Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

I ask the officials in Iveagh House, for whom I have much time and respect and who are under-resourced in many respects, not to forget the lesson of the first Nice referendum. Let they not forget that we lost the debate on that referendum because there was a presumption of approval and acquiescence, which presumption can no longer be taken for granted. I will not rehearse the debate that took place at the time or outline the way in which the Labour Party saved the nation's bacon, and particularly that of the Government, because I was at the European Council meeting in Gothenburg in Sweden when the only fig leaf the Government had was the proposition of a forum on Europe. This was promoted by my colleague, former Deputy De Rossa, then a candidate for election to the European Parliament.

The forum has proceeded with the support of the Government and has become an exemplary method of communicating Europe and the European ideal to a new generation of European citizens, including my 12 year old son, for whom Hitler, Napoleon and Attila the Hun are all grouped together in the same historical timeframe. Included in this are the Second World War and all the reasons for wanting to bring 300 years of nationalist conflict towards consensus, conciliation and compromise, which characterise the shared sovereignty of the nation states of Europe in a unique constitutional settlement that has no parallel or equivalent in the internationalised, globalised world.

As I was born in 1946, I realise we are not dealing with the same people who were involved when the Union was founded. When I met Mitterand, Kohl and others, I noted they were children and orphans of the Second World War. They, in their hearts, souls and flesh, said, "Never, never again". My children, however, and most of the people in this room do not relate to their experience and therefore a new narrative must be constructed and a new legitimacy must be established. It is called democracy and accountability. One cannot say, as is purported in section 2, that indictable offences, that is, offences that warrant punishments, charges and court hearings, can be dealt with by statutory instrument rather than primary legislation in the House. Doing so is no way to build the Europe of the future.

The Europe of the future must be built on consent and accountable democracy, which this legislation purports to reverse. I can understand why the diplomatic service and the Administration, of which I was honoured to be part, might be stretched. Ireland probably has the best generalists in the entire European public service, including those of the other 26 member states. Generalists, of necessity, need fast-tracks to deal with certain issues. From my experience as a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, I know exactly what that means.

We will be stripping the legitimacy of democracy if we move towards enacting this Bill. To my friend and colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, I say we must provide extra resources within the public service to do the job that needs to be done. This Bill is an attempt by a hard-pressed Executive and stretched public service to contend that we need a fast-track to allow us to proceed and that we do not have the time, resources or ability to proceed by way of primary legislation. They are asking for this instrument so we can become compliant with all the regulations and requirements of the European Union. I can understand the legitimate arguments and have heard them in the past, but I wonder how these arguments can be counter-placed against their alternatives.

There is nothing wrong with or untoward about the sentiments behind this Bill, and Senator O'Rourke, God love her, did not write it. No Minister got up on Monday morning and said he would connect with the electorate of Galway East by introducing a European Communities Bill on the grounds that it would get it excited, thus putting himself on top of the poll. Rather, it is a bureaucratic Bill driven by the constraints and restraints of bureaucracy, with a view to fast-tracking a system whereby the Republic of Ireland, as a member state, could be made comply with the requirements of the Union.

It is a question of indictable offences. They may be fairly minor, such as the pollution of a stream outside Ballinasloe by a farmer in east Galway. Having been indicted and prosecuted for such an offence in court, a farmer may well enter the constituency office of the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, and ask him whether he voted for this Bill. He may ask whether the criminal offence with which he was charged and for which he incurred a fine was discussed in the House and whether the four Members from Galway East consciously stated in the House that the offence was an act of aggression against the Republic of Ireland and its territory. The Members will say they did not vote for the creation of such an offence and that it was designed by some civil servant without reference to anybody, which civil servant decided that €500 or €5,000 should be the fine imposed. The charged farmer will ask where all the Deputies were when the offence was deemed to merit such a fine.

I know the Minister of State too well to believe he is serious about this Bill, which is not characteristic of democracy. The Land League was founded in Woodford in his constituency. One must ask why it was founded there and determine the sense of passion that drove uneducated, poor, destitute tenant farmers to do so. They were driven by a sense of justice in the belief that the laws under which they would live would be laws to which they would give their assent, or laws that their representatives, whom they would freely elect, would construct, debate, amend and place on the Statute Book, and for which, if enacted, they would take responsibility.

This Bill represents a perverse change and reversal of all these ideals and the Minister of State knows it. Who is driving this change? I can understand and do not dispute the bureaucratic necessity to be compliant with a very substantial body of legislation and the heavy acquis communautaire, but this Bill is the wrong solution to a current problem. The real solution involves more staff, facilities, time and research, and more bodies to do the job required.

The Bill is not part of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats programme for Government, nor is it part of the programme of the alternative rainbow coalition, which will have to take responsibility for its implementation when it takes office in 100 days. This is a bureaucratic response to a problem which has not been dealt with in the first instance by the political people who can produce €350,000 for a bash in Dublin Castle at the drop of a pen to launch the national development plan. It was the most expensive launch of a political manifesto that the taxpayers have ever paid for.

The Minister of State and I share a common interest, and hopefully a common future, as regards the next referendum to face the citizens of the Republic of Ireland, namely the constitutional treaty. We need to change the rules of decision making in the current Community of 27 member states. I not only want to see Croatia become a member of the EU but all the former Yugoslavian states, so we may consolidate that part of Europe. It means we can consolidate the wider territorial community and bring them in so that as residents within the Union they will be much better participants than outside neighbours who may be prone to none of disciplines that EU membership provides. Imagine what the Patricia McKennas of this world will do with a document such as this or the Eurosceptics, who are alive and well in this country, as the money which we used to receive from the European Union has started to decrease and we approach the status of net contributors. I welcome this new status because I regard the day Ireland becomes a net contributor to the European Union as like the time my eldest child went off my payroll, earned his own salary and paid some money back to me. Not only had my investment in him matured, so had he, and he became a full member of adult society. Similarly Ireland will have matured, because the money we got from German taxpayers and others enabled us to do the things that in part helped to create the Celtic tiger. The cash that used to be the one driver which persuaded people to vote "Yes" in European referenda time after time will not be there.

I can still recall Dana, in her wonderful, seductive manner saying how she felt about the first Nice treaty and how she worried about the applicant countries. The Minister of State might recall how Dana said, with her soft Derry accent, that she worried about all the Polish farmers who wanted to get a slice of action out of the Common Agricultural Policy, and how many they were — all 40 million of the Polish population. We know how the first Nice treaty turned out. The Government is now giving an unbelievable additional instrument to the type of person who wants to make that sort of anti-European argument. Forget about the Dáil, 1916, 300 years of oppression and the struggle for independence. As Deputy Perry said a few minutes ago the Government is not even willing to accept the Fine Gael amendment that at least no statutory instrument can go through this House without reference to a public debate or public accountability. For the benefit of those who might have the curiosity to read the public record, I will state clearly what are statutory instruments are. Statutory instruments are tertiary legislation that are derived and written by the Government and the Civil Service that supports it which are not, in effect, open to democratic scrutiny. They give effect to the body of legislation in whatever area and can set fines as well as other requirements, obligations and responsibilities. Even though, theoretically, we can table a motion after the 21 days and say a matter must be debated here in the House, the Minister of State's and my experience indicate this seldom, if every, happens. We are being asked on this side of the House to provide a democratic bypass to Leinster House whereby a set of offences and other requirements and responsibilities placed upon citizens are not open to the normal scrutiny of law and will descend upon the undiscerning citizen as a bolt out of the blue.

I thought that was what the struggle for independence was all about. I thought that is what 1913, 1916 and 1798 were about, so we should have the right to run our own affairs, make accountable rules that would be debated in public, on which we would vote, divide the House, differ from left to right, green to orange or whatever, but come to a conclusion and a consensus. Because of the sense of republican values that I know the Minister of State and I share, it was accepted that whoever lost on the day would accept the view of the majority because the greater good of all was more valuable than the individual's viewpoint. When the Government loses the next general election I know the Fianna Fáil Party, despite taking a long time to accept the Constitution in the first instance, will nevertheless reluctantly but democratically and peacefully cross from that side to this side of the House and the life of the Republic will continue.

See this speech in context