Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I would like to explore some of the points we raised with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade yesterday, and to which we did not get answers as he left early, which was unfortunate.

I am somewhat sceptical about states becoming involved in the creation of jobs. They have tried that in other countries and failed miserably. It is fundamental for the State to create the conditions in which the private sector can create jobs. I know that is significant challenge but on the other hand I do not dismiss the Minister of State's efforts, as outlined to my colleague, Senator Mooney. Focused investment might generate some improvement.

I am very conscious that this Government raided the pension pots of many people in the past year on the pretext of generating jobs. Very little, if anything, was achieved by it and the money was used to support Exchequer finances.

I know this will be a different matter because the money borrowed must be repaid. I would like to see the emphasis put on the semi-State sector. I presume, but the Minister may correct me if I am wrong, the private sector could access some of the money from the European Investment Bank. I think we should encourage that in order to generate jobs.

There are probably certain key infrastructural projects, to which the Minister of State alluded, that would also be appropriate areas but I am concerned that with the political pressures, the high levels of unemployment, the Government would start spending money to satisfy a political imperative that we are seen to be doing something to create jobs. We end up adding to the debt levels, which makes it more difficult to extricate ourselves from where we are.

The Minister of State mentioned training and that is a good idea. Let me repeat a point I made yesterday about the ESM. The Minister dismissed an earlier comment when I said that €700 million, in my opinion, was not sufficient to meet the challenges. I am not sure that I mentioned the figure at the time, but I had it in my mind some months back, that Europe would need about €2 trillion, to get ahead of the curve on this. It has not been happening. Each crisis is being addressed as it arises and we are now four years into the most difficult economic situation I have seen in my lifetime and I am older that the Minister of State.

When this crisis happened I was trying to draw comparisons with previous events in history. This is probably the greatest global financial and economic crisis since the Wall Street crash in 1929 which signalled the ten year Great Depression.

Most economists will accept that there was not much of an improvement by 1939. The war intervened which makes it difficult to extrapolate any conclusions from it, because one does not know whether war prolonged it or it assisted a recovery which came about in the 1950s. I remember saying that we were looking at a period of at least a decade, if not longer, of stagnation and recession. Many people dismissed my comments as alarmist, but I am concerned about the situation. I do not have solutions, but what worried me is that nobody seems to have solutions, including the experts. What we must do at European level is to get a template as to how this crisis can be successfully tackled in order to set the European and the global economy on an upward curve. I talk to people in the United States. The outlook is similar there but is not as bad as in this country because they have a more optimistic approach. To support my argument, the governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King, warned the financial crisis will last at least five more years. Many of the experts are starting to revise their earlier optimistic views. I am not patronising the Minister of State, but I am impressed by her intellectual capacity and knowledge and that she is well on top of her brief. It is often unusual among politicians and Ministers and I am trying to encourage the Minister of State to take that on.

I have seen reports on the Spanish situation. If they get into difficulty and are not able to borrow from the sovereign they talk about for their banks, they would use up what has already been allocated for this particular process. I do not want to scaremonger because it can be self-fulfilling. Equally, there is no point in avoiding reality. Cyprus has joined and is borrowing €10 billion which, by our standards, seems small but is more than half of its total economy and is quite significant. It puts Cyprus in almost the same bailiwick that we are in, but Italy is on the fringe. There is no talk now but very early in the crisis there was a lot of talk about Spain, Italy and France. We are in a serious situation but I do not know what we can do here other than to urge the Minister of State and the Government, particularly the Taoiseach, to make European leaders face the issues.

I have been highly critical of a lack of facing up to things and that brings me to another point I think is covered in this particular section. The Leas-Chathaoirleach can correct me if it is not. One of the four planks of the provision is to increase the number of Members of the European Parliament from 736 to 751. An increase in numbers in democratic structures, including the European Parliament, is going in the wrong direction. The European Parliament should be significantly reduced in size to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. Yesterday my colleague, Senator Sean D. Barrett, made an interesting observation by suggesting a bicameral European Parliament to allow for another house and allow other voices to be brought to bear on these issues.

I have strong views on my final point and I expressed them to the Tánaiste yesterday but did not receive an answer. He mentioned the fact the provision also covers the protocols that the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, succeeded in getting when the referendum on the Lisbon treaty failed in this country. As the Tánaiste pointed out in his address to us yesterday, the protection of life and the protection of family and education are fundamental protocols that are now being incorporated and underpinned, as was promised at that time. I welcome the move. He rightly said that Europe was living up to what was expected of it and I said to him, and I shall repeat it for the Minister of State present , that I am concerned about the approach made by the Government on the issues.

As the Tánaiste pointed out in his speech, the issues were important to the Irish people and were matters of great concern to them. I am highly critical, therefore, of the establishment of the expert group because its composition was changed at a late stage, and I have tabled a motion on the Adjournment on the issue. New people were added to the panel and some people on it were replaced, but I do not know why. The change has raised a lot of suspicions within the pro-life movement. Strong abortion advocates, ones whom the Minister of State probably knows, have also been included in the expert group. They were strong abortion advocates in the past. I am concerned about the outcome from that move. I want a commitment from the Minister of State that the Government will honour the protections in the protocols that have been included as part of this provision and which we secured from our European colleagues. I do not want us to throw them out now having fought to get them and their having been endorsed by the Irish people. They are part and parcel of what we are and are part of our value system in Ireland. Any attempt to dilute them would be a retrograde step for the citizenry and country.

I am not sure that my next point applies to the Minister of State. The explanatory memorandum supplied did not help in our understanding of the legislation and her speech was far more informative. Either we get an explanatory memorandum that does its job or the name should be changed. Perhaps they should be dispensed with altogether, although I would not recommend that. I would ask for my criticism to be passed on to whoever drafted the explanatory memorandum. It did not give us the information we needed to understand the contents of the Bill.