Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Commissioner for taking the time to address us this afternoon. We listened to the report with regard to Ireland and have taken note of what the Commissioner has had to say. There is no room for complacency and we appreciate what the Commissioner has to say with regard to this country.

On reform of the judicial appointments system, it would be fair to say that the system has served us very well since the foundation of the State. There have never been major issues about our judges, the separation of powers and judicial appointments. However, there is no room for complacency. We also note what the Commissioner has to say regarding the PIF directive. As parliamentarians we will act on this.

As the Chair has said, we have received many submissions on the rule of law as part of our investigation of this issue. I note the Commissioner mentioned four pillars, namely, the independence, quality and efficiency of the judicial system, an anti-corruption framework, media pluralism and media freedom, and other institutional checks and balances. Is the Commissioner satisfied that the four pillars cover all of the rule of law issues? In one of our submissions, or perhaps in a few of them, reference was made to the Venice Commission's 2016 checklist. I want to know that the rule of law report encompasses all the various issues that need to be investigated as far as we are concerned, for example, data collection and monitoring. This is one example from the Venice Commission's checklist.

Much of our deliberation so far has not been in respect of Ireland but in respect of other EU member states. In particular, I mention Hungary, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. Is the Commissioner satisfied that the tools for monitoring and sanctioning non-compliance are adequate? In his contribution, the Commissioner listed the various tools at the disposal of the Commission, including Article 7. Certainly some of the MEPs told us they are not satisfied that the tools at the Commission's disposal are satisfactory. I am thinking in particular about meetings of the European Council and the issue of qualified majority voting where unanimity is needed. It has been suggested that there has been backsliding by some EU member states in enforcing the rule of law. I am interested to know the Commissioner's views on this, if he feels he can comment on it. I hope he can. Perhaps this is something that could be looked at in the context of the conference on the future of Europe, with regard to whether qualified majority voting needs to be looked at in the context of this issue, whereby the member states at which the finger is pointed refuse to go along with whatever sanctions are proposed.

With regard to the EU recovery fund being linked to the rule of law, where stands this now? I know there was a compromise to get it over the line and get the EU recovery fund in place. Is the drawdown of these funds still a mechanism that can be used in this regard?

I want to mention the question of LGBTI+ free zones in Poland. This is an issue that is debated regularly in our Parliament and it is something we abhor. I hope the European Commission is acting on it to do something about it.

My next question is on the future of Europe and the whole question of a multispeed Europe. The EU is an economic union but it is also a union based on common values.

If some member states do not adhere to those common values, is there scope for having a multi-speed Europe or for some states breaking away to advance the rule of law situation? I am interested to know about that because we have a problem with some member states. Undoubtedly, the Commissioner will be diplomatic in his response, but there is a problem and I wonder if the concept of a multi-speed Europe comes into play if the problem is not resolved.