I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Thomas Byrne. I have received apologies from Senators Ahearn and Kelleher. We are delighted the Minister of State is here. His time is valuable so I propose that we ask him to speak first and then members can put questions. I know some members have correspondence to deal with. We might deal with that in private session but members may refer to such correspondence in public session if they wish. We will also be looking at the issue of the €1.54 million fine incurred due to the late enactment of an EU law by a Department. We will be asking for the agreement of the committee to refer the matter to the sectoral committee to investigate why Irish taxpayers ended up paying a fine they should not have paid. In many cases, it is simply a processing issue. It is about timelines.

Members will have received a copy of the correspondence I received from the Taoiseach in relation to the work of this committee. The Minister of State is going to outline that. I will refer to an extract from it. He thanked the committee for the letter we sent him, the committee having agreed to do so, in relation to the oversight and transposition of EU directives and sharing our views on effective scrutiny and strengthening democratic accountability in Ireland and its engagement with the European Union. The Taoiseach says the Government remains committed to supporting the work of the committee and the expectation that Departments will provide draft statutory instruments and accompanying information notes to the committee at least six months in advance of transposition deadlines. I regret to inform the committee that we did not receive a single draft EU law that was added to by any Government Department. The fact that Departments will meet EU deadlines but not deadlines decided by the Irish Government, the Cabinet and the Taoiseach is somewhat disturbing in the context of the democratic oversight this committee is mandated to be involved in. Irish citizens are entitled to see the laws being made on their behalf and to question those laws. The practice whereby they are put on Minister's desks with weeks to go until deadlines has resulted in Irish taxpayers paying fines because of the late enactment of those laws. Equally as bad, it results in Irish citizens not being allowed to see the laws being enacted on their behalf. TDs, Senators and Oireachtas committees are likewise not allowed to see these laws. That practice has to stop. Even though the Cabinet decided that we should get those draft laws six months in advance, not one has been received. I would like to get members' views on what we should do in relation to that particular issue.

The Cathaoirleach has provided some context in referring to part of the letter the Taoiseach sent. It would be helpful if, for completeness, we could see the letter the Cathaoirleach wrote. The Taoiseach thanks him for a letter he wrote to him. I would like to complete the circle of information. We on this side of the House do not necessarily know. I always like to set the context for communication in both directions. I ask that, going forward, this be the practice of the committee, if the Cathaoirleach agrees. I also ask him to circulate a copy of that correspondence later. I note the Taoiseach says he is committed. However, he also refers to having been assured that the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, will elaborate on various arrangements in relation to the committee. We have all had sight of the Minister of State's opening statement. I see this is covered within it. I would not like to pre-empt what he might add to that. However, it is important that we set the context here. The Cathaoirleach is right to communicate with us and tell us about his concerns. I am glad he wrote to the Taoiseach but, in light of what I have seen of the Taoiseach's response dated 9 February 2026, I would like to see the correspondence he received to see how comprehensively he responded to that. While I am on my feet, I welcome the Minister of State. I note the Taoiseach said in this communication to us that the Minister of State will elaborate on the question of the statutory instruments. I will leave it at that.

I thank Senator Boyhan and call on the Aire Stáit.

Everyone has a copy of the script. I have not notified the interpreters but, with the Cathaoirleach's permission, may I read the script in Irish?

Yes, absolutely.

I have not told the interpreters so I hope this will not cause problems. The members all have a copy in English anyway.

Tá sé ceart go leor.

Ní gá dom seasamh. I do not have to stand, do I? No. Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach as an gcuireadh teacht os comhair Roghchoiste an tSeanaid um Thrédhearcacht agus Grinnscrúdú an Aontais Eorpaigh. Cuirim fáilte roimh athbhunú an choiste seo sa Seachtú Seanad is Fiche. Molaim an Cathaoirleach as a thiomantas lena chinntiú go leanfaidh obair fhónta an choiste ar aghaidh. Táim ag tnúth le caidreamh oibre cuiditheach leis an gcoiste, go háirithe agus sinn ag druidim le hUachtaránacht Éireann ar Chomhairle an Aontais Eorpaigh, a thosóidh ar an 1 Iúil. Tacaíonn an Rialtas go hiomlán le hobair an choiste seo.

Is eol dom go leathnaíonn na téarmaí tagartha leasaithe, a nglacadh leo i mí Lúnasa 2025, sainordú an choiste thar ghrinnscrúdú dréacht-ionstraimí reachtúla chun imeachtaí sáraithe agus comhaontaithe seachtracha an Aontais Eorpaigh a chuimsiú. Is forbairt shuntasach í seo agus cuirim fáilte roimpi. Ní hamháin gur ábhar nós imeachta é maoirseacht éifeachtach pharlaiminteach ar oibleagáidí Aontais Eorpaigh na hÉireann, ach is riachtanas bunreachtúil agus daonlathach é. Chun scála na hoibre atá os comhair an choiste a thuiscint, tuigfidh na comhaltaí, na Seanadóirí, go bhfuil líon na n-ionstraimí reachtúla a dhéanann Airí gach bliain faoi alt 3 d'Acht na gComhphobal Eorpach, 1972, tar éis fás ó thart ar 20 sna seachtóidí go dtí thart ar 200 in aghaidh na bliana le déanaí.

Trasuíonn formhór na n-ionstraimí reachtúla seo treoracha an Aontais Eorpaigh, laistigh de spriocdháta dhá bhliana de ghnáth. Mar gheall ar ualach, castacht teicniúil agus cumhacht idir-rannach na reachtaíochta seo, tá gá le coiste ar leith mar is é amháin is féidir an aird anailíseach leanúnach a sholáthar.

Ó athcheapadh mé mar Aire Stáit a bhfuil cúramaí na ngnothaí Eorpacha faoina bhráid, tá roinnt céimeanna glactha agam chun feidhmíocht na hÉireann sa réimse seo a neartú. Mar chathaoirleach ar an gcoiste idir-rannach um rannpháirtíocht san Aontas Eorpach, tionólaim cruinnithe rialta chun comhlíonadh trasuímh a spreagadh agus cásanna sáraithe a laghdú. I mBealtaine 2025 agus Eanáir 2026, scríobh mé chuig mo chomhghleacaithe, mar Airí, chun béim a leagan ar thábhacht an trasuímh thráthúil. Thagair mé freisin don tábhacht a bhaineann le dréacht-ionstraimí reachtúla agus nótaí faisnéise a sholáthar don choiste sé mhí, ar a laghad, roimh spriocdhátaí trasuímh. Scríobh mé chuig gach coiste de chuid Thithe an Oireachtais chun a dtuairimí a lorg faoi théamaí ardleibhéil maidir le hUachtaránacht na hÉireann ar an Aontas Eorpach atá romhainn. Cuirim fáilte roimh ionchur an choiste seo faoin ábhar seo chomh maith.

Céim bhreise a bhrúigh mé ar aghaidh is ea an tionscnamh nua trédhearcachta a seoladh an mhí seo. Ar threoir uaim, cuirfidh an Roinn Gnóthaí Eachtracha agus Trádála tús le foilsiú na sonraí is deireanaí maidir le treoracha an Aontais Eorpaigh atá dlite le trasuíomh agus cásanna sáraithe i gcoinne na hÉireann ar a suíomh gréasáin. Feabhsóidh sé seo cuntasaíocht phoiblí agus cuirfidh sé spreagadh agus brú breise ar Ranna chun a ngealltanais a chomhlíonadh. Is beart cuí comhréireach é seo roimh ár nUachtaránacht.

Tá áthas orm a thuairisciú freisin go bhfuil feidhmíocht trasuímh na hÉireann i measc na gceann is fearr san Aontas Eorpach faoi láthair. De réir scórchlár an mhargaidh aonair 2025 ón Choimisiún Eorpach, as 33 treoir a bhí le trasuí in 2025, ní raibh ach seacht gcinn gan réiteach ag Éireann, i gcomparáid le meán an Aontais Eorpaigh ag 11. Bhí cúig threoir gan réiteach ag an dá bhallstát is fearr ó thaobh feidhmíochta de agus bhí 27 treoir gan réiteach ag an mballstát is laige. I measc na mballstát, bíonn Éire go seasta sa tríú cuid is airde. Ní bheidh muid sásta, áfach. Oibreoidh muid chun a cinntiú go gcoinneoidh muid ár bhfeidhmíocht láidir agus go ndéanfaidh muid ár ndícheall ár leibhéal feidhmíochta a shárú.

In ainneoin ár leibhéal feidhmíochta, tá dúshláin ann fós. As ocht dtreoir a bhí le trasuí faoi dheireadh 2025, aithníodh go raibh cúig cinn acu i mbaol. Ba iad na Ranna Airgeadais agus Aeráide, Fuinnimh agus Comhshaoil a bhí ag iompar na moilleanna ba shuntasaí. Maidir le 2026, tá 32 treoir dlite. Cé go bhfuil an cuid is mó acu ar an mbóthar ceart, d’aithin mé seacht dtreoir ar gá dul chun cinn breise a dhéanamh orthu. Mar chathaoirleach ar an gcoiste idir-rannach um rannpháirtíocht san Aontas Eorpach, bhí mé soiléir leis na Ranna maidir lena ndualgais.

Ag féachaint ar shárú, tá 46 cás oscailte ag Éireann faoi láthair os comhair an Choimisiúin Eorpaigh. Is rud dearfach é seo. Tá breis is 60 cás oscailte le blianta beaga anuas, rud a choinníonn Éire sa tríú cuid is airde i measc na mballstát, de réir feidhmíochta. Mar sin féin, tá sé cinn de na cásanna seo curtha chuig Cúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh agus tá breithiúnais tugtha i gcoinne na hÉireann cheana féin i gcúig chás. Tá mé i mbun oibre go díreach le Ranna chun dúnadh na gcásanna fada is seanbhunaithe a bhrostú, lena n-airítear grúpa de dheich gcás ar a dtugtar cásanna zombaithe orthu, áiteanna a bhfuil reachtaíocht i bhfeidhm nó freagraí eisithe ach tá dúnadh foirmiúil an Choimisiúin ar feitheamh. Le laghdú go dtí thart ar 30 cás, chuirfí Éire i measc na mballstát is fearr ó thaobh feidhmíochta de san Aontas Eorpach, taobh leis an bhFionlainn agus an Liotuáin. Is sprioc réalaíoch é seo atá indéanta. Is mian liom é sin a fheiceáil go mbeidh muid in ann é seo a chomhlíonadh.

Maidir le soláthar dréacht-ionstraimí reachtúla don choiste seo, tá seasamh an Rialtais soiléir agus tá sé bunaithe ar chomhairle fhoirmiúil an Ard-Aighne. Dearbhaím go bhfuil sé de dhualgas ar Ranna an chéad dréacht de na rialacháin trasuímh, nó na treoracha tosaigh, a ullmhaítear d’Oifig na nDréachtóirí Parlaiminte don Rialtas, a sholáthar don roghchoiste seo. Féadfaidh an coiste na hábhair seo a scrúdú agus a fhoilsiú. Tuigfidh chomhaltaí an roghchoiste seo go bhfuil dréachtaí ina dhiaidh sin, atá mar chuid de phróiseas dlíthiúil atriallach dréachtaithe i gcomhpháirt le hOifig na nDréachtóirí Parlaiminte don Rialtas, faoi réir phribhléid ghairmiúil dlíodóra agus nach féidir iad sin a roinnt. Chuir mé an creatlach seo in iúl go soiléir do gach Aire.

Mar a luaigh mé, beidh ar Ranna nótaí faisnéise agus na céad dréachtaí d'ionstraimí reachtúla a sholáthar don choiste seo sé mhí, ar a laghad, roimh spriocdhátaí trasuímh. Tuigim nach mbeidh an spriocdháta seo indéanta i ngach cás, go háirithe i gcomhthéacs na dtreoracha atá dlite sa chéad leath de 2026, de bharr nár thosaigh an coiste ag plé le Ranna go dtí mí Eanáir seo chaite. Mar sin féin, tá mé ag súil go gcomhlíonfar an riachtanas seo go hiomlán do threoracha atá dlite ó Iúil 2026 ar aghaidh.

Cuirfidh Uachtaránacht na hÉireann ar Chomhairle an Aontais Eorpaigh ón 1 Iúil 2026 éileamh suntasach breise ar na Ranna go léir. Sa chomhthéacs seo, beidh sé thar a bheith tábhachtach na caighdeáin is airde a léiriú maidir le maoirseacht parlaiminte agus comhlíonadh reachtaíochta. Maidir le taifead láidir trasuímh agus laghdú ar líon na gcásanna sáraithe, ní spriocanna riaracháin amháin iad; cuireann siad le creidiúnacht na hÉireann agus í mar Uachtarán ar an Aontas Eorpach. Tacaíonn obair an roghchoiste seo go díreach leis na cuspóirí náisiúnta seo agus d’iarr mé ar gach Roinn an tosaíocht seo atá tuillte ag an gcoiste a thabhairt dó.

Sa chuireadh, leagtar amach chúig ábhar le plé. Tá mé ag súil le gach ceann acu a phlé leis an gcoiste. Tá suim ar leith agam i dtuairimí an choiste faoi fhéidearthachtaí chomhoibrithe i gcomhthéacs clár Uachtaránachta an Aontais Eorpaigh. Tá mé buíoch as rannpháirtíocht leanúnach an roghchoiste ar na saincheisteanna tábhachtacha a bhaineann le trasuíomh agus laghdú a dhéanamh ar líon na gcásanna sáraithe. Geallaim don choiste go leanfaidh mé orm ag tacú leis i leith a chuid oibre.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit. This is a committee hearing on EU scrutiny, as I said. We will take members as they indicate. I point out that of the eight directives we should have received, one relates to better protection against unfair practices and better information. Its deadline is 27 March. Another one relates to the energy performance of buildings, which is an issue of great concern to the building industry. The Taoiseach has spoken often in recent times about the gold-platting of EU legislation that adds enormous cost to small businesses, builders and the people in Ireland without the proper scrutiny and oversight of whether legislation being proposed by the Government Department is necessary. That directive is due on 29 May and we might have the statutory instrument in April. That is all the information I have in that regard. Another equally important directive for small- and medium-sized employers in Ireland is in relation to making public capital markets to facilitate access to capital for small- and medium-sized employment and industry. They are important directives. They are being added to by Government Departments. In that particular case, the deadline for the directive is 5 June and we are being told we might get it in early May. Our job is to pass directives on to the relevant committee, whose job is then to determine whether it could lead to a bad outcome or one that will not work in practical terms. I wish to outline that to members.

I thank the Minister of State for his address and for anticipating Seachtain na Gaeilge by a fortnight.

I use Irish all the time in Brussels.

I know he does.

It cannot be used here. I chose to speak it at the start. It is easier over there.

I do not criticise the Minister of State at all for doing that because he very helpfully provided a translation of his speech to members.

Going back to the Lisbon treaty, the idea was that the member states' parliaments would have a partnership approach to European legislation with the institutions of the European Union centrally. I do not want to overstate my case but I will say that in all the time that I have been here the sense that I or any other Members are supposed to be aware of what is happening in Europe and that our views are being sought on such matters, or that we can signal disagreement to the European Parliament, is entirely absent in this House. I can only come to the conclusion, and it is a fair conclusion, that it has been considered by the Irish Government establishment - I am not talking about the political complex of it - that it is more convenient that all of this process is left alone for it to deal with behind closed doors and that parliamentarians are excluded to the greatest possible extent from involvement in the European legislative process.

The second point I want to make is this. Directives are directives. They are not regulations. A directive gives member states very considerable latitude as to how they adapt the purposes and the requirements of the directive to their local situation. Whether they criminalise certain things, impose penalties, have trial on indictment or District Court summary proceedings for infractions, the extent to which the directive gives explicit discretions and how those discretions are to be exercised or whether they are at the lower or the upper end of a scale - these are all issues which are left to the member states' parliaments. A directive does not produce and was never intended to produce an absolutely uniform effect and text across the member states of the European Union.

It is in that context, and this is my third point, that local parliaments, the parliaments of the member states of the European Union, are not county councils. They are sovereign states' parliaments in the European Union, which is a union of sovereign states and legislates on a shared basis between member states and the European Union. It is in that context that Ireland has completely fallen down on the spirit of European law and fallen well behind the practice of many other countries in the European Union whose parliaments do know what is happening in Brussels and are considering whether to signal disagreement or whatever at a European level. This Parliament is not operating on that basis.

When it comes to directives, as the Cathaoirleach said, very important directives come to us from Europe. The list that the Minister of State has mentioned came to me in part as a surprise and probably would come to the great majority of Members of the Oireachtas as a surprise, and the deadlines for action probably, until the Minister of State mentioned them on the record of these Houses, has not been publicly appreciated. From that point of view, it is completely unacceptable that Ireland should simply depend upon the effectiveness of Departments at some stage, whenever the dynamic is with them, to comply with their obligations under European law.

Worse still are cases, which the Chairman mentioned, of the imposition of penalties on Ireland for non-transposition of directives. There is no explanation in these cases as to why there was non-transposition. Nobody carries the can. No Minister says, "Sorry, I just cost us €5 million as a result of non-transposition of a directive because penalties were imposed on us." No public servant carries that obligation and the Parliament here itself is almost unaware of it unless parliamentary questions are put down to find out what the truth actually is.

What was negotiated in the previous Seanad and in this Seanad was a procedure whereby there would be an early warning system or air traffic control system to say this directive is coming to u, and it is or is not of significance. This committee is not going to decide the significance or the merits of any particular proposal but it can say, "Here is something of major significance. Failure to transpose in a timely way may expose us to very significant penalties." All we asked for - let us put this on the record - was to be sent statutory declarations in draft form so that we could look at them and alert the various sectoral committees as to what should be coming their way and most definitely, in our view, merited their consideration. That was not a complex process but it was effectively opposed and sabotaged for years. That is the sad fact. Our terms of reference were set at naught.

Let us put this on the record too. We had a most sterile debate with the Government authorities, who claimed that every draft statutory instrument at the time was the subject of discussion between the Attorney General's draftsman's office and the various Departments and that, because there was legal advice built into that process of discussion, the whole process was privileged and, therefore, could not be disclosed to anybody else, which meant that a proposal for a statutory instrument under the European Communities Act could go through transformations of various kinds without anybody being aware of what was being discussed. One has to contrast that with the legislative process here where you come in with your Bill, it goes through various Stages and the whole process is publicly understood. If we end up in a situation, which we have ended up in, that the statutory instrument is kept under a legal veil until such time as it is ready for the Minister's pen to make it into law, we effectively wipe out public scrutiny, accountability and transparency.

Now we are faced with a so-called compromise, which some might say is better than nothing but I doubt it very much, in which the first draft of a statutory instrument coming from the Department to the Attorney General's office for consideration can be shown to us but nothing else can be shown to us thereafter until the statutory instrument is ready for signature. That is done - this is what I really want to say most emphatically and as clearly as possible to the Attorney General's office in particular - based on the proposition that there is legal professional privilege. In other words, it is the same as going to a solicitor and asking for advice and, therefore, the whole process has to be kept secret and cannot be made public.

Legal professional privilege at any level is waivable by the party in whom that privilege is vested. If I go to a solicitor and get advice on a crime, civil law or whatever else, there is legal professional privilege of a kind which means that I am not obliged to disclose it, but if I choose to disclose it, if I choose to say, "This is the advice I got from my solicitor. Here is the letter setting out the advice I received", there is no problem. What is wrong, and it is deeply and offensively wrong, in the thinking, the advice and the stance taken by the Attorney General's office is that somehow, because its officials are talking to Departments on matters of legal opinion or advice, none of what transpires during that process or the changes that take place as a result of that process can be disclosed.

That is wrong. The reason it is wrong is that the Government, at any stage, can say it has been advised by the Attorney General's office that to impose a particular penalty or procedure is better or worse or more or less compatible with constitutional principles or with the European law and that is why it is making the change. The idea of masking the whole process of how statutory instruments are generated by saying that because somebody in the building on Merrion Street is talking to somebody in a Department somewhere else in the city about amendments to a draft statutory instrument the public cannot know what they are cooking up between them is entirely wrong. The result is this. We are being told we can see the first effort by a Department and then see what the Minister in the end signs, but we cannot see anything of what happened in the meantime and the same applies to every departmental committee which wants to discuss how Ireland will implement a directive.

Although showing us the first draft is a tiny step forward, in fact it is 10,000 steps backward because it is putting in place a fundamental lie. That is that the Irish State cannot share with its own Parliament the legal reasoning behind why it is taking steps to have one approach rather than another to the implementation of a directive. I want to put on the record my wholehearted objection to this policy. It is wrong. The Attorney General's Office is wrong and this committee should challenge the Attorney General's Office to state, via a Minister, why it cannot waive privilege in respect of these discussions so the public and Parliament know why in the end a statutory instrument ends up in the shape it is in.

I remind members that there is a red herring, which the Taoiseach refers to in the letter, about us getting the early drafts of statutory instruments. We are not in the business of looking at what is going over and back between Departments. We do not want them. The terms of reference of this committee and the Seanad is that we will get the draft statutory instrument to be signed by the Minister, not anything else. We do not want the over and back between Departments and that has been used in the last Seanad as a way of clouding in smoke what we were looking for because the Attorney General had said it was privileged. We, no more than seeing early drafts of primary legislation, do not need to see that. We want to see what is about to become law because the Irish people are entitled to see what is about to become law. That is our terms of reference. That was the Cabinet decision that we sought and the Taoiseach refers to it in his letter, but also refers to seeing the drafts beforehand. We will come to our conclusions in terms of what we should do.

The Minister of State has to leave at 11.30 a.m. so I ask members to keep it to five minutes each with the Minister of State. I call Senator Casey, followed by Senator Boyhan and Senator Higgins.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and I thank the Minister of State for coming in this morning. I wish him, the Taoiseach and the Government well with the forthcoming EU Presidency. I am sure we will be here to support him in anyway we can.

I will not be able to put this as succinctly as Senator McDowell has. In the Minister of State's opening comments he said "to appreciate the scale of the task before the committee" is significant, and it is significant. However, trying to do that work in a void is also a severe problem. For me, from the point of view of somebody in here looking at what happens, do we know at this stage what percentage of legislation is adopted into the Irish system that is directly coming from Europe has no oversight from the Oireachtas? That would be an interesting statistic to find out.

I have no problem in relation to EU regulation and most of us support the EU legislation that comes before us. However, what happens when a country forwards them by the time it is adopted or transposed into Irish law is something completely different. We have seen critical pieces of legislation adopted differently into each country within Europe. I could mention significant pieces of legislation like the Aarhus Convention, which is interpreted completely differently across the whole of Europe. We do not see sight of what was transposed into Irish law. It is just inflicted on us.

Even if we look at the new building regulation that is coming in which the Cathaoirleach mentioned. This afternoon there is a discussion on affordable housing and how we find affordable housing. A key part of affordability is now regulation. Have we over-regulated the housing market in relation to the quality of what we are building? Is it viable to be building to an A2 standard versus a B1 standard? Is that gap too costly? Does it get the return?

This is the level of detail we need to go into in the transposition of these regulations. That is the practicality of it on the ground. The bit I am honestly interested in is finding out what the impact of these transpositions are on the Irish people. We are giving out and moaning about critical infrastructure being delayed and we can see critical infrastructure being delivered across Europe a lot quicker than we can do in this country. All we have to do is go back to the EU regulation that was transposed into Irish law and the answer will be found there. There was no oversight of that.

I will not go on much more but even in our own Parliament we have the national planning framework which was voted on as a draft. However, the adopted version was never voted on but it was adopted by Government. We all see the implications of some of that which are happening now because we have set every county development plan and every planning decision based on law, not on the common good and not on what the people want. We have seen thousands of houses refused on technical grounds; not on planning grounds, but on damn technical grounds. This is the problem.

Sometimes we should be careful of what we wish for. This is the single most important committee when it comes to adopting legislation but we are not going to have the resources and we are not going to have the time. The Minister has said there is 200 pieces of legislation coming. We have no time to do that. We are only an air traffic controller that is going to look at the oversight or the top line and send it off to a committee. Any of us on a committee knows we do not have time to scrutinise EU regulations.

Unless we believe in what we are doing here we are wasting our time. That has to come from the top of Government to every Secretary General within every Department. We have to say "stop". We have to see sight of European regulation prior to it being transposed into Irish law. Senator McDowell is right. I do not buy this. We see every piece of Irish legislation to the end. However, the Minister is saying the committee will see a draft and that is it, good luck lads, we will make the decision behind closed doors, bye, bye. That is just an oversight. I wish this committee well. It is significantly important going forward.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for again clarifying the terms of reference of this committee. I thank the Minister of State for coming to this committee today. It is important. He provided a transcript of his opening statement in advance which was very helpful for us. I want to take up a few points related to what he has said here this morning.

We all know that effective parliamentary oversight of Ireland's EU obligations is not merely a procedural matter, "it is a constitutional and democratic necessity." They are the Minister of State's words, not mine, but I totally agree with them. I am glad. That is a very positive kick off here today by the Minister of State. I do not doubt his commitment to this process or, for that matter, his commitment and determination to work collaboratively, collectively and successfully with this committee. We welcome that and we will do the same with him.

The Minister of State's statement says that he notes the importance of the draft statutory instruments and information to the committee "at least six months, in advance of transposition deadlines." He has given that commitment now of within six months of the transposition deadlines. That is important to note here.

I welcome the Minister of State's initiative. He talks about this new direction and that at his direction:

the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, will commence the publication of up-to-date details of EU Directives due for transposition and infringement cases against Ireland, on its website.

That is something the Minister of State has driven. He has told us so. I commend that. That is very positive. Will the Minister of State say when that is going to start?

Has that kicked in already?

Yes, it is live.

That is great. I thank the Minister of State for the initiative

The statement goes on to read, “Of the 8 Directives due for transposition by end-2025, five were identified as 'at risk', with the Departments of Finance and Climate, Energy and the Environment, carrying the most significant delays.” Will the Minister of State provide the committee the detail of that for the record? It can be followed up with a memo or whatever. The committee needs a record of that. The Minister of State might submit some correspondence to confirm the detail of each of those five seriously at risk concerns that he has highlighted and flagged to us today. That illustrates the importance of this committee. Would we have known of those issues to that forensic extent?

I am telling the Senator. I have that here.

We need them here, not over there.

No, I have them here to tell the House.

That is great but I am following up on the Minister of State’s submission.

I am happy to tell the House everything I know.

That is fantastic. That is great. The Minister of State's statement goes on to read, "6 of these cases have been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union, and judgments against Ireland have already been handed down in 5 cases." Again, it is about the detail of that. That is what the public want to know. It is the bottom line: what the issues are and, more importantly, what the cost to the Exchequer, to the taxpayer, is. Then we need to find out why we were in such a situation and it took so long and why the Government or somebody along the line did not deliver, or had not got the competence to deliver, to get us out of it. We want to know why and how we are in this mess and what is the cost to the taxpayer. That is an important point.

The statement goes on to read, “Departments are required to provide information notes”. The Minister of State will provide us with two things – the statutory instruments and also the information notes. This is very interesting. Some people were just calling for the first draft. The people who have spoken before me have made it clear where they stand, as has the Cathaoirleach. The Minister of State has told the committee on the record that we will also be provided with information notes. I hope they will be comprehensive and detailed and set the context of these directives because they are very important.

I think this committee is important. The Minister of State knows its importance. He is committed to it. I am delighted that the Taoiseach should write to the Chair of this committee outlining his absolute commitment to see it through and to its success. I wish the Minister of State well as he continues to prepare for the Presidency later in the year. We need to get all of this on the record of this committee if we are to be effective.

I will make a few points on what people have raised on the Bills. On average, the Oireachtas will pass about 50 Bills in a year. The draft statutory instruments, the draft EU laws that we are supposed to get that are added to by Departments and are signed into law, number 200. That is four times as many. If you were in a country where you said the members of parliament were only allowed to see 20% of the laws, you would question whether that was democracy in action. If you were the citizen of a country that said members of parliament were only allowed see one in every five pieces of legislation passed in your name, you would question whether there was transparency or a functioning democracy because democracy is about making laws that affect people. The fact is that we are still not being given the draft pieces of legislation to allow the citizens of this country to see them. There is a bit of equivocation. The Minister of State is saying the first draft of statutory instruments. We are being told that we might get the explanation notes and so on, but we are not being given those. We had a Cabinet decision that our committee’s job was not to talk about the theory of legislation that was going to affect Irish citizens; we were to get the legislation.

I will bring in Senator Alice-Mary Higgins.

I thank the Minister of State for attending. The numbers are significant. Yes, we are talking about the difference between 50 pieces of primary legislation versus 200, as the Chair outlined. It is very important to emphasise that a small number may be quite technical but many are hugely consequential and have major impacts on the day-to-day lives of people in the State.

On the numbers, there was a lot about where we ranked between other countries and whether we were in the top third or bottom third, but the key concern is that the Minister of State is telling us that there are a number of directives that are in danger – this needs to be addressed – and that we have had 46 infringement proceedings. Six of those have gone to the Court of Justice, in ten cases a response has been issued – even though they may have been resolved, how they have been resolved and the outcomes of the court cases are important for us to understand – and we still have 30 infringement cases floating. The thing is, this is not really just about numbers. It is also about quality, in that the quality of the laws we make directly impacts the lives of people right across the State. There is something fundamental about the idea that the people who are elected and given the task as legislators have something to bring to improving the quality of legislation. We have a mandate to look at legislation and consider it properly. The Chair has given examples of where things were transposed poorly. Some of the issues for Ireland have not just been around late transposition but also the quality of transposition, too. There are issues about failing to transpose things properly.

It is also important that, when people hear about directives, they know many of them offer huge amounts of choice. There are opt-ins and opt-outs. There are different approaches to what penalties might be or to who might be impacted by an aspect of a directive. One that I felt strongly on was in relation to procurement, that is, the €19 billion we spend every year in the State. When we transposed the directives in 2014, Ireland chose not to opt in to certain aspects of those directives, yet that became the frame. We were told again and again on the area of procurement that because of Europe we could not do this and that. In fact, there was huge flexibility offered by Europe in relation to those directives, including flexibility to have a much stronger approach to social use of procurement and, indeed, focus on quality as well as price. It can almost seem like there is a useful “Europe made us do it” line that we hear when actually there is a huge amount of choice, nuance and opt in, so there are those decisions.

That is to leave aside the question of what other things are added into a transposing statutory instrument because sometimes it goes far beyond what might be in the directive. I may be of a different view, in that I believe the danger we face now is a deregulatory agenda we have seen coming from Europe. We have seen roll-backs on corporate accountability and on environmental pieces. We face potential rollbacks in relation to regulation in the digital sphere, which is an area where we all know there needs to be more regulation rather than less. The public also needs to have an input and a say on those decisions because if there are standards that the public expects and relies on that are to be removed, it matters and needs discussion and consideration. The directives that add standards and regulations are very important and impactful and directives that may remove standards and regulations also need consideration. It is not just “Hurray! There are less standards now” because when you lower those standards, that has an impact on people’s lives as well.

These kinds of quality decisions are incredibly significant. They touch on every kind of area. We could talk about the directives on equality, which have had such a huge impact on Irish life, or we could talk about the directives in relation to employment and employment rights, which have been so significant, and then there are the environmental ones. Many of the things that create the fact that Ireland has such a highly positive engagement with the European Union, which I know is important to the Minister of State, are because people have seen impacts of European laws on the ground, in some cases.

If people feel disconnected from that process, if they feel that something is put outside their reach, that contributes to a disaffection with democracy and a sense of separation.

I come back to the question of how the way we do this matters. We should not be involved in an exercise where we simply pretend or make it look like we are doing scrutiny. Scrutiny needs to be real. Others have said that we will be getting the first draft of proposed transposing regulations but what the Minister of State's speech actually said was that the first draft of proposed transposing regulations or the initial instructions. We do not know what the quality of the initial instructions are. Are they a memo or a note? I would like the Minister of State to confirm that we will be getting the first draft of proposing regulations and any initial instructions that might accompany them rather than a situation where some Departments might give us a first draft and others might simply provide the memo they sent over to the drafters, which certainly would not be adequate.

I join others in completely refuting the argument that there can be no engagement between that point and the point when the Minister signs something into law because there is an iterative process. Primary legislation is an iterative process. Departments engage very actively with legal counsel in between Committee and Report Stages of legislation. We have all seen multiple amendments arrive from the Government halfway through the primary legislative process and it is not a secret. The idea here is that the Parliament might be part of the iterative process and might have some input. The sectoral committees, the thematic committees, which sit day after day talking about infrastructure or month after month discussing the environment and climate issues, as I do in the committee I am a member of, may have something useful to bring to those five directives in danger that are going to get transposed, for example, by the Department of the environment.

There should be a point at which we have a draft statutory instrument that looks like the law that is going to happen and affect people's lives and where we can identify that it is significant. We should send it to that committee and that committee be given the opportunity - not a formal amendment structure - to make a useful input into that process based on its members' experience and expertise and their mandate from the public. Having been provided with the draft law we are considering signing, the sectoral committee should be asked if it has input it wants to give so we can improve our decision-making and get better-quality laws with better outcomes for the public. That is why it matters. It is not a box-ticking exercise or trying to look well on a chart with other countries. It is because the laws affect people's lives and the people elected us in the Oireachtas to try to improve the laws that affect their lives.

I appreciate the Minister of State's commitment that he wants to engage in this. However, I would like absolute clarity on that first draft. We really need to have a stage where the close-to-final draft can get input from the relevant committee and its expertise in order to improve the outcomes for everyone.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I concur with the remarks made by my senatorial colleagues and I do not propose to go through some of the very strong and eloquent arguments they have made. As well as all the points that have been made about the lack of material given to this committee to do its proper scrutiny job, the emphasis of the statement seems to be entirely on timely transposition of these regulations and directives as if moving our way up the Euro league in these matters is the ultimate objective rather than the emphasis as it should be on care. This is a democratic institution elected by people of this State and it should have the ability to shape the implementation of directives or regulations in the interests of the people we collectively represent. It is an important emphasis and Senator Higgins mentioned that.

I completely concur with the points made by others. I want to say a few words on the proposal on the interparliamentary conference when we have the European Presidency in the latter half of this year. I had submitted a proposal, which the Cathaoirleach helpfully circulated as part of today's agenda. It relates to Ireland's experience not just in terms of developing peace on the island but in terms of the European involvement in all of that and the success of that even though we are all conscious of the ongoing difficulties and the many flaws. Every time we get an opportunity to travel internationally, particularly to areas of conflict and strife, the hope that the successful peace process in Ireland gives to people who are currently experiencing conflicts or tension is relevant to them. It is a great story that Ireland has to tell, particularly when it has the international attention of the European Union Presidency, and even more so in the current climate.

Lessons need to be learned from that at a time when there is increased conflict across the world, when the international rules-based order is being torn up and when multilateral institutions that exist to underpin that are being disregarded. We need to remind Europe in particular of the principles of the Good Friday Agreement in terms of democracy and protection of rights, given the broader international attention there will be on that.

Of course, there is a distinct European dimension to this proposition because Europe very much supported the peace process and underpinned it with its own bureaucratic and political support. It also underpinned it financially. When it came to the challenges of Brexit and the British state leaving the European Union with callous disregard for the impact of that on the island of Ireland, particularly the impact on the positive developments since the peace process, Europe, along with the Government in this State, was very much to the fore in defending the Good Friday Agreement from the changes that Brexit would have brought about and ensuring that those hard-fought positive developments of the peace process were protected and underpinned in terms of that agreement.

That leads on to further discussions as to how that has worked out. The relationship of the British state to the European Union has enormous implications for Ireland as an island. Of course, we want that relationship to be as seamless as possible. There are a lot of lessons within this proposition. I know it has been submitted through other channels in the Dáil as well. The Minister of State should give serious consideration to the plans for the interparliamentary conference during our Presidency. We have a good story to tell in this regard. We are increasingly under pressure in terms of our tax arrangements and defence arrangements, but we have a lot to tell the world, not just about the purpose of our neutrality, but about how we have developed and sustained the peace process on this island and the lessons from all of that in an increasingly volatile world.

I thank Senator Murphy for making that submission. I spoke to the Minister of State earlier about that as a proposal for our Presidency. I think it is unique to Ireland especially in a world that is not as peaceful as we would wish.

I thank the Minister of State for his opening statement. I also thank my fellow Senators for their contributions. I am at one with them on those contributions. I look at it from two different ways. If people do not understand what is happening, how can they engage in the process? While I appreciate what the Minister of State is saying about giving us the initial drafts, I have a concern that we will put a full stop behind it at that point. I have a concern about the transparency. While I appreciate there can be legalities involved, at the end of the day the law will impact the public. That is the reality of it. When we are an open democracy and we talk about transparency, we need to be transparent throughout the process.

I have two examples in east Galway over the last 50 years.

Maybe we were not transparent when we talked about SACs. That was one part where people did not understand because we had not socialised exactly what was happening. Clonmoylan bogs is one example. It is not that people did not want to cut turf but they wanted an understanding. Turf could not be cut by large machinery but that got lost in translation. It took years to clearly indicate to people that they could cut their turf themselves but large industrial cutting was the core part of the conversation.

The second example is Derrybrien wind farm. The EU Court of Justice had to decide on that. That is a good example. We were fined €10,000 a day. We closed the wind farms in 2023 in the midst of an energy crisis. It made no sense whatsoever. I do not wish to pick on environmental concerns but it all went back to the fact that a document for transposition was not included. We need to be a bit more transparent and engaging with the Department where it has a direct impact. All of these cases have a direct impact, whether it was statutory or new legislation has come forward. When we walk in the front gates, we are expected to represent the public and to be across all parts of the brief, not picking and choosing one in five. That does not wash anymore. People are very educated and informed but they cannot understand the gap in the middle. The gap in the middle is where we are giving the first line of what is happening but we do not have extra engagement on it. I appreciate the Cathaoirleach's comments and the fact that I am privileged to be part of this committee. However, perhaps I come with the baggage of the lived experience, the lack of socialising and the lack of bringing people with us. Perhaps now it is transparent as to why that is.

On behalf of the members of the committee, I seek an assurance from the Minister of State that we will get the draft statutory instruments, SIs, as per our terms of reference. It should be borne in mind that as it stands four out of five laws made in Ireland every year are not seen by the citizens. They are not seen by the TDs or Senators, or the joint committees of the Dáil and Seanad Éireann. That is not acceptable. On average, of 250 laws per annum, we are allowed to debate and see 50 of them. Ireland joined the European Union just after I was born. I ask the Minister of State for his assurance that this process will stop. It is not acceptable in a democracy that we do not have the transparency or the scrutiny allowed to citizens that the laws that are going to be put into effect on their behalf by the Government are not allowed to be seen by them or by their representatives.

We are delighted the Minister of State is here. We need to get this put to bed once and for all.

A range of issues has been dealt with. I need to start with some of the fundamentals. There is political debate around EU laws, good or bad. Senator Higgins mentioned some areas that she was not comfortable with. That is a totally legitimate viewpoint. However, there are many good examples. At the start of our journey with the EU was the equal pay directive which forced us to have equal pay for men and for women. Senator Murphy referred to the North. As members know, we fought hard during Brexit to keep Northern Ireland in the goods market. What that actually means is that all those laws, probably thousands of laws on the regulation of goods, apply in Northern Ireland. We fought hard to have these laws which are about product regulation, consumer safety, product standardisation which allow us and allow Northern Irish firms to compete in the Single Market and give us protection of goods. We fought hard to keep those laws. There is a lot of good in the European Union.

It is also important that Senators know the legal process as to how laws are passed. Under the treaties, the Commission has the sole right of proposing an EU law. However, for those laws to come into effect, to come even to the stage where a statutory instrument has been written in Ireland, they then have to be passed by the member states and by the European Parliament. There is therefore a full discussion on those laws that goes on among the member states for most laws and the Parliament. There are some that I recently voted on, such as a sanctions package in Brussels, which was just the member states. That comes into effect as well. There is a full debate there. In addition, under the European Scrutiny Act 2002, when the Commission makes a proposal on a new law, before it has been passed to the European Parliament and the European Council and years before it ever comes to statutory instrument, the Government is obliged to write to the relevant Oireachtas committee to inform members of these proposals from the Commission. That has been happening for years. As a member of Oireachtas committees I know these letters come in. I agree with Senator Pat Casey that no one looks at them. However, we have an obligation to look at them. This is even before they have been decided with the MEPs and before they have been decided with the Council of Ministers. That is there and there is an opportunity, as Senator McDowell referenced, for the partnership approach among the institutions and parliaments. The Lisbon treaty introduced the yellow card system and the orange card system. I do not know whether we even tried to do that. However, it is an option for us. That is why those proposals are sent out at an early stage to the member states.

In relation to the information, I have instructed my officials to publish all the relevant information relating to this on the website, including infringements and transpositions. That is in order to support and endorse the work this committee is doing. It is important we are aware of this and that we make it clear that this is a democratic process and this is public money in those cases where there is a risk of fines. It should therefore be publicly appreciated. Very few of these cases get publicly reported. The Derrybrien case, as Senator Rabbitte mentioned, was publicly reported at the time. That was a very unusual case, which cost a lot of money. Quite frankly, the Government had little or no control over that once it got to a certain stage. Generally, the Government has control over these matters. We are not just waiting for decisions of An Bord Pleanála, as was happening in that case. I say all that by way of background. That is all available to us in the parliamentary process.

On the issue of legal professional privilege, this is the position of the Attorney General and therefore the position of the Government. He has clearly advised on this and I have discussed this point with him. On the one hand, Senator McDowell said that it is not legally professionally privileged but, on the other, he said the Government could waive it. That is a matter for the Government but I do not know of any instances where it has been waived. Our commitment is that we will give the first draft, in some cases it could be instructions but by and large it is the first draft. When we talk about 200 cases-----

For clarity, under the committee's terms of reference, which are provided for in Seanad Standing Orders, we will get the draft that is about to be signed by the Minister. The issue is about the law that is about to impact the Irish people, good or bad. That is the transparency that-----

Both will be provided because the Seanad will get the initial draft and the final draft as well.

The final draft is not the one. We do not want it signed. It is supposed to be with us six months in advance. The concern of this committee, which should be the concern of all committees and all Members of these Houses, is that for four out of every five laws being enacted at this moment, legislation is not seen before it becomes law.

In regard to the number of laws, we have calculated 200 EU laws, of which about 130 are very technical, for example the sanctions lists include the names of people. Maybe this should be scrutinised. The designation of SACs is self-explanatory. They are not really new laws. We reckon there are about 70 draft SIs per year that this committee will examine. That is about 10% of all the statutory instruments made each year by the Government. When you look at the first drafts of the EU statutory instruments, you are actually looking at 10% of all the SIs that the Government has signed. There is a whole other world of SIs that have nothing to do with the EU or nothing to do with this particular issue. The Cathaoirleach will be aware, as he and I were the only two of the members present who were in the Seanad at the time, there is the option of the European Communities Act to annul a statutory instrument after the Government has brought it in.

That is in place and, obviously, we attempted that at one particular occasion in the past. Those powers are there for those statutory instruments to be annulled. We want to see full transparency, however. The public needs to know the obligations that have not been imposed upon us were not done so undemocratically. The obligations have been imposed upon us by the MEPs and member states working together passing these laws. It is not like the Commission said, "Here you go". The MEPs have voted for this. There is a whole other world of scrutiny going on in the European Parliament. There is a whole potential scrutiny before it even gets to a vote in the European Parliament in the Oireachtas. At any point, any member of Dáil Éireann can question the Minister in through parliamentary questions on any aspect of this at any of the stages of its implementation. Senator McDowell talked about the policy choices or decisions that we made. The Minister is accountable for that. Indeed, while the Government is not accountable to the Seanad in the same way as the Dáil, the Ministers do regularly come into the Seanad for Commencement matters and undoubtedly would answer fully on a particular measure if any Senator wanted, notwithstanding the fact that they have sent this to the relevant committee. Therefore, that option is there at all times to bring a Minister in on a particular directive. No Minister could refuse to do that. He or she would be only too happy to do it. It is his or her constitutional obligation.

Senator Casey then spoke about housing. Again, this will be a political debate. Senator Higgins will probably have a different view on it in terms of the deregulation agenda to which she referred. Senator Casey referred to the housing issues. We want better regulation, just to be clear. We want to maintain our environmental and climate objectives in legislation. I have worked with the Minister, Deputy Browne, on trying to identify those areas of EU law that are really more about bureaucratic burdens than about protecting the environment or protecting habitats, etc. We work closely together, and now there is a bit of work going on with the Department of housing and the European Commission to see what can happen and where we can reduce the administrative burden. The Minister has given a number of examples of that in public and, indeed, will gladly speak about them. There are certainly opportunities in that regard. Some of our housing rules, while well-intentioned, are something we need to look at in terms of better regulation. On that point Senator Higgins spoke to, if we want to change regulations, deregulate, have better regulations or whatever we call it, it requires a proposal from the Commission to be passed by MEPs and the member states. Each Oireachtas committee - the housing committee in that case - would be notified when it is proposed by the Commission and MEPs debate it. It goes through the same process to change the law.

Senator Boyhan outlined some of the issues. I am not going to discuss them orally here. I will provide the committee with the exact list in the format the Senator asked for. They are on the website, but in terms of the five directives identified "at risk" and the six cases going to the European Court of Justice, we will provide that in writing. It is probably the easiest way to do it in terms of the format. I have the full list of cases here, but I can provide it in an easier to read format in writing afterwards if that is okay.

Senator Higgins spoke about the quality of transposition. That is very important. I refer to the flexibility of directives. We had the transfer of undertakings directive - Senator McDowell will know this better than me - back in the 1980s or 1990s. There was a choice. The Government had to exercise a choice, and it forgot to; it just said that we hereby implement the transfer of undertakings to the directive. It went to the courts here and maybe the ECJ because nobody had actually read the thing at the time. There was a choice in the directive at the time. There was a High Court case - I think it was the transfer of undertakings (protection of employment), TUPE, directive. We have to be mindful of the quality of transposition. We are very mindful of gold-plating or going over what is required at the EU. In principle, if we are going beyond what the EU requires in its primary legislation, it should not be in regulations. I cannot say for definite that we have not gold-plated in regulations over the years. We should not be doing it. It should be going to primary legislation. It is something we need to keep an eye on. This is where this committee could have a really useful function. Are we going beyond what the EU is looking for or as Senator Higgins put it, are we doing a bad job of implementing the legislation? We all have to be held to account on that. On this discussion on deregulation, better regulation, or simplification as they call it in European lingo, that is a political debate, really, between the MEPs and the Parliament. I am not going to have a role in it. This committee will be going through that, but there is certainly a big space for political debate on that. I agree with the Senator that scrutiny needs to be real, but as Senator Casey said, that takes a lot of time for members as well. It takes a huge amount of time. Working with the MEPs is a good idea for the committees. There used to be a joint committee on EU scrutiny in these Houses. That was done away with during the recession. We have this committee, which is very important, but that joint committee had a very important role, and it was just done away with. What it did was streamline scrutiny into all the joint committees. I am not sure if it worked very well really because the committees are so busy with legislation here.

I thank Senator Murphy for his comments on EU support for the peace process. That is very welcome. I discussed that with the Cathaoirleach. There is no pressure on our defensive arrangements. There is no pressure on our tax arrangements. We have protocols in the Lisbon treaty. Every time defence is discussed in the EU, there is always a clause or a paragraph stating that whatever is decided is without prejudice to the specific character to the defence policies of certain member states. That is us, Austria, Cyprus and Malta. There is no pressure on us. The pressure is really from the actual threats that are there. We make those decisions ourselves as a sovereign country, and we are not joining NATO. While people would maybe like to have our tax arrangements changed, we have a veto on taxation, and we certainly will not be giving that up. We are not the only country in that space either, quite frankly. It is important to remember the EU support of the peace process, however. When we talk about EU regulation, it was effectively EU regulation we wanted to apply in the North of Ireland as part of the Brexit arrangements. It is always important to remember that it is not all bad. We will always find a bad example but generally speaking, these are good things that help companies and consumers and that have massively helped our economy over the last 40 years. They have also put the EU at the cutting edge of environmental protection.

The provision of the draft statutory instruments is a matter for Departments. I have written to them. Ministers are accountable to the Dáil for this. The Government decision is there. I am very happy to have negotiated this with Senators when I was previously Minister of State with responsibility for European Union affairs. It was kind of coming into effect when I finished and now, I am back. I am as pro-EU as anybody in here. I see this committee as really important and doing really important work because the EU is a democracy; it is our democracy. If we allow it to get out there that stuff is being done in secret, it is very damaging to the EU project. I absolutely support what the Seanad wants, which is full transparency as to how the Government implements EU legislation. When MEPs and member states pass these laws, they put deadlines into the laws for them to be implemented in Irish law under Article 29 of the Constitution and we have no option. That is the whole point. That is what causes fines to happen. Seanad procedures have to be within that process but Departments also have to work within those timelines. They have to give members the time to consider these laws before a deadline comes up on us. That can only have huge benefits, not just to prevent fines but to have certainty of law as well. People need to be certain as to what the law is. The Single Market cannot work if we have a different version of the law or if we have not implemented it here and it is implemented in France or wherever. The work the committee is doing is really important from so many perspectives. My officials and I certainly support it, and we are really happy to work with members.

I thank the Minister of State. I will bring in Senator Higgins in a second. I appreciate his undertaking that we will get the draft statutory instrument that is due to be signed by the Minister six months in advance because anything else is lacking transparency and democratic oversight. I would like to get agreement from the committee on what was on the agenda regarding the infringement case on the work-life balance directive, which we circulated. As I said earlier, a fine of €1.54 million had to be paid because of the infringement on that. I ask that we send information on that to the Joint Committee on Children and Equality and ask its members to scrutinise why that happened and why the Irish taxpayer ended up paying €1.54 million.

I ask for the agreement of the committee that we determine the amount paid by infringement proceedings and the number of fines imposed on Ireland due to late transposition.

I will make a suggestion. The fines are important, but so is the law. While I am not over the details of the law, it presumably is a benefit to Irish citizens, and there was a delay to it. What harm did that cause? That is a question to be asked.

We will include that in the letter to the relevant committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. Obviously, given that we have not received any of the draft statutory instruments due to be signed by the Minister, it is important we write to the Taoiseach, the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Butler, and the relevant Ministers and Departments. I know the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, has written to all the Government Departments in this regard. We will write to the relevant Ministers of the Departments that have failed to provide the drafts. They are telling us they will provide them next month, but the transpositional deadlines are within the six-month timeframe. We will ask for an explanation as to why the draft statutory instrument was not provided as per the Standing Orders of this committee. The Minister of State is endeavouring that we receive the draft statutory instruments and laws. We will also write to the Secretary General of the Department of An Taoiseach, whom I seek to meet next week to get clarification as to why we are not getting these laws.

From what the Minister of State said, I understand that four out of these five laws are technical. I remember speaking to the clerk of a previous EU scrutiny committee, however, who said the Natura directive only got ten minutes at the committee. The cascading effect of that directive is hitting every town and village in Ireland and there was no proper oversight. The committee did not even receive the draft. It was simply told that this was something coming in from Europe about which the detail was not quite understood. A previous Government gave a commitment to have regulatory impact assessments on all laws coming in. Four were completed in one year. We need to look at that as an issue.

I also suggest we write to the Cathaoirligh of the Oireachtas committees to outline that we have not received the drafts. We should also write to the Cathaoirligh of the relevant committees to explain that we did not receive the draft statutory instruments we were to provide to them for proper scrutiny. The proposal is that this committee would write to the Taoiseach and the relevant Ministers who did not provide this committee with the draft statutory instruments, as well as the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Butler, and the Secretary General of the Department of An Taoiseach, both whom I seek to meet. We will also write to the Cathaoirligh of the committees to outline that we did receive the statutory instruments that will impact their committees. We will write to the Cathaoirligh of the relevant committees in that regard too. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I will speak to one or two points the Minister of State mentioned. I agree with him that huge amounts of EU law have been extremely valuable. As part of the Conference on the Future of Europe, I met 800 citizens, not just from Ireland but from right across Europe. The areas where Europe has raised the standards, such as in the areas of equality, employment, environment and public health and safety, create pride in Europe. I know that is appreciated.

With regard to the process at a European level, the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, CSDDD, took years. Previously, I engaged at length in back-and-forth discussions with the Minister, Deputy Calleary, when it was being negotiated. The omnibus to undo it passed in three months, however. That dynamic is a concern. That is what I am speaking to. Previously, member states were required to have and implement a climate plan. One of the big changes was the removal of the requirement to implement the plan. We can see that has had a clear impact.

I wish to highlight an important point. The Minister of State is correct that this is one part of the transparency process. There is another part and neither replaces the other. We need more transparency when directives are being negotiated, specifically with regard to the position Ireland is taking in those negotiations. Sometimes, they get rubber-stamped.

I am proud to be a member of committees that have taken one of three actions available to them. First, committees can ask for more information from the Government on Ireland’s position. Second, they can ask whether there is a subsidiarity issue. That is something a committee can identify and have hearings on. I have been on committees, such as the finance and environment committees, where we have had hearings on both subsidiarity issues and political contributions. Making political contributions on these hugely consequential directives is something committees can and should be building into their schedules.

This is about having an input and debating EU law, but we are also looking for scrutiny of Irish law. The Irish law gets made with all of those choices we make, such as the scale of the penalties imposed, whether to opt in or say "Yes". All of those choices are inherent to Irish law. That is the piece we are focusing and demanding scrutiny on. One does not cancel out the other. Both are areas in which greater engagement and scrutiny is needed.

I agree with the Senator. I wanted to mention the other side of the scrutiny process because it had not been mentioned. Our MEPs of all parties regularly ask officials in Brussels about the Government’s position. They get a briefing from the relevant official in Brussels on the Government’s position during a negotiation in Brussels. It is a fair point. Undoubtedly, officials would be happy to come before relevant committees in the Oireachtas to discuss the Government’s position during the legislative debate at the Council of Ministers. That is very important, although it is separate and totally different from the process of this committee. It takes place at a much earlier stage. That engagement does not happen enough, however. As we speak, there are probably a number of working groups in Brussels going through particular proposals, setting out Irish positions and negotiating on them. For people not in my position, they do not see the reports, unless they ask for them. Members of the Oireachtas are entitled to know all of this. If they ask, they will find out.

For the first time ever during our Presidency, some of the working groups will be conducted through Gaeilge because Irish has received full official status since our last Presidency. This will be the first time it will have ever happened. I am really excited about that.

Before I wrap up, the Minister of State talked about some of those directives. Some of those directives and EU laws-----

I have a request for the Minister of State. In respect of the five directives classified as being in danger, is it possible for this committee to receive a specific note on them? I sit on the environment committee and a note like that would allow us to flag it early with other members of the committee.

Yes, I will commit to doing that.

To wrap up, I suggest - I spoke about this at our previous meeting - that as soon as I have engagement with the Secretary General of the Department of An Taoiseach, we should meet again, either next week or the week after, given the seriousness of the fact we have been stopped from doing our work.

Some of those EU laws that are added to by Government Departments are a matter of life and death. I am holding the directive on organ donation in front of me. The Minister of State will remember that we recalled the Seanad to try to repeal it. It was the first and only time in the history of the Oireachtas that we tried to repeal it. It was described by some of the organ transplantation organisations as the worst implementation of that law anywhere in Europe. Those four pages became 34 pages when added to by Government Departments. Those 34 pages of Irish law were signed into law by the then Minister for Health, Stephen Donnelly. He had four weeks left in the two-year deadline to do so. I was told that he was informed that Ireland would start to incur fines per day for the late implementation of that law. That was bad. What made it worse, however, was that, two years later, the legislation had to be amended by another statutory instrument, which was signed into Irish law without the Oireachtas health committee or any TD or Senator. This is life and death for members of the transplant community and people waiting on transplant lists. That is how important this work is. The fact that not one was given-----

Sorry, I was due to be here until 11 a.m. The Deputy Prime Minister of Moldova is in the Gallery waiting on me to finish.

The Minister of State is most welcome. I thank him for coming in. I will hold members for one second. We thank the Minister of State for coming in. As I said, I made the proposals about the individuals we should write to and when we should meet again. Given the challenge we now face, I would be delighted to hear any comment or proposals from members.

I ask that we follow up on the point I made to the Minister of State about the five in-danger directives. We should be getting specifics in that regard.

I suggest we put those five in-danger directives as an agenda item on the next committee meeting.

Can we ask for the briefing in advance? I also formally support the proposals from Senator Conor Murphy in relation to having a peacebuilding focus.

Perhaps we could also suggest a focus on international law because it is an appropriate message from this committee.

Yes. We will put it as an item on the agenda for the next committee and put that proposal forward. I know the parliamentary element of the Oireachtas engagement on the EU Presidency is looking at those at the moment.

The minutes of the previous meeting were circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed. We will bring correspondence to the next meeting. Normally, we are not supposed to meet for six weeks, but because we did not get any drafts and because of the seriousness of the lack of transparency in relation to the EU laws we are supposed to be scrutinising, I suggest we meet either next week or the week after, depending on the engagement with the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach. I thank all members for attending.