Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Tánaiste and note there is a great deal of history surrounding this legislation, not least the historic moment occasioned by the presence of Her Excellency, the ambassador of Croatia. As someone who was a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs from 1995 to 2007, approximately, I visited Croatia a number of times. When Slovenia, in the eyes of the Croatians, went ahead of the game by receiving its accession protocols, it created many internal difficulties within Croatia and a view arose that it had somehow been left out and there was a lessening of enthusiasm for the European ideal for a short time. However, I am glad that Croatia persisted. It certainly had a friend in Ireland, going back to the former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who made it clear from the outset that Ireland, as an open trading economy, would welcome an expansion of the European Union and that it would be of mutual interest to both the Irish and Croatian economies. Whenever they visited here to appear before the joint committee, the Croatians were never slow or reluctant to point out the great similarities between the two countries, especially in respect of their religion and history. In representing her people, I am sure the ambassador is particularly gratified and pleased she is present today to witness this legislation going through the Upper House of Parliament. I wish her well and endorse everything the Tánaiste has said. Moreover, I look forward to continued strong relationships, as well as the pursuit of issues of mutual benefit to our two countries, especially within what is the broad alliance of the European Union.

The legal guarantees to which the Tánaiste referred represent a throwback to recent history, that is, to the Lisbon treaty, and to the second referendum on that treaty in particular. They are an indication of the Government's struggles to ensure the passage of the second referendum because, as had happened with the first referendum on the Nice treaty, a great number of extraneous issues were debated and discussed to the point at which the people became somewhat agitated that the proposals contained in the treaty somehow were not to the benefit of the broad mass of the people. The previous Administration is to be commended. and the Tánaiste by extension, on acknowledging these legal guarantees are being included. Moreover this is acknowledged by the support the legal guarantees have received, and at that time, the Labour Party was fully supportive of and actively involved in ensuring the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty would pass.

The most central part of the legislation concerns the amendment of the protocols, going back to the European Communities Act, under which Ireland entered back in 1973. This forms a third element of the historical nature of this legislation. However, and the Tánaiste has touched on this point, in the background to all this is what will happen next. The legal architecture is in place but the question remains as to what will happen next. The Tánaiste might expand a little on references he made to the growth initiative on which he and the Taoiseach have embarked and which will continue at next week's European Council meeting. As Members are aware, representatives of four leading member states met in Italy. Angela Merkel and representatives from France, Italy and Spain met in Rome last week, and one figure to emerge from that discussion was a sum of €180 billion that was to be set aside for a growth dimension to the ongoing euro crisis. The Tánaiste touched on a point that is in the public domain, which is that some of the money is to go towards the provision of a growth initiative would come from unspent Structural Funds from the European Investments Bank.

The Tánaiste should elaborate a little more in this regard. Does the Government have in place a plan whereby Ireland will seek access to these funds? I am thinking of large-scale infrastructure projects in Ireland and of metro north in particular, of which I have been supportive from the outset. This is because it would provide jobs in the construction phase and because, once completed, it would sustain jobs that would benefit the immediate greater Dublin area and the wider economy. It would be of benefit with regard to access, and benefits would accrue to tourism as a result of having a direct link from the airport to the city centre. Ireland is alone in Europe in having a capital city lacking such direct access. Quite frankly, it is disgraceful that we have not. I know of the arguments being put forward about money not being available, investors' money drying up and so on, but I suggest that this is an ideal opportunity to put forward specific infrastructural projects that would generate real jobs in the construction phase and sustainable jobs in the future. I am also thinking of the money being used for the road maintenance programme across Ireland. The many unfinished road projects that have been deferred as a result of the economic crisis could also be completed as part of the access to this €180 billion. I would be grateful if the Tánaiste could outline what plans, if any, the Government has on how to approach the summit and the spending of this money.

Even the dogs on the street know that we can no longer continue with an austerity-only project; growth must be linked to it. In fairness to Angela Merkel, she has made that quite clear all along. I also share her view that we cannot continue to borrow to the stage where we are permanent borrowers. We must try to pay our way. If every country within Europe was to adopt an approach whereby there was a reconciliation of bank balances within national economies, then we could move to a much more prosperous period. This requires strong leadership and I would like to think that Ireland has been used as a guinea pig to some degree over the last two to three years. Europe muddled its way through the various crises that befell us going back to 2008 and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which is now accepted by all as the beginning of the current recession. Mr. Barroso lost the cool to some extent when he attended the G20 summit in Mexico last week, because he was quite rightly resentful of the view taken by the Americans that Europe should be getting its house in order. He pointed out to them the historical reality that Lehman Brothers was an American bank and that the toxic contagion which emerged as a result of poor regulation in the American banking sector extended into Europe and has given us the current recession. That is what we are trying to cope with.

It seems unfair to me that money was given to recapitalise Spanish banks that will not impact on Spain's national debt, yet we in Ireland have had to take the burden of bank debt which nobody asked for and nobody wanted, and which forms part of what we have to pay back. What credence would the Tánaiste give to extending the loan well into the future? There is no question we will have to pay back the money, but what credence would he give to us extending the loan and to fighting that particular cause in Europe? After all, the Germans only completed their reparations payments two years ago for the First World War. What goes against the notion of Ireland extending its loan over 20, 30 or 40 years? It would lessen the immediate impact on any government having to come up with continuing austerity measures and budgetary reductions that will ultimately affect those who can least afford it, namely, the lower paid and those who are the most vulnerable in society. This has already been indicated in the public pronouncements from some of his own Ministers in the last few days. I would be grateful for the Tánaiste's observations on these points.