The Government, therefore, welcomes the EU (Scrutiny) Bill which is intended to place the essential thrust of the new procedures on a legislative basis. I pay tribute again to the Labour Party which initiated the Bill. We have been happy to work with it and others in reshaping the Bill to achieve an optimal level of accountability while, at the same time, enabling the Government to operate in the Council with the degree of flexibility necessary to ensure that the interests of the country are fully protected.

Section 1 of the Bill sets out clearly the wide range of measures be covered by the legislation. These include regulations and directives in the first pillar, joint actions and common positions in the second pillar, and all measures requiring the prior approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas under Article 29.4.6 of the Constitution, which embraces third pillar framework decisions and conventions.

Section 2 sets out the essence of the scrutiny procedures and notably the action required by Ministers in relation to the measures listed in section 1. This section will require Ministers to lay the text of measures listed in section 1 of the Bill before each House of the Oireachtas, together with a statement outlining the content, purpose and likely implications for Ireland of the proposed measure and including other information as he or she considers appropriate. Subsection (2) stipulates that Ministers will have regard to any recommendations made by the Oireachtas.

Subsections (3) and (4) provide for cases of urgency – which in practice would be exceptional – where there is insufficient time to lay the text of a proposed measure before the Oireachtas in advance, in which case the Minister concerned will be obliged to do so afterwards, together with a statement outlining the implications for Ireland, the circumstances of its adoption and any other relevant information.

There is also provision in subsection (5) of section 2 for a report by each Minister every six months in relation to measures, proposed measures and other EU developments relevant to their Departments. Such reports will provide an opportunity for Ministers to keep the Oireachtas informed of developments in relation to legislation which will already have been brought to the attention of the Oireachtas and on which views may have been expressed or may be pending.

Section 3 is intended to provide for those exceptional occasions when it might be necessary to guarantee the confidentiality of EU proceedings. It is proposed that where this procedure is invoked, the Minister may make a report to the Oireachtas as he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances. This provision is necessary in view of the wide remit of the Act, which embraces all three pillars as well as proposals by member states under the second and third pillars. It is envisaged that it would only be used in exceptional circumstances and is most likely to arise in the CFSP and JHA areas.

Turning to section 4, Senators will be aware that the Government produces a report every six months on developments in the European Union in accordance with the terms of section 5 of the European Communities Act, 1972. The report for the last six month period, 1 January-30 June 2002, was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas earlier this month and copies have been sent to all Members of the Oireachtas. In view of the new requirement in this legislation for reports from all Ministers to each House of the Oireachtas every six months, it is proposed that the Government's overall report should, in future, be produced on an annual basis. Such a report would provide a clear and informative summary of developments in the European Union in the preceding year.

Section 5 of the Bill is an amendment proposed by Fine Gael which the Government was happy to accept on Committee Stage in the Dáil. It provides for an annual report by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs to each House of the Oireachtas on the operation of the scrutiny arrangements in the preceding year. Such reports are a standard feature of scrutiny systems in other EU member states and will provide an opportunity to review the effectiveness of the scrutiny arrangements. The last section of the Bill is the usual short title and collective citation.

I believe that this Bill will go a long way towards addressing the concerns that have been expressed with regard to democratic accountability in relation to EU matters. If effectively implemented it will give the Oireachtas an opportunity to influence the negotiations on legislative proposals from an early stage of the EU's legislative process. It will give Ireland one of the most advanced systems of parliamentary oversight in the European Union. It will be important that the Government and all Members of these Houses work closely together in implementing the new legislation effectively . This is an important long-term task for the Government and Oireachtas alike.

While one of the main aims of the new legislation has been to ensure that the national interest is served by a balanced and informed interaction with the Oireachtas about EU legislation, it is also critical as necessary that the integrity and flexibility of Ireland's negotiating position be protected. This requirement is reflected in the Bill, for example in the provisions providing for exceptional cases of urgency.

The Bill, as I indicated, builds on the existing system of Oireachtas scrutiny that has been in place since 1 July 2002. Some elements of the existing system are not explicitly reflected in the Bill as they are not appropriate to legislation but will continue to be implemented fully. Once the draft legislation and information notes from the Government have been submitted to the Oireachtas, it will be for the Oireachtas itself, through its relevant committees, to decide how it wishes to proceed in reviewing and examining the legislative proposal. A committee may choose to seek further hearings or seek the views of interested parties, including Ministers, officials, the social partners and other interested groups to assist in its examination of the legislation, so as to enable it to form an opinion on the proposal. Ministers will be obliged to have regard to any recommendations made by the Oireachtas.

The arrangements introduced from 1 July for consultation between Ministers and relevant committees, notably in advance of meetings of the Council of Ministers and European Council, will continue. I have met the Select Committee on European Affairs several times in recent months in advance of meetings of the General Affairs and External Relations Council while the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform appeared before the select committee in advance of this week's meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. These meetings have been useful and productive.

Another element contained in the procedures introduced from 1 July, but which will not be included in legislation is the provision by the Government of information notes on Green and White Papers for the Oireachtas. This has not been explicitly defined in the draft legislation, as the focus of the Bill is primarily on legislative instruments. The Government will continue to provide information notes on Green and White Papers for the Oireachtas.

It may be of interest to note that since the new Oireachtas scrutiny system was introduced on 1 July, 67 legislative proposals have been tabled and 31 information notes have already been submitted to the Oireachtas. I understand that, following a review of these information notes, the scrutiny sub-committee of the Select Committee on European Affairs decided last Thursday to refer five of these notes to other committees for further examination and scrutiny.

The amendments to the Defence Acts included in the original version of the Bill as tabled were removed from the Bill on Committee Stage because it was considered that they were quite separate and distinct from the issue of Oireachtas scrutiny of EU affairs and not appropriate to the Bill. Moreover, issues relating to defence and Ireland's policy of military neutrality are fully covered by the Seville Declarations and the proposed constitutional amendment which, in effect, preclude Ireland from entering an EU common defence policy and will require a "Yes" vote next Saturday for that to happen.

I use the opportunity of this debate to comment on the next three final days of the Nice treaty referendum campaign. The Government has set out the many positive reasons we are asking for a resounding "Yes" vote for this important EU treaty of enlargement. All Europeans look expectantly to the Irish electorate in the hope we will confirm for them the view that the Irish are a generous people prepared to now make room for the applicant states in the European Union in the same way as room was made for us in 1973 to join the then European Economic Community as equal partners with the other member states. I do not for one moment believe we are a people who, having benefited so much from EU membership, are about to deny the same potential benefits of membership to others.

There is a coincidence of interests involved in Ireland voting "Yes" for the ratification of the treaty. It is in our own interests to allow negotiations with the ten applicant states now deemed eligible by the European Union to be ready to conclude their negotiations for full membership within the timescale envisaged, that is, by the end of this year. We have an internationalised, open and competitive economy which depends for its continued growth on access to markets where we can sell our goods and services. Our economic history confirms that restricted markets in the past meant a restricted number of jobs fuelled by the historical legacy of structural unemployment, under-investment and mass emigration.

Membership of the European Union has provided for us the initial and necessary gateway to opportunity and national progress on an unprecedented scale. The European Union has been the means by which we have found a meaningful way to realise our ambitions as a people. It broadened our horizons, not just economically. It also helped to engender a sense of self-belief in our ability to manage our affairs with a real prospect of social as well as economic progress.

The real political context of the arguments about the merits of the treaty is that on the basis of the indisputable benefits that have accrued to Ireland from our engagement and participation in the European Union as a full and active member state, are we to deny to the ten applicant countries that same prospect of prosperity, stability and security which they are asking us to provide by voting "Yes" in this referendum? Will we show a commitment to the enlargement process by ratifying the only available legal basis agreed between the countries in order that those countries can become full EU members after successfully concluding their negotiations?

Are we ready now, as a people, to take advantage of facilitating the successful conclusion of this historical political process in terms of our future relations with the member states of the European Union from which we can only derive further benefits or are we going to set our face against the enlargement process and by voting "No" create a huge dilemma by creating a degree of political and legal uncertainty as to how the enlargement can then proceed, with all the risks and downsides for Ireland that will be a consequence of a "No" vote, and do so in the sure knowledge that it will delay the enlargement for an indefinite period until an as still unknown solution is found with all the very negative and adverse political consequences that will undoubtedly flow in respect of the way Ireland's commitment to Europe is viewed, not only by the applicant states, but also by the existing members?

Making the wrong choice for all the wrong reasons will be a very serious national setback. It would be at variance with the whole strategic direction our country must take in an increasingly interdependent and globalising world where our influence for good is best served by pursuing common policies for common objectives with like-minded states committed to peaceful co-existence and mutual co-operation on a scale and covering a comprehensive agenda unparalleled in terms of modern governance among a community of nation states anywhere in the world. If we are serious, as I believe we are, in seeking to use our influence for good on the major issues in our world, all of the empirical evidence confirms that we can best do this with other democratic states in this European Union of common values.

The reality is that the time has come for us to show that we are prepared to give something back. Without being asked to disregard any of our essential interests, Ireland is being asked to allow the applicant states to shape their political destiny in a European Union of partnership, mutual respect and solidarity. That solidarity shown to us is further exemplified by the fact that the European Union totally respects our position on military neutrality, a position that will be copperfastened by a "Yes" vote which would see it being inserted into the Constitution for the first time.

I want to outline what I believe should motivate our people as they consider this decision next Saturday. We have seen this week the importance of maintaining the momentum behind our own peace process. The European Union has provided consistent political as well as financial support totalling some €1.3 billion on cross-Border peace and INTERREG programmes as a measure of the practical help that the Union provides for communities in need, with all the employment spin-offs that such major resources signify.

We have rightly seen those committed to the Agreement stress the absolute importance of not unpicking it. They recognise that the Agreement was hammered out between the parties and the two Governments after full discussion and analysis of all the issues came to those conclusions. Compromises were made to bring about the Agreement. It represents the finely balanced agreed positions of all the parties and the principles that inform it are partnership, inclusivity, equality and a recognition that all pursue their own legitimate and differing ultimate objectives by working together to implement the Agreement. The Agreement's supporters refute the rejectionist agenda, yet there are those in the "No" campaign in this referendum who take a totally different tack when it comes to the Nice treaty – in effect, Europe's agreement on enlargement. While they solemnly declare that Ireland's agreement, the Good Friday Agreement, must be implemented in full and not selectively picked at or eroded, the very opposite argument is used by them in relation to the Nice treaty.

The Nice treaty is the hard-won political compromise by 15 member state Governments. It, too, comes as a package. The greater good is shared by its full implementation rather than concentrating on those individual aspects about which people may have a reservation. No concern outweighs the importance of facilitating enlargement as agreed by the existing European Union and the applicant states. The Nice treaty provides the only mechanism in political and legal terms to facilitate that enlargement now. Let us grasp that opportunity. Just as we disagree with rejectionists in relation to Ireland's agreement, let us be consistent and also refuse to listen to the rejectionists of the Nice treaty – Europe's agreement on enlargement. If we favour enlargement, and we do, then let us logically vote for the only agreed basis by which it can happen, that is, the Nice treaty. There is no reason to believe that another treaty would provide us with better terms, should one be agreed. Indeed, all predictions are to the contrary.

To those Little Irelanders who regard sovereignty as something to be stored away like a national treasure in a museum and to those, thankfully in a tiny minority, who think it resides in illegal arms dumps, I say that I am proud to be a constitutionalist who has seen those of our tradition, under proper and democratic authority, use their sovereignty intelligently with others to ensure that we are now the first generation since independence with every prospect of being educated and working and living in our own country. Half our generation is no longer being lost to foreign shores because of a proven lack of opportunity here. Now, from this strong position, with our proven ability to compete among the best the world can offer, are we to recoil from possibilities, shirk our responsibilities and allow ourselves to be mistakenly portrayed because of hesitation or doubt?

Let us enthusiastically embrace the historic opportunity this referendum decision presents for us. Let us vote "Yes" to the consolidation of democracy in Europe and "Yes" to Ireland's full, active and committed participation in the enlarged European Union. Let us welcome the ten applicants to a Union that is committed to the right of all present and future member states to pursue their nations' interests democratically, peacefully and co-operatively.

This Bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to greater openness, transparency and accountability in the EU legislative process, a commitment which I know is fully shared by the Oireachtas. It will enable the Oireachtas to play an enhanced role in the EU legislative process and, if effectively implemented, will give Ireland one of the most advanced systems of parliamentary oversight in the European Union. I therefore strongly commend the Bill to the House.

The Minister, particularly in his concluding remarks, dwelt at some length on the issue of the Nice treaty referendum which faces us this weekend. We had the opportunity to debate this in the House before and I will not dwell on it at great length, but I have one focal scoir. Let there be no doubt that this treaty is important and that it is about enlargement. If we take them at face value the Trotskyists, ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists who form the core of vocal opposition to the treaty in Ireland apparently believe that it is about something else. The rest of us know, however, that one would be hard put to find anybody from Holyhead to Istambul who agrees with that analysis.

It will simply not be possible for any representative of the Irish people this day next week to say to the rest of our colleagues on this Continent that the Irish people voted against the Nice treaty for reasons which have nothing to do with enlargement. This is about enlargement: if we reject Nice it will rightly be construed as a rejection of enlargement by the Irish people. We are in a pivotal position, one in which we have never found ourselves before. The people are making a decision in which our national interest is scarcely at stake, but which will hugely affect the rest of the Continent and determine its future. We have the opportunity, as the Minister says, to do a lot of good, to take away that last brick in the Berlin wall, as it has been put. We also have an unparalleled and unprecedented opportunity to screw up the rest of the Continent. I hope that before people decide how to vote they will contemplate not just our own self-interest – which is on all our minds to a greater or lesser extent – but also the greater good of the rest of the Continent.

To put the Bill in context, after the defeat of the first Nice referendum last year my party said that it would support putting the same or a similar question to the people again if three preconditions were met. The first, on which I readily concede that the Government accommodated us, was the establishment of the Forum on Europe. The second dealt with the issue of neutrality. As the Minister, who has now left us, knows, we were happy to deal with him and his officials in advance of the promulgation of the amendment which is to be put to the people. We were satisfied to support the amendment because, for the first time, it gives the people singular sovereignty on the issue of neutrality, particularly in regard to participation in mutual defence arrangements. I would support such an arrangement if the conditions were right but it is now explicitly a matter for the people to decide in good time if such proposals are made. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is not part of the Nice treaty debate as such.

The Bill before us relates to the scrutiny of what is happening at EU level. If one looks back at our participation in the EU debate over the past 30 years there is no doubt there are great deficiencies in the way we have done business. I was a member of the sub-committee on secondary EU legislation in the early 1990s and I must confess that it was one of the most unrewarding jobs I ever did. We were totally and constantly snowed under with so much paper which usually was not accompanied by any executive summary or information document. It was impossible for a small committee of four or five Members of the Houses to come to terms with what was being proposed. The procedure did not work and the committee either ceased to function or was abolished. Its functions now, at least in theory, come under the Committee on European Affairs.

The issue we are seeking to address is that of the democratic deficit. Before we go any further we must identify the reasons for the democratic deficit, not all of which have to do with this Bill or this House. The reality is that many people do not engage with European issues because they are not interested in them. The reality is that there is also a deficit in this country in terms of political debate. Those of us who like to debate matters of policy know that it can be quite difficult to get any public attention or attention from the media on these issues. This has nothing to do with whether the issue has to do with European Union matters. There is a general malaise about politics in this country which we have debated previously and which is very dispiriting.

There is also a tendency to blame Brussels for everything. It is a fairly common practice for Irish Ministers, or, for that matter, Ministers of other governments, to go to Brussels, say their piece, frequently know the outcome and afterwards blame the process, the Commission or the bureaucrats in Brussels for something they may have agreed to or which they only formally opposed in the first instance. By our rhetoric and the way in which we treat Brussels almost like a whipping boy, we necessarily create a democratic deficit about which we then complain.

The real problem with the democratic deficit is how the Union works, that is, the whole business of intergovernmentalism. The reality is that most legislation at European Union level is decided by the Council of Ministers in private or by prior negotiation. This is in complete contrast to the way national government works. In this country there is less division of powers than applies in most other countries where the Executive and the Legislature can be on occasion almost the same thing. We know the Executive or the Government in Ireland effectively makes all decisions in relation to legislation and that the Houses of the Oireachtas effectively hold it to account only to the extent that Ministers are required to come in and shepherd legislation through the Houses.

Decisions taken by civil servants, Ministers and the Cabinet almost always get translated fairly rapidly and almost without amendment into legislation as passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Therefore, our Legislature is a good deal weaker than in most other European countries. Nonetheless, it is still a good deal stronger than the way in which we deal with European legislation. When we deal with European legislation, the matter is decided by the Council of Ministers. It is then effectively handed down to the individual parliaments who have no alternative but to translate it into national legislation without amendment, a process which is unsatisfactory.

This Bill seeks to introduce some measure of accountability and transparency into this process. It seeks to do so in the first instance by requiring that Ministers should provide written information to a committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas which can then be disseminated to other committees dealing with relevant areas. It then requires that the particular Minister dealing with the issue should take into account the views expressed by the particular committee and the Houses of the Oireachtas. It also requires that the Minister should report back following any decision taken at European level in regard to legislation.

On the face of it, this is a fairly cumbersome procedure which will only work if there is good faith all round. It would be possible for Ministers to circumvent or undermine the procedure if they wished. There are a number of opt-outs in the legislation which I acknowledge could be seen as a weakness. It relies on the Minister using the discretion granted to him or her by the Bill in a fashion which is within the spirit of the Bill. One could decide that everything is urgent, therefore there is no need to bring anything to the committee. One could decide that everything it is convenient to label confidential should be labelled confidential. Therefore it would be possible, if a Minister really wanted, to avoid this process altogether, which would be a tragedy. I accept the bona fides of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who in recent months have tried to work a process which is similar to this. I accept their bona fides in accepting the Bill and in saying they will operate within the spirit intended. It is in all our interests that this should happen. It is not a party political issue as such.

Regarding some of the specifics of the Bill, two characteristics apply. One is the requirement on Ministers to consult, pay attention and take into account what is said and the other is the requirement to give information. I want to emphasise that it deals with all three pillars of the Union's activities. It deals not just with the core activities, but with Justice and Home Affairs and with the CFSP. These tend to be areas where more controversial decisions are taken. While I appreciate there is a problem about legislation because much legislation does not necessarily arise in these areas, it is important that the process outlined in the Bill should apply also to these elements of the Union's activities.

There are broader issues which will need to be dealt with in time in regard to the competency of national parliaments and subsidiarity. These are important aspects but they are not appropriate for this Bill. We need to decide what national parliaments do and what issues need to be decided at local, national and regional level. There is still too much doubt about the level at which issues should be dealt with within the European Union. That is not the case in the United States where everyone knows what the state does and what is done at federal level. We do not yet know that, but obviously these issues will be taken up in the context of the convention. I said last week when the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Pat Cox, was here that I believe there is a serious element of treaty fatigue and I hope the convention and those involved, either peripherally or centrally, will take the opportunity to bring us to end point and that we will have a basic law which, among other things, will set out the competencies of the various levels of government that operate within the European Union. Without that certainty and clarity, the democratic deficit will be inevitable in the future.

I welcome the contribution made by the Minister here and in the other House and the fact that a Bill initiated by the Opposition has been accepted by the Government. I believe this illustrates that the Government is serious in its efforts to bring the operation of the European institutions closer to the people and closer to this House. I commend the Bill to the House.

I attended a Fine Gael public meeting on the Nice treaty last night and was most impressed by the contribution of former MEP and Labour Party Deputy, Brendan Halligan. One of the issues he addressed was that of the democratic deficit and our almost unanimous view that there is some sort of democratic deficit in Europe from which we are all suffering. He challenged us to ask ourselves if the democratic deficit was greater in European politics than at home. He posed a very valid point that, within the structures of Europe, there is absolute media access, not just to the Parliament, certain Commission meetings or committee meetings, but even also to the meetings of the various European political party groupings. He asked if we are ever likely to see the day when the media will be allowed attend a meeting of the Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or Labour Party parliamentary parties. There is media access to a high level within the European structures.

Perhaps we are getting carried away by the concept of the democratic deficit and not sufficiently interested in reading what is going on and generating further media reports from Europe on important issues. The legislation before us will obviously force us in the Oireachtas to take on board, in a very detailed way, proposals coming from Europe.

Is the Minister confident that, within the structures proposed, namely, the Joint Committee on European Affairs, we have sufficient resources to meet this challenge? I was interested in what he said about developments since July. He made the point that since 1 July 2002, 67 legislative proposals have been tabled and 31 information notes submitted to the Oireachtas. That is a huge workload for the Joint Committee on European Affairs. I am not sure of the staffing levels of that committee or its broader membership, but there is little point in us enacting this very worthwhile legislation and implementing the proposals that will stem therefrom if we cannot actually make it work.

The Joint Committee on European Affairs will certainly be the most important committee of this House if what is contained in this Bill is to work. However, there is a challenge for us in ensuring it will have sufficient resources to do its work. Given that it has so many items of information before it since 1 July, it would almost need to meet on a daily basis over a 12 month period if it were to scrutinise all the documentation. Let us insist that we will meet the requirements of the committee, both in terms of staffing and membership. I understand there is already a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on European Affairs attempting to sift through the various proposals.

I reiterate what the President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, said last week when he appealed from the bottom of his heart to the people to be broad-minded, generous and open-hearted in the decision they take on Saturday. A "Yes" vote is of absolute importance. I hope everybody on the "Yes" side of the argument will, in these last few days prior to the referendum, continue to counter the spurious arguments and campaign methods of some on the "No" side. This will help to ensure that the people will make a positive decision on Saturday not just for the future of Europe, but also for this country.

The Minister pointed out how much Ireland has benefited from European Union membership. He said it had provided Ireland with the initial and necessary gateway to opportunity and that Ireland should be prepared to give something back. This dependency model evoked by the Minister should be compared to that of the dole man, or, to be politically correct, the dole woman.

I welcome the Bill, the timing of which is excellent. According to the latest opinion poll on the Nice referendum, 31% of voters are still undecided. We must tell them that the European project is evolving. We are trying to change the way we operate in Europe, but it will not be easy. Given this, we should be careful not to slag "No" voters. While the "No" campaigners are misleading the public, they are tapping into apathetic voters, those who find Europe meaningless. We should stop slagging them because there is a reason that, on the last occasion, 65% of the electorate did not vote and why, today, 31% of voters are undecided about how they will vote on Saturday.

I welcome the fact that the joint Oireachtas committee is to take on the role of scrutinising all issues pertaining to Europe. I encountered many councillors on the campaign trail for the recent Seanad election who expressed the view that directives on habitats, the quality of water, meat and so on were all made in Europe without any input from us. I had to agree that there was something not quite right in that. All of these matters should be teased out before they go to the Council of Ministers. This would allow the views of the public to be taken into account by their public representatives in our national Parliament. That is the way forward. Unfortunately people were mixing up the two issues – what the Nice treaty is about and the future of Europe. The second matter is what we are addressing today in putting new structures in place to connect with the public.

I have put some thought into how I would like to see the forum for Europe shaping up. Ireland needs to generate its own ideal and model for the future institutional development of the European Union. There is also a need for greater Oireachtas involvement in European affairs. It is high time for a comprehensive debate on the nature of the emerging European Union and perhaps a debate on the risks associated with opting out of any discussion on its future direction. These are all areas that can soon be debated but the immediate issue is to get the referendum on the Nice treaty passed because none of this may exist if we do not. We will certainly be seen as isolationist if the treaty is rejected.

I wish the Minister of State here every success on Saturday. Hopefully we will get a resoundingly positive result. We should not go cold on Europe. We have a golden opportunity after Saturday's vote to go ahead with a debate on where we go from here. We are already putting in place this Bill which will start the scrutiny mechanism for future monitoring of EU decisions.

Let us get a "Yes" vote for the Nice treaty and the rest will fall into place. There is a commitment by the Government, and by all parties across the board, to ensure that the forum on Europe will provide a successful route for our future in Europe. We will also have the Seanad as a watchdog to monitor legislation and the powers of the joint Oireachtas committee will be enhanced to ensure that any proposals or Bills that come from Brussels will be scrutinised so that the public at large will connect with the process.

Let us hope that the media will take an interest and recognise the Trojan work that is being done both in this House and by the joint Oireachtas committee. Maybe when this fact is recognised people will make the link between the European Parliament, the national Parliament and the public at large. It is only if we all work together that the public will feel its role has been enhanced and that the democratic deficit will no longer exist.

The sad truth is that for 30 years our attitude could have been summed up by the phrase "grab the money and run". Instead of seeking to involve the people in the myriad of decisions concerning Europe, successive Governments judged that the best way to keep voters on side was to wave cheques at them. The brand image of Europe projected by every Government since we entered in 1973 was one of the gravy train which was given as the reason we should be involved in Europe. Time has shown this to be a short-sighted policy.

When the gravy train has run into the buffers we have discovered that, among the various peoples of the Europe Union, the Irish are the most ignorant about what has been happening. They are the least interested in the issues affecting the future of the European Union. With the cheques rapidly becoming a thing of the past, many do not know what Europe is for. It is little wonder that, when the people were called on to vote on the Nice treaty last year, the vast majority did not understand what was going on. This was not just because of a complacent Government which failed to campaign effectively in favour of the treaty last year, something it recognises it failed to do, it was just as much the fruit of 30 years of keeping the people on the sidelines where European issues were concerned.

I am not so naive as to imagine that the difficulty of involving the people of Europe was the fault of successive Governments to apply effective scrutiny to European affairs. The democratic deficit to which Senators Bradford and Ormonde referred is an issue throughout the Union and it is right that it is high on the agenda of the European Convention which is seeking to draw a road map for the future development of the European Union. Whereas others have failed to a greater or lesser extent, we in Ireland have failed abysmally. One only has to read the regular statistics from EUROSTAT to see the truth of this. For example, Ireland repeatedly scores highly in terms of approval of membership of the European Union. However, when it comes to knowledge of EU institutions and interest in the issues which concern them, our scores are consistently among the lowest. This bears out what I said about the 30 years of mismanaging the problem.

Our traditional approval of EU membership has been generated by the gravy train to which I referred and the repeated cheque waving in which we have been involved. Our lack of knowledge and interest in matters European have been generated by our consistent failure to look beyond the cheques and benefits we received and our refusal to do anything more than put our feet up and enjoy wherever the gravy train was going to take us. That is what we need to change and we need to do it quickly. It must be immediate. We do not have time to relax on it. That is the reason we need a revolution in the way we approach the European Union.

The referendum on Saturday, whatever way it goes, will not be the end of the story. If we vote "Yes," as I hope we will, it will not be the last time the people will be asked to vote on Europe. Less than three years from now we will be faced with the need to approve another new treaty which will be much more wide-ranging and fundamental in its implications than anything in the Nice treaty. If by the time of the next referendum all the changes we have made in the way we approach the European Union are contained in the tiny Bill before us, we should not be surprised if the people in 2005 show the same lack of knowledge and interest as they did last year and which, according to the Referendum Commission, they still show a year later.

Between the lines of the Bill I see two baleful influences working together. The first is the customary struggle between the Executive and the Legislature which we have discussed. Whenever it gets the chance, each Government seeks to sideline Parliament and reduce its influence. It is an unnecessary policy in a system such as ours where the Government always has a majority in both Houses. It is a foolish policy which does not make sense because it creates an unnecessary barrier between the Government and the people.

Added to that influence is another equally negative influence, namely, the struggle of the bureaucrats to control everything which relates to and must be done with the European Union. Any Ministers who have had dealings with Europe will say all the real decision-making is in the hands of officials with the politicians wheeled in at the last minute to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's".

It is essential that in the remaining days of the debate before the treaty is decided upon by the people, all of us on the "Yes" side should continue at every possible opportunity to nail the lies that are being told every day in the campaign by those on the "No" side. It is important that we continue to do that up to polling day, because people on the other side will continue to spin out red herrings between now and then.

In reading the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, it appears that the scrutiny will happen quite late in the process. I believe this will happen at the decision stage of the Council. I am not very experienced at reading Bills and may be misreading it, but this is a fundamental issue for me and represents the difference between a rubber-stamping exercise and real scrutiny of European affairs. I hope scrutiny can begin at an early stage when the Green Papers and White Papers are introduced. Last year's White Paper on governance was an excellent one and the Oireachtas should scrutinise such papers in order to influence the initial stages of the legislative process.

A number of EU process co-ordinating policies such as health, social inclusion, immigration policy, pensions, etc. are only presented via non-legislative communications and this Bill should not exclude us from scrutinising these issues. It is important that we have such scrutiny of European affairs by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The debate centres on whether this House or the Committee on European Affairs should oversee the scrutiny. I submit that both should be involved. I take the point forcefully made by Senator Maurice Hayes that without resources, nothing can be done. There is a large corpus of legislation, regulations and directives emanating from Europe and only in the Seanad does the manpower exist to deal effectively with this. We have the time and we should do it.

There is a need for scrutiny, but there is a greater need for accountability within the system. I do not share the view commonly expressed here that there is a democratic deficit within Europe. If anything the democratic deficit exists at home.

I pay tribute to the work of the National Forum for Europe under Senator Maurice Hayes, in particular for bringing the Forum around the country in a roadshow, which brought matters in Europe down to the level of the ordinary citizen. Some of those issues are very arcane and are debated by experts using jargon, which is part of the exclusion. It is frequently said that there is an information deficit in Europe but there is not; there is a deluge of information but there is a comprehension deficit. Nobody can understand phrases like the three pillars and subsidiarity. We are not sure ourselves what subsidiarity and devolving power to the most appropriate level mean and the Forum has been useful in that respect.

Resources are very important. The institutions of the European Union are a model of openness in many respects compared to what we have here. One can walk in off the street into the European Parliament and sit down to listen to any of its committees. Pretty much everything is out in the open. One of our problems is that we have a way of doing things which we inherited from the mother of Parliaments and we have never looked beyond our nearest island to see that there are other models and ways to work. The consensus model is much more common in European politics than the adversarial model we are accustomed to.

As other Members, I hope we will adopt the treaty in the referendum on Saturday. It is interesting that those who oppose the treaty on the basis of the threat to neutrality have the vehicle within the questions being put on Saturday to ensure neutrality is protected in the triple lock, to use some jargon. In other words, without a UN mandate and the will of the Oireachtas and the Irish people we cannot participate in many of the tasks, even simple tasks such as the Petersberg Tasks.

I have not had time to expand on the matter of bureaucracy but there is a distinction between what the Council decides and implementation. The European free range hen is a very odd animal. The European free range hen on a farm in County Cork leaves its dormitory and goes to a field. At the end of the day it comes back and because it passed some concrete on the way from where it slept to where it fed and back again, it cannot be regarded as a free range hen.

I hope and believe this referendum will be passed because we all recognise that other countries should have the same chance that we were given 30 years ago. Unlike Denmark, we have done very well by being at the heart of the European Union. If we continue to show commitment to Europe, it will continue to show commitment to us.

We can learn from other legislatures. The bicameral system has operated very well in the United Kingdom. Senator Hayes and I recently and separately met the Leader of the House of Lords. The systems operating in Finland, Denmark and Germany give a special role to the Upper Houses regarding the scrutiny and exposition of policies. Ministers come to the Upper Houses before travelling onwards in Europe where they can be swamped by COREPER. It is important to have transparent scrutiny of all these matters.

It is not a matter of reviewing issues once they have been included in directives – that is like bolting the door when the horse has gone. Reviews must be undertaken before issues are included in secondary legislation or Ministers travel onwards in Europe where they can be swamped by the bureaucracy. If we are all part of the European project, we must work like demons on this scrutiny committee and ensure this Chamber is utilised much more thoughtfully and in an investigative manner to deal with many of the matters which come before the Oireachtas. I propose that this House be used in a fuller and more comprehensive manner under the guidance of the Cathaoirleach. We should examine European affairs in this House as well as at the committee. I endorse the Bill and the amendments proposed.

The Nice treaty referendum is uppermost in our minds. I wonder what has happened to the Irish traits of fáilte and flaithiúlacht, with which we like to think we are endowed. Now is the time for us to extend the hand of generosity and friendship. This Bill will be part of the parameters of a much more open dialogue about European matters.

It is regrettable that in recent days and weeks some elements in the "No" campaign have proved once again to be manifestly ignorant and arrogant in the discharge of sections of the "No" campaign. They have attempted to bully and to misinform the public. They have attempted to take the Nice treaty and discuss everything else bar the one central issue – the enlargement of the European Union. They have spoken about the rapid reaction force and misinterpreted parts of the Amsterdam treaty. They have spoken about streamlining democracy, about a conglomerate political grouping in Europe not accountable to states or the European Union in its totality. I hope the people will prove them wrong on Saturday. The people concerned have been responsible for the worst campaign I have experienced in my adult life.

The economy has grown by becoming part of a union which has helped us to strengthen and develop it to a point which we used to think was impossible. Due to the efforts of successive Administrations we have, by and large, peace in the Six Counties. The Nice treaty is about ensuring the right to peace will be extended to the eastern European countries which have applied to become members of the European Union. The leaders, prior to the collapse of the Berlin Wall, of the dictatorships, those responsible for genocide, the Communists, the people who attempted to subvert democracy at every stage, who wanted to see democracy pushed to the end of the agenda and who wanted to behave in a manner abhorrent to any form of civilised democracy in the western world, would be only too delighted if this country again rejected the treaty on Saturday.

Elements of the "No" campaign, which claim to be part of the left, to be socialists or to be representative of the working class, are arrogant and intentional in their modus operandi of preventing workers here from benefiting from European Union directives which this country would not have were it not for the European Parliament. People who purport to represent workers are asking them to vote against a treaty which copperfastens their rights.

This Bill will bring the workings of the European Union closer to this country and will result in greater scrutiny by the Houses of the Oireachtas of European Union legislation, directives and everything else which emanates from there. I wonder if the likes of Deputy Joe Higgins, members of Sinn Féin and members of the Green Party, whose Deputies in the other House I class as reasonably intelligent, would take time out of their busy schedules to look at the directives Brussels has introduced for workers. These include the equal pay and equal treatment directives, the directives on collective redundancies and transfer of undertakings, which obliges employers to consult employee representatives when redundancies are transferred to another employer or are being considered, the directive guaranteeing the rights of workers if their employer becomes insolvent, the directive obliging employers to issue workers with a written contract of employment, the extremely wide-ranging health and safety directives, the maternity and parental leave directives and the directives guaranteeing equal pay and treatment to part-time and temporary workers, soon to be joined by a directive on workers who are employed through agencies.

The European social partners, trade unions and employers, have just concluded a European Union wide agreement guaranteeing the rights of teleworkers, postal workers and the rights of workers sent to other countries. The working time directive guarantees, among other things, the right to four weeks' annual holidays. Deputy Joe Higgins, Sinn Féin and the Green Party, who purport to represent the working class, are asking the citizens of our sovereign republic to vote against those directives next Saturday.

It is a pleasure to be involved in an elected Assembly where there is all-party consensus on the issue of bringing poorer, underdeveloped countries into the larger European Union. This treaty, in so far as it can, allows for the workings of the parliament to change to facilitate that enlargement. It is a pity that some people who have received democratic mandates have used every red herring in the political arena in recent weeks. Deputy Healy of Clonmel, who advised people to vote against this treaty because they already voted on it last year, stood at least four, if not five, times for election to Dáil Éireann before he was elected. If he wanted to take a leaf out of his own book, surely he would not have stood for election again when his constituents rejected his membership of Dáil Éireann.

I hope that on Saturday those people will allow poor countries, poor farmers and workers and women in the Czech Republic, Poland, Latvia and Slovenia to have the same opportunities we received. I hope the democratic citizens of this country will show the people in the "No" brigade that this is a democracy which is willing to extend the democratic arm to our counterparts in eastern Europe.

I visit the applicant countries relatively often. I have been to the Baltic countries, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic and I know the huge efforts they have made to try to fulfil the tasks given to them so that they would be eligible for membership. They have done so at great personal expense in some cases. It is important to remember the words last week of the President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, who, to paraphrase, said that some of the Governments that have brought forward these changes now have a hard time in holding the line, even in holding the line on democracy in many cases.

I would urge anyone with a vote to vote in favour of this treaty. It is the people of the candidate countries who matter; it is people we are talking about bringing into the European Union, not just states. It brings to mind the words of Yeats in that marvellous poem we all read in school, Easter 1916: "Too long a sacrifice can make stone of the heart." These countries have had five grim decades of making sacrifices. They have made sacrifices of another sort in order to gain membership of the EU, and let us not disappoint them now.

When they say they want to join, who are we to say this is not a good decision for them? Let us welcome them with open arms and let us hope that they prosper and do as well as we have. The benefits of enlargement are much greater for Ireland than any disadvantages there may be.

Many complicated issues arose, and on at least one occasion the advisers from the Department were putting one view and the permanent representative was putting another, leaving me to arbitrate between both views in the national interest. That is the responsibility of Ministers, but it would be very beneficial for Ministers to have the benefit of the collective wisdom of both Houses of the Oireachtas, particularly in relation to important legislation that is being dealt with by the Council of Ministers.

I regard my attendance at the Council of Ministers as one of the greatest privileges of my political life, and there a few people in this Chamber who have also been in that position. What you see there is the parity of esteem that exists between the larger and the smaller countries; the size of the country or its percentage of the vote does not arise as a factor. All states are there as equal partners, whether it is the Germans, the French, the British or anybody else. When an issue arose, we would often receive support from a variety of countries.

At the time I was involved in negotiating the Single European Act, I constantly succeeded in obtaining derogations. I proposed that Ireland have a seven-year derogation in relation to insurance and health insurance as we wanted to strengthen and secure the position of the VHI before it faced competition from BUPA, which has now entered our market, and rightly so. We were concerned about the fragile state of the Irish insurance market and worried that if we flooded the country with competition, we might damage our own interests. Every time an issue affecting our interests arose, I received on behalf of this country the support of the other countries around the negotiating table. I cannot recall one instance in which our national interests were not protected.

We had a great team of representatives in Brussels, and we still have one of the best qualified, most professional teams representing any country in Europe. It was a policy of successive Governments to provide funding and support for the major infrastructural offices in Brussels, and it is a good investment that has brought us enormous benefits.

I hope that the scrutiny committee, when it is formed, will have the input of people with knowledge and experience of the European situation, but there is also a strong case for televising parts or all of the deliberations of the Council of Ministers. There is a case also for televising some of the deliberations of the Commission to demonstrate the parity of esteem that exists between member states. There is a need to make people more aware of what is happening in Europe. There is an enormous amount of coverage of European affairs at the moment and we are hearing from our MEPs, but in general there is very little.

It was a very positive step last week to have President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, speak before this House. When the present debate is over and the Nice treaty is hopefully ratified and Europe expanded, we must try in every way we can to make EU affairs more meaningful to ordinary people.

We have a particularly important decision to make on Saturday because we represent all of Ireland in this case. Our fellow Irishmen and women in Northern Ireland do not have a say in whether we sign the Nice treaty or not. The British Government, which represents the interests of Northern Ireland at this point in time, has already ratified the treaty. We have to represent the interests of the whole of Ireland, and all of Ireland will be well served by a "Yes" vote on Saturday. We have this privilege because of our 1937 Constitution, which offers certain safeguards.

It is a marvellous honour to have the opportunity of this very detailed debate that has taken place over the last few months. Perhaps we ought to be grateful to those who voted "No" in 2001. The eyes of 340 million people across Europe are focused upon Ireland. Let there be no doubt that there is no safety net in the event of another "No" vote. It would be a case of going back to the drawing board. All kinds of statements can be made and arguments concocted, but the reality in law is that the Nice treaty has to be agreed by all 15 member states. We cannot agree to the Nice treaty unless the Irish people vote "Yes" next Saturday. Propaganda has been put out in the last week to the effect that there is no point in voting "Yes", that enlargement will go ahead anyway, but it certainly will not.

A "Yes" vote on Saturday would be a wonderful céad míle fáilte to the ten applicant countries, which comprise over 100 million people. On Monday, the trade body Enterprise Ireland should take out full-page advertisements in all the national newspapers in all the applicant countries saying "Céad míle fáilte, one hundred thousand welcomes to one hundred million people." The Irish people will hopefully have spoken decisively at that stage. I would not like to book advertisements in advance, but I think we can anticipate a good result because it is in the national interest.

The increase in trade to the applicant countries has been outstanding over the past few years, and this will continue. Ireland voted very decisively in favour of the Single European Act. There were various concerns and we discussed all the details of that particular Act. It was not a doomsday situation. Issues such as trade difficulties, privatisation of the ESB, privatisation of postal services and so on were teased out.

The Single European Act was a great success for this country. We were fond of the derogations – perhaps too much so. We actually relented on some of the derogations we received but generally speaking we got a tremendous deal in Europe so far as the Single European Act was concerned. The interests of all Departments were well catered for by our excellent negotiating team.

We have to look ahead. The European Union (Scrutiny) Bill is welcome. If it were possible to provide a schedule of all proposed legislation coming before the European Union in advance of the accession of the ten candidate countries, such as that provided in the past week by the Whip of all the Bills before the Houses, those proposed and those at drafting stage, it would be a useful exercise. The proposed committee should be established forthwith and provided with proper backup and support services and a time slot that accommodates most Members.

Given the number of committees to be established, Senators, and particularly Deputies, if appointed to one or more committees, will have little time to engage in constituency work. I have been out of here for some time but when I was a Member previously there were very few committees. There was the Committee of Public Accounts, the Small Businesses Committee, of which the former Deputy, Mr. Ivan Yates, was chairman, and I was a member, and a few others. Perhaps there are now too many committees. I sympathise with Members of both Houses, who will have great difficulty, as we have today, in trying to cope with the number of demands on them. Members of this House want to be Members of the other House and Members of the other House may be lucky to be in this House at some stage in the future. I wonder how the Minister of State who has been busy campaigning in his constituency and was effective on the radio today – even "Coronation Street" did not interrupt his work – can cope with his workload and come into the House for as long as is necessary.

I commend the Bill to the House. It will be of enormous assistance to the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and all Ministers and colleagues in Government going to Europe. It will also assist members of the European Parliament in their work on behalf of this country.

When we joined the European Union there was a committee on the secondary legislation of the European Communities that dealt with legislation emanating from Brussels in a focused and direct way. That committee was superseded by the foreign affairs and European affairs committees. To the best of my knowledge the European affairs committee had a select committee that dealt with legislation. The committee on the secondary legislation of the European Communities was a more focused and direct way of doing business and if Members were not happy to raise issues in the House, they had the opportunity to do so on the committee.

While the European Affairs Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee are effective they have to deal with the day to day issues in their areas. For example, the Foreign Affairs Committee would be discussing today the atrocities in Bali rather than legislation emanating from Europe. Perhaps it is opportune to consider the possibility of setting up a select committee or a sub-committee to deal specifically and exclusively with European legislation. That would be superior to various reports from Departments culminating in further confusion rather than simplifying matters for the general public.

The legislation is welcome so far as it goes. However, other initiatives will be necessary and it is important that they are not lost sight of. The legislation is coming at an opportune time because it affords us the opportunity to discuss the vote on Saturday. It is critical for those interested in European and in Irish affairs that the people come out and vote on Saturday.

As a member of the Council of Europe prior to your appointment, a Chathaoirligh, you would have been fully aware of the concerns of the ten applicant countries, who are anxious to join the European Union, for a strong "Yes" vote on Saturday in favour of enlargement. I was approached by several applicant countries at the last meeting in Strasbourg to encourage the people to vote "Yes" because of its importance to them.

I cannot understand why members of the European Parliament such as Patricia McKenna and Dana Rosemary Scallon have campaigned strongly for a "No" vote. They are prepared to draw their salaries and expenses from Europe, yet they want to ridicule Europe at the first opportunity. Equally I cannot understand the Green Party because it talks about rectifying some democratic deficit. Is the Green Party suggesting that 105 million people who suffered the tyranny and oppression of communism for so long would be prepared to be drawn into some other anti-democratic tyrannical organisation? They would point out that they are getting involved in the European Union because they see it as the vehicle which can underpin the democratic systems which have developed in the member states formerly under communism. They see membership of the Union as of paramount importance in ensuring the democratic system which they strove to attain and for which many died. Has the Green Party forgotten about the communist tanks in Hungary when it suggests that 105 million who wish to join the European Union would in some way forfeit what they have suffered and died for in the past to establish democratic systems by joining an undemocratic organisation which does not meet some ideas which apparently are dear to some of members of the Green Party?

Last Saturday we saw the type of tyranny we can expect from people like the leader of the Socialist Party who condoned the breaking down of the perimeter fences around Shannon Airport. He tried to cause havoc in Shannon, which could have put people's lives in danger. That was a demonstration of the kind of blackguardism we see advocated by those people, who felt a little intimidated at the time because there was a camera focused on them. That must have been the first time Deputy Higgins's party was embarrassed about cameras; he is usually looking for publicity to advocate its cause.

The legislation before the House is very important because it is a further indication of our willingness to be part of the European ideal. I take this opportunity to appeal to people in my own constituency, who have benefited from Europe, to see Europe's enlargement as a positive and forward looking step and to come out to vote on Saturday and give a resounding "Yes" to enlargement of the European Union.

In regard to other ministerial orders and directives from the Department of Agriculture and Food – some of which were pioneered by the Minister of State in another capacity – many farmers were severely penalised in respect of the implementation of various schemes in that a simple human error was classified in the Department of Agriculture and Food as being the work of a person who had intended to commit fraud. That simple human error was counted as fraudulent in the administration of schemes throughout Europe, which is a tragedy.

The Minister of State will be aware that there are people in the Department of Agriculture and Food who interpreted schemes in a very narrow way and made it difficult for people to abide by the rules and regulations because of the amount of paperwork involved. That was never the intention but that is the situation in which we find ourselves.

Among the many "No" lobby groups, there is a legitimate group of people who are angry with Europe for no reason other than they have been penalised unfairly, and that group will manifest itself in a "No" vote on Saturday. That is a tragedy but it is the unfortunate reality. The other people involved in the "No" lobby are entitled to their opinions, but an additional group believe they have no choice but to vote "No" because they have been penalised unjustly by our own Department of Agriculture and Food officials.

I regret having to raise this matter. When I raised it as a Member of the other House, I was asked by a group of civil servants to withdraw my statement and apologise publicly to them. I reiterate here that I have no intention of doing that because I believe I am right in what I am saying, namely, that many wrongs have been done to many ordinary people who have been denied a substantial amount of their income because of the failure in the transfer of European funds which would have supplemented their income. That problem has to be rectified and I hope in his reply the Minister of State will indicate that some mechanism will be put in place, if it does not already exist, whereby people with a grievance such as this can appeal.

These Houses have failed over the years to tackle this injustice. It is easy to blame the then Minister, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, for implementing the directive but we are talking about simple issues like denying someone the right to cut turf in the bogs, which is an annual event for many people. The then Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, had to take the brunt of the criticism but unfortunately she did not take it upon herself to rectify the problem other than by obtaining a derogation for ten years, the end of which is fast approaching.

I hope this legislation might open the door to resolving this problem, which may encourage people to vote "No" on Saturday. I would regret that very much.

Section 2(3) of the Bill provides that there is no need for the committees to consider this area of policy if there is a lack of time. The time problem, however, is determined by the Minister. This subsection could be grossly abused and I would like the Minister to clarify in his reply that this will not occur.

In relation to section 3, the Constitution states clearly that both Houses of the Oireachtas must meet in public session but the committees of both Houses have the power to meet in private. There is the potential for private meetings to take place between the Members and the Minister involved. I understand why that might happen, but this should be the exception rather than the rule. It is important that a private meeting is the last procedure before the Minister and committee scrutinise the decision. It would be wrong for us to allow private meetings to become normal practice in the Houses because that would disengage the public from the process. If we are to be successful with this we need publicity and also a change of heart, not just from the Members but from the media, which should devote more resources to covering the proceedings of both Houses as well as the committees.

This legislation has the potential to revolutionise Parliament in terms of the decision-making process in Brussels and within the Houses. I congratulate the Labour Party on an excellent initiative and I hope the Government continues to accept Private Members' Bills such as this to ensure that everyone, not just the Executive, can make a contribution. Our system, dominated by the Executive, is a bad one because it ensures that whole sections of parliamentarians are excluded from the work of Parliament. That is bad for democracy.

The Minister will contribute on the later Stages of the Bill. The message from this House will be that the legislation is fine and we accept the Government's assurances at face value, but we need to see a serious commitment in terms of resources to ensure that the Bill can be turned into reality. Beyond that, there has been universal acclaim for the Bill and its contents and we have had a very useful Second Stage. I assume we can pass the remaining Stages of the Bill rapidly this evening.

Question put and agreed to.