Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

We could start by acknowledging the logistical problem that exists. There are several thousand legal instruments emanating from the European Union every year. The Bill is one approach, but as has been mentioned by other speakers, it is most certainly the wrong approach. We exist in what is meant to be a democracy and the principles that underline this Bill greatly undermine the central democratic principles of informing people and of involving them in the changing of legislation. If a Bill can be created by individuals or groups of individuals acting without democratic accountability, a frightening vista arises.

I would not give the powers in this Bill to any Cabinet, not to mind this particular Cabinet. The current Tánaiste would be allowed to exercise his "l'état, c'est moi" fantasies to the ultimate extreme. Given the way he uses the powers given to him under our own Constitution, a Bill like this would allow him to run riot. He could create regulations and criminal offences in which Irish citizens would have no involvement through the proper perusal of any proposal in this legislature. On those grounds, this is an extremely ill-thought out Bill. The way in which it is being introduced in this House indicates there is a lack of awareness of this on the Government's part, but it is also contemptuous to suggest we should give away democratic powers of this type.

Unfortunately, this is at the heart of our criticisms of the direction the European Union is taking, rather than the existence of the EU itself. It is taking this direction because whenever it exercises democratic functions through referenda and consultation with member states, those in the higher echelons of the EU decide the people are wrong. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot say the EU is a democratic organisation and then not accept how democracy works, however unpleasant those decisions can be at the best of times. The power to inspect legislation and to vet it to the best possible degree for the people we represent is not a power this House should ever give away. For the Government to suggest it in concert with other EU governments says something about the very nature of the European Union itself. It shows why the constitutional treaty has been in difficulty. It shows why the negative votes occurred in France and in Holland. To a certain extent, it shows that this Government has learned nothing from the rejection of the first Nice referendum. A legislative framework in which the people are cut out from a particular loop is not really a democracy.

We are entering the last 12 weeks of the 29th Dáil and will engage in an exercise where all of us and others will be looking for the right to represent the people in the 30th Dáil. Yet we are debating a Bill that undermines what we are supposed to be about as parliamentarians and puts in place a future for this Parliament that has even less power than at present, where 80% of current legislation emanates from Brussels. I would have preferred the Government to talk about Dáil reform, but I do not expect that, given its own inclinations. How can anyone suggest that we have logistical problems in processing EU legislation when this House does not meet more than 100 days every year? The capacity for this House to meet more regularly exists. The capacity for this House to scrutinise legislation to a greater degree exists. The Government chooses not to do so.

Real Dáil reform would not allow the Government to decide when the House is allowed to sit. Standing Orders should indicate that our breaks at Christmas, Easter or summer must be determined by a two thirds majority of the House, whereby the Government could not determine whether legislation was processed. If the House had to meet for a special session, a minority of the House should be allowed to call it to account. However, it is in the Government's interest not to allow the House to sit regularly and to sit less often than any other parliament in Europe. Nonetheless, the Government has the audacity to ask us to pass a Bill that questions our right to be a Parliament and the right of the Dáil to have any role in legislation coming from the EU.

The Bill refers to newly created legislation in the justice area, which are just edicts issued by individual Ministers. It does not take a big leap of faith to see other Bills of this type being created in defence, foreign affairs or other areas that will undermine our rights as an independent nation. Given the willingness of the Government to roll over in previous debates on national sovereignty, I do not have any faith that such changes will be resisted in the future. Perhaps the Minister of State can assure the House that this legislation will be revisited in other ways, possibly following a wider public debate on the matter like that suggested by Deputy Costello. The suggestion that the National Forum on Europe should discuss the legislation is quite good. Such a discussion will not affect this debate, however, because the Government has decided the Bill should be passed as soon as possible in its current form.

I would like those who have expressed reservations about this legislation to suggest how it might be revisited. I think it will cause difficulties if there is a change of Government, for example. The members of such a new Government would be hamstrung by the passing of this Bill. It is dangerous of the Government, in the final days of this Dáil, to propose legislation which will compromise the ability of next Dáil and the next Government to operate in a representative way. I do not have any confidence that the Government will withdraw this legislation in favour of a more considered Bill because it rarely listens to the Opposition. The Government is well capable of making its own mistakes, but I do not want to be part of any new Government that has to deal with their effects. The Green Party will oppose this legislation on the grounds I have outlined. I do not think it would be of benefit to amend the Bill in its current form. The central principle that underpins the Bill is dangerous and flawed. If we are genuinely concerned about the quality of our democracy and the importance of this House in protecting that democracy, we should not support this Bill.

See this speech in context