Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. The report of the Oireachtas Joint Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union is to be welcomed as it comes at two critical junctures for the European Union. First, it occurs as all 27 member states decide on the Lisbon treaty, a document that is intended to update and reform the workings of the Union and bring Europe closer to its citizens. Second, from an Irish perspective, it comes at a time when Ireland faces fundamental questions about its position in Europe.

This year's referendum on Lisbon showed an Ireland that is struggling to define itself and its relationship with the European Union. That struggle is predictable. All relationships face moments of redefinition, questions about whether to commit to a relationship or walk away from it, questions about what happens when the basis of the relationship changes and when old certainties disappear and are faced by new challenges.

Until now, Ireland's role in the European Union has been one where our contributions — financial, economic and cultural — were less than the benefits. However, the growth of a new Ireland, with new links and identities, has changed how we view ourselves and our relationships. Now that we are moving from being a net beneficiary to a net contributor, we have begun to ask fundamental questions about the relationship, what we want from it, what we expect it to deliver and what costs we are willing to endure. Perhaps the Lisbon campaign, and what it revealed, is our coming of age.

Our party leader, Deputy Enda Kenny, summed this up last month in a speech about Fine Gael's view on Ireland's relationship with Europe, when he spoke of the "disconnect" that now marks Ireland's relationship with Europe. He said: "This disconnect, which runs deeper than the Lisbon treaty itself, is a major challenge for both the European Union and the national political system." This disconnect is perhaps the most important feature revealed by the Lisbon referendum. It reflects an Ireland where Europe is no longer the paymaster, where it can no longer be told "Vote yes and get £8 billion." We are moving from a relationship where we simply gained to one where we have responsibilities as well.

Politicians and people in Europe often presumed ordinary people in Ireland and elsewhere understood Europe, its goals, institutions and structures. What the referendum has shown is that the basic knowledge we all presumed was widespread does not exist, showing, as Brendan Halligan told the sub-committee, "We had not an information deficit, but a comprehension deficit." This comprehension deficit in turn has demonstrated a disconnect that, if not faced up to, could become something more tragic, an alienation that would fuel Euroscepticism. Eurosceptics have been shown to be some of the most cynical and dishonest campaigners of all, willing to tell any lie, spin any mistruth, misquote any fact, doctor any document or push any falsehood to further their agenda. They do not care what hurt they cause our country or its interests. Their agenda takes precedence over everything, particularly the truth.

Fine Gael believes the people have a right to the truth. In Deputy Enda Kenny's words, "We must persuade people that a reformed, democratic and efficient Europe is essential if we are to successfully meet the massive economic and political challenges we face, like the growth of the emerging economies, climate change, energy security and third world development."

As proposed in the committee report, we want to see an increased role in the scrutiny of EU legislation for the Oireachtas. The European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002, as amended, could be further amended so as to permit a much wider range of measures to be subject to legislative scrutiny. Fine Gael suggests the scrutiny committee should have the power to require a Minister to attend before it prior to attending European Council meetings at which legislative proposals will be discussed, issue a recommendation to the Minister on foot of those proposals and seek a report from the Minister on the outcome of such discussions within a stated time. We believe this would be a crucial reform that would provide greater information for Oireachtas Members, the media and the public as a whole.

We also want to see the creation of an EU citizens' officer for Ireland, who should in part fulfil the sort of role exercised in financial affairs in the State by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The functions of this office would be to provide a legal analysis of EU regulations and directives produced after the taking up of office, and for these analyses to be made publicly available; to publish an annual report on such legislation as well as the status of its transposition by the Government into Irish law; to provide services for the Irish public with regard to information on existing EU laws and institutions and to provide a feedback system for channelling difficulties emanating from EU laws for individual citizens; to make recommendations to the Government on all aspects of EU legislative development; and to compare the implementation in Ireland of EU laws with the implementation of such laws in other member states and make recommendations to the Government on the implementation processes and models, to include a look-back remit.

The desire of the Irish people for a guaranteed Commissioner must be facilitated and the Government must use its good offices to secure this. We oppose the Government's opt-out from parts of the justice and home affairs areas as it limits our ability to use European links to fight crime.

Detailed clarifications, known as "decisions", must be provided to reassure Irish people of the meaning of the treaty in areas such as taxation, neutrality, conscription and abortion. Voters expressed real fears about those areas. Those views were misplaced, but given that they were expressed they must be explored and answered.

In the long term, rather than continue with the same type of haphazard debates as we have currently over whether a constitutional amendment is needed in regard to the treaty, all treaties should be reviewed by the Supreme Court under a new procedure to see if they are constitutional. If anything in the treaty is not compatible with the Constitution and requires a referendum, the entire treaty should be put to the people. This would mean that instead of the current chaotic debates over whether some or other part of a treaty is constitutional, we would have a definitive ruling. However, this procedure should be initiated for later treaties, not the Lisbon treaty. It would be wrong to change the current procedure for this treaty.

I have mentioned the problems that have come to light with regard to the treaty, namely, our coming of age in the relationship with Europe, the disconnect felt by people and the comprehension deficit and I have put forward the proposals suggested by Fine Gael to correct those problems. I congratulate the committee on its work. It did a valuable service in providing people with a detailed source of information.

I must express some criticism of the lack of media coverage. Judging by the media coverage, one would think the only people to appear before the committee were Declan Ganley and Cóir. However, a large number of people appeared, academics, former diplomats, authors, journalists, former politicians, "No" campaigners, "Yes" campaigners and others. There was no lack of information, but unfortunately the major part of the committee's work was not covered.

I commend the Chairman of the sub-committee, my colleague Senator Paschal Donohoe, who faced a difficult task, yet proved exceptional. A decade ago, the late Jim Mitchell earned widespread praise for his work in chairing the Committee of Public Accounts. It is fitting that Jim's successor as Fine Gael candidate in Dublin Central, Senator Paschal Donohoe, has shown himself to have inherited Jim's abilities in the Chair. We owe him and the committee a debt of gratitude for their sterling work.

I have deliberately decided not to deal in detail with the conclusions of the committee as I believe the Chairman of the committee should be afforded that opportunity. I look forward to his contribution later in the debate. The main conclusion of the sub-committee has been the lack of and loss of influence with our EU colleagues. Moreover, in speaking of his visit to Riga, the Minister of State has verified this point. The question of influence and our lack thereof as a result of the referendum must be addressed. While I do not know when another referendum will be held on the Lisbon treaty, it cannot be done until the issues Members have raised have been addressed by the Government.