Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

When I spoke earlier, I made the point that the entire package of proposals which make up the instrument of ratification is a unique Irish blend. It contains substantial treaty issues, guarantees, assurances, a solemn declaration and a national declaration by Ireland. When a Commissioner for each member state is added to the mix, it becomes something of an Irish stew.

No other country has received as many concessions, protections and reassurances as Ireland. It is little wonder that Czech President Vaclav Klaus is emboldened to demand some assurance, declaration or guarantee that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will not apply to the Czech Republic. For a small country we have left our mark on the Lisbon treaty, as we did on the Nice treaty. We have got our Irish solution to our Irish problem. This is not something to boast about, as it reflects an attitude that is ambiguous, inward-looking and instinctively questions the motives of others. The 26 member states which make up the European Union were perceived to want to interfere with our taxation system, neutrality, education system, family structure and personal relationships. We are only satisfied when they make a public confession to the contrary.

We cannot continue to indulge in the luxury of saying "No" to Europe on the first voting occasion, so that when we have squeezed sufficient concessions and assurances from our EU colleagues - with whom we negotiated the deal in the first instance - we become good Europeans again. We must accept as a people that we cannot always have two bites of the cherry when it comes to the ratification of EU treaties. Unwittingly, we are undermining the integrity of the European process and it is inevitable that many other EU member states like the Czech Republic will follow in our footsteps and become a shrill cacophony of discordant voices seeking concessions pertinent to their national sensitivities. No process could live with that and the EU would quickly founder and self destruct. For the last 18 months, the British eurosceptics have been cheering us on from the sidelines because they want to see the dismantling of the European project. It is not the Irish electorate which is at fault. It is the political leadership which lacks all direction and conviction when it comes to EU matters.

The European project has never been presented or perceived in Ireland as a great political peace and solidarity initiative, perhaps because we never experienced the horrors of the Second World War that traumatised every one of the other 26 member states. Instead, successive Irish Governments have used Europe as a scapegoat, blaming it when things go wrong and taking the credit themselves for the benefits that have accrued from the EU. When a difficult treaty comes along, they transform the EU into a golden goose, or a cash cow that delivers funds for every conceivable project in Ireland. There was no pot of European money to offer during the first referendum on Lisbon. However, by the second referendum in October 2009, the traditional carrot of European money to create jobs, stimulate recovery and beat the recession had become the main argument for a "Yes" vote. Now is the time to address the Irish EU democratic deficit and to become good Europeans by discarding the begging bowl, and pointing out that the EU is good in itself for Ireland, for the member states and for the world.

I welcome the statement today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he will be bringing proposals before the Government on how best to deal with EU matters. Next week, Heads of State will discuss high level appointments such as the president of the EU Council, the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy and the Commission itself. The Government too readily backed the candidacy of Jose Manuel Barroso for the Presidency of the Commission and appears to be equally supportive of Mr. Tony Blair for the new post of president of the European Council. These are traditional political candidates, who do nothing for the peoples' perception of the political make-up of the institutions of the EU. What is needed is some lateral thinking with which the public can identify. It seems to me that an international figure like Ms Mary Robinson would make an ideal president of the Council. She has been both a strong and respected establishment and anti-establishment figure, and she has recently received the US President's award for her contribution to the promotion of global human rights.

This is particularly true now that the Lisbon treaty contains a re-statement of the principles and values underpinning the European Union in terms of human rights and adherence to the Charter of the United Nations. Moreover, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is now part of treaty law. Equality is a fundamental right and women are sparsely represented in the institutions of the EU. Mary Robinson's appointment would send out all the right messages, namely, that the EU is not a stuffy bureaucracy which rewards retired politicians like Tony Blair, a person has done absolutely nothing for the Middle East peace process since he was appointed two years ago. In fact, the appointment of Tony Blair would send out the wrong signal to a European Union which is developing a robust security and defence policy of crisis management and conflict resolution, formalising the European Defence Agency and establishing the new status of permanent structured co-operation. While Mr. Blair's role in the Good Friday Agreement was laudable, his enthusiastic and controversial support for the George Bush's invasion of Iraq is not the message which the EU should be promoting through its new institutional appointments. I ask the Taoiseach to consult with the Opposition party leaders with a view to getting agreement on a suitable candidate.

We should remember that ten years ago the Lisbon treaty originated from the need to deal with the democratic deficit and the public perception that the European Union had become far too bureaucratic. It was decided that we needed to address its identification as a type of institutional, remote operation. Now is the time to make appointments that would move away from that perception and bring a breath of fresh air to the Union's institutions.

As well as giving domestic effect to the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, the Bill before the House amends the European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002 by updating the definition of "measures" to take account of changes consequent on the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty. Indeed, the entire scrutiny process is relatively new. Until 2007, it formed a minor part of the functions of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, being confined to a sub-committee of that committee. The 2002 Act must be thoroughly examined and revamped. If the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny is to carry out the necessary parliamentary oversight envisaged in the treaty of Lisbon, resources must be provided in support of its power to amend legislation. The Joint Committee on European Affairs also needs the necessary resources to do its work in the context of new developments.

The new role of the Oireachtas is governed by Article 48 of the Lisbon treaty, which deals with a number of issues, such as the amendment of treaties through the ordinary revision procedure and the simplified revision procedure, which is known as the passerelle, or bridging, procedure. The Oireachtas will also have a substantial new role in consulting the Commission and the EU institutions on policy development and legislation. This is one of the key new areas in the Lisbon treaty. It will require the Houses of the Oireachtas to examine the operation of their current business and to ensure they conduct their business in a different way that encompasses the new developmental role of the parliaments of the member states in the operation of the EU. The Union's business will have to become far more central to the business of the Dáil and the Seanad. No longer should it operate on the periphery or be confined to committee meetings as it is at present, by and large.

Section 4 of the new Bill continues to provide for the use of statutory instruments to give effect to the adoption of European law, including the introduction of indictable offences by secondary legislation. The European Communities Act 1972, which allows for ministerial regulations that warrant a fine of up to €500,000 or terms of imprisonment of up to three years, was amended by the European Communities Act 2007. While that is merely being reaffirmed here, I do not think it is an acceptable development within the operation of the European Union. In effect, it is anathema to the whole thrust of the Lisbon treaty, the purpose of which is to streamline the EU institutions, to make them more accountable and transparent, to make the entire operation of the EU more democratic and amenable to the perceptions of the public and to increase public awareness of the Union.

I do not agree that line Ministers should be able to create serious criminal offences purely on the basis of their judgments and opinions, without reference to either House of the Oireachtas. The mere fact of passing a statutory instrument and lodging it in the Oireachtas Library for 21 days does not constitute a proper democratic way of dealing with EU legislation. This area must be re-examined, although that cannot be done in the context of the Bill before the House. If we are to eliminate the democratic deficit and assure the people that nothing is going on behind closed doors - I refer both to decisions taken in Europe and the transposition in this House of decisions taken in Europe - it is important for decisions to be taken on the floor of the Dáil, rather than in ministerial offices.

The use of such instruments is not how the democratic process should work, with the best will in the world, even if we have excellent civil servants. The process must take place openly and be subject to examination, amendment and scrutiny. It must be done by these Houses, rather than by means of ministerial instrument. For that reason, I will oppose section 4 of the Bill. When we get around to considering how we will conduct our business in the future, I hope we will examine this legislation and come to the conclusion that we should abolish the proposal that will allow for the broad use of statutory instruments, particularly in relation to indictable offences.

See this speech in context