Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House and I also welcome the Bill. I thank Senator Daly for initiating it. I also thank Senator Ó Domhnaill for initiating the recall of the Seanad to discuss the transposition of the organ donation directive, which brought the issue of EU scrutiny into the public domain. There are three matters to be discussed: the principle of whether there should be a greater role for the Seanad in the scrutiny of EU legislation; what measures can be taken on the scrutiny of this legislation; and the Bill before us.

There is no doubt that EU legislation plays a major part in all our lives, as Senator MacSharry pointed out. I was struck by the fact that a law that was little discussed anywhere makes it mandatory for all of us to put our food waste in brown bins or compost heaps rather than in black bins as we did traditionally. Failure to do this with one's dinner can result in a fine of €4,000 or up to three months in prison. As a famous actor once said, "Not a lot of people know that." The perception of EU legislation in the public domain and how we deal with it is an issue.

I was also struck by Senator Noone's comment that there is a role for both the Seanad and Dáil, as they are currently constituted, in regard to EU legislation. This raises the question of whether we are using the powers we have currently. She noted that there have been two motions this year under the so-called yellow card provision of the Lisbon treaty, neither of which has been debated. The proposal for a regulation on the establishment of the European public prosecutor's office was taken without debate in this Chamber earlier following the Order of Business. On a regular basis, EU legislation comes before the House and we do not debate it. On the one hand we want a greater scrutiny role, while on the other we are not fulfilling our current mandate in this regard.

We also have to ask ourselves what we want out of this process. Approximately 1,000 EU proposals come before our committees each year, 500 of which are legislative provisions. They are scrutinised by the relevant shadow committee, with some committees being more effective than others. The Joint Committee on European Affairs has provided us with a good briefing document on the performance of the different committees. The proposals before us include a requirement that the Seanad debate all EU legislation of public interest as well as creating a specific committee for scrutiny of statutory instruments. That goes beyond EU legislation and includes all statutory instruments, which would amount to around 2,000 provisions, according to Senator Noone. We need greater scrutiny and we all agree that the committee system could do better. The Seanad should not be focused on localism but should have more a broader, more international focus, and therefore it could be a more appropriate forum in which to scrutinise legislation.

However, against that, there is a great deal of EU legislation for consideration, much of which is technical in nature, and when directives have to be transposed we have an opportunity to debate them meaningfully. The other question we must ask ourselves is whether we want to be the forum to which all of the work that other forums such as the Dáil or committees do not want to do is referred. Increasing scrutiny, as Senator Noone pointed out, will take up valuable time. Much of the legislation has been passed by a democratic body, the European Parliament. We do not have the resources either as a House or as a country to increase scrutiny to the point at which we would be a key player in the EU at the initiation stage unless we prioritise our areas of interest as a country. The comments on EU scrutiny have varied. The Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Alex White, stated that we had serious deficiencies in our parliamentary system regarding the scrutiny of EU proposals.

I have a number of concerns about this legislation. There may be constitutional issues, as it transfers to the Seanad work that is currently done by both Houses. The legislation envisages the scrutiny of all statutory instruments, which is not practical. It is not practical for a committee of seven members either to take on the workload or to have the expertise required. Ultimately, as Senator Noone said, the committee system should be given time to demonstrate its effectiveness and the reports and recommendations made by committees should be referred to the House and debated fully, as opposed to the current policy of making referrals at the stroke of a pen. That is the way we should proceed.