Seanad debates
Tuesday, 20 August 2013
SI 325 of 2012 - European Union (Quality and Safety of Human Organs Intended for Transplantation) Regulations 2012: Motion
2:00 pm
Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source
Very good. We are happy about that.
To come back to this proposal, it went to the European scrutiny committee on 27 January 2009. The directive was subsequently finalised and published at EU level in mid-2010.
Following considerable discussion with key stakeholders, my colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, transposed the directive into Irish law by means of the European Union (Quality and Safety of Human Organs Intended for Transplantation) Regulations 2012, which is the measure being addressed today, and were signed by him on 27 August 2012.
On the question of directives, Senator Crown should be aware that it is not true to say that directives are not binding. EU directives are binding as to the result to be achieved. There is no question about that. Unlike regulations they leave open the question of the forms and methods the national authorities choose but they are binding. It is important to remember that. That is one aspect of this debate that should not be forgotten.
The regulations signed by the Minister on 27 August 2012 were laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas providing an opportunity within the ensuing 21 sitting days for the Houses to approve or to annul the regulations. I emphasise "sitting days". The clock starts at the beginning of the 21 days. It does not run through each day the Parliament is in recess. It is sitting days. That period expired on 14 November 2012 and no objections were raised.
I have some difficulty understanding the proposition that it was necessary, without criticising the question of the Seanad not being recalled last year because that is a matter for the Seanad, to recall the Seanad because I know the Seanad was sitting well before 14 February 2012 after the summer recess. I have some doubt in my mind as to why Senator O'Donovan, or perhaps it was Senator Daly, said it was necessary for it to be done on that occasion. It seems to me that was not the case.
Leaving aside the question of whether the Senator would have obtained time on the floor of the Seanad, which is not a matter for me, I have to ask if a motion was put down to annul the statutory instrument.
No comments