Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)

The introduction of this Bill is the most reprehensible action taken by a Government since the foundation of the State because it is the first time a Government has tried to legislate retrospectively for a criminal matter. I expect the President will ask the courts to test the Bill's constitutionality because it is likely it is unconstitutional. This legislation, which will validate legislation retrospectively, will give the Minister too much unscrutinised authority. It will serve to distance the European Union even further from the day-to-day lives of Irish citizens. The Bill will bring an end to political input into law-making in this area, thereby usurping the legislative function of the Oireachtas. It will ensure that EU legislation will be implemented at national level directly from Brussels, without being the subject of any input from Members of the Oireachtas.

The Government has rushed the introduction of this dangerous legislation to paper over the cracks of the last 33 years. It is concerned that there may not have been any legal basis to countless EU directives which were introduced by means of statutory instrument and have the potential to prosecute or impose fines. It seems that thousands of orders which carry a fine or criminal sanction are being called into question. This Bill will enable the Minister to transpose legislation from EU law into Irish law without it ever appearing on the Order Paper of either House or being the subject of a review process. In that way, he will be able to put in place a regulation under which a person can be sent to prison, for example. We are providing in this Bill for such proposals, which I understand to be unconstitutional because the State is not allowed to impose a criminal sanction by means of statutory instrument unless it is empowered by primary legislation to do so.

If this legislation is approved by the House, it could have drastic implications for people involved in many sectors of Irish society, including the agriculture and fishing industries. It will put people at the mercy of draconian legislation such as the nitrates directive and the forthcoming soil directive. The Bill permits the Minister to impose fines of up to €500,000, and-or three years' imprisonment, for breaches of EU laws. That would be a dangerous development for a parliamentary democracy like Ireland. Section 4 of the Bill will retrospectively validate all statutory instruments, including those which carry a criminal sanction, which have transposed EU legislation into Irish law since 1973. The Government wants to fill a gaping loophole which has meant that some actions taken by the State since 1972 have not had the full authority of law.

This problem was brought to light recently when a group of veterinary pharmacists brought a Supreme Court challenge.

The group stated in its legal challenge that the legislative provision under which it was being prosecuted was illegal. The case concerned some technical aspects of the animal remedies regulations, including the alleged prescription of penicillin by pharmacists and the alleged mixing of worm and fluke treatments, which was done in advance and was therefore deemed to be manufacturing. As a result of that loophole, these people are being prosecuted. The potential ramifications of the case include jeopardising the careers of many of those involved with professional qualifications. We must tread carefully with this matter. I accept that the Government has to deal with this loophole but it should not require rushed legislation, particularly given the dangerous precedent in section 3 of this Bill.

The Bill also brings to light the role and function of the special investigations unit, SIU, in the Department of Agriculture and Food. There have been reported instances of the SIU using a heavy hand in dealing with farmers, veterinarians and pharmacists. One case was recently brought to my attention, and to the attention of the Minister for Agriculture and Food. It happened in Ardara in County Donegal. The SIU officials, inspecting the potential sale of prescription drugs for animals in a pharmacy, searched the handbags of customers in that pharmacy. That is a blatant infringement of the right to privacy of individuals who were innocent bystanders in that situation. There is a need for checks and balances to be put in place with regard to the function and role of the special investigations unit.

If the unit is to be effective into the future, it is critical that the same checks and balances that apply to the Garda Síochána also apply to the special investigations unit. The Minister, Deputy Treacy, is a former Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food and he is aware that the powers of the SIU in some cases far exceed those of the Garda Síochána so it is important that checks and balances are put in place. The Dáil previously debated the need for legislation to provide for scrutiny of the Garda, and the Garda Síochána Complaints Tribunal and the Garda Ombudsman Commission have been established on a legislative basis. However, there is no scrutiny of the SIU.

Fine Gael suggested in the past that an office of agriculture ombudsman be established to deal, independently of the Department, with complaints about the Department or any of its agencies. It should encompass the role of the agriculture appeals office, which is not independent of the Department of Agriculture and Food but should be. This would ensure a balance in the legislation that does not currently exist.

The powers being conferred by this Bill are extremely dangerous as there is no provision for checks and balances in terms of Dáil scrutiny. The Government can bring forward regulations without consultation. Rules made up on the whim of the Minister, as a substitute for law, can be passed through the Oireachtas. Legislation will effectively criminalise individuals or threaten persons or put them out of business. Surely this should be based on laws passed following discussion in the Dáil and the Upper House.

The Minister said: "Since 1973, the European Community treaty has obliged Irish Governments to transpose Community regulations, directives and decisions to translate Community law into Irish law". I accept that. My difficulty is not with EU law but with the word "translate". The Minister knows as well as I do that it is the interpretation of EU directives, rules and regulations that is causing the problems for people, be they farmers, pharmacists, veterinarians or fishermen. The Minister described the Bill as short and technical, but it is far from that.

This is a Government of blank cheques. That applies not only to the Taoiseach but also to the Minister for Transport with regard to e-voting, the HSE with regard to PPARS and the infamous Bertie bowl. However, this Bill is the mother and father of all blank cheques. It is a blank cheque for red tape and bureaucracy, which can be introduced on foot of any idle thought or whim of a Minister. It is extremely dangerous legislation and it will persecute ordinary, law abiding individuals throughout the State. I implore the Minister to withdraw it.

It is the interpretation by the Irish Government and its officials of EU law that causes the difficulty. We have seen the difficulties it has caused with the nitrates directive and the cross-compliance inspections that are taking place. In that regard, the Minister for Agriculture and Food has said that no notice inspections have been forced on us by the European Commission, yet Commissioner Fischer Boel has been quoted as saying there is no need for no notice inspections. A delegation from the IFA visited Germany recently and found that there are no such inspections in Germany. Every farmer there is given adequate notice of inspections.

There is also the case of the prescription-only medicine rules. A completely different interpretation of those rules was taken by Ireland than was taken by Northern Ireland. Across the Border, veterinarians, licensed merchants and pharmacists can write prescriptions for animal medicines; on this side of the Border, only veterinarians can do it. The Minister says EU regulations are forcing this regime but there is a different interpretation on the other side of the Border. The difficulty is that this jurisdiction adopts the strictest possible interpretation of EU law and now, under this Bill, it will not be scrutinised or reviewed by the Oireachtas. That is a dangerous precedent.

There is huge frustration, especially in the agricultural community, with the layers of red tape and bureaucracy that is choking farmers. The amount of paperwork, box ticking, form filling, inspections, re-inspections, limits, regulations and directives has ballooned in recent years. When departmental officials and agricultural advisers openly admit that they are bewildered by the array of bureaucracy that confronts the farming community, what hope is there for the farmers? We are consistently told in the House that it is not the Government's fault but that it is being forced on us by Brussels, yet when the same law is transposed into national legislation in the other member states it is always the case that the interpretation adopted by Ireland is far more strict and rigid.

Now a Minister can simply sign a regulation to bring into force his or her interpretation of the legislation and it is not open to scrutiny by either the Houses of the Oireachtas or a committee of the Houses. That is extremely dangerous. I have been a Member of the House for ten years and I have never seen such legislation brought before it in that time. The problem is not even the levels of bureaucracy coming from Europe but the translation that is adopted by Ministers in its transposition in this jurisdiction.

The Minister of State has had to deal with complaints from farmers about the nitrates directive. He will have told them that Brussels is forcing it on us, that there have been court cases about it and so forth. He will also have dealt with farmers on the issue of cross-compliance. Again, he will have told them that it is being forced on us by Brussels and that we have no choice. The interpretation used in Ireland is causing the problem in 95% of cases but the Minister of State now informs us that this House will no longer be able to debate or approve it. This is the reason for the strength of our opposition to the Bill. Things are bad enough with the nitrates directive but the soil directive is on its way down the line. I have already expressed my concerns that the Department of Agriculture and Food is not directly involved in the negotiations on the soil directive. This is not in the interests of Irish agriculture or farmers. We have witnessed the conflict between the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and between Teagasc and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the implementation of the nitrates directive. At least on that occasion the legislation had to be laid before the House for debate and discussion. If this Bill had been in place when the nitrates directive was being introduced, there would have been no debate and no discussion. As soon as the ink was dry on the Minister's signature, it would have become law and not open to any further discussion.

The soil directive as currently proposed would impose serious restrictions on how farmers are allowed to farm and use their land in the future. Despite the major consequences of this directive for farmers, the Minister for Agriculture and Food has failed to take a lead role in ensuring it does not end up placing unworkable restrictions on them. This will be a repetition of the nitrates fiasco but on this occasion the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will hold all the aces and there will be no discussion or debate on it.

Farmers are sickened by the amount of bureaucracy which has been introduced in the past five years by the Government. Speaking in this House on the introduction of the single farm payment, the former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Walsh, said that this would give farmers the freedom to farm. Since then we have had the nitrates directive and the soil directive is coming. The animal transport regulations were introduced on 1 January 2007 and the prescription-only medicines regulations will kick in from July of this year. New rules and regulations have been introduced for butchers while new rules and regulations introduced over recent years have closed down more than half of our abattoirs. Butchers and abattoirs are the only two elements of the beef and lamb industry to provide some form of competition to the stranglehold which the processing industry exerts on those two trades. Restrictions have been introduced on the live exports trade; we are told they have been forced upon us by Brussels. Other regulations include those relating to cross-compliance and no-notice inspections.

Under the current system, there is at least some vehicle by which the House can debate these rules and regulations. However, the Minister of State now informs us that the opportunity will no longer exist. Section 3(2) of the Bill states that the Minister can repeal or amend provisions and apply them with or without modification, either by law or by an existing statutory instrument, without the need to lay them before the House. It is extremely dangerous to allow such a provision to be put in place.

Section 4 of the Bill gives a blank cheque to the validation of statutory instruments introduced up to now. This has been used over the years by certain officials in various Departments to threaten people. It is reprehensible to see a question mark over the legal basis for these actions.

I suggest the Minister of State give serious consideration to this legislation. Bad and all as the rules and regulations are that have been introduced and forced upon us — it is alleged — by Brussels, the interpretation of them in this Bill has caused the greatest difficulty regarding the statutory instruments which have been introduced. There will be no vehicle for us to debate these regulations or to question departmental officials on their implementation. The Minister will work solely on the advice he or she receives from his or her officials. This is a dangerous development.

The Minister of State has spoken at length about the need to bring the European Union closer to us and that we should be opening it up and making it more transparent so that everyone in society becomes part of the whole democratic process. However, the Minister of State is putting this further away than ever from the citizens of this country. He is taking it out of this Chamber. It is unacceptable to remove the political input from such power which is being given to Ministers who can at will introduce layers of bureaucracy and red tape that is putting farmers out of business and even before the effect of the soil directive. Fishermen are being prosecuted and persecuted and there are problems in many other sectors caused by anomalies.

I ask the Minister of State to think seriously about his proposal and the impact it will have in his own constituency and in my constituency which adjoins it. Regulations will be introduced and their true potential will be obvious when they impact on the ground. It will be all well and good until his constituent or my constituent is hauled into the Circuit Court in Ballinasloe or Roscommon and is jailed for three years or has a fine of €500,000 imposed and loses his single farm payments because of some technical breach of some obscure piece of EU legislation that has had no scrutiny and which has been interpreted in a particular way by officials. This will be a millstone around the necks of ordinary people.

It is important that this House has proper supervision of and proper debate on proposals, yet this scrutiny is being taken away from Members and Ministers are being given carte blanche to use red tape and bureaucracy. It should not be allowed and it is morally wrong. I ask the Minister of State to withdraw that element of the Bill at least.

See this speech in context