Alex White (Labour)

Where is the document about which people are talking? Like everybody else, I read the newspapers. Is it not bizarre that not even one screed of paper on what this incredibly important programme is supposed to contain has been circulated to us? We are told the memorandum of understanding is before the Cabinet and will be published and brought before the Dáil. Can we see the document? The first principle in having a debate is that we should know precisely what it is we are to discuss. It is extraordinary that we have seen nothing. I receive material every day, as, I am sure, colleagues do. I have paper up to such a height in my office on legislation of varying degrees of importance, as well as other documents. However, I do not have this one which we have been told is the most important and momentous programme we will ever be in a position to debate or discuss in this House. As Senator Fitzgerald rightly noted, it is unbelievable and extraordinary there has been no consultation and that, apparently, not only was it proposed not to engage in consultation with the Houses of Parliament before the agreement was put in place - there might be some excuse for this - but also that there would not be any consultation afterwards. It is no exaggeration to say this amounts to a gross undermining of democracy, the Constitution and the way in which a parliamentary democracy is supposed to operate.

The points made by Senator O'Toole about sovereignty are well taken. However, even if no constitutional issues arise from the programme, it is certainly the case - this is where I depart from the Senator - that the policy options and alternatives a Government will wish to look at in the future will be seriously circumscribed and delimited by what is apparently contained in the document. Choices on social and economic policy will be circumscribed by what is contained in it. If one does not wish to describe this as a loss of sovereignty, that is fine. We can debate what is meant by sovereignty. However, the document will have an enormous and negative impact on the freedom of action and movement of a future sovereign Government for many years to come. Clearly that is a basis for us on which to debate this question.

As an example of how bizarre this state of affairs is, let us take the National Pension Reserve Fund. Until last Friday we were all under the impression, including citizens who contribute to the fund, that it was an important prudential provision for the future of the country in regard to public service pensions. A colleague, former Deputy Derek McDowell, was castigated by Ministers in 2002 for daring to suggest a small amount of the pension reserve fund could be used for developmental purposes - the head was taken off him. Now, it is not a question of dipping into it or using a part of it; from what one can see, every single penny of it is being handed away. The point I am trying to make is not so much in regard to the huge error contained in that decision but the complete failure even to signal the possibility that this would happen before a decision was made to do so.