Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I shall not avail of the full six minutes and shall speak briefly on a couple of issues that arose during the debate.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue of EU scrutiny, particularly following our comprehensive debate with the Taoiseach yesterday on Seanad reform. It was also good to hear the Tánaiste's remarks in his speech during this debate. I welcome his assurance that there is scope for the Seanad to play a greater role, in the context of Seanad Reform, and to do more in terms of EU scrutiny. It was useful to hear the Tánaiste outline in detail the role of the joint committees, at a sectoral level, in dealing with EU scrutiny matters.

I shall focus on my experience of being a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. We have dealt with a wide range of justice measures and have become better at scrutinising them. As Senator Clune has said, sectoral committees can play a very useful role in scrutinising EU legislation in their area. I also agree with the Tánaiste comment that we need to take a little longer to consider how the interaction will work between a committee's role in scrutinising EU legislation and a role that the Seanad might develop in future in order to scrutinise such legislation. I agree that the role should be developed as part of a package of Seanad reform measures following, as we said yesterday, the establishment of a task force that would report back within three months on general Seanad reform proposals. I think that we need to spend a little time considering the measure.

Senator Hayden and a number of others mentioned that the motion on the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality was scheduled to be taken without debate this morning. During the Order of Business I clearly said that although the motion was due to be taken without debate, we would arrange a debate if a Senator so wished. In fact, the motion has been the subject of quite detailed debate over two meetings of the committee. As a result, we took a decision to waive a yellow card at the EU on its proposal to establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office. The committee, following scrutiny of the proposal, took the view that the motion fell foul of the principle of subsidiarity and, therefore, put forward a reasoned opinion. That is exactly the sort of work that committees need to do and the House could play a role. Perhaps the motion should have been debated here, even for a short time, in order to put forward the reasons the committee adopted its view. It is important to say that.

It is also true that the justice committee held very useful briefings with experts like Dr. Gavin Barrett, UCD, on the proposed UK opt-out of a range of justice and home affairs measures and the impact such a decision would have on Ireland and Irish criminal law. Again, we examined specific proposals, at a detailed level and a broader level, on the sort of big policy issues that will reach the justice and home affairs section in the EU. That is a very important role that sectoral committees can play in terms of the scrutiny of EU measures.

In conclusion, detailed scrutiny requires a good deal of time and resource commitment from the Senators and Deputies on committees and from the support staff who work for committees. Clearly, if the Seanad took on a greater role in scrutinising either EU legislation or, as often proposed, statutory instruments we would need a great deal of backup and technical expertise to assist us in carrying out such scrutiny in a meaningful and effective manner. It is something that we can and should develop in the House but we need a little more time. However, we need to carry out such work in a way that fairly acknowledges and recognises the role of the other House and the sectoral committees.