Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to welcome Dr. Gavin Barrett from the UCD School of Law. He is the second recipient of the Oireachtas parliamentary fellowship which was established in 2009 to mark the 90th anniversary of the first meeting of Dáil Éireann. The fellowship is designed to advance the study of the Houses of the Oireachtas and Dr. Barrett has been researching the evolving role of our national Parliament in European affairs. The results of the fellowship have been published in a 275-page report and this meeting gives us an opportunity to talk about the findings. I have asked Dr. Barrett to focus on three key issues: what is and is not working in the scrutiny and oversight of EU proposals; what an enhanced role for the Oireachtas in EU affairs, including the committee system and this committee, in particular, might look like and who needs to drive its development; and the wider debate on a greater role for national parliaments in the EU system. Members who will attend the COSAC meeting in Vilnius in three weeks will be aware that a session has been designated to this subject. I will contribute on our behalf, as will others. In advance of that meeting, this is a useful opportunity to discuss Dr. Barrett's views on how we can seek to achieve a greater role for national parliaments.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I invite Dr. Barrett to make his opening remarks.