Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill, particularly as it relates directly to the work I have been doing over the past two and a half to three years in the European Parliament.

This is a short Bill and has been described by the Minister as a short, technical Bill. It has been introduced on a Thursday afternoon for debate and if one was not careful, it would be deemed insignificant legislation that was just being passed out of necessity. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is an extremely significant proposition we are debating. In summary, what the Government seems to be trying to achieve is to avoid the inconvenience of having to debate the transposition of European Union directives into Irish law in the House, though obviously we can still seek clarity on a range of issues. The Government wants to be able to introduce sanctions for breaches of EU directives, with fines of up to €500,000 and three years' imprisonment, by ministerial order, without discussion or debate.

What is of most concern is that the Government wants to be able to amend primary legislation by statutory instrument, when necessary, to give effect to EU law. Again, this would be without discussion or debate if it suited the Government at the time. In other words, it would be on the whim of the Minister or Government to decide whether it was appropriate for the Oireachtas or the Opposition to discuss or debate what the Minister decided was appropriate to introduce.

Let me be clear on one issue. Fine Gael has consistently been the strongest supporter of the EU project and the principles behind it. We continue to maintain that position. Unlike some colleagues from other parties, I have no intention of using this debate to try and throw cheap shots at the European Union and the way it does business or the way it is trying to improve doing business.

The Bill is not being driven by Brussels or Strasbourg. The Government hand is not being forced on the issue. The Bill is about how our Government decides to deal with decisions and legislation agreed collectively at EU level and about how we transpose those decisions into Irish law and how we enforce them. The Bill is a Government decision. Before the heat comes on the Government and we get the usual response of "This is Brussels forcing our hand on the issue" or "We must introduce the legislation because it is being forced upon us", let me say that is not the situation. The debate is welcome because there is a genuine problem with which the Government must deal, but I will deal with that later.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue because we need to look at how EU directives are debated and introduced in Ireland and at how they are enforced. I have been a member of the European Parliament for the past three years. The directives that will be transposed into Irish law next year and result from issues discussed and debated in the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission during this year and last. Ironically, when we consider what is happening with this legislation, it is interesting that what has been happening in Brussels is that the European Parliament is getting more rather than less power. Ten or 15 years ago we could have said the European Parliament existed, but it was not nearly as powerful as the other two institutions, the Commission and the Council, which were the big decision makers. Much has changed in recent years and the European Parliament, which speaks on behalf of the people, if one may put it in such terms, is now an equal partner involved in a co-decision process with the Council on most matters. The Minister will be well aware of that, having had to deal with many parliamentary resolutions that have landed on his desk. The change in Brussels and Strasbourg has been inconvenient for the Commission and the Council, but it has been good for democratic principles of transparency and accountability in European law-making.

Today in Ireland, we are doing the opposite, saying that it is too inconvenient and time-consuming, with too many directives and sanctions that must be introduced to ensure that Ireland fulfils its responsibility to implement them. It is felt that we do not have time in the Chamber to debate everything fully in the same way as we would debate primary legislation. That was the attitude in Brussels ten years ago on the part of the Council and Commission when they wanted to avoid the inconvenient process of involving the Parliament.

That sometimes prolongs the process but is more democratic and transparent, while also ensuring that fewer mistakes are made and the EU becomes more open. In that way, facing the challenges of the next ten to 15 years, we could bring people with us, unlike what happened in the past, when the EU unfortunately failed in that respect, the constitutional referenda in France and the Netherlands providing the most recent examples.

That is why I am so concerned about this legislation, which is contrary to our goals in Europe. One of those is more efficiency and I understand the Government's concerns regarding this Bill, which endeavours to make it easier to introduce sanctions expeditiously. Unfortunately, however, democracy is not always that convenient and in this instance concerns about openness and transparency must override the Minister's arguments regarding convenience and efficiency.

I recognise that the Government must deal with a problem. This issue is far too important for us to embarrass or oppose the Government reflexively. The way to deal with it is surely to sit down with the Opposition and acknowledge the problem. A raft of legislation must be introduced in Ireland, with a further raft of amendments to existing legislation, to ensure that we adhere to European commitments. We must also introduce sanctions to ensure that people comply with regulations to which we have signed up. I do not believe that, if something is unpopular, we should ease off on the sanctions. There must be sanctions for breaches of the rules, whether by farmers or fishermen.

They must be fair, however, and if we are to make such decisions, we must have proper accountability rather than introducing something quietly without discussing the matter with other parties. The Minister would find Fine Gael very receptive to attempts to find a sensible way to pass legislation more efficiently and quickly — "fast-track" is the wrong word — when dealing with specific urgent European issues. We are obliged to do that, and we will co-operate with it, but we will not agree to the Government deciding that it is no longer the role of the Oireachtas but that of Ministers, since it has made commitments at a European level, wishing to make the required changes by ministerial order.

That is not how the EU works. As the Minister knows, we reach collective decisions in a range of areas through debate and discussion, with consensus achieved between the three institutions. Then the legislation, directive, strategy or plan from Brussels goes to the individual member states, who transpose it into national legislation tailor-made for the country concerned within that framework. While there are exceptions, that is generally what happens.

However, we are now proposing that such tailoring be decided by a Minister, allowing no say to people such as Deputy Rabbitte, Deputy Kenny, or me. That is not how a democracy functions. If a Government decides how laws should be introduced and what level of sanctions, including imprisonment, should be imposed if rules are breached, that is a dictatorship. As a staunch pro-European who seeks efficiency in line with the Lisbon Agenda, with fewer laws and better, fairer implementation, I cannot support what the Minister proposes. Nor can the other parties on the Opposition benches.

When visiting universities and schools to convince people that our work in Brussels is relevant to their lives, I state the accurate fact that up to 70% of legislation that passes through the Dáil and Seanad is a case of the Government legislating to fulfil EU commitments. That is true whether the area is the environment, agriculture, fisheries, or hygiene standards in shops, restaurants and public houses. The laws introduced and debated here regularly originate in the Government's transposition of EU directives into our law.

We are not talking here of a small number of inconvenient measures that must be introduced but about most legislation and its attendant sanctions. We are proposing to change fundamentally the way in which this House does its business, yet this debate is happening on a Thursday afternoon when most people do not even know what we are discussing. That is why there has been such a strong reaction from my party, with speaker after speaker lining up.

I will give examples of directives being introduced that may require sanctions. The nitrates directive has been raised by many speakers and although Government representatives will always sell it as the EU nitrates directive, it is really just the Government's nitrates action plan to comply with that directive. They have got it wrong, and it is too restrictive, but it is coming. Do we seriously propose that, if the Minister deems it necessary, we should introduce or increase sanctions relating to the nitrates directive that will impinge on farmers and their families? Do we propose that, in the context of the Common Fisheries Policy, if a fisherman breaches the law and a Minister decides to introduce the sanction of imprisonment, he or she should be able to do so without consulting the rest of this House?

I have no problem with examining more efficient ways of piloting legislation and, if necessary, tough sanctions, through the House, but I do not like being excluded from that process when I have been elected to make such decisions. If I were on the Government side of the House, I hope I would take the same view, even if it were less convenient for me, since I would have to address Opposition concerns and sometimes the playing of politics with situations that are difficult for the Government and subject to time constraints regarding implementation.

Laws are laws, even if they are introduced primarily by a Minister and have nothing to do with European law. The origins of legislation do not matter, but the impact of such legislation on people's lives matters. That is the reason this House exists and we have a system whereby a Government is held to account if it makes poor decisions. It should be no different whether those decisions are based on EU directives or on law and order, an area in which the European Union does not generally intervene.

If a family's life is affected by the laws we pass, we should all have a say because we represent such people. We are elected to do that job. Up to 70% of the legislation going through this House is introduced by the Government in line with its commitments at European level. Most of the legislation coming through here has improved the quality of people's lives dramatically over the past 20 years in terms of the air we breathe, water we drink and hygiene standards that we benefit from etc.

If we now say we can amend legislation retrospectively or introduce new sanctions without the matters coming through this House, we will be saying that 70% of the legislation we are now passing can be changed by a Minister with no consultation, debate or scrutiny at Oireachtas level. Is that what the Government is standing over? If it is, the process will be fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-European.

The irony is that the supposed reason behind the need for this legislation is that so many directives come from Brussels and there is insufficient time to debate all of them. As Governments are elected to make decisions, the Government will make decisions on behalf of the Irish people on a range of issues. That argument is rubbish and the Minister of State knows it.

The Oireachtas exists for a reason and if laws are being changed we must be involved in the process. This Bill excludes us, which is why it needs to be changed. I appeal to the Minister to withdraw it and come back with amended legislation. I hope I speak for my party when I say he will get a positive response from Fine Gael in trying to find a more efficient but democratic manner of introducing or amending legislation, or introducing criminal sanction relating to EU law obligations.

In his opening statement outlining why he could not support the Bill, Deputy Costello summed up the position well in bullet-point form. He stated that introducing offences and changing laws requires democratic scrutiny, and I agree with that. I also agree with his point that these issues should continue to have the same scrutiny process as any other primary legislation; in amending any legislation, we would debate it.

He indicated that there is a significant shift in powers from the Oireachtas to Ministers. I agree with this and believe it is fundamentally anti-democratic. Deputy Costello is correct in arguing that this is a rubber-stamping process taking in a significant amount of legislation. This allows Ministers to make policy changes in addition to technical alterations to legislation without consultation at Oireachtas level. He stated this Bill is a dilution of democracy, which it is. This makes it, ironically, anti-European and it should be withdrawn.

This Bill is mostly about convenience and making life easier for the Government. It is also about making it easier for Departments to make changes and recommendations without having to go through the headache of consulting difficult people or those with a different viewpoint.

The two main political parties in this House would agree on most European issues and there would not be very much difficulty in getting consensus for most of the recommendations that need to be introduced. The Government will have a big problem now if it decides to go it alone in introducing sanctions and amending primary legislation where necessary.

This has implications for the credibility of the European Union, or the European project as people now term it. Many serious issues must be tackled as a European Union and we must sell to our people in Ireland the strategy we propose to adopt as a Union. This type of legislation will make people more cynical and will result in more people blaming Europe for difficulties we have instead of seeing it for what it is. It should be a very positive force to improve the quality of people's lives and provide stability and opportunity for business, travel, study, work and other quality of life factors.

We are instead witnessing cloak and dagger action where the Government is taking it upon itself, through Ministers, to do the job. Ministers will make decisions fundamental to Irish law and people's lives without consultation and scrutiny. They will make mistakes as a result and people will suffer because the opinions are not being sought of people with opposing views. That is wrong and is a reason this Bill should be withdrawn.

See this speech in context