Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union) díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Nov 2008

EU Social Policy: Discussion.

I welcome His Eminence, the Most Reverend Dr. Seán Brady and Reverend Timothy Bartlett. I will explain why we are here, how we are conducting our business and why we appreciate their attendance. The sub-committee was set up to examine Ireland's future in Europe in the context of the decision in the Lisbon treaty referendum. We have four terms of reference to allow us to do that work, which have been broken up into four modules. Following their examination, we must deliver a report by the end of November. The module on which we are focusing this morning is the future approach of Ireland within the European Union in respect of social policy. We all recognise consideration of this policy must have a non-material and spiritual dimension and we have invited our guests on that basis.

Our work schedule is long and demanding and we are meeting all day every day. I apologise in advance regarding how we must conduct the meeting. Both of our guests will have ten minutes to make points they believe are germane to the work of the sub-committee and I will then hand over to my colleagues. Each of my colleagues has nominated a leader on behalf of their groups who will also have ten minutes. I will then open up the discussion to the full meeting. This work must be completed by 11 a.m. Therefore, I will marshal everything to finish by then.

On behalf of members, I thank Cardinal Brady and Reverend Bartlett. I also thank Mr. Long for attending and apologise for not mentioning him earlier. I draw their attention to the fact that while members of the sub-committee have absolute privilege, the same does not apply to witnesses appearing before the sub-committee. I remind my colleagues of the parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite the Most Reverend Dr. Seán Brady to make his contribution, to be followed by Reverend Bartlett. I will hand over to each of you for ten minutes. After nine minutes, I will interrupt you to let you know you have approximately one minute left. I will start with Cardinal Brady because he is nearest to me. I will then ask Rev. Bartlett to begin his contribution.

Most Rev. Dr. Seán Brady

I thank the sub-committee for the kind invitation to address it this morning. I welcome this opportunity to join the members of the sub-committee in a conversation about the relationship between Ireland and the European Union. As somebody who went to live in Europe in 1960 — I lived in Rome for 20 years — I have an interest in the Union. I appreciate that today's debate is focusing on what has been described as the "social dimension" of the European project. Later this month, the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Hans-Gert Pöttering, will address a conference of Irish Catholic bishops. He will try to make us better informed about the workings of the Union.

I experienced the reality of the social dimension of the EU recently. I have just returned from a meeting of European bishops in Budapest, followed by an international synod of bishops in Rome. On both occasions, the EU featured in conversation. During the debate in Budapest on the result of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty, it became clear that many of those present, including me, shared an enthusiasm for the ideals of Europe, notably solidarity, peace and collaboration between nations. However, there was evidence of a growing scepticism about the general direction of the EU. Concern was expressed about the Union's intentions over recent times. The reasons for such worries are vague and difficult to pin down. Some of those present suggested that if there had been a referendum on the Lisbon treaty in their home member state, the result might have been similar to that in Ireland. I am not sure. It was suggested that it would not have been a surprise if the treaty had been rejected. I met a government minister from another European country on another occasion this summer. I expected to be upbraided when I was asked to talk about the Lisbon treaty, but that did not happen. There was no rebuke. There was understanding of our position.

In contrast, the conversation on the European Union at the international synod of bishops in Rome, which involved people from all over the world, focused more on the Union's founding ideals. Representatives of places like Iraq, Israel, Palestine and China spoke about the need for the EU to play a more active role in promoting peace and religious freedom in the troubled regions of the world and in international politics generally. Some of those present said they have taken real inspiration and hope from what the EU has achieved in bringing stability and integration to countries with a long history of conflict. It struck me that some of the EU's original idealism has been lost. Is it possible that citizens' experience of the EU now primarily involves intrusive bureaucracy, oppressive legislation and insecure economics? Perhaps they do not see it as a social project that is based on fundamental human values. Has some of the vision and energy that originally underpinned the European project been lost?

The human and social dimension of the EU, on which it was founded, seems to have been overtaken by more structural and bureaucratic priorities. The sub-committee might like to consider this issue when it submits its final report to the Joint Committee on European Affairs. Should greater priority be given to developing the social dimension of the EU and providing a permanent structure for transparent and collaborative dialogue about the values of Europe at EU level? I am mindful of the contribution that Irish Christianity has made to the traditions and ideals of the European Union. Robert Schuman famously described St. Columbanus as the patron saint of all involved in the construction of a unified Europe. During the Rome synod, a young man from northern Italy came to see me. He is heading an energetic campaign to have St. Columbanus declared the seventh patron of Europe. The man in question told me that he feels St. Columbanus deserves that accolade. His campaign is gathering steam in Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France and Ireland.

This country has something important to offer the social dimension of Europe. The EU expects us to sustain the Christian tradition that is shared by the various Christian traditions on this island, and which contributed immensely to the values on which the EU was founded. A rediscovery of these values, giving renewed priority to the question of a Europe of values, may help reconnect some citizens with the broader project of the European Union. Somebody recently returned from holidays in Portugal, where they discovered a statue of St. Malachy in a square because he had made a contribution in Europe.

In 1999 I attended the second synod of bishops on Europe. That synod asked European institutions and states to recognise that a proper ordering of society must be rooted in authentic, ethical civic values shared as widely as possible by its citizens. We are back to values. In its final message the synod asked the leaders of Europe to protest against the violation of the human rights of individuals, minorities and peoples wherever it occurred; to pay utmost attention to everything that concerned human life from the moment of conception to natural death; and to pay attention to protect the family based on marriage, for these are the foundations on which our common European home rests. The synod also asked European leaders to care for migrants and give the young people of Europe reasons to hope in the future.

In 2003 Pope John Paul reflected on these issues and acknowledged that the institutions of Europe promoted the unity of the Continent and were at the service of humanity. We also acknowledge this and congratulate the sub-committee and wish it well in its vital work in advising the Government on how to proceed out of this impasse. The Pope said he supported the aim of the European Union at the time to propose a model of integration which would be supported by the adoption of a common fundamental charter. This in place today in the form of the treaty and the associated Charter of Fundamental Rights. While noting his respect for the secular nature of European institutions, Pope John Paul went on to ask that any such treaty include a reference to the religious and Christian heritage of Europe. There was a major debate about this and the Irish interests fought valiantly to have it included. That may not be well known and would be to the advantage of all if it were. If the case were made, it would soften people's criticism of our presence in the European Union.

Pope John Paul also asked that three matters be recognised. One was the right of churches and religious communities to organise themselves freely in conformity with their proper convictions, always keeping in mind the requirements of the common good. He asked that the European Union respect the specific identity of the different religious confessions and make provision for a structured dialogue between the Union and these confessions. He asked that the Union have respect for the juridical status already enjoyed by the churches and religious institutions in the member states of the Union. Much progress has been made in these areas. Ireland was among the first countries in Europe to initiate the structured dialogue proposed in the Lisbon treaty. Concerns about the right of churches to organise themselves in conformity with their proper convictions, as well as some ethical positions at EU level, continue to be expressed. Greater assurance around these may alleviate some of the legitimate concerns about the future intentions of the European Union in this regard. It may also provide a stronger basis on which to challenge those who might choose to misrepresent the EU position on these issues as part of a broader anti-EU approach.

I will explain the Roman Catholic bishops' position on the referendum. Before the referendum, we were briefed by a lawyer from Brussels, from the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community, COMECE, who explained the workings of the Commission and how the Lisbon treaty was arrived at. People were generally happy. We made a statement. We did not urge people to vote "Yes" or "No" because that was not our function. However, we urged them to study the proposal and go out and vote.

The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dick Roche, addressed the Irish Inter-Church Meeting, which involves the 14 main Christian churches on the island, in which he put the case for the referendum. Since the referendum I have been approached by a religious group — not a Catholic one — which shared its concerns with me that the voice of the religious does not seem to be heard as it should.

On the issue of social concerns, I visited Tory Island this summer and was pained to see what had happened to it. I wondered whether Ireland could become the Tory Island of Europe if things continued the way they seem to be going in some areas. People on the island felt so strongly about fishing regulations as to suggest their case be brought before the European Court of Human Rights. Their way of life has been taken from them, though I am sure members present can speak more eloquently on this subject than I. The preservation of the environment is very important but it sometimes seems to take precedence over other issues. One journalist said it was amazing how an organisation like the EU showed commendable concern for turf bogs and earthworms but such persistent indifference to its cultural and religious history.

I will conclude with the words of Pope Benedict:

The European home, as we readily refer to the community of this continent, will be a good place to live for everyone only if it is built on a solid, cultural and moral foundation of common values drawn from our history and our traditions. Europe cannot and must not deny her Christian roots for these represent a dynamic component of our civilisation as we move forward into the third millennium.

Rev. Timothy Bartlett

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to be part of a conversation with the esteemed Deputies and Senators on the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union. I am present in my capacity as a member of a team that provides occasional research and analysis to the Irish bishops on a range of social and legislative issues. As members will probably guess from my accent, I am a native of Belfast, a priest of the diocese of Down and Connor.

I have also been involved in providing research and analysis on legislative and political developments to the Catholic bishops of Northern Ireland. I mention that for two reasons. First, I wish to put on record, at a personal level, my immense and eternal gratitude to the European Union for its invaluable role in the peace and stability that I now enjoy, as somebody who lives in the North of this island and grew up during the turmoil of the Troubles. Ireland owes a lot to the European Union, not least for its contribution to peace and stability.

Second, part of my work in Northern Ireland involves representing the interests and concerns of the four largest Christian denominations in Ireland to the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister at Stormont. A key feature of this work has involved negotiating the shared interests of the four main churches in respect of new legislation, particularly in recent years, negotiating exceptions and amendments to EU directives as they are introduced into Northern Ireland's domestic law.

I agree with a point made by Cardinal Brady in his opening presentation. After several years of engagement with the introduction of EU directives in the North and with the development of equality and human rights legislation, North and South, I have come to the conclusion that one of the most consistent and difficult problems the churches and other faith communities face is securing recognition and understanding of the right of churches and religious communities to organise themselves freely in conformity with their proper convictions. I do not say there is a lack of sympathy in this regard as there is openness to listening to what the churches have to say. This means a great deal to the churches in practical terms.

In my experience this is often quickly followed by expectations from people of faith who deal in this area that EU directives on social and bio-ethical matters will generally undermine rather than support the Christian moral tradition of Europe. There are exceptions to this but it is the general trend we experience. The significance of this combined phenomenon is that individual Christians like me, and those of other faiths who share a similar view on life and social ethics, often feel they must be vigilant about the intentions of the EU every time a new development is proposed or occurs. While the impact of this unease is difficult to quantify, for example, with regard to the Lisbon treaty referendum, it may be appropriate for the sub-committee to consider what effect, if any, it has had on the attitude of Christians and other people of faith to the European project generally and the Lisbon treaty in particular. Nobody has suggested that this is the main concern of people but it may be part of the fabric of a sense of suspicion regarding the EU.

I feel positive about the ideals of the EU as a political project because of my Christian values but I have been left distrustful of EU policy and intentions as a matter of habit. When something new appears, the full implications of which are not immediately clear to people, such as the Lisbon treaty, my reflex is to look for the Trojan horse coming through the gates; this is also the reflex of my colleagues in other churches. The instinct is to assume there will be something threatening, possibly covert, to the Christian ideal and way of life. This may say something about me but I share it with the sub-committee for assessment and analysis.

Should the churches have the right to employ people whose lives and values are consistent with the ethos and missions of their schools, hospitals, adoption agencies, nursing homes, outreach projects and so on? Should the churches have the right to act in a way consistent with their ethos and missions, subject to the common good, as the cardinal said? These rights are being constantly challenged, in my experience, by a mixture of the domestic application of EU directives and EU court judgments and by the directives and judgments themselves. I admit that part of the problem may lie in how domestic governments apply somewhat neutral EU directives but, nonetheless, the feeling is that the EU was the cause of the move in this direction. A prime example of this was the introduction of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 and the equivalent goods and services legislation in England and Wales. The future of Catholic adoption agencies and public funding for them were jeopardised by this initiative. On the other hand, gay and lesbian organisations could establish new adoption agencies with the support of public funding, as a result of the legislation. That did not seem equitable to me in a pluralist society. We did not oppose the rights of others to receive funding and set up agencies, though we had ethical difficulties with this. They have rights in a pluralist society; however the rights of faith communities were directly undermined. The freedom of Christian schools to teach that homosexual activity may be sinful was jeopardised and had to be tested in the courts in Northern Ireland. The churches won in that case. The future funding of Christian marriage advisory services was also threatened. These things seem to constantly threaten the activities of Christian churches and their values.

While the controversy around these matters arose from the domestic application of EU directives which were, in fact, broader in their scope, the impression remained in the mind of many Christians that this challenge came from a prevailing hostility to put our lack of concern for Christian values, the fundamental prevailing values of Europe by history and tradition, within EU decision-making bodies. It is experiences like this that become high-profile media stories which have contributed to some degree at least to what Cardinal Brady described earlier this year as an unease among many Christians who would otherwise by strong supporters, by instinct and ideal, of the EU project.

The committee might well argue that this has less to do with the EU directly than with the acts of domestic governments or that it has more to do with perception than reality. I accept that may well be true, even on the basis of my experience, but one of the things we all know from our experience of Northern Ireland over the years is that perception in political and social terms is often as powerful in its impact on attitudes as reality, and it is not something that can be ignored.

In my experience this phenomenon has its roots in a tendency within the EU generally, and its bodies, to render absolute the principle of non-discrimination or equality at the expense of other social goods which deserve at least equal or perhaps, in a particular context, justifiably greater consideration. We had an example of this when the European Commission issued a reasoned opinion earlier this year challenging the exemptions to existing employment legislation in Ireland which currently allows religious schools the freedom to act in support of their mission and ethos in terms of whom they employ. The pattern of judgments of the European court could also be considered to have given additional grounds for unease among Christians in respect of the application of non-discrimination and the tendency to render absolute that important principle of non-discrimination, which in principle churches supported and for which they have publicly stated their support.

This is to highlight one of the concerns that may be particular to the Christian tradition in Ireland in terms of the future of Ireland in the EU. It is a complex factor to analyse. I do not have a full handle on it. I am just here to say to the committee that it is there to some degree and in my experience it is real and has a factual basis in EU policy and the modus operandi of EU institutions.

You have one minute left.

Rev. Timothy Bartlett

I am just finishing.

It also involves what many Christians perceive as a prevailing view on other ethical issues, particularly bio-ethical issues, within the institutions and the culture of the EU. Some of this may also be based on perception rather than reality but if we want the future of Ireland's relationship to be one of natural integration and positive engagement, as I do, then the sub-committee may need to find ways of addressing the perception of this as well as any reality that might exist.

Thank you, Reverend. Thank you both very much for your contribution. I will now hand over to my colleagues. As the members will be aware, we have a rota drawn up independently to ensure everybody gets an opportunity to speak. Each member will have ten minutes, then I will allow everybody else in for approximately six minutes. The order of speakers is: Deputy Costello, then Deputy Creighton or Timmins, Deputy Flynn and then, I assume, Senator Mullen. I call Deputy Costello.

I welcome our guests and thank them for the straightforward and candid manner in which they presented their concerns. It is valuable to us, as a committee, to have their presence here and their presentation.

Cardinal Brady contended that in many ways the human and social dimension was not coming through strongly enough in terms of the European Union and that the values of the churches and the faiths seem to be under threat in many ways. In the first instance, I put it to him that the Lisbon treaty seems to have reviewed and restated the fundamental values of the founding fathers of the European Union in terms of respect for human rights, rights of citizens, relationships between people, the United Nations conventions, relationships domestically between member states and relationships internationally. These principles were set out strongly in the treaty, with the emphasis very much on respect for rights.

The treaty also included strong statements on religious freedoms and the right of religious organisations to organise and practise in the manner appropriate to them. It went on to set out a further fundamental set of principles and rights in the form of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It seems, therefore, that of all treaties, this was the one which seemed to underpin, in its social dimension, the rights and concerns of the citizenry. Will Cardinal Brady refer to this in his response?

The Cardinal referred to his now famous speech to the Humbert Summer School which I am sure all members have read. In particular, he made reference to successive decisions that had undermined family values, the right to life, the sacredness of the Sabbath and the ethos of Christian institutions. Will he elaborate on this by indicating the institutions he considers to have been responsible for such changes and the circumstances in which they occurred?

In the course of the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign I noted that the magazine, Alive!, seemed to promote hatred of the European Union — I will put it as strongly as that — and was extremely critical of all the political parties and individuals involved in the “Yes” campaign. I understand this magazine was available in all Catholic churches in Dublin city. Will the Cardinal comment on this?

On the peace process, I agree totally with what the Reverend Bartlett said. We all recall the great words of Mr. John Hume in this regard and although it might have been a little extravagant to describe it as the greatest peace process the world has never known, it was certainly very beneficial to Ireland.

I was particularly taken by Reverend Bartlett's references to the transposition of directives. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to transpose European Union directives into domestic law and there is a proposal in the treaty for an enhanced role for parliamentarians as the watchdogs of subsidiarity. How does Reverend Bartlett envision the church, as a stakeholder in this area, linking up with us in the process of transposing directives which relate to sensitive social issues or even at an earlier stage in terms of an input prior to the various work programmes put together by European Union institutions?

Most Rev. Dr. Seán Brady

I propose to farm out some of Deputy Costello's questions. Mr. Long will respond to the question on Alive! while Reverend Bartlett will take the one on the institutions.

I am heartened to be reminded of the statements made on human rights. However, more is needed than statements. It is in the implementation that problems arise. There is a concern, for example, that where there is a clash between the right to human dignity and the right to life, the European Court of Justice may decide to allow euthanasia. This was put to me by a group which had come from this city.

I do not think we realise the extent of the revolution envisaged by the Lisbon treaty. I am at a loss. Is it a European community or a European union? Do we wait until the treaty goes through to make it officially and legally the European Union? There was a fudge which made people uncertain. If there is a conflict between European and domestic rights, who decides on it and to whom will they be accountable? The lawyers are not agreed. Some professors of law in institutions not too far from here question the inclusion of certain rights in the charter, as they do not fall within the competence of EU legislation. This is the type of creeping centralisation of power of which we need to be aware. I do not have the answers but I am raising the issues.

When I made the speech at the Humbert Summer School, the first reaction was that the Cardinal had weighed in behind the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen. However, when the letters arrived, they were from the other side stating I was correct. We must chart a course through the middle of these delicate and important issues.

I thank Cardinal Brady and must ask Mr. Long and Reverend Bartlett to be as brief as possible, as otherwise my colleagues will not be able to speak.

Rev. Timothy Bartlett

On the back of the Cardinal's comments on Deputy Costello's first question, the statement issued by the bishops was positive in its recognition of the shared Christian humanist values which united the peoples of Europe and which were recognised in the Lisbon treaty, not least in its opening chapters. As the Cardinal stated and to come to the question directed to me, my experience is that the issues are raised with regard to the application of this in reality.

The Cardinal's Humbert summer school address was raised with regard to the question of successive decisions which had undermined the family based on marriage and the sacredness of the Sabbath. I can see how this may have led to a misinterpretation. In fact, the sentence in question does not mention successive decisions by the European Union. It was part of a broader comment on how a prevailing secular culture in Europe had influenced many of these decisions at national level during the years and which at times perhaps had been influenced by a first cause in EU initiatives but not in every case mentioned. Perhaps this has contributed to a sense of suspicion of the European Union in this regard. I make clear to Deputy Costello that the inference was not that the European Union had been responsible for every one of these decisions but that it was part of a general culture which was emerging.

Deputy Costello asked me specifically about how faith communities and others might be engaged. We want to see a full pluralist democracy engaged in this process in transposing directives. My experience in Northern Ireland has been extremely positive. The civil servants at OFM-DFM engaged in the drafting of the legislation invite representatives of the churches and faith communities and other individuals with an interest to meet them during the process. We do not always get what we want, nor do we expect to but, at least, we believe we are properly and fully heard and understood. The actual impact of some of these measures on churches can be extremely nuanced and require detailed explanation.

The Cardinal has rightly acknowledged church-State dialogue in the South and its benefits. However, it is embryonic and as with most things embryonic its evolution is not firm. The experience has been that it has not been very effective in real terms. I suggest it is more about discovering and learning about it at this stage than anything else.

At EU level there might be a case to be made for a formal recognised structural representation of faith communities and other philosophical traditions feeding into the debate, much in the way as the civic forum was intended to do originally.

I must hand over to Deputy Timmins but perhaps he will pick up on the points to which Mr. Long might want to respond.

I wish to share time with Deputy Creighton.

I thank Dr. Brady, Reverend Bartlett and Mr. Long for attending. The concerns articulated on social issues are not unique, as many people share them. While something might appear to be black and white or straightforward to me — and I do not have a monopoly on wisdom — Dr. Brady might have concerns about its interpretation. With respect to social and other issues, we probably need a mechanism whereby the Supreme Court puts an interpretation on aspects of treaties to ascertain who has control over them. The Lisbon treaty does not give the EU a right to legislate on domestic social issues such as abortion, euthanasia and same sex partnerships. These issues remain within Ireland's competence but Cardinal Brady and Reverend Bartlett have concerns that might not be the case.

Cardinal Brady mentioned that the bishops did not urge a "No" or "Yes" vote because they did not see it as their role to do so. However, the church is not afraid to enunciate a position on social issues, as the cardinal did yesterday. I, therefore, find it hard to reconcile the bishops not supporting a "Yes" or "No" vote on at least the social aspects of the Lisbon treaty and the cardinal enunciating a position yesterday on an issue, whether one agrees with it. Does he think the church should enunciate a position on social issues covered by the treaty and say whether they are good or bad or it is unsure about the interpretation? I recognise a small conflict in this regard and I would like a view on it.

Does the cardinal believe our membership of the EU has been good for us? When the EU ambassador to Washington and former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, appeared before the committee, he referred to article 17 of the Lisbon treaty, which states, "The Union respects that it does not prejudice the status under national law of churches or religious associations or communities". He said the article would have been helpful in preserving denominational education and religious liberty throughout Europe and it would assist in recognising the role of churches and religious associations.

Mr. Bruton also referred to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and said it places an important limitation on the European Court of Justice in interpreting domestic law and asserts that human dignity is inviolable; everyone has a right to life. The charter prohibits the reproductive cloning of human beings and it clarifies the right to marriage to be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights, which protects these unique positions on social issues in Ireland.

I support Deputy Costello regarding Alive! , which I have come across at the back of my own church. The public think it has the imprimatur of the church. The church might want to charge the publisher a rental fee. I am surprised someone has not sued for slander.

I welcome the representatives and I thank them for their presentation. Fine Gael is part of the Christian democratic movement in Europe and we are strongly politically committed to the promotion of Christian values within the Union. The EPP is the largest group in the European Parliament, Commission and Council and it is, therefore, an important and influential group. There should be less suspicion about the objectives of the EU and about its institutions. The EU is not out to get religious orders or to stamp out the religious ethos in Europe. The contrary is true and faith and trust in this regard needs to be rebuilt. I would like that to happen.

I would have liked the Catholic church to have made a stronger statement on the Lisbon treaty. I would have liked it to have issued a forthright endorsement of the treaty but we did not quite get it. I appreciate that positive comments were made, although they could have gone further. I share many of the church's concerns about the treaty, particularly in respect of the potential of the European Court of Justice and certain aspects of the operations of the European Commission. The treaty was drawn up, in the first instance, to define the powers and competences of the European Union for the first time. Unlike any previous treaty, it set out the circumstances in which the Union could and could not act. That was a hugely important step. It is regrettable that it has not come into force.

The point made by Deputy Timmins in respect of the protection in the charter of the right to life was previously made at this forum by the EU ambassador to the United States, Mr. John Bruton. That is something new. It would have had a huge sway in terms of the European Court of Justice. When I spoke recently to a counterpart of mine who is a Member of the Bundestag, he told me he had just met a number of judges from the European Court of Justice. They had told him they felt somewhat hamstrung because essentially they had to answer to the European Commission. The judges certainly take guidance from the Commission which is not supposed to represent individual member states. It is supposed to be removed from the strong political values we might associate with the directly elected European and national parliaments. The Lisbon treaty is also important in that context. Under the treaty, national parliaments were, for the first time, to be given a much greater role in scrutinising EU legislation and proposals coming from the European Commission. If they had been given an opportunity to put their mark on proposals — I refer to decisions on the future of the European Union and other initiatives taken by it — they would have been able to instruct the European Court of Justice and thereby limit its reach in areas of social concern such as those reflected in our constitutional values. That is very important. I hope the delegation will reflect on this. I would like to hear its views on the matter.

Mr. Martin Long

I thank the members of the sub-committee for the invitation to attend this meeting. I am the director of the Catholic communications office of the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference. One of the matters for which I am responsible is media liaison which was mentioned by a number of members. The conference addressed the issue of Ireland's future in the European Union, the subject of the sub-committee's deliberations, in two major media events it organised this year. It launched a pastoral reflection, Fostering a Community of Values, on 29 May last to coincide with the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign. The document was launched by the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Diarmuid Martin; the Bishop of Meath, Dr. Michael Smith; and Fr. Eoin Cassidy of the Mater Dei Institute at a press conference in the institute. In August Cardinal Seán Brady addressed these matters in Ballina at the Humbert Summer School, the director of which is Mr. John Cooney.

I am conscious that the Chairman has advised that parliamentary privilege does not extend to those of us who are not members of the sub-committee. Therefore, I will not mention the coverage of the Lisbon treaty referendum by particular titles, publications or media organisations. However, it is important to reiterate that an important aspect of the debate was flagged by the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Martin, at the launch of the pastoral reflection. One of the recommendations the archbishop gave to the faithful was that "those who seek to influence the outcome of the referendum either by offering misleading or patently incorrect advice, or by introducing extraneous factors into the debate, ought to be condemned." While my responsibility extends only as far as the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference, I am aware — it was reported in the media — that Dr. Martin issued a letter to the priests of the Dublin diocese advising them on the literature that should be disseminated in their churches. I assure Deputies Costello and Timmins that the bishops were particularly conscious of this issue. The communications office had to deal with queries from the media and the public on the matter.

Most Rev. Dr. Seán Brady

I will answer the question about why we did not make a stronger statement. If one studies the statements we make, one will find that we rarely direct people on how to vote, unless a clear moral question is involved. We asked people to inform themselves by listening to the experts in this area — the people in this domain who know the facts. The Government had great space and there was a €5 million budget to get this case across. A stronger statement from us may have been counterproductive. I do not know. That is the reason. It was not a clear moral question. Yesterday I mainly quoted from the traditional teaching of the church, the scriptures, the catechism and the compendium, which is the social document of the Catholic church.

I think the European Union is very good. I went to Rome in 1960 and have returned and spent 20 years of my life there. I applaud the work done by members, Commissioners, civil servants and everybody who has worked long and hard to bring about this ideal of greater European unity. I wonder if we are ready for the big step that will make us one large union. Somebody says for that we need one people, to use the Greek word, one demos, the basis of the word democracy. We are not one people in Europe yet, but we are getting there and we have shared ideals. It has been very good. The euro has been good, although I do not live in the euro zone. I often hope they could go further and streamline travel better. That is one suggestion.

I welcome the delegates. I will take up the Cardinal's last point. I also believe the church should have come out with a definitive statement urging a vote one way or the other on Lisbon. I expected the church to do that. This week it made a very strong statement on same-sex marriage and last week it made a very strong statement on education cuts. While there is an obligation on us as politicians to go out and sell the message, that does not mean the church can sit back, perhaps for fear that if it took a stronger stance it might be counterproductive. There was an obligation on the church to give a very strong message on this. Mr. Long read out a quote from Dr. Brady's statement on 1 June saying that offering misleading or even patently incorrect advice by introducing extraneous factors into the debate was bad. However when I heard that statement on 1 June I got a very positive feel from it. I said it is 90% positive and urging a "Yes" vote. Unfortunately that 10% left that element of the unknown in the minds of many Roman Catholics and generated much of this uncertainty. By leaving the statement in that way the Catholic Church created much uncertainty and that was regrettable.

I am interested in the Cardinal's statement to the Humbert Summer School in my home county during the summer. He said it is natural in the US for presidential candidates to answer direct questions on their Christian faith, their commitment to faith and willingness to support faith-based organisations and that he looks forward to the day when that happens in Ireland. So do I. If he believes that, does it not follow that he would have come out strongly and stated where the Catholic church stood regarding the treaty? I would appreciate his views on that.

I was very interested in the examples Reverend Bartlett gave and his concerns on how the directives are transposed into law. That is a domestic situation and this committee is specifically examining where improvements can be brought about. Regarding the example given by the Dr. Daly——

A Deputy

Dr. Brady.

I beg Dr. Brady's pardon.

He is on the way.

I clearly remember the difference between the two. I apologise. They are both very good spokespeople without a shadow of a doubt. It is the right of the Irish Government to legislate on Irish social issues. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will apply only in areas where the EU has competence. What are the witnesses' views on that point? Surely, it allays concerns that the European Court of Justice might take a view contrary to what we propose in Ireland.

Most Rev. Dr. Seán Brady

I will return to the question about the statement of the bishops. There is a qualitative difference between pronouncing on matters relating to the European Union and on issues such as marriage. Members are lay citizens and know these things. They went to the same schools and were baptised as I was. It will be fine until the court makes a statement against them.

I read this morning that the Lisbon treaty will require wholehearted loyalty to foreign policy as enunciated by the EU. I find that people in eastern Europe——

That is not in the Lisbon treaty.

Most Rev. Dr. Seán Brady

Is it not?

Absolutely not. This is another misleading statement that was made during the debate.

Most Rev. Dr. Seán Brady

Where did the notion come from?

The Commissioner in the area of foreign affairs will be able to explain it to Dr. Brady.

Foreign policy applies only in certain areas.

Deputy Flynn is speaking. Please allow her to finish.

Most Rev. Dr. Seán Brady

I was talking about a detail of the treaty. However, a resounding call for a "Yes" vote will get people's backs up.

Why should the church be afraid of it? There are many advances in the Lisbon treaty and the Catholic church could have come out positively in favour of it. Article 16(c) was included at the insistence of the Vatican and there were other positive measures. If there was a measure that benefited the Catholic church surely it could give a definitive verdict.

Most Rev. Dr. Seán Brady

That would be a sign of contempt for the voters. We asked them to inform themselves, make up their minds freely and, above all, to come out and vote.

Any statement made by the bishops is taken seriously by all members of their church because they have a huge relevance for the Irish people. The bishops went 90% of the way but left a final verdict hanging and that created a great deal of uncertainty.

Rev. Timothy Bartlett

Deputy Flynn described the churches as going 90% of the way. The other 10% reflected the uncertainty felt by the bishops in their own analysis. It is wrong to suggest the implications are as clear cut as the Deputy says. It was, therefore, prudent and reasonable not to give an emphatic endorsement. There was a desire to emphatically endorse the treaty but it was held back because there were legitimate issues which were uncertain and remained to be clarified. According to experts we are still not absolutely clear, on the basis of previous experience, as to how the creeping powers of the European courts will evolve in respect of the charter. That is an allegation I have read in credible sources.

The bishops may not have been in a position to give a 100% endorsement. It is a technical, legal and political issue which is of interest to the church but, as the cardinal said, it is qualitatively different from a fundamental moral issue which is clear cut in terms of Christian teaching and values.

I welcome Reverend Bartlett's statement to the effect that there was a desire to encourage a positive outcome. I interpreted it as 90% positive but the sad reality is that many people took it as a rejection.

Deputy Byrne has one minute.

I do not expect the church to tell us how to vote and I do not expect the State to tell the church how to run its business. The problem is, when I go to mass on Sundays the bishops do not tell me how to vote but Alive! newspaper, at the back of the church, says the matter will destroy the Catholic Church and that no good Catholic can vote “Yes” to Lisbon the treaty. That is the impression Alive gives and I would like the cardinal to state that a good, practising Catholic, who is trying to live his or her faith, can also support the EU and want an integrated Europe with countries working better. Perhaps the Cardinal could clarify this.

Most Rev. Dr. Seán Brady

We do not have control over that newspaper.

Regarding the role of the church——

I will let everyone speak but first seek responses to Deputy Byrne and Senator Mullen.

Mr. Martin Long

Regarding Deputy Byrne's question, the only official publication of the Irish bishops' conference is called Intercom and is published ten times a year.

An Phoblacht would not be found in a church and nor would a Fianna Fáil leaflet yet I was bombarded week after week in a church where I go to pray with my family and practise my faith with the "No to Lisbon" message. It is a civic and political issue and I felt that it was disgraceful that it was addressed in this way. The bishops did not take a position and did not tell people how to vote, which is fair enough, but the average churchgoer would have had the strong impression that it was sinful to vote "Yes" to Lisbon.

By way of a preliminary comment, I agree with Deputy Byrne but I wish he had the same concern about the Irish Catholic going in the other direction. Cardinal Brady must feel like a dissenting theologian dragged before the congregation for the doctrine of the faith to be asked why he did not sign up to the position held by the main political parties of this island. We must respect the freedom of the church and there will be messy areas when newspapers independent of the church are made available in the church porch.

I welcome our guests and they are among friends here. I do not say this because everyone agrees with them but because Ireland is moving towards a new place where the church does not seek, nor should it, a privileged place. The Catholic Church, along with other churches, deserves a prominent place because we depend on it to address issues that we may not address ourselves, for reasons of party-political loyalty or individual or personal bias. I am conscious that a less than gracious member of the Oireachtas yesterday compared Cardinal Brady to Robert Mugabe because he dared to dissent from a proposal on civil partnerships, speaking through his experience as a member of the Catholic Church and his knowledge of the Christian faith. This is not acceptable.

I encourage Cardinal Brady and those of different faiths and none not to desist from speaking from a place of conscience because it is important that we reflect on the higher issues when we determine our day to day lives together. Aristotle said politics is free people discussing how we should order our lives together and Cardinal Brady deserves a prominent place in that discussion.

I noted Reverend Bartlett's comments today about certain illegal initiatives that are hostile to the Judeo-Christian understanding of things vis-à-vis family. They make it difficult for Christian adoption agencies to do their work. He rightly acknowledged that sometimes it is a matter of perception but we may be dealing with a clash of philosophies at the heart of the EU. The natural law view is that some values are inviolable, such as the right to life and the importance of family as the basis for civilised and harmonious relationships in society. A more positivistic view of rights seems to be taken sometimes at EU level; for example, the wonderful concept of equality may be invoked but only through very specific meanings that are oppressive to people of faith, among others.

Speaking of perception, do the witnesses feel that politicians here and elsewhere are in denial about the interconnectedness of areas of EU competence and areas of non-EU competence? For example, we have been reassured about the Charter of Fundamental Rights but nobody can tell us why, if the EU has nothing to do with marriage and family and they are not areas of competence, it nonetheless refers to marriage. It does not refer to marriage in the context of a man and a woman.

Is it reasonable to expect, therefore, that down the line in interpreting the charter states might be required to get into line or abolish values? Are we seeing this already in the Mr. Tadao Maruko case, in which it has been ruled that a person in an EU member state that treats same sex partnerships in a similar way to marriages must be entitled to his or her dead partner's pension? Is that an example which shows how areas in which there is no competence can suddenly appear to become ones in which there is competence? Is it this that is worrying the churches? Is it more than a matter of perception? Is this an example which shows how EU law has a tendency to creep into areas that people of good will and good faith do not always foresee at the time they are negotiating treaties? In that context, do the churches think the Irish people would be more open to the EU relationship and the Lisbon treaty if our politicians had been more vigilant about our social values and the need for Ireland to have the right to retain distinctive social values and were not just excellent negotiators when it comes to other important matters in the field of economics and others with practical benefits for Ireland?

Because Cardinal Brady was attacked yesterday by a Member of the Oireachtas, it is almost more necessary to give an example of how the Charter of Fundamental Rights might operate. None of us likes what is called homophobia. None of us likes to think any person's dignity would be denied or in any way insulted or demeaned because of his or her arrangements or what he or she does in his or her private life. Therefore, I dislike the term used in Poland where they talked about forbidding so-called homosexual propaganda from influencing schoolchildren's understanding of the traditional family, but I gather — subject to translation — that what the law was about was the right of schools not to portray same sex relationships as equal in validity to marriage in textbooks, etc. I imagine that people who would not regard themselves as homophobic would nonetheless state a Catholic school, for example, has the right to teach according to its distinctive ethos, yet Mr. Vladimír Spidla, the EU Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, stated the Polish law, if it were to emerge, would contradict the European Convention on Human Rights, a matter which need not detain us here, as the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Is it this that is bothering the churches? Is it that they think that while people believe in good faith that the charter does not have a certain reach, it may in time, according to the way matters are interpreted and given the drift of the EU policy agenda, reach into domestic legislation in the way, for example, that the judgment in the Mr. Tadao Maruko case would require?

I want to ask about section 37 of the Employment Equality Act 1998. Here was a situation where the State in good faith and, I believe, in consultation with all of the churches on the island had sought an exemption in the EU directive to allow religious run institutions to protect their ethos in employment matters. However, the European Commission stated — it was correct legally in so doing — that the Irish interpretation of the legislation was too restrictive. Is this another example which shows the churches might have surprises in the post when directives come to be interpreted and transposed into domestic legislation which might subsequently be challenged at EU level? If they believe these are legitimate concerns, do they believe there is a way out of the impasse that might allow people who want to be good Europeans and who support integration to ensure Ireland's right to have the final word? Do they believe it is possible, for example, in the wording of a constitutional amendment, to create a filter to give primacy to Irish constitutional values on marriage, the family, the right to life at all stages, etc., in other words, to leave these decisions to the Irish people, however they might decide them?

Rev. Timothy Bartlett

I thank the Senator for his opening comments. I, too, share the hopes and values he espoused in being part of a pluralist democracy with the Catholic church, within its own area of competence and rights and responsibilities, participating fully and claiming its space, as well as giving space to others without privilege beyond what might be appropriate to any organisation in terms of its activities and status. He described eloquently and adequately the underlying concerns in all their dimensions and I agree with everything he said. I explained them in the context of EU directives being implemented in the North, but all of the other examples and cases he cited are very much part of the prevailing concerns of the various churches and faith traditions, as I understand and have heard them.

Where I might disagree slightly with the Senator is that I am more optimistic than he appears to be on the question of a clash of philosophy at the heart of the European Union. As the bishops said in their statement on the Lisbon treaty referendum, one of the strengths of and hopes for the European project is precisely that we share what I would describe as a Christian humanism but certainly a humanist tradition that values the dignity of the individual, democracy and freedom, including the freedom of religion.

In view of comments made by others, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the positive developments in the Lisbon treaty, particularly Articles 16 and 17. However, on a practical level, the perceived culture of the European Union — which was my main argument — is not helped by issues such as the Rocco Buttiglione case in terms of the perceived tolerance of those by whom we are often accused of being intolerant. While there are many shared values, when a clash of values arises, it is my experience that the EU, whether through the European court, the Commission or other policy fora, either takes a position of neutrality and leaves resolution of the issue in question to the domestic sphere or else it consistently takes what Pope Benedict has described as the lowest common denominator approach, which is rarely the active value of the Christian tradition which dominates Europe philosophically, particularly on the types of social issues to which the Senator referred. In other words, notwithstanding all the progress I admit has been made in terms of recognition, and properly so, of the place of philosophical and religious tradition, when there is a clash of values, I can point to no instance where the European Union, via any of its institutions, has proactively promoted values consistent with the Christian ideal, particularly in regard to family, marriage and those types of social issues, in the same way it has occasionally promoted values that are not consistent with that ideal. That is part of the overall experience in addition to the points Senator Mullen made and the cases he correctly cites. I support everything he said, which reflects our concerns.

I want to ask about Ireland's stances abroad. Is Rev. Bartlett of the view that Irish politicians have dropped the ball in terms of negotiating for more subsidiarity — to use that term in a very loose way — for Ireland on these social issues? There are other aspects of this. For example, when the European Union presented a position at the United Nations which sought to remove a wording proposed by the United States which was critical of abortion or what is euphemistically called "reproductive rights", even when the Canadians clarified that this referred to abortion services, the Government did not take a stand dissenting from the European Union position, notwithstanding our constitutional values. Is Rev. Bartlett of the view that this saps the confidence of voters when asked to vote on a European treaty, that the Government has adequately safeguarded our traditions?

Rev. Timothy Bartlett

The simple and quick answer is yes. There is a cumulative effect in terms of the perception of the European Union. Blame is sometimes attached to European Union initiatives and developments when it does not properly rest there, because they are perceived as part of an overall package in regard to equality and human rights legislation generally and particularly those social areas to which the Senator referred. In that context, I will address the Senator's earlier question on the possibility of a filter to secure more subsidiarity. The question of the balance of subsidiarity within the Lisbon treaty and Europe generally is a key problem for many people but in regard to different issues. It would help to remove some of the distrust that Deputy Flynn mentioned earlier on the part of faith communities if we had a filter to ensure that the values debate was more open and transparent and that the process of developing legislation, whether at EU or domestic level, was more participative and fair. I do not think anyone here would claim competence on the detail of the proposal and perhaps the committee would like to comment on this from its own expertise.

I have two questions and a point to which I would appreciate a response. I will then allow other members to speak in the time remaining in this module.

My first question is addressed to Reverend Bartlett and I will attempt to quote some of his points and I ask him to correct me if I misquote him. He stated the general direction of European social policy is undermining Christian moral heritage. He also stated that when first encountering an example of EU policy his inclination is to seek the Trojan horse. Is this a responsible position for a leader such as him to adopt given that in his contribution he acknowledged clearly that many of the difficulties we are discussing are driven by the domestic interpretation of EU policy, as opposed to EU policy itself? Reverend Bartlett also spoke about the clash between perception and reality. Should his job be to distinguish between the perception and reality and examine where European influence ends and domestic policy begins?

Will Cardinal Brady take this as an opportunity to state whether a voter can be a good practising Catholic and vote "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty or a future version of it? I also want to emphasise what some of my colleagues have stated. I go to mass and I am extremely concerned about the regular presence of literature in the church that is of a different league in terms of its tone, nuance and content to anything the church states. Many other people who attend mass take this literature to be the voice of the Church. It would be appropriate to see more firm action and clarity on this.

Most Rev. Dr. Seán Brady

Obviously, I share the concern about publications being placed at the back of churches without as much as a by your leave. If one continues to read or observe it one might find a stash at the Irish bishops' conference so the Chairman should not think there is only one recipient.

Of course an Irish Catholic can vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty. With regard to the constitutional amendment, a long time ago I studied law in Rome. The continental view is that law is important to preserve values but because different circumstances exist there can be many exceptions to the law which leads to dispensations. The Irish attitude is that if the law needs so many dispensations and exceptions it must be a bad law, so abolish it.

We need a more flexible and understanding interpretation of some of our laws. That the weather is not the same in Italy and in Ireland is an obvious truism. Therefore, some regulations might have a different application in this country to that on the Continent. Perhaps we need to introduce greater understanding of the various traditions but at all stages the values behind the law should be preserved because they are sacrosanct.

Rev. Timothy Bartlett

The Chairman asked whether it is a responsible position to have a disposition to look for the Trojan horse. The context in which I placed that comment was my regret and frustration as somebody who is very enthusiastic about the European project and its founding ideals and general principles. That is the cumulative consequence of my experience of engaging with the EU and its impact on my concerns as a person of faith. Responsible leadership is honest leadership and I am honestly reflecting in this expert forum the nuances and complexities of that disposition and my regret that is the case in the hope the sub-committee will hear me, not as somebody adopting an anti-EU stance, but as somebody with a committed faith who is positive about Europe and the European project.

I fully appreciate the positive approach Reverend Bartlett has taken to Europe but many of the issues to which he referred are driven as much by domestic application of European law as the European decisions themselves. In the views he puts forward at the sub-committee and elsewhere, could more credence be given to the role domestic actors play in causing the difficulties he correctly identifies and not only the European presence?

Rev. Timothy Bartlett

I am asking the sub-committee for help for people like me and for faith communities. This may be at the heart of our presentation to do precisely that. How do we address my perception, which is also held by a considerable number of people, about that misunderstanding and misconception? On occasion, though, the driving force is directly the EU and the directives.

Mr. Martin Long

Catholic churches are open, welcoming and sacred places. Notwithstanding priests being vigilant, without physically impeding the entrance, it is very difficult to stop free literature entering them.

I welcome the delegation. Do the representatives accept that the provisions in the Maastricht treaty provide the necessary protection for our constitutional position on abortion because that has been disputed by various groups?

Reference was made to Tory Island. If we allow ourselves to be dislocated from the central process that is the European project in a way that may result from a continued lack of interest in the continued development of Europe, we may become the Tory Island of Europe. However, our best opportunity to ensure we do not become the Tory Island of Europe is by remaining at the heart of Europe, by being part of the continued progress and the central development, and by ensuring we continue to attract foreign direct investment. Will the cardinal comment on that?

Most Rev. Dr. Seán Brady

I do not feel competent to comment on the Maastricht treaty. We must stay at the heart of Europe but remembering that we have a distinct contribution to make and Europe expects us to stand up for these values. We are not big hitters in terms of population but we stand for something important in Europe. This meeting has been wonderful and I thank members for their welcome and the civilised dialogue we have had.

I have a word of warning. A number of representatives of the "No" campaign are resentful of the fact that they are being rubbished or depicted as ignorant but that is not the case. The sub-committee would not want to underestimate that. We need increasing respect for each other and meetings such as this tell me how serious members are about addressing the problem of our future in the Union. We all cherish that future and plan and hope for it. I attended this morning because I am aware the sub-committee faces time constraints and must report quickly. The church also has a committee on Europe of which Archbishop Martin is head, but he could not attend this meeting. Perhaps the sub-committee will have the opportunity to hear some of that committee's members. They have worked in Europe and have a vital interest in it. The Bishop of Down and Connor spent 17 years at the COMECE. There are many in the church with knowledge of these matters. We believe passionately in the European Union. We appreciate the efforts being made to make it a more prosperous and civilised place. Above all, we do not want it to be a fortress that is closed to others. Somebody made a plea for me to help some refugees from Iraq who were facing a terrible plight near Istanbul.

Does Reverend Bartlett have any proposals to address the concerns and fears he has mentioned in advance of any future vote? I do not necessarily refer to a re-run of the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign. We may have to consider some other treaty that is agreed or development in the European Union. Can guarantees be given to remove the perception, to which he referred, that there is a threat from it? Does he have any concept of how such guarantees could be formulated? If he had written the Lisbon treaty, what would he have included in it to assure his church that its position would be protected?

Rev. Timothy Bartlett

To be frank, I am not sure I can answer that question in a detailed way. I repeat the point I made that the members of the sub-committee who have more expertise in this area than I have should consider legislative proposals that are creative, robust and viable. I do not claim any competence in that regard.

I have to challenge Reverend Bartlett who has spoken about perception and reality. He is creating a perception by referring to the Catholic adoption agencies in the context of his church's teachings on homosexuality. I understand the policies to which he refers which were drawn up by the Labour Party in England had nothing to do with the European Union. They are purely domestic and do not apply here. As far as I know, we have no problem with Catholic adoption agencies. We have no teaching of homosexuality in schools. I do not want it and it is not an issue. Rev. Bartlett is helping to create the perception to which he refers by raising issues which have nothing to do with the European Union. A number of churchgoing members of the sub-committee have expressed how offended they are to see political literature on their way in to mass. I beg the cardinal to take up with his fellow bishops this serious issue which damages the church as much as it damages political debate.

Most Rev. Dr. Seán Brady

I will undertake to do so.

I appreciate that. I will conclude by reiterating Dr. Brady's point that a good Catholic can support the European Union, want European integration and the European Union to progress. That important message needs to be transmitted by the sub-committee. There has been a misleading and dangerous perception in this regard.

Rev. Timothy Bartlett

I take Deputy Byrne's point. This is the first time I have publicly stated these concerns or given these examples. If anybody asks me about the European Union, they will hear me speak very positively. I acknowledge that the issues I cited relate to domestic implementation.

Implementation——

I ask Deputy Byrne to let Reverend Bartlett finish.

They are purely British policies.

Rev. Timothy Bartlett

The trigger for the regulation in each case was implementation of an EU directive into domestic law. I admit that it was influenced by party policy. The perception of the treaty among the broader mass was affected by that process. That is the only claim I am making. My claim is no stronger than this.

It did not happen here. That is the point.

It has been helpful to hear about Rev. Bartlett's serious concerns, suspicions, nuances and perceptions. Others have spoken at this forum about workers' rights that are being lost as a result of the actions of the European Union. That was their perception. The members of another delegation spoke yesterday about overseas aid. They suggested the European Union might have an unhelpful agenda in that regard. Is there not a great deal in the Lisbon treaty on which we could build? Can the churches not enter into dialogue on issues of status and rights? Rather than seeing the glass as almost half empty, we should observe that it is more than half full.

I will comment on the Buttiglione case. I understand the opposition to Mr. Buttiglione's appointment as Justice, Freedom and Security Commissioner was not based on his Catholic convictions. It was purely based on the concern that he could not separate his personal views on sexual orientation from his public anti-discrimination functions. That was the reason for it. Dr. Brady might have a word on that.

Regarding the way forward, there is much scope for work to be done on the transposition of legislation and on subsidiarity. Those are two key areas where one can limit competence and ensure there is no creeping interference with competences. There is a greatly enhanced role available to parliaments such as ours to ensure directives are transposed as intended.

Would Reverend Bartlett accept that the Lisbon treaty would have improved the role of national parliaments in dealing with issues that arise at European level, which might go some way to allay the concerns he mentioned, which might have been purely domestic? Would he accept that our role would have been enhanced by Lisbon?

Senator Mullen asked whether we had dropped the ball. I suggest the Irish Government did anything but drop the ball where religious and Christian values are concerned at European level for three reasons, some of which Dr. Brady has highlighted. We were at the heart of campaigning for the Christian ethos in the preamble to the treaty. Ireland was one of the first to initiate the proposed structured dialogue. We got the protection of the abortion protocol in the Maastricht treaty. In Ireland, because of the values we share with Dr. Brady, we have worked on that and it should remove the Trojan horse Reverend Bartlett refers to.

I want to finish on a very positive note. Dr. Brady recently stated in Rome, "To celebrate the principles of interdependence, solidarity and peace which inspire the European Union, is to celebrate values which are at the very heart of the Gospel".

Structured dialogue, while it is welcome, is the equivalent of giving people tea and buns. One does not have to listen to them at the end of the day or give them the right to decide matters for themselves afterwards. We have demonstrated that any future problems are related not only to the charter but also to our possible existing treaty obligations, for example under the Amsterdam treaty, and how the equality agenda might be pursued in ways that are not inclusive of people's consciences. Would the cardinal be open to working and making suggestions if the Government were to ask how that might be achieved through constitutional amendment that would allow us the Irish constitutional filter, if he thinks that would work?

A report by the EU's network of independent experts on human rights concluded that the right of access to abortion and various other things took precedence over conscientious objection in jurisdictions where those services were legal. Is Dr. Brady worried about his fellow Roman Catholics in other countries who might lose their jobs because they will not be involved in carrying out abortions?

Most Rev. Dr. Seán Brady

Certainly.

Does he think the Irish Government should take a stance on that? I will happily chat will Deputy Costello about the Rocco Buttiglione case. I have studied it a little and can clarify the matter.

Most Rev. Dr. Seán Brady

The way forward is through dialogue. We would be prepared to work with anybody on this. I am sure the invitation would also go to other churches and faith communities. Embryonic stem cell research has not been mentioned. That needs much study. We think it is a clear-cut issue, that it is immoral. However, people need to be enlightened on that. It is not okay just because it creates jobs; there are moral implications. The way forward is dialogue and that is why I welcome this meeting where we can get an idea of politicians' difficulties. Politics being the art of the possible, the politicians must first do what is best and——

And what is possible.

Rev. Timothy Bartlett

The principle of subsidiarity applies ultimately to the subsidiarity of personal conscience. In the broad sweep of concern about subsidiarity and the balance there, that issue must be examined and sufficient respect must be given to it, not least in the cases Senator Mullen cites.

The Senator also referred to the structured dialogue and expressed concern as to how vacuous it might be. In principle, it is worthwhile but it has a long way go to mature into a full democratic mechanism for mutual influence, debate and dialogue.

Deputies Costello and Flynn referred to the positives in the treaty. I would be very disappointed if, in trying to explain some of our concerns, I gave the impression that the glass was half empty. The bishops' statement was, as Deputy Flynn described it, to the effect that the glass was 90% full. It is the other 10% which has caused the difficulties, perhaps disproportionately in terms of the overall treaty. There was much in it that could have been of long-term benefit but there were real concerns. That is why the sub-committee was set up.

Members of the sub-committee have indicated that they wish to speak again but they will have to continue the dialogue elsewhere because we must consider a number of other issues. I thank our guests for acknowledging the respect we are trying to accord to different points of view on the issue in which I hope the sub-committee plays an active role. I thank them for their contributions and attending at such short notice.

Sitting suspended at 11.12 a.m. and resumed at 11.20 a.m.

I thank Mr. Alan Barrett for attending. I will briefly explain the work we are doing and why he was invited. The sub-committee was set up to examine Ireland's future in Europe and provided with four terms of reference, each of which is the subject of a module of work, one of which is what Ireland's policy should be in certain policy areas influenced by the European Union. We are examining social policy as part of this module. Many members of the sub-committee, including me, wish to examine the future policy approach of Ireland within the European Union to immigration. Our guest was identified as a person who could add much value to this topic.

The sub-committee has a great deal to do; therefore, we are being rigorous in how we work and allocate time. Each speaker is being given ten minutes. Each group has nominated a representative member for meetings, each of whom will have ten minutes to engage with Mr. Barrett. Anyone who has not spoken will then have a brief opportunity to speak.

Before we get into the meat of our work, I must mention the issue of privilege, although so far not one single guest has had reason to be aware of these details. However, we should not take chances. I draw attention to the fact that while members of the sub-committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the sub-committee.

I thank Mr. Barrett for agreeing to attend at short notice.

Mr. Alan Barrett

I thank the Chairman for the invitation. He has mentioned that I was given short notice of this meeting, the result of which was I did not have much time to get a sense of what the sub-committee was about and the angles it wished to take. I decided in the note I circulated to speak in broad terms about immigration policy and its impacts. I will mention some relevant research from the Economic and Social Research Institute and try to get through my material as quickly as possible to allow members of the sub-committee to ask questions. As I said, I am not sure what the sub-committee wants from me; therefore, it is best to hand back to members as quickly as possible.

The Chairman has mentioned that this area will be examined from the perspective of social policy but, as an economist, most of my research on immigration has been on its economic dimensions. Much of what I mention will relate to these dimensions but members can ask me broad questions. If we are to go back to basics regarding immigration policy, we must ask about which policies we are talking. It is useful to think about this in two ways.

For a very long time in Ireland immigration policy has centred on the issue of entry. We have had questions about how many migrants we let in and what programmes we have in place to allow them in, but it is always about entry. There is, however, a second set of migration policies with which many other countries concern themselves, that is, that surrounding the issue of settlement and integration. In a nutshell, it is about what happens to immigrants after they arrive in the country. My first objective is to get these two issues in mind.

For the EU 25, the entry policy is essentially an open-door one and has been since May 2004. Ireland was very unusual among member states in that with the United Kingdom and Sweden it was one of the three countries that allowed full access to the labour market to persons from all the accession countries at the time. There were good economic reasons for this and there was no doubt that the fact we were willing to do so probably gained for us additional kudos in the European Union. The combination of our policy and strong economic growth obviously meant that there would be an enormous inflow into Ireland of accession state citizens. In the census taken in 2006 there were 120,000 EU ten immigrants, if I can use that term. The inflows between 2006 and 2008 suggest there were probably 200,000 such citizens living in Ireland. The inflow in recent years must be put in an international and historic context. Recently a German colleague stated to me that the inflow into Ireland between 2002 and 2008 was at the level the former West Germany experienced after German reunification in 1990. Historically, what happened in Ireland was quite extraordinary.

To a certain extent, the open door policy issue is now closed. There is not a great deal to discuss. One cannot really row back on it. There is the remaining question of what we should do vis-à-vis Bulgaria and Romania. It comes up every year. In deciding on it a number of points arise, one of which is that we need to have a clear sense of what the impact of immigration has been before we decide what we should do in the case of Bulgaria and Romania, and other accession countries also. There is considerable economic literature, to which the ESRI has contributed, on the impact of immigration. I state in the briefing note that it might be misleading to say there is a consensus, but to the extent that there is, it involves the following. The general feeling is migration has a smaller impact on GNP per head than one might think. Certainly, a massive inflow of immigrants leads to an increase in national output simply because there are more people working, but because a certain amount of the additional output accrues to the immigrants in the form of wages, the impact on GNP per head is quite modest. Every time it has been estimated it typically comes out as such.

What is a much bigger issue is the distributional impact. There is a reasonable body of research findings that shows that an inflow of low-skilled immigrants typically leads to a reduction in the wages of existing low-skilled workers, the flip side of which is that an inflow of high skilled workers typically leads to a reduction in the wages of existing high-skilled workers. What I am saying is that the average effect is small but that it can disguise significant distributional impacts. When we look at the question of what we should do in the case of Bulgaria and Romania, the extent to which immigrants from these countries might be low-skilled will have implications for low-skilled workers here. That is a matter which must always be kept in mind.

We must say when we look at immigration policy that part of our existing workforce is made up of immigrants. There is another finding in the international literature that very often a new inflow of immigrants can have a negative impact on the outcome for existing migrants because of the resulting direct labour competition.

Let us talk about the second block of policies, that is, those which concern the issue of settlement and integration. Let me run through a number of research findings from the ESRI in this regard. I have listed four points in the briefing note, the first of which is that education levels among EU ten migrants are very similar to those among the domestic population. To the extent that we view ourselves as a skilled group, this was an inflow of skilled workers. However, the data analysis we have done shows there is a significant gap between the occupations held by immigrants and those one might expect them to hold based on their occupational levels. We describe this as an occupational gap and have measured it on several occasions using CSO data. It is quite significant.

One can also examine how immigrants are faring in the labour market by looking at their wages. We have calculated wage gaps in the range of 18% to 45% for immigrants from the new member states. However, there is an important point to be made in this regard, namely, that the wage gap is not constant across all skill levels, with the gap between migrants from the ten European Union accession states and Irish natives most heavily concentrated among the highly skilled. We are not finding evidence of a wage differential for low-skilled people. This indicates that highly-skilled immigrants from the ten accession states have failed to access they types of occupations and earn the types of salaries their skill levels might suggest.

Referring back to my point on the impacts of migration in terms of skills, although we have had a high-skilled inflow from the ten accession states, its impact is more likely to have been low skilled. In other words, the impacts for the labour market have probably been at the lower end of the earnings distribution precisely because of where these people have been working. The important point to take from this is that Ireland does not have a problem with low-skill immigration. Rather, what we have is the underutilisation of highly-skilled immigrants. The policy issue that arises in this context is the question of how to design systems in such a way that one allows and facilitates migrants to move up the occupational ladder. In our research on this topic we have not been able to find evidence of occupational attainment improving over time for immigrants. One would like to think that the longer people are here, the better they are doing. However, we are not necessarily finding that to be true. In terms of our settlement policy, the challenge is to facilitate people in moving up the occupational ladder.

Everything I have said thus far relates to Ireland deciding its own immigration policy. However, an issue that is regularly discussed at European Union level is the extent to which there should be a co-ordinated policy on immigration. There are reasons that Ireland should participate in such a co-ordinated approach, but for reasons to which I have already referred, it is important that we have a highly-skilled inflow.

I am often asked whether immigrants are likely to return home in the current economic downturn. There are some 400,000 non-nationals living in Ireland and the latest ESRI forecast suggests we will have a net outflow of 30,000 next year. Even if all this outflow consists of immigrants, we will still have an immigrant population close to 10% of our domestic population. In other words, all the migrations to which I have referred will hold, regardless of the economic downturn. However, we should not take an overly short-term view of this. The economy will revive in due course and the migrant population will stay.

I thank Mr. Barrett for his presentation. It is interesting to consider some of the facts and figures he has given us. As an economist, he is obviously speaking from that perspective. He referred to the assumption that the objective of immigration policy is to maximise the economic welfare of existing residents. In the context of Ireland's membership of the European Union and the guarantee of free movement of citizens, does Mr. Barrett agree that the State is responsible for facilitating this freedom of movement of citizens who wish to work in Ireland and that this broadens the definition of immigration policy? The idea that the purpose of immigration policy is to maximise the economic welfare of existing residents suggests there is discretion on the part of the State as to whether a certain level of immigration is considered important or necessary in order to promote the economic welfare of residents. Does Mr. Barrett accept that as a member of the European Union we have an obligation to facilitate the movement of citizens and the right of citizens of other EU member states to live and work in Ireland? Whether or not it is in the economic interest of this country, it would appear that our immigration policy needs to facilitate European citizens from other member states.

What does Mr. Barrett think are the implications for our immigration policy? Towards the end of his presentation, he stated his view was that Ireland should want to participate in a co-ordinated policy at EU level. How does he feel Ireland should try to influence this co-ordinated policy? Concerns exist that other members states have more liberal immigration policies and if we were to participate in a more co-ordinated policy, which the Lisbon treaty suggested, Ireland might find itself having to accept a higher quota of immigrants than it was felt economic conditions required or could bear.

I agree with Mr. Barrett that the focus on immigration policy in this country has been on entry rather than settlement or integration. This reflects the idea that we consider the recent trend towards inwards migration as a temporary phenomenon and therefore we see these immigrants as guest workers who may leave the country during an economic downturn. Mr. Barrett seemed to suggest their presence in the country will be more permanent than we have accepted. What will be the implications of this for our immigration policy?

Mr. Alan Barrett

Senator de Búrca raised three broad themes and I ask her to come back to me if I miss any of them. On the policy objective, I set out a notion that one way of considering migration policy is to ask what the objective should be. It is an important question to ask with regard to any policy. The way economists think about a policy objective is to put it in terms of maximising the economic benefit of the existing residents, which includes the migrant population already there. To a great extent, this is a perfectly legitimate objective for a stand-alone nation state. Additional considerations such as humanitarian issues, for example asylum, come into this and they should be planks of a migration policy. However, to the extent that one thinks in terms of economic migration and the impact on labour markets, it is a legitimate place to start. The truth is that this is not our starting point because, as Senator de Búrca correctly pointed out, we are part of a labour market union. Therefore, there is free flow and the question of entry no longer arises.

If we consider the issues I mentioned, namely, settlement and integration, some criteria with regard to what is in Ireland's best interests can be applied, as well as the interests of the migrants themselves. If a migrant population is well integrated, facilitated and moving up occupational ladders it is good for the migrants themselves and good for the economy. This is an area in which we can get close to a win-win situation. The reverse of this is a situation where migrants become an excluded group in a society. This is bad for the migrants themselves and it is also bad for society and the economy. Perhaps I am too narrow in my thinking. I have trouble getting away from the idea of maximising the benefits to the existing residents, but Senator de Búrca can take on board the social dimensions in terms she is considering even in the context of what I am discussing.

With regard to policy co-ordination, any time one attends an international conference one hears that every country wants skilled migrants because there is a general understanding that they are good for economies. This is a no-brainer. Ireland must see itself as part of this overall structure. If EU policy introduces a skills-oriented points based system similar to that in Canada or Australia, we can participate in it and benefit from it.

The issue was raised about the notion that Ireland would have a disproportionate share of migrants as a result of this. What happened over the past few years will not happen again in the sense that Ireland's growth rate will not be three or four percentage points higher than everywhere else so I do not necessarily see that would be a difficulty.

At EU level, we want a policy targeted at skilled migrants. I am probably thinking about the economics of this and people might criticise that point of view but that is what the policy should be at EU level and Ireland would want to participate in that. If it is outside of that, Ireland does not want to be in a situation where Europe attracts all the high-skilled migrants and it is left out. Irish migration policy historically has been derivative of the UK policy in this area and although we are discussing the EU context, the policy cannot be divorced from what the British do.

I refer to the issue of guest workers. Historically, the mistake that has always been made in migration policy by the Swiss, Germans and the Americans is to think that migration is more temporary than it turns out to be. A huge number of countries have had the experience where they admit people on what they think is a short-term basis. When a downturn occurs, they think for some reason these people will leave automatically.

By definition, migrants are a mobile group of people and the fact that they have come suggests a number will go but on the basis of the projections we are putting together, there is no reason to think the outflow will be of such a magnitude as to seriously dent the size of the migrant population here. There is a similar dynamic in that the longer they are here, the more likely they are to stay. A huge proportion of governments and migrants get this wrong. A huge proportion of people migrate thinking it will be temporary and end up staying a lot longer. This needs to colour our approach to and view of the migration issue.

I welcome Dr. Barrett and I thank him for his contribution. His written submission was brief because of the short time he had to prepare it. However, he stated in it that the inflow of low-skilled immigrants might be marginally beneficial to the economy in aggregate terms and he elaborated on that by referring to the specific measure of GNP per capita. Will he address the issue of economic growth and whether the inflow of low-skilled migrant workers since 2004 contributed to it? I accept it would not be a significant difference per capita, which is logical, but will he comment on the contribution that level of migration made to GDP and economic output?

I refer to the issue of the occupation gap for immigrants, which Dr. Barrett has highlighted in various studies to date. It is important and we may well not be maximising the benefit of immigration by virtue of the underemployment of skilled workers. Why is that happening? Are employers sceptical about qualifications earned in universities and institutes in the ten member states that acceded in 2004? Are those qualifications not fully recognised?

Mr. Barrett said approximately 400,000 non-nationals were working in Ireland at the start of the year, of whom 200,000 are estimated to have travelled from the EU-10. Did the remainder largely come from the UK and other member states who had acceded prior to 2004? Mr. Barrett advocated the restrictions put in place for citizens of Bulgaria and Romania at the time of their accession to the EU. Given the new economic landscape, should they remain in place for some time? Perhaps he can give us a sense of the profile of the labour market in Romania and Bulgaria. Are the labour markets in those countries similar to the labour markets in the ten countries which joined the EU in 2004? Are there particular skills in Romania and Bulgaria that we could benefit from, if the open door policy was extended to people from such countries?

Mr. Barrett referred to the possibility of a common EU immigration policy in the future. He suggested that we should support such a move. What principles should govern any common EU policy on immigration into the Union? Should the EU introduce a green card system like that in place in this jurisdiction? Ireland is trying to attract highly-skilled immigrants who have the capacity to earn good incomes here. Should the EU pitch its policy at that level? Should it market Europe as an attractive destination for immigrants?

Mr. Alan Barrett

I thank Deputy McGrath for his questions. He asked me to specify the extent to which those who have come to Ireland have contributed to this country's gross national product. I do not have the complete figures to hand. I will have a stab at them, while leaving myself open to correction.

When the ESRI compiled a series of estimates in this area a number of years ago, it came up with figures which suggested that if approximately 100,000 people came to Ireland, GNP would increase by between 1.5% and 2%. For the purposes of such figures, if one adds a group of people to the labour force, one assumes they will be as productive as the existing members of the labour force. In such circumstances, GNP would increase by the order of magnitude I have mentioned. Nobody thinks GNP should be increased as an end in itself. That would be a meaningless notion. If one's policy objective is to increase GNP, all one has to do is invite everybody on the planet to come here. Gross national product would increase substantially in such circumstances.

I remind the sub-committee that GNP per head is a much more meaningful measure of welfare standards, etc. Migrants have had a positive impact on GNP over recent years. Ireland's GNP per head has increased. We are talking about an impact on GNP of between 1.5% and 2%, but about an impact on GNP per head of just 0.1%. It is a much smaller increase. Our estimates show that the arrival of low-skilled immigrants had the effect of reducing the level of increase of wages of low-skilled workers. This was not noticed because wages were increasing at such a fast rate. In the absence of such levels of immigration, low-skilled wages in Ireland would probably have increased faster than they did. Immigration has had an important impact in that respect.

I was asked to explain why the occupational gap exists. We do not have good information in this area. As the ESRI is quantitatively oriented, when we are doing our studies we tend to take the data sets we have and then do the analysis. The results often tend to raise as many questions as they answer.

It is possible that scepticism about qualifications is a factor. When we did the analysis, we had information on the year in which each migrant arrived. We were able to look at migrants who had been here for a few years, rather than migrants who had just arrived in the preceding year or two. There was no great difference between the size of the occupational gap in both cases.

If one is suggesting that employers might be initially sceptical about somebody's qualifications, one would like to think that they would find out over time whether the person is capable, and that the employee would be able to move up the occupational ladder accordingly. When we realised that such a process was not evident, we assumed that something more structural might be going on. The problem might be caused by a lack of English language skills, although one would like to think that such skills improve over time. I do not know whether it is a question of discrimination, as we do not have sufficient information to prove whether that is the case.

I will mention another possibility, which relates to something I mentioned earlier. If an immigrant thinks he or she is going to be in Ireland for a short period of time, he or she does not have any incentive to invest in the skills and competencies that will allow him or her to move up the occupational ladder. The unfortunate thing that can happen to immigrants is that they think they will be here temporarily — and therefore fail to invest in language skills, etc. — but end up having to stay for longer than they originally anticipated. That is a minus. We are concerned that it might be part of what we are observing.

The 400,000 I mentioned are people living, not necessarily working, in Ireland. Approximately 250,000 are working here. That is a ballpark figure which may be out by a few thousand. I mentioned a figure of possibly 200,000 from the new member states of the European Union, but one should always remember that the biggest national group is United Kingdom citizens, approximately 120,000 of whom live in Ireland. In anticipation of being asked the question, I brought the sheet of paper for census 2006 from the Central Statistics Office. The other major groups are: Nigeria, 16,000; United States, 12,000; China, 11,000 and Germany, France and the Philippines, approximately 9,000 to 10,000. The 120,000 from the United Kingdom and the 200,000 from the new member states are the big blocs. There was much suspicion that the Chinese figure of 11,000 might have been a significant under-count, but the CSO maintained that it had counted everybody and looked under every stone in Ireland. However, many were surprised that only 11,000 Chinese people had been found.

I thank Mr. Barrett for his presentation. I have a couple of questions from the domestic and EU perspectives.

During the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign there was much talk about immigration into Ireland. My firm view is that, especially in working class areas, a negative view towards immigrants, particularly those working in lower skilled jobs, led to a degree of resentment, hostility and concern. Whether this could be called racism merits further discussion. We have a major task to try to tackle it through Government policy on integration and to examine the challenges that lie ahead. What are the projections on immigration from Africa into Europe in the next decade or so? Does Dr. Barrett have any figures or estimates to show the impact from an Irish perspective? These matters are always of greater concern when the economy is in turmoil, to put it mildly. That is something for which we need to prepare as a country and Europe as a whole in a co-ordinated, common approach.

I understand Mr. Barrett is coming from an economic perspective; therefore, he may feel free not to answer this question. Regarding models in other countries, we have much to learn about integration. We have not learned from the mistakes of other countries, particularly the United Kingdom. Are there models to which we could look for best practice that have not had the disastrous experiences that some European countries have had? I would be interested to hear Mr. Barrett's view on how the Government has handled the huge influx of immigrants in the last decade or so and whether there has been a strategic approach or if it has been on an ad hoc or haphazard basis. My view is that it has been handled in a negative way and that this impacted on the outcome of the Lisbon treaty referendum.

While I support the enlargement of the European Union in general, I have concerns about Turkey. Does Mr. Barrett have any data or other perspectives on the proposed, although long-fingered, accession of Turkey to the European Union? What impact would it have on immigration into other member states? How would the restrictions that have, to a certain extent, worked in the cases of Bulgaria and Romania apply to Turkey? There are major concerns that its accession to the Union would be unmanageable.

Mr. Alan Barrett

I was asked about Africa. We want skilled migration but need to be very cautious about unskilled migration. That is not a racist statement but one of fact. The simple laws of supply and demand state an increase in the supply of a particular group, in this case lower skilled workers, tends to have an impact on existing lower skilled workers.

In Europe the population is ageing, whereas there has been extraordinary population growth elsewhere. This almost creates a natural fit in that Europe will need a workforce and, at a more micro level, will need nurses for people such as those in this room and elsewhere, a process which is already evident. The economics suggest Africa offers an opportunity around which Europe might structure an immigration policy so as to exploit the best, but an ethical issue is involved in taking trained doctors and nurses from Third World countries to populate First World hospitals. Even though I am supposed to be a cold-hearted economist, I am not so cold as to ignore such matters. I do not have models of or projections for the broader issue.

On integration best practice, the one country that springs to mind is Israel. It experienced extraordinary growth, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Its population of approximately 5 million experienced an inflow of some 500,000. I was at a conference in Tel Aviv five years ago at which the Israeli Minister with responsibility for integration spoke. He seemed to have a real budget and a real job. Technically, we have a Minister for integration but the Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, does not have the same impact. That is not a criticism of him but of the office.

On the Government's handling of immigration, decisions were taken to allow free access and, broadly, a laissez-faire approach was adopted. Before EU accession, there was an enormous growth in the number of work permits. In 2004 the need for migrants was met as the work permits approach was replaced by a policy of opening up our labour force to new EU members. We needed immigrants and allowed them to come into the country. I do not, however, believe any thought was given to issues beyond this, for example, the question of settlement. Offices have been set up to look after particular dimensions of the overall issue but the size of the inflow took everybody by surprise. The issue arose very quickly and we were not on top of it.

The Deputy's last point was about Turkey. I am not an expert on the Turkish labour market and do not know its skill levels. However, the point I made about an unskilled inflow and its possible implications still applies. Another point is that research on migration will always show that one of the primary determinants of a migratory inflow is the existence of an ethnic community. If Turkey joined the EU tomorrow morning there would be a magnet effect towards Germany, though I am not sure the effect would be the same towards Ireland. We should put things in perspective. It is true that the recent inflow has been huge but we should not get hung up on the notion that every time a new country joins the EU the focus of immigration will be entirely on Ireland. It was probably a temporary phenomenon.

The fact that Ireland is an English speaking country makes it attractive to immigrants. When the UK, Sweden and Ireland opened to the accession countries in 2004, Britain took in around 500,000 immigrants, we took between 200,000 and 300,000 and Sweden took 8,000. Why did nobody want to go to Sweden? Perhaps because learning English is more useful than learning Swedish.

I thank Mr. Barrett for coming here and elucidating matters relating to immigration. Regarding the comment that Israel seems to have a more effective mechanism for integration, I presume there is a common denominator in terms of religion, learning the language and a tightly-bonded culture. Ireland is more multicultural in terms of where people come from so the comparison may not be as good as it seems.

During the Lisbon treaty campaign there was a subtext relating to immigration that influenced many voters. This seems to have been reflected in the surveys that were done, including the Millward Brown survey. My electoral area, which I share with the Chairman, is a part of the north inner city where over 50% of the people were not born in Ireland. What does integration mean in circumstances like that? Given the profile of the population has changed so dramatically in such a short period of time — my constituency is now home to people from Africa, China, the new accession countries and so on — is there a fear of ghettoisation due to the lack of Government policy? The same part of the constituency saw the anti-social behaviour that occurred at Hallowe'en. People vented their anger at the authorities — the Garda and the fire brigade. Could it be aimed at people in the coming years because of the colour of their skin? Is the equivalent of the French powder keg on our doorsteps, in parts of the country where no attention was paid to distribution and integration? Neglect has allowed for the strong possibility of ghettoisation. How should we deal with a huge concentration of people in what is essentially a deprived area?

Can there ever be such a thing as integration? What are we talking about? It is very difficult for people raised in different cultures and speaking different languages to integrate. Their children might integrate but to what extent can the first generation of immigrants integrate? There is, naturally, a proclivity to gather in a certain area and Irish people abroad have done the same. Did the Irish integrate to any great degree? Migrants often went abroad to work and wanted to come home whenever possible. They mixed in their own communities, such as the Boston Irish community. Is there one particular model to fit the issues of multicultural society in this respect?

My final point relates to the pillar of the free movement of people. How does one avoid exploitation in such a situation? From what Mr. Barrett stated, it would seem that migrant workers are paid less and the Government's policy seemed to entrench that in its refusal to introduce the directive on agency workers, for example, where equal pay was much more difficult to achieve and minimum rates would be the standard pay for many workers, many of whom were highly-skilled. While the Government opened the door to everybody which was questionable in the circumstances, on the other hand it maintains restrictive policies which curtail people from being able to earn enough to have a decent socially-integrated life.

Mr. Alan Barrett

Deputy Costello raised a wide range of very complex issues and I will not try to deal with them individually. I will just try to tackle some of them along the following lines.

We need to debate the precise issues of which Deputy Costello spoke. For many years there has been a discussion around immigrant integration, whether or not one should try to integrate, and should it be desirable that immigrants come here, learn English and in some sense, broadly speaking, try to fit in. I use these terms loosely. He asked whether the objective should be integration or multiculturalism, where everybody can essentially maintain their own cultures and do their own thing.

On the experience of some European countries, cynicism is probably too strong a word for it, there has certainly been disappointment that, rather than giving rise to its desirable elements such as the creation of a cosmopolitan society, one has ended up with new forms of social exclusion. Deputy Costello mentioned the French example, where groups of immigrants felt excluded from the society in which they lived which gave rise to all sorts of dangers. That ties in with a certain amount of the other matters of which Deputy Costello spoke, the notion of what I might call the native working class seeing threats and the social friction that emerges.

All of these issues could be added to the agenda much more forcefully in the very near future. We have had such an easy time of migration in Ireland because it has all happened in the context of an economic boom. Even where there were resentments or whatever, generally the full impact of this was not felt because of the economic conditions. We are moving into a very different situation where many of the issues Deputy Costello raised will come to the fore and I am not convinced that society and Government have given the necessary level of thought to them. As I stated, it was an easy issue for the past number of years and I have a feeling that this will become a more complicated issue in the new economic context.

I would agree with Mr. Barrett. I might add a further question. As well as migrants coming here specifically to work, there is the other form of immigration where people come for a better life, fleeing persecution, etc. The two in many ways coincided with each other. There was an explosion in both sets of people coming to this country. How do we deal with that side of the equation because that has a European dimension as well? People come from England and Europe, even though such applications are supposed to take place in the country concerned, and there is continuing migration from Africa and from other countries. We adopted a direct provision approach and there are approximately 7,000 people in direct provision for three or four years. There is not much integration in that respect.

Does this represent another powder keg? Are we merely paying lip service to integration? The length of time it takes for people to have their applications processed by the Garda National Immigration Bureau is unacceptable. It seems there is a blockage at every turn to getting matters processed in a timely fashion, for better or worse. Mr. Barrett suggested we must examine this issue further. It is an issue on which we have made little progress thus far, and it is distinct from the situation of those migrants who have come from the accession states to work in Ireland.

Mr. Alan Barrett

I am not an expert on the administrative dimensions of this issue. I may be wrong but it is my understanding that there have been improvements in the situation of persons on direct provision in the sense that asylum applications are being dealt with much more quickly than in the past. However, it is a cause for significant concern if it is the case that there are still people on direct provision for long periods. The economics literature indicates that being in long-term direct provision is akin to being long-term unemployed. If one is kept out of the labour market for a period of time, there can be a scarring effect whereby one will suffer a disadvantage when re-entering the market which may persist for a long time. If it is the case that asylum applicants are being institutionally excluded from the labour market for a prolonged period, then we are almost sowing the seeds of a lifetime of disadvantage. The parallels with long-term unemployment are striking. I was under the impression that the entire system had become more efficient. To the extent that this is not the case, Deputy Costello is absolutely right that we are storing up a long-term difficulty.

Mr. Barrett referred to the possible development of a more integrated European Union immigration policy. What should be Ireland's approach or response to such a development? An analogy which may be relevant is that of common monetary policy where it may frequently be the case that, depending on domestic circumstances, what may be detrimental locally is nevertheless the right approach to take from a European perspective. Given the social consequences when immigration policy goes wrong, as alluded to by Deputy Costello, how should we as a small open economy and society respond to the development of an integrated EU-wide approach?

Mr. Alan Barrett

The parallel the Chairman draws with monetary policy is interesting. However, there is a critical difference of which we must be aware. To some extent, migration flows work neatly in tandem with economic cycles. When the economy is doing well, migrants tend to flow in, whereas a less robust economy usually leads to a diminished inflow. There is a type of natural equilibrium mechanism that does not apply in the case of monetary policy. For example, the low European Central Bank interest rates of recent years had a role in the development of the housing bubble in this State. I would not be as concerned that the same difficulties might arise with an integrated immigration policy as would with a one size fits all monetary policy. The economic literature clearly shows that the countries that have achieved the most economically from inward migration are those, such as Canada and Australia, which were very much focused on bringing in people with particular skills. This is a desirable policy which Ireland may wish to adopt.

I do not know whether it is outside Mr. Barrett's scope to comment on the overall impact of the European Union in terms of creating an immigration policy towards states outside the zone. To what extent does the Lisbon treaty help or hinder the process of a humanitarian approach that might seek to prepare people for integration into the European Union? Mr. Barrett focused on the economic rather than the humanitarian side in his presentation. I am interested in his views on this.

Mr. Alan Barrett

Like other prominent people in Irish society, I have never read the Lisbon treaty. I am not embarrassed in saying that given the company I join in doing so.

That apparently means you are not a freak.

Mr. Alan Barrett

That is good to know. However, it means I am not in a position to comment on what the Lisbon treaty would have meant for migration policy.

On the issue of competitiveness, Mr. Barrett mentioned in his submission that one of the consequences of the inflow of low-skilled migrant workers was downward pressure on wages for comparable workers here. If we had not taken this decision and wages had been allowed to grow during recent years where would we stand in terms of competitiveness? Downward pressure was a negative for many individuals. Will Mr. Barrett comment on it in terms of Ireland's competitiveness from an economic point of view?

Mr. Alan Barrett

Deputy McGrath is absolutely right. The modelling exercises we conduct on the economic impact of migration are channelled through estimating what is the downward pressure on wages that results from migration. We examine what it does for the Irish cost base. Our models are generated in a way that as Ireland's competitiveness improves we capture more world output. This is precisely the mechanism underlying this. Had the inflow not been there, the economic growth we have seen during recent years would have been choked off. However, I stress the point that the GNP impact per head was positive and this was the route through which it happened.

Our cost base would be much higher today.

Mr. Alan Barrett

It would certainly be higher.

Mr. Barrett mentioned that the wage disparity between high-skilled immigrants and those in the country was between 18% and 45% which seems serious. What is the cause of this and how can the issue be tackled? If the European Union's future immigration policy should concentrate on attracting high-skilled workers it would be unfortunate if they were paid less than existing high-skilled workers.

Mr. Alan Barrett

It seems that part of the cause is the notion that even though people have skills they do not access the occupations one would want them to have. Even within occupation groups, they seem not to reach the higher levels. We can identify the source of the wage gap along these lines but the trickier point is why they do not access the higher occupations and whether this is because of language or more general skills.

Research on migration will always show immigrants earn less than natives and there is nothing surprising about this if one arrives in a place with poor language skills and other issues. The real issue is whether immigrant wages converge with those of natives the longer the immigrant spends in Ireland. To a certain extent, this is a definition of successful labour market integration. If there is no difference between natives and migrants they have integrated. If there is a difference, it suggests they have not.

The research we did which showed no occupational improvement over time gave rise to concern. We need to keep investigating this issue. A body of research is developing on migration but given that countries such as Britain and the United States have been researching these questions for 20 or 30 years we are playing catch up. It is always important to stress that while a social scientist such as me will discuss his or her own research output, many studies with various data sets must be done. No single study is definitive and in a science where natural experiments cannot be run, it can never be definitive. We need to continue to research this issue.

The dynamics of migration and what happens are important. Deputy Costello touched on the fact that sometimes intergenerational mobility is involved. The first generation may not do terribly well but the second generation does. However, there are counter-examples such as third generation Turks living in Germany who seem to have the same social positions as their grandparents. This is a long-term issue but it is part of the same area.

I thank Mr. Barrett for his contribution today. As some of my colleagues stated, the consequences of what we are discussing will make a difference to the work we are doing on our future in Europe and the attitude of people towards Europe.

I thank Mr. Barrett for his testimony. We are grateful to him for attending at short notice.

Sitting suspended at 12.20 p.m. and resumed at 12.21 p.m.

I welcome the delegation from the European Anti-Poverty Network. The sub-committee has been put together to examine Ireland's future in Europe in the context of the Lisbon treaty referendum result. We have four terms of reference, which have been broken up into four different work modules. We are concentrating on what Irish policy should be in regard to particular elements of the EU. We are focusing on what our future policy approach should be to EU work in respect of poverty reduction and poverty issues. The network was nominated by the sub-committee to contribute on this issue, which is why the representatives have been invited. We are grateful to them for attending at short notice.

With regard to organising our work, we have an awful lot to do. Each day is broken up into quite careful modules. The delegation will have ten minutes to make a submission and I will then open up the discussion to my colleagues. Each parliamentary group is represented by one member, who will have ten minutes to make a contribution. Those who have not made a contribution will be given an opportunity to do so. I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that while members of the sub-committee have absolute privilege, the same does not apply to witnesses appearing before the sub-committee. I call Ms Visser.

Ms Anna Visser

I thank the sub-committee for the opportunity. I am glad a number of my colleagues were able to join me, as we were interested in the opportunity and made every effort to present a strong delegation in the context of the time frame. The European Anti-Poverty Network in Ireland is a network of community and voluntary organisations at national and local level that have worked on European issues for more than 15 years. We have worked to ensure people who experience poverty and the groups that work with them are connected into the European agenda both from the perspective of influencing that agenda and from the perspective of knowing what is happening in Europe on the issues that affect them in their lives.

I am accompanied by the following: Mr. Paul Ginnell, policy and support worker; Mr. Robert Carey, who works with North Kerry Together and who is a board member of EAPN; Mr. Patrick Nulty, Focus Ireland and vice-chairman of EAPN; and Ms Salome Mbugua who works with AkiDwA, the African Women's Network Ireland and who is the gender representative on EAPN.

It is obvious that we have a long history of working on these issues in the context of Ireland's participation in the social agenda at European level. Ireland has played a key role in the development of that agenda. It has been involved in key social moments in driving the agenda forward as it has developed over the last few years. Ireland has also taken a strong role in implementing its objectives. As a result, we have a strong national policy framework on social inclusion. The irony is that the fact that we have a strong national framework means that the European dimension does not always get the attention it deserves. It is not always as evident as it could be that Europe has played a key role in influencing social progress in this country. We believe there is a link between that phenomenon and the result of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. An opportunity to highlight the positive role that Europe can play in some of these areas has been lost.

During the referendum campaign, the European Anti-Poverty Network did not adopt a position on the treaty. Perhaps the level of media attention given to the network suffered as a result. The media was more interested in organisations that took strong positions one way or the other. We decided that the network's role was to inform, assess and interrogate the social provisions of the treaty and to facilitate a process in which its members could engage with those provisions. We did that by producing a review, which the members of the committee have in front of them. The review examines the various social aspects of the treaty. It presents arguments for and against those aspects.

The European Anti-Poverty Network ran a series of regional and national round-table meetings, in which over 120 people participated, during the referendum campaign. The network also participated in the sittings of the National Forum on Europe. The network is a member of the forum's observer pillar. After the result of the referendum was announced, the network conducted a survey of its members that participated in those activities. The results of the survey are interesting. We found that 76% of those who participate in our activities voted in the referendum. That figure, which is much higher than the national turnout level, demonstrates that there is an appetite for these issues among the community and voluntary sector and people experiencing poverty. That appetite was underestimated in some of the other studies that were conducted. Most of those involved in the members of the network voted "Yes" rather than "No". That statistic stands for itself. We did not try to influence it in any way.

Two key things emerged from the survey we conducted and the regional and national round-table meetings. There is a deep concern about the overall direction of the European Union. I refer specifically to the balance between social and economic imperatives. There is a strong sense that people believe the EU has prioritised economic imperatives above social objectives in recent years. Many people saw the potential of the treaty, in terms of its social provisions, but did not trust how it would be implemented in reality. In the course of the work we did, we heard again and again that people distrust the overall political direction of the EU.

One of the other conclusions we need to draw, which has been well documented in a broader sense, is that there is a lack of knowledge and awareness of EU affairs. The survey rated the awareness of the members of the network quite highly. However, we received a great deal of feedback at the regional round-table meetings to indicate that people do not have a basic understanding of the structures and operation of the EU. Those who lack that information find it difficult to engage with a document like the Lisbon treaty. We were not surprised by the result of the referendum.

I would like to let the members of the sub-committee know that there is a vote in the Dáil.

Ms Anna Visser

The result was a reflection of the views which were relayed to us throughout our work. The context in which we are operating is framed in that light. If we are to connect citizens in Ireland and across the EU to the European agenda, we need to demonstrate clearly that the Union has a relevance to social realities. Europeans in all member states are asking difficult questions about social matters. It is important for the EU to be able to answer them. These questions do not arise from the Irish referendum alone. We saw evidence in the Dutch and French referendums of 2005 that these issues were on the agenda. People in those countries were also concerned about other issues, of course. They have been particularly relevant since the review of the Lisbon strategy on growth and jobs was initiated.

The balance between social and economic objectives has come to the fore in the work we are doing. That has been recently illustrated by what I would describe within the broader European Anti-Poverty Network across the member states as a shock at the reaction to the financial crisis. That is not to say the reaction was not necessary — it was. However, we question how this is suddenly possible when for years we have been told a similar response to poverty in Europe is not possible. Questions are being raised about what Europe is about and how it impacts on our lives.

On the question of Ireland's future role in European social policy, an agenda is emerging. EAPN has concerns about the balance between the economic and social imperatives. We have a social agenda on the table that requires strengthening both from the perspective of the open method of co-ordination on social protection and social inclusion that already exists and Ireland's participation in that. Efforts are ongoing to strengthen that process and how Ireland can contribute to it, specifically around the issue the European Commission raised about setting targets for social inclusion at a European level. Ireland's participation in that must be strongly influenced by effective participation at national level in all those areas. We are concerned about this because of the experience this year with the generation of Ireland's report on social protection and social inclusion, recently submitted to the European Commission. The Government failed to consult widely with a range of stakeholders in generating that report, which was out of line with the European Commission's guidelines and undermined the visibility of the process here. The recently adopted recommendation on active inclusion provides a first step forward in terms of a legal framework for social inclusion at a European level and we look forward to Ireland's adopting a very positive approach to the implementation of that, with particular reference to how that action plan is defined in the Council this December.

We are looking forward to 2010, the European year against poverty and social exclusion, which is a key moment in assessing the progress on poverty and social inclusion in Europe. It is also a moment to look forward and ask about the future of that social inclusion agenda. In March the Irish Government will have to put in place its framework strategy for the year. There is an opportunity to build on the visibility as well as tackling some of the key issues during the year. We hope this progressive social agenda will be supported by progress in other policy areas, specifically areas such as the new proposed discrimination directive, which provides a broader legal framework.

Similarly, we hope the social agenda is not undermined by development in other policy areas. This morning the committee considered the question of migration. EAPN is concerned that efforts to enhance the integration and anti-poverty strategies for migrants can be undermined by developments in other policy areas such as justice and home affairs, which can have a negative impact on anti-poverty actions for that community.

We have a choice. Ireland has a history of active engagement in social policy. This history has not been as strong in recent years as in the past and there is a missed opportunity there. We are concerned that Ireland does not fall into a tepid or unenthusiastic engagement with social policy at a European level because that will undermine both commitment to the European project in general but also social progress here. We would rather see a second choice, which is an enthusiastic and active engagement whereby progress is made at a European level on transnational, common problems on social inclusion and that we can show European citizens that Europe holds an answer to some of these common social problems. No matter how imperfect or embryonic that answer appears, it is a way forward in addressing these problems.

I welcome the representatives of the European Anti-Poverty Network and thank Ms Visser for her presentation. I am very familiar with the work of the EAPN and attended one of the regional workshops in the lead-up to the Lisbon treaty referendum. It was very helpful. I congratulate the organisation on its work in bringing the treaty to the people and allowing them an opportunity to debate it. The survey carried out after the campaign found that 76% of those who had attended its workshops voted, which shows that the people concerned were politically engaged and took an interest. The survey also states a majority of them had voted "Yes".

The key findings of the survey are interesting for the sub-committee. The workshops yielded the information that there was concern about the overall political direction of the European Union. Workers' rights emerged as an issue in the campaign, as did the feeling that the European Union seemed to prioritise market and economic imperatives over social and labour policies. Another finding revealed that people who had attended the workshops felt they lacked basic information, which reinforces what we have heard from many others at meetings of the sub-committee. Citizens do not have enough information on how institutions work or the rules under which they operate and, as a consequence, it is very difficult for them to engage with complex treaties. It points to a need for a more permanent EU information service. How can people, especially those interested in social inclusion and anti-poverty strategies, be kept informed about developments in social policy at EU level?

Do the delegates have any views on the social progress clause proposed by the European Trade Union Confederation which wanted a commitment to a protocol to guarantee that, where there was conflict between economic and social priorities, social priorities would take precedence? Such a protocol would reassure those who were concerned about the labour market aspects of the Lisbon treaty, as well as about broader areas of social policy. Would the European Anti-Poverty Network support this?

Which provision in the Lisbon treaty caused EAPN Ireland most concern and which was most damaging to the cause of making advances in social policy?

Ms Anna Visser

I will start with the questions on the information service and the issues of most concern to us. My colleague, Mr. Carey, will comment on the proposal on the table for a social progress clause.

Some form of information service is needed. We have learned that having a point of information is not necessarily the best way for people to access information. There may be geographical limitations or the service may be limited by the type of people who tend to walk into an office for that purpose. Feedback from a number of our regional meetings suggested that when we worked through local groups and with communities, all kinds of people engaged, some of whom took an ongoing interest, while others had come along for other reasons or for the first time. Our work was supported as part of the Communicating Europe Initiative of the Department of Foreign Affairs which provided small grants for organisations to carry out such work and was very effective.

We suggest a variety of mechanisms. An information service would serve a particular agenda and group but it is not the full answer. We need diversity in terms of how we supply information and engage people. The key is to engage people who would not ordinarily become activated in that sense.

It is difficult to say what is of most concern with regard to social policy developments because people identified many aspects of the treaty as potentially positive, including the social clause, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and some of the aspects around services. Some aspects relating to services were seen as positive because they protect social services and others were seen as negative. The area of public services came up over and over again and this was supported, along with workers' rights, in the Millward Brown poll. It is not so much a question of a single initiative but rather a sense that we cannot trust what will happen to these things; they may look good on paper but we cannot trust what will happen in terms of implementation. The debates in recent years, such as that on the services directive, have underpinned this. I do not think an individual element of the treaty came up frequently but key thematic areas were referred to several times and have been documented in the report we produced. The strongest objection was that people did not know how it would affect the future and did not believe the social provisions would achieve social progress. This is a serious issue that went deep and we heard it from a variety of stakeholders. Mr. Ginnell may speak on the social progress clause because that has been doing the rounds in recent months.

Mr. Paul Ginnell

Regarding the social progress clause, the EAPN supports it. Perhaps we would change the wording or specific areas but overall there is a need to protect the social side of the European Union before the economic side. There is a strong sense that there is currently a major imbalance and such a clause, whether through a treaty or at a later stage, would help restore balance. This is something that needs to be defined in more detail but it is something the EAPN supports.

My feelings are similar to Ms Visser's in terms of the most damaging area. We generally tried to keep a balanced view of the Lisbon treaty but the feedback we got gave a sense that previous treaties were not felt to be strong in social areas and the new clauses of the Lisbon treaty could be positive in that regard. Again, there was a question of whether the political will existed at a European level or in member states to ensure such elements of the treaty were implemented in policy. It was not necessarily that there were specific clauses that caused difficulties, it was the fact that previous treaties emphasised the protection of competition; this element of the treaty was always strong. The question related to the extent to which the new areas, regarding services and the social clause, would re-introduce some balance.

I welcome the delegates and thank them for coming before us today. I compliment them on their fine documents, though I confess that I did not get a chance to study them in as much detail as I would have liked. It seems that the delegates have been assiduous in gathering the arguments and hearing all possible points of view.

Can the delegates explain how they fit in regarding EU funding? Is the State or the EU the source of the EAPN's funding? Is funding granted for individual areas and particular activities?

It was stated that much of the difficulty arises from the fact that people feel they do not know where these clauses and provisions will go. Do the delegates feel this is inevitable when dealing with general provisions in treaties and charters? Or do they believe that at some point there has been a failure to be more explicit?

If some of these provisions sound good but may or may not lead to what people hope for, why would there not be a more solid view in favour of the treaty on the basis that it may not turn out to be what they want but it looks that way, or is it that there were other provisions in the Lisbon treaty which, in the view of EAPN, could be taken down a negative road and cause problems? In other words, was the EAPN balancing potential ills versus potential benefits? It seems that if it is a case of just not knowing whether the potential benefits would actualise or not, one would buy it in the hope that it would all materialise.

The EAPN noted in a prominent place in its good summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the social aspects of the Lisbon treaty — I take it that it drew together what different groups and people would have stated — the refusal to name poverty in the EU or to make its eradication an objective of the Union. To what extent is that merely a matter of terminology given that in the Lisbon treaty there are clear objectives to combat social exclusion, etc., and there is the provision that the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment — all the issues that contribute to the alleviation of poverty? To what extent is that therefore a terminology problem or does the EAPN believe that there is a reason poverty was not explicitly named and shamed, and its eradication made an objective? What is the reason for that refusal?

Ms Anna Visser

First, I will deal with the technical question of what the EAPN is and how it is funded. As I stated, we have been around for approximately 15 years. At present, we receive a core funding grant under the national works programme for community and voluntary sector organisations through the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. That supports two part-time staff in the office. In the past we have been successful in receiving reasonably large grants from the European Commission to undertake specific project activities, two of which concluded last year. In addition, we would receive much smaller grants for activities from other sources in Ireland such as, as I mentioned earlier, the Communicating Europe Initiative through the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Combat Poverty Agency. There has also been some success in getting grants from private foundations. In essence, that is where we come from. We do receive European money in the context of specific projects.

In a sense it has been well aired that the treaty was nearly too technical and too difficult to understand and Senator Mullen's question as to whether it is inevitable that it will never contain all the detail is a relevant one. From our perspective, I would say of course if one were to go into every single aspect one would never get agreement across 27 member states. We already know from the development of social policy in the past few years, that where there is an initiative on the table it is much more difficult to get agreement with 27 than it was in earlier years. That would be linked to some of the characterisation of the way social policy has developed in the past few years.

While we had no particular position on the treaty, anecdotally we were probably seeing a little more of the "No" side than the "Yes" side in our workshops, but when it came to surveying our members the majority voted "Yes". In that regard, I would say that people had serious concerns about the social aspects but certainly it was not the only issue informing the way they voted. It is important to note that for many it was a key issue but of course they were taking other factors into account in terms of making those decisions.

I will give Mr. Ginnell the question on naming poverty in the treaty because that is a matter in which the EAPN, at a European level, was very engaged for a long time and it is a little more complex than just being a matter of language.

Mr. Paul Ginnell

It is important. Even poverty and social exclusion are different issues in that sense. They are very much linked, but they are different. Poverty is named within the treaty, but in the context of international obligations of eradicating poverty globally, etc. It is interesting that it is named in the treaty in that context but not within the European Union.

We would feel it is important because, while the European Union has had a social inclusion strategy since 2000 of which Ireland is part, poverty levels within the European Union generally have hardly fallen. The numbers living in relative poverty remain at some 16%, while Ireland's poverty levels are above the European Union average. This tells us something about society in terms of the redistribution of resources, income inequality and so on. It is important that poverty within the European Union as a whole is addressed. That is why we would like to have it named within the treaty and to have it put forward as an overall objective of the European Union to address and eradicate poverty. One might say this is simply a question of semantics. However, the Lisbon treaty is an important document in that it defines all actions in the European Union and it is important that it be named at that level.

Ms Visser answered the other question about how people voted. We did not take a position on the Lisbon treaty and neither did the EAPN at a European level. Among the various member states, some EAPN networks were in favour and others against, but the treaty was not debated as widely in other states as it was here because it was only in Ireland that a referendum took place.

In terms of the outcome, some people supported the treaty because they saw the social clause, provisions regarding mental health rights and so on as steps forward and were willing to give the European Union the benefit of the doubt in terms of how they might be implemented. Others, while noting the inclusion of such provisions in the treaty, based their decisions on wider experience of the direction of the European Union in recent years. For example, the Lisbon strategy, introduced in 2000, put forward economic, employment and social priorities on an equal footing. However, when the strategy was reviewed in 2005, growth in jobs and competition were afforded a much higher priority. People were well aware before voting on the Lisbon treaty referendum that the social element of the Lisbon strategy was effectively put in second place. While some progress has been made in recent years, there is concern and doubt about the overall direction of the European Union.

I apologise for not being here for part of the presentation but I got the broad gist of it. I thank the delegates for attending the meeting and for affording us the benefit of their views. As Mr. Ginnell was speaking I sensed a dichotomy between my understanding of the treaty and his presentation of it. The Labour Party has strongly endorsed the treaty, mainly because of the social values it embodies, beginning with the restructured values and principles of the European Union in terms of social values and rights and a commitment to the United Nations, to international conventions and to the eradication of global poverty. All these seemed to us to be valuable statements within the treaty.

The Lisbon Agenda is specifically directed towards growth and employment. Competition is included because the free movement of capital and labour is one of the main pillars of the European Union. Its inclusion is hardly a negative. The movement all along seems to have been towards an expansion to full employment, and the requirement to promote full employment is a statutory commitment within the Lisbon treaty. The social clause inserted at the behest of the European Trade Union Congress requires that all new legislation must be examined in the context of its impact on employment and communities. The social agenda is extraordinarily strong within the Lisbon treaty.

Perhaps it is like what we heard from the Cardinal about major concerns, nuances, suspicions and fears without practical statements of where they are, how they have impacted and examples of where Europe no longer has a social agenda. Europe has a strong social agenda and my interpretation is that of all the treaties the Lisbon treaty had the strongest expression of this social agenda. It moved us a long way from the single European market, the common market and the emphasis on the marketplace towards the social economy and the social market and this was a major part of the treaty along with the institutions.

I am perplexed and disappointed at the position taken by the EAPN in the same way as we expressed disappointment that the church chose to sit on the fence and did not take a position. The EAPN is an organisation concerned with the eradication of poverty and the European Union is the greatest donor to combatting world poverty. Domestically, the Government has eradicated not poverty but the Combat Poverty Agency. In general terms, with regard to principles, policies and practices Europe is a social entity.

Ms Visser stated a gap exists in information and awareness. How did the EAPN seek to bridge this gap? I know it held meetings and I attended one or two of them. Will it seek to bridge this gap in the future in terms of what Europe is with regard to individual treaties and its overall direction?

This morning, I asked the Cardinal whether the cup was half empty or half full. Surely the Lisbon treaty contains more positives than negatives. There is a great deal to be built on with regard to commitments on social elements of the European Union, humanitarian aid and the elimination of global poverty. This issue is to build on this rather than sitting on the fence and stating one does not like this or that and perhaps this does not suit one's organisation. It is a wonderful template from which to operate. It is an opportunity for the EAPN to be "gung-ho" and proactive to develop these issues and use its role as a stakeholder with us and others.

Ms Anna Visser

A variety of issues were raised and I will try to address them. My colleagues may also want to discuss elements of them. When it comes to the outcome of the referendum with regard to the social aspects, the point we tried to make is that while much was identified as positive with regard to the social agenda, and as Mr. Carey stated this was the first treaty to address social issues in a substantial way which is positive progress, it came down to two issues for the EAPN membership.

One is the general sense of where the European Union is going. When we consider the way in which political decisions are taken, the European Union is the sum of its parts with regard to the political direction of member state governments. As well as this, the social progress which Europe has made in Ireland is not strongly visible and this is the point with which I began my presentation. Ireland has actively engaged with the European social agenda but it has not always been clear what is European and what is national. We have a national action plan on social inclusion that runs to 2016. It is great to have a ten-year national strategy but how European plans are fed into that has lost visibility as a consequence in recent years. Similarly, the Government has moved back from acts of engagements in those processes and the example I used was how the national report on social protection and social inclusion was produced this year. We were disappointed the Government departed from past practice as well as the European Commission's own guidelines on how it should generate those reports. There is a broader issue with regard to visibility in demonstrating where Europe has had an impact, be it worker's rights, anti-discrimination or the broader social inclusion agenda. In a sense our members are very aware of that because of the work we have been doing, but there is a broader issue regarding visibility.

I take the point regarding the EAPN's stance on the treaty. As a membership organisation, with a huge diversity in members, it very much reflected the overall opinion within the country and it would not have been possible for us to come to a conclusion on that. The EAPN has never adopted a position on a treaty and, therefore, we have always seen our role as interrogating the social provisions, providing information and engaging people in that agenda.

I refer to the gap in information and awareness. We had materials prepared on the social aspects of the treaty, where the treaty came from and what it means for the future. We got into those sessions and it became clear quickly that we had to take two steps back to discuss more general parameters about how the EU works in order that we could have the discussion about the treaty. We have been doing the work with our members for a long time in a general way when it comes to the social inclusion aspects. We issue a newsletter every two weeks with updates and we have held multiple training sessions on the national action plan.

We have just finished a series of focus groups and regional meetings on the action plan, which includes general information and awareness but it is a complex picture and when it comes to how to bring people on board on a continuing basis, people who choose to be EAPN members are in a different position from those who do not. However, the groups we work with and the people they work with were clear that they did not have the answer on how to achieve it, but that it would be difficult to engage in an ongoing way without a better level of understanding. I was surprised by the results of the Millward Brown survey on this issue, given initiatives we have undertaken. It is a challenge and it is surprising, given Ireland's relationship with the Union, that we would be at the bottom of league in awareness. However, the gap is there and that came through strongly for us.

With regard to outreach, it was positive for us that there was an appetite to engage. When we spoke to people experiencing poverty in a number of communities that perhaps are not always identified as having an interest, they wanted to know more and, therefore, they appreciated the opportunity to have that information. Several of them said it was the first time they felt they were engaged. We cannot explain why that is, but that was the feedback. Perhaps Mr. Ginnell will add something to this based on his experience.

Mr. Paul Ginnell

The Lisbon treaty was probably moving in a more positive direction than previous treaties and there were strong, positive elements in the social clause, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and services provisions that were not in previous treaties. It was going in the right direction and the concern was whether it would be implemented. People in disadvantaged communities did not feel they had equal access to the health service, housing, child care services and so on. They could see, at the same time, a move towards more privatisation of services and services becoming more distant in some ways.

They are all domestic issues, rather than European issues.

Mr. Paul Ginnell

I am talking at a domestic level. These are national issues.

I know. They have nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty.

Mr. Paul Ginnell

No. These are the issues people are identifying. In the past, people were afraid that they would be affected by EU services policy. We spoke to our colleagues at European level. They were worried about what would happen when social protection, activation and welfare to work policies were implemented. In some countries, there was a sense that more compulsion was being introduced to the system. Under the activation policy, people were forced to move towards jobs which may not have been of a high quality. It is possible that a squeeze was put on. People had to move towards a reduction, or face a threat to their welfare payments, etc. People have said that. I do not think Irish activation policy has been as negative as it has been in some other member states. People are afraid that this is coming from EU level as well.

There was a fear on the ground that the EU services directives would have an impact on people. I know it was changed before it was finally implemented. The Commission is still examining how it will address the question of social services, which is of general interest.

People are afraid about how this might happen. It was felt that privatisation, in general, might affect people's access to public services, regardless of how it might be applied in terms of EU competition rules and so on. These are the genuine concerns that people had on the ground.

People's concerns are based on the information available to them. We need to consider how people get information and how that information is articulated to them at local level. I have mentioned some of the concerns people had on the ground. Some people will look back and realise that some positives were associated with the European Union. I refer to the equality in the workplace and anti-discrimination directives, for example. The impact of Structural Funds on local projects and programmes would have been positive. People are well aware of such matters. Some people, when they looked back, would have felt they should have voted "Yes" for those reasons. They can see the social value of the EU at local level.

I thank Mr. Ginnell for that contribution. One of the important points the network has made is that we have lost sight of the European dimension to good social policy measures. We have failed to communicate that to communities throughout the country. The network made that point a number of times. It is an important aspect of the work we have to do in rebuilding the public's engagement with the EU. I am glad the network made that clear in its submission this morning.

My question relates to the point that has been made a number of times about the need to include the word "poverty" in the treaty. As that point was being made, I was examining the treaty's social clause, which states that "the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health". If all those things are delivered, will they not constitute the greatest possible antidote to poverty?

We need to ensure we do not end up in a world in which the ideal becomes the enemy of the good. We need to recognise that important measures are provided for in the treaty. While the network's particular objective might not be enumerated explicitly, the delivery of all the things mentioned in the section of the treaty I quoted will deal with that.

Ms Anna Visser

The social clause is one of the most positive developments in the treaty with regard to mainstreaming social inclusion. If the clause were to be implemented effectively, it would make a substantial contribution to ending poverty in Ireland and in Europe. We are not concerned about the wording — we are concerned about what will happen in practice. We need to reflect on the effectiveness of social impact assessments, as they currently operate, with regard to decision-making processes in the European Union. How do we move forward from that? Decisions in this area are often made in the context of broader economic policy. How realistic is it to expect the member states of the EU, as they are currently constructed in terms of political direction, to implement this clause effectively?

It brings us back to what Mr. Carey said. Regarding its content and what is included in the treaty, much of it is positive. However when people voted, they were influenced by many other factors not necessarily connected directly to the treaty alone. These were broader concerns about where the European Union was going as the sum of its member states in political decision making.

The political complexion of the European Union has changed fundamentally since that clause was written a number of years ago. I cannot help but feel that if we were to reach a point where elements of this were changed or renegotiated, for those who feel strongly about these issues, as I do, there would be a far harder fight to deliver some of the measures included than when it was negotiated.

What the Chairman says is true. EAPN Ireland's concern is not essentially related to what is included in the treaty, certainly not the social progress clause which is second to none in its expression, but to its implementation. Implementation is a domestic, national matter. Surely the task for civil society organisations such as EAPN Ireland is to rise to that challenge and develop a strategy to ensure a government will not just pay lip-service to what is included in the basic framework. Is there a leadership role for EAPN Ireland in that respect? That is from where the pro-activity should stem. There is also a leadership role for us. We have been neglectful in many ways. I am interested in the response to this.

I have a question related to Deputy Costello's point. Is it a concern for EAPN Ireland that many of the policy objectives of the European Union are soft? There are no mechanisms to ensure they are effective and implemented accurately, whereas for issues such as competition policy and rules on state aid, there are very clear and effective mechanisms administered by the Commission to ensure the policies are fully implemented and not breached in any way. Is that a slight concern in terms of a possible ruling by the European Court of Justice that market policies may take priority over social policies because of these strong implementation mechanisms?

Ms Anna Visser

I take the observation. From experience in other related areas, we know there is a complexity in renegotiating. If we examine what is happening to the proposed new anti-discrimination directive, it is difficult to envisage how it will be as strong as the race or employment equality directives. It is an interesting point and one we must bear in mind. EAPN Ireland sees itself as having a key role in being proactive on how European legislation and policy initiatives are implemented in the Irish case. We have been trying to do this on an ongoing basis regarding the national action plan on inclusion, employment and Structural Funds for a number of years. A key moment in its development will be the European year against poverty and social exclusion. We have already started to organise events around that opportunity and to meet the Government to influence how the opportunity will be availed of.

There is an ongoing debate on the fact that social policy in the European Union tends to be implemented through soft as opposed to hard mechanisms in other areas. Recently a recommendation on active inclusion was adopted. That is the lowest form of EU law but represents a first step in putting in place legal mechanisms to address some of these issues. The question becomes how the implementation framework for that recommendation is elaborated on. We have been asking the Government to be very positive, particularly at the December Council meeting. It remains an ongoing concern which we addressed in a transnational project which EAPN Ireland co-ordinated and finished last year.

The project report is contained in the documents we presented to the sub-committee. It looks at how we can progress minimum social standards in a European context and address the imbalance between hard and soft mechanisms. There are many aspects to the debate, one of which is the question of competence. We continue to study them, both in Ireland and at European level. We regard the recommendation on active inclusion as a first step in the right direction.

We are looking at many aspects of this work. Many members were of the view that this issue needed to be considered. I thank the delegates for their contributions and I am grateful for the fact that they came at short notice to give us the benefit of their expertise. Everything they said will be on the record and we will use it in forming our report in a couple of weeks' time.

Sitting suspended at 1.15 p.m. and resumed at 2.10 p.m.
Barr
Roinn