Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Oct 2013

Vol. 227 No. 3

EU Scrutiny and Transparency in Government Bill 2013: Second Stage

Senator Marc MacSharry

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I do not know why I thought he would be in Mexico with the President this week. A Minister of State is in Mexico in place of the Tánaiste.

I propose this Bill on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party and, particularly, Senator Mark Daly, who is the author of the Bill. He has done us a service and, while the Bill may not be perfect, it forms the basis of a vehicle that can be improved upon by the Government or other parties in a debate to ensure we achieve the outcome we want. Yesterday the Taoiseach's concluding remarks on how the Seanad could be reformed referred to the countless reports and the diversity of opinion on how to reform this House and what way it could best be used. I agree with him on that point, which is where leadership comes in and where we come to a position and go forward. The common denominator throughout all contributions, even the Taoiseach's, concerned EU scrutiny. The amount of legislation that goes through these Houses on the nod is very worrying. Last year there were 53 Acts of the Oireachtas and 590 statutory instruments, which are not the subject of any debate in most instances. There were 52 EU directives and 1,270 EU regulations proposed. In reality, we only debated the 53 Acts of the Oireachtas.

The democratic deficit that is often suggested in respect of the European Union is a reality. This is an example, where we see a vast amount of legislation determined in agreement between officials in Departments and officials in Brussels. We come into the House and, under the Whip system, vote through the transposition of directives.

The Bill hopes to provide a scenario where the House can formally review all items of legislation, statutory instruments and regulations. It would do a great service in increasing the usefulness of the Oireachtas and would help to connect people with the European Union, which we have never achieved. In various referendums over the years, there has been a disengagement of the public from the European system, which is responsible for many of our laws. Many of us have been in a constituency or community organisation where something could not be achieved because there was a law against it. The law was often a directive that we had the obligation to simply transpose into legislation without the opportunity to comment. Under the last Administration, the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny did some work but in real terms there is no EU scrutiny by the people's representatives. That is fundamentally wrong and something we need to change.

Yesterday I spoke to the Taoiseach about the fact that Ireland has a great sense of community but no sense of state. We have no sense of state because people do not feel ownership of the national policy platform. Their representatives are strangled by a stringent whip system. There is a need for parliamentary discipline, but often the legislative process and the ideas machine is not driven by the people or their representatives. This item of legislation may be imperfect, but it sets out the aspiration and a suggested roadmap of how to achieve it in this House. It will increase the relevance of the House to the public and its usefulness to the Oireachtas in terms of assessment of hugely important issues that, heretofore, did not receive the kind of scrutiny they deserve and should have in the interests of the people. It will also serve to connect people with their European legislative masters. So much is being done in that regard.

Since the foundation of the State, there have been some 28,000 statutory instruments. Worryingly, in the past ten years, almost 8,000 have come in and it is done on the nod. It is not a case of criticising this Government or the previous Government but 25% of all statutory instruments came on board in the past ten years. It suggests a level of autopilot that contributed to our demise as a nation. Autopilot was on and the practice was that legislation, regulations and statutory instruments were done in a certain way. I hope the Tánaiste can embrace the legislation, albeit with Government amendments to improve its effectiveness. We have a responsibility to the citizens of Ireland to try to deal with the democratic deficit in our legislative process. The Seanad is the vehicle to do so. There is no additional cost in doing so and it would serve our citizens and the Oireachtas well if we did so.

The Lisbon treaty afforded national parliaments the opportunity to take a view on legislation at the embryonic stage and report to the Commission. In the first two years after the Lisbon treaty, there were 139 instances of the Commission putting a matter out to member state parliaments for submissions. Some 428 submissions were made but only one was from Ireland. I gave the incorrect figures when I made this point yesterday. It is an example of a lack of engagement.

Those in authority, the civil servants and the people who were involved in this - the Government of the day - believed this was a good proposal for Ireland. It may well be - I am sure Members would conclude the same - but in reality, all EU scrutiny and statutory instruments should be debated, and this is the House in which to do it, at no additional cost. Senator Mark Daly's Bill provides a vehicle for us to achieve just that. I hope the Minister can accept the Bill in the spirit in which it is presented and in the hope that together we can tease out further aspects. Following on from the spirit of reform and the very current mandate given to this House by the people, we hope to improve it by having powers to scrutinise EU legislation.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill

The purpose of the Bill has been explained very well by my colleague Senator Marc MacSharry. It follows from detailed preparatory work undertaken by our colleague, Senator Mark Daly. In our view, there is a need to scrutinise European directives and laws that are transposed into Irish law with very little debate. A total of 97% of European laws transposed into Irish law are neither debated nor scrutinised by either House. The European Union has served this country well since 1972. It has brought peace to European communities and it has allowed us to foster links with our close neighbours by means of bilateral trade agreements. When a population of 500 million people comes together, laws that may work in one country may not work in another. There is a need for scrutiny of legislation. The Lisbon treaty established protocols by which member state parliaments were given additional responsibilities and oversight for the scrutiny of EU directives and laws. Even if a committee on European scrutiny were to meet every Monday and Friday, it would not be possible to scrutinise all the EU directives. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine which deals every week with EU directives which affect our indigenous industries in the agriculture, food and marine sectors. With the best will in the world, the committee would need to spend a week discussing some of those directives in order to give them due consideration. This is not possible because the timescale does not allow for it. The Government of the day may argue that the directives will not have negative implications, but that is not known for certain. This highlights the need to scrutinise directives.

Laws are being transposed into Irish law and are being implemented in a different way from the way in which they are implemented in other states. For example, without prior consultation, under the 1972 EU birds directive, 5,000 hectares of land in my constituency was transformed overnight from agricultural land to special areas of conservation. Landowners were notified via a letter from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Farmers are not allowed to cut grass on such land. Thirty-nine procedural farming activities require prior consent from the Government as a result of the implementation of that directive. Other member states such as Portugal and Spain implemented that directive by consulting the landowners first and if the landowners were not in agreement with the government, areas such as common lands or state lands were considered as alternatives. There is a need for scrutiny, but there is also a need for common sense to be applied and a need to consider what the directives actually require and how those requirements are being transposed for use in Ireland. The rights of citizens and landowners must be considered.

The people voted to keep Seanad Éireann, but they are seeking reform. If this Bill were to be accepted, Seanad Éireann could play a meaningful role in scrutinising European legislation and European Commissioners could be invited to come to the House. The Seanad should sit at least one extra day a week, either on Mondays or Fridays, with the sole purpose of scrutinising European legislation and in addition to our current role. We cannot allow a situation to develop in which hundreds of European directives are being transposed into Irish law without adequate scrutiny. I mean no disrespect to the European scrutiny committee, whose members carry out a meaningful role. In addition to the work of the committee, Seanad Éireann should also play a role in that regard.

Another piece of European legislation is the bilateral agreement with Canada announced last week. This Parliament has not debated that bilateral agreement. I understand the agreement must be translated into the 28 languages of the European Union, after which it can be debated in these Houses. We can only speculate on the agreement because we only know what is in the media reports. Some aspects of the agreement will be beneficial from an Irish point of view, but certain elements will be very dangerous for the beef and pork sectors. We should have been given the opportunity to debate that agreement before it was signed. The Canadian Parliament has debated the legislation but member states of the European Union have not.

Senator Catherine Noone

I thank the Tánaiste for his attendance. I commend Senator Mark Daly on his considered contribution and drafting of the EU Scrutiny and Transparency in Government Bill and 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 Mark 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 Marc 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 European Union 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 Feargal Quinn and Senator Katherine 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 Marc MacSharry's comments on 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 European 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 Mark 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 the Bill. It is worth noting that we can do a great deal more on EU scrutiny without legislative change and should continue to set forth proposed alternatives in a similar spirit to the Bill in order to ensure the Seanad has a strong role in EU legislative scrutiny.

Senator Feargal Quinn

The Tánaiste is welcome and we are delighted to have him here. I was chairman and vice chairman of EuroCommerce, which is based in Brussels, for six years. It represents a very large number of retail, wholesale and other trading businesses. What impressed me was the amount of information that other countries had compared to ourselves with regard to European legislation. I have checked the figures and approximately 80% of all legislation in this country originates in European institutions, but Ireland has one of the poorest records, as far as I can see, in debating, scrutinising and influencing the law-making process in Europe. We must do something about this.

There is general agreement that there must be more scrutiny of European legislation and this task would be well suited to the Upper House. Senator Marc MacSharry has been very open in saying that although the Bill may not be perfect, we should ensure it is a basis for discussion. A reformed Seanad could play a vital role in this area and I am glad that the Bill seeks to push that idea. As has been mentioned, Senator Katherine Zappone and I have put forward a Seanad reform Bill that would confer a range of additional powers on the Seanad in areas like scrutiny of EU legislation. As has been noted, the current Government Chief Whip, the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, has conceded that "scrutiny of EU legislation is not adequate" and there is only one committee charged with examining a large volume of proposals. That is failing.

There is much to do and Ireland's ratification of the Lisbon treaty led to each House of the Oireachtas being conferred with significant additional powers in matters specifically concerning EU affairs. For example, under Article 5 of the treaty, national parliaments have been given the express power to ensure that EU institutions comply with the principle of subsidiarity and only act in areas where the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved at national or local level. A provision envisages that national parliaments can receive and consider draft legislation on that basis. We would have a big task ahead of us to scrutinise EU legislation.

Many other countries have taken up the new powers in the Lisbon treaty. We can consider what is happening across the water in the United Kingdom, where the House of Lords European Union Select Committee has been specifically empowered to examine EU documents and other EU-related matters in advance of decisions.

There is also the rapporteur system used in the Scottish Parliament, whereby select committees are supported by rapporteurs. Experts believe there has been a significant spillover effect in raising awareness of, and interest in, European affairs by MSPs, and perhaps we need to examine this system further. The Senate of the Czech Republic is a second example of what can be done with regard to EU scrutiny. It is involved in the process of shaping EU policies that affect the country. It debates and delivers opinion on European legislative proposals before they have been approved by the EU Council. The Czech Senate also deals with other strategic documents submitted by European institutions and, therefore, is involved in the European legislative process via its relationship with the government or through direct communications with the Commission. I would like the House to follow that example. Moreover, the Czech Senate participates in an exchange of information between national parliaments and the European Parliament. This House does not have a similar direct communication channel to the Commission. A great deal, therefore, can be done in this area. Too often politicians think in local terms, but the Seanad's role is to examine national and international issues. Perhaps the Leader could look into the issue of better informing Senators in a similar way to the Czech Senate, which has systems to keep its members up to date in this area. They are briefed weekly on events in EU institutions. Perhaps we have something like that, but it does not appear to get the attention I would like.

In a reformed House Senators should scrutinise EU legislation both at the development stage and when it is being transposed into domestic law. The House should also review previous legislation to remove red tape and bureaucracy, which is a barrier to business. All of these measures would help the Seanad to scrutinise EU legislation to the benefit of the consumer, which in this case is the Irish citizen. If 80% of legislation originates in Europe and we have not developed a system to scrutinise, examine and influence it, we must do so in some form or other. This is an ideal task for a reformed Seanad to undertake.

I welcome the Bill. As Senator Marc MacSharry said, it may not be perfect and it may need adjustments, but there is a great deal of value in it and it is worth considering.

Senator Aideen Hayden

I welcome the Ministe. I also welcome the Bill and thank Senator Mark Daly for initiating it. I also thank Senator Brian 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 Marc 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 Catherine Noone's comment that there was a role for both the Seanad and the Dáil, as currently constituted, in regard to EU legislation. This raises the question of whether we are using the powers we have currently. She has 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 Catherine Noone. We need greater scrutiny and all agree that the committee system could do better. The Seanad should not be focused on localism, but it should have more a broader, more international focus. 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 Catherine 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 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.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I welcome the Minister. I also compliment Senator Mark Daly on his initiative in this regard.

I acknowledge the contribution of Senator Marc MacSharry in articulating much of what Senator Mark 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 European Union 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 European Union. 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 2,000 initiatives coming from the European Union 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 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 phones 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 phone 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 proved, will 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.

Acting Chairman (Senator Pat O'Neill)

The Senator is deviating from the Bill.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I appreciate that, but I take the opportunity as the Tánaiste is present and I did raise the issue on the Order of Business. Perhaps he might feel inclined to give some response because of the fact that this is a very sinister development. I am grateful for your indulgence, Acting Chairman.

Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Eamon Gilmore)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate which has been most interesting. I compliment Senator Mark Daly on the preparation of the Bill and Senator Marc MacSharry on its presentation.

The discussion must be seen in the context of this House's engagement with the Taoiseach yesterday on the broader issue of Seanad reform. He has undertaken to engage in a process of consultation with party leaders to identify ways in which the Seanad could be more effective in carrying out its role as a second Chamber under the Constitution. I see the Bill and today's debate as, to some extent, a bit previous given the acknowledged need for a broader exercise.

Before I turn to the Bill, I wish to set out some key principles from the Government's perspective, drawing on the Taoiseach's comments yesterday. Any proposals on the future role of the Seanad cannot be made in isolation. They must take account of the Government's programme of Dáil reform and they must reflect the constitutional balance between the Houses and the role each House, and the joint committees, play. Any proposal must be workable from both a legal and constitutional perspective. It must be fit for purpose in terms of the Seanad's role as a second Chamber under the Constitution and should not duplicate existing work.

That said, I believe, too, that it is important to record the considerable improvements in this area which have been introduced by the Government since it took office. The programme for Government contained a number of commitments in relation to more effective parliamentary engagement with EU legislation and policy. The primary change was to move away from the previous system of centralised scrutiny by a small number of members sitting on one specialist committee to a mainstreamed model of EU scrutiny. This involved delegating responsibility for scrutiny of EU legislative proposals to all sectoral committees. Reflecting the approach, sectoral committees were also empowered to scrutinise statutory instruments within their remit. This approach ensures scrutiny is carried out by Oireachtas Members - both the Dáil and the Seanad - who have the appropriate expertise in the particular policy area.

Another notable improvement is the increased engagement by sectoral committees with the relevant Minister prior to meetings of the Council of Ministers. That is an important element of Government accountability to the Oireachtas in relation to actions at EU level. Now two years in operation, pre-Council meetings with Ministers are becoming more routine across the committee system. That is borne out by the most recent report of the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs on the operation of the scrutiny system in 2012, which was laid before both Houses in July this year. The report shows that there were 28 pre-Council meetings with 13 Ministers across 11 committees last year. We are still some way from the target of full engagement with all committees for all Council formations, however it is clear that the trend is in the right direction.

It would certainly be understandable had Presidency demands on Ministers and committee Chairmen negatively affected participation in the first part of this year. Now that the Presidency is over, the Government will be redoubling efforts towards the objective of ministerial engagement with committees on all Council agendas. I see ongoing and regular ministerial engagement with committees, and focused engagement by the committees themselves, as being at the core of an effective scrutiny system. As Senators will be aware, a huge volume of documentation is received directly from the EU institutions on a weekly basis. Equally, committees have considerable policy workloads on the domestic front as well as legislative duties. It is important therefore that committees focus and balance their work. In that context, I welcome the identification by Oireachtas committees - for the first time this year - of priorities for detailed scrutiny based on the European Commission's annual work programme.

We must recognise that not everything is a priority, for example, the report I referred to earlier shows that committees considered 537 proposals in total in 2012, of which 13% were selected for detailed scrutiny and 5% for further action and follow-up. Equally, however, for those proposals which are significant, there is a need to engage early, and ideally before the proposal is published, in order to have the most influence. That makes it crucial that committees focus on the proposals which are of most relevance from a national as well as a strategic EU perspective. The Commission's annual work programme and the consultation roadmaps which are published alongside it are invaluable tools for committees seeking to engage at the earliest stages of EU policy-making.

While much has already been achieved, I recognise that we can do more. Today’s debate is reflective of a wider debate at EU level on the role of national parliaments in bridging the gap between citizens and the EU institutions. It is important that we are happy with our own arrangements at national level in order to effectively contribute to this debate. In that context, the Government has decided that it is timely to conduct an assessment of the current structures for EU scrutiny with a view to identifying areas for improvement.

It is envisaged that this assessment will be conducted initially at official level in consultation with Departments and the Houses of the Oireachtas through the interdepartmental committee on EU engagement which is chaired by the Minister of State responsible for European affairs.

One area which is often remarked on as requiring improvement is the scrutiny of statutory instruments. There is a comprehensive legislative framework in place that is largely fit for purpose, subject to some technical adjustments to reflect the role of sectoral committees in the scrutiny of statutory instruments. However, while statutory instruments are being laid in the Oireachtas Library, Oireachtas committees do not receive the texts directly. Therefore, there is scope for improvement. Equally, there may be scope to improve the information provided for committees to help them to prioritise statutory instruments for detailed scrutiny.

I welcome the recent initiative of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, with the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications. It is a good example of what can be done to help committees in their work. The Minister has agreed to provide all draft statutory instruments within his Department's remit arising from EU legislation for the joint committee, together with an explanatory note, at least one month before they are proposed to be signed into law. Recommendations from the committee are to be provided for the Minister within two weeks and the Minister has undertaken to consider fully the recommendations and comply with them or, where this is not done, fully explain why not. The Minister has proposed that this measure will be reviewed during the summer of 2014 with a view to the possibility of making recommendations for wider application across the board.

Let me sound one cautionary note concerning my point about early engagement being the key to influencing policy at EU level. I am concerned that the debate on the role of the Oireachtas in the scrutiny of statutory instruments is not always well informed. There is little point in the Oireachtas engaging in lengthy debate about the substance of EU legislative measures at the time of their being transposed into Irish law, often by statutory instrument. At that stage, the policy issues are settled and our obligation is to apply the law agreed at EU level, having played a full part in its evolution and negotiation. What is appropriate at the time of transposition is for the Oireachtas to scrutinise the way in which the law is being transposed. It is a question of determining whether a statutory instrument is appropriate and proportionate, whether the penalties are proportionate and effective and whether it goes beyond what is required and so on. The initiative of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport will be a useful exercise in stepping through these types of question with the joint committee and will be a useful input to further proposals for improvement in this area.

As both Senators Feargal Quinn and Catherine Noone stated, the proposals in the Bill are similar to those in the Seanad Reform Bill 2013, sponsored by Senators Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone and which is on the Seanad Order Paper for Committee Stage. I acknowledge the fact that the Bill was intended to provide a basis for and to stimulate discussion. In that spirit, the Government did not oppose it in the lead-in to the referendum. With the referendum decided, there is now a need to examine more closely the feasibility of the specific proposals on the table. A preliminary assessment suggests the proposals made in the Bill are flawed from a legal perspective and would not lead to an optimal scheme for scrutiny of EU directives. Notwithstanding the wider context and the discussions among party leaders announced yesterday, I will comment on some of the detail of the Bill.

The stated purpose of the Bill is to ensure scrutiny of EU directives by the Seanad prior to signature by the relevant Minister and that statutory instruments that are of public interest would be debated by the Seanad prior to enactment. The Bill proposes additional scrutiny powers for two stand-alone committees, each with seven Members of Seanad Éireann, with no involvement envisaged by the Seanad in plenary session and no equivalent powers for the Dáil. The basic premise of the Bill is inconsistent with the current legislative framework and the arrangements for scrutiny. As I have outlined, scrutiny of EU draft legislation and statutory instruments is delegated to Oireachtas joint committees which carry out the detailed analysis and report their recommendations to the Houses, as appropriate. The Bill is inconsistent with the general principle of parity of powers between the two Houses of the Oireachtas in regard to draft EU legislation and statutory instruments.

Senator Catherine Noone drew attention to the fact that the proposal to insert amendments in the Statutory Instruments Act 1947 demonstrated that the proposal was much wider than measures made under the European Communities Act 1972 or other statutes that permitted EU measures to be put in place and could potentially cover a number of statutory instruments unrelated to EU matters. More specifically, section 2(5) requires that a Minister "shall not articulate an official Government stance on a draft legislative measure until 21 days have elapsed after the laying of the draft before the Seanad". This seeks to put in place a 21-day Seanad-only scrutiny reserve on Ministers. This would be a significant departure from existing practice and the balance between the Executive and the Legislature and would, in principle, place an unacceptable restraint on the Government's ability to conduct EU business. Quite apart from the fact that this proposal would give the Seanad enhanced powers vis-à-vis the Dáil, it is inconsistent with the scheme of the European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002 which expressly recognises that some matters may be particularly sensitive and urgent. Consideration would also have to be given to the possible impact on the European Communities Act 1972. On a practical level, the 21-day limit for recommendations is extremely short and does not fit with the current 20-day guideline under the 2002 Act for information notes from the Government which are a key input to committee consideration. It does not fit with the eight week window for national parliament scrutiny of subsidiarity under the Lisbon treaty.

Time does not permit me to go into further detail on the Bill. However, the examples highlight some of the complexity that has to be considered when elaborating on such a fundamental change, one which would affect not only the role of the Seanad but also of the joint committees and, therefore, the Dáil. There is considerable scope for an increased role for the Seanad and Senators without either replacing, or duplicating, the role of the joint committees.

Parliaments generally work on sectoral issues through committee systems. This is the most efficient way to conduct detailed scrutiny work before bringing it to the floor of the plenary session. The current scrutiny system is two years in operation and must be given time to deliver. It would be a regressive step to now take away from the roles of the sectoral committees by establishing a parallel Seanad committee system. In that vein, it is worth at least considering whether the principal shortcomings in Oireachtas scrutiny of EU legislative proposals are not, in fact, legal but arise from the need for further engagement, better focus and clear prioritisation. Having sectoral committees playing the lead role is certainly the correct approach and with the recent improvement in prioritisation and mainstreaming, we are on the right road towards ensuring effective engagement between the Oireachtas and the Government on EU business.

I welcomed the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It was a very useful exercise both to hear Senators' views at first hand and also to outline clearly the recent progress towards improving our scrutiny arrangements. We are agreed that what is needed now is a more effective and modern second Chamber. However, as the Taoiseach said yesterday, that is not easy to achieve. He is committed to a process of consultation. This Bill and the general issue of scrutiny of EU directives will feature prominently in that process and it is important that we do not try to pre­empt the outcome now. For that reason, because of the flaws in the Bill, to some of which I have alluded, and given that the function of effective scrutiny of EU directives should remain with joint committees, the Government does not propose to support the Bill. Having said that, however, I must make it clear that it intends to have serious engagement with this House on reform. The issue of scrutiny of EU directives and the role this House can play in that regard will be very much part of the process. As some Members said, there is probably scope for more in the area of scrutiny of EU directives without legislative change. For example, the reports of the joint committees go to both Houses. It is open to both to have whatever debate they want to have on them. Issues such as the trade agreement with Canada, CETA, as raised by Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill, have been in the public domain for some time. There is no reason there could not be a debate on the agreement.

Let me respond to two questions raised by Senator Paschal Mooney, the first of which was on the yellow card system. Ireland has exercised its yellow card on three occasions to date, but the threshold at EU level was not reached in respect of the first two. With regard to the CCCTB proposal, there was only one vote possible. It was in the Dáil as the Seanad had not yet met following the general election in May 2011. The proposal establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management was made in 2013. Both Houses had two votes on it. Both have recently adopted a yellow card on the proposal to establish a European public prosecutor's office.

On the monitoring of mobile phones, the intelligence services of any state should not monitor the telephones of political leaders or people in the administration or government of another state.

I have discussed the issue of the monitoring of telephone communications which has been in the public domain for some time with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. I know she has discussed it directly with the state concerned. There should be no question that friendly states should not tap each other’s phones.

Senator Darragh O'Brien

I thank the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade for attending the House and apologise for not being in the Chamber for all of his statement, although I did listen to it elsewhere. I also welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan.

All Members accept the thrust of this Bill. The Tánaiste outlined several reasons he believes it would be inconsistent with Oireachtas procedures. I disagree with his claim that detailed scrutiny of draft EU legislation actually happens at joint committee level. It does not. While I am not criticising committee members, anyone who serves on, observes or reads the Official Report for committees knows that EU legislation or directives, of which there are sometimes 500 items in a year, are not discussed in any great detail. This was proved earlier in the year when we recalled the Seanad for a debate on organ donation, which showed how the State could ensure it resourced its organ donation transplant office correctly. Now the Government is moving ahead with national transplant co-ordinators in each of our trauma hospitals. None of that would have happened had we not had that debate in the Seanad. Moreover, the debate actually happened after the Minister for Health signed a statutory instrument into law with no debate. It was actually the transposition of an EU directive that was not debated at committee level.

I welcome the Tánaiste’s point that there is scope for further work in this area by way of Seanad reform. As I said to the Taoiseach here yesterday, I do not believe it is a question of Seanad reform on its own. The Government, when it took office, said it would reduce the number of committees. It ended up amalgamating existing committees, which became unworkable. The Government then had to go back and increase the number of committees again. With committees that have over 30 members, it is impossible for some committee members to even get a speaking slot. The level of work is far beyond what is actually possible for those committees. That is not a political charge, just an absolute fact.

Yesterday, the Seanad - both Government and Opposition sides - offered the Taoiseach an opportunity to use this House to a greater extent in the legislative process. I thank the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, for allowing us to introduce this Bill in Private Members’ time because there was no Government business from the Dáil for today. What will happen is that there will be a glut of legislation coming up to every recess. It is not planned properly. One can have periods in both the Dáil and the Seanad when there is a dearth of legislation, but when it comes up to the summer or Christmas recess, a whole heap of legislation will be rammed through both Houses and guillotined. This is what has happened with successive Governments. It is not the way to do business. The business could be scheduled better and this Chamber could assist in that. The issue could be due to insufficient numbers of parliamentary draughtsmen or a lack of legal advice in the Oireachtas to use in the production of Bills.

The Tánaiste referred to the subsidiarity clause and yellow card system under the provisions of the Lisbon treaty. In 2012, of the 428 submissions received on EU legislation, only one came from Ireland. That shows the system is not working. The Tánaiste’s statement that detailed and effective scrutiny happens at joint committee level is patently not true. We will not push the Bill to a vote today. However, I hope the Government will consider what Members have said on it and recognise that our legislative system here does not work as it should do. We have had two years - particularly this year - of concerted effort by the Cabinet to dumb down this Chamber by starving it of work when Members are looking to provide assistance. The attendance record of some Ministers in this House - excluding the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan, who is here now - is abysmal. There was a dumbing down of our business before the referendum. That is now over and done with, and the people have spoken on it. This House should be allowed to do the job it can do. It has Members of vast political and other experience who can do a job in this regard. One yellow card for proposed EU legislation from this State out of 428 from all EU member states is not a good result. Neither is there any detailed scrutiny of EU legislation at committee level. We believe the Seanad could assist in this regard by advancing the issue in the next few months.

Senator Deirdre Clune

I thank the Tánaiste and Minister of State for attending the House for this debate. This Bill follows on our discussion yesterday with the Taoiseach. During the years there have been many suggestions that the Seanad should become more involved in scrutinising EU proposals. Since the Lisbon treaty, the role of national parliaments in EU legislation has been greatly strengthened. We are now charged with managing business through the scrutiny of European Commission proposals, holding Governments to account for their decisions at EU level. This has become a critical aspect of national parliaments’ work.

Prior to the Government's taking office, the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny dealt with all issues concerning EU legislation and reported to both Houses. Since 2011, EU scrutiny has been passed to the various relevant committees. Some claim that these committees merely rubber-stamp proposals, but there is much scrutiny. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, which does consider EU proposals and has regular comprehensive reports and follow-up reports from the relevant officials. Prior to every Council meeting, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, and the Ministers of State, Deputies John Perry and Sean Sherlock, attend the committee for a briefing. Much work, more than had been done previously, is being done in this area by the committee. All the work is also available on the Oireachtas website.

All committees have a home page and one can see it at a glance. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs has prepared a report on information notes submitted by Departments. Far more work is being done in this area than rubber-stamping.

The 2004 cross-party report on Seanad reform advocated the House playing a greater role in the scrutiny of EU directives and this debate has raised questions on how this would be done. The Tánaiste stated the Government was examining how the system of scrutiny by existing committees worked. Nothing is perfect immediately and what has been established must have time to bed down in order that the rough edges can be ironed out and the system expanded and improved. It has been acknowledged that the committee system established by the Government when it took office did not work and it was quickly changed. We are now examining how the scrutiny of EU directives works. If we were to follow the proposed legislation to the letter, whereby all directives prior to signature by the Minister and all statutory instruments in the public interest prior to enactment would be debated by the Seanad, there would be a certain level of duplication of the work of committees. Every Senator is a member of a committee, as are Deputies; therefore, we must ask where the Dáil would fit into the proposal. These are relevant questions which have been highlighted and focused on. The level of scrutiny by some committees is better than by others. That is what needs to be focused on to see how it can be improved.

Yesterday the Taoiseach stated a group comprising political leaders in this and the other House had been established. It involves Senators and outside groups with an interest in making the Seanad more relevant. To adopt legislation at this point would probably be premature, but I agree with the Tánaiste that these proposals will feed into the discussions. I hope the Seanad will have a role, but at this point we should agree to differ on the legislation and move forward, as we discussed yesterday with the Taoiseach, on establishing how we can enhance the role of committees, the Dáil and the Seanad. As the Tánaiste stated, our wishes will be heard and responses forthcoming.

Senator Paul Bradford

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. As she arrived, Senator Darragh O'Brien was speaking about the fact that many Ministers seemed to ignore the Seanad. Perhaps because of her previous experience as a Member of the House, she has always valued it and appeared in it regularly. She has contributed and debated here and I believe she respects the Chamber and the work it does.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

Unfortunately, I must leave now. I will be replaced by the Minister of State, Deputy John Perry. I apologise to the House.

Senator Paul Bradford

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy John Perry.

I thank Fianna Fáil Senators for tabling the legislation which allows us an opportunity to have an important debate at an opportune time, particularly in the light of the debate we had yesterday on the future of the Seanad. European elections will be held in the coming months and all parties will tell voters how important these elections are, how important the European Parliament is and how a significant proportion of laws affecting every citizen of the State is generated in the European Parliament and at European level. Simultaneously, we will not try to impress on citizens that the laws, regulations and interventions from Brussels need to be debated, examined and scrutinised domestically, but we are failing to do so. If we believe in the importance of the European Parliament and that so many laws of importance to the State are made and commenced in the European Union, we have an obligation to ensure we have domestic structures to examine fully the laws and proposals made.

For a brief period I was a member of the Oireachtas Joint Sub-committee on EU Scrutiny. It was a very hard-working committee, but it simply did not have the time or resources to examine in the required detail all of the questions, submissions and queries before it. We need new structures. I am sure, like every Bill proposed by the Government and the Opposition, there are difficulties and perhaps anomalies and flaws, but it is a good benchmark from which to start. I am glad that it will not be put to a vote today, that it will stay on the agenda and that we can return to debate it in more detail.

I heard most of the Tánaiste's speech. He put some of it in the context of the Taoiseach's speech yesterday and presumed progress on Seanad reform. I wish I could buy into this idea of presumed progress, but I cannot because I am a realist. The Tánaiste quoted the Taoiseach as stating it was not easy. Of course, it is easy. The Government must simply decide whether it wants to give the Seanad an enhanced role, whether it wants to engage every citizen in Seanad elections and whether it believes the Seanad should have more powers. These are not complicated questions. They are black and white. I am not sure whether a Government which deluded and convinced itself that the House was irrelevant, useless and costly can now do a somersault and reverse its view of the House and it is worth. The public has stated it wants the Seanad to remain. We all know that it must be reformed at all levels, from an electoral position to the work it does. The question of scrutiny of European directives must be a central part of this.

We can see that the various Oireachtas committees are overburdened with work and do not have the time or resources to scrutinise EU proposals and policies. This House would be an ideal vehicle if a political decision was made. It is not difficult; it is a question of whether the Government wants to have scrutiny carried out properly. Does it want to continue with politics as they have been practised or does it want a change? Does it want to make the Seanad more relevant? It does not require reports, big summits of political leaders or public or political submissions. It requires a political decision. I hope we will achieve this political decision in the very near future.

Yesterday the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, came to the House to speak about the Common Agricultural Policy, which is very much a product of the European Union working with the various national parliaments and Ministers. There is much more we could do from a scrutiny perspective with regard to the laws and regulations coming from the European Union. On behalf of citizens, we will be totally remiss in our duty as legislators if we do not put in place new structures to examine and scrutinise European laws. If the Oireachtas committees had the time, scope and staff, it could be done at this level, but they do not.

Sometimes my impatience with politics manifests itself in a negative fashion. Twelve years ago a suggestion was not just made but agreed to by all parties, the Whips, party leaders, the Dáil and the Seanad that one week in every four be a committee week in this House. That proposal rests in peace in the Oireachtas Library because an election took place some months later and a new Government began to rewrite history.

At least the legislation before us is progress.

It might not be the end product, but it forces us to face up to reality and accept that the current structures do not work as well as they should. It also acknowledges that European directives, laws and regulations impact greatly on Irish citizens and we have a duty to ensure they are examined in full. The Seanad would be a very suitable vehicle for doing so. I thank the Acting Chairman for the latitude he has shown me for this debate.

Acting Chairman (Senator Pat O'Neill)

I thank the Senator.

Senator Ivana Bacik

I welcome the Minister of State. 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 Deirdre 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. We need to spend a little time considering the measure.

Senator Aideen 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 European Union 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 European Union. That is a very important role that sectoral committees can play in terms of the scrutiny of EU measures.

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

Senator Martin Conway

I might detain people, but I shall make my contribution nonetheless. I welcome the Minister of State. He is probably one of the most frequent visitors to the House and always extremely welcome.

We have often heard about a scrutinising role during discourse here. Even yesterday, during the Seanad discussions with the Taoiseach, it was stated that the House could play a key role in the scrutinising of EU legislation, which is true.

Ireland must develop a more mature approach to the European Union. In the past we always had a begging bowl approach to Europe instead of feeling that we were equal and had a significant positive contribution to make to the European Union, as opposed to getting money from it. As a result, we did not properly scrutinise many of the decisions the European Union made during the years, unlike other countries.

I consider Irish people to be very compliant Europeans. As I have said before, all one must do is examine food safety legislation and directives from the European Union on environmental health. Let me give the example of a small pub in west Clare that wants to sell soup and sandwiches or provide small bits of food. That pub must comply with myriad regulations concerning all sorts of things such as food hygiene, HACCP, and the provision of various facilities, toilet facilities and so on. If one visits the west coast of Spain or France one will discover little shebeens that serve full meals without the facilities provided in a pub in the west of Ireland. We are all Europeans and the directives should apply to southern Spain in the same way that they do to west Clare. Irish people are extremely compliant and Ireland seems to be the first to implement a lot of the decisions made in Europe but that is unhealthy. We should cast a critical eye on EU directives just like everybody else. We should be a bit more mature in terms of what we can and cannot accept. We should not be afraid to argue when a measure is too prohibitive. In this country businesses suffer considerably from red tape and regulations and must operate in an overly regulated environment. I blame the European Union for a lot of that. We need a much more simplified structure which could have happened had we scrutinised EU measures a lot more. Unfortunately, we did not do so.

That said, I am a glass half full type of person. The Fianna Fáil proposal has provided us with an opportunity to have a discourse on the European Union and how we filter European policy. As nowadays people expect us to be on top of every matter, every European instrument needs to be properly scrutinised.

I agree with Senator Ivana Bacik's comments on the recent work done by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. My experience of working on the committee has been very positive because the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter has a fundamental belief in the committee system and refers practically all major legislation to same. Where the heads of Bills are published the committee will engage in a consultation process which has already happened with gambling legislation and other legislation. That is a good use of the committee system but requires a lot more dedication and work on the part of the Members who serve on a committee.

I spent last weekend perusing an awful lot of submissions and information on the proposed gambling legislation. The legislation will impact on people's lives and revenue streams of the country in a very positive manner. The committee's work on the legislation has been extremely positive and that can be applied elsewhere, not just legislation. I gave the gambling legislation as an example, but we need to carry out similar scrutiny on EU directives and legislation. Regrettably, that has not happened. All that we can do is learn from past mistakes and work towards a more fulfilled engagement with Europe where what is decided, positive or negative, is channelled back to the European Union. We should not be afraid to articulate the Irish position, beliefs, culture and heritage within the greater European structure.

The begging bowl syndrome is a thing of the past when glorious headlines indicated that if this treaty was passed, it would be worth €9 billion to Ireland. That is a very negative basis on which to engage. We could achieve much more in terms of the impact on our culture and way of life, based on the European model, if we were to put in place a formalised structure for positive engagement.

Senator Marc MacSharry

I thank the Minister for coming to the House. Obviously, we are disappointed, but we appreciate the positive nature of the debate and hope something can happen in that regard. Naturally Governments will never be inclined to put measures in place that might delay what it thinks is right to do. It will take tremendous courage for this or any Government to put in place the measures we are proposing for the scrutiny of EU legislation, but it is vitally important that we do so. I agree with Senator Paul Bradford that it would not be difficult; it would be a matter of taking the decision to put these measures in place and I hope we can do this in the future.

Debate adjourned.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Senator Catherine Noone

At 1.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 5 November.

The Seanad adjourned at 1.25 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 5 November 2013.