Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. I compliment Senator Daly on his initiative in this regard.

I acknowledge the contribution of Senator MacSharry in articulating much of what Senator Daly has incorporated into his proposals. I wish to focus on the issue relating to the Lisbon treaty. I accept that has been addressed previously. I also wish to highlight the figures which have already gone on record on the 139 pieces of legislation released by the EU for comment and that Ireland only made one submission. Perhaps the Tánaiste might respond as to whether there was any reason this country only made one submission in that regard, while 428 were received across the EU. When one splits up 428 among 27 member states, it does not appear to be a significant amount. Perhaps some countries did not have any more than two or three comments. Perhaps it is not that relevant but I am curious and would welcome a response if the Minister has one.

I suggest that, first, we must establish the concept that the Seanad has a role to play in EU scrutiny. It would be a major step forward if there were formal recognition that this House has a role to play in that regard. Second, in more practical terms it has been pointed out that it would be absurd to suggest that 2,000 different initiatives coming from Europe could be debated by either House of Parliament to any great degree. Third, following the abolition of the EU scrutiny committee of which I was privileged to be a member for a short while prior to the previous election, each committee now has staff attached to it who provide expertise on EU scrutiny - the COMs - as they have been called earlier.

What I would like to suggest as a starting point in the sense of dipping one’s toe in the water in that regard, as far as the Seanad is concerned, is that where one has motions that are put before both Houses without debate, as happened this morning in the House, perhaps we could take on the role. I understand the motion before the House this morning that was taken without debate came from the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality and related to subsidiarity issues. It would fulfil the constitutional role of Parliament if, for example, the motions could be taken in the Dáil without debate but they would be taken in the Seanad with debate. That might start the process rolling and then a system could be developed as to how we would have a meaningful role in more detailed EU scrutiny. It would be impossible in practical terms to go through up to 2,000 pieces of legislation. However, there are statutory instruments coming from Europe and under the Lisbon treaty an eight-week period is provided for study. I put forward as a proposal that we could establish first the concept that this House does have a role to play in this regard and then consider how we go about it in practical terms.

I take the opportunity to raise a side issue with the Tánaiste that is within the context of European Union membership. I refer to the astonishing allegations that have emerged in recent days whereby the French President, and in the past 24 hours, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, have allegedly been subjected to having their mobile telephones monitored by US security forces. Given that the Tánaiste represented this country at EU Presidency level up to some months ago, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that his mobile telephone was being tapped as well because of the important role he was playing. I would like to hear some assurance that it is not happening in the context of this country. If the allegations are proven, would the Tánaiste consider conveying to the US ambassador to Ireland that it is unacceptable behaviour that our allies, both the German Chancellor and the French President, within the European Union context, should be subjected to surveillance of that nature? What is particularly disturbing is the language used this morning by President Obama’s press officer in response to the telephone call from Chancellor Merkel. The language he used left open the possibility that her mobile telephone was monitored in the past. He said that they are not "currently" monitoring and "will not" monitor. The language he used has been picked up by the Germans themselves.