Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

The founder of the party claimed he used to look into his own heart for inspiration as to what the people wanted. The Minister of State will spend much time looking into his heart and those of his colleagues before he finds inspiration that will lead him to believe the people want him to proceed in this fashion.

Fine Gael will oppose the Bill because the Minister of State and his colleagues have clearly indicated that they have no intention of taking on board any amendments or of having any regard for the Opposition's expressions of concern. That is unlikely to change.

I have spent much time as a member of both the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and have had occasion to observe scrutiny procedure at first hand. I support the Minister of State in complimenting the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny, chaired by my colleague, Deputy Allen. However, unless the committee sits all day every day, it will soon be impossible for it to handle the full extent of the proposals coming before it. There are thousands of bureaucrats in Brussels working and burrowing away every day, impervious to the needs of individual countries or their citizens. The Minister of State suggests that we and Members of Parliament throughout Europe should hand over to Ministers full responsibility to protect our rights. That is not on.

In the event this legislation is passed, we require that a Minister's proposal should be laid before the House for a period of 21 sitting days to enable Members to challenge the provisions or table amendments. At least then the public would be aware of what is happening. Otherwise, we have no way of knowing unless we have a ministerial statement, outburst or announcement. If it is something positive, Ministers will want to announce it, but if it is negative they will not want to hear about it.

We will also seek to remove the retrospective effect of the legislation by amendment. In the event of the proposals as set out being laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas for a specific period and there being no objection from Members, that will be fine. We will have had our chance. Laying the proposals before the House is a stipulation that should be included. I am amazed the Government and the Minister of State have, so far, poured scorn on the notion that this should be done.

The day will come, perhaps sooner than he expects, when the Minister of State may be sitting on the Opposition benches. He may then see the need for a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny, a greater degree of parliamentary involvement and a greater necessity to ensure, whether related to European legislation or not, Members are informed of and know what is going on and that they can make a reasonable input.

Let us take as an example the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny. It met 16 times during 2006 and examined 552 documents. I remember trying to do the same and although we met every week, we knew there were limitations on what we could achieve. Incidentally, we discovered that legislation obviously discussed at ministerial level had been going through on the nod until a question was raised by the committee. Only then, much to the annoyance of the negotiators, the Ministers and those with delegated responsibility, did they return to explain the full implications of the proposals to it.

We had better get this clear. It may well be that people on the Government side of the House will see things differently when they find themselves over here. The degree to which the Government has sought or assisted in the elimination of Opposition scrutiny of its proposals is appalling. We see examples such as in this legislation daily. It is now an element of almost every Bill that the Minister is responsible to no one else.

The bulk of the committee's work in 2006 related to regulations, decisions and directives. Some 371 documents, or 69% of the total, fell into that category. Some 56 common foreign and security policy measures were considered, including information on restrictive measures against Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire and certain categories of people, including persons suspected of involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and certain officials in Belarus. Great detail and personal attention are required on the part of Ministers and Parliament in an exceedingly demanding area to which we will have to pay greater attention in future.

Other steps considered included measures to combat terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons, support for actions demanded by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and measures including support for IAEA activities regarding nuclear security and verification. That very wide area of responsibility will continue to grow. To hand over absolute authority, retrospective or otherwise, to a Minister is a negative development.

Of the 552 documents considered in 2006, some 98, or 18%, were deemed to have significant implications for Ireland warranting further scrutiny, therefore being referred to the relevant sectoral committees. That is the system whereby documents are examined at various levels and deemed to have an impact. In the past there have been instances where documents not thought to have an impact slipped through the net, with a subsequent review needed. The existence of the scrutiny system in the Oireachtas is necessary, although I do not know how that will apply regarding these proposals, since there is no provision for it. It appears the Minister will take that role himself and that causes a problem.

Half of the proposals considered by the sub-committee were deemed not to warrant additional scrutiny on the part of the sectoral committees of the Oireachtas and were not referred to them. However, half were thought to need such scrutiny, being sent to the various committees for their approval. The Minister has not said what will happen under the new proposals. He will make regulations, but will the sectoral committees have the opportunity to assess them in advance? Will the Committee on European Affairs have a chance to assess the Minister's proposals? Will it be possible for anyone to determine the full range and impact of the proposals now before the House?

Even if, with the best will in the world, the Minister wishes to apprise the House of their implications, that may not be possible. Someone, perhaps another Minister, will jump up and bite him for introducing this system. He will not see it coming, although it could be as soon as a year from now, but we will hear about it then. It would be an extremely strange thing if the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, were imprisoned as a result of a failure on the part of his Department to protect the environment adequately and I suggest that it might happen. I know that he is a pleasant and affable person with the answer to everything and I am sure that he will have the staunch support of everyone in the country to get out of jail as quickly as possible. However, unless both he and the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Treacy, wake up very quickly and address the issue of the sewage treatment plants that currently pollute the country's atmosphere, rivers and lakes, it might come back on them.

While we are on the subject, I might mention that the Committee on European Scrutiny and the various others operate on a shoestring budget. Resources in this House are very limited and one must recognise how much time and energy must be put into this, simply because the research and back-up, although good, are not adequate, given the volume of correspondence. There should be democratic accountability in the European Communities Bill 2006, a subject on which the Minister has not yet spoken. He has said that the Minister will have more power, but to whom is he or she accountable? The answer is no one, since they will be able to tell us that their actions are in line with European legislation. To whom is the Minister of State accountable?

See this speech in context