Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

The Lisbon treaty proposes to give the parliaments of member states eight weeks after publication to vet a proposal and offer an opinion. Under the terms of the treaty, if a number of national parliaments object, the proposal must be reviewed. Each national parliament has two votes, with the Dáil and Seanad having one each. The review must take place if a third of the national parliaments request this and the treaty would give national parliaments a specific role in the proposed changes to the treaty.

While I believe that giving national parliaments a role in EU decision making is welcome, I strongly feel this will be a meaningless gesture unless appropriate resources are provided. The Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, of which I am a member, has been considering a wide range of EU proposals in recent months. Many of these are complex and technical.

For example, today we dealt with a motion on convictions in member states in the course of new criminal proceedings, co-operation between the special intervention units of the member states in crisis situations, protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters and the stepping up of cross-border co-operation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime. That was just this afternoon and by any standards, it is a most significant workload, particularly when combined with other portfolio responsibilities and constituency work.

Ministers enjoy a range of resources and have a veritable raft of people to draw on should they wish to clarify any aspect of a proposal. In contrast, ordinary Members are starved of resources. If this Parliament is to play a significant role in EU affairs and be more than an uninformed rubber-stamping mechanism, it is imperative all Members have access to objective legal expertise in regard to EU matters coming before the Houses from time to time.

Briefings must take place in a structured manner and provide Members with sufficient time to consider matters before dealing with them in a meeting. I recently wrote to my colleague, Deputy John Perry, outlining my concern in this regard. Following my correspondence, a number of Department officials contacted me, offering to brief me on the context of appropriate motions. While I appreciate that my correspondence resulted in some action, as well as the courtesy and professionalism of the officials involved, I object to the ad hoc nature.

What is required is a comprehensive briefing for Members by experts in EU law attached to or contracted by the Oireachtas. If we want this House to be respected by the citizens of this State and our colleagues in other member states, we must take our responsibility seriously and show that appropriate levels of professionalism in regard to these matters is at all times evident.

Steamrolling motions through committees with guillotines and very little time for debate is a wholly unsatisfactory way for this Parliament to operate. I appeal to Government to take immediate action in this regard. Members of this House must be resourced, as well as committees.

I appeal to every office holder present in this regard. Deputy Chris Andrews and I are the only two Deputies present at this debate now who are not office holders, although Deputy Joe Costello probably has aspirations in that regard.

See this speech in context