Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)

Tá cathú ann leanúint ar aghaidh le "Cill Chais", ach ní dhéanfaidh mé é sin. I wish to put on record my slight disappointment about the format of the debate. It is good to have it and I am delighted to see Mr. Kinsella present. I did not know he was to be the rapporteur and when I found out, I was delighted. He is one of the best of the new generation of economists. I first met him on "The Frontline" programme and he came across to the viewers and audience as impressive and we are honoured to have him in the House. He compares very well with some of the other so-called celebrity economists, although he would not generally include himself with them. He is a very independent voice.

I am only one voice but I called for a debate in which we could go through the treaty title by title, which may have elicited more information for ourselves and the citizens rather than a general Second Stage type of debate. Perhaps we can have that and treat this as a Second Stage debate, with a more detailed analysis of the treaty later. It is only 11 pages long so we could do it. It is important for us to do so.

I will not say too much about Europe or European policy in general except to say that I am very pro-European and always have been, as has my party. That does not mean we agree with everything happening in the European democratic framework or every Commission proposal. When an intergovernmental agreement is brought forward that is outside the scope of the European Union or which places a system outside the scope of the European Union, there is a concern as a small country that the previous protection offered by the Commission to all the countries in operating on an equal basis would not be as strong. In terms of enforcement, the Commission's role is only part of the enforcement scene in this treaty. That is one concern for those with a pro-European outlook and it should be addressed and explained to the public. The role of the Commission up to now, in an even-handed approach to member states, must be explained, and there should be a discussion of what is changing. I am trying to elicit this information and I have more questions than answers at this stage.

Another concern is what provisions are already in force. There is much talk that most of the treaty provisions are already in force, and my understanding is that only the structural deficit provision is not already in the six pack. The question I have with regard to the six pack - the law that already exists - is for people who oppose this treaty between countries. Where were they when the drafts of the six pack legislation were put before the Oireachtas? As I understand it, they had the power to initiate the yellow card or subsidiarity provisions, although I am not sure if they are absolutely relevant. The people who oppose this treaty must answer that question as most of the six pack went before the European Parliament in September and the Council in December. It was certainly put on the record in Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann, with each House having one vote. Where were the people who oppose this treaty at that stage?

A very good job of explanation must be done. A good job was done by the Referendum Commission for the second Lisbon treaty vote, and the commission should be able to explain the issues in detail. As elected representatives we must be able to explain in detail and in an easily understood way what the various provisions mean. That is true whether we are for or against this treaty. Issues such as structural deficit do not trip off the tongue very easily for the public but I presume the same is true for economists because there are very complicated mathematical or economic ratios involved. Oireachtas researchers have set out the Commission's methodology, and there are many other methodologies. I am assured, however, having attended a conference in Brussels a couple of weeks ago, that only the Commission's methodology will apply, which will perhaps simplify the matter for us.

Economic concepts such as the structural deficit will have to be explained and an explanation must then be given of what they mean in terms of the national accounts and annual deficit. For example, what expenditure reductions will be required and what will be the implications for the health service, education and so forth? The Government must explain all of this and we must apprise ourselves of what precisely will be the implications. I do not believe anyone has clear answers on this.

When will the treaty apply to Ireland, given that it will not apply while we are in the EU-ECB-IMF programme? Perhaps cutbacks will not be required and economic growth will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the treaty. I have raised more questions than answers, as I expect will be the case for many Senators. I ask for further debate on the treaty and an explanation of its provisions, either line by line or article by article.