Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to endorse SI 325 of 2012, European Union (Quality and Safety of Human Organs Intended for Transplantation) Regulations 2012, as a comprehensive transposition of EU Directive 2010/53, which sets out a clear legal framework for quality and safety standards in respect of organs intended for transplantation in Ireland. The requirement for an EU directive arose from the increased demand for organ donation and transplantation across the EU. Each member state developed systems to meet this demand which generally reflected the cultural values of that state and were developed in accordance with its particular legal, administrative and organisational frameworks. Given the importance of having in place appropriate systems for the authorisation of organ procurement and transplantation centres, a directive was drafted based on common quality and safety criteria. The aim was to ensure the safety and quality of organs and the protection of organ donors and recipients throughout the EU, and allow for the safe exchange of organs between member states.

The draft text of the directive was examined by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny on 27 January 2009. Senator Katherine Zappone made the point that the committee, in its wisdom, determined not to scrutinise the proposal. Although it might sound odd, it is nevertheless true that for the scrutiny committee to decide not to pursue a debate or examination of a particular legislative provision is in fact a decision of the committee. I am sure Members who have had the privilege of sitting on that committee understand what I am saying. I see Senator Mary White is smiling. Several dozens of proposals come before the committee and it must decide which require further debate. That is in itself a decision of substance. Members generally examine the documentation setting out the various proposals - I have done it myself - and will discuss with the Chairman and colleagues which of them require scrutiny. I am not criticising anyone for deciding whether any provision requires debate. I am simply pointing out the reality of what occurs in that committee.

Members referred to the issue of parliamentary reform, with particular reference to EU legislation. I agree with Senator Averil Power and others that we have serious deficiencies in our parliamentary system in regard to the scrutiny of EU proposals. I have no difficulty in conceding that this is manifestly the case. However, even if we had the very best system anyone could possibly conceive, there is no prospect in the wide earthly world that every draft legislative provision, directive or measure coming from the EU could be scrutinised as a matter of plenary debate in a committee. There simply are not enough days in the year or hours in the day. It could not and will not happen. I very much hope we will have a better scrutiny system in place in due course. Whether that is on the basis of one well functioning Chamber or two less well functioning Chambers, as we have at the moment, will be a matter for the people to decide. Whatever the situation, we must have a proper system of scrutiny of EU legislation. I can agree with that much. However, it does not mean we will be scrutinising everything that comes from the EU, because that is not a realistic prospect.

Even if we take the titles on the Order Paper before the House to which Senator Byrne referred, I do not wish to make light of any piece of legislation but under Open to motion to annul, the third last one is the European Union (Conservation of Wild Birds (Horn Head to Fanad Head Special Protection Area 004194)) Regulations 2013. Will we spend time on that, even if we have a first-class scrutiny system? That has to be open to some question. Will we spend time in a properly functioning scrutiny system on the European Communities (Notification of Small Hive Beetle and Tropilaelaps Mite) (Amendment) Regulations 2013? From looking at the title it seems unlikely that we will but that is not to say we would not want to spend a good deal of time on many of the regulations, directives and proposals that come from the European Union such as this one, which manifestly merits discussion and consideration in a parliament.

We have to seriously examine the way we go about our business. Senator Barrett said there should be debate but we have to be selective in the measures we decide to debate and scrutinise.