Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I would be delighted to receive it. I hope she forgives me if I ask her about certain things that she may already have addressed in her speech, or certain things she is not in a position to address today for legitimate reasons, but which I feel I should take this opportunity to raise.

Many people are worried that we are prostrate before the agenda of private financial institutions. It seems that whatever is allowed, what must not be allowed is further loss of confidence by the markets when it comes to lending money. The worry that generates is whether sufficient attention is paid to the consequences for social solidarity and cohesion when taking a strict view on the insistence of paying back debts in full and the reluctance to contemplate default or putting new language on what might amount to default or restructuring of debt. Are we prostrate before the absolute value of maintaining confidence in the financial markets? When we see emerging discontent in countries such as Greece, are we reflecting enough on the more important value of maintaining social solidarity and cohesion? Are we reflecting enough on the consequences of turning the screw on countries to the point where their people may not be able to take any more? Is this something where there needs to be a radical rethink at European level?

The President of the European Parliament, Mr. Buzek, is due to come here on 11 and 12 July. He is expected to address the Dáil. On the previous occasion when the President of the European Parliament visited the Oireachtas, Mr. Pöttering addressed the Seanad. That was in the run-up to the second Lisbon referendum and was probably no accident. He was welcome nonetheless. In the past few days, we have been discussing the desirability of having distinguished visitors and representatives of different causes and viewpoints - eminent and otherwise - addressing the Seanad. Is it desirable for him to address the Seanad as well? Does anything in the protocol or the rules of these Houses prevent a joint sitting of the Houses addressed by Mr. Buzek? Many people would welcome that. We would also welcome the opportunity to ask him questions but I do not envisage that happening in the short term in the Dáil Chamber. I would be grateful for the response of the Minister of State on this point or via the Leader if she is not in a position to respond today.

Another issue concerns the potential of the Seanad as the scrutineer of European legislation. What is the position of the European scrutiny committee? Does a vacuum need to be filled in light of the reconfiguration of the Oireachtas joint committees? What is envisaged in terms of the capacity of these Houses to scrutinise the ever-growing body of proposed legislation from the EU?

I recently had interesting correspondence from people concerned about proposal by the European Council of presidents and prime ministers for the establishment of the European stabilisation mechanism from 2013. These draft laws are designed to give centralised control of two critical elements of national Government spending, namely, annual budgets and economic policy. According to the conclusions of the last EU summit, this permanent EU fund is expected to require a contribution from Ireland of some €10 billion. This is a large sum. Implementation of the European stabilisation mechanism would require amendment of Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. I imagine it would need to be ratified on a constitutional basis by each eurozone member state. Does that suggest there should be a referendum on this? I understand it is not the Government's intention to hold a referendum on the European stabilisation mechanism. Does such a stance not fly in the face of the stance of the Supreme Court judgment in the Crotty case, that any further ceding of sovereignty to the EU institutions by Ireland must be agreed to by the people in a referendum? However painful the experience of a referendum in the eyes of some, they are the only show in town when it comes to a serious national debate about our relationship in the EU. I would not want to put at risk the healing of our relationship with our European partners and our ability to get the best possible deal in our negotiations with them in respect of reducing the interest rate on the bailout fund. We must continue to value and prize our Constitution and we must be seen to do so. I welcome the view of the Minister of State on the European stabilisation mechanism. If there is not to be a referendum, perhaps the Minister of State can explain why not. Leis sin, gabhaim buíochas leat, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, agus mo leithscéal dá mba rud é go ndeachaigh mé thar fóir ó thaobh an ama de.