Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the motions before us. This is not the type of EU scrutiny in which Senator Mark Daly engaged during the summer of a directive proposed to be implemented without scrutiny. These motions relate to the justice and home affairs functions of the European treaties. Ireland and the United Kingdom secured an opt-out from justice and home affairs measures. We did so mainly because the United Kingdom had opted out. As a result of referendums and having to protect everything, provision was made in the Constitution that if we wanted to opt in to anything in the justice and home affairs sphere at European level, the approval of the Dáil and the Seanad would have to be obtained. This is not a matter of scrutinising legislation that has been debated in Brussels or passed by the European Parliament; it is about our function to approve legislation. We do not have a direct function in regard to many of the directives and regulations that are brought before the House. These motions on justice and home affairs measures and any other motion requiring approval by the Seanad should be debated. I am not seeking a long debate. Scrutiny of EU directives and regulations normally takes place in sectoral committees - the Joint Committee on Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform deals with many of them - but these motions are fundamentally different and deserve an approach in which the Seanad exercises its functions under the Constitution. If they are not passed by the Seanad, they will not enter into law. We do not have a 90 day delaying or an advisory power. We are saying "Yes" or "No" to something that cannot happen without our approval. In respect of the justice and affairs motions which are regularly brought before the House and possibly matters relating to enhanced co-operation which would also require our approval, we should have full debates which do not necessarily need to be long.