Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)

Although I do not like repeating myself, I stated on Second Stage that this Bill is dangerous. I will set out my reasons. From the start my party has been pro-European. We have seen our country and our people gain considerable benefits from our membership of the European Union. A large number of problems arising from our membership hit some of our traditional industries hard in the early days, and my city suffered more than any other in the demise of traditional industries because of open competition. On balance, Ireland has gained substantially through its membership of the European Union and I hope people recognise that.

This Bill gives hostages to fortune to the opponents of the European Union. As Deputy Costello stated, and we stated both on Second Stage and on Committee Stage, this Bill will be used as a weapon against the supporters of the European Union in future referenda and in future debates.

It will be difficult to get the support of the majority of the Irish people for the European constitutional treaty and there is a large hurdle to be surmounted in getting this constitution through. There are a number of reasons for this. There is a fear among the people and we must listen to them. We should stop lecturing people on the benefits the European Union has given them. We should listen to people's concerns and fears and enter into two-way dialogue with them. Such dialogue has been attempted by the National Forum for Europe, but we are not being effective enough in getting out to the communities and, first, listening to people and then discussing their concerns with them.

Their concerns include the drift of industry from Western to Eastern Europe and the loss of jobs to the newer member states, where competition is keener and costs and overheads are lower. People are concerned about the ongoing enlargement of the Union and believe, to use a basketball analogy, we should take time out to consider the impact of the most recent round of enlargement involving Bulgaria and Romania, and the previous ones, and the long-term effects of that enlargement on the Irish economy and the Irish people. While I support it, we must bring the people with us. It is pointless lecturing people about what they have gained, as we must also meet their concerns. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will take on unprecedented powers under this legislation. He is attempting to override domestic legislation through a statutory instrument and bypass the House. The concession made by the Minister of State on Committee Stage, while welcome, does not go far enough. A provision should be inserted to ensure a positive assent by the House to the statutory instruments introduced by the Minister of the day. The Dáil should have 21 days to oppose a proposal by the Minister, if it so wishes.

I am chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny. Last year most of our work was devoted to regulations, decisions and directives, which comprised 69% of the total documentation. Approximately 56 Common Foreign and Security Policy proposals were considered, including the application of restricted measures against countries such as Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan and Liberia and against suspected terrorists. On issues of such importance, we must not simply hand over absolute authority, retrospective or otherwise, to the Minister of the day. I am not trying to increase the sub-committee's workload or make my job more important, given that the election is imminent but the next Government must take a realistic approach to EU directives. The sub-committee should become a full committee of both Houses and adequate resources and powers must be provided to deal effectively with the avalanche of European documentation. Unfortunately, we are dealing with it on a wing and a prayer currently. We are dependent on a small but very professional staff and I marvel not only at the quality of their work but also at the volume of documentation they scrutinise. They must decide on the implications for the State of all these regulations, directives and so on.

The inadequate resourcing of this sub-committee coupled with the Minister of State's proposal in the legislation is dangerous. Last week during Question Time I referred to the Government's failure to transpose many EU directives into domestic legislation. The Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Transport are the greatest culprits in this regard. Between 50 and 60 EU legislative proposals have not been transposed into domestic law because the system is not capable of dealing with the volume of work coming through.

We are faced with a dangerous vacuum and the sooner it is eliminated, the better but that will not be addressed by giving the Minister of the day the right to sweep aside the oversight function of the Dáil and its Members and introduce by statutory instrument EU directives that will override domestic legislation. It is wrong and dangerous because it undermines our sovereignty. We will be hostages to fortune to the opponents of the EU who will be very vociferous in future referenda and I worry about this. I have tabled a number of amendments, which I will not debate at length, and I ask the Minister of State to reconsider his position on this and take on board a number of the reasonable amendments tabled by the Opposition. It is reasonable to propose that a statutory instrument be laid before the House for 21 days for its consideration. In the interest of all Members and the people we represent, that should be entertained.

See this speech in context