Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for attending for this important debate. It is a proper gathering and we are taking our responsibilities as lawmakers seriously. I acknowledge Senator Daly's initiative in this regard. Important points have been raised in this debate. This issue should have been raised during Government business which is why I signed the letter to recall the Seanad both times.

There was no scrutiny of SI 325 of 2012. As the Minister of State pointed out, the draft EU directive was placed before the European scrutiny committee in 2009. However, there was no discussion on it and the committee decided it did not warrant further scrutiny and, instead, should be forwarded for information purposes to the Joint Committee on Health and Children. It was not placed before any committee in 2012 before it was signed.

There are three actions required to annul a statutory instrument. Although I disagree with Senator Leyden's point on the objectivity of the Attorney General, I accept her advice that the statutory instrument cannot be annulled unless there is a recommendation from an Oireachtas committee and it is agreed by the Dáil and the Seanad. However, the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1973 does not lay down a sequence to this. Accordingly, the Seanad can argue for an annulment without needing the recommendation of a committee. The bottom line is we could not have the recommendation for the annulment of the statutory instrument because it was not reviewed by a committee.

The statutory instrument is a very big document. The Government thinks it sufficient that the directive, which is a smaller document, was barely looked at by one committee and thinks that the big document needs no scrutiny. We do not have a recommendation because it was not looked at by the committee so at the very least, it is important that it is being debated by one House.

The Government promises that with the abolition of the Seanad, we will have a committee that will scrutinise EU legislation and directives and statutory instruments coming from the EU. However, it is not even doing that now. I do not understand why it could not have acquired the required signatures for the Dáil if there was commitment to the importance of reviewing EU legislation. In respect of the substance of the issue, the context and the question of whether we and many other Senators referred to this, there is a different interpretation of the context from the Oireachtas Library and Research Service, which I respect highly. We received a document referring to the organ donation rate put out by Beaumont Hospital which states that we have one of the best rates in the world. Yet the article in The Sunday Business Postby Susan Mitchell states that we were one of the lowest ranking member states in the EU in terms of our organ transplant league. There are two very different messages going out. Perhaps we are doing pretty well in the context of developing countries and other countries but in terms of Europe, we are not doing that well.

There are two issues in terms of the wider debate that relate to whether we should have one or two competent authorities and the importance of having organ donor co-ordinators in hospitals. I find it very difficult to accept that no rationale was given by the Department and Government as to why we should have two competent authorities. I do not see why inspection and monitoring cannot be done by the same authority. It is done that way in other countries. The directive does not mandate a separate body for investigation, reporting and reporting of adverse effects, so legally it can be within one body. Dr. Rafael Matesanz, the expert referred to by Senator Darragh O'Brien, said that European countries with the best donation rates have one competent authority in place. I have not seen any evidence or demonstration that the best practice would be to have two competent authorities. As Senator Darragh O'Brien outlined, there is an inequality of resources between those two authorities that makes it very tough to move forward in terms of putting in place a proper infrastructure for increasing our organ donation rates.