Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

Fine Gael will support the European reform treaty referendum when it is put to a vote. However, we regret the Government decision to exercise an opt-out in the areas of criminal law and police co-operation. The Taoiseach signalled before the summer recess that his Government would make its decision taking into account the general reluctance to use opt-outs while considering issues that may arise if we participate in justice and home affairs co-operation while the UK does not. However, he did not see fit to come back to the House to debate the issue and explain the reasons for opting out. The Taoiseach also stated that with regard to police and criminal judicial co-operation, it had been decided to speed up the operation of the emergency brake procedure, whereby a member state can refer a criminal law proposal to the European Council if it is concerned that the fundamental principles of its legal system will be adversely affected.

Since the recent general election, the Government has displayed a dismissive arrogance in several areas as it practises the political equivalent of telling the public to get stuffed. Its failure to keep the Dáil adequately informed of the decision to avail of the opt-out has broken the trust of the other main political parties, which will create unnecessary difficulties when the campaign to achieve a "Yes" vote in the referendum begins. The lessons of the first Nice referendum are quickly forgotten. Recent decades have seen a rise in Irish national self-confidence which has been equalled by our increase in prosperity. It was possible to associate this change with our membership of the EU in a tangible way, and embracing the European project was mainstream and acceptable. A general reminder to the electorate that "Europe has been good for us" and the conjuring up of an image of the flying Deutschmark was enough to get any new treaty over the line. Those days are over for this country, as a more comfortable and wealthier electorate breaks into two diverse strands, one more discerning than in previous times and the other more blasé. The Government decision to sign up to the opt-out in justice and home affairs, aligned to its tendency to take others for granted, is a bad start.

Many citizens in the European Union were looking forward to a referendum in their home country on the draft EU constitution but the Dutch and French experience put paid to that. This reform treaty contains 90% of the substance of the draft EU constitution, to paraphrase the Taoiseach. The campaign in this country will attract many eurosceptics from other member states and these aligned to small but vociferous home groups will seek to dilute and distort the message with a 40 year old rhetoric forecasting the end of neutrality and participation in some distant war at the behest of the USA.

In 2004 an almost identical Government to this was happy to sign up to the justice provisions within the then constitutional treaty and I suspect that for many members of the Government the same still holds true for these same provisions in the reform treaty. The overt reason for the policy change appears to be the change in the British approach as it fears possible implications for its common law system. The common law has several different meanings but it is usually used to refer to the law as developed by judges since the Norman conquest. It was a combination of the best of all the local systems of law made "common" to the entire country by King William I and succeeding Kings of England. The shortcomings in common law gave rise to the origins of equity and, today, with the enormous increase in the use of statute law the place of case law has lessened in importance. I do not accept the logic that we should have a fear for our common law system. There is also a common law system in Cyprus and Malta and both of those states are participating in these schemes.

Former British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, in the House of Commons when debating the issue, stated:

This means that we have the sovereign right to opt in on individual measures, where we would consider it would be in the British interest to do so but also to stay out, if we want to. It is precisely the pick and choose policy often advocated.

This is the approach we have now adopted and irrespective of how we dress it up, it is the policy of the eurosceptic. For the European Union ideal to succeed the concept of the common good must prevail.

The changes in EU membership have given rise to various questions and none more so than where the eventual boundaries of the Union lie. It is reasonable to assume that in time the western Balkan countries might join. If Turkey gets in, can one refuse the Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus or Georgia, the latter of which has announced that joining Europe is a long-term goal? All these countries meet the geographic definition of a Europe that extends from the Atlantic to the Urals. With each new enlargement national interest will have less of a role to play in a developing multinational Europe, giving rise to questions whether old members have the capacity to take new ones on board. The treaty is important as we try to rationalise administration and put procedures in place that will assist member states to co-operate in areas of common interest.

The European Union has created a Single Market and as a result, partly dismantled border controls. However, there are numerous different legal systems, some based on Anglo-Saxon common law and others on the Napoleonic Civil Code, and as a result catching and trying criminals who move freely around Europe is difficult. Currently all countries acknowledge each other's legal process in serious cases, but problems of interpretation and implementation arise. Currently these are resolved by unanimous agreement. Criminals do not pontificate on borders. The EU set up Eurojust in 2002 to help prosecutors co-operate in dealing with serious cross-border crimes, and that body's workload had trebled. It took four years to negotiate the arrest warrant, and some countries have exemptions to it. However following the events of 11 September 2001, the European evidence warrant was agreed in a rush and it has cut the average extradition time from one EU country to another from nine months to 43 days. The public wants more action. Two thirds of those polled say they want the Union to do more to fight crime. The reform treaty wants these issues to be decided by a qualified majority vote, titled "double majority voting" of 55% of the countries and 65% of the population.

Our security forces are relatively small, and our intelligence service is particularly so. We do not have an MI5, a Mossad or a CIA, yet we want to opt out of a procedure that will assist us in dealing with drugs and people-trafficking, and deny ourselves the opportunity to participate in framing policy in these areas. Police co-operation would involve the collection and storage of information, the exchange of research and equipment and may at a future date involve operational co-operation. There is no fear here of the French coming in at Killala and the British at Bantry, as envisaged by the then Leader of the Opposition and current Taoiseach when debating our proposed involvement in Partnership for Peace in 1996. How shallow those sentiments now appear over ten years later.

Justice and Home Affairs deals with four areas, external borders, judicial co-operation, criminal procedure and police co-operation. The Amsterdam treaty gave us an opt out on the first two and the Government has now decided it wants an opt out on the latter two. One of the main concerns appears to be the proposed establishment of the European public prosecutor and the conflict this may have with our own legal system. Unanimous support will be required to create such a position. We should be in there framing how the concept will work as opposed to watching from the sidelines. In addition there is an emergency brake procedure, whereby if a member state considers a measure proposed for adoption by majority voting would "affect fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system", it may request the measure to be referred to the European Council.

The Government championed the proposed EU constitution which proposed this measure which was then limited to fraud against the community. It is now proposed to extend the role to cross-border crime. Surely in the international fight against crime that recognises no borders this would be a good development. We are not a party to the Prüm treaty which dealt with the issue of hot pursuit and which may be a sensitive issue in this country.

The decision not to sign up to police co-operation is baffling. Surely an exchange of research and equipment and the storage of information is a welcome development in the fight against international crime. Police co-operation does not mean operational co-operation, an issue which may be looked at in the future.

There is much good in the reform treaty. It should make decision making more efficient. The concept of team presidencies over an 18-month period will give rise to more strategic planning. The QMV mechanism of 55% of states and 65% of the population will be much more transparent and understandable and the cap on Parliament and Commission members will be necessary. The creation of the position of a president of the European Council and a high-representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy will give rise to a greater coherence. However, much of the good is clouded by the Government decision to take the opt out on the JHA area and its failure to address the issue in the national Parliament further boosts the claim that there is a serious democratic deficit when our policy in Europe is being formulated.

It is by default that we are debating this issue today. The Taoiseach signalled before the summer that the Government may go for the opt out and he should have come back here to debate the issue. It is a weakness in the area of foreign affairs. The Minister should give a commitment that once a term he would come here for statements on EU reform or, more importantly, on our international dealings with other countries. For example, the people are concerned about the happenings in Burma and I would like to see the Minister come in here for statements on that matter before the autumn recess. I thank the Minister for making his officials available to brief the Opposition spokespersons and I hope in the future that is done long before a decision is taken at the Council of Ministers.

See this speech in context