Déirdre de Búrca (Green Party)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I also welcome the opportunity to discuss the report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union. As a member of that sub-committee, I am delighted that both Houses of the Oireachtas are debating this excellent report. It is excellent because in the short time available to the sub-committee, it managed to interview, interrogate and enter into discussion and dialogue with a wide range of actors who have an interest in the question of Ireland's future in the European Union. This involved academics and experts in the areas of European law and general affairs, as well as activists, campaigners, representatives of non-governmental organisations and those who campaigned against the treaty or had strong views about Ireland's future role within the European Union from a perspective that differed from some of the rest of us. Consequently, it was a highly fruitful and productive sub-committee. I congratulate and commend its Chairman, Senator Paschal Donohoe, on the excellent job he did in what were at times highly trying circumstances, as members were obliged to do a great deal of work within a short time.

The sub-committee was established by the Government as part of the process that followed the rejection of the Lisbon treaty by the Irish people in June 2008. When this happened, it was important the Government should in the first instance respect the views of the people, which I believe it did. However, at a political level there was concern about the possible consequences of that decision. It is clear to those who were involved in the discussions at a European level that a possible consequence for Ireland is that over time, it may become either semi-detached or possibly even completely detached from the European Union unless it keeps pace with the political developments and reforms that are supported by the governments of the other member states and which are contained within the Lisbon treaty.

Following on from the Millward Brown survey, which began by investigating and highlighting what were the issues of concern among samples of the public, the role of the sub-committee was broadened. It was to consider Ireland's membership of, and future engagement with, the European Union. It was not to take anything for granted, as nothing can be taken for granted in respect of our future relationship with the European Union at present. The sub-committee also examined the current challenges facing Ireland and specifically considered the potential role both Houses of the Oireachtas could play in raising awareness of European issues as well as increasing the levels of information and knowledge among parliamentarians and the public on EU matters. The sub-committee's brief also was to investigate what might constitute measures that would improve public understanding of the European Union, its institutions and how it functions.

As a member of the sub-committee, one issue that struck me most forcefully was that of Ireland's influence. Many of those who appeared before the sub-committee spoke of how Ireland's influence within the European Union's institutions had been quite considerable, given its size, over the years. Although Ireland had managed to operate highly effectively within the institutions, such influence has dimmed considerably since our vote because other member states obviously have interpreted the Irish vote rejecting the Lisbon treaty as a vote that somehow rejected the issue of deeper European integration as well as the necessary reforms the other member states perceive to be within the Lisbon treaty.

Another important issue was that of perception. A number of representatives of multinationals and the general business community appeared before the sub-committee and spoke of the perception among international investors that Ireland was not at the heart of Europe and that our decision somehow has raised questions whether we are a core member of the Union in the minds of those who might invest or consider investing in Ireland in the future, as well as the importance of such a perception in the context of any decision to bring foreign direct investment to Ireland.

The issue of the European Union's ongoing development also was raised and many important tasks lie ahead of it. From an internal point of view, one pertains to the issue of the social market economy that is described in the Lisbon treaty and which the European Union clearly has set out as the kind of model of economic development it intends to pursue and promote. All Members are aware there are many concerns at present, especially internationally, about the state of the global and European economies. While the concept of a social market economy certainly was important before the vote on the Lisbon treaty, it has become all the more important because it is clear to Irish people that the Irish economy is quite vulnerable. The European economy certainly faces many challenges and we must develop a model of economic progress that incorporates both the possibilities for new forms of economic growth and social protections in order that the workers and people of Europe will believe their membership of the European Union offers them something that will help them to prosper in an increasingly uncertain global economic environment.

Another issue pertained to the many benefits that have flowed to Ireland from the environmental and social legislation that has emerged from the European Union. In the workplace, Irish workers have benefited from the directives emanating from Europe on increased parental leave and protections for fixed-term and part-time workers, as well as the working time directive, which will set a maximum limit on the number of hours workers can work. All these measures are incredibly beneficial to Irish workers and the development of a social market economy obviously will consolidate and continue to develop such progressive social and employment policies.

There also was much mention of the possibilities for Ireland, within its membership of the European Union, to exercise global influence. The sub-committee discussed issues such as climate change, the challenges presented by the developing world, the provision of a fairer deal for developing world countries and the issue of human rights. Obviously, the European Union can play a part in trying to address many human rights issues worldwide. The sub-committee also discussed Ireland's particular and unique contribution to the peacekeeping efforts of the European Union and its necessity.

It was made clear to members that there is a strong reason Ireland must take its present and future membership of the European Union very seriously. The sub-committee made a number of recommendations which, to a large extent, pertained to how Ireland can Europeanise its own institutions, including both Houses of the Oireachtas, in order that the Seanad and the Dáil would become much more involved in promoting greater public awareness of European issues and legislation emanating from the European institutions. One of the more interesting suggestions made by the sub-committee was that a permanent EU information service should be established in Ireland. It was envisaged this would be an institution or organisation that would operate as an impartial and authoritative source of information on European issues and affairs and which would be seen to be independent. This would be an important step to take and the Government should consider it. Regardless of the future of the Lisbon treaty, if we wish to re-engage citizens fully in the European project, such a step would be essential.

The sub-committee's second recommendation pertained to how to provide Ireland's Parliament with greater oversight of the legislation that emanates from the European institutions. It recommended a formal scrutiny reserve system such as that which applies in the United Kingdom's Parliament. This would give the committees that specialise in European affairs in both Houses of the Oireachtas much greater control over new European legislation to which Ireland is signing up, particularly at ministerial level within the Council of Ministers.

We also looked at the role of the Seanad. I particularly liked the proposal from the sub-committee that we consider establishing a new panel involving five Senators who are appointed based on their expertise and experience in the area of European affairs. The Upper House certainly has the potential to make a considerable contribution to the levels of informed debate, both from the point of view of media and of raising public awareness of European issues.

We looked at the issue of Ireland's defence policy and the importance of protecting our neutrality. We also referred in one of our recommendations to the issue of the triple lock. While many people see the triple lock as an important safeguard to ensure that there is strict control by the Government and the Dáil, and a UN mandate, on any participation by the Defence Forces in an EU mission abroad, we sought to strengthen that safeguard further by introducing what is called a super majority in the Dáil. Rather than a simple majority, which the Government of the day could automatically expect to have, we felt it was important that two thirds of the Members of the Dáil and Seanad would support any decision for Irish troops to participate in European military or defence missions abroad, whether in peacekeeping or in any of the other forms of missions which can be included under the Petersberg Tasks. This would be an important safeguard to build in and one that the sub-committee recommended.

We also felt that the issues of taxation would be important and that the Government, in its negotiations with our European partners, would need to look for significant reassurances in this area so that those who were reluctant to support the Lisbon treaty on the basis of their concerns about future Irish control over the setting of our taxation rates, particularly corporation taxation rates, could be reassured.

Obviously, the issue of the Commissioner is important, as are the issues of defence and neutrality, but the last issue I want to touch on here is socio-ethical in nature. We all will be aware that there were some sensitive social issues which caused concern to people and they need reassurance about them. The issue within this area about which I am concerned is that of workers' rights. It is essential that the Government, in its negotiations with our European partners, makes clear that the kinds of reassurances and concessions being sought in the area of workers' rights will be achieved. We need to look at the fact that one of the main areas of concern of those who voted against the Lisbon treaty was the issue of workers' rights, that there was a widespread feeling that it would appear the fundamental market freedoms have begun to be privileged in European Court of Justice decisions over the rights of workers and that the interplay between legislation that exists at European level and national level often serves to undermine hard-won social protections, social legislation, wage agreements and agreements around working conditions at national level.

It is important that the posting of workers directive is looked at again by the European Commission because it is an incomplete directive. Some amendments must be made to it and the report produced by the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union has made clear recommendations about what needs to be done.

If the Government returns from its negotiations during the European Council Summit this week without having expressed that concern about the area of workers' right, there will be a serious glaring omission in terms of the kind of package we are looking for from our European partners to reassure those who voted against the Lisbon treaty in June of this year that they need have no such concerns and that they can support any re-run of the Lisbon treaty referendum in the future without those concerns affecting their willingness to do so. That is my hope. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that issue.