An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

A substitute for amendment No. 2 was circulated before the conclusion of Second Stage. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 will be discussed together.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understood the amendments were alternatives.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

They can be discussed together.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Government and ourselves are ad idem as to the purpose of the amendment, I am happy to withdraw mine.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

As the subject matter of the two amendments is the same, we can discuss both of them together.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2. The European Union (Scrutiny) Act, 2002, is amended in subsection (1) of section 1 by the insertion in paragraph (d) of the definition of 'measure' after 'Article 29.4.6o of 'or 8o'."

This a technical amendment to clarify that issues and measures arising from ratification of the Nice treaty would also fall within the remit of the European Union (Scrutiny) Act, which was passed in this House in recent weeks. That Act deals with measures that arose from our existing treaty obligations and we are simply seeking to ensure it would apply to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, when passed.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator for indicating that he will withdraw his amendment in favour of the Government amendment. He has correctly pointed out that this arises from recent legislation. The amendment covers an issue separate from the main Bill. It would amend, not only the European Communities Act, 1972, but also the European Union (Scrutiny) Act, 2002. The Government is happy to take on board the substance of the Labour Party's amendment, but, on the advice of the parliamentary counsel, we have proposed a slightly different wording which the Labour Party accepts.

The European Union (Scrutiny) Act places new arrangements for Oireachtas scrutiny of EU business on a statutory basis and became law in October. The first section defines the categories of proposed measures which must be subject to scrutiny while the fourth and final category defines measures requiring the prior approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas under Article 29.4.6o of the Constitution. I discovered that there are so-called options and discretions under the Amsterdam treaty, including in the area of enhanced co-operation. Since the European Union (Scrutiny) Act became law, the twenty-sixth amendment of the Constitution took effect on 7 November. This was identified by the Labour Party when it tabled the amendment. The House will recall that this amendment, introduced in Article 29.4.8o,required the consent of both Houses of the Oireachtas to be exercised by the State on the options and discretions mentioned in the Nice treaty, in this case exclusively relating to the area of enhanced co-operation.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I seek clarification on one issue. Perhaps there has been a Government announcement, but I am not clear as to the transitional arrangements that will be made arising from the decisions taken at the General Affairs and External Relations Council? For example, what are the specific arrangements in relation to the European Parliament? Will the provisions of the Nice treaty come into play at the next European Parliament elections or the subsequent ones? Has that been decided at this stage?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I can provide the Senator with a fuller note on this issue, if he wishes. Obviously, in the arrangements that are part and parcel of the Nice treaty process, provision has been made for the enlargement of the Parliament up to and including the two states which will not be part of the ten, Bulgaria and Romania. There will, therefore, be a redistribution of seats. The Senator asked if a decision was made at the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting earlier in the week—

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A decision was taken whereby new member states would participate fully in the next elections in 2004. I presume this will be on the basis of the Nice treaty and that, therefore, there will be a reduction in the representation of Ireland to 12 seats? Has this been agreed?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. The number of seats Ireland would have to contest would be 13. Given that a great deal is happening, if the Senator wishes, I can provide him with a note on the exact position on the most recent decisions. He is right—

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand there is to be a redistribution. I am simply asking when it will come into play.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The intention is that new member states will participate in the elections in 2004, but this will depend on their ratification processes. A number of them have to hold referenda. Assuming the results are all positive, the intention is that they will participate fully in 2004. That was one of the points we made during the debate on the referendum. It is important that they are not denied their opportunity to do so. As the seats arising in the case of Bulgaria and Romania will not be filled in the elections in 2004, there will be a redistribution, under the terms of which we will have 13 rather than 12 seats.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will they be allocated among the existing constituencies or is it intended that a decision will be taken on a common form of election?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not think there will be a common form of election before 2004. The issue will obviously be decided nationally with regard to the national constituencies for the European Parliament elections in 2004.

Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate the Chair's flexibility and the Minister of State's willingness to answer questions. Given what he said in reply to the Second Stage debate, is it possible to amend an EU directive at national level or has it to be dealt with in a European context?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Under the treaties as they are established, the basic differentiation between legal instruments is that a regulation is applicable universally and directly from the time of origin while in regard to a directive, it is the effect that the community wishes to have implemented. It is a matter for each member state to decide on the legal instrument. While there is flexibility with regard to the legal instrument, there is none with regard to the outcome which is required under the terms of the directive. This arrangement was introduced in the original Treaty of Rome, even though the Community of Six was far more homogenous than one of 30. A directive helps to harmonise law in the sense that similar legal statutes come through the various member states, but the choice of instrument to give effect to the wishes of the directive is a matter for the member state concerned. It would be interesting for the Seanad to engage in a debate on this issue.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senators for the expeditious manner in which they dealt with this technical legislation. I am immensely proud of the work of the people last month in wiping way the last vestiges of the divisions that separated the peoples and countries of Europe for 50 years. It is hard for us to measure the importance of the work we have done and how highly the Irish are regarded. Many of the incoming states and most of our fellow member states recognise the decision made last month by the people as an unique and generous act of solidarity by a small state towards other states with which we have much in common.

The expeditious manner in which the Seanad has dealt with the Bill moves the process forward. Once the legislation comes into effect we will move on to full and final ratification. We will have the deposit of the instrument relating to the Treaty of Nice and the way will then be open for enlargement. That will be an historic step and one that would not have been possible without the wisdom and generosity of the people of this nation.

Ulick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for his generosity in recognising this House as a suitable forum in which to initiate efforts to give the people greater ownership for our participation in Europe. It is important that he recognises, as indicated, some mechanism whereby the views of those who voted "No" for legitimate reasons can be addressed in a forthright way, I hope in this House. In debating the various items the Minister of State has willingly acceded to such a debate for which I hope he will be present in the House.

Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I, too, thank the Minister for the smooth passing of this Bill through the Seanad. He has a good grasp of a subject that is difficult to assimilate in one's mind. The Minister knows where he is going and it is full steam ahead regarding the debate on the future of Europe.

I am glad the Minister has noted the points made on all sides of the House about how best we can overcome the remaining problems in this area and how best we can use this Chamber as a means of linking-in with the public on this very important issue.

Derek McDowell (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am happy to be associated with the expression of thanks to the Minister. I said earlier that we had one major lesson to learn from the most recent referendum campaign and the experience of last year – the people and their support cannot be taken for granted. That is right. It also shows that there is room for idealism. I have always believed, as I have said a number of times in this House and elsewhere, that the major project of our generation is to ensure the war and divisions in equality and poverty which characterised the last century do not characterise this one. When those arguments are powerfully and cogently made, more than enough people are willing to give it a good audience and vote accordingly by endorsing the project.

This is another one of those nuts and bolts days where we make our little contribution towards that greater project.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 3.23 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.