Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I apologise for not having copies of my script to distribute. I wanted to wait until the Dáil debate was well under way so I could make the script as up to date as possible. I wanted to give the House the opportunity to consider the circumstances as they obtained at lunchtime following discussions and the bilateral meetings that took place. I was at my last bilateral meeting this morning.

Our work this week is very important because we are approaching the meeting of the European Council on Thursday. Against this background, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the Seanad on the recently completed report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union. I want to give the House a completely up-to-date understanding of where we stand as we approach the European Council meeting. I do not often agree with the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Kenny, but I believe what he said in the Dáil an hour ago was profoundly true. He was absolutely correct in stating we have reached a pivotal point in the relationship between Ireland and the European Union. We need to give considerable thought to where this leaves us. Deputy Kenny was also correct in reflecting the Taoiseach's view that the period ahead is critical to the nation's welfare. We have a choice to be at the heart of the European Union or at the periphery. I firmly believe the heart is where we will thrive. If we consign ourselves to being on the sidelines, either in reality or in the perception of others, we will suffer in a profound way. It is time we teased out this issue and discussed and understood what it means.

It is against this background that we must consider the work of the sub-committee, which has done absolutely sterling work. Its Chairman, Senator Pascal Donohoe, its Vice Chairman, Deputy Timmy Dooley, the members from both Houses and the many witnesses, amounting to more than 100, have worked extremely hard and carefully to produce a very important report to a very demanding deadline. As I stated in private to Senator Donohoe, my personal admiration for his work and the way the committee conducted itself is very high. The nature of the sub-committee's work, the dedication of its members and the iron fist adopted by the Chairman certainly confounded many cynics who did not have the highest expectation for the sub-committee. It is appropriate that this be put on the record, irrespective of whether one is on the "Yes" or "No" side.

The report arises from the referendum result of 12 June. Following the vote, the Taoiseach explained to his European Council colleagues that Ireland would need time to seek to understand the concerns underlying the vote. We took a twin-track approach in our analysis of the referendum result. First, we set in train the Millward Brown study, with which we are all familiar, to examine the reasons for the vote. We went to great lengths to ensure the results were made available widely.

I attended the meeting to commemorate the 35th anniversary of Eurobarometer ten days ago in Paris and noted people's extraordinary admiration for the report. It is regarded as one of the best reports on public attitudes to the European Union. It is not just a report on how Ireland feels about Europe but a report on how the Union relates to its citizens in the wider sense.

In the main, the survey findings tended to confirm what many of us probably felt underlay the vote, particularly the lack of understanding. There were some surprising elements, specifically the wider misapprehension about conscription. This began to emerge in the feedback from canvassers in the very final days of the campaign. I still believe very few of us calculated it would have such an impact.

Survey data and statistical analysis are important tools. As the Taoiseach stated in the Dáil, however, the Oireachtas itself is the natural forum in which to conduct a national conversation on Ireland's future in the European Union. This challenge demanded the creation of a new forum within the Oireachtas, which was to meet in parallel with other committees. The agreement to set up an all-party committee reaching beyond party allegiance by including Independents to examine the issues that played a role in determining the referendum result was inspired. Both Houses agreed that the sub-committee was to carry out its work under four broad headings, namely, to analyse the challenges facing Ireland in the European Union; to consider Ireland's future in the European Union; to make recommendations to enhance the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in EU affairs; and to consider measures to improve public understanding.

The work of the sub-committee, from its establishment right through to its vote on the final report, was carried out in as inclusive a manner as possible. It is important to recognise that. I was appalled by some of the mean-spirited, mean-minded and untruthful comments I just heard in the other House about people being excluded because of this process. I did not witness any such exclusion having watched the committee work on the report on most of the days it sat. It was a model of its kind. All the parties in the Oireachtas were represented, including those who campaigned against the treaty. Witnesses represented a very broad swathe of public opinion and represented both sides of the debate, as it should be. The sub-committee focused on hearing from witnesses who had particular knowledge of and expertise in European affairs, and this elevated its work. I was sorry, given the sub-committee's inclusiveness, that it was not possible for all its members to agree on the final report. However, we suspected this might be the case from the outset.

As Members of this House know, the sub-committee was not mandated to recommend a solution in the wake of the referendum, nor did it do so. However, its work has really helped to condense the views that obtained and to focus on the areas to which we need to attend. That the sub-committee managed to report within an extraordinary timeframe was remarkable. It is a remarkable tribute to its Chairman, members and secretariat.

The report contains a finding similar to one in the survey reports, namely, that Ireland's place is at the heart of Europe and that we should be contributing positively and deploying our influence carefully to promote our national interests. The report recognises that Ireland's ability to contribute positively and defend its interests has been, at the least, impaired. Moreover, it recognises that very real, long-term damage to our interests will be done if we fail to address the present crisis in the near future. An important finding of the report is that damage done has been much more systemic than specific. While certain individual cases can be identified, the wholesale shift in the perception of Ireland is far more important in the longer term and far more damaging.

Since the sub-committee commenced its work, I had at least one bilateral meeting with every member state. During the course of those meetings, I took time to meet members of civil society, academics and media representatives, as I did this morning in Riga. It was extraordinary to note how the perception of Ireland is beginning to change. This is a very damaging trend. I am noting this because it is something we need to address. Rightly or wrongly, our partners abroad, whether they are on the investment boards of multinationals deciding where to invest in Europe, or foreign governments assessing how influential their friends are within the Union, perceive a change in our attitude. This is dangerous and comes with a cost. The sliding perception is not cost free. The sub-committee's recommendations about our domestic approach make interesting reading. An Oireachtas sub-committee is uniquely positioned to analyse and comment on domestic practices and procedures.

Many of the sub-committee's suggestions on the way we do our business in Ireland have important consequences for both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is a matter for both Houses of the Oireachtas to respond, and I hope the response will be positive. There is a clear sense running through the report that we need to reconsider the manner in which the Houses engage in Ireland's EU business. Those words were a joy to my heart because that is a view I have held for a long time. We must drag our considerations of Europe into the light of public scrutiny so that the people can understand what is happening and see that their interests are being looked after.

Ultimately, it will be a matter for the Houses to decide on how to proceed, but I can assure Members of the Seanad that the Government's approach in this matter will be one of an open mind. My personal approach will be one of enthusiastic support. The Minister for Foreign Affairs rightly described the report as the most sustained exploration of the issues surrounding our membership since we first joined the EEC 35 years ago.

I want to turn now to solutions and talk about where we find ourselves. Taken together, the independent research and the sub-committee's report provide a very comprehensive overview and analysis of where we stand. A lack of understanding and comprehension of the most important of the issues that come forward needs to be addressed. I was startled at the suggestion in the other House earlier today that we are engaged in some form of token exercise in either this debate or this report, or indeed in the Government's assessment of the current situation or the response we shall carry before the European Council next Thursday and Friday. That assessment, analysis or assertion is, of course, simply that, an assertion not based on any proof or objective truthful analysis. I suppose that approach is to be expected, particularly from Sinn Féin, but it is sad that people have closed minds on an issue that is so central to Ireland's importance. Those making the charges ignore the reality that the Lisbon treaty represents a very finely balanced outcome on retracted negotiations. It represents an outcome in which individual member states gave and took and in which there was a balance where people surrendered positions in order to move ahead.

I need to emphasise to the Seanad, however, that we have a serious challenge ahead of us in the coming days. The outcome of this week's summit remains uncertain. Some partners have made it clear to us that they have serious concerns. They point out to us that all member states made concessions and we had indicated we could reach agreement on the treaty, and that is true. Some gave a little and some gave much, making deeper concessions in the interests of reaching agreement, and that is also true. Therefore, where we do we stand today?

As I hope this House will understand, even at this late stage, mere days before the European Council, it is not possible for me to describe in detail the shape of the agreement that might be reached at the end of the week. However, the House is entitled to an honest assessment of where we are. The Taoiseach made our position clear after his meeting on Friday last with President Sarkozy. On the steps of the Élysée, he said, "Our first duty is the people of Ireland, and we intend discharging that duty conscientiously by allaying the concerns that we have identified."

The sub-committee has helped us to identify those concerns. We accept also that Ireland has an obligation. Solidarity has been shown to Ireland in the past, and solidarity in the EU is a 27-way, not a one-way street. The Government is seeking legally reinforced guarantees in the area of sovereignty, taxation, social and ethical issues and defence as well as on the issue of a Commissioner per member state. We have made it clear to our social partners that the concerns in these areas have been expressed and that we shall have to address them in a manner that meets the concerns of Irish voters and is legally robust and sufficiently strong to meet any legal challenge. Having a series of legally binding agreements that are Ireland-specific should not cause other member states which have been through the ratification process any real concern if there is a willingness and goodwill to meet us more than half way. We recognise that some member states are reluctant to concede to the Government's demand that every state should retain the right to appoint a Commissioner permanently. However, this is a key issue. The Taoiseach has made it clear that while we respect the views of others, this is an issue which this country sees as central, and one that we will be pressing.

Following a very intensive round of discussions, we believe this is an area where agreement can be achieved. Increasingly, the logic of our position has been put forcefully, and I believe it has been recognised. However, the Seanad is entitled to know that there are still member states that do not share our views, and so the work of converting them will continue right through the week up to Friday. The Lisbon treaty provides a mechanism to achieve this. What is necessary is a means of triggering the Lisbon mechanism when the treaty is ratified by all 27 member states, to continue the position whereby every member state will have the right to nominate a Commission member. The Lisbon mechanism, of course, can be operational only if the 27 member states ratify the treaty. One of the great ironies of the "No" vote on 12 June is that by rejecting the Lisbon treaty we locked the European Union into the Nice treaty process, which provides for a Commission of fewer than 27 Commissioners next year, a position that can be reversed only if Lisbon is ratified.

In the Dáil today there was talk of another referendum. We all recognise the constitutional realities that bind us in this matter. However, it is too early to talk about a date for a new referendum. The primary aim of the Government must be to ensure the concerns of the Irish people, as reflected in this report and in the result of 12 June, can be addressed. The Government can revisit the ratification process only if that happens. This is the appropriate and logical order in which to deal with the current impasse.

The Taoiseach has pointed out that we are in a work-in-progress phase at the moment — no decisions have been finally taken, as yet. We can commit to ratification of Lisbon only if the concerns of the Irish people are met by means of a legally robust set of mechanisms, and when the issue of the Commission is resolved. It is likely to take months of very detailed discussions to reach that point, after we reach the conclusions on Friday. The time for deciding on our ratification process is when the EU 26 and Ireland have agreed on a legally robust mechanism that meets the concerns of those who voted "No" in the last referendum.

The French Presidency view about the period ahead is worth noting. At the end of Friday's meeting in the Élysée, the French Presidency spokesperson summed up the position, and said:

We respect the choice of the Irish and the wish of the 26 other member states to see the Lisbon treaty enter into force. We are looking for a path between the two that satisfies everybody. We believe that it is possible to provide responses to the concerns expressed by the Irish, and we are looking for the right wording.

It is appropriate to put on record that the French Presidency has worked extraordinarily well with us to seek a solution to the current impasse. The French are sympathetic and have put all the might of the Presidency behind our efforts. The Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have engaged in intensive consultations with fellow members. In our discussions, we have sought to tread a delicate path between ensuring the concerns of the Irish people can be responded to, while not creating difficulties for others. This week will be a real test of the Union's capacity to accommodate the needs of all member states. I remain hopeful — I am always an optimist — that the Union will pass the test and that we will find the path, although it is a very difficult path to define. It has to be defined, respecting the different views that exist within the Union. It will not be easy to secure agreement among our 26 partners on the final shape of any deal, but the Government is firmly committed to finding a way forward that meets everybody's needs. All that said, I have been encouraged by the determination and commitment of others, in particular President Sarkozy and the French Presidency in helping us to find a way forward. There is a real desire on all sides to reach agreement this week and we shall do everything possible to achieve and deliver that ambition.

The report we are considering has helped to shape the response of Government and I believe it will help Ireland and her 26 partners to craft a solution to the current impasse that commends itself, not just to the European Council, but more importantly to the council that counts, the Irish people.