John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

There is a message in that for the people who draw up EU regulations.

I thank the Minister of State for his remarks about the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny. It is noticeable that many of the documents which are referred to the sub-committee are extremely difficult to understand. I do not refer to the complexity of the issues, but to the nature of the language that is used. Given that the EU works with a multiplicity of languages, one would have thought its officials would try to ensure all matters are clear. That does not seem to happen very often, however. Perhaps that is outside the scope of what we are talking about today.

There is a need for checks and balances in respect of all these matters. The most appropriate way of doing that is by means of Oireachtas scrutiny. While we have put in place a structure in the form of the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny, a broader form of analysis is needed. Some issues are of such fundamental importance they need to be debated on the floors of the Houses, even if they are of a technical nature. We should consider the length of time it took to transpose the nitrates directive. That was because it was so controversial it impacted heavily on farming. That was a politically important issue.

Are we giving somebody the power to introduce the nitrates directive by order without the Houses being involved in that process? The Minister of State is shaking his head, and I am interested to hear his reply. From a practical political point of view I do not believe that could happen. There would be such an outcry the matter would have to come before the Houses. Moving back from that extreme position, however, there are grey areas about which I have some concerns. Will it be transposed by fiat? Something can be done which appears sensible but in which Parliament would not have much of an involvement. We are getting into areas such as the Petersberg Tasks and so on. They are not regulations. It is a more fundamental process.

Another point that is reasonable, and Senator Quinn referred to it, is the degree to which Europe legislates through the Commission. It was raised recently by the press in Belgium, whose members believe they are being controlled increasingly by what happens in Brussels rather than by their domestic law. Perhaps some issues may not be strictly within the scope of the Bill but they are important and ones to which we must pay some attention.

There is also the issue of subsidiarity. The sub-committee on European scrutiny must have regard to that aspect. The new constitutional treaty will have systems in place, and we had the so-called yellow card and so on — more jargon — with regard to subsidiarity but will adequate regard be had if we transpose European legislation under the Bill to matters such as subsidiarity? Parliamentary scrutiny is of fundamental importance and must be protected.

The Minister of State stated that those statutory instruments whose validity has been called into question by a Supreme Court judgement were made under powers given to Ministers by the Oireachtas but which did not specify that those powers could be used for the purpose of giving effect to EU law. I understand that and it confirms for me the need to pass the legislation before us. It stated: "... conferred the power by the Oireachtas". The Oireachtas is conferring powers here again. The Oireachtas must always be careful about vesting too much power in the Executive, something I have spoken about many times in the past on both sides of the House. The primacy of Parliament is something of which we must be protective.

There have been long delays, some of which were referred to by Senator Bradford, in the transposition into Irish law of regulations and directives but some of those delays were understandable. As I remarked when the Minister of State was speaking, just because our adoption rate is low does not mean our implementation rate is low. I understand we have a good record with regard to ensuring that when we introduce these measures they are taken into account.

Incidentally, I might be keen about breakfast in Ballinasloe. I might be less keen about lunch in Lyon and I would not like dinner in Dusseldorf. I might like it in Paris, and I might even settle for Berlin, but Dusseldorf would not be one of the choices. I take the point that the new currency has been hugely beneficial.

The fundamental question is whether it will be possible, as a result of this measure, to bypass the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny and the Houses and allow people who are less enlightened than the Minister to behave in a manner we might not regard as appropriate at some future date? There is reference in the Bill to the legislation under the first pillar. We will come back to the issue of the dominance of the Commission within the entire system. I accept that, ultimately, the Council, under the various pillars, is the legislative body but the Commission has substantial powers. The Minister also stated: "We have devised effective procedures for ensuring full Oireachtas involvement". That is an important statement but is one that might need some back-up.

I am not sure where the fines apply. The sum of €500,000 is a very large fine on an indictment. I appreciate circumstances may arise where that might need to be the case where industries are at variance with the particular directive but it is a very large sum. Does that mean that if a farmer in the west is in breach of the nitrates directive, he is leaving himself open to a €500,000 fine? I cannot imagine the court would impose that but it appears it is technically possible that could happen. I welcome the overall thrust of the legislation. I accept the need for it and will support it.