Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I commend the Leader for allowing a short debate on this motion, which we support. There was no question of us not supporting this good motion that Seanad Éireann adopts the EU scrutiny work programme 2013, joint committees' priorities, which was laid before Seanad Éireann on 2 May 2013 by the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs, of which I am a member. I commend the work on putting this together.

In regard to the Lisbon treaty, I am not sure whether it really envisaged that joint committees would replace the work of either House of the Oireachtas. This states that they would take on the remit in regard to subsidiarity. I presume that is the case and that authority must have been designated to the committees.

There has not yet been an occasion in which legislation was referred to other parliaments or opposed by the Dáil, Seanad or a joint committee thereof. That is surprising, because although the legislative proposals concerned were possibly not contentious, it is unlikely that legislation is never controversial. Some of the proposals deal with important matters. For example, the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine is considering the framework for organic production. The production and sale of organic products certainly requires European scrutiny and support, although standards are generally maintained through self-regulation by an organisation that sets standards for organic farms. In the event of the Taoiseach successfully introducing an amendment to the Constitution to abolish this House, the committees will be much reduced in size. The current structure of joint committees comprising Members drawn from both Houses allows a wide range of knowledge and views to be shared. It would be regrettable if that level of knowledge was no longer available. It will be up to the electorate to decide whether the Seanad, reformed or otherwise, will continue in existence.

The Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform has an extensive workload but I hope it is able to do more than simply nod through these European proposals. The Commission and the Council prepare an enormous number of legislative proposals, and the European Parliament is becoming increasingly important in this regard. I acknowledge that the Leader has done his utmost to ensure legislation is referred to the Seanad as well as to sectoral committees. The broader remit of this House would allow us to consider the wider ramifications of legislation on, for example, eel fishing, which affects many counties. A Green Party Minister in the previous Government, Eamon Ryan, abolished eel fishing for a period of 99 years. The other 26 member states introduced conservation measures but not outright bans on the catching of eels. Eel fishing was an important industry for this country and we have now been deprived of its benefits because there was not proper scrutiny of the proposal at European Union level or in this Parliament. The same applies to a proposal on the below cost sale of cigarette products, which should have received closer parliamentary scrutiny than that permitted in a joint committee.

The Leader is correct to establish some sort of modus operandion broader issues, such as combating cigarette smuggling, which could be appropriately considered by this House. The Seanad comprises representatives of practically every county in Ireland, including Border counties. For example, County Louth is well represented but the Senators from that county may not be members of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence. While they are permitted to attend meetings of the committee, they may not always be aware of its agenda. There is a big difference between attending a committee as a non-member and participating in a debate as a Member of this House.

It would affect people's attendance at those meetings because they would not be invited as such and they would have to find out for themselves that such legislation is being considered by the joint committee. When she was on the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny with me, the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Lucinda Creighton, was very supportive and has been very supportive in her attendance in the Seanad and in her support for the idea of scrutiny.

I do not believe that we need many additional resources to debate issues in the House. We can debate these issues in the House and refer to them because the knowledge that is in this House is the equal of any committee advisor. There are certain areas that we can debate in the House. If we believe it is worthwhile then we could refer an issue on to other parliaments under a provision of the Lisbon treaty. Certain advisors to committees could be seconded on a temporary basis as items arise. This need not be on a full-time, permanent basis but each month when there is an item on the agenda, even if we then refer it to the committee for final scrutiny. It would be worthwhile to have the observations of the Oireachtas.

I thank the Leader for allowing a short debate. It is good to air this issue given that it is Europe week. It is appropriate that we are having this debate and it was appropriate that the Leader accepted the proposal by Senator Thomas Byrne to have this short debate. We are not opposing it, we are supporting it. The views put forward by the Leader are welcome. Perhaps as a result of this short debate the Leader might consider bringing one or two items onto the legislative framework of the House for a brief debate without any advisors. Then we could refer our observations to the joint committee or, if we believe it is worthwhile, we could refer them on to Europe.