Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Eamon Gilmore.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to be in this House to introduce the European Communities (Amendment) Bill 2012. This Bill is but the most recent revision to the European Communities Act 1972. Each such revision has, in turn, gone a long way to bringing home to the Houses of the Oireachtas and Irish people at large key developments taking place at European Union level. Successive amendments to the European Communities Act 1972 have served to bring into the domestic law of this State significant instruments which Ireland has freely agreed with our partners in the European Union. Thus, the Bill before us has good pedigree.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss developments in the European Union in the House. This is an important means of continuing to communicate Europe to our people, which is something we all need to do more of, not only in advance of referendums. Clearly, this debate takes place in the wake of last month's referendum. The Bill was originally published in early May in accordance with our overt commitment to make available, well in advance of the referendum, all legislative proposals which were in any way related to the proposition put to the Irish people on the stability treaty at the end of last month. The Government made very clear, prior to the referendum, its intention to legislate for the amendment to Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to provide this legal underpinning to the European Stability Mechanism, ESM. It was with this knowledge that our people voted and resoundingly approved the stability treaty. The Bill thus forms part of the legislative follow-up to the direct expression of the people's will.

I welcome and appreciate the decision taken by the Irish people. I welcome it because I earnestly believe it was the right decision for Ireland and Europe and I appreciate it because I am acutely aware it was not an easy decision for anyone. The hardships our people continue to endure are real and painful, yet they appreciated that the stability treaty would form an important part of finding a sustainable solution to the crisis.

Throughout the referendum campaign, the Government consistently stated that the passage of the stability treaty would not be a panacea to all the ills of the euro area. While that is certainly the case, the treaty is a critical piece of the jigsaw. Equally critical, in my view and that of the Government, is the need for a growth agenda to complement and balance the stability agenda on which we have been working. It is the growth agenda to which we will turn in Brussels at the end of this week when I will accompany the Taoiseach to the European Council summit meeting. We are working to ensure the European Union will adopt a compact for jobs and growth. The new compact sets out a range of actions to be taken at the level of the member states. Importantly, it also sets out in a clear and comprehensive manner the contribution European policies can make to growth and employment across the Union. These will include efforts to get investment flowing to where it is needed, be it through the European Investment Bank, project bonds or the reprogramming of Structural Funds.

At the same time, concrete steps will be taken to capture the significant additional growth potential in the Single Market, including the digital single market. Similarly, trade offers us a real engine for growth which can yet be tapped. At European Union level, we need to make more progress in opening up key international markets to European and Irish goods and services. This will be one of the priorities of the next Irish Presidency during the first half of 2013.

I will now turn to the purpose and contents of the Bill. The European Communities (Amendment) Bill 2012 is brief and relatively technical in its nature but no less important for that. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the European Communities Act 1972 to do a number of significant things. It provides that the following shall form part of the domestic law of the State: the protocol amending the protocol on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community; the European Council decision amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for member states whose currency is the euro; the treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union, done at Brussels on the ninth day of December 2011; and the protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, done at Brussels on the 16th day of May 2012. If the Bill is passed, these four instruments would, upon ratification by Ireland, become a part of the domestic law of the State.

I will set out briefly what is involved with each of these four instruments. The first instrument is a protocol to the EU treaties which provides for a temporary increase in the number of MEPs. This arrangement applies only for the life of the current European Parliament, which runs up until 2014.

This protocol arose from the fact that elections to the European Parliament of 2009 took place before the Lisbon treaty had entered into force. Under the Lisbon treaty, 12 member states were to be represented by an additional 18 MEPs. Given that the Lisbon treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009, EU leaders agreed that these member states should have the benefit of their full complement of MEPs for this session of the Parliament, thus bringing about this protocol. As I have noted, the effect of this protocol is strictly time bound, and consequently this element of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill 2012 is effectively a matter of good housekeeping.

The second instrument this Bill seeks to include in the domestic law of the State is the European Council decision of 25 March 2011 amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU. This decision was introduced with a view to providing a legal underpinning to the European Stability Mechanism, ESM. The change to Article 136 of the TFEU is separate and distinct from the ESM treaty but the two are evidently related. Members will note the entry into force of the ESM does not require the prior entry into force of the amendment of Article 136. This is emphasised by the fact that the target date for the entry into force of the ESM treaty is next month, while the amendment to Article 136 of the TFEU is expected to enter into force in January 2013. It is the Government's strongly held view that it is entirely in national interest of Ireland to have established an ESM which is as strong and robust as is possible. The amendment to Article 136 of the TFEU makes a contribution to that end. For this reason, I believe this change to Article 136 of the TFEU is also in our interests and should be incorporated into our domestic law.

The third instrument provided for in this Bill is the Croatian accession treaty. This treaty was signed by EU leaders, including the Taoiseach on behalf of Ireland, as well as by Croatia on 9 December 2011 in the margins of the December European Council meeting. The enlargement of the European Union is a policy Ireland has consistently supported. It was among the first countries to benefit from the enlargement of the Union almost 40 years ago. The Union has served this country very well in the intervening decades and we are happy to see that, even at a time of severe challenge for Europe, the powers of attraction remain undimmed. I look forward to welcoming Croatia as a member state of the European Union from the middle of next year and to working with the Government and people of Croatia across the wide range of policy areas in which EU member states engage and co-operate with one another.

The fourth and final instrument covered by the Bill is the Irish legal guarantees protocol. Members will recall that in June 2009, EU leaders agreed to provide Ireland with a series of legal guarantees on a range of concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon, including on the right to life, family and education, taxation and security and defence. These legal guarantees were originally agreed in the form of a legally binding decision. EU leaders also agreed that at the time of the conclusion of the next accession treaty, the provisions of the decision would be set out in a protocol to be attached to the EU treaties. Consequently, work on the Irish legal guarantees protocol was linked in time to the Croatian accession treaty. On foot of the signing of the latter last December, work was progressed on Ireland's protocol, which was opened for signature on 16 May. I am happy to report to the House that all member states have now signed this protocol and will now begin their respective national ratification processes with a view to Ireland's protocol entering into force in the middle of 2013. This development is a reminder, if any were needed, that the European Union keeps its word and delivers on its undertakings.

As this Bill was originally published on 8 May and the Irish legal guarantees protocol was only opened for signature on 16 May, the Bill as originally published provided for the first two instruments only, namely, the MEPs protocol and the amendment to Article 136 of the TFEU. The additional two instruments, that is, the Croatian accession treaty and the Irish legal guarantees protocol, were added to the Bill during its Committee Stage reading by the Select Committee on European Union Affairs.

Before concluding, I wish to record my appreciation for the manner in which this Bill has been considered thus far by the Houses of the Oireachtas. There has been widespread support for this Bill and its contents from almost all shades of opinion and I look forward to its positive consideration by this House as well. I commend the Bill to the House.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I join colleagues in welcoming the Tánaiste. I also welcome the Croatian ambassador and I wish her and her people well in future. In voting for the stability treaty in the recent referendum, Irish people made a significant decision to remain at the heart of Europe, and gave the Government a mandate to work with other EU governments to resolve the many problems that are impacting on the lives of so many of our people. Senator Mooney already spoke about that. Our experience has been very positive since our accession back in the early 1970s. We had much debate in the course of the referendum on the stability of the euro, on the availability of funding in the future, on a growth agenda to tackle unemployment and particularly youth unemployment, and the need for more international investment.

This week the Oireachtas will enact some Bills that will underpin the decision of the Irish people. One such Bill is the European Communities (Amendment) Bill 2012, which we are discussing this afternoon. As the Tánaiste indicated, the European Communities Act 1972 needs to be amended to provide for four separate developments at EU level, in order to ensure that these four instruments shall form part of the domestic law of the State. These four elements are the amendment of Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, underpinning the legal standing of the ESM, a protocol on the adjustment of the number of MEPs, Croatian accession and the legal guarantees that were given to the Irish people in the Lisbon treaty. Each of these elements is different from the others and each stands on its own. While these elements are separate, it makes good sense and good use of Oireachtas time to deal with all four as a package.

The amendment of Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union will underpin the legal standing of the ESM. Having a functioning ESM is strongly in the interests of Ireland and the eurozone. This is not because we want to draw from it, but if in the event of Ireland requiring a second bailout, it certainly is an excellent insurance policy. There was much debate on this during the course of the recent referendum. The very existence of the ESM lessens the chances of another member state having to draw on it in the future. The ESM is also part of the eurozone's firewall against contagion. The agreed aim of the eurozone governments is to have the ESM in place in July. The ESM and the instrument to amend Article 136 are both separate and contain their own requirements for entry into force. The amendment to Article 136 will come into force when ratified by all member states of the EU. As the Tánaiste said, the target date is 1 January 2013. It is very much in Ireland's best interests for both changes to come into force as soon as possible, as it is desirable to deal with both instruments in parallel from a policy and efficiency point of view. Not ratifying Article 136 will not prevent the ESM coming into force once the necessary conditions are met.

The protocol on the number of MEPs is a technical, housekeeping matter. The last European elections took place in June 2009, when the Nice treaty was still in force. In line with the Nice treaty, 736 Members of the European Parliament were elected and are now in office. However, the Lisbon treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009, allowing 751 seats in the Parliament. The treaty gives 18 additional seats to 12 member states, while Germany loses three due to the new thresholds in the treaty. Spain will get four extra seats, Austria, France and Sweden will get two extra seats, while Bulgaria, Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and the UK will get one extra seat each.

Croatia is due to accede to the EU on 1 July 2013 provided all the instruments of ratification have been deposited before that date. The accession treaty was signed on 9 December 2011 in Brussels, and the Taoiseach signed on our behalf. Croatia currently holds active observer status and is represented on all Council bodies, including the European Council. Following the situation that developed in Greece, there probably are concerns when a new member state joins the EU. Some safeguards have been put in place and the Tánaiste might like to comment on some of them. I understand that there is a general economic safeguard clause, an internal market safeguard clause and a specific justice and home affairs safeguard clause. There are other issues that are likely to arise in respect of Croatia that might cause some concern, such as judicial transparency, corruption, minority interests, refugee return issues and full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague.

I am pleased the Tánaiste has confirmed that all 27 members states have signed the protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon. Europe is delivering to the Irish people. In 2009, Ireland was given legally binding assurances on areas of importance, such as tax, neutrality and family matters. While these guarantees have legal effect already, it was agreed they should be attached to the EU treaties as a protocol at the time of the next accession treaty. The protocol confirms that nothing in the Lisbon treaty, giving legal effect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or dealing with justice and home affair matters, affects in any way the scope and applicability of the protection of the right to life, the family and education provided by the Constitution of Ireland. The protocol confirms that nothing in the Lisbon treaty makes any change of any kind for any member state on taxation. This is obviously of vital national interest to Ireland, especially our corporation tax level of 12.5%. Investment by multinational companies is critical for our economic recovery, and our tax rate is one of our competitive advantages. The protocol also mentions that the Lisbon treaty does not affect Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality. It confirms there will be no conscription or European army. We all remember the scaremongering about conscription, the loss of our neutrality and the establishment of a European army during debates on the Lisbon treaty.

The European Communities (Amendment) Bill, as the Tánaiste has said, is significant legislation. It is another piece in the jigsaw of our efforts to bring stability and cohesion to the European Union. I take pleasure in supporting it and I commend the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade on his excellent work in the Department. My party will be happy to support this Bill.

Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Tánaiste to the Chamber. This is yet another historic day when Her Majesty, the Queen of England is visiting County Fermanagh, another part of our island. That is a tribute, as I said during our last discussion on foreign affairs, to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and his Department. It was not that long ago that officials had to live under dangerous conditions in Maryfield, Belfast and now we have better relations between Ireland and the UK and between North and South than ever before. I note the Tánaiste got Mr. Peter Robinson to give the Edward Carson lecture in his Department. I think we will welcome members of the Orange Order to the Seanad next week. That is an area of our foreign policy where matters are in superb hands. Our relationship with the United States has never been better and that is also a tribute to the Tánaiste and his officials.

I will now deal with the part of our foreign policy in which we are experiencing difficulties. I support this legislative measure but there are difficulties. The creation of a single currency, the euro, was a leap in the dark and nobody ever though we would end up with 50% youth unemployment in both Spain and Greece and 25% unemployment overall in those two countries, and that the adjustment mechanism for Ireland would increase our rate of unemployment from 4% to 14.5%. I commend the Tánaiste on addressing these issues because public faith and belief, perhaps naive in the past, in the omniscience and omnipotence of the EU institutions has been seriously weakened. We need reforms, not least in the design flaws of the currency and the problems to which this has led to for all.

It is reassuring that the Ambassador for Croatia is here and her country wants to join the EU. That shows there is a future. There are eight other countries which joined the EU but have not yet adopted the euro. The caution would be to stay with their own currencies until we sort out these design problems in the currency because it has had a consequence for all of us that we never planned for and did not foresee. I do not draw fault on that, as I did not see the faults either. Obviously we need a banking regulation system to stop tsunamis of credit coming into small countries, as happened in Ireland, and destroying the banking system and those states being stuck with that debt. Reforms must proceed to try to make Europe work. It did work for a very long period - five decades - as a free trade area. Perhaps the currency has been one step too far, particularly the concerns in German public opinion that the single currency is not working from their point of view.

In considering some of the points made by the Tánaiste in his speech, I wonder if at the beginning a bicameral European Parliament would have been a good idea. I think the former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, has asked if there should be an European Senate in which each of the member countries would have representation. There is a feeling in Ireland of being overwhelmed by the large countries. That was not what the founders of the European Union intended, as the Tánaiste knows, but it seems that Germany and France have taken a very strong role and the Union has lost sight of the opinions of the smaller countries such as Ireland and, perhaps, Croatia. It is probably too late at this stage to propose a different structure for the European Parliament which would incorporate a structure similar to the United States, with a Senate with equal representation from the member states and a structure based more broadly on a population basis which would take the place of the current European Parliament. I support the Tánaiste's adjustment concerning the Parliament. I support also his point on the Lisbon agenda, the Treaty of Lisbon and the other measures in the Bill. I think he will find that it has support throughout the House.

Where do we go at this stage? I think the debt mountain must be addressed. We have spoken about it at the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan. The difficulty with Keynesian economics in the current situation is that there is an inheritance of debt because property prices rose so rapidly. The debts of government and the debts of households have to be considered. It is not a traditional Keynesian economics starting point, where one is trying to solve a recession and there is capacity to do that. We have a financial system with personal and government finances in fairly dire straits. Thought must be given, and I know the Tánaiste has expressed his concerns in the referendum, to the kind of growth agenda we require, and much more in-depth economic analysis has to take place in determining it.

There was a lot of kick and hope elements about making Europe the most advanced technological economy in the world. We spent a great deal of money and it is very difficult to see the return on it. I know the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock, is working on that but we did engage in substantial outlays. I served on the Culliton committee in the 1990s and we were concerned at the time that, in many places, instead of growth promotion as one would wish, there was the so-called free money from Brussels syndrome, where that money was taken and wasted on projects. As the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes, pointed out previously, about one quarter or so of our debt is due to the banking situation but the remainder is due to projects that accumulated debt mountains and did not increase the GDP afterwards, hence the debt to GDP ratio increases. Were we unduly generous with Structural Funds towards the construction industry, which accounted subsequently for so much of our difficulties?

I would tend to disagree with my colleague, Senator Mooney, on metro north. I would want to see the studies on projects like that to see if they are worthwhile. There is no point in saying again that it is free money from Brussels and let us go ahead with the project. It has to yield a constant stream of benefits that more than cover the cost of carrying it out, even if one gets assistance from friends. One of the bodies that was criticised for its spending of the free money from Brussels was FÁS, where we spent €1 billion a year in an economy with full employment. What were the actual results of that spending? There were two kinds of money, one from Brussels and the other that was raised from the domestic taxpayers, and there were no proper standards of expenditure appraisal or cost-benefit analysis. It was a kind of misguided Keynesianism.

The Tánaiste has our support for his efforts to build a growth agenda, but we must do better than previously because our previous efforts have contributed to the position in which we now find ourselves. The European Union needs reform, but it will be difficult. Given the presence of people from Croatia, it is important to indicate to the Tánaiste the support of the House for measures to reform the European Union because it has not been at its best for the past four or five years.

Lorraine Higgins (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Croatian ambassador to Ireland. I wish her, her government and country the best of luck on the road to accession to the European Union that will happen next year. I also welcome the Tánaiste and thank him for his detailed and informative contribution.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to lead in the Second Stage debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill 2012 on behalf of the Labour Party group in the Seanad. It is always welcome in this Chamber to discuss and debate European Union matters as it allows for our full engagement on the issues which, by virtue of our membership of the Union, are of paramount significance to Ireland. It is always of critical importance that this Chamber, in particular, spends time discussing EU matters and it would be of great assistance if we had a enlarged role in this regard. I fully expect that this evening and tomorrow we will have a varied and diverse debate on the matters involved.

The debate is taking place in part as a consequence of the unequivocal acceptance by the people of the stability treaty on 31 May. On foot of that result the European Communities (Amendment) Bill is the necessary legislative facility to allow for an amendment to the domestic law of the State to reflect the decision taken by the people. Throughout the month of May all parties of different creed and views engaged in an energetic and lively debate on the provisions of the treaty and their purported application to this country. I am delighted that the citizens of Ireland, in particular in my constituency and the Tánaiste's former constituency of Galway East, responded in such a clear and unambiguous manner in carrying the referendum. A clear message was sent that they saw the treaty as part of the solution in addressing the economic and financial imbalances that have afflicted Europe for several years.

It always has been and remains part of my party's argument that it is essential the overwhelming result in the passing of the treaty by the people be accompanied by a growth agenda. As the only member country that put the treaty to the people, we must be rewarded with a real plan to achieve economic growth, create jobs and secure a reduction on our bank debt. We must give voters something to be confident about and nothing enhances confidence more than movement on the three issues mentioned. I am glad that the Government has shown a strong commitment to date that it will work hard to gain support for these ideals among European leaders.

In amending the European Communities Act 1972 the European Communities (Amendment) Bill 2012 provides a means of incorporating a number of measures at European Union level into the domestic law of the State. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to provide for legal underpinning of the European Stability Mechanism for all member states the currency of which is the euro. The ESM will open for business on 9 July, which is why the Bill was published on 8 May with the European Stability Mechanism Bill 2012. The Government wanted citizens to be fully aware of the facts pertaining to the stability treaty before they voted in the referendum on 31 May. It believes, without hesitation, that membership of and access to the ESM are in the economic and fiscal interests of the country. The ESM is an insurance policy for the nation such that should we ever again find ourselves in economic turbulent times we will have access to moneys in the fund at favourable interest rates. I say this as a caveat: it is not expected that we will need it, but it is important that we have access to it should we so require it. While we have passed through financially unstable times, the Government can be particularly proud of its role in making Ireland a financially stable location in which to do business. The claim that it is now fiscally stable will be further bolstered by our membership of the ESM that will act as our financial safeguard.

While the primary function of the Bill is to establish the European Stability Mechanism to assist such member states which may find themselves in financial, fiscal and economic difficulty, it will also facilitate the enlargement of representation within the Union in order that a further 18 Members of the European Parliament may be appointed or elected. This is necessary as a consequence of an ever enlarging Union and an essential democratic mechanism.

The Bill will ultimately provide for the protocol to meet the concerns of the people about the Lisbon treaty that was signed in Brussels on 16 May to form part of the domestic law of the State. The protocol recognises and acknowledges the concerns expressed by the people about the treaty with regard to the right to life, family, education, taxation and security and defence matters. My understanding is that it will confirm but not alter the content or the application of the treaty. It is a welcome step to finalise the treaty and legally secure the guarantees the Government of the time obtained on the issues mentioned. I particularly welcome this amendment as a further building block in our relationship with the European Union.

The Bill provides for the accession of Croatia as the 28th member of the European Union and gives us the power to proceed to ratify its membership. Croatia's accession process is not yet complete, but passage of the Bill will go some way towards bolstering its position within the Union. It will be required to satisfy the European Commission on a number of grounds such as reform and the introduction of new laws before it will be fully ratified as a member in July 2013. While there are outstanding issues, its membership plans remain on track and I commend the country and its government for their resilience in this regard. With Ireland holding the Presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2013, I look forward to it playing a prominent role in smoothening the road to accession for Croatia. It is heartening that despite the problems with economic contagion in recent times, this has not acted as a deterrent to new countries in seeking accession to the Union. Membership of it clearly remains an attractive prospect, as there are many benefits to membership. There is freedom for member states to access the open markets of most of the world's economies. It facilitates the free movement of people and investment across the 27 member states. More importantly, it asserts important human rights principles and democratic processes. Unfortunately, in recent times such founding principles of the Union have been jettisoned in favour of economic correction, but I look forward, when the economic balance has been redressed, to reverting to the qualities, ideals and beliefs that brought the founding countries together many years ago to embark on the project of integration. I look forward to further consideration of the Bill on Committee and remaining Stages tomorrow and commend it to the House.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Colm Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Tánaiste to the House and thank him for giving leadership in the referendum treaty and making a major contribution to ensure the right decision was taken. It was a very positive decision from an Irish point of view and copperfastens our commitment to involvement in Europe by leading the way in terms of the European agenda.

Speaking in Cork last week, Bill Clinton remarked that Ireland is the only EU country that has a younger population than the US. That is an interesting point. It is clear from the growth in the birth rate in the past ten years that the number of births per annum has increased from 55,000 to 75,000. As there are major challenges ahead, the importance of the growth agenda is very important. Senator Paschal Mooney referred to the need to take on major infrastructural projects to create jobs in the short term. There is a need also to do much more in the long term, particularly in the area of research and development. The EU is very much about working together in this area. Are we doing enough in this area? I said previously that 75% of those involved in research and development are from outside the EU and want to progress and end up working in the US. That is the reality. We need to give leadership in this area. In areas such as health care, there is little real co-operation in respect of the sharing of services across Europe, whereas in the US and China there is much more co-operation within those areas. That is an area we need to grow and develop. We can play a major role in giving that leadership.

When I was a Member of the European Parliament from 2007 to 2009, cross-border health care was agreed. This was an agreement whereby members of one member state could travel to another member state for health care purposes if it was not available in their own member state, provided it was part of the policy of their own member state. I understand that agreement will be transposed into Irish law in the near future. A great deal more could be done in respect of the sharing of information and services within the EU.

If we are talking about a growth agenda, we must give leadership not only in the area of job creation, we must begin also to look at the long term. That is where research and development can play a major role. While we are doing a good deal, there is a need for much more co-operation and long-term development in the EU.

As a country, we can be the net beneficiary because we have a young population. Even though we have a good education system, one of those involved in "Dragons' Den" has said there are many jobs here for which we do not have the people with the necessary qualifications to take them up. People with those qualifications are available from outside Ireland and the EU. We need to examine that area which would create the spin-off jobs if those people are working. In the financial services area in Dublin, it has been stated that there are of the order of 1,600 vacancies for which the relevant personnel are not available in Ireland to fill them. That is an issue that needs to be examined. We need to focus not just on short term but on long-term job creation and be part of the agenda in the EU for next 12 months in planning for the next five, ten or 15 years.

I again thank the Tánaiste for bringing forward the Bill which has the full support of the House. It is just another part of the jigsaw in our involvement in the EU.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also welcome the Tánaiste to the House. I do not envy him his role in government. It is an especially difficult time for anybody in government and must be very wearying. I am, by nature, a contrarian. I remember P.G. Wodehouse describing himself as a performing flea of English literature. I suppose I fulfil the role of a gadfly in Irish politics.

I will not repeat everything I said this afternoon on the European Stability Mechanism. Following on from what previous speakers have said, I wish there was a population stabilising mechanism. I do not gloat in the fact that there is an increase in the Irish population. I have spoken about world population, and I include Ireland in that. Every single person born here does about 100 times more damage than a person in India. I am not thrilled by it and it creates problems and stores them up for later. I would like to see stabilisation.

I do not believe in growth. Growth is a load of rubbish. I am delighted the Tánaiste has a smile because I intend to cheer him up further, as a good socialist, by saying that what we are witnessing is the death of capitalism. It cannot come quickly enough as far as I am concerned. The reason is simple. It is predicated on the complete contradiction of infinitely expanding markets on a planet that is demonstrating its finite nature day by day. Therefore, fiddling around does not do an awful lot of good. Trying to preserve the system at the expense of people is a waste of time and grossly immoral. I am ashamed of the way Greece was treated and in which Germany dictated that democracy should be extinguished there. Although I know it is controversial to say this, it has wrecked Europe twice already and is going to do so again. The disease of angelosing merkelitis is spreading. It is the equivalent of ankylosing spondylitis in the human frame. It creates a curvature of the spine in order that everyone becomes supine in the face of circumstances. That is what is occurring and it is appalling.

Let us look at the German example and, forgetting about the wars it started, how the whole thing was created. Look at Bismarck and Germany. A nebula of small dukedoms and princedoms started the Zollverein, just as we are doing. That released centripetal and centrifugal forces that led, inevitably and inexorably, towards one of two conclusions - fiscal unity and an empire or an explosion. The same force has been released in much greater form within the European Union and will lead in the same direction. The conclusion will be an explosion.

I see and hear, on television and the streets of Dublin, of people suffering. It is disgraceful, in 21st century Europe, that people should be starving and living in boxes off Syntagma Square. None of us can feel proud of this.

Like me, the Minister is a forthright man. He said he was open about the Government's intention to legislate for the amendment to provide for legal underpinning of the decision of the people in the referendum. That is true up to a point. He said it was with this knowledge that the people had voted and resoundingly approved the stability treaty. Come on. He told the people he would give them a black eye if they did not vote in favour of the amendment. They were terrified. On every radio programme people were saying they did not want to vote in favour of the amendment, but they were frightened not to. They were frightened into it.

I was working hard in my office because I am not one of those one-and-a-half day Senators about whom some have spoken and listening to my colleague, Senator Seán Barrett, who said there was room for more democracy and, perhaps, a European Senate. A little accountability would be good. It is what we have here. Yesterday there was a meeting of international scholars who were smuggled into this House like a Trojan horse. It was feared they would up-end us. At the end of their session 90% of these international scholars said this place should be retained, while 10% abstained. Not one single person supported the abolition of the Seanad.

We are looking at a two-speed European Union. This Bill will implement it. The European Union is becoming less and less democratic. The mechanism can be triggered, not by 17 member states or even by 12, but by eight - Germany, France and the other large economies. One third of the eurozone countries or one quarter of the member states of the Union can dictate this, which is dangerous. Tomorrow when we consider the ESM, we must look at what we are walking ourselves into. The ESM will be inviolable and immune from examination by audit bodies, the police, the Legislature and the Judiciary. How can it possibly be democratic? I do not understand it.

I hope the Minister is pleased that we will be seeing the death of capitalism. Perhaps we can build something a little more human.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Joe Costello. I also welcome the Croatian ambassador.

Senator David Norris is always a hard act to follow, particularly when he is predicting the death of capitalism. He is far more than a gadfly.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I see the Senator is dressed in black, which is so appropriate. She has abandoned wearing red; wearing black is more appropriate.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I foresaw that the Senator would be in mourning.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Ivana Bacik's dress code is a matter for herself.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I like Senator David Norris's red tie which is in keeping with the spirit of socialism.

Like everyone else, I welcome the forthcoming accession of Croatia to the European Union. Others have mentioned Croatian connections. My grandmother was Croatian, although she described herself as being from Austria-Hungary. When she was born, there was no such entity as Croatia.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator's antecedents are as far-flung as the late Charles Haughey's.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have discussed this with the ambassador. As I said, I welcome the accession of Croatia. Even Mr. Haughey did not claim a foot in it.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Bill. Until Senator David Norris spoke, there was a deafening consensus of support for it. Even he gave it qualified support. He certainly supported the accession of Croatia.

There are many aspects to the Bill and the amendments to be made to EU treaties. The focus has been on the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, which generated considerable debate during the referendum on the stability treaty. Like others who canvassed door-to-door in Dublin and colleagues who canvassed all over Ireland, I am aware of the heated and intense debate that took place, a large part of which concerned access to the ESM, which was a core issue.

I take issue with Senator David Norris's assertion that the people voted for the stability treaty out of fear. There was also hope that we would find our way out of the economic crisis in the country and the eurozone. There was hope the stability treaty would form not a panacea but a piece of the jigsaw puzzle in resolving the economic difficulties. I encountered much hopefulness among those voting in favour of it. There was hope we would not need access to the ESM, a pragmatic recognition that it was in our interests to ensure it would be available as a safety net should we need it and an understanding the Government was working hard to ensure we would not. All of these attitudes were evident in the debate.

The debate on the Bill is more muted. We have had the big debate on the stability treaty and the ESM. We are all glad to see the emphasis being placed on the growth agenda, to which the Tánaiste referred. The socialist victory in France has brought it much more to the fore than when we first debated the treaty in isolation. We all want to see a growth package alongside the stability treaty.

Others have spoken about these aspects of the treaty. I also want to refer to the part of it that will have the most impact on Ireland. I had somewhat mixed feelings about the protocol to meet the concerns of the people following the Lisbon treaty referendum and the legal guarantees contained in it. I did not believe much of the anti-Lisbon treaty rhetoric about the threat it posed in terms of our children being conscripted into a European army, for example. There was a sticker on a lamp-post near my home, "Vote 'No' or your children will be taken into a European army". The rhetoric used was very misleading. I considered that some of the legal guarantees were unnecessary. The protocol was, essentially, a tidying-up exercise. I am glad to see the taxation element of the protocol, as there did seem, at certain points, to be more of a threat. Therefore, the people will be reassured to see this aspect. As the Tánaiste said, the fact that the protocol is being inserted in the treaties shows that the European Union has fulfilled a promise made at the time and that commitments given are being met.

I welcome the Bill, the happiest part of which is the forthcoming accession of Croatia.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim céad fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit agus fearaim fáilte roimh an Tánaiste, a bhí anseo roimhe. Is breá an rud an Tánaiste a fheiceáil sa Teach. Tá súil agam go gcuirfidh sé focal i gcluais an Taoisigh agus an bealach anall chomh fada leis an Teach a thaispeáint dó. Táimid ag súil len é a fheiceáil. Cuirim fáilte, chomh maith, roimh a Soilse, Ambasadóir na Cróite. I apologise in advance for my terrible Croatian: dobro došli, Ambassador Ognjanovac. It is very good to see you here. Sinn Féin welcomes the accession of Croatia to the European Unin, with a word of caution that we should be careful what we wish for. Many of the promises we were given were not fulfilled. However, that is the subject of another day's debate.

Sinn Féin, although not happy with the way the Government has gone about bringing forward this legislation, will support it because it supports some elements of it. Lumping together measures aimed at the facilitation of a financial mechanism, the accession of Croatia, a change in the number of MEPS and the approval of the Irish protocols in the Lisbon treaty is bad practice, as it does not allow each aspect to be considered and voted on separately. Nevertheless, as Sinn Féin does support each aspect we can therefore support the Bill. On the most important element of the change in Article 136 to allow for the creation of a stability mechanism, Sinn Féin supports the amendment as we agree with the concept of a mechanism which countries in need can access. We are, however, opposed to the ESM in its current form and will vote against the ESM Bill. We have already placed on record our reasons for not supporting the ESM and explained what our preferred way of doing things would be.

We have no objection to ratifying the membership of Croatia. The Croatian people have voted to join the EU and we respect their decision. They meet the criteria as laid out in law and we welcome them into the Union. I take this opportunity to put on record Sinn Féin's view that Croatian workers should not be discriminated against in the EU and should be allowed to go where they wish as other EU citizens do.

After the first rejection of the Lisbon treaty, Sinn Féin warned that vague promises or protocols would be added to help the Lisbon treaty to pass on the second attempt. We were right and it is those protocols that we are now accepting. They are largely meaningless and do not change anything in EU law or the law of this State. For that reason we do not oppose them. The change to the number of MEPs has been agreed and is a technical issue to which we do not object. It is our hope that by ratifying this Bill the EU is empowering itself to construct a genuine instrument of solidarity that can provide stability for the euro in the medium term. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be on the cards at the moment. Our support is based on the hope that the tide which is turning against austerity will reach the shore, and that changes to or a replacement for the flawed ESM can be facilitated through the support of the Oireachtas today.

One of my outstanding memories of the Lisbon treaty was the posters that said "Vote Yes For Jobs". I wonder where all those jobs have gone that we were promised during the Lisbon treaty. I was lucky to be in Lisbon a week and a half ago. It is a beautiful city which has two sides to it at the moment. It has a beautiful side with much history, fantastic architecture, great buildings and wonderful people. However, there is also a very poor side. I was taken aback by the amount of people sleeping on the streets. I call it sleeping on the streets as opposed to sleeping rough because there were obviously many people who were well educated who were finding life difficult and had no other option but to sleep on the street. I was there at the invitation of the GUE/NGL grouping in the European Parliament to speak at a rally. It was an interesting occasion with MEPs from France, Germany, Portugal, Ireland and representatives from our sister parties in Greece. The story being told was of the effect of austerity in all of those countries, how it is affecting people on a human level and how the austerity programme that has been introduced is not helping people. We might find that we are the best children in the class when it comes to following the rules but the human cost of austerity in this State is one we should not pay in order for European banks to get away scot free from piling their debts onto the citizens of this State.

The visit was also important in that there was a huge rally in Lisbon on the Saturday organised by the trade unions. It was very different to the type of rallies we have in this country. No political speeches were allowed. That might be something on which we should legislate in this country. I am sure people would welcome that measure if it were introduced in a referendum. There were 30,000 people at the rally from all the various unions making their protest against the cuts that have been introduced. It is important to keep that in mind.

Cé nach n-aontaímid leis an tslí go bhfuil an Bille á thabhairt isteach, go bhfuil rudaí éagsúla fite-fuaite ann, ba bhreá linn go mbeimis in ann rudaí a phlé de réir a chéile. Cuirimid fáilte roimh mhuintir na Cróite isteach sa Seanad go háirithe agus isteach san Aontas Eorpach. Guímid gach ráth orthu.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State, Deputy Costello, is very welcome. It is nice to see him in the House. I especially welcome him as a former Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs. It is interesting that we are debating the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. We in this House live through history. We have seen a lot happen in a few years. Since I came to the House we have had the Lisbon treaty and now this Bill, which examines legal concerns. That is important. We previously discussed the ESM treaty and the Bill, which was critical to the passing of the recent treaty. I wished to mention both of those treaties.

I am delighted to welcome Ambassador Jasna Ognjanovac, and her official, Wanda, from Croatia. Both are regular visitors to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. I have come to know both of them very well and I am delighted to see them present.

I compliment and commend Croatia on its courage. While many of us question whether it is safe to be in the euro, ask what we are part of, and display a general nervousness about Europe, it is a country that has moved forward unrelentingly. Croatia has said without a shadow of doubt that it wants to be part of the European Union and the euro. Croatia is displaying a great deal of courage. For that reason I invited the Croatian ambassador to Oranmore recently to address us on the treaty. I wanted the Irish people to get that angle as well. Unfortunately, she was not able to take up the offer at the time but it does not mean there will not be another opportunity. It is good to know that there is much hope in existence also. We have been living in fear and with great uncertainty because of what happened to our country and the way everything toppled so quickly but those countries that were not immediately affected by that look on Europe, the European project and the euro with different eyes. I congratulate Croatia and wish it well. I will celebrate with it on 1 July.

On people's legal concerns about the Lisbon treaty which also forms part of the Bill, we discussed the matter in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs in the Minister of State's presence. I am happy with a number of elements in the treaty, in particular the breathing space it gave this country to discuss legislation and directives coming from Europe which is 75% of our legislation. However, as I set out previously, I am not happy with the amount of time given to scrutiny of legislation and directives coming from Europe. A proposal was made by Senator Colm Burke that this House would be used to scrutinise legislation. He suggested that one day or afternoon per week would be devoted to that purpose. I urge the Minister of State to seriously consider the merit of such a step. I observe how unhappy Irish people are with the number of directives that were not adequately teased out. I refer in particular to the over-regulation of small business. In the past we have been overly zealous in our implementation of European directives and legislation without adequate discussion. That must stop. It is wrong and unfair. In Spain the regulation of food preparation and presentation is different. It might not all be good but there must be uniformity. If we are members of a union we must buy into certain rules. We cannot just agree with everything without having adequate discussion.

As we pass the Bill the main issue we must discuss this evening is where we go from here with the European project. We need a long-term plan for Europe. The piecemeal approach must stop. We must put our best foot forward. We have been looking around us in Europe at the big players such as France and Germany. The inspiration is not coming from there. Mr. Hollande spoke about the jobs and growth agenda, which I support, but inspiration can come from the smallest member. Ireland has an ace card in its hand come 1 January when we take up the European Presidency. We must talk about a long-term plan to save the European project and to save the euro, which is our currency. That is the case even for those who had the greatest fear of it. The Greeks have now voted for the euro. As well as needing a long-term economic plan we need a long-term political plan and a vision for Europe. We cede much power to Chancellor Merkel because Germany makes up one third of the eurozone. I am now of the view that that is a mistake. That inspiration can come from anywhere, not least from Ireland. I would like the Minister of State in his reply to give his view on how much Ireland's voice is being heard in Europe. How much leadership are we able to give? Does he think we have a significant role to play in that regard?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I support this Bill, which contains a number of different provisions. I would like to add my voice to those who have welcomed our Croatian friends, and I welcome them in advance to the European Union.

I was one of the people who took part in the sub-committee of the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs which discussed Ireland's future in Europe. I was asked to join the committee after the first Lisbon referendum by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin. It is true that during debates about the various European treaties there has been a degree of bogus argumentation on all sides. I agree with what has been said about arguments about conscription and so on. I think it was Senator Bacik who referred to that. However, I do not think we should rewrite history. There has been legitimate concern over the years about competence creep within the European Union, whereby the EU, having powers and competence in one area of national life - such powers having been given to it by virtue of treaties agreed between the member states - makes decisions that encroach on other areas in which it has no competence.

There can be interconnection between areas of competence and areas of non-competence. There were real concerns about the legal content and status of the Treaty of Lisbon that rightly led people, including myself, to seek guarantees that there would not be any inappropriate encroachment on the operation of Ireland's constitutional provisions with regard to education and the family. It is worth recalling that in Europe, abortion was at one point defined as a service. Particular credit is due to those who negotiated the original protocol to the Maastricht treaty, not deciding the merits of that particularly difficult and sensitive issue one way or the other but ensuring it would be the Irish people who would decide. That notion of subsidiarity should always be at the heart of the European Union. What was done originally in securing that protocol was a patriotic thing indeed, because it secured, in that most sensitive area, the right of the Irish people to determine the matter. There is nothing worse than unexpected court decisions unaccountably reshaping laws over the heads of people. That can happen, and that was why the protocol was sought.

For the same reason, people had concerns that in certain areas unexpected decisions might be more likely to arise under the Lisbon arrangements, particularly with the appending of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, that might encroach on the operation of the Irish constitutional provisions. It was entirely appropriate that guarantees were sought in those areas.

With regard to the stability mechanism, it seems to me that it is a no-brainer. This is something we must have, and we must facilitate it by amendment of Article 136 of the treaty. One of the great regrets I have about the European project at the moment is that it is harder than ever to love Europe now. In the same way that people rightly had concerns about encroachment on subsidiarity when these past debates were taking place about social issues in the context of various European referendums, what we see now is a European attitude that seems to regard differently the concerns and interests and even the dignity of smaller states. I am worried about that aspect of the direction in which Europe is going. If we are to achieve solidarity, it will come at a price. We get little hints of this in various ways. An example is the repeated leaking of details about our financial and economic affairs to the Bundestag, a foreign parliament, with no great concern about what that might say about the way in which smaller countries and their interests are regarded by greater and more powerful forces. This stability mechanism will hopefully be all about solidarity - for larger countries, but also for smaller countries. However, we must continue to examine the culture of the evolving European Union. I hope Croatia will be among our allies in this regard. Senator Norris referred to Bismarck earlier. We do not want to take that route in terms of the attitude to smaller states and entities. There should be an ongoing concern for the distinctive needs and cultures of smaller states.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. I have listened with interest to the wide-ranging views of speakers over the past half-hour, and one of the messages that comes through clearly is the need to maintain a substantive debate on the future of Europe and Ireland's place in Europe. This is a specific Bill, but the ongoing project of European development needs a significant degree of political input from us. Here in this House of the Oireachtas, the space should be available for us to have a rolling debate on the European project. Senator Colm Burke has been pressing strongly, as Senators know, to have the various EU directives and proposed legislation debated here in the House. That is a subject worthy of consideration.

Senator Healy Eames talked about the next step for Europe. I welcome the fact that our Croatian friends are here as they take another step towards becoming a member of the family of Europe. The steps that Europe will have to take - we do not have time to go into them this evening - will be brave and possibly lengthy. One might say it will be very difficult, but when we cast our minds back to the Europe of 1973, when Ireland entered the then European Economic Community on 1 January, we can see the tremendous changes that have occurred over the past 40 years. It is possible that we will see similar dramatic progress over the next decade or so.

In 1973, Croatia, from a geopolitical perspective, no longer existed as a country. It was behind the awful line that divided Europe, the Iron Curtain, where hundreds of millions lived under a Soviet system or, from the point of view of the Croatians, the slightly less austere but still dictatorial rule of Marshal Tito. All of that changed when the Berlin Wall fell and Europe came together. Is it not impossible for the same sort of generosity of spirit and courage to present itself again and for us to take the necessary steps into the future to ensure that Europe, regardless of how we term it from a political perspective, will unify itself in even greater fashion and ensure ongoing peace and progress? We should not be afraid of the future or the steps we may have to take, because we need only look to where we have come from to see how much more peaceful and progressive Europe now is.

I was interested in the comments of the previous speaker, Senator Mullen, about the various directives.

Sometimes, we wonder what we need from Europe. In recognising what Europe has given us, we should ask what we can give to Europe. Although it will not be billions of euro, we can offer a certain life and social philosophy. There was a time when Ireland's only exports were its missionaries. Those days are long gone, but we can export to the EU, the Continent and beyond a life philosophy in which a general respect for young and old, born and unborn, is sacrosanct. We can sell this strong Irish statement to the Continent. We must not keep this asset, but expand upon it.

That the House has had two substantive debates on the EU, its mechanisms and future today shows that we are not bound in a fearful sense to Europe, but how we must interact with the politics and structures of Europe daily. More building is necessary, but we should not be fearful. Consider from where we have come. The EU used to be the European Coal and Steel Community, ECSC. Less than one century ago, the peoples of this Continent were spilling one another's blood in two world wars. Notwithstanding the financial, banking and political crisis, we remain a continent at peace. We can be proud and look forward with confidence to a fine future for Ireland in Europe.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As no other Senators are offering, I call on the Minister of State to respond.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senators who made contributions before and after my arrival. The support for the legislation across the political divide is heartening. I did not hear a harsh word against it. Some concerns were expressed, but there was strong support for this Bill.

I recognise the presence of the Croatian ambassador, Her Excellency, Ms Jasna Ognjanovac, who I have known since my time as Chairman of the then Joint Committee on European Affairs. She participated in our meetings regularly. I am delighted that her country will join the EU on 1 July 2013. It would have been great had that been scheduled during the Irish Presidency - the day before would have sufficed - but we cannot have that.

I was also heartened by the fact that almost 67% of Croatian people voted in favour of joining the EU in January before its accession was ratified by its Parliament in March. Despite our economic difficulties, the people of Croatia believe their future lies with the 27 member states of the EU, which is welcome. From an Irish point of view, Croatia has always been welcome to the EU.

I will address a number of points that were raised during my presence. Difficulties concerning scrutiny under the Lisbon treaty were mentioned. The treaty may have faults, but it provides for a greater level of democracy and transparency in EU institutions than used to exist. Decisions by the Council of Ministers must be made in public, which was not the case previously. MEPs, who are directly elected by member states, now have decision making powers equal to those of the European Council, which comprises Heads of State and Government. Extra powers have been granted under the treaty. For example, new powers were granted to the Oireachtas and other parliaments in respect of the Commission's agendas. Under the treaty, we have the power to introduce material prior to the annual programme's drafting, to scrutinise and to hold the Commission to account. If we utilised these powers to their fullest, they would be even greater. I would welcome this development.

Our programme for Government clearly outlines a greater level of scrutiny. Senator Healy Eames claimed that there was too little scrutiny. Under the programme for Government, we abolished the old scrutiny sub-committee of the Committee on European Affairs to ensure that each line ministry took responsibility for dealing with the issues relating to it. For example, European matters relating to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine are scrutinised by the Department as well as its Oireachtas committee. This is the proper and local approach. Under it, there should be a greater level of informed scrutiny of directives and matters coming from Europe. This was the intention of the Lisbon treaty and the programme for Government.

I take on board Senators' comments regarding the long-term plan for Europe's future. In particular, Senator Bradford referred to the need for a substantive debate. Such a debate in both Houses would be worthwhile. Revisiting the principles under which the EU was founded would be useful. They were principles of solidarity between all of the countries in Europe after the devastation of Second World War, which destroyed many people's lives. It was a peace process. John Hume has put on record his belief that it is the greatest peace process that the world has ever experienced, bringing together countries that had been at one another's throats. It is also a mechanism for achieving prosperity on the European mainland and islands through pooling the resources and sovereignty of its states.

The Bill will transpose into the law of the State significant developments at EU level. I welcome this opportunity to debate important EU instruments in the Oireachtas. There is no more appropriate place for such a debate. The purpose of the Bill as originally tabled by the Government at the beginning of last month was to amend the European Communities Act 1972 to provide for the protocol amending the protocol on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, agreed in Brussels on 23 June 2010, and for the European Council decision of 25 March 2011 amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for member states whose currency is the euro.

On Committee Stage in the Dáil, the Select Committee on European Union Affairs adopted a number of Government amendments, the purpose of which was to provide that the treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the EU, agreed in Brussels on 9 December 2011, and the protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, agreed in Brussels on 16 May 2012, will form part of our domestic law. Thus, with the passage of this Bill as amended, these four elements would, upon ratification by Ireland, become a part of the domestic law of the State.

At the time of the Bill's publication at the beginning of May, the protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon had not yet been signed. Each will now begin their respective national ratification procedures. All the concerns of the Irish people appended at the time of the Lisbon treaty and which were to be introduced as part of a protocol to the next treaty have now been signed off by the member states and will shortly be ratified. That relates to taxation, family matters and neutrality, and the three protocols will be part of the treaties when this process is completed.

When the EU Heads of State and Government agreed on the terms of the Irish protocol at the June 2009 European Council meeting, it was indicated that at the time of the conclusion of the next accession treaty, the provisions of the decision on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon would be set out in a protocol to be attached to the EU treaties. The Irish protocol and the Croatian accession treaty are thus linked in time. It is for that reason that these elements were not included in this Bill as originally drafted and why the Government moved the amendments to incorporate both these instruments into this Bill on Committee Stage in the Dáil.

The resulting amended European Communities (Amendment) Bill 2012 before the House remains a brief and largely straightforward Bill, although those qualities should not take away from its significance both for Ireland and for the European Union. The amendment to Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union will provide the legal underpinning to the permanent European Stability Mechanism, ESM, which is to enter into force next month and which is the subject of a separate Bill, the European Stability Mechanism Bill 2012, which is also under consideration by these Houses.

The MEPs protocol provides for 12 member states to have due levels of representation in the European Parliament as provided for under the Lisbon treaty in the current term of the Parliament, from 2009 to 2014. The effects of the MEPs protocol will thus be entirely temporary, impacting as it does only the composition of the current European Parliament, which was elected some months prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty. Ireland's number of MEPs is unaffected by this protocol.

The Croatian access treaty paves the way for Croatia to join the European Union as a new member state from the middle of next year. Ireland has long been a solid supporter of the EU's enlargement policy and Croatia's accession to the European Union is an extremely positive development for the country and the EU. It is profoundly encouraging that even at a time of major challenge for the European Union, European countries continue to see their future within the Union and go to great lengths to prepare themselves, their markets and their people for EU accession. The Government warmly welcomes Croatia and applauds the significant strides it has taken. We look forward to working very closely with Croatia in the years ahead as a new EU partner.

The Irish legal guarantees protocol, as promised to the Irish people in June 2009, is now delivered by the European Union precisely in accordance with the timetable agreed in 2009. The legal guarantees were important for Ireland and the Irish people and a concrete reflection of the Union's willingness to listen to members and citizens, and respond constructively. The transformation of these legal guarantees into a protocol to the European treaties is hard evidence that the EU delivers on its promises in this instance to the Irish people.

As I mentioned at the outset, I warmly welcome the broad cross-party support for this Bill and the positive and constructive engagement with it by the Members of this House. The Government looks forward to continuing the engagement of the Houses of the Oireachtas in all the relevant business of the European Union. The Treaty of Lisbon has given national parliaments a greater and more defined role than ever in the business of the Union; that is as it should be. Those responsibilities are taken extremely seriously by the Houses of the Oireachtas and I commend this House for the role played in the process.

On the part of the Government, we are committed to engaging with the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Irish people on European Union business to the greatest degree possible. We have done so to a very significant extent since coming to office last year but engaging with the Irish people on EU affairs is something that will become all the more important over time, and especially as we seek to navigate a stable and secure future for our common currency and our Union over the months and years ahead. Democratic legitimacy and accountability are equally critical at the EU and national level. The Government will be steadfast in seeking to ensure that what is done at EU level also meets those benchmarks. The role to be played by the Houses of the Oireachtas will be central in that regard.

Our debate in the House on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill 2012 plays a part in this important process of engagement and I commend the Bill to the House.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Lorraine Higgins (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tomorrow.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed. When is it proposed to sit again?

Lorraine Higgins (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tomorrow morning at 10.30 a.m.