Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)

I have mixed feelings on the agreement reached in Lisbon over the past number of days. While many of the institutional reforms that will be included in the treaty, predominantly the extension of QMV and the simplification of the voting process, are absolutely critical, I am disappointed not only with a number of the overall compromises but, in particular, with the opt out clause in the area of justice and home affairs. The Taoiseach said Ireland was opting out on the basis that, as a small common law country, it would find itself at a disadvantage and it would be unable to sufficiently shape proposals. That is a particularly misleading statement because as Fine Gael and the Government parties have stated repeatedly during the debates on all treaty referenda, it is absolutely vital for us as a small country in the Union to be at the heart of the decision making process, influencing the future direction of the Union. This is particularly critical in dealing with justice and home affairs issues because of the huge influx of drugs into the State and the immigration issues we face. I am very disappointed with this opt out clause.

In light of the Minister's comments on Oireachtas scrutiny, I understand Ireland has 90 days to opt in to any proposal. I assume that during this period both Houses will debate the proposal and the relevant agencies will be consulted before we choose to opt in. I am concerned about the time we will have to debate and influence a proposal we choose to opt into. This is a significant anomaly and the Government is biting off its nose to spite its face. What are the Minister's views on that?

The Taoiseach confirmed the State will not opt out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. While I am pleased the charter will be legally binding under the Lisbon agreement, I am concerned it is not included in an annex to the reform treaty. How did that come about? Was that an attempt to pander to eurosceptic British members of the Union? Is the Government satisfied with this or is this a compromise with which it is not happy?

See this speech in context