Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity of discussing the Twenty-Eighth Amendment of the Constitution (Treaty of Lisbon) Bill 2009. There has been a great flurry of activity in the past day or two, with the publication of the White Paper today, the announcement of the chair of the referendum commission, Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, who I believe will do an excellent job, the proposed postcards and, finally, the long-awaited legislation has been brought before Members. The Bill itself appears to be pretty straightforward and is an improved version of the previous legislation from last year. The Government has benefited from a few suggestions made by the Labour Party on tightening up parts of the approach to the Bill. Certainly, the removal of the redundant parts of Article 29 of the Constitution pertaining to previous matter that has been overtaken by newer treaties is welcome. Moreover, it also is welcome that the proposed amendment contains a more simplified version in terms of the new provisions.

Part 2 of the Bill starts with an affirmation of apple pie and motherhood. I refer to section 4, where:

Ireland affirms its commitment to the European Union within which the member states of that Union work together to promote peace, shared values and the well-being of their peoples.

It is worth making that statement and I welcome it. The Bill then goes on to describe the conferral of competences and how "no provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted ... that are necessitated by the obligations of membership". It continues by describing the options and discretions that are subject to the prior approval of the Oireachtas. Finally, it deals with the decisions, regulations and other acts that the State may agree to, again subject to the approval of the Oireachtas, as well as the prohibition on common defence, which again repeats what was there before.

All of these provisions, in a more simplified fashion, are welcome. The Labour Party will campaign for another "Yes" vote this time, as it did the last time. If one considers the main players from the "No" side in the last referendum, the main thrust of the Libertas campaign was on the issue of taxation. This matter has been dealt with comprehensively in the legal guarantees.

The Minister referred to the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, PANA, which made a commitment to support a "Yes" vote if it received the necessary legal assurances on military neutrality and defence. These are in place so we wait to see what my good friend Mr. Roger Cole will have to say. Sinn Féin and the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, which is one of the platforms used by Patricia McKenna, were great champions of retaining the Commissioner. They did not want to lose the Commissioner. We did not lose a Commissioners but I have not heard too many words of approval from them. Coir was concerned with the threat of abortion and we must wait and see if that group is now satisfied. Mr. Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party was concerned with two issues, militarism and workers' rights. The threat of military involvement has receded and we must wait and see if he is satisfied with the solemn declarations on workers rights. The Independent Deputy, Finian McGrath, takes an all sorts of everything approach and we must wait and see on which side of the fence he lands on this occasion.

It is a shame the Government is pursuing the same guillotine process it pursued for the past two weeks on end of term legislation. This is not end of term legislation, it is too important to be dealt with in the same fashion. This involves an amendment to our constitution and it is unacceptable that all stages of any Bill, but certainly a constitutional amendment Bill, should be dealt with in the same sitting. It will be done in a short space of time, given that we started at 3.45 p.m., leaving only five or six hours. We have an opportunity to have a proper debate in this House. The only people who will get an opportunity to speak are spokespersons and people who are very much associated with the European Union. In the next three months this will be one of the singular issues of the day. It will be discussed abroad, on the radio, through electronic media and on chat shows. This was an opportunity to launch the campaign properly whereby Deputies have the opportunity to articulate their views and, for some, their concerns on the matter. It was an opportunity to put their first articulations on this new referendum proposal. That we did not have a full scale debate, allowing every Deputy and Senator to make a statement of intent, represents a lost opportunity. They are elected by constituents and I imagine constituents would like to give Members this opportunity to represent them. Perhaps the Minister will refer to this in his reply.

Yesterday the Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, came to this country, addressed Members of this House and spoke in Dublin Castle. He spoke about Ireland's impressive role in peacekeeping missions abroad under the United Nations mandate since Lebanon in 1958. He said that of the 16 United Nations missions in progress, seven have Irish involvement. Almost 50% of the totality of military and civilian missions involving the UN had Irish participation. This is a formidable record of participation in peacekeeping and conflict resolution. This will be carried over into Ireland's participation in the EU. This has resulted in getting a strong Irish character, and a sense of the particular place from which we are coming, to the development of foreign and security policy in the EU.

No EU member state retains conscription for its citizens, which was a major issue in the last referendum even though no country imposes it. Nor does any EU member state speak of an EU army. Even France, the long-term champion of a stand alone, common EU defence force, has gone cold on the idea. It is abundantly clear from the legal guarantees, which will become a protocol at the next treaty, that any decision to move to a common defence would require a unanimous decision of the European Council. Even if a Taoiseach was tempted to sign up for a common defence at a European Council, he or she could not do so as the new subsection 9, amending Article 29 of the Constitution, makes clear.

The legally binding guarantee on security and defence makes it clear that the principles of the United Nations charter and international law are the basis for the EU's action on the international scene under the Lisbon treaty. The Union's common security and defence policy is an integral part of the common foreign and security policy and provides the EU with an operational capacity to undertake missions outside the Union for peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security. Participation in permanent structured co-operation or the European Defence Agency are matters for each member state. We always said they were but the contrary was asserted in the previous debate. The Government has already announced that it will shortly introduce legislation imposing the triple lock mechanism on Irish participation in the European Defence Agency. This is the mechanism that applies for Irish participation in military missions at present. The Minister did not state when this legislation is due and I ask him to do so.

Ireland's policy of active military neutrality is not prejudiced but enhanced by the Lisbon treaty. The Irish interpretation of the military role of the EU under Lisbon as expressed in the guarantee on security and defence has been signed by the 26 other member states. Thus, peacekeeping missions in accordance with the principles of the United Nations charter are clearly the way forward for EU military action.

Mr. Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary General expressed his hope in May 2008 that the Lisbon treaty would come into force because it would strengthen EU peacekeeping capabilities by providing greater co-ordination among member states. The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, went a step farther when speaking in Dublin Castle yesterday. He said that the EU was one of the world's most important regional political and economic entities for the United Nations because it provided the UN with a vehicle for fulfilling its mission under the charter to keep the worlds' peace. He stated:

I know how carefully Ireland considers its overseas military deployments. I know as well that a U.N. mandate is one of the requirements not just as a matter of policy but as a matter of law. Let me assure you that Ireland's participation in EU military and civilian missions is fully compatible with its traditional support of the United Nations.

Article 3, subsection 5 of the Lisbon treaty restates the EU's international values:

In its relations with the wider world the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. [This statement is second to none.] It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations' Charter.

In a very real sense Ireland and the United Nations have made common cause in ensuring that the EU holds the same world view on military actions as they do. Active participation by Ireland at the heart of EU decision making is the key to that success. People who express concern at the threat to Ireland's neutrality by the proposed strengthening of the EU's military capabilities under the Lisbon treaty should not and cannot see it as a threat but rather as an opportunity to enhance the United Nations capabilities in keeping the world peace through, as Ban Ki-moon stated, "an ever-expanding relationship" with the EU, which he described as "one of our most important partners".

The ruling of the German constitutional court on the Lisbon treaty was one of the more interesting developments in recent times.

Just over a week ago, on 30 June, the German constitutional court ruled that the Lisbon treaty was compatible with German law. It also ruled that it would not create a European Union super-state - how often have we heard about a super-state being created by the Lisbon treaty? The court also ruled that the European Union would remain an association of sovereign states to which "the principle of conferral" applied.

However, the court also determined that the national parliament had to assert itself in the areas of democracy, sovereignty and the construction of the European institutional framework. The German Government must address those issues in a new law which will be needed to accompany the treaty's ratification; this will probably be introduced in August or September prior to the country's general election on 27 September. The contents of the new law will be revealing and may be far-reaching. Effectively, the constitutional court has declared that German parliamentarians have failed to take adequate responsibility for asserting their national democratic rights and playing an active role in the European Union integration process.

The court's decision has a strong resonance in Ireland where it is generally agreed that our national Parliament has not played its full role in the development of the European Union institutions or participated properly in European Union decision making. Undoubtedly our Government has been active, but not our Parliament. The Lisbon treaty recognises this democratic deficit and makes provision and provides encouragement for national parliaments of the member states to engage with the European Union institutions in devising, determining and implementing policy.

It is estimated that at present 75% of all legislation has its origins in the European Union yet our national parliamentary structures have scarcely altered since we joined the European Community in 1973. A Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs was established then. Thirty years later the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Scrutiny was established but only after the defeat of the Nice treaty in 2001 when the democratic deficit between the operation of the European institutions, the governments of the member states and the operation of national parliaments became obvious. Parliamentary participation is thus confined to two committees of the Oireachtas. In this respect, only a very limited number of Deputies can participate in European Union affairs.

I welcome today's statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Cabinet Ministers should appear before the committees of the House. However, they are merely committees of the House and there is no recourse to the Oireachtas in plenary session until the work programme of the Commission has been approved for transposition into domestic law. The only time the European Union appears directly on the floor of the Houses of the Oireachtas is for a 60 or 80 minute session to discuss the conclusions of the European Council four times annually. Our only parliamentary participation is that of two committees with a very limited number of Members represented there. This is a hands-off rather than a hands-on approach by the national Parliament, which is what the German constitutional court referred to with regard to German parliamentarians.

The Lisbon treaty envisages a strong participative role by national parliaments at all stages of the decision-making process. The Government must sit down with Opposition Members and MEPs after the Lisbon treaty referendum, which it is hoped will be a success, and agree new structures to ensure that the Oireachtas plays its full role in the activities of the European Union and adequately scrutinises the Government's actions in this regard. Moreover, the protocol on the principles of subsidiary and proportionality should be bedside reading for all Members of the Oireachtas.

The present Government proposals for reform of the Dáil are a small step in the right direction. I do not know whether the Minister has seen these proposals but it is envisaged that the Dáil will sit more often on Fridays to discuss issues including EU matters. Friday or another sitting day should be dedicated solely to EU business in full plenary session. This is the only way we can begin to address European Union matters in a serious way. It will not be easy to deliver on this type of approach but the only response we can make is to restructure our business in such a way that we fully integrate European matters into the plenary sessions and workings of the Parliament. It will require substantial restructuring if we are to do so effectively.

I wish to speak on the thorny issues of workers' rights, social policy and public services. The issue of workers' rights is significant for the Irish electorate, as was demonstrated in the Millward Brown survey which showed that 40% of voters in the previous referendum on the Lisbon treaty expressed significant concern in this regard. A number of high profile cases decided in the European Court of Justice, namely, Laval, Viking, Rüffert and Luxembourg, gave rise to concerns that the hard-won rights of workers in member states could be undermined by the court's interpretation of the free movement of labour. These were very much to the fore during the debate in the last referendum.

The Labour Party is particularly anxious that the European Union is a bastion of support for social progress, the protection of workers' rights and the prevention of exploitation in the workplace. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is a key reason the Labour Party so quickly and readily supported the Lisbon treaty. It is a legally-binding document which is particularly strong on social solidarity and a comprehensive range of citizens' rights, including the right of workers to information and consultation in the workplace; the right to collective bargaining and industrial action including strike action; the right to protection against unfair dismissal; the right to fair and just working conditions and the prohibition of the exploitation of workers.

Once the Lisbon treaty is adopted these will become part of European law. If and when the Lisbon treaty becomes law all further EU law must be informed by and have regard to those fundamental rights and we consider this to be a very important development. Speaking at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Congress in Tralee yesterday, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, the leader of the Labour Party, made it clear that the Labour Party in government would legislate to enshrine the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into Irish law. Among other measures, this would provide for collective bargaining rights for workers. This would mean that where workers opted to join a trade union, management would have to recognise this and negotiate with them.

The Labour Party commitment was warmly welcomed by the general secretary of ICTU, David Begg, and by Jack O'Connor, the president of SIPTU, as one of the most important developments for the trade union movement in decades. Last week, when speaking in the House, Deputy Eamon Gilmore further specified the eight legislative proposals in the social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, which need to be passed into law and on which the Government is dragging its heels. I have also raised this matter in the House on quite a number of occasions as the Minister well knows. We need to get our domestic house in order with regard to workers' rights rather than relying on Europe, although Europe has a good track record of contribution in this regard.

The eight areas to which Deputy Gilmore referred include the temporary agency workers' directive, which is now a year old and must be transposed one way or another by 2011 at the latest and should be fast-tracked. It gave rise to much difficulty in the previous referendum. Another area is the Employment Law Compliance Bill 2008, which is almost two years old and provides for statutory supervision of the workplace. It is in the House doing the rounds but it is time to put it to bed and establish the authority on a statutory basis. The areas also include the Industrial Relations Bill which provides protection in the hotel, catering and construction industries and the Employment Agency Regulation Bill.

Further areas referred to include anti-victimisation legislation to protect workers who choose to join a trade union, which was promised in March 2009 and which has still not been published; legislation to address employee representation at work, which was supposed to be enacted last month but has not yet been published; the amendment of section 4 of the Competition Act 2002, to exempt freelance journalists, musicians and actors from competition rules; and the transposition of the optional pension provision of the transfer of undertakings directive into Irish law, a directive that should be in place at this stage. We could add a ninth piece of legislation to this list, the posting of the workers' directive, which was transposed into Irish law in 2001 but which has given rise to much grief in other countries. It is something that should be revisited to ensure that the existing rights of workers in Ireland cannot be undermined.

We would prefer that the Government would establish a timetable for enacting these pieces of legislation, because that is part of the Towards 2016 social partnership agreement. It would be best if the Government came up with the timeframe for the enactment of the proposals before we enter into full debate on the referendum. Failing that, the Labour Party has pledged that in Government it will deal with the issue of workers' rights once and for all. We will put the issue to bed so that our domestic legislation will not tolerate a situation such as that which arose in the case of some of the European Court judgments to which we have referred.

The Lisbon treaty provides for the first time a legal basis to distinguish between public services that are not suitable for competition and other services of a general economic nature where competition is allowed. The protocol on services of general interest spells things out and makes clear "the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users". Therefore, services must be provided in a democratic fashion within the national, regional and local authorities and must take into consideration the needs of the users. Furthermore, it promotes "a high level of quality and affordability, equal treatment and the promotion of universal access and users rights" where these services are provided.

Article 2 of the same protocol makes it clear that "The provisions of the Treaties do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise non-economic services of general interest". The clear intention of the protocol is to protect public services and not to undermine them, as has been suggested by some people. This interpretation is reinforced by the solemn declaration on workers' rights, social policy and public services. Furthermore, Article 9 of the Lisbon treaty specifically states: "In defining and implementing its policies and actions, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protections, the fight against social exclusion, training and protection of human health".

In reality, the Lisbon treaty provides the most far-reaching support and protection for workers, through the protocols and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and commits the European Union through its policies and laws to a social agenda beyond anything we have seen to date anywhere in the world. People who state the contrary are not facing the facts or the reality of the situation.

It is now time to begin the campaign for a "Yes" vote. I welcome the fact that civic organisations have become involved and that we will have a stronger approach from that area than during the previous campaign. We must eliminate the uncertainty in regard to Ireland's future relations with the European Union. We must restore international confidence and quell fears regarding foreign direct investment. We must re-establish ourselves as partners in the Union with our 26 EU colleagues.

A half-hearted commitment is not enough. We must treat the forthcoming referendum as though it were an election. There must be a full-blooded commitment to winning the referendum. There must be no half-hearted measures. It must not be a case of paying lip service to working towards a successful conclusion, but not doing the work on the ground. We must knock on doors and persuade the electorate as though we were asking for a personal vote. The only way to ensure the referendum is won is to treat it as though it was a local, European or general election. The Acting Chairman, Deputy O'Connor, would know better than most what that requires. It means strong, personal activity involving knocking on doors, pounding the pavement, persuading the electorate this is the right way to go and right for Ireland and Europe. Only then can we be sure of a positive result and Ireland's full engagement in the EU for the future.

I hope we all work and co-operate together on this and that this time we will finish with a successful outcome to the referendum so as to ensure Ireland's place remains at the heart of Europe.

See this speech in context