Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

This measure derives from our responsibilities following the recent finalisation of the Lisbon treaty. Speaking on behalf of a party that campaigned in favour of the treaty during the recent referendum, I support the Minister's proposal in the motion to enable this standing committee to proceed in Europe, as required. Nobody in the context of the world we live in today doubts the necessity for co-operation on internal security as broadly defined and encompassed by the motion. Deputy Flanagan referred to our local difficulties relating to the continued activities of terrorist elements on this island and the appalling wounds inflicted on Constable Peadar Heffron. I join with the Deputy in extending our sincere hope that he makes a full recovery. It was an appalling crime, which again highlights the necessity for co-operation between civilised states in attempting to deal with this phenomenon.

However, the committee will not only deal with terrorism; it will also deal with, for example, drug trafficking. The wave of crime that has swept over the country in recent years, which manifests itself in murders on every weekend of our existence nowadays has its origins in the drug trafficking business. The necessity for co-operation between the agencies on the supply side to contain the extent and scale of drug trafficking is as obvious as the nose on one's face. That does not obviate the necessity for us to deal with harm reduction and reducing demand for drugs and it is a matter of concern that some local drugs task forces are being squeezed for funding because they have done immensely good work in reducing demand for drugs. However, this motion deals with the criminal law and supply issues and the necessity for co-operation between the security and policing forces of different member states. I agree that it is necessary. The same applies in respect of the trafficking of persons, money laundering and so on and, therefore, in principle, I am happy to support the motion. I do not envy the Minister's exciting life dealing with these issues on the European mainland. It is turgid stuff but it is vital in terms of the safety and security of our people in this jurisdiction and in other member states.

The Spanish Presidency has indicated in its schedule that it will give priority to the development of internal security and the promotion of the COSI initiative. That gives rise to the question of the Government's proposals to prepare us for the imposition of additional duties deriving from the Lisbon treaty. Part of the merit of the treaty and part of the argument we made at the time was the increasing role for domestic parliaments and the European Parliament. When one examines measures such as this in the justice and home affairs area, the question immediately arises about the capacity of our Parliament, as currently resourced, to deal properly and adequately with them. When I saw the belated note on this initially, I wondered whether I should rethink my support for the Lisbon treaty because I found it impenetrable and difficult to appreciate. There are many similar measures and the Minister adverted to the increase in importance of the justice and home affairs area and the number of complex instruments that require better scrutiny. It is presumed there will be better scrutiny as a result of the Lisbon treaty than we give it in this Parliament. I appreciate there is a resources problem and whether this means we should reorient our current resources to enable measures such as this to be properly scrutinised is a matter on which I would like the Minister to respond.

The motion is part of a pattern followed by him in this area. We are dealing with a matter in the middle of January that ought to have been put to bed in December. The first I heard of it was last Monday. Perhaps that is my fault but I did not know about it at all. I subsequently unearthed a note sent by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the Government Chief Whip on 4 December asking him to put the motion on the agenda as a matter of urgency. It stated Ireland had held up the previous meeting of the relevant committee in Brussels. We could not proceed with the decision being promoted by Sweden because Ireland is still outstanding in terms of this Parliament taking the particular steps required in order for us to participate in COSI as envisaged. That was on 4 December and the requirement was for us to do it prior to Christmas. However, we did not do so and we are doing it now after the event with minimal scrutiny. It raises a question in a small Parliament such as this with a limited number of Members who focus on legislative matters as distinct from those who think their priority is to give more attention to daily constituency work. We need to examine our capacity to scrutinise measures such as this.

I presume from what the Minister stated that the committee will not have power to enter into agreements and that it is a sharing of information committee rather than a decision-making committee. It will make reports to the Council. Where will this Parliament come into the network of finding out what the standing committee will do? Where will it knit into our system, whether through the Parliament proper or the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights? How do we keep abreast of what is going on? May I presume that this has been run past the Data Protection Commissioner and that he is satisfied that it is compliant and meets the requirements that he would wish. I am happy to support the measure. I recognise the necessity for enhanced co-operation in the area of security as broadly defined and I am happy to give our assent to the motion.

See this speech in context