Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach chun an Bille tábhachtach seo, Bille na gComhphobal Eorpach (Leasú) 2012 a phlé. The Bill has four component parts and I shall deal briefly with each of the instruments mentioned. The first, as the Tánaiste pointed out, deals with the increase in the number of MEPs from 736, I think, to 751. I do not welcome such a move because the European Parliament is far too large, but it was interesting to hear my colleague's comments on introducing a bicameral system. Any House with that number of Members will tend to find it difficult to be effective and operate efficiently. I know from talking to Members who serve there that the restrictions on contributions prohibit the Parliament from achieving its potential. Given what is happening economically with the ESM and that we are moving towards greater fiscal and political integration, it is essential that we have strong, robust and democratic structures to cope with increased responsibilities. I know, however, that states have a tendency not to devolve such powers to elected institutions. The ambit of the political structures in the European Union must be placed under the microscope urgently as we move towards greater economic integration, assuming this country or the European Union does not implode in the meantime.

The second instrument deals with the ESM. An amendment has been tabled to Article 136 to provide for legal underpinning of the European Stability Mechanism that will only apply to 17 of the 27 countries. Is this the first time we have seen such fragmentation of the European Union? It is a significant issue for us and must have implications and ramifications for the operation of the Single Market.

The Tánaiste has pointed out that the result of the referendum was the right one, but it is not a panacea. I agree with him. It was probably a move in the right direction, although I have some reservations about the structure of the ESM and its capacity to deal with the crisis. Perhaps the Tánaiste might comment on this.

The Tánaiste mentioned the need for a growth agenda. While we would all subscribe to that, the policies being pursued by the Government are very pro-cyclical and the policies that contributed to exaggerating the difficulties were also pro-cyclical. There were tax incentives at a time when we should have been dampening down the economy, especially the property bubble. With the advent of the universal social charge, the increase in value added tax in the last budget, the property tax and water charges, more money is being taken from hard-pressed householders, which has the effect of dampening down the economy and either stagnating us or putting us into recession. That is the single biggest bar on creating growth. Internationally we do not have any control. Our exports will depend on the international markets but we have some control over trying to generate and stimulate the domestic market. That is a difficult task but it can be done by creating the climate rather than taking money from the pension pots.

With regard to the European Stability Mechanism, we have made a commitment of €11 billion for the €700 billion that has been agreed as part of the ESM fund. Many economists argue that it should be three times that amount. Certainly, if Spain and, subsequently, Italy are to be funded from that scheme, it will have to be multiples of what it is at present. While our capacity to meet that is impossible, how many other countries will find it difficult? There are serious question marks about it.

I welcome the accession of Croatia to the EU, which will take place next year. Croatia is a beautiful country. Its recent history has been sad because of the Balkans war. I have some affinity with it in that all my family, together and independently, have had holidays there and my daughter got married there in the past two years. That whole coastline on the Adriatic is very nice. I wish them well and expect it will be a valued member of the European Union.

On the issue of the legal guarantees secured by the previous Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, on the right to life, family and education, and taxation issues, those, as the Tánaiste rightly said, were guarantees on the basis of a range of concerns that led to the first defeat of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. My earnest appeal to the Tánaiste is that the Government would give the same priority to the protection of those concerns as we go forward. I am concerned as to whether he will do that.