Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)

We did so for many reasons. The objectives at that time were no different from what they are today. We did it because Ireland is an island nation and an exporting nation. There is obviously a limit to what we could do if we were not in cahoots, in co-operation and joined in so many ways — industrially, socially and educationally — with Europe. This was the great dream. I sincerely hope the next generation of Irish people will consider that dream important for everybody.

As has been noted on many occasions in this and other EU parliaments, a wide gulf has emerged between citizens of the European Union and its institutions. A "them and us" attitude prevails, with a large majority of Irish people no longer laying claim to what is happening in Strasbourg or Brussels because people do not have any connection with EU decision makers. The Minister of State takes his job seriously and will have heard this issue being raised during many discussions with various organisations and individuals. This gulf would have emerged irrespective of which Government was in power.

France is a large country which has subscribed to the concept of European union from the outset. It was not a Johnny-come-lately, having signed the treaty in 1956. Despite this, it rejected a referendum on the proposed European constitution. While the populations of France and the Netherlands continue to support the general concept, they do not like certain aspects of the European Union and said so when given an opportunity to express themselves in the secrecy of the ballot box.

We have secured many stunning successes in referendums on European affairs and I hope we will achieve many more. I believe, however, that if more legislation such as the Bill before us were to be introduced, we would have serious problems trying to convince people to continue supporting Irish involvement in an outfit such as the European Union. I do not want to overstate the case as one must always take a balanced view. However, if Ireland was to hold a referendum and put this Bill to the people, it would be rejected by a margin of 80% to 20%.

I oppose the legislation because it calls to mind the process of delivering a registered letter. In future, the registered letter — legislation from Brussels — will arrive on the Cabinet table and the Government's only involvement will be to sign an acknowledgement of receipt. The Houses, vocational groups and members of the business community will have no input into decisions. This approach cannot be good for the relationship between citizens and the European Union.

I have no doubt the Minister of State has good legal reasons for introducing the Bill and while I do not agree with his opening remarks, I am not a constitutional lawyer. I know when something is wrong and this legislation is flawed. The Minister of State indicated the Bill was small. In his view, it should be rammed through the House in an hour or two. The sentiments expressed in this debate reflect those expressed by Senators. Leaving aside opposition for the sake of it, many people have genuine misgivings about the principle involved in the Bill. I do not believe my interpretation of the way ordinary people think is too far wrong. This Bill will cause great trouble in future.

The central tenets of the European Union's primary goal may have been refined but have remained fundamentally the same over the years. Apart from the noble ambition to avoid further war in Europe, the Community was established to ensure the living standards of its people would increase to a level that would not otherwise be achieved in the absence of co-operation. This principle has been proved correct. Ireland, for example, has done very well out of the European Union and I hope we will continue to play our part in it.

Irish people and most other nationalities are not prepared to cross a certain line. Although the sky will not fall tomorrow if the Bill becomes law, the principle it enshrines will come back to haunt future Governments. As the Minister of State is aware, thousands of decisions are taken in Brussels every week. The human brain could not keep up with them, particularly given the population of the European Union, its many problems and the range of issues addressed by EU legislation.

When a Bill of this nature appears, we are informed that a decision has been taken in the various EU organs in the interests of Europe. In 1972, an undertaking was given that national parliaments would be given an opportunity to discuss decisions. Countries such as Denmark even tied government ministers to a commitment that proposals would only be agreed once they had been approved by parliament. Our approach is less strict and involves the Committee on European Affairs and other bodies. If all 27 member states decided not to agree to any proposals in Brussels without first securing the approval of their respective national parliaments, it would be virtually impossible to reach decisions. However, there is a middle way. Until now, the Oireachtas had an opportunity, either in the Chamber or at committee, to discuss all legislation emanating from Brussels. I understood it was proposed in the Seanad to place a copy of all legislation in the Oireachtas Library for 21 working days. This would be a simple matter.

Several of my colleagues have adverted to the fact that if Senators and the democratically elected Members of Parliament are not entitled to make this input, Parliament will clearly not be able to change legislation. In cases where anything is involved that might be contrary to a vital national interest, which can often happen, there should be a way for this democracy to say "No, our interpretation of that is different". It will form the basis of the European Union's decision to introduce that law, but the way in which we transpose it into Irish law will be more suitable for us.

As Deputy Naughten said, rural Ireland in particular has many reasons to be unhappy with the way in which this measure was transposed, given that at that stage we thought we had the opportunity to do so. Can one imagine what would happen if we had no say in the matter? Bureaucratic messing and madness of the highest order went on with our farm inspections. The Minister of State knows all about it. Most farmers are now part time and are afraid that when they come home from work they will find somebody in a field checking whether they meet the requirements of various schemes they have entered. I can speak with a certain amount of authority on this subject.

Everyone accepts that there must be checks and balances in every system. A validation system, run by the Government or the EU, is required to ensure that subsidy schemes are being run correctly. No government, including our own, can back away from that task. Matters can go overboard, however. In 2006, we were foolish enough to believe that the diktat of on-farm inspections without prior notification had been signed in red ink in Brussels and that we had to put up with it. Only two months ago, however, it transpired that the German Government was not using this system. Berlin accepted the necessity of on-farm inspections but that Government said it would give German farmers 24 or 48 hours' notice that inspectors were coming. I cannot speak on behalf of all Irish farmers, but there is a major difference between the system as it operates in Germany and officials coming on to a farm unannounced.

It was the same with the nitrates directive when we went into convulsions about it. The EU wanted that directive to be prescribed in a certain manner yet when it came down to our Minister, it appeared we were talking about a different matter. Although the Government has the numbers to implement this measure, I urge the Minister to think hard about it first. I assume that like most factors of this type, it will be forgotten about in a week's time. I guarantee, however, that it is establishing an unwelcome precedent.

I presume the Cabinet examined this matter in great detail but what would be wrong with accepting the Opposition amendments tabled in the Seanad? If that were done, all such proposals would be placed in the Oireachtas Library for 21 days prior to ministerial signature. It may be a small step but at least it would mean there was some control by elected representatives who would have the chance to inspect such measures. In addition, expert views could be sought before the measures were signed by the Minister.

I spoke earlier about a widening gulf between the EU establishment and ordinary working people. We may get to a situation whereby the European constitution will have to be changed again. In an ever-changing society it is not unreasonable to expect that in ten or 15 years' time something like this will recur. If that happens, we will find that it will be done by parliaments alone, with no discussion concerning referenda. Some countries may not have the confidence to get such a measure through so all of a sudden it will become our problem.

Serious matters affecting business, education, farming or other sectors should be decided by referendum to allow the people to say what they think. We should never sway from that basic principle. If there is much more legislation like this, where our only input is to sign a registered letter, we may be considered good Europeans but will it be good for Ireland? Will it be good for the men and women we represent? That is the question. Some of the things that happened in this country as a result of decisions made by bureaucrats in Brussels certainly did not suit us. We would not be up to speed if we did not state categorically how that happened and why it should be stopped. This Bill will not help in that regard.

Fine Gael will be tabling amendments to the Bill, one of which was discussed in the Seanad. I think that, deep down, the Minister of State does not disagree with many of the points I have made. I hope he sees the error of his ways before this Bill is enacted.

See this speech in context