Michael Mulcahy (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)

In the words of Bunreacht na hÉireann, this is the national Parliament of Ireland. It is in this Parliament's power to conduct its business as it wishes. It is all very well to claim there are various limitations on the committees but in my time as a Member of the Oireachtas, both as a Senator and as a Deputy, I have never seen a member of the Government attempt to limit, direct or stifle the business of a committee. On the contrary, I have seen Ministers made accountable and uncomfortable when brought before committees to explain a particular action or to defend a policy.

I can give specific examples. During the past five years I had the privilege of being a member of both the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. The latter committee dealt with the issue of nuclear non-proliferation and Ireland's membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Unanimity would be required in that group if the USA and India were to conclude a new nuclear arrangement, and Ireland would have a voice in that. The committee had lengthy debates with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, on that issue. Similarly, on many occasions prior to and after EU Council meetings, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs were invited to meetings of the Joint Committee on European Affairs and were subject to rigorous scrutiny.

That leads to one of the main topics I wish to discuss, the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny. In the Twenty-Ninth Dáil approximately 2,183 draft EU legislative measures, comprising proposals or notices, were dealt with by the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny. I was disappointed at the lack of media interest in that committee, given that it dealt with some of the most important new legislation due to be brought before the Dáil. That is not to blame the media. Perhaps it was due to how the sub-committee's business was conducted and to the fact that much of it involved extremely technical information. Nevertheless, there was hardly a peep on television, radio or in the print media about 2,183 draft EU legislative measures. That is a serious issue because these measures are of immense relevance to the people. They might not affect people this year or next year but they could five years hence.

I am sure the Chief Whip and the Opposition will agree that we must seriously strengthen the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny. I was delighted to hear the Minister tell the House that the Government is committed to provide extra resources in terms of research, management and so forth for that committee. In the past five years it had a very small staff, who did a brilliant job. However, that situation was unacceptable. Members should note that under the proposed new European Union reform treaty the role of national parliaments in scrutinising EU legislation is to be significantly strengthened. That treaty might be signed by the Government in a few weeks.

The mandate in the treaty provides for a strengthened role for national parliaments. There will be an eight-week period in which national parliaments can offer a reasoned opinion on whether a Commission proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity. If a proposal is contested by more than half of the Union's national parliaments, it will have to be re-examined and can be blocked by the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament. The reform treaty will contain a protocol on the role of national parliaments. The protocol, which was in the draft constitutional treaty, will require all Commission proposals to be forwarded directly to the national parliaments at the same time as they are sent to the Council and European Parliament. The protocol also provides for interparliamentary co-operation within the Union, including meetings of parliamentary committees dealing with EU affairs.

If the reform treaty becomes law, there will be an extraordinary new responsibility and opportunity for this Parliament to scrutinise EU legislation, to have dialogue with other national parliaments about proposed legislation and to initiate a new framework of discussion, debate and scrutiny of European matters. More thought will have to be given by this Parliament to how we will participate in the new process envisaged by the reform treaty.

I fundamentally disagree with many of the points made by the last speaker. This is not a dysfunctional Parliament. There are many mechanisms in the Dáil to raise matters of national importance. Last night, an important debate took place on the fire services arising out of events that took place only two weeks ago. To claim that this Parliament is not capable of responding is simply incorrect.

However, I agree that far more resources must be allocated to staffing committees. If a Member of the House wishes to draft legislation, it is extremely difficult to do so, given the technical complexities of modern law, both Irish and European. There is no resource available to a Member of the House if he or she wishes to draft a Bill. There is a legal adviser for the Dáil who does an excellent job, but there is no team that a Member of the House can approach to seek help in drafting legislation or advice on the technical requirements of legislation. There could be a greater role for ordinary Members and for committees in initiating legislation. We have gone too far in following the UK model, where all legislation appears to emanate from government. In the United States, far more legislation originates from the floor of Congress, although it may be vetoed by the President. Congress sees itself more as an initiator of legislation as opposed to the Executive arm initiating legislation.

A new and welcome development is mobile phone technology whereby anybody can dial 01 6184000 and listen to proceedings in Dáil Éireann with another number available for Seanad Éireann. I wish to publicise this because I am not sure whether the public are aware of it. I hope I am allowed do so.

This Chamber and the Seanad Chamber both have cameras.

See this speech in context