate where national vetoes were widespread, and we were pleased to see movement on trade in services, Structural and Cohesion Funds and many other important areas. We were successful at the same time in resisting QMV where it might impinge on vital areas of national policy making, particularly taxation. We also managed to ensure that our allocation of seats in the European Parliament would not drop below 12 in a Union of 27, knowing that certain models under discussion would have only given us nine. These, along with changes to the rules governing enhanced co-operation where we insisted on maintaining safeguards for the overall coherence of the Union, were the main areas under discussion, but valuable, although less high profile reforms were agreed elsewhere; to the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Committee of the Regions and in other areas.

In reviewing EU legislation, the joint committee's report reflects the increasing role in the EU legislative structure being played by the European Parliament. The Treaty of Nice enhances further this already significant role by extending the co-decision procedure to provisions dealing with anti-discrimination, free movement, asylum, judicial co-operation and other areas. The treaty also extends the areas of consultation with the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee. The committee's report constitutes a valuable review of EU legislation for 1999. I should also mention briefly what is on the EU agenda for the coming period, including proposals to increase the role for national Parliaments in the EU framework and for giving the public a greater involvement in the EU's activities. At Nice, it was decided to continue a consultation process on issues raised, but not decided, during last year's intergovernmental conference, in particular the division of competencies between national and EU authorities, the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the simplification of the EU treaties to make them more accessible to the public and, as mentioned, the role of national parliaments.

The Swedish Presidency is expected to bring forward proposals to the Gothenburg European Council in June for structuring a wide public debate on these issues. This consultation process is expected to be lengthy and we in Ireland look forward to playing a full and active role in it, one that extends to all elements of civic society. The member states are agreed that for the European project to be considered successful, it is necessary for ordinary citizens to understand the nature of European co-operation and to identify with the structures, the institutions and the processes which are behind it.

This wide debate will lead, in due course, to a further intergovernmental conference, possibly coinciding with Ireland's scheduled presidency of the Council of Ministers in 2004. Of course, that is a long way down the line, but the date indicates the significant amount of time considered necessary to discuss these important questions. In the meantime, our focus will be firmly on ratification of the Treaty of Nice. Most Members of the House will recognise the importance of ratification – for Ireland, for the Union, and for the applicant states – and will actively promote a positive vote should a referendum be required.

Mr. Broughan

On behalf of the Labour Party I wish to warmly congratulate the Joint Committee on European Affairs, and its Chairman, Deputy Durkan, for the valuable work they have presented us with. I saw the press release on Fine Gael's new front bench and I am sorry Deputy Durkan is not on it. He would be on my front bench anytime.

Mr. Durkan

I thank the Deputy very much.

Mr. P. Carey

He could not be spared.

Mr. Broughan

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is healthy for our democracy and in particular for our relationship with the European Union that reports of the Joint Committee On European Affairs are debated in this House. Over the past 12 months we have discussed a number of important reports and I wholeheartedly welcome the scrutiny and attention the House is now paying to the work undertaken by the committee.

This report demonstrates the broad range of directives that are transposed into Irish law. Table 3 of the report reveals the wide range of Departments across which EU directives impact. Directives range from the highly technical, such as the regulation advocating Community catch quotas in Greenland waters, to the highly relevant regulation regarding the labelling of beef and beef products. EU legislation has also provided EU wide policy in the international arena, for example, the ban on the supply to Indonesia of equipment which might be used for the internal repression or terrorism.

I praised the work of the committee but I still feel there is a lack of cohesion between the work of the European institutions and the work of this House. I welcome the comments the Minister has made about strengthening our role in that regard. I thought that on the occasion the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, made a strong and passionate defence of his role in the negotiation of the Treaty of Nice, in a contest with Deputy Bruton, he gave a guarantee that we would have a referendum on that treaty.

Our evolving membership of the European Union presents us with many new opportunities and many challenges. This report is informative rather than analytical. It provides raw material for legislators, policy makers and citizens about the scope of EU law, its transposition to Irish law and the progress which the Government is making. The report represents an important body of work, but I wish to put some analytical flesh on its bones.

Last September the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, flew to Boston where she launched a broadside against the European Union. It was an impetuous, ill-thought out and badly argued analysis, although it was popular with many of her colleagues on the Government benches. I have no problem with a frank debate about the evolving nature of the EU, or Ireland's role within the Union. I would welcome a debate in this regard and I believe that the lack of debate and coverage of European affairs is a serious problem. However, the Minister, Deputy de Valera's contribution was of a different nature altogether. In tone and language, the speech she delivered would have had them rolling in the aisles at a Tory party conference. In a key passage the Minister said:

We have found that the directives and regulations agreed in Brussels can often seriously impinge on our identity, culture and traditions.

Actually, the Minister, Deputy de Valera, goes on these solo runs about once every five years, depending on the electoral situation in County Clare. However, she failed to provide one example or instance to back up her outlandish claim. It is highly ironic that the Minister chose to make her comments in Boston. Any casual review of the nightly TV listings – and television is one of the most important influences in modern culture – reveals that American culture is having the largest impact on what the Minister termed "our identity, culture and traditions". For instance, on an Irish TV channel this evening, three hours of prime time viewing will feature wall-to-wall American programming, including such cultural highlights as "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". In case that is not enough, viewers can tune into RTE later on to catch up on the latest drama in Hollywood, courtesy of "Melrose Place".

In terms of cinema, television or music, which are key elements of modern culture, it is America, not Europe, which is having a dominant effect on culture in this island. Indeed, this is also the case in the rest of the European Union, if one looks at the efforts made by the French Government to try to protect what it sees, and what we would regard, as an intensely strong culture.

The Minister's broadside received support from the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, and during the autumn both Ministers were eager to launch a phoney war against the EU. Given this attitude around the Cabinet table, it is little wonder that our record in implementing legislation that Ireland has agreed to in Europe is so slow.

Earlier this week we had the sad spectacle of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, defending his intense isolation – probably the most remarkable treatment of an Irish Minister by our European colleagues in the history of the European Union.

Mr. E. Ryan

We are allowed to have another opinion. Europe is not about agreeing to everything and we do not go there to do so.

Mr. Broughan

I absolutely agree with the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should continue without interruption.

Mr. Broughan

I am happy to debate with the Minister. It is a debating Chamber. I agree with him. Obviously, at that particular meeting the Chair may have pulled a stroke by holding the debate about Ireland early on. Nonetheless, the overall result, as Deputy Mitchell said, was that the Minister for Finance was intensely isolated. It also raises questions about the performance of the Irish Commissioner, although I understand the constitutional role of the Commission. Mr. Byrne has won much kudos in his role on food safety but I do not think that particular recommendation should have come out of the European Commission. The Irish Minister was placed in a remarkably weak position and that issue should be examined.

In an excellent article examining the Minister, Deputy de Valera's speech, the former Taoiseach, Mr. Garret FitzGerald, rightly highlighted the real basis for her frustration which lay in her non-implementation of the EU habitats directive. Unfortunately, that is not the only EU legislation which the Government has failed to implement fully and on time. For example, at present the European Commission is taking a legal case in the European Court of Justice over the Government's failure to implement the 1996 hazardous waste directive. It is also known as the Seveso Directive after an industrial accident near the Italian town of Seveso in 1976 when 600 animals died and nearly 1,300 people suffered chest and skin injuries as a result of the disaster. The directive is aimed at preventing major accidents involving dangerous substances. It is an important directive for this country.

The chairperson of the Health and Safety Authority recently stated that there are still too few industry and trade bodies that proactively address health and safety. Recent events at the former Irish Steel plant in Cobh underline the necessity for comprehensive legislation in this area. The Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, has failed to implement the legislation agreed in 1996, despite assurances given to the House in February 1999 that regulations to transpose the direc tive were "currently at an advanced state of preparation". This is an intolerable situation. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated incident. Three years ago I introduced the Employment Rights Protection Bill, 1997, which intended to transpose certain EU directives into Irish law. They were Council Directive 75/129/EC of February 1975, imagine that, Council Directive 92/56/EC of June 1992 and Council Directive 77/187/EC of 14 February 1977. As far as I am aware, these directives have still not been transposed into Irish law. My Bill referred to undertakings when a company changes hands, to protect the rights of employees. As far as I am aware, however, these directives have still not been implemented in full.

Over the Christmas break, the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, kindly sent me two Statutory Instruments, No. 487 of 2000, which is the European Communities Safeguarding of Employees Rights and Transfer of Undertakings Regulations, and SI 488 of 200, which is the European Communities Protection of Employment Regulations. They went some way towards implementing the provisions of my Bill, which attempted to bring these four directives into Irish law. Yet, three and a half years after the Government took office, the Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, have wantonly refused either to help me have this Bill passed by the House in order to transpose these directives into law or to do so themselves. That is one spectacular example of where the Government has been extremely remiss in implementing directives which go back to within three or four years of our joining the EU in the 1970s.

In advance of the last general election, the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, proudly declared at her party conference that adopting silly directives made life difficult for the real heroes of the Irish economy, small business people, and that it was time we told the Brussels mandarins enough was enough. With this attitude residing at the very heart of Government, is it any wonder that our record in complying with and implementing what we have agreed at European level is so bad, as I think I have demonstrated in my own small attempts to legislate for these directives? The silly directives comment which the Tánaiste used to garner hollow applause at the Progressive Democrats conference, are usually important directives relating to employment law and social policy.

Another case in point is the directive on parental leave. The half-hearted approach which this Government took in introducing the Parental Leave Act was such that Europe threatened to take us to the European Court of Justice. As a result, the Government was forced to amend the Act to cover the parents of all children born after June 1993 and not just the parents of children born after June 1996, as the Government had hoped. Unfortunately, the Government still refuses to introduce any paid element into our parental leave legislation which in reality confines the scope of the Act to the highest earners in our society. There is nothing new there, however, given this Government's abysmal record in relation to European legislation.

The facts in this report are an important resource for legislators and citizens alike and I congratulate Deputy Durkan. The report should act as a wake-up call for our Government. Since coming into office it has shown a lethargic approach to the implementation of EU law. In the past 12 months, in particular, this half-hearted approach has been complemented with a jingoistic anti-European attack launched by senior Government members. It ill-behoves a nation which has gained so much from EU membership. As my party leader, Deputy Quinn, has often said, the Labour Party belongs to the joint largest party in the European Union. One of the problems with Fianna Fáil-led Governments is that the party belongs to a very small ragbag of uninfluential groups with semi-Fascists and other kinds of desperadoes from different countries in the European Union, so it is very difficult when we do not have—

Mr. E. Ryan

We are an all embracing party.

Mr. Broughan

—a party with a social democratic socialist background—

Mr. E. Ryan

The Deputy's party is in with former Trotskyites and Stalinists.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Broughan to conclude.

Mr. Broughan

I have no problem with the history of socialism and with our antecedents.

In the television series "Yes Minister", Jim Hacker MP launched his campaign for Prime Minister with an assault on what the Tánaiste would term "Brussels bureaucrats". In a blaze of publicity, the Right Honourable Member declared that they turned "our pints into litres and our yards into meters but they will not touch the British sausage". The Tánaiste and the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands have recently demonstrated how closely life reflects art. How long will they continue to confuse pantomime with politics?

Mr. Durkan

Change the Irish leprechaun into a giant.

Mr. P. Carey

I think Deputy Broughan must have spent so long preparing his speech that he could not be here to contribute to the Valuation Bill this morning in support of the Fianna Fáil members of Dublin City Council who tried to make the case for additional revenue for the city through the Valuation Bill by way of the Deputy's own proposal, tax on aparthotels, bed and breakfasts and Government property. I know the Deputy was too preoccupied preparing that piece of bile.

Mr. Broughan

On a point of information, I had to attend an important meeting of the city council. I do not think we had a speaking slot.

Mr. P. Carey

The Deputy had a speaking slot and his spokesperson used a couple of minutes of it.

I compliment the chairman and the staff who serviced the committee on producing an excellent report. It does not make for easy reading, as many people said. We dealt with 131 directives of one sort or another during the course of this report. Many of them belong in the area of agriculture and food production, some relate to external relations and others relate to fisheries and anti-dumping legislation. The area of agriculture and food is one in which we have had an impact on the public debate. The impact of the directives, as we state in our report, has been that a high proportion of those in agriculture implement improvements and standards and controls over animal and plants. Some of these are individual rather than minor adjustments but their cumulative effect is the improvement in the safety of food, albeit at a cost in terms of compliance by producers, enterprises, member states and Governments.

I will select an example of some of the issues which came to our attention and which we tried to highlight. Members will be aware of the debate on the dioxins in the Belgian food products. Arising out of that, the committee to tried to get the competent authority in Ireland to respond to it and we got a very good response from Dr. Patrick Wall of the Food Safety Authority. He said the single market facilitates trade but also enables contaminated food products and ingredients to be rapidly dispersed and that for protection of both consumers and the food industry, efficient monitoring programmes for both chemical and microbial contamination combined with effective traceability system are essential if problems are to be identified rapidly and effective recalls are to be extended in a timely fashion. This dioxin episode highlights several questions for Ireland.

I would like to think we took some of those ideas on board in relation to the BSE issue. Dr. Wall in his commentary said, among other things, that there is an urgent need to establish a national database to track the importation and distribution of raw materials for the food industry and that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland is examining how to design such a database and plans to develop a food import tracking system by the end of this year. He went on to say that traceability of produce is vital and that importers and distributors of raw food or ingredients should keep accurate records as part of their food safety management system. He said that currently there is no laboratory in Ireland with the facility to analyse food for the presence of dioxins and that for consumer protection and safeguarding the Irish food industry, it is important that Ireland has such a facility. They are matters we should not ignore.

We also looked at the question of water quality. One of the matters which concerned the committee was the long lead in time for compliance with some of these directives. In relation to the directive on water quality, there is a lead in time of 16 years and it has been suggested that Ireland could support a tightening of the time scale for implementation. The proposal currently establishes a general time scale of 16 years which I think is far too long. Deputy Broughan adverted to issues going back to 1977. Unfortunately, in some cases, there have been extensions of up to six years giving a maximum implementation scale of 34 years for water quality improvements.

The issue of genetically modified organisms preoccupied our discussions as did the directive, Television Without Frontiers. I suggest to Deputy Broughan and others that the thinking behind the Broadcasting Bill which is going through the Seanad is informed by the directive, Television Without Frontiers.

Deputy Broughan mentioned the East Timorese situation. The committee and the chairman took an active interest in the UN resolutions and the European Union's involvement in that. We also discussed national emissions standards along with data protection issues. It is fair to say that in these areas, as in many others, Ireland is implementing the directives at an acceptable rate. Some of them are extremely complicated and some are extremely difficult to deal with.

Other issues were dealt with and I compliment the chairman on the input he has made at COSAC level in giving COSAC a real voice in formulating EU policy. I agree that little enough attention is paid to EU legislation in this House and in the Upper House and how it affects our lives. I was delighted to hear the Minister say it is the Government's policy to improve that situation. The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms occupied a great deal of the time of the committee as well. That will be transposed into the Treaty of Nice and I have no doubt we will have a referendum on the ratification of that. I hope the three main parties here do not all end up supporting a "yes" vote and having our hands tied behind our backs, which may well be the case.

I pay tribute to the former Clerk of the committee, Micheál O'Corcora, who has left the committee for a promotion, and also the staff of Departments who have been very willing to supply us with additional material to flesh out opinions contained in those directives. I am glad to have had the opportunity to support this report.