Caít Keane (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the people in the Gallery who have come to listen to the debate. I, for one, do not mind being back here to debate this matter. If it raises awareness of organ donation in general it is a good thing because it does not get enough airplay in the media. If, following today's debate, even one extra person decides to donate an organ, it will be a good thing. However, I would have liked to see the debate held in that light so that we can highlight what we need, what is being done and how we do it.

We are here today to debate annulment of a statutory instrument, a point to which I shall stick. While this is also an important issue, what can the Seanad do about it? Under current constitutional legislation the Government signs EU directives via statutory instruments without consulting the Oireachtas. As far back as 1972 when we joined the EEC this, what we might term, undemocratic practice came into being. It may not have been given much attention at the time or since. It is a debate for which we in the Seanad have been calling. To give Senator Daly his due, implementing statutory instruments without discussion is a debate we need to have. I have asked, and many reports on the Seanad have recommended, that this be fully looked at and the Seanad is a place this could be done. However, we are not discussing reviewing statutory instruments in general today, but are discussing annulling one statutory instrument.

The statutory instrument is good, right, legal and proper, and it should be implemented. The Minister of State, Deputy White, has issued a press release stating that there is no reason for it to be annulled and I support that wholeheartedly. The directive provides a clear legal framework for organ donation and transplantation in the European Union. It provides authorisation for procurement and transplantation centres and for traceability systems as well as for the reporting of serious adverse events. Moreover, the directive sets requirements for the safe transportation of organs and for the characterisation of every donor and organ. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The motion before us seeks to withdraw a statutory instrument on the quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation. That regulation is good - why on earth would one want to withdraw that? It is madness to seek to put it back by 20 if not 40 years.

The Minister of State, Deputy White, and the Minister, Deputy Reilly, are working on a human tissue Bill which is out for public consultation. I ask everyone to participate in that by the 20 September deadline the Minister has set - the Minister of State might correct me if I am wrong on that closing date. The public need to be made aware of this public consultation. I congratulate the Minister of State and the Minister on the work they have done since coming into office in advancing the human tissue Bill through the Oireachtas committee which Senator van Turnhout and others have mentioned. I wonder why this was not included at that time.

I commend the Irish Donor Network on the document it provided which has facilitated us in our debate today. I could not say it better than it was reported in yesterday's Irish Independent which stated:

Fianna Fáil's argument has been dramatically undermined by a lobby group saying the EU directive was a "progressive piece of legislation". And it dispels the myth that the legislation is about people having to opt out of the organ donation system.
The [Irish Donor Network] said there were major gaps and weaknesses in the country's organ donation and transplant infrastructure that remained to be addressed by the Government.

It is being addressed.

I reiterate that there are major gaps. The Government hopes to address these in, perhaps, the human tissue Bill. I ask that everybody engage with the committees in this regard. Nobody is denying that there are gaps. The Irish Donor Network has stated that the directive is about ensuring there is a common framework for quality and safety of human organs in Ireland, which framework is quite technical. We will need to ensure this is looked at.

The Seanad has powers that could have been, but were not, used to address this issue. Like Senators van Turnhout and Colm Burke, I would like to know the reason Senator Daly did not raise the matter during the health committee deliberations with the advocacy groups on 18 and 25 April.

Another avenue open to the Senator is that of Private Members' time. I would like to know the reason that avenue was not used.