One of the elements to which I wish to bring people’s attention is a number of directives that are coming close to their deadline. It is in three days’ time. One of them is the directive regarding the protection against unfair practices through better information, which is ironic because we got the draft briefing note but not the draft statutory instrument. This means that, in three days' time, Ireland will be in breach of that directive. There were two years in which to bring it into effect. We only have the regulation. It is 15 pages long in small print, which one would imagine is approximately 30 pages. That is before any Government Department adds to it. We do not have an opportunity to send that on to the relevant committee because we do not have the draft that has been added to by the Department. I suggest, given there are only three or four days to go until its deadline, that we write to the relevant committee to inform it that, unfortunately, we have not received it. The committee might then ask the relevant Department why we did not receive it and the number of fines now being incurred. From Monday, we will start incurring fines.

The next one, which has a date of 9 April, relates to limiting values of lead in various products. Again, we have the information note but no draft statutory instrument. That is a matter of concern.

Another matter of concern to us is a directive relating to laying down standards for the reception of applications for international protection. That is due by 12 June, which is three months away. Before the Department adds anything to it, that directive runs to nearly 40 pages. We discussed this issue last week.

I think members of the committee will be anxious to be aware of these matters. I will go through other elements we are waiting on.

Is the lead directive relevant to the environment committee?

It relates to Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment.

I propose that, as we did at the last meeting, every time we have a draft statutory instrument which is due to be brought into Irish law, we write to the relevant Department and committee.

We have received two drafts from the Minister for Finance. Members will have seen these in their briefing notes. They relate to financial instruments. We have information notes. Again, these are not the final version that will be brought into Irish law, but the first draft. A whole to-and-fro will happen on those with the Departments. Again, I suggest we write to the Tánaiste, as we did the last time, and ask him about these. One of them has a deadline of 16 April, which is less than a month away, and another has a deadline of June. If members are agreeable, we will write to the Minister, as we did the last time, and thank him for these, noting that they are not the documents we are looking for and we are looking for the ones that are to be transposed into Irish law. Are members happy with that?

On the letter from the Minister for justice, that is in relation to the strategic lawsuits against public participation Bill. I want to inform the committee that we are in default in relation to transposing some aspects of that directive. The Government has decided to do it by ordinary primary legislation, which means it will not be done by statutory instrument. Curiously, the justice committee was asked to do away with pre-legislative scrutiny. Without having a meeting on the subject – it was done on an incorporeal basis – it decided that it did not want to discuss the measure, which is quite an important measure, on a pre-legislative basis. Sometimes the fact that it is not being done by statutory instrument and that the committee is not being warned about it does not mean very much because the justice committee was persuaded to make an incorporeal decision, without discussion face to face, to simply wave it through the pre-legislative scrutiny process.

We will try to make sure we get the relevant versions for the other justice ones I was talking about as well.

As members will have seen, we have draft statutory instruments for finance. Are they happy to send those on to the finance committee outlining that these are not the final version?

I will raise a couple of issues. Before commenting on the finance issue, I would like to go back to one of the previous pending ones, the one on international protection the Chair mentioned.

I am looking at the one on standards. It is the directive on capital markets of the European Union being more attractive to companies and the listings one. We do not go into detail on issues, instead flagging areas that may merit attention. What is notable about that directive is there is quite a large area of discretion. Some directives come through and there is only a couple of areas where a member state can opt in or opt out. On this directive, however, Directive 2024/2811, there is a very wide area of discretion. It says there are minimum standards but there can be other standards as well at national level. The finance committee, when discussing the Central Bank's facilitation of Israeli bonds, discussed what standard the State brings in versus standards when it comes to research. That committee recommended previously that there be more research in relation to certain investment products to include, for example, consideration of international law implications. When we write to the committee, it might be worth drawing its attention to the fact that there is quite a wide area of discretion and the potential for additional requirements in relation to information.

The information note states that Ireland is not seeking any derogations. That is a standard reference in these notes.

The derogations piece is one bit, if we want to opt in or out of something, but there are also areas where-----

Discretion.

Basically, it is about deciding here what kind of information needs to be attached to investment products. Ireland can also say, "Here is some information we believe is key". That could be, for example, where there is a relevant judgment of the International Criminal Court.

We can write to the committee in that regard.

I thank the Chair.

That is the legislation covered. We have agreed to send the finance committee the drafts we have received, pointing out that they are only the first version of the draft statutory instruments. The EU law has been added to by the Department but there could be more later.

The Chair mentioned the international protection reception conditions. This is a striking example of, as Senator McDowell and others have mentioned, primary legislation moving much faster and without the scrutiny it should have. We had a huge number of amendments added to the international protection legislation on Committee Stage and we are anticipating a huge number of amendments being added on Report Stage. From our side, is it expected that all the facets in that directive will be addressed through these last-minute guillotined amendments-----

It is hard to know.

-----in terms of reception conditions or has the Department indicated it wants to bring some parts of the directive through in primary legislation and other parts through in statutory instruments, which are this committee's remit?

Yes, that is what it said.

Even if it has not given us what we need - I know there is a question of moving into fines and non-transposition - on quality, it would be useful to know which aspects the Department is planning to bring in through secondary legislation and statutory instrument, which is our area, and which aspects we cover. The fact is this is very unusual. Normally, when looking at a Bill we know what it is going to address but because we are getting these amendments added in by the Government at the last minute, we do not actually know what aspect the primary legislation is going to address or not address.

We will write again to all the Ministers who have not sent us in their first drafts and ask for them.

However, in relation to that one, maybe we could seek clarity on which aspects will go through our route and which aspects will go through the main route.

We will ask for that if members are agreeable.

Is that agreed? Agreed. That is in relation to the correspondence from the Department. As members will be aware, we wrote to all of the Departments that had not sent us the draft EU laws added to by the Government Departments and that are about to be signed into Irish law by Ministers. To date, none of them have sent us the versions that are about to become Irish law. I would suggest to do as we did the last time but, this time, putting the emphasis on the issue of gold plating. That is a concern that has been raised by the Taoiseach and others. What can often happen is much more is put into the draft law by the Department than is necessarily required, leading to all sorts of issues.

To finish on that, the one we did not get a response to was the one I brought up last week on the standards for housing, which is coming. I think it is due in three months' time. It would be of concern and we need to make sure we do it correctly. I call Senator Higgins.

I have a little bit of concern on the framing of the gold plating. There is a question of what we want, what the State's prerogatives are and what the public wants. There are areas in which the public will maybe want more accountability and transparency and it may have a wish in respect of certain areas, be it on disability rights or others. There are areas where a requirement may have come with a public mandate to be addressed. I would be cautious of us simply framing things with regard to anything above the minimum of the European directives. I refer to the nature of some of these directives. Europe has a great history of having raised the bar and raised standards. That is not necessarily the culture at the moment because, in some cases, you will have very much a base line. With some legislation and directives that are coming through, they are setting a base minimum but Ireland should not be looking to scrape through on the minimum. It should be looking to have good standards or be at least middle-of-the-field in relation to certain issues. In that regard, when we write about it, it is worth saying that where there are additional aspects being added to the legislation, it is even more important that we have scrutiny but I do not think we should be framing it as, "Are you doing more than the minimum? That is terrible." I know that is not the intention but there is a danger of it being interpreted that way. We want quality transposition and good laws, not just avoiding the fines or getting the minimum done. In terms of the quality of laws, in some cases, that will be around the State adding relevant national standards.

Our biggest problem at the moment is that as a committee, we are not even getting the drafts.

Sure. What is clear is-----

It would be up to, I would suggest, the sectoral committee we would pass it on to. It is up to it to say that this was more than was necessary. I am not saying that is a good or bad thing; I am just saying there were options to opt out and we did not take that. There is a whole lot of doable scope under these EU laws.

It may not be necessary from an EU perspective but it might be necessary from a national perspective. We should frame it so that where there are options or additional aspects to the statutory instrument that go beyond the core requirements of the directive, the need for scrutiny and transparency is even more important. Then we can either like it or not like it but the point is-----

What we are trying to do is give it to the committee.

The committee can like it or not like it, but I am highlighting that in those instances it is even more important that you are allowing for scrutiny by the relevant committee.

Through the Chair, I will do a little bit of a rebuttal on that in relation to the bogs. I keep going back to the bogs for my own area. Originally, when it came through the EU, it was 31 sites. Some 45 were inspected and we ended up with 47 being selected. That is a definition of where we had ended up with gold plating, unfortunately without very good communication in the process of it, which left an awful lot of pain without the right communication and an awful lot of fear. There was a lot of poor communication in telling people what their rights actually were and how they could support their livelihoods in accessing turf. It was not about commercialisation; it was that they could still access the bogs. We did gold-plate when it came to the Natura peatlands directive that came through. Some 31 sites came from the EU; 45 were surveyed and we ended up with 47. While I do not like branding or labelling anything in advance, that is a clear example of what gold plating looked like.

Okay. Has anyone any other comments? I want to keep these meetings relatively short because I understand people are on a lot of committees. I thank members for showing up.

Again, I reiterate that we have not got any of the draft EU laws that have been added to by Government Departments and are about to be signed into Irish law. That can range, in some years, up to 80% of the laws that are passed on behalf of the people of Ireland. Sometimes it is 50% but it can be a substantial amount and as we see, some of them are much larger than the pieces of legislation we deal with in the Seanad in our Order of Business week in, week out. I suggest that we again write to the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs pointing out that we have not got them and the ones that are now overdue, as they will be by the time he receives the letter, and how that is not appropriate for democratic scrutiny or transparency. The committee is going to get it late and then there is the fine that will now be paid by the taxpayer. The Department had two years to bring this into play and it has not happened. We will also write to the joint committees that are supposed to have got these, as we did the last time, and say that unfortunately we have not got the draft but we will send it on, highlighting to each of the committees that there are only three months left in which this can be done, or three months to the deadline after which fines will then be incurred. Then, they might inquire of their relevant Departments why they have not received them. I would suggest also to the Ministers and the Departments that we are awaiting the draft EU law that has been added to by the Government Departments, that we have not received them and that we are conscious that the taxpayer is likely to incur fines. Are members happy that we would continue to write to the Departments and the relevant Minister to say that we need to make sure we keep it in mind?

I thank the committee and we will write back to it in relation to the work-life balance directive. The committee has, as a result of us writing to it saying there was a fine of €1.5 million that had to be paid by the Irish taxpayer in respect of the work-life balance directive, written to the Department and asked it to explain why it was that the taxpayer needlessly had to pay €1.5 million due to the poor bringing into effect of that EU law in Ireland. Are we happy on that? Does Senator Higgins want to come in on any of that?

Yes. It is related to the work-life balance directive. The ideal thing is that the line committee is taking up the issue of the fines. There was also a question I had on - I am trying to remember - Article 4 or Article 5 of that work-life balance directive, which concerned the adequacy components. There were two key articles. One is on the protection of collective bargaining and I know there is a collective bargaining strategy that the Government quite belatedly published. There is also a requirement in relation to the adequacy. It would be useful to ask whether it was through a statutory instrument. I certainly did not see any primary legislation that related to transposing the adequacy component. I am trying to recall; I apologise. I might follow up with the clerk. It is either Article 4 or Article 5 of that directive.

I am not too sure in relation to that but part of this is that our job is not to go through the minutiae of those pieces of legislation.

Sure. Maybe that is what I will relate back to-----

Our job is to make the taxpayer and the committee in charge of that EU law aware that this money was needlessly incurred as a fine by the State and to inquire why it was incurred.

It should not have happened. Again, it can be for all sorts of reasons, but I think we should leave it to the committee to investigate why that happened. Any other-----

Chairman, may I just suggest that we consider issuing a kind of regular statement of where things are as part of our function? Not everybody is watching this and not everybody is watching our correspondence, but if the committee regularly did just a one-page sheet saying where we are, which transpositions are in arrears and what the state of affairs is in relation to them, it might be a good idea. Nobody is going to sort through our minutes and try to work out what is going on. We live in a PR world and we should make the committee easier to understand.

You will have received the Excel sheet which outlines the due dates. I suggest we highlight the ones that have gone past the six-month threshold and say they are now past the due date for submission to the committee.

We could make a media-friendly-----

Media friendly, okay. We will ask the communications unit to put that together for the ones who are six months late and have not complied with the terms of reference of the committee.

Senator McDowell's idea is a good one because we have to communicate in very simple terms. We have in forestry and a load of other things a traffic light system: red, amber and green. We could do a sort of prototype of that. We have access. The Oireachtas media, or the public relations in here, are there to serve the Oireachtas and its committees, and we are a properly established committee within the Seanad. We should use all our communication tools, be it on the Plinth or whatever else, first to alert people to the fact that these meetings are taking place and, second, to link out to people who have a particular interest in European affairs and scrutiny and governance in order that this is well understood and that all the Departments know their officials will want to look out. This will be published. We could look at some draft formats for our next meeting if that were possible and if we had the time to do so. It is a very good suggestion. We have to make this easily understood and we have to communicate this message beyond the Oireachtas.

I suggest that we put together the ones that are overdue, having reached the six-month deadline, highlight the deadline and put the ones that are-----

And the relevant Ministry, etc., in order that this is clearly understood.

Yes, and the relevant Ministries, and yellow, orange and red. Say, if it is between six and four months it is in yellow, if it is between four and two months it is in orange, and if it is between two and zero months it is in red.

That would be very easily understood.

That is a great idea.

I like the traffic light idea. We will be doing this on a rolling basis. We had looked previously to the idea of an annual report for the committee, but I think every six months would be preferable because of how the timelines are.

Every time we have a meeting I think we should press the button and do an updated version of-----

I suggest we do that and communicate it out through the communications unit. I will put it as I have said before: the way this can be explained is that it is like EU directives transposed by way of statutory instruments into Irish law, which is, simply put, EU laws being added to by Government Departments and brought into Irish law by Ministers without TDs, Senators or committees being allowed to see them. That is what is happening and has been happening for a long, long time, and out comes, as Senator Rabbitte said, what has happened as a result. Senator Rabbitte, do you want to come back in?

I would go one step further. While I completely concur with the previous speakers, eventually it will dawn on people what this committee is about, so if we can, we need to go back to when we started. The transparency needs to be from the very beginning. I agree on the role of the traffic lights, but as to what has been transposed and whether or not we were informed, the public have a right to know. That is clear communication. Whether the committees were informed or what was transposed, we need clear communication while we sit here. Whether or not it came before us, while we are seeking it, we need to know.

We will start from the first of the year in order that we are able to highlight here the ones that are about to hit the deadline.

That is what I was going to say. It is really in addition to the idea of the traffic lights and so forth. That can go out each time, but what I was suggesting was that we have a more substantive report that allows us to provide the context, as Senator Rabbitte said, pointing to how this has been a problem, etc. We did an annual report in the previous iteration of the committee, but if we were to do it at the six-month point, particularly in June and in December of this year, at the point of entry to the EU Presidency, it would be very useful to state not just that the information is there and that we have done a press release but that we almost have a twice-yearly report. We could say, "This is the report", that the committee has been up for six months, that there is no excuse, that the Departments have all now had a period to get their houses in order. It would allow us to give a little bit of the historical context as to how much legislation has gone through in the past. Again, it could be quite short but, much as committees have interim and final reports, to have a report every six months would mean that we would have almost a single strong document that the Departments of Government would know we were doing at the beginning of the Presidency and then there would be the opportunity for things, hopefully, to have improved by the end of the Presidency. I think it could help to focus minds.

Are we happy to do that? Okay.

The irony is that on 27 March the EU law on protection against unfair practices through better information is not available to us. Of all the titles of all the EU laws that are supposed to be brought in, the fact that we do not have the one that is about to hit a deadline where fines will start to be imposed is not appropriate.

Anyway, aon ghnó eile? Go raibh maith agaibh. We will try to get the meetings down to 30 minutes if we can at all because I know people have loads of committee meetings to attend. We will adjourn. People are off. Obviously, we should be meeting every month if we were getting them, but we are not getting them, so it will be after Easter, probably the first Tuesday after Easter, before we meet again. We will write to all those we spoke about looking for the EU laws before they hit the six-month deadline, pointing out to the ones that have not sent us the ones that have already passed the deadline.