Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)

I thank all of the Senators for their outstanding contributions and positive support and for the searching questions they have raised. I shall do my utmost to respond in a general way to those. I will return to the specifics on Committee Stage.

I would again emphasise that the effect of the Bill will be to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the procedures used to implement European Community law. As I demonstrated earlier, EU membership has brought great benefits to Ireland. No one doubts that. However, these benefits bring responsibilities. One of those obligations is to transpose European Community measures in an effective and timely manner that is legislatively correct. The Supreme Court judgments in the Browne and Kennedy cases cast doubt on the mechanism successive Governments have been using over the last three decades to transpose EC measures. The Bill seeks to remove this doubt and put in place a more effective approach for the transposition of European Community regulations and directives. The Bill seeks to address the issues raised in the Supreme Court judgments in an effective and appropriate manner. We are being honest, open and forthright with the Oireachtas in this debate. The Bill makes important changes to the 1972 Act and the way in which we give effect to European Community law. It has an important national purpose.

I fully accept that the Bill is technical and complex. The issues involved do not, unfortunately, lend themselves to simple explanation. If I may paraphrase no less a man than Albert Einstein, everything should be made as simple as possible, if not simpler. Of course we want to ensure that we have absolute transparency. I am happy to go into further detail in any or all of the provisions to ensure the Oireachtas is fully satisfied in endorsing this approach. This Bill did not come about by accident and it could be stated that it has been created as a result of time differences. Two people, namely, Mr. Browne and Mr. Kennedy, both fishermen, were granted licences by the State under the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union. The Union mandated the State to ensure the rules pertaining to the Common Fisheries Policy were adopted, endorsed and implemented on the island of Ireland and its territorial waters. The fishermen were prosecuted for breaches of the Sea Fisheries (Driftnets) Order 1998, that is, under SI 267 of 1998. This order was made under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959 to provide for the creation of an indictable offence regarding breaches of the relevant Council regulation.

Members should note the timings. The 1959 Act was passed before Ireland joined the then European Economic Community in 1972. The statutory instrument was created in 1998 on the presumption that the European Communities Act 1972 included the power to make the statutory instrument absolute, linking into all previous legislation. However, the Supreme Court ruled this was not the case. The Government has introduced this Bill to validate, clarify and rectify the position and to ensure absolute sustainability in the force of law in respect of the decisions taken.

While taking into account the evolution of the European Union, the Government is also taking the opportunity to bring forward indictable offences. Members who study the legislation and my earlier speech carefully will note it is proposed to introduce maximum fines of €500,000, as well as maximum penalties of three years in jail. These are the maximum penalties and discretion will rest with the courts whether to apply a fine of less than €500,000 or a jail term of less than three years. This is the Government's intention and it asks Members to legislate for it. It has taken into account the manner in which the Union has evolved, the way our responsibilities have evolved and the manner in which the Union, now after its fifth enlargement, has enlarged and grown. Having taken into account the enormous amount of legislation that Ireland has enacted as a result of European directives, the Government wishes to ensure uniformity and commonality pertaining to the laws it enacts and to statutory instruments in particular.

The Government does not ask the House to give absolute power to any Minister to make statutory instruments that do not conform to this State's laws or to the directives and laws of the European Union. It asks for a refinement of the position to achieve uniformity and commonality. The courts may then decide to impose penalties of less than or up to three years or fines of €500,000.

In the past, this House has already passed legislation to enable the courts to fine those who break the law. For example, the Financial Transfers Act 1992 allowed the courts to impose fines of up to £10 million. In the present case, the proposed fines, at €500,000, are much lower, along with a maximum term of imprisonment of three years. The Government asks Members to bring uniformity and commonality to statutory instruments that may be created in the future.

The legislation also provides that in future, no Minister can make statutory instruments for the courts with fines greater than €500,000 or terms of imprisonment greater than three years. Ministers must introduce specific individual primary legislation asking the Oireachtas to empower the courts to so do. The Government's intentions are clear. It wishes to validate that which its predecessors should have validated or included in the 1972 Act in order that no laws are out of sequence or out of sync with legislation that has been passed subsequently. This Bill is to validate the position. The issue only arises because the Supreme Court has taken the aforementioned decisions. Legislators are obliged to ensure conformity and adherence to the law as decided by the Supreme Court. It must be made uniform, solid and enforceable as it pertains to Irish citizens, or others who come to Ireland, who transgress the laws of either Ireland or the European Union.

At the outset, Senator Bradford raised a number of points regarding Ireland's present ranking of 19th on the Internal Market scoreboard. It was noted during the debate that this should be taken in the context of the nitrates directive. It had been thought the nitrates directive had been completed and cleared in the past year. Fifteen years have passed since it was first proposed by the European Union. As a result of pressures in the political system and the farming organisations, it was not dealt with until last year. One problem associated with its resolution has been the European Commission's dissatisfaction with the level of penalties this Legislature has imposed for transgressions of the nitrates directive. Negotiations to conclude this issue are under way at present and the directive is being implemented by the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. This is causing some difficulty at present. Given that the directive has existed for 15 years without being completed by Ireland, Members can imagine how inefficient we have become and how far behind we are. They can imagine how out-dated the monetary penalties that would have existed 15 years ago would be at present monetary values. This issue demonstrates how Ireland might happen to rank 19th on the Internal Market scoreboard.

Members may reflect on this for a moment before considering the position in 2004. In April 2004, Ireland was doing very well and stood joint first on the Internal Market scoreboard. Since then however, ten new countries have joined the European Union. On accession to the European Union, new member states must accept automatically those directives that have already been passed and agreed by the existing members. They must be accepted automatically into the domestic law of such countries. When Ireland decided to become a member of the then European Economic Community, it passed the European Communities Act 1972. In the domestic legislation that enabled the new member states to join the Union in 2004, they were obliged to accept all European Union laws, directives and otherwise, passed by the existing member states prior to the 2004 enlargement.

To bring this point a stage further, the ten new member states have only a small number of directives to deal with compared with the number we have inherited and accumulated, including the nitrates directive, and with which we may not have dealt. This puts them in a better position than Ireland at present and puts us back. However, this can vary and we have set targets. As I noted previously, I chair the interdepartmental co-ordinating committee. It is representative of all Departments, as well as the Office of the Attorney General, which advises the Departments and me on these directives on a continual monthly basis. The committee sets targets to meet the target dates established by the European Union in order that Ireland can adhere to the Internal Market scoreboard and can transpose European directives into domestic law. This may be done through either primary legislation or secondary legislation and statutory instruments, where necessary.

The Government now asks Members, through the passage of this Bill, to do that which should have been done in 1972. This legislation will validate what has been done from 1972 to the present. Moreover, it will bring commonality and uniformity to indictable offences and the penalties commensurate with such offences and we will know where we are going henceforth. The legislation will place the State on solid ground in order that the force of law, pertaining to both domestic and European law, is equal, enforceable and acceptable to the Supreme Court. This is the reason for the Bill's introduction. I will be happy to go into further detail on Committee Stage next Tuesday. I want to ensure Members are satisfied to endorse this important legislation. I look forward to debating the next Stages of the Bill on Tuesday. I am sure it will be an interesting and positive discussion that will eventually lead this distinguished and august body, Seanad Éireann, to ensure that this legislation is implemented quan celerimme.