Catherine Noone (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Tánaiste for his attendance. I commend Senator Daly on his considered contribution and on his drafting of the EU Scrutiny and Transparency in Government Bill and I thank his colleagues who contributed to the debate. The intent of the Bill has much merit. The proposal for the Seanad to provide oversight and scrutiny of European legislation should be adopted. I suggest that one or possibly two blocks of time per week should be set aside for particular pieces of European legislation which would be selected by Members of the Seanad, perhaps by means of a mechanism similar to how Adjournment matters are chosen.

However, while I agree with the intent of Senator Daly's Bill, the practicalities pose difficulties. It is proposed that the scrutiny of statutory instruments committee make arrangements for the monitoring and scrutiny of all draft statutory instruments laid before the Seanad and EU legislative proposals and would, in respect of each measure, within 21 days of the date of laying of the draft measure, report its conclusions and recommendations to the relevant Minister of the Government.

That could be a useful mechanism but there would need to be consideration of both the size and composition of this committee.

It is true that the number of EU laws and the speed at which they are being introduced is dizzying, and barely a week passes by without some new bizarre law making it into the media. It is also true that we definitely need some national oversight here and that the Oireachtas and, in particular, the Seanad can play a crucial role in the scrutiny of this legislation. As Senator MacSharry noted, In 2012 there were 590 statutory instruments, 52 EU directives and 1,270 EU regulations, or approximately 2,000 items that needed to be reviewed. That is broadly in line with the average for the last 15 years. As the Senator noted, only 53 Bills were debated.

I am not sure that a committee of seven people reviewing 2,000 items and presenting their considerations before the relevant Minister would not put undue strain on the resources and capabilities of the seven Senators serving on this committee and, indeed, whether it would require extra resources as a consequence, or perhaps an enlarged membership among whom the load could be shared a little more evenly. Currently, the EU is a driver of a great many important consumer and health care regulations and I am concerned that this committee of seven people would become a one-stop shop for lobbyists and those who wish to interfere in the process in order to try to slow the progress of important laws. Many of our contentious debates relating to alcohol, smoking and abortion have opened our eyes right across the Seanad to the power of lobbyists and to how aggressive lobbying can be. This could be intensified further with the introduction of this Bill.

Further to this, as the Taoiseach highlighted before the House yesterday, any proposals on the future role of the Seanad must dovetail with the Government's programme for reform of Dáil Éireann and must respect the constitutional role of the Seanad as well as the Dáil. This Bill is not compatible with that goal of general political reform. In addition, the proposals in the Bill pre-empt the planned process of consultation with party leaders on the future of the Seanad following the referendum, which we discussed yesterday. This process has now been announced and needs to proceed with the agreement of all party leaders before any further Bills on Seanad reform should proceed.

More alarmingly perhaps, the Bill proposes to insert amendments into the Statutory Instruments Act 1947, which demonstrates that the proposal is much wider than EU measures and could potentially cover a number of statutory instruments unrelated to EU measures. In this respect, it would need substantial redrafting in order to be acceptable, and it is my belief that measures on EU scrutiny will be proposed and set forth during the consultation between party leaders on the reform of Seanad Éireann.

The proposals in the Bill are very similar to those in Senator Quinn and Zappone's Seanad reform Bill. It must be remembered that the Quinn-Zappone Bill was not opposed by the Government on Second Stage in May in the hope of bringing about debate in the lead-up to the referendum, which it did, as it focused minds on what kind of reform we could expect. Looking more closely at the specific proposals on the table, a preliminary assessment suggests the proposals would have some potential legal difficulties and there would need to be more discussion on the scrutiny of EU legislation. For example, the Bill proposes a 21-day scrutiny reserve for the Seanad without parallel powers for the Dáil and it also proposes to establish a parallel Seanad committee system - comprising two stand-alone Seanad committees of seven members each - to scrutinise draft EU legislation and statutory instruments. These functions have already been specifically delegated to joint Oireachtas committees, on which Senators sit as full members.

There is a range of opportunities for the Seanad and Senators to increase engagement on EU issues, and I agree with Senator MacSharry's comments regarding disengagement. We are all aware of that phenomenon within this House. Committees are best placed to carry out detailed scrutiny work but the Seanad Chamber provides a high-profile public forum in which to debate committee reports. The emphasis which the Government is placing on increasing committee effectiveness on EU legislation and statutory instruments can be expected to result in an increased number of committee reports and recommendations to the Houses. A number of EU scrutiny reports and political contributions were published by committees in 2012 and laid before the Houses but none was debated by either House. Through their membership of joint Committees, Senators can play a lead role in advocating better engagement in EU scrutiny by encouraging committees to bring measures to the floor of the Houses for debate.

The Seanad can also debate motions for reasoned opinions from committees on compliance with subsidiarity, or the so-called yellow card under the Lisbon treaty. There have been two such motions so far in 2013, neither of which has been debated. The motion on the directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management was taken without debate on 9 May and the motion on the regulation on the establishment of the European public prosecutor's office was also taken without debate on 24 October. The Seanad can also debate the EU Commission's annual work programme, and the Commission published its 2014 work programme on 22 October, which outlines the key areas of focus in the lead into next year's European elections. Joint committees will select their 2014 scrutiny priorities from this work programme and the Joint committee dealing with EU affairs will publish them in the form of a report to the Houses. That report provides a vehicle for debate for the Seanad.

I believe the aspiration of Senator Daly's Bill strikes the right chord and I have been calling for EU scrutiny in this House. Nevertheless, practicalities such as the size of the proposed committee, the legal question marks over the 21-day limit and the timing ahead of the consultation between party leaders unfortunately mean that we will be opposing this Bill. It is worth noting that we can do a great deal more on EU scrutiny without legislative change, and we should continue to set forth proposed alternatives in a similar spirit to this Bill in order to ensure that the Seanad has a strong role in EU legislative scrutiny.