It is important that members of the sub-committee have an opportunity to comment on this report, given that we have worked on it for seven weeks and we have gone through it line by line in to amend and fine-tune it.
I would like to add my voice of thanks and praise to our Chairman, my colleague, Senator Donohoe, who has tirelessly done a huge amount of work over the past number of weeks. I also pay tribute to the staff who have worked unbelievable hours in delivering this report before the deadline and to my colleagues on the committee for engaging constructively with the work we have done.
I am very disappointed with one of the remarks made by Senator Mullen. It is completely unfair and inaccurate to suggest that this report is the product of, or is designed to deliver, the thinking of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have had no engagement with the Department of Foreign Affairs, nor had our Chairman, who authored a huge amount of this report. The only input from the Department of Foreign Affairs was in regard to the terms of reference. That was our remit and we delivered the terms of reference under the chairmanship of Senator Donohoe. I reject that erroneous statement. It is unfair to suggest such a thing to the members of the committee.
Senator Mullen is also incorrect in suggesting the sub-committee was the brainchild of the Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin, because it most certainly was not. He wanted to set up some sort of a quango or a commission to conduct this business. In fact, it was the Fine Gael Party that insisted on and put forward the proposal that this be done through the work of the Oireachtas and through the Joint Committee on European Affairs. I am very pleased this has been such a successful process and I am also pleased the recommendation of the Fine Gael Party was taken on board in the first place.
People may be mistaken in believing that the role of the sub-committee was to make solid or concrete proposals to the Government to deal with and provide solutions to the outcome of the Lisbon referendum last June. This was not its role, which was much deeper and more thorough. Its role was to explore, to examine and to shed light on issues which arose during the campaign, issues which contributed to the ultimate outcome of the referendum and which are quite simply matters of concern for the Irish people. That was our task and what we were charged with doing. I believe we have done it successfully to a very large extent.
Absolute solutions, I am afraid, are a matter for the Government, the Minister and the Taoiseach but in terms of what we set out to do, we have achieved it. I would point to some examples. It is crucial, as Mr. Gay Mitchell noted, that we re-establish the role of the Oireachtas not only in regard to European affairs but across the board. Specifically in the context of the European debate, it is very important that the Oireachtas is re-established as something of a go-between or a conduit between the Irish people and the institutions of the European Union. This is a role in which the Government and the Oireachtas has failed over the last number of years in particular.
The sub-committee has put forward a number of options. They are certainly not prescriptive and it is ultimately for the Government to decide, but we have set out concrete and constructive proposals in certain areas in regard to enhancing the role of the Oireachtas, which is really the only body over which an Oireachtas committee can have legitimate control or decision-making power. The proposal in regard to a list system is far-reaching and would completely change the makeup of the Seanad. It would also completely change the way in which we deal with European legislation and European proposals coming down the track.
We also propose a proper and meaningful scrutiny system, which is not to detract from the work done by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny currently. However, that committee is not robust enough and is not empowered to have the type of effect, overseeing capacity or scrutiny capacity that is required in any functioning democracy within the European Union. We have put forward recommendations or proposals in that regard, which I hope will be taken on board.
We also propose to enhance the role of MEPs. The European Parliament, as we all know, is the only directly-elected body at European level and reflects the national Parliament in this country. We need to see greater co-operation and understanding between the two bodies and we need to give pride of place to our MEPs in the decision-making process in the Oireachtas so they can contribute to and enhance the debates we conduct in regard to European policy, Ireland's policy towards Europe, European scrutiny and so on.
A personal view, which also shines through in this report, is that we cannot afford to opt out of the decision-making process at European level. We have a duty, an obligation and most importantly a national interest in being at the heart of the decision-making process within the European Union. Opt outs are not an option as far as I am concerned. I hope the Government will review its decision to opt out of the area of justice and home affairs because it is one of the greatest positive developments contained in the Lisbon treaty and it was a major mistake of the Government to opt out. This was clearly reflected in the outcome of the vote last June because the Irish people take a different view. The Government needs to wake up to that reality.
In conclusion, the report explores, explains and sheds light on many of the concerns and misunderstandings that were out there before the Lisbon referendum, many of them deliberately put out there by certain elements of our society. I point to the taxation issue, some of the social issues and the issues concerning defence as areas where absolute misinformation was put out. The sub-committee has shed light on many of these issues, with which I am pleased. I am also pleased we were able to bring in expert witnesses who knew what they were talking about to explain and go through these issues in detail with the sub-committee. The report is worth reading from that point of view alone.
That is not to say there are not legitimate concerns of the Irish people that need to be addressed, because there are. A steer has certainly been provided by this report but concrete proposals need to be developed at Government level. I would urge the Government to take this into account. Notwithstanding my disagreement with Senator Mullen's take on the motivation and expression of this report, I believe he represents a certain element of Irish society that has legitimate concerns and those concerns need to taken on board. This committee reflects those concerns, acknowledges them, addresses them and deals with them, but it is for the Government to provide concrete solutions. I hope the Government will continue a dialogue not only with Senator Mullen and the other members of the committee but with people in the wider society who have concerns, particularly about these sensitive social issues which I believe are quite clearly matters of subsidiary and matters of competence at a national level under the terms of the Lisbon treaty. We need to ensure that in some way these can be safeguarded in the Constitution.