Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)

Is cúis áthais é dom a bheith ar ais anseo arís chun Céim na Tuarascála den Bhille an-tábhachtach seo a chur faoi bhráid an tSeanaid. Tá mé ag súil le comhoibriú na Seanadóirí chun go mbeidh an reachtaíocht i dlíthe ár dtíre i gceann lá nó dhó. I am pleased to return to Seanad Éireann to report to it on the amendments made by Dáil Éireann to the European Communities Bill 2006. I had the honour to introduce this important Bill in the Seanad on 7 December 2006 when we had a full discussion. Once we finish our work, the Oireachtas will have made a significant contribution to improving the way we implement our European Community legal obligations.

As Senators will recall, the Bill arises from two debates in the House before Christmas on the serious implications of two landmark Supreme Court judgments in the Browne and Kennedy cases. In both, the Supreme Court found that a statutory instrument to give effect to EC law can only be validly made where the Oireachtas has specifically provided for it in the relevant primary legislation. As such, this is a discussion on primary and secondary legislation.

I will address the amendments made to the Bill during its passage through Dáil Éireann. I understand the Cathaoirleach proposes to take amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. When the Bill left the Seanad, the further advice of the Attorney General was that these small technical amendments were required.

Amendment No. 1 contains the two changes the Dáil has made to section 1. Senators will recall that section 1 sets out the definitions which provide the foundation for the Bill. The first change made on the proposal of the Government was to include the term "provision of an Act". The addition of this term is aimed at allowing the transposition of EC measures where they give rise to more than one obligation on Ireland and where transposition by secondary legislation can be achieved under a number of different Acts rather than a single Act.

In the Dáil, my Committee Stage example of sanctions against Zimbabwe sought to illustrate how an EC regulation agreed by member states could give rise to four obligations on the Government requiring us to use three different Acts. The three Acts I mentioned were the Financial Transfers Act 1992, which I said would be used to give effect to the financial sanctions; the Control of Exports Act 1983, which I said would be used to give effect to the embargo on arms sales; and the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, which I said would be used to provide for the freezing of individual assets. I have been advised I should not have referred to the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, even if most of us would regard the activities of the regime in Zimbabwe as falling clearly within the title of that Act. I used the example of Zimbabwe to explain why we should continue to use secondary legislation, based on powers already approved by the Oireachtas, to meet our European Community obligations. I am sure the House will agree Ireland needs to be able to respond in a prompt and comprehensive way when sanctions and travel bans are imposed on countries and the Government is called on to ensure money and arms do not flow to corrupt regimes.

The second change made by amendment No. 1 involves the introduction of the term "body competent" in section 1 of the Bill. This change, which is necessary to provide authority for the implementation of regulations that may be made by the European Central Bank in the future, reflects the terms of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1992. The amendment provides that measures taken under the EU treaties by a body that is not an institution of the European Communities, but has certain legislative powers conferred on it under the EU treaties, can be implemented in Ireland. The only body covered by the term "body competent" is the European Central Bank. There is nothing new in this provision. We are bringing this Bill into line with the 1992 Act, which was passed following the ratification of the Maastricht treaty.

The second amendment in this group has been made for precisely the same reason as amendment No. 1 — on foot of the changes we made to the definitions in section 1. Senators will recall that section 2 enables Ministers to make regulations to provide for indictable offences if that is necessary to fulfil Ireland's European Community obligations. The terms "provision of an Act" and "body competent under those Treaties" are being included in this section for the sake of completeness. The inclusion of the terms means Ministers will have the power to introduce stringent penalties, if necessary and if required by European Community law, on foot of decisions made by the European Central Bank's governing council.