I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, to delete lines 18 to 20 and substitute the following:
" "European act" means-
(a) a provision of the treaties governing the European Communities, or
(b) an act, or provision of an act, adopted by an institution of the European Communities or any other body competent under those treaties;”.
I would like to give an overview of the situation thus far and indicate how we can proceed together to take on board the views expressed by members.
I am pleased to bring the European Communities Bill 2006 before the Select Committee on European Affairs and look forward to a positive, fruitful exchange with committee members. We had a substantive debate in the Dáil and, before Christmas, in the Seanad. Discussion on this important Bill is now entering its fourth month. I appreciate the genuine concerns expressed by some Members. The Government has taken them seriously and has moved to address them.
The purpose of the Bill is straightforward. We seek to put in place revised arrangements to implement European Community measures via secondary legislation so that we can abide by our treaty obligations. Secondary legislation has been used to implement European Community measures by all Governments since 1973. Arising from the Browne and Kennedy judgments, the Supreme Court has found a gap in the way we do this. The Bill will ensure that the implications of these Supreme Court judgments are dealt with in a proper and legally sound way. It will not change the practice whereby major legislative changes required by European Community law are introduced by primary legislation after full debate in both Houses. Furthermore, it does not mean any reduction in Oireachtas scrutiny arrangements. I will return to this point later.
I pay tribute to the work of the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny under the chairmanship of Deputy Allen. On behalf of colleagues, the Government and the public, I thank him for his leadership and thank him and his colleagues for their work on that important sub-committee.
The Attorney General's clear advice to the Government was that the Bill is essential as a response to the serious implications of the Supreme Court judgments. As legislators, we cannot ignore these judgments. We have the responsibility to resolve the issues highlighted by the Supreme Court. The Government has reflected carefully on the substantive points made by Members during Second Stage debate. I said at the conclusion of that debate that we stood ready to consider reasonable suggestions put forward with a view to enhancing the involvement of the Dáil in European Union-related secondary legislation. As a legislator and politician I am a man of my word.
As Deputies know, I have tabled an amendment for discussion today which provides for a standard 21-day scrutiny procedure for those statutory instruments made under section 3(3) of the 1972 Act, as inserted by section 2 of this Bill, that create indictable offences. This new procedure will require Ministers, having made the regulations, to lay them before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The regulations would have immediate effect and would continue in force, unless within 21 sitting days of the regulations having been laid before the Houses either House passes a resolution stating the regulations should be annulled. This amendment will satisfy the genuine concerns expressed in both Houses regarding the role of the Oireachtas. I urge Deputies to accept it in the positive and co-operative spirit in which the committee and the Oireachtas as a whole have always approached European business.
I will also introduce two small drafting amendments to provide for greater clarity in the Bill. Amendment No. 1 contains two changes we wish to make to section 1 of the Bill. Section 1 is the section which sets out the definitions which provide the foundation for the Bill as a whole. The first change is to include the term "provision of an act". I have been advised by the Attorney General that this is necessary because the earlier drafting was too limited to meet some particular situations outlined. The second change is to introduce the term "body competent". This change is necessary to provide authority for the implementation of regulations that may in future be made by the European Central Bank. Both of these changes are regular technical drafting changes.
The addition of the words "provision of an act" is aimed at allowing us to transpose European Community measures when those measures give rise to more than one obligation in Ireland and where transposition by secondary legislation can be achieved under a number of different Acts of the Oireachtas rather than just one. This change reflects the fact that a single European Community measure can sometimes contain different distinctive obligations that must be transposed using provisions of different Acts of the Oireachtas. For example, the European Community regulation agreed by member states to impose sanctions against Zimbabwe gives rise to four distinct obligations on member states of the European Union. First, member states have agreed to prohibit financial dealings with the Government of Zimbabwe. Second, member states must prohibit any person from exporting arms to Zimbabwe. Third, they must freeze the assets of named Zimbabwean individuals. Fourth, they must introduce a travel ban in relation to listed officials.
Our people here in Ireland would want us to be among the first to put the squeeze on such an unjust regime. Doing so, however, means we would have to use different Acts of the Oireachtas. In this case it would be expected that, first, the Financial Transfers Act 1992 could be used to give effect to the financial sanctions; second, the Control of Exports Act 1983 would give effect to the embargo on arms sales; and third, the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 could provide for the freezing of individual assets.
Without this amendment, it would not be possible to use the different Acts mentioned above to meet our distinct obligations under this European Community regulation. As originally drafted, section 3(1) can only be used where the complete European Community regulation or directive fell fully within the terms of a single domestic Act, one stand-alone piece of parliamentary legislation signed by the President of Ireland. This would clearly not be an efficient way in which to proceed. I am sure this committee will agree that Ireland needs to be able to respond in a prompt and comprehensive way when sanctions and travel bans are imposed on countries and we are called on to ensure that neither money nor arms can flow to these corrupt regimes. This provides a clear example of why we must continue to use secondary legislation based on powers already approved by the Oireachtas to meet our European Community obligations while using primary legislation for new and major policy issues.
The second minor drafting change was requested by the Department of Finance. It introduces the phrase "body competent under those treaties" into the definition of the term "European Act" and, later, into section 2 of this Bill.
These amendments simply reflect the terms of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1992. They provide that measures taken under the treaties by a body which is not an institution of the European Communities but which has certain legislative powers conferred on it by the treaties can be implemented in Ireland. The existing body covered is the European Central Bank. There is nothing new in this. We are simply bringing this Bill into line with the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1992 which was passed following the ratification of the Maastricht treaty.
Some Deputies oppose this section in its entirety. I have difficulty in understanding why a section consisting essentially of definitions of terms should meet with such opposition. Is this because of the Government amendment I have introduced or because of a blanket opposition to this Bill? If it is the former, I trust the explanations I have given will have reassured the Opposition and all members of this committee. The sole aim of these technical amendments is to ensure Ireland will be in a position to meet its European obligations properly. It would be wrong if, for example, we were unable to give effect to a future European Central Bank regulation. If this section is being contested on account of blanket opposition to this Bill I hope the amendment I have introduced to provide for appropriate Oireachtas oversight of statutory instruments will make this Bill acceptable to those who have previously opposed it.
The amendments to section 2 arise for the same reasons we have made changes to the definitions in section 1. Members of the committee will know this section of this Bill provides for Ministers to create indictable offences by means of statutory instruments where this is necessary to fulfil our European Community obligations. Both the term "provision of an act" and the term "body competent" under those treaties—