Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)

I also assure Deputy Connaughton that the procedures set out in this Bill in no way affect the requirement in our Constitution regarding future referendums in the State.

Contrary to what Deputy Durkan and others in his party claimed during this debate, there is no intention to increase executive power at the expense of either of these Houses. There is no sidelining of the Oireachtas. Once this Bill is passed, all EU legislative proposals will continue to be seen by the Oireachtas at the scrutiny stage. Given the vital national importance of our EU engagement, we value the broad consensus on EU issues that has existed in this House over the years. There is no interest to be served by turning EU affairs into a divisive political issue, yesterday, today, tomorrow or at any time.

Deputy Coveney alleged a cloak and dagger approach by the Government. I reject that charge entirely and I am disappointed a Member with a dual mandate in Dáil Eireann and in the European Parliament would make such an allegation. I also reject his charge that the Bill affects the credibility of the European Union in Ireland. The Bill in no way cuts across the existing arrangements in the Oireachtas to scrutinise draft directives and regulations. It is up to the Oireachtas itself to work the scrutiny system and make its views known.

Deputy Deasy claimed that, in his role as Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, he should have been consulted about the Bill before it was brought into the House. I am not clear what he means. This Bill was published on 1 December 2006, before the Seanad debate. It was included in the Government's legislative programme for the last session and again this session. Deputy Deasy has had every opportunity to raise the Bill with either myself or the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, in the meantime. He states his committee is not divisive and has never had a vote. I sincerely hope we can avoid a vote on this occasion also. I will be constructive in the Joint Committee on European Affairs and I hope all Members will join me in that approach. I would never be so presumptuous or disrespectful as to discuss this or any other Bill with officials or members of any committee until Dáil Éireann has made its decision in the first place, at the relevant stage of a Bill.

I reject the idea put forward by Deputy Harkin that we should not be having this debate. All debates are good for democracy, information purposes and understanding. This is a debate on a Bill which we must enact to take account of the serious implications of two Supreme Court judgments. As I have repeatedly stated, the Attorney General has since advised that we need to change the way in which we have been transposing EU law using secondary legislation. The retrospective provisions of the Bill are essential because the Supreme Court judgments mean that some of the body of legislation in place since 1973 is susceptible to legal challenge. With respect to all Ministers, Governments and parliamentarians since 1972, they presumed the force of law was included in the 1972 EU accession Act. If the law and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law states otherwise, we have a constitutional responsibility as parliamentarians, both in Government and Opposition, to collectively deal with the decision of the court.

Deputy Harkin asked what safeguards are being put in place in the Bill. First, the powers referred to are vested solely in Cabinet-level Ministers. Second, the Bill in no way cuts across the existing arrangements in the Oireachtas to scrutinise draft EC directives and regulations. Third, all decisions of Ministers will be subject to review by the courts and will be publicly published in full. Fourth, the Members of this House will retain all rights to question and debate all ministerial decisions.

As regards penalties, I have repeatedly recalled that as a member state we are obliged to ensure penalties are effective, dissuasive and proportionate to ensure our laws are upheld. Our level of penalties was set after careful consideration with all Departments. To my mind, those penalties are in line with the best EU practice.

Deputy Allen made some valuable and constructive points. He has first-hand knowledge of the challenges we face in ensuring that we keep track of and influence the direction of EU policy and law. As regards his idea of laying statutory instruments before the House, I have stated we are open to considering it. However, the Oireachtas will have to find an effective solution to the challenge of volume and speed which arises in several cases with both European and other laws.

There were some criticisms of the proposal to retrospectively validate all of the statutory instruments whose validity has been called into question by the Browne and Kennedy judgments in the Supreme Court. This is one of the key purposes of this Bill. It is essential that we avoid a situation in which doubts exist regarding our ability to give effect to EU law. As it stands, there are hundreds of statutory instruments whose validity is in doubt, although this is no fault of the House, the Parliament or the Government but relates to the trust of politicians in the past that their laws were adequate for their day and the future. These regulations were adopted by all Governments stretching back over the past 34 years. They were passed in good faith, with the intention of implementing EU law in a manner that was considered to be perfectly appropriate before the Browne and Kennedy judgments.

In providing for retrospective validation, we have included what is known as a constitutional saver clause. This is designed to ensure the constitutional rights of individuals will not be affected by the retrospective validation of regulations — in other words, the primacy of the right of the citizen remains paramount under the Constitution for decision by the courts. Second, the validity of the approach that we have taken has already been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Leontjava judgment. The passage of this section of the Bill is extremely important if we are to respond effectively to the consequences of the Browne and Kennedy judgments. As Members of Dáil Éireann, we all have a constitutional and political responsibility to do so.

In summary, this legislation is vitally necessary and clearly arises from the implications of both of the Supreme Court judgments. These require us to update the way we use secondary legislation to give effect to our European Community obligations in Irish law. It is entirely proper that the Government, with the Oireachtas, takes account of those judgments and responds positively to them. It is that simple and straightforward.

We will, as always, reflect carefully on the substantive points made by Members during Second Stage. We are ready to consider reasonable suggestions put forward by Deputies with a view to enhancing in an effective manner Dáil involvement in EU related secondary legislation. I look forward to taking the legislation forward in the Select Committee on European Affairs. I assure the Chair and the House, in particular Deputy Deasy, that I will approach the debate in a positive and co-operative fashion. I ask him and his colleagues to do the same in the interest of all citizens in the discharge of our collective responsibilities as Members of the Dáil representing our republic, a highly respected, successful member state of the European Union for over three decades. I commend the Bill to the House for validation.

See this speech in context