Ivana Bacik (Independent)

Like Senator Fitzgerald, I welcome and support the substance of the regulation. However, I share her concerns regarding the manner in which it has been introduced, particularly in the context of the absence of information concerning its substance.

We are being asked to debate this matter in the absence of any text, other than the Minister's script, which can outline for us the substance of the regulation. This is the first occasion on which an issue of this nature has been brought before the House since I was elected. On occasions when we debate legislation, I have become accustomed to reading copies of the relevant Bills — which are circulated to Members — in order that I might have notice of the substance of the proposals the House is to discuss. However, that was not done in this instance. The motion appeared rather suddenly on the Order Paper. It is not appropriate that important matters of legislative policy should be determined in this ill-informed manner.

This illustrates the problem that has arisen in terms of the lack of scrutiny and transparency regarding the implementation of EU laws. In the past, that fact has become a major issue in constitutional amendment campaigns relating to new EU treaties. It is likely to be a significant issue in next year's debate on the reform treaty. Ireland is the only EU country in which the latter will be put to a referendum. It is vital that we should be in a position to state that there is proper and adequate parliamentary scrutiny of matters referred to us at European level.

It would be appropriate for us to implement new rules and procedures so that decisions proposed by Irish Ministers and Cabinet members in Europe would be notified and discussed before they are made. It is a positive development that we are debating this but we need to look at how we debate these things so that we can debate them in a much more informed and better prepared manner in the future.

There is a model in other countries, especially Denmark which has a very active parliamentary committee which scrutinises decisions that will be made and positions that will be taken by Ministers at meetings in Brussels before any Danish Cabinet members go and take positions there. There are other models we could look to. Certainly the Seanad could play a very important role in scrutiny of European legislation and how it is to be implemented in this country.

Turning to the substance of this regulation, it is an important goal that we ensure fair treatment of non-EU nationals who reside legally in Ireland. I very much welcome this policy and am delighted that Ireland is supporting the extension of the regulation to third country nationals. I very much support the comments made by Senator Brady that it is important that we treat third country nationals — people from outside the EU — in the way we treat our own citizens in terms of these social security measures.

It is important that we send out a signal of welcome to people who have made their home in Ireland and have made an immense contribution to our economy and society and that we meet their needs if they find themselves unemployed or in need of social assistance and not fall short of other EU countries in doing so.

We have, perhaps, been less than generous in our assistance towards asylum seekers in the past. In that regard, we need to look again at the direct provision rules, which have caused a great deal of problems for asylum seekers and have left many children of asylum seekers in some conditions of poverty.

This regulation is very important and its substance is welcome. I just wish we had been given a little more information about it before the debate.