JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Thursday, 27 Nov 2008

Report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland’s Future in the European Union.

Chairman

I commend the Chairman and members of the sub-committeeand the staff of the Oireachtas for their tremendous dedication to the task in hand in recent months. They worked extremely hard within a very tight schedule and very often unobserved, for want of a better description, in so far as the public are concerned. I thank each and every one of them for their commitment.

I invite Senator Donohoe as Chairman of the sub-committee, to make some opening remarks and lead us in the direction in which the sub-committee would like us to proceed in the future.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the joint committee on the matter of the report. I take this opportunity to bring other members of the joint committee up to speed with what is in our report, our conclusions and some of the salient recommendations we have made.

First, I will comment on the process and how we got here. In the discussion on the content of the report, it is important not to lose sight of the work that has been done to deliver this to the sub-committee and the role that many have played. The work of the sub-committee demonstrates very clearly that the Oireachtas can and should be at the heart of all serious policy discussions and issues facing our country. This work was entirely produced by Members of the Oireachtas and the secretariat. All the work, such as assembling our work programme, the discussion of issues with guests, and the production and drafting of the report, was done by these people. At a time when issues are raised regarding the role of the Oireachtas and the work of its Members, in my view as Chairman of the sub-committee, this report demonstrates above all else that the Oireachtas has the ability and the clear intent to ensure that it is at the heart of discussions regarding our future in Europe and many other issues. The participation and support of my colleagues in the sub-committee have enabled this to happen. Many members of the sub-committee are here today while some are not. The effort they put into this report has been phenomenal. We sat three days a week, and all day. Every member of the sub-committee, or a representative from his or her political party, attended the majority of these discussions, many of which took place in private. The effort put into the report by my colleagues reflects the seriousness and importance of this subject to the country's future.

The report was delivered ahead of time. Our terms of reference which everyone acknowledged were stretching mandated that the report be delivered by tomorrow, 28 November. We sat down seven weeks ago with our terms of reference and return to the joint committee with a full report. This demonstrates the ability of the Oireachtas and its Members to engage in matters of national interest and deliver a public contribution that is relevant, robust and will move the discussion along.

The sub-committee received four terms of reference. The objective was contained in the name of the sub-committees — to examine Ireland's future in the European Union. We used the terms of reference to examine a broad range of topics and facilitate a broad discussion. As Chairman of the sub-committee, there are four crucial points. Ireland has won and prospered while it has been at the centre of the European Union. It has been a conscious objective of politicians from all parties who have served in government and our public servants to ensure this happens, as the economy has prospered and our society has flourished. As matters stand with non-ratification of the Lisbon treaty, it is the considered opinion of the report that Ireland's influence and standing in the European Union and throughout the world is already beginning to diminish. The report offers examples to show why this is the case. More importantly, the long-term implications of non-ratification of the treaty or a version of it would be disastrous. If other member states were to act upon their political will to move ahead with a forum of integration and Ireland was to be outside the circle, it is the considered opinion of most of my colleagues that the long-term implications for society and the economy would be disastrous for generations to come.

The sub-committee believes it is crucial that the Oireachtas be placed centre stage in the discussions taking place between our citizens and the European Union. The method by which the Oireachtas and committees engage with the Union needs to be step-changed. The joint committee, with the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, is doing wonderful work. The scale and complexity of the European Union and the perceptions of our citizens of the work being done must be recognised. The report recommends that the Oireachtas move towards a scrutiny reserve system to increase the power sub-committees have in understanding what the Government is doing, influencing it and seeking to hold it to account once their work is done. The flow of information and debate that this would generate would have a huge effect on how our citizens perceive the European Union.

The sub-committee also examined the policy areas that were particularly sensitive to the people we look to serve. The issue we discussed at length was the role of the Oireachtas as regards neutrality and the deployment of our troops abroad. The report recommends that the Oireachtas be placed centre stage to ensure legitimate concerns as regards the status of our neutrality are debated fully in the Oireachtas. We recommend the triple-lock mechanism be strengthened by a requirement to have a super majority in the Dáil in recommending that our troops be deployed abroad in European defence and peacekeeping operations. This would mean that not only would all parties have an opportunity to participate in the discussion but that they would also have an opportunity to play a role in the decision made. This would ensure those parts of the country with legitimate concerns regarding the future of the Defence Forces and the status of our neutrality would see that the Oireachtas was in the middle of the debate, not on the periphery.

The report examines how the understanding of citizens of the European Union can be improved. It examines how languages and history are taught. Clear steps can be taken to improve the position. We have also made a set of recommendations regarding how the media can be supported in engaging more in decisions made in the European Union. The way statutory instruments are dealt with in the Oireachtas needs to be improved and overhauled. The report contains many recommendations in that regard.

The work rate and contributions of all members of the sub-committee have been phenomenal. As Chairman, I am privileged to be associated with them. The report is relevant, robust and has the ability to place the Oireachtas at the centre of discussions vital to the country's future. As such, I am happy to propose it to the joint committee.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I second the proposal that the report of the sub-committee be adopted. It has been well summarised by the Chairman of the sub-committee. I record our thanks to the staff of the Houses, both inside and outside the window, for their great dedication to the sub-committee in the past seven weeks. As was said in private session, there is a debate in public about the public service and the efforts it makes on behalf of the citizens of the State. The work and participation of the civil servants involved with the sub-committee have shown the wealth and breadth of talent available and their true understanding of what public service means. Many of the staff have had sleepless nights in reaching the deadline. It was recognised from the outset that it could cause a difficulty. However, they did so ahead of time and we owe them a great debt of gratitude.

I look forward to the adoption of the report. I hope its recommendations will feed into broad thinking. As the Chairman stated, it is not just about setting government policy but putting in place a framework for greater engagement with the European Union and a greater understanding among our citizens of Ireland's role in the Union. It is also about how the long-term benefits in the education sector and the media will be helpful in trying to bridge the gap resulting from a lack of understanding and the information deficit. Unfortunately, there has been a belief the European Union has been nothing more than a cash cow in assisting us in developing our infrastructure. There is a duty on us to change this image. The report will go a long way in doing this.

Deputy Joe Costello

I, too, would like to be associated with the complimentary remarks made about the secretariat staff and the Chairman of the sub-committee who has done a Trojan job. We have been absent from our constituency for two months.

Chairman

Both the Chairman of the sub-committee and the Deputy were paired.

Deputy Joe Costello

We were. No doubt we will meet again in the constituency instead of the committee room every morning. The secretariat has done a tremendous job in very difficult circumstances and in keeping to a tight timescale. It is a good report. We were in something of a stalemate after the referendum and it was important that an analysis took place and that an attempt to see where we are going in the context of Europe was identified and addressed, and that we came up with a variety of options. We have done that and addressed several key areas in terms of taxation, workers' rights, military neutrality and social issues. It was important to do so. It was important to address the role of the Parliament, accountability and the central role of this Parliament in holding the institutions of the State and Europe accountable.

It was important to address the question of engagement with the public. I hope the work has been effective. The process certainly was and the finished product will be a major resource in the future for those examining what happened at this time in terms of the aftermath of the referendum and the attempt to plot a way forward for Ireland's best interests in the European context and to maintain Ireland at the heart of Europe.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I wish to be associated with the remarks of thanks to the Chairman, Senator Donohoe. He could create the template for how the role of Chairman should be carried out, notwithstanding the excellent work of the Chairman of this committee. The staff carried out their job in the most professional manner. When the terms of reference were set, we were in uncharted waters. If someone was to put it to me that we would end up here some seven weeks later I would have been sceptical. It is a testament to the work, skill and commitment of the staff. I thank them.

I also thank the 90 witnesses who came in, some on more than one occasion. Numerous submissions were received and the report broadly reflects the views presented. To understand the report in its totality, one would have to read the transcripts of the contributions made to the committee. It takes the views of everyone on board. The one regret I have is that some people could not support the report but it is their legitimate right to dissent from it. It is important to differentiate between the terms of reference, the job we had to do as a committee and one's political views. For example, Fine Gael holds strong views on neutrality and the opt-in to judicial and home affairs. These are not dealt with as Fine Gael would wish in the report. Notwithstanding that, we endorse the report even though we could have stated that the report does not suit our needs.

We can learn from our European colleagues who appeared before the committee. Our system of dealing with Europe has many shortcomings. If our Parliament does not have a real, pragmatic and defined role in dealing with European affairs, how can we expect the public to have this? We are light years behind some of our colleagues. We saw Europe as a bank from which we could withdraw but not deposit, although that might not be the most adequate word now. We did not question the running or ethos of it. At least the votes in the Nice I and Lisbon referendums will awaken people to engage and understand what Europe is about. Irrespective of the single issue with which one might disagree, Europe has been greatly beneficial for us. It is in our interests to ensure we play a central role for our benefit and for the benefit of our European colleagues.

Chairman

I will call on Senator de Búrca, followed by Senator Mullen, Deputy Creighton and Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

We are not here as reserve members. MEPs are entitled to participate in these meetings.

Chairman

I will bring in everyone, we will get a spread of views.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

I am not coming from Brussels to participate as a reserve. Let that be clear.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

The Green Party welcomes the opportunity to participate in this sub-committee on the future of Ireland in Europe and the EU. That there was cross-party representation was a strength and the experience of the sub-committee was that, despite differences, there were excellent working relationships among representatives on the sub-committee. I pay tribute to the Chairman, Senator Donohoe, who chaired the committee in such a way that we got through a major amount of work in a short time very efficiently and produced the report within the time agreed. I pay tribute to his chairing skills and to the secretariat. I echo what other speakers said that the amount of effort, the late hours they worked and the quality of support to the sub-committee reflects well on the public service. I commend the secretariat on that.

Our discussions and deliberations have been a valuable exercise. We received a range of contributions from experts, academics, those who campaigned against the treaty and media commentators. We had memorable and enjoyable moments that will stand out in my memory. We also had moments that clarified matters. One of the points that clarified matters for me was when Mr. Ganley, of the Libertas movement, addressed the committee. I was surprised to hear a call for a constitution for the EU. I was surprised to hear that because Mr. Ganley is organising a movement of what seems to be eurosceptic forces across the EU. To hear him call for a constitution was surprising to say the least. The sub-committee succeeded in its discussions with the various contributors in clarifying a number of points.

Ireland is at a critical juncture in terms of its future relationship with the EU. There is a possibility that the EU will reorganise itself in a way that is not favourable to Ireland's interests. There was much talk of speeds of integration and a two-tier Europe. No one on this committee would like to see Ireland on the second tier of the EU. Most of us wish to see Ireland at the heart of the EU.

The extent of the public disconnect from the European project was prominent in committee discussions, as was the lack of understanding and engagement on the part of the Irish people. This committee came up with a number of useful suggestions in its report on how both Houses of the Oireachtas can play a role in closing that gap and helping to engage the citizens to a greater extent with the European project. We highlighted areas of concern, a useful function of the committee, where we teased out the areas of concern for the Irish people when they went to vote on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty and how these might be addressed. As far as the Green Party is concerned, the key areas of concern were defence and neutrality and workers' rights. The committee had an opportunity to tease these out. I call for the conclusions of the sub-committee to inform the negotiations of the Government in respect of the upcoming European Council meeting and the concessions we will seek from our European partners. High quality work has gone into this report, there are good proposals in it, with a high level of detail on the areas of concern we have highlighted. It would be a missed opportunity if the report does not inform the Government's negotiations with our European partners. I look forward to a debate on it in both Houses of the Oireachtas, I hope before the European Council meeting, in which we would all very enthusiastically take part.

Senator Rónán Mullen

I want to give the explanation I owe to the committee as to why, regrettably, I cannot support the report. I welcomed and was very grateful to have the opportunity to participate in the work of the sub-committee. This came about partly through the intervention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs because it was realised that among the issues that had led to a "No" vote were concerns about what have come to be called "social and ethical issues" and how these might be impacted upon at a European level by initiatives or decisions of various European institutions. I was glad to avail of the opportunity of participating in the sub-committee's work because I see myself as somebody who wants to vote "Yes" and would like to see another referendum if matters are appropriately sorted out, but who believes certain very significant issues must be addressed.

Nothing I say should be taken as suggesting anything other than deep respect for and appreciation of the work of my colleagues on the sub-committee who approached their work with great honesty, integrity and commitment, "díograis" is the Irish word for it. This also applies to the secretariat which did very impressive work in very difficult circumstances, given the timescale involved and the profundity and scope of the issues we had to address. However, that process and timescale and those challenges harmed our ability to produce a report that could form the basis of a response to the "No" vote by the people. I said this at the committee and it is incumbent on me to say so now. Committee members did not have the necessary wriggle room to think outside the box; look in a serious, objective way at some of the challenges facing us, particularly as regards social and ethical issues, and, in an open spirit, to find big answers to some of these big questions. That is not because my fellow members lack intelligence or even because they necessarily disagree with me because in one-to-one conversations I encountered a great deal of sympathy on the issues I had raised. I gave chapter and verse on the problems encountered on a number of occasions and the arguments I raised were never rebutted. The solutions I proposed were barely rebutted and when they were, there was agreement on the substance of some of the solutions I had proposed. That told me I must disagree with my colleague, Senator Donohoe.

The report will be seen as weak and driven by the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is not the best example of the Oireachtas asserting itself. I say this with no disrespect to those involved. The circumstances and timescale are the cause. Reading between the lines of the report, people will see the heavy hand of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Given the report's conclusions, my concern is that people will see the Department of Foreign Affairs as not thinking outside the box on some of the issues involved.

What are the issues? For me——

Deputy Joe Costello

On a point of order, the only items the sub-committee received from the Department of Foreign Affairs were the terms of reference. After that, the Department did not intervene in any way in carrying out those terms of reference. It is untrue to say the report was driven by it.

Chairman

Regarding a previous report that the Joint Committee on European Affairs produced before the referendum, the committee carried out its own work without reference to anybody in pursuing the terms of reference given to it. It was not advised by the Department and regularly challenged Ministers and the Government in producing its report.

Senator Rónán Mullen

I am happy to accept the technical accuracy of the Chairman and Deputy Costello's statements. However, the thinking of the Department of Foreign Affairs has predominated. The core issues for me include what is called "competence creep". In certain areas the exercise by the European Union and its institutions of their competence impacts on areas in which they do not have competence. I gave examples regarding employment and the application of equality and anti-discrimination law and cited cases such as the Maruko case. I quoted these examples at length and do not intend to repeat them here. It is not just my opinion that there is this extension of competence. I drew the sub-committee's attention to the views held by the former President of the German Federal Republic and the German Federal Constitutional Court, Mr. Roman Herzog, who has been very critical of the European Court of Justice. I also gave examples of where the Commission interfered unduly.

I did not expect to persuade everybody of the merits of my complaints, but did not hear a substantial rebuttal of the arguments I had made. I have advanced a particular solution, the only one that is capable of working in reassuring a substantial sector of the electorate that Ireland will have freedom to determine its own laws and policies on a range of sensitive social issues, including marriage, the family, the role of religion in our society, education and the right to life at various stages and when it is to be respected. I have proposed and will continue to propose the solution of a constitutional filter. Rather than opting out of areas of EU competence, we should recognise that in the Constitution and its guarantees on fundamental rights we have the best guarantees on issues such as equality. We should negotiate with our European partners a situation where we would accept the competence of the European Union in various areas but that where there was any prospect of conflict with the values expressed in certain fundamental rights clauses of the Constitution, it would be established that the Constitution would have supremacy and the final say. That would achieve so much. It would buttress the European Union's claims that it neither has nor wishes to have competence to deal with sensitive social and ethical issues. It would reassure the people that the final say would rest with them. It would not seek to pre-determine the substance of any of these issues. It simply seeks to give the focal deireanach, the last word, to the people.

From talking to people at European level, my sense is that there would be no great objection to this. We must remember that the European Union which has been so good to this country, which we all value and in which we all want to see Ireland having a central and active role began as an economic entity focused on markets. It is only relatively recently that it has moved into other areas. Only in recent times are matters of fundamental rights coming into question. I constantly hear that the European Union has no interest in interfering with Ireland's particular, distinctive traditions. In that case, I do not understand why it would not be possible to negotiate a constitutional amendment that would allow Ireland to state the principle very clearly. This applies in the German, Spanish and Polish systems. The German constitutional court has reserved to itself the right to ultimately protect its constitutional values in the event of a possible conflict. We would be knocking on an open door if we were to ask for this. The sub-committee was too timid for my liking on the issue. I recall the words of the late US President John F. Kennedy, "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." My concern is that there is fear; that we should not ask for certain measures. That is in danger of paralysing our will to negotiate.

There are many positive recommendations in the report with which I could be happy, for example, bringing European studies into the curriculum at secondary level. I welcome what is being proposed in regard to scrutiny and the greater role for the Oireachtas but the very specificity of the recommendations highlights the paucity of recommendations when it comes to the big dream of how Ireland can guarantee that it can go its own way if it needs to on sensitive social issues. In that sense I must say with great regret that the report condemns itself precisely because of the inconsistency in that area.

My friend, Deputy Timmins, said that people have to accept that there are some aspects of the report they do not like but it does not stop them from supporting it. Given the momentous nature of some of the issues I have tried to bring before the committee and the failure of the committee to hear those concerns and examine possible solutions, I would do a disservice to the public if I were to support it because in doing that I would say this report is the basis on which we can go forward and try to solve our Lisbon problem. I cannot in conscience say that.

Chairman

I remind members that at 2.30 p.m. we expect to be in the National Gallery for the launch of the report. The next speaker is Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

At one of the earlier meetings I made the point that the real democratic deficit is here in Leinster House. If we consider the way members in other Legislatures, including the European Parliament, can participate in the legislative procedure, it shows the paucity of participation by Members of Dáil Éireann in particular, and that must change. For that reason, this report is a good day's work because it shows that Parliament can change.

Seven weeks is not too long. We have got too long-winded about the way we go about our business here. Seven weeks was a tough timescale but Parliament met that timescale, conducted its affairs properly, gave everybody an opportunity to have a say and eventually the Chairman, the sub-committee and the staff here produced this report.

I have not had an opportunity to digest all of the report but whether I agree with all of it or not, the fact that it was done by the Oireachtas committee is important to me because it was done away from this House, and in particular from the Dáil. Even Senators' powers have been enhanced by the power of the Dáil. It was always a case of doing something with the Dáil and the Seanad. The Dáil and the Seanad have different roles. It will diminish the Seanad in the longer run to make it a mini-Dáil because it will never have the authority of the Dáil.

The Dáil has given away powers to everybody and ended up only with the responsibility. TDs are responsible for everything, according to the electorate, but we still have commissions, fora, tribunals and so on taking decisions. We have everybody but Dáil Éireann in particular taking decisions, and that must change. That is the real democratic deficit. I pay tribute to this committee. If this is an indication of the way matters will be dealt with in the future, it is a trend to be welcomed.

I share some of Senator Mullen's views. I want to make it clear that I am totally opposed to abortion. I never got elected on that view. Not many of my constituents would know that. I am not part of the pro-life movement or any of that kind. Sometimes I find myself a lone voice among the Dublin MEPs in the Parliament, particularly recently when we voted on funding of issues concerning health in the developing world and my own report. That is as it is but the real problem is here, and in that regard I want to give an example to Senator Mullen and others.

I chaired a sub-committee here on EU scrutiny and under the terms of reference of the Houses they were supposed to communicate all information to that sub-committee about what was going on in Europe but by accident I found out that a decision was being taken on FP7, programme 7 on embryo research, which was to be funded if the Irish Government agreed. That was not communicated to our committee. I sought reasons for that, and eventually it was sent to the committee. The committee examined that matter, as we were empowered to do under the Oireachtas, and we referred it to the Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, under whose ambit it came, for it to scrutinise, which was the procedure.

Chairman

There is a vote in the Seanad.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

Having scrutinised it, the Oireachtas committee recommended against Irish taxpayers' money being spent in this way but the Minister voted for spending Irish taxpayers' money on this research, even though she could not legally spend it in Ireland, against the wishes of the Oireachtas. That is where the real deficit occurs. It does not matter what the issue is. We empower the Oireachtas to scrutinise and make a recommendation yet a Minister can ignore that and vote anyway, as if we were a residents' association or something of that kind. That is the way we have been diminished. The real democratic deficit is here and it should be restored here. TDs in particular have the power to do that and I welcome this report because it starts that process.

I wish to make some other brief comments, if I may. I read a series of articles in The Irish Times in recent days. They were informative and decent academic articles but I do not agree with much of what was written. For example, there is the presumption that public opinion has a view on neutrality. Could somebody tell me when that debate took place? How was public opinion informed so that people could make up their minds on this issue? We should be careful that we do not find ourselves in a position, as was the case when the economy was very healthy and we did not need anybody, where we are attacked and we do not have anybody to come to our defence. What do we do then? When will public opinion hear that side of the argument? If public opinion heard that side of the argument people would support the policy I promote of joining a common EU defence on agreed terms, that is, on an opt-in basis with a protocol.

We should have a proper debate on this issue. Why do we all have to have the same opinion and tell the public that neutrality is great? Neutrality is marvellous right up to the time when it lets us down because we have not funded our defence forces, as other neutral countries have done, to defend this country. We are as vulnerable in terms of security and defence as we are economically. We are learning that lesson now and I hope we do not learn the other lesson at a price to the people. Our job as public representatives is not to tell the people what they want to hear but to give them leadership and alternative ideas. On that basis we can allow for public opinion.

I ask the committee to look again at the terms of reference and the participation of MEPs in this committee. I made the point earlier. It is a good idea, as suggested here, that members of the European Parliament, as is the case in The Bundestag, might be allowed to participate in some of the debates in the Dáil. That would be welcome.

I would like to make a reverse suggestion. There are 27 member states and 27 European Affairs committees in those member states, which are represented in COREPER. The chairmen of the European Affairs committee of each of our national parliaments should be allowed to participate in the European Parliament on issues of national interest where they arise in a quid pro quo situation. That is not in the report but it is something I would like to see happen, and I advocated that when I was chairman of this committee.

I congratulate Senator Donohoe, the committee and the staff for producing this report in a timely fashion and for the professional way they have gone about it. I hope it is the start of the Oireachtas, and the Dáil in particular, reasserting itself, taking up its role as provided in the Constitution and filling the democratic shoes it is required to fill.

Deputy Noel Treacy

On behalf of all Oireachtas members I pay tribute to the Chairman of the sub-committee, Senator Paschal Donohoe, and all the members of the sub-committee for their diligence and dedication. I commend the outstanding leadership given by the Chairman and the even-handed way he dealt with the process. I observed the debates on occasion from the privacy of my office, and participated in two of them. I was more than impressed at the final session last Friday when most of the people who opposed Lisbon paid tribute to the Chairman for the fair, open and receptive way everybody was dealt with, both by acceptance of their written submissions, analysing their submissions, inviting people to participate and listening to their contributions. This is an historic report because of the issues the sub-committee was charged with addressing. It is a template and a model for other political and parliamentary issues of national, international and human importance. I endorse many of the comments made earlier. I endorse what Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP, said. As Members of the sovereign Parliament of this Republic we have not discharged our obligation in full in dealing with issues we have passed to people outside of the Oireachtas at a huge cost to the Exchequer and the body politic and at a huge loss to our sovereign powers. This sub-committee model should be considered as a template for the future in advising government, Ministers and the public about how we can go forward together.

I received the report at the beginning of the meeting but I appreciate the privacy and confidentiality attaching to it until it was presented. I have examined 40 of the various recommendations and I concur with many of them. I propose that the report be sent to all parliamentary office holders, relevant committees on which the report impinges or impacts and all Ministers and Departments for their observations. There would be no point in charging members of the sub-committee — who have given such dedicated industrious political commitment both individually and collectively — to produce a report of such magnitude without ensuring all those referred to therein vis-à-vis future activities in this Parliament will respond as to what role they can play and how we can achieve together a consensual way forward in the interests of all our people.

The report is conclusive without unanimity. I regard it as one of great importance. I regret that Senator Mullen has left. I do not claim to be better than any other human being in Parliament or outside it. We all have our views and we do our best to make up our minds guided by our intelligence, wisdom, experience, or conscience. We are continually obliged to take on these responsibilities depending on the office one holds, perhaps on a regular basis. No matter how one looks on the issues, we are fortunate to have a powerful written Constitution, which like our neutrality, has a triple lock in that all laws enacted by Parliament must hang on our Constitution and the President can refer any Bill passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas to the Council of State for its views vis-à-vis its suitability to be enacted in the interest of the common good. Alternatively, if the council wishes, the Supreme Court will make the final interpretation in law vis-à-vis the binding powers of a decision taken by Oireachtas Éireann. Our Constitution also provides a fourth lock in that any citizen who feels aggrieved can take a case to the Supreme Court and have it tested therein. That is powerful constitutional law and that is a massive protection. On that basis, Senator Mullen or any of his people have no reason to worry about the legal capacity or the constitutional protection given to us as citizens and which gives serious responsibility to the Members of this Parliament and its attendant committees.

We are proud to be citizens of Ireland by birth or otherwise and we are citizens of the EU as members of the Union. We have the right to take cases to the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights. This gives massive protection. The hypocrisy I see is where a situation does not suit people in Ireland and they take a case to Europe where often, it is validated. Equality is powerful in Ireland but it is more powerful in Europe and the equality we enjoy on the island today very much derives from decisions taken by the EU on different occasions.

Recommendation No. 16 states, "The Sub-committee believes that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by Parliament alone is not a desirable option". That is a tremendous reflection on the members of the sub-committee. They did not have a narrow focus and they considered the common good and the constitutional role of the people. They believe in issues such as this, that role should still be discharged by the people. That shows the commitment of politicians of the modern generation to enhance and sustain the role of the Constitution and the right of the people to make decisions of this magnitude. I salute the sub-committee for coming to that decision.

I endorse recommendation No. 33 pertaining to statutory instruments, which states, "The European Affairs Committee should examine what measures could be put in place to enhance oversight of statutory instruments. The aim of such measures could include making sure Ministers and Departments are strictly complying with EU decisions when bringing these decisions into effect in Ireland". This relates to Deputy Mitchell's comments earlier about the role, responsibilities and rights of Oireachtas Members and the necessity to ensure we have a much greater role in legislation. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom whether he or she is an individual parliamentarian, Minister, official or lawyer. At the end of the day, collective wisdom is more important than individual wisdom or capacity. Collective wisdom should be the guiding light as we go forward together. We need to have a focused fundamental role in the production and conclusion of statutory instruments in future.

Tomorrow I will attend a meeting to assist a constituency group regarding the impact statutory instruments will have on its members and small business, in particular. I was shocked to find primary legislation we passed provided for a statutory instrument running to 99 pages of highly technical, legalistic and bureaucratic complexity. We, as elected Members, have devolved our involvement in the discussion on the creation of these instruments and once primary legislation is passed, lawyers and officials draft statutory instruments, which are lodged in the Oireachtas Library and notified to the Parliament via a motion on the agenda to become the law of the land after so many days without objection. That is too passive and greater scrutiny is needed in future. I commend the sub-committee for this recommendation.

The sub-committee, on behalf of the Parliament, has done a huge job over a short time examining Ireland's future in the Union following the outcome of the Lisbon treaty referendum. It has concluded emphatically that Ireland should remain at the heart of Europe. The challenge is not only for the Parliament and elected public representatives at all levels in the democratic system we operate, which is the most democratic in the world, but for the nation to reflect on the report that has been published, examine how we have progressed as a nation and see where we should go so that tomorrow will be better than today and most certainly better than yesterday. Working together, based on the report, we can find a positive conclusion to ensure Ireland remains at the heart of Europe for future generations.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

It is important that members of the sub-committee have an opportunity to comment on this report, given that we have worked on it for seven weeks and we have gone through it line by line in to amend and fine-tune it.

I would like to add my voice of thanks and praise to our Chairman, my colleague, Senator Donohoe, who has tirelessly done a huge amount of work over the past number of weeks. I also pay tribute to the staff who have worked unbelievable hours in delivering this report before the deadline and to my colleagues on the committee for engaging constructively with the work we have done.

I am very disappointed with one of the remarks made by Senator Mullen. It is completely unfair and inaccurate to suggest that this report is the product of, or is designed to deliver, the thinking of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have had no engagement with the Department of Foreign Affairs, nor had our Chairman, who authored a huge amount of this report. The only input from the Department of Foreign Affairs was in regard to the terms of reference. That was our remit and we delivered the terms of reference under the chairmanship of Senator Donohoe. I reject that erroneous statement. It is unfair to suggest such a thing to the members of the committee.

Senator Mullen is also incorrect in suggesting the sub-committee was the brainchild of the Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin, because it most certainly was not. He wanted to set up some sort of a quango or a commission to conduct this business. In fact, it was the Fine Gael Party that insisted on and put forward the proposal that this be done through the work of the Oireachtas and through the Joint Committee on European Affairs. I am very pleased this has been such a successful process and I am also pleased the recommendation of the Fine Gael Party was taken on board in the first place.

People may be mistaken in believing that the role of the sub-committee was to make solid or concrete proposals to the Government to deal with and provide solutions to the outcome of the Lisbon referendum last June. This was not its role, which was much deeper and more thorough. Its role was to explore, to examine and to shed light on issues which arose during the campaign, issues which contributed to the ultimate outcome of the referendum and which are quite simply matters of concern for the Irish people. That was our task and what we were charged with doing. I believe we have done it successfully to a very large extent.

Absolute solutions, I am afraid, are a matter for the Government, the Minister and the Taoiseach but in terms of what we set out to do, we have achieved it. I would point to some examples. It is crucial, as Mr. Gay Mitchell noted, that we re-establish the role of the Oireachtas not only in regard to European affairs but across the board. Specifically in the context of the European debate, it is very important that the Oireachtas is re-established as something of a go-between or a conduit between the Irish people and the institutions of the European Union. This is a role in which the Government and the Oireachtas has failed over the last number of years in particular.

The sub-committee has put forward a number of options. They are certainly not prescriptive and it is ultimately for the Government to decide, but we have set out concrete and constructive proposals in certain areas in regard to enhancing the role of the Oireachtas, which is really the only body over which an Oireachtas committee can have legitimate control or decision-making power. The proposal in regard to a list system is far-reaching and would completely change the makeup of the Seanad. It would also completely change the way in which we deal with European legislation and European proposals coming down the track.

We also propose a proper and meaningful scrutiny system, which is not to detract from the work done by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny currently. However, that committee is not robust enough and is not empowered to have the type of effect, overseeing capacity or scrutiny capacity that is required in any functioning democracy within the European Union. We have put forward recommendations or proposals in that regard, which I hope will be taken on board.

We also propose to enhance the role of MEPs. The European Parliament, as we all know, is the only directly-elected body at European level and reflects the national Parliament in this country. We need to see greater co-operation and understanding between the two bodies and we need to give pride of place to our MEPs in the decision-making process in the Oireachtas so they can contribute to and enhance the debates we conduct in regard to European policy, Ireland's policy towards Europe, European scrutiny and so on.

A personal view, which also shines through in this report, is that we cannot afford to opt out of the decision-making process at European level. We have a duty, an obligation and most importantly a national interest in being at the heart of the decision-making process within the European Union. Opt outs are not an option as far as I am concerned. I hope the Government will review its decision to opt out of the area of justice and home affairs because it is one of the greatest positive developments contained in the Lisbon treaty and it was a major mistake of the Government to opt out. This was clearly reflected in the outcome of the vote last June because the Irish people take a different view. The Government needs to wake up to that reality.

In conclusion, the report explores, explains and sheds light on many of the concerns and misunderstandings that were out there before the Lisbon referendum, many of them deliberately put out there by certain elements of our society. I point to the taxation issue, some of the social issues and the issues concerning defence as areas where absolute misinformation was put out. The sub-committee has shed light on many of these issues, with which I am pleased. I am also pleased we were able to bring in expert witnesses who knew what they were talking about to explain and go through these issues in detail with the sub-committee. The report is worth reading from that point of view alone.

That is not to say there are not legitimate concerns of the Irish people that need to be addressed, because there are. A steer has certainly been provided by this report but concrete proposals need to be developed at Government level. I would urge the Government to take this into account. Notwithstanding my disagreement with Senator Mullen's take on the motivation and expression of this report, I believe he represents a certain element of Irish society that has legitimate concerns and those concerns need to taken on board. This committee reflects those concerns, acknowledges them, addresses them and deals with them, but it is for the Government to provide concrete solutions. I hope the Government will continue a dialogue not only with Senator Mullen and the other members of the committee but with people in the wider society who have concerns, particularly about these sensitive social issues which I believe are quite clearly matters of subsidiary and matters of competence at a national level under the terms of the Lisbon treaty. We need to ensure that in some way these can be safeguarded in the Constitution.

Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP

I acknowledge the Trojan work of the staff of this committee, who I understand were burning the midnight oil producing this text, and equally I acknowledge the work of Senator Paschal Donohoe, who proved to be not only a capable but a very gracious Cathaoirleach for the sub-committee, and with whom it is a pleasure to work.

I disagree fundamentally with other speakers when they cite this process and this report as being a template for future initiatives. I hope it is not. The process in which we engaged was flawed from the beginning. We made this point as a party. The process was closed and inward-looking and was carried out in a short period. It amounted to political insiders for the most part talking to each other. Not surprisingly, the report which emerged at the end of the process essentially seeks to validate the "Yes" argument in the Lisbon treaty referendum treaty campaign.

The message which goes out from the substance of this text is that the people were wrong. We have the rhetoric of respect for the outcome of the referendum and taking on board and addressing the concerns of the people. However, time and again in an unsubstantiated and superficial fashion the report states those on the "No" side were wrong on taxation, wrong to be concerned about public services and wrong on workers' rights and neutrality.

This is not an exhaustive report. It is limited and in parts it is inaccurate. I was particularly stunned at the fact that the report itself ignored legal advice sought by the sub-committee on the issue of Article 48 and the dangers this opens up in terms of the Irish people's hold on vetoes in a wide range of areas, not least taxation. This was not an exhaustive debate and it certainly has not been inclusive. This is to be deeply regretted.

As other committee members noted, Irish people and Ireland understand themselves as European. This is who we are. We are at the heart of matters. Ireland has a great deal to contribute to and learn and gain from Europe. However, we need to be sure we get matters right. When blue collar workers en masse come out and vote against the Lisbon treaty and tell their political representatives that their working conditions and positions are threatened and they want action taken on it, the fundamental democratic and constitutional duty of all of us in elected office is to hear it and respond to it.

Leadership must be given, as Deputy Treacy outlined. However, first we must listen and accept with a measure of humility and a greater measure of common sense that elected politicians are not always right. On the issue of the Lisbon treaty they were comprehensively and almost uniformly wrong. Matters with regard to public services, which I previously raised, are dealt with in a trite fashion in this document. The essential element and problem of competition rules and their relationship to public services has not been addressed. Therefore, this issue is still live and frankly the political establishment does not want to know.

Regrettably for me this has been the message from the process and is certainly the message from this report. I regret that I and my party, Sinn Féin, will not lend our name or support to this document. It is deeply regrettable that clearly the document will be part of the jigsaw puzzle and choreography that is conditioning the public for the second referendum whenever it may happen.

When the public voted down the Lisbon treaty we stated we were at a moment of opportunity, that core issues affecting Ireland and Europe could be addressed and not alone this, but that Ireland could lead the way on these issues. The people are up for this and they understand it. The political establishment, and by this I mean the collection of political parties across the board, are not. This is of great concern, but I hope not demoralising, to people who have genuine concerns and the best interests of our country at the heart of Europe in mind.

This committee states there is respect for the referendum process and this is to be welcomed. If this respect were full and real we would have had a different process and we would be looking at a different report. I hope the Joint Committee on the Constitution will take the same view on the referendum process. The deliberations of the subcommittee and the Joint Committee on the Constitution are linked in a way I view as cynical, politically evasive and above all as lacking any political imagination or ambition. The people are ambitious and know the issues. This report does not deal with them. The Government still has an opportunity to do so and I hope even at this late stage it avails of it.

Chairman

I should mention that the people of my constituency voted a resounding "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty so the result was not universal throughout the country as a "Yes" vote was also returned in four other constituencies.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I commend the subcommittee on its efforts and the report contains constructive suggestions, particularly the recommendation for a two thirds majority for any proposal to send Irish troops overseas on peace keeping missions. This is a substantial advance on democracy here and the proposal is quite remarkable. Other significant proposals are made with regard to the Seanad. Seanad reform in itself is a major issue and should be addressed as part of this.

With regard to support, the subcommittee members seem to state that this is the first step. At the meeting at which the subcommittee was launched, I stated that a debate on the fundamental issue of how far we want to go with regard to our membership of the European Union should take place in society and not only among the political, media and professional classes. Such a debate is what should inform what action is taken post the Lisbon treaty referendum.

We tend to work backwards. A treaty is negotiated and then we go to the public to justify its provisions and explain it is not against national interests. This should be done the other way around. We need a positive debate throughout society on what powers are best exercised at home and at European Union level. Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP, raised this matter and he is correct. The fundamental problem is the democratic deficit at home. We also have a democratic deficit at European Union level.

In any debate all sides must act in good faith and this included Sinn Féin. Nobody has a monopoly on what the public believes, feels or thinks. If we have this debate in society it must be free and open and we must all be prepared to move some of the way and be open to other views. I state this about both the "Yes" and "No" sides in the referendum. Sinn Féin and other groups which came before the subcommittee had set views and told the public what they thought the public should think. This is a fact. Sinn Féin's policy on the Lisbon treaty was decided prior to going to the people during the referendum.

I understand copies of the report will go to libraries. This is good but we should go much further. I am not sure whether it is possible but if it is we should try to engage local and community radio in a debate on the report. This would be a good starting point. We should also consider community groups. Many community groups had debates at the time of the Lisbon treaty referendum as part of voter education. However, it is much too late to encourage such debate when the campaign has already begun. We must engage community groups in those types of exercises on an ongoing basis as part of the general debate on the future of Europe.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

As a member of the sub-committee, I begin by paying tribute to the Chairman, Senator Donohoe, for his excellent work throughout the seven weeks that the sub-committee met and for the courteous manner in which he treated us all. I also thank the sub-committee secretariat for its fantastic work within a very tight timeframe.

It is important to remember that many of the individuals who made submissions to the sub-committee were proposed by the members themselves. It was open at all times for members to recommend various speakers, and most did so. The sub-committee went about its work in a forward-looking way, with all members displaying an open mind, which is exactly what we were asked to do within the terms of reference of the sub-committee.

The composition of the sub-committee, comprising representatives of the various political parties, including Sinn Féin and Independents, enhanced the quality of the debate by allowing us to hear all sides of the various arguments. It is incorrect to say we did not think outside the box. On the contrary, that is exactly what we did, thrashing out all the ideas in a comprehensive way. The sub-committee did not come down on the side of one view or another. That is because it was not our objective to recommend a solution but rather to tease out all the issues.

In this context, it is particularly disappointing that the two Senators dissented from the report. Senator Mullen made specific reference today to the constitutional filter. The pros and cons of this issue were thrashed out in great detail, as reflected in page 40 of the report. The concerns Senator Mullen raised in this regard at the sub-committee were not his alone but were shared by many members. However, there were differing views in terms of how they should be resolved for the future. It is important to acknowledge that those conversations took place. It is disappointing that Senator Mullen is not willing to allow the report to stand, given that his arguments were aired at great length at the sub-committee.

The report contains many positive proposals. I particularly welcome the recommendation in regard to the scrutiny reserve, which will enhance the role of the Oireachtas. It is important that all the issues were teased out, clarifications sought and, above all, accuracy brought to a debate where there was so much misinformation in recent months. This report, which sets out all the issues in an open manner and takes all points of view on board, will be an important reference document, irrespective of what happens in the future. I hope people will take the time to read it. It is an accurate reflection of the work of the committee, which was conducted in an open and outward-looking way. It should play a significant role in the future debate on Europe.

Senator Feargal Quinn

I add my voice in congratulating the sub-committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Donohoe, for the speed with which it produced its report. However, I am disappointed with the outcome. Perhaps I am being unfair in saying so but I expected more. There is great urgency in seeking to resolve the difficulties we currently face. Every day that passes sees us increasingly sidelined from the centre of Europe. We are all in agreement that we should be at the heart of Europe. However, this report will not bring us closer to that objective.

The urgency in this matter is necessary and I am pleased that an effort will be made to have the matter debated in both Houses next week in advance of the EU summit which takes place the following week. If the supremacy of the Oireachtas is to be recognised, we must have a debate on the matter next week.

From what I have seen of the report many recommendations are worthy of study and debate. However, I am disappointed we do not have minority reports because 53% of the population voted against the Lisbon treaty and people had legitimate concerns. We have heard some of those concerns today from Senator Mullen and Sinn Féin. We should have the right to examine them and discard or accept them according to their worth. I understand from the Chairman that the job he was given excluded the right to produce minority reports. I do not understand that because it means the views expressed by those two members of the sub-committee who said they did not support the report were not taken into account. I would like to hear those views and have them examined. In many cases the arguments will not stand up. From what we heard today from Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP, Sinn Féin is voicing an opinion that is not necessarily the one we expected to hear from that party and it may well be a different opinion to what people had anticipated.

This matter is urgent. We are being sidelined every day in European terms. We want to be at the heart of Europe, but we must change our opinion in order to do that. I am not sure whether we can do so until we have heard both viewpoints. Those who voted "Yes" are well represented in the report, and some worthy suggestions and recommendations have been offered from this viewpoint. However, I would like to hear the alternatives also, from those who believe we should vote "No". We should be able to question members with those opinions. It would be much safer to include them in the report.

I congratulate the team that put the report together. It is essential that we move fast. The report will help us to go in that direction but it does not go nearly far enough.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to contribute to the debate this morning. I thank Senator Donohoe and my colleagues on the sub-committee. He chaired the sub-committee in an exceptional and efficient fashion. I am sure when further sub-committees are set up to report on the reform of the Health Service Executive or other bodies he may well be asked to chair one of them.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

No, please, no.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

Public servants are in the eye of a political storm but the public servants in the committee secretariat and in other roles behind the glass and elsewhere have been second to none during the debate and the preparation of the report. It is important that we recognise that. They have done tremendous work, well beyond the call of duty. They may well find themselves being called to do other such work and they may regret that.

We met so often in the sub-committee and at great length. Most of my colleagues attempted to attend practically all of the meetings. We are here as elected representatives of the people, not political insiders talking to each other, as was suggested. We are elected by the people. We are listening to them when we are in our constituencies, which is practically all of the time, except when we are in Dáil Éireann. We were accused yesterday of sitting in the bowels of Leinster House. We are here in the national Parliament discussing an issue of great import.

We spent a huge amount of time listening to the concerns. Yesterday in private session we spent an inordinate amount of time on the Maastricht Protocol before finally deciding that there was nothing one could do to it as it was so well drafted for the purpose it was designed to serve in regard to abortion. Yet, there was significant public concern about that matter in the referendum and that showed up in the survey. We also discussed how that issue and others could be dealt with in the public session.

The key issues that are of concern are addressed in the report. It is correct to say that any witness proposed who was available to attend did attend. Sinn Féin and Senator Mullen invited several witnesses and they appeared before the sub-committee. We listened to them with respect and incorporated some of their views. Some of the views put forward by witnesses who might appear to be on the "No" side were very interesting.

At the end of our debate I am not convinced about the idea of a constitutional filter. However, perhaps we have not had enough time to examine the extent to which it might work. It is something from the "No" side that could be considered. We have considered it and mentioned it in our report with brief arguments for and against it. However, it was beyond the scope of our work to do a really detailed analysis of various articles of the Constitution that would be necessary for that. Perhaps that will happen.

The report has done a good job in trying to put forward everyone's concerns. We also need to understand the political reality that Ireland faces and not simply what is put forward as the alleged legal reality. The political reality is that every other member state has now ratified or is about to ratify. We are on our own. The question is whether we want to come to the dance or not. How can we as a small island decide to hold up what every other member state has decided is the right way to move forward? In doing that, we need to address our legitimate concerns. I am confident in whatever proposals emanate from the Government and whatever way we move forward whether it is a referendum or something else, we need to bear in mind the concerns of the people and address them as best we can. We need to bear in mind the overwhelming national interest in Ireland being at the heart of Europe. When 26 countries say one thing and we say another, we are simply not at the heart of Europe. People will need to consider that when it comes to making a decision.

Senator Terry Leyden

I join everyone else in complimenting the committee's Chairman, one of my colleagues, Senator Paschal Donohoe, and all 12 members of the committee who worked tirelessly. I watched some of the deliberations. The level of commitment was very impressive, bearing in mind that their busy constituency work was put aside for this period. They were very dedicated to their work as were the officers, executive and staff who put enormous effort into the report. It is comprehensive and will, I hope, be debated next week. I raised it on the Order of Business in the Seanad this morning. It is vital to have that debate in both Houses before the Taoiseach attends the Council of Ministers meeting in Brussels so that we know the wish of both elected Chambers.

The Czech courts have agreed that the treaty can be ratified by that country, which means we are the last of the 27 to agree. Economic circumstances have changed dramatically since the referendum on 12 June, which is why it is imperative for us to ratify the Lisbon treaty in a second referendum if possible. Ireland was the country to agree to the expansion of the European Union. Our regard in Europe is second to none or at least was until the referendum. Catherine Day, Secretary General, European Commission, stated:

Ireland's image in the European Union and beyond has been tarnished by the "No" vote. I can see every day that it has reduced our ability to shape and influence events in the European Union.

Finland's foreign Minister Alexander Stubb also clarified other issues in this regard. The decision must be unanimous. The European Union embarked on the Lisbon treaty on the basis that it would be agreed unanimously by the 27 member states and if any country did not agree the Lisbon reform treaty was gone. There has been talk of a two-speed Europe with 26 countries in the inner circle and Ireland outside. I am sorry, but that was not what the vote was about on 12 June. I voted for it on the basis that it was a good treaty. The Attorney General and others should examine how the European Union can proceed without any one country ratifying it. France and the Netherlands rejected the constitutional treaty by referendum and the constitution was scrapped, following which the Lisbon reform treaty was agreed. That is one choice and it is something from a legal point of view. The other difficulty is that we are now facing into a very tough time. Strangely, with due respect to Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP, Northern Ireland has ratified the Lisbon reform treaty through the House of Commons. It is a fact.

Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP

Ireland is partitioned — that is a fact.

Senator Terry Leyden

Unfortunately it will be a two-speed Ireland in that regard. Those in Northern Ireland will have the benefit of the Lisbon reform treaty and in the Republic we will be outside. More than likely there will be another referendum. Unfortunately it will be used by all political parties to highlight issues that are not part of the Lisbon reform treaty and we will face into a very tough campaign. Every issue that came up in the recent budget will be debated the length and breadth of the country. If it had been taken prior to the realisation of the difficulties we are in, we might have had a very good chance. It will be a tough campaign irrespective of who is for it. People will wonder why they are being asked again and some will say: "No is no is no."

We have no choice in the circumstances but to have another referendum. We need to give the people a second chance. This report is comprehensive and has dealt with the issues brought up during the campaign, the misleading publicity and the misleading posters. There were lies, damn lies. At least this report clarifies the situation which is what the sub-committee was established to do. I hope people read the contents of the report and that it is well publicised. The views it contains are very important.

We will have no choice. From being in Europe and being spokesperson for European affairs in the Seanad, I know that our position in Europe has deteriorated and our influence has been damaged severely. It can be restored if we have a referendum and vote "Yes" to ratify the Lisbon reform treaty. If we do not, our situation is precarious. Without the European Union and European monetary union we would be in the same difficulty Iceland is in today. This country has been saved by being in the European Union and the euro currency. It has been the greatest safeguard to our country in this perilous time. That is why in the circumstances the people will respond positively and I hope will vote "Yes" when the referendum takes place.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I will be exceptionally brief.

Chairman

We must be out of here by 1 o'clock one way or another.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I thank all colleagues for their comments and the tone in which they made them. If there are disagreements over the role of the report or the way the process works that is fine. This is a political process.

Given the points made I will make three points. I strenuously and emphatically state that the Department of Foreign Affairs had nothing to do with this report. Whatever is in this report, whatever recommendations are made and whatever people feel about it, the responsibility for it lies with the elected politicians. It is the elected politicians who did all the work with the support of the secretariat. As Chairman, I emphasise that point as strongly as I can.

Senator Quinn asked an excellent question about why we do not go far enough in outlining the next steps for the Government. That received considerable debate within the sub-committee. The reason for not doing so comes down to the split between the Oireachtas and the Government. It became very clear to us that the Government is engaged in considerable discussion with other countries. As Members of the Oireachtas we are not in a position to be able to access all that and understand it. Ultimately the Government will draw on those discussions and make a recommendation. The sub-committee strongly felt, as I did as Chairman, that it is not the role of the Oireachtas to usurp that and it would be inappropriate for us to do it. Nonetheless, I look forward to debating that point with the Senator in the Seanad.

In response to points made as to what has guided the conclusions we made, the main influence in all of this came from the experts who appeared before the committee and the way we discussed issues with them. We had everybody in. We had cardinals, Eamon Dunphy, Cóir — albeit briefly, and a variety of other organisations. The engagement all members had with them provided the evidence that led to this report. I feel a huge sense of relief in having finalised the report. I thank members for their comments and look forward to debating the issues with colleagues in the Seanad. I also thank the Chairman for the way in which he has allowed this discussion to take place.

Chairman

The point raised by Senator Feargal Quinn on the urgency of this debate should not go unnoticed. Even as we speak, Europe is moving along. Changes are taking place and discussions are being held without the usual influence of Irish parliamentarians. At least one ambassador has brought to my attention the fact that Members of the Oireachtas do not have nearly as much dialogue as they used to with their counterparts in other member state parliaments. When I was a member of this committee many years ago I knew, by name, all the members of the European affairs committees of the other European Parliaments. We knew what they were thinking and they knew what we were thinking and that is an important factor.

Dialogue needs to take place at national parliament level and the report correctly identifies a deficit in that regard. Governments interact on a weekly basis, as does the Council of Ministers, but there is not the same opportunity for Members of national parliaments to fraternise, formally and informally, with a view to discussing the issues that affect their own constituencies. For example, we did not attend the COSAC meeting in Slovenia because we were not allowed to by the Whips and that was an appalling mistake, as I pointed out at the time. The induction of the new Taoiseach took precedence over everything else but, immediately after the referendum, a discussion was taking place among member state parliaments on the European institutions and we were not involved. As the report and a number of speakers, such as Deputy Thomas Byrne, mentioned, discussions are taking place in the European Union from which we are excluded and that is not good for this country.

As Deputy Creighton said, the more one avails of opt-out clauses the weaker one's case becomes. The more we throw something off the wagon the weaker our influence becomes because we cannot contribute in those areas. One member state has already acted in that way and now realises that it must go back to the negotiating table. If one opts out sufficiently it will lead to an old-fashioned economic association, which some opponents of Europe are actively seeking. We have not yet assessed the extent to which that would affect this country's economy and the European Union as a whole.

Many people seem to be unaware of the fact that, in the event of the Lisbon treaty being ratified by whatever means, there is an exit clause. If vital national issues are not being properly recognised a country can opt out. If that were to happen it would not be in the best interests of the European Community but such a clause does exist. All countries should have the right to avail of the opt-out at a time of national importance, though it is quite another thing to up-end the project and kill it by slow strangulation.

Ireland said "Stop" by voting "No". That was not the case in my constituency or that of Deputy Dooley, among others, where they voted "Yes". They voted "Yes" in Meath, as they did in Dublin North, Dún Laoghaire and Dublin South. Maybe those voters were wrong, misinformed or did not know for what they were voting but I like to think my constituents are very well informed and I am sure other members feel the same about theirs.

Although Ireland said "Stop", the question is whether we have the right to stop Europe or slow down our own involvement and the sub-committee examined those options, which was the proper thing to do because there would be implications. Some of those implications may be positive but some will be very negative and Iceland was referred to in that context. The report also refers to Norway and other states which are not in the EU but members of the common trade area. There are vast economic and geographical differences among states and there may be some advantages in a state remaining outside the Union.

The report also identifies the dangers for Ireland of a two-speed Europe. In a two-speed Europe, the involvement of countries moving at the lower speed will soon lapse and there will then be a one-speed Europe, contributed to by a small number of states deeply committed to the European project. That is a danger for us and we must ask ourselves whether we want to be in or out. It is not about being coerced, cajoled or bullied but a question of making the right decision in the national, economic and political interests of the people, now and in the future.

I thank the Chairman of the sub-committee and its members for their dedication and hard work in a very concentrated period. I also acknowledge the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas, who did a great job. This is the second report on the subject as the Joint Committee on European Affairs produced an earlier report, after we had conducted a tour of the country, and the same level of co-operation was evident between members of that committee and Oireachtas staff. In the course of that report, each of the subjects examined in this report were touched upon and tested. The joint committee concluded that, despite all the fears expressed, some of which were genuinely held, there was no evidence, except for a few minor emphases, that our national sovereignty was being eroded, that we would be relegated to an outer zone or treated as second-class citizens as a result of the treaty.

We will now turn to housekeeping matters.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

We have to adopt the report.

Chairman

I propose the report be adopted by the Joint Committee on European Affairs and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP

I do not have voting rights so I assume I cannot call for a vote on the matter.

Chairman

Ms McDonald does not have voting rights.

Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP

I accept that but wanted to preface my remarks by acknowledging it. However, I want our opposition to the report to be recorded.

Chairman

Is Ms McDonald opposed to the publication of the report?

Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP

No, I oppose the report.

Chairman

I will clarify the position. The proposal is that the report be adopted by the joint committee. The opposition to the report of Ms McDonald will be noted. Is that correct?

Senator Terry Leyden

No, the report is adopted unanimously.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

That is correct.

Chairman

I seek clarification.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

To clarify the position, the dissenting opinion of Senator Doherty on the report agreed this morning was recorded. The Senator was not in a position to attend the meeting for reasons we all understand. However, all members of the sub-committee agreed it was appropriate to record his dissent. Therefore, the report the joint committee is requested to adopt notes the dissenting opinion of Senator Doherty.

Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP

I would also like my dissent to be recorded.

Chairman

I propose that the report be adopted by the joint committee and laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Is that agreed? The proposal is agreed by all present with the exception of Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP. Is it also agreed to have the report published and to seek a debate on it in Dáil and Seanad Éireann?

Deputy Noel Treacy

Quam celerimme.

Chairman

That is agreed. Is it agreed to circulate a copy of the report to interested bodies, libraries and those who participated in the hearings?

Deputy Noel Treacy

I propose that a copy of the report be circulated to all office holders in Oireachtas Éireann, members of Oireachtas committees and Ministers and Departments for their observations and responses.

Chairman

That is agreed.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.55 p.m. and adjourned at 1 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 2 December 2008.