Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)

I stand here with a heavy heart because we should not be having this debate. There are a number of reasons that I make this point. What we are trying to do today is to solve a legislative problem using administrative measures. Bluntly speaking, the Government has found itself in a hole but instead of trying to fill it in, it is continuing to dig.

We should not be having this debate because what we are attempting to do is to override the crucial role the Oireachtas has in overseeing the transposition of EU legislation. We will create a minefield of uncertainty by introducing retrospective legislation. That is always a risk, but taking account of the timespan that is involved, some 34 years, and the sweeping measures we are giving to Ministers, it is a huge risk which is too big to take.

We should not be having this debate because it will further alienate people from the EU, on which I will elaborate later. It will give ammunition to those who oppose the EU for any number of reasons, good and bad. As the Minister of State is aware, I am very supportive of the EU project and am proud to be part of it. However, it does not mean that we get everything right.

There are positives and negatives to being part of the EU. Many of the benefits have already been outlined in this debate. While I do not want to repeat them, I will mention one or two to balance what I have to say. Ireland has benefited greatly from joining the EU. When I went to Europe, I was surprised at how colleagues, particularly those from some of the new member states, look to Ireland. They see Ireland as the model of good practice.

We received in excess of €50 billion from the EU and used it well. We invested in our education system. The regional colleges were built in the 1970s and they subsequently became institutes of technology. That was the start of the expansion of third level education here, which enabled us to have an educated workforce who helped to create the Celtic tiger.

I am old enough to remember back to the mid-1970s when what the rent landladies charged students was dependent on the grant aid from Europe. The impact of that money not only allowed us to have third level graduates who fuelled the Celtic tiger, but it also had a huge impact on the local economy. We used EU funds to build up our economic infrastructure and to support our farmers and community groups, which was a useful way of using them. We are still using that money to fund child care provision — the list goes on.

While EU funds were important, the most important element was access to the Single Market. That was one of the factors that helped to fuel our inward investment. Companies that located in Ireland had access to the European market. Ireland has an export figure of 2.5% for such worldwide services. That gives us an idea of how important it is to have access to the market.

The benefits derived from the European Union have not just been economic. Most of our equality legislation has been driven by the Union. When the concept of equal pay was brought forward, we tried to obtain a derogation but failed. Most of our good environmental legislation has emanated from the European Union. We cannot claim that all EU legislation has had a positive impact, but sometimes that is our own fault. I will not go into the details of the nitrates directive as it has already been mentioned in this and in other debates, but we often have to look at how we did not act. It is the main reason we find ourselves in this position. Sometimes it is our interpretation of EU legislation that causes problems for many, especially in the agriculture sector.

I wanted to make these positive comments about the European Union to underline the positive aspects of EU membership but also to acknowledge some of the difficulties that can arise. There are very few in this country who would stand up and say we should not have joined the European Union, or that we should leave if we have the opportunity to do so. If the proposed constitution was in place, that latter option would be open to member states. Many have serious issues with the European Union but most would recognise that, on balance, we are part of a project that has ensured peace and stability in Europe and that has enabled old enemies to work together for the common good. This has brought considerable benefits to Ireland.

Many use words such as "eurocrats", "plutocrats" and "technocrats". They talk about late night discussions and decisions in smoke-filled rooms as if this was how we go about our business. It is not. Proposed legislation comes from the Commission. Many will say its members are unelected but each country has a Commissioner at the table. Even before draft legislation is brought forward, there is a consultation process. Since I was elected to the European Parliament, I have been involved in alerting stakeholders and those interested in legislation coming from the Commission to the fact that there is a consultation process, of which they can be part, even before legislation comes from the Commission. It then goes to the European Parliament which amends it, often substantially. The Bolkestein, or services directive, was substantially altered by the European Parliament, especially the country of origin principle. What left the Parliament was very different. That is an example of where we had real democratic accountability. Legislation must then go the Council of Ministers and back to the Parliament until we reach what is known as a common position. The Minister knows all of this, but I wanted to outline the position, as many statements have been made about how we draft European legislation. The Parliament must reach a common position on about 70% of legislative measures. To say eurocrats and technocrats are responsible for all legislation coming from the European Union is not correct. When we reach the point where legislation is enacted, it is up to each member state to decide how it will implement it. The European Union requires an outcome, but the mechanism used is at the discretion of each member state.

That brings us to the issue we are discussing. What happens at member state level? How will we use our structures to implement EU legislation? What safeguards will we put in place and what checks and balances will we include? I do not come from a legal background. I was a humble maths teacher before I was elected to the Dáil. However, I have read the Bill and the explanatory memorandum, listened to some of the debates in the House and read the Seanad debates. I have spoken to some people whom I consider to be experts in European affairs. My personal conclusion is that there are serious problems with the Bill. If we were to have a referendum on this matter, would the people vote in favour of the Bill? My instinct is that 90% would vote against it. Perhaps the people and I are wrong, but I do not think so. This is the yardstick at which the Minister of State should look. How would the people of Sligo, Leitrim, Mayo, Galway or Donegal vote if this issue was put to them? Would they trust any Minister to do what is outlined in section 2 of the Bill? It states:

(a) make provision for offences under the regulations to be prosecuted on indictment where the Minister of the Government making the regulations considers it necessary for the purpose of giving full effect to a provision of the treaties governing the European Communities or an act adopted by an institution of those Communities, and

(b) make such provision as that Minister of the Government considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring that penalties in respect of an offence prosecuted in that manner are effective and proportionate, and have a deterrent effect, having regard to the acts or omissions of which the offence consists, provided that the maximum fine (if any) shall not be greater than €500,000 and the maximum term of imprisonment (if any) shall not be greater than 3 years.

In other words, if I were to ask the people of Sligo or Leitrim if they would allow a Minister to create indictable and summary offences in order to comply with European law, would they say yes?

See this speech in context