Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

The enhanced role of national parliaments is one of the most important features of the Lisbon reform treaty. It is one area that has not been raised in the debate on the forthcoming referendum. One feature of the debate is the tendency to raise matters that are not in the treaty as opposed to those that are. If the Irish people vote "Yes" next week and the treaty is ratified, the EU will be a more democratic place than it is today. I cannot understand why any citizen would vote to make it less democratic.

I thank the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny for the production of this timely and comprehensive report. It is the first report produced by an EU member state parliament on how to deal with the enhanced role of parliaments. I salute the initiative of Deputy Perry, chairman of the joint committee, and its members for this timely report. I was glad to meet the joint committee on 29 April to discuss the enhanced role for national parliaments in the Lisbon treaty. I want to restate the assurance I gave the committee on that occasion that, once the treaty is ratified, the Government, and I personally, will work closely with the Houses of the Oireachtas. If the referendum is passed next week, national parliaments will have a much more intimate involvement in the production of EU legislation. For the first time, both Houses of the Oireachtas will have the right, in certain circumstances, to veto arrangements.

The Lisbon reform treaty enhances the EU's democratic character, reforms decision-making within the EU institutions and involves the European Parliament to a degree which was unheard of when it was first devised.

The treaty will create a president of the EU Council for a two and a half year term subject to a maximum appointment of two terms. The president will be more chairman than chief, as he or she drives forward the work of the EU and ensures continuity and cohesion. He or she will not be a president of Europe. Does anyone believe, apart from those in obscure areas of Irish public discourse, that the French President, the British Prime Minister or the German Chancellor will surrender leadership of Europe to an individual elected by the European Council? The treaty ensures that the EU Commission will be based on strict equality between the member states. The Nice treaty confirmed a smaller Commission but the Lisbon treaty confirms an equal Commission. We cannot do better that be equal.

The treaty will strengthen the voice of the EU on the world stage and will give legal effect to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and sets out the EU's powers and their limits more clearly. The treaty achieves all this while preserving Ireland's military neutrality, veto on taxation and its special position on the life of the unborn child. It is a balanced treaty and will promote a better working relationship in Europe.

The treaty includes new innovative arrangements for national parliaments in EU decision-making. The Government lobbied for and negotiated many of those changes, which I have previously described as revolutionary rather than evolutionary in their nature. They are revolutionary because the treaty provisions represent a change in mindset at EU level. The mindset change is about recognising the need for EU law-making to come back closer to citizens. On the day the treaty was signed, the speaker of the Portuguese Parliament, Jaime José de Matos da Gama, said the real winners in the treaty are national parliaments.

The challenge for Ireland is to seize the opportunities presented by the Lisbon treaty. The challenge for this House is to seize the opportunity presented by the changes in the treaty in order that Ireland makes its mark and advances Irish interests from day one in this exciting, new area.

Why is so little heard about the greater role for the Dáil and Seanad from the anti-treaty side in the referendum debate? Those opposed to the treaty claim it reduces democracy when it does the opposite. These positive changes for our national parliament demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Lisbon treaty strengthens the democratic legitimacy of the EU and makes it more accountable to its own people. These provisions which give the Oireachtas a voice and a veto it never had before are in direct contradiction of the web of conspiracy theories and myths about loss of sovereignty which are peddled by the treaty's opponents. Which Member would call for a vote which would effectively make the House less relevant?

The undeniable fact is the Lisbon treaty makes the EU even more democratic than it has been before. It strengthens the role of national parliaments by giving us a direct input into European legislation. It enables the Houses to ensure the Union does not exceed its authority. The treaty also gives the Oireachtas a right to veto any proposal to change voting rules from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the European Council or Council of Ministers, as well as any extension of co-decision between the Council and the European Parliament.

The Twenty-Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill goes even further by requiring the affirmative consent of each House of the Oireachtas before the Government can agree in the European Council to any such change. The treaty gives Seanad Éireann more power than Bunreacht na hÉireann does. This House will have more power, a direct say and the capacity to influence and even veto EU legislation if the treaty is ratified.

I commend the joint committee report as a succinct analysis of what the Lisbon treaty means for the work of this House in the area of EU law. Notwithstanding the key innovations made under the EU Scrutiny Act since 2002, the treaty, once ratified, implies further significant changes in the role of the Oireachtas itself in EU affairs. The current national arrangements work well and provide for full oversight by the Houses of the Oireachtas of the actions of the Executive in negotiating EU measures and implementing EU law.

The Lisbon reform treaty however marks a major step change and provides for a far more substantive role for the Houses of the Oireachtas in EU affairs than is provided for by law or under the Constitution. The Twenty-Eight Amendment of the Constitution Bill contains all the necessary provisions required to give effect to the role to be played by the Houses of the Oireachtas. The terms of the Bill underline the Government's desire to maximise the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in the future development of EU legislation. Such an extension of role for the two Houses of the Oireachtas is a positive aspect, not just in the life of politics in this nation but also in the life of the nation.

The treaty, if ratified, gives this House and its sister parliaments in the member states which are the directly elected voices of the people of Europe, a stronger say than ever before. Therefore, the people who elect us to the Houses of the Oireachtas will have a stronger say than ever before in shaping the direction of EU affairs. This means that an Irish citizen need not look to Brussels if he or she has questions about a particular policy; instead, those questions can be brought to us, as Members of the Oireachtas. This is an extraordinary change. It means that rather than a civil group in society or an individual having to look to go to Brussels to do their lobbying, they can knock on any of our doors, visit any of us, as they do in the normal arrangements between citizen and public representative and make their views heard. This must be something to be celebrated.

We are now within eight days of the referendum which will be the most decisive vote on Ireland's future in the EU since we first became a member in 1973. The polling day on 12 June follows one of the liveliest — some would say one of the most distorted — debates on EU issues which has ever been held in this country. Whatever else, the campaign has not been dull and both sides will be out delivering their message. We can be proud that the referendum process has moved the debate about Europe's future into the minds of our constituents and the national Parliament.

After 35 years of positive engagement with Europe, Thursday, 12 June marks the moment of truth for the people of Ireland and for our future approach to the European project. I am confident that when voting day arrives, people's experience of the positive changes we enjoy as equal members of the European Union, combined with a national confidence in our ability to advance our own interests at the heart of the EU, will result in a decisive "Yes" vote. I am confident that the people of Ireland will choose the positive over the negative, that they will have the self-confidence to choose to remain at the heart of Europe and to remain a key player in Europe, for the benefit not just of the people of Ireland but for the benefit of the people of Europe.

We will continue to have debate about the nature of the EU even when the referendum has been held. A recurring theme will be the sense that EU decision-taking is a remote, anti-democratic process which small countries cannot influence very well and we have to show that this is not true. We must show that this characterisation is a distortion of reality. This can be achieved by following the proposals set out by the joint committee. We need to continue to focus on how Europe can be communicated in a meaningful way.

In addition to the provisions on national parliaments, two internal reforms provided for in the Lisbon treaty are worthy of mention. First, the treaty will strengthen democracy at the European level by increasing the number of areas in which the European Parliament will share law-making with the Council of Ministers. Senators will recall when Professor Pöttering addressed this House a few weeks ago. He made the point that when he was elected in 1979 for the first time to a directly and democratically elected European Parliament, it had virtually no powers. He said it had powers in about 2% of the areas. Under this treaty, the European Parliament will now have co-decision powers in 95% of all legislative areas. By any objective standard this is a significant step forward for democracy. It will also have more oversight and more powers to oversee the budgetary affairs of the European Union and this is a welcome step forward in democracy. Both of those steps, as is the democratic step to give this House and its sister House a greater say, are completely missed and obscured in the debate here in Ireland. They are obscured because the truth is the people who obscure them do not want the Irish people to know about the step forward in democracy which is being taken.

Second, the citizens' initiative has been sneered at in the debate. There are few, if any, constitutions in Europe which contain a right of citizens' initiative. I took part in a debate last night when a person argued that the treaty does not provide that if a citizen signed the initiative the work has to be done. If one asked 1 million people to sign a petition for the abolition of income tax, I would probably be one of the first people to sign it. However, such a decision would make governance somewhat difficult.

The initiative is very important and it could be described as a "civilian surge". It will help to breathe new life into the democratic functioning of the Union. Taken together with the changes for national parliaments, this package of democratic reforms will have a real impact on the way in which we deal with the Union.

As stated in the committee's report, both the new Article 5 and Article 12 to be inserted into the treaty on European union and the two significant related protocols will strengthen the role of parliaments in the EU and give them a vital and early say in the evolution of EU law. The first of the two protocols recognises the manner in which national parliaments scrutinise government activities within the Union. This is a matter for particular constitutional organisation in the practice of each member state. The arrangements set out in the protocol apply to all component chambers of a national parliament. I remind Senators that under this treaty, this House will have the same powers as the French Assembly, the House of Commons, the Bundestag — this is amazing — and yet this aspect of democracy is missing in the debate.

The protocol provides that Commission Green and White Papers, all the European Commission's annual legislative programme and all draft legislation, must be sent directly to this House at the same time as they are sent to the national governments. In other words, the Members of Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann will receive simultaneous transmission of drafts along with national administrations. These Houses will have a longer time in which to make an input and will not be required to wait until the eleventh hour and the fifty-ninth minute before it has the opportunity, as the elected voice of the people of Ireland, to have a say. This is an extraordinary step forward. It is an entirely new departure which will give national parliaments more time for consideration of Commission proposals. Similarly, the agendas and outcomes of meetings of the Council of Ministers must also go directly to national parliaments at the same time as they are sent to the governments of member states. I say, a little blushingly, this does not happen in the case of any Cabinet in Europe. At least eight weeks must elapse between the provision to national parliaments of a piece of draft EU legislation and it being placed on a Council agenda for decision. Even before the legislation is put on the Council agenda, the Houses of the Oireachtas and their sister parliaments across Europe will have the right to have a say. What person calling himself or herself a democrat would not celebrate this provision?

The treaty provides that national parliaments must have at least six months' notice of any intention of the European Council to use the so-called passerelle provision. The word "passerelle" is a French word for a bridge or something that bridges a gulf. Under this provision it will be possible to change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in certain key areas but this can only happen if every single government agrees, if the European Council agrees unanimously, if the European Parliament agrees by majority, if every parliament decides it does not have an objection and, in the case of Ireland, if both Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann pass a positive resolution. Some people, the Libertas movement in particular, call this "self-amending". The matter has been grossly distorted in the referendum debate. The move from unanimity to QMV can only occur in the most restricted circumstances.

The protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality further develops the role of national parliaments in relation to the implementation of the important principle relating to subsidiarity. Within eight weeks of the transmission of a draft legislative act, any national parliament, or any chamber of a parliament, may send to all EU institutions a "reasoned opinion" stating why it considers that the draft does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. If, within eight weeks, at least one third of national parliaments or chambers of national parliaments, issue such reasoned opinions, the draft proposal must be reviewed. This so-called "yellow card" system is a major development which will bring national parliaments directly into the EU decision-making process.

In addition, the treaty provides for an "orange card" procedure whereby if a simple majority of national parliaments take the view that a proposal breaches the principle of subsidiarity, but the Commission decides to maintain its proposal, it must submit its reasons to the Council and the European Parliament, which will take a majority decision on how to proceed. This is an extraordinary change. The European Parliament will act by a majority of votes cast and the Council will act by a majority of 55% of its members. The application of the principle of subsidiarity is intended to take place primarily before the adoption of legislation. However, the Court of Justice is empowered to adjudicate on alleged infringements after the legislation goes through.

As I have mentioned, national parliaments are to be given at least six months' notice of any intention by the European Council to make certain limited adjustments to the voting rules in the treaties under a simplified revision procedure known as the general passerelle. Any move will have to be supported by the European Council and will have to be accepted by member state parliaments. The treaty gives any national parliament the right to veto the passerelle — the so-called "red card" procedure.

Building on the provisions of the treaty and the protocol, the Government is proposing, in the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, to go even further. We will go even further than any other member state in that Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann will not just be asked to vicariously cast their eye across the legislation but will also be required to give assent to the use of the passerelle.

In addition and importantly, future changes to the treaties involving the conferral of new competences on the Union would be prepared by a convention in which it is envisaged that national parliaments would be strongly represented. One of the great and extraordinary things in the preparation of the Lisbon treaty was that its predecessor, the constitutional treaty, was prepared by a convention attended by 205 men and women drawn from all the national parliaments and the governments of all the member states. That was a remarkable and exciting process as well as being democratic and open. That process will become the generality under this treaty.

In Ireland, as is currently the case, any move to confer new competence on the Union would mean that advice will be sought from the Attorney General and, of course, a referendum will be required if there is any substantial change. Similarly, even were the European Council to seek to use the simplified revision procedure to propose a change to the treaties not involving a new competence, any decision would have to be ratified by each member state in accordance with its own constitutional provisions.

Following a "Yes" vote in the referendum, which I strongly believe will be in our interest, the challenge facing the Houses of the Oireachtas will be how they can use the opportunities presented in the Lisbon treaty. The joint committee makes a number of points and conclusions regarding the implications of a ratified treaty.

The Government will play its part in reviewing the European Communities Acts, including the EU Scrutiny Act 2002, to bring our domestic provisions into line with the treaty, and to the point where we can fully utilise the provisions of this treaty. It will be necessary to make these amendments in the autumn to enable ratification before the end of the year, as envisaged by the treaty. All of this is, of course, contingent on a successful ratification of the treaty. I call upon all Members of the Oireachtas to do all they can in their power to explain this important move forward objectively and truthfully to the citizens with whom they have contact.

It is a vital national priority that we ratify the treaty. I believe that an informed decision by the Irish people on 12 June will result in a positive outcome. Not only that but as I said at the outset, if we vote "Yes" Europe will become a demonstrably more democratic place than it is at the moment. If we vote "Yes" national parliaments will have more powers than they have ever had or have ever envisaged. If we vote "Yes" this House will have even more powers than were given to it in Bunreacht na hÉireann. If we vote "Yes" we will have a Union that is efficient, effective and capable of dealing with the challenges that lie ahead. If we vote "Yes" we confirm Ireland's place at the heart of Europe. It will send out a powerful message about this country's commitment to the European project, not just to be heard within European political circles but also within the business community that makes investment decisions that produce jobs here. For all those reasons, a "Yes" vote is the best decision and it is also the best choice in the interests of democracy.

I compliment Deputy John Perry, who is present in the Visitors Gallery, for the job his committee undertook in producing this report.