I remind Members that a coffee morning is being held this morning in aid of the Philippines disaster relief effort from 11 a.m. to noon. I know everyone would want to support that in the light of the terrible reports of the tragedy in the Philippines.

I ask the Leader for a debate on the important issue of EU scrutiny and how it is conducted. Fianna Fáil Senators are taking a somewhat obstructive approach to motions put before the House. I agree we need transparency and scrutiny of EU matters. However, I was at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality yesterday at which we had a full debate on the two proposals which are laid before the Seanad today on passenger name record data, the transcripts of which are on the website. Spokespersons from every party are members of that committee.

When were the minutes published?

The Seanad has the power, not the committee.

Senator Ivana Bacik to continue, without interruption, please.

I am trying to explain the process, because people want clarification. We had a full debate with the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. We asked her what constituted passenger name record data, to what use it would be put and so forth. We scrutinised these measures. Some weeks ago, we had the Tánaiste in the House and he explained to us the process for the scrutiny of EU matters.

On a point of order, the area of justice and home affairs is not to do with EU scrutiny, but with primary legislation by the Seanad and the Dáil. These motions cannot be passed without our approval. This is not to do with scrutiny of decisions made by Ministers or by Brussels. It is a function of the Seanad and the Dáil equally.

I do not know from where Senator Thomas Byrne is coming with that.

The Constitution.

The point the Tánaiste made was that sectoral committees are now being provided with briefings and material to enable us to have informed debate on matters that come from the European Union that are within our competence and area of expertise. That is a useful and a most effective and efficient way to carry out scrutiny of EU matters. I agree the Seanad and the Dáil must continue to have a role. However, it is ultimately somewhat obstructive if we see every motion that has been the subject of a full debate at a committee meeting being opposed if it is laid on the Order Paper to be taken without debate. Perhaps we will be able to have a debate on these matters and we can rehash the matters we discussed yesterday with the Minister. It would be good for us to decide in the House what matters we believe it is important we should have double scrutiny of, because that is what is happening. To be fair and helpful, we need to have an agreed procedure with regard to what motions returning from committee, where there has already been scrutiny, need a second layer of scrutiny. I agree there will be motions for which that extra layer of scrutiny is required.

I agree that we need to debate that issue. We need to set time aside to do this.

We, as Senators, need to decide which motions require that double scrutiny. There is no point in opposing every motion that returns from committees.

I do not intend to do that.

I am glad to hear it.

Senator Ivana Bacik to continue, without interruption.

This is also in the interest of Seanad reform. In the debate on Seanad reform, we all said the Seanad should have a greater role in scrutiny. However, let us be clear about our role. Where there is a better way to conduct scrutiny, through sectoral committees and spokespersons on areas of expertise - for example, in the justice and home affairs area - let us use the committees. Let us only bring back to the Seanad issues that are of more general importance for debate.

Will the Leader inquire about the cyber-crime Bill, the heads of which, I understand, have been agreed at the Cabinet but have not yet been published? It is imperative we see what is in that Bill and that we have a debate on legislation to regulate cyber-crime, given the serious and worrying data breaches that have occurred this week and the sort of criminal activity that appears to have gone on as a result.