asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will arrange to have draft treaties approved by most member states at the last European Council brought before the Dáil for discussion.
Ceisteana—Questions. Oral Answers - EC Draft Treaties
26.
The Deputy will appreciate that, while the European Council on 2 and 3 December 1985 in Luxembourg reached agreement on most of the substance of the issues which were before the Intergovernmental Conferance, the final text of the Single European Act was agreed by Foreign Ministers only on 27 January. The Single European Act incorporates, under a common Preamble, provisions amending the European Community Treaties and Treaty provisions on European Co-operation in the sphere of Foreign Policy.
The Presidency has now proposed that the signature of the Single European Act take place on 17 February. However, in view of the fact that Denmark and Italy are still maintaining overall reserves on the text, it does not appear that all member states will be in a position to sign on that date.
Following signature, the Single European Act will fall to be ratified by the member states. The necessary legislation to permit ratification of the Act will be brought before the Oireachtas and this will provide an opportunity for a full debate on the Act.
Is the Minister aware that we have expressed dissatisfaction on this side of the House with the wording of article 8, which reads as follows:
The high contracting parties consider that the closer co-operation on questions of European security would contribute in an essential way to the development of European external policy identity.
Is the Minister prepared to say whether he has made any attempt to renegotiate that article?
I am aware that the Deputy's leader expressed his reservations about article 8. I think that was when the Taoiseach reported back after the European Council in early December. At a subsequent debate I repeated the Government position about article 8 and said that we felt that the Opposition misunderstood the position and that their fears about that article were groundless. I still consider that to be the case. In those circumstances I would not and did not attempt to renegotiate that article.
Does the Minister propose to give the Dáil any opportunity of discussing this agreement before the Government sign it on 17 February next? Have we any opportunity of a full debate here before that signing and before the Government come back to us for ratification with a fait accompli? Will Parliament as a body have an input into what is going on on our behalf?
It will not be a fait accompli when it comes back, because the Dáil must ratify it. The Government cannot.
Why not?
One second, let me finish please. The signing is only an indication on the part of the Government that they wish it to go ahead. The Dáil must speak for themselves; the Parliament must ratify it.
I accept that, of course. However, would the Minister not agree that it would be far more democratic if we had a discussion in the House before the Government sign, so that the views of all Members on what is involved and what the Government are going to sign or intend signing should be voiced and perhaps listened to before whoever signs on behalf of the Government does so? Is there any specific reason why we cannot have a debate before the actual signing takes place? Of course, I understand the principle of ratification. I cannot take issue with the Minister on that, but surely we should have a discussion beforehand on what is involved.
The Deputy has Private Members' time available and if he chooses to put down a motion for debate in Private Members' time I shall, of course, be glad to come in here and debate the matter.
A Cheann Comhairle——
One second, please. Let me finish. Given the fact that the Government do not intend to seek changes and intend to sign as agreed on the January 27 basis, to have a debate, which we must have, post-signing, for ratification and another debate pre-signing, which would not suffice as a ratification debate, would be just wasting the time of the House. If the Deputy wishes to use Private Members' time, of course I shall be here.
The Minister's offer is so generous that I find it hard not to comment on it.
Do not comment on it. I could not allow that.
I know well that you could not. Would the Minister not agree that to suggest to us that we can discuss this in Private Members' time is not good enough on such an important issue? Surely he would be in a position to convince the Government that Government time should be made available. We have one and a half hours and two evenings a week for Private Members' time and no more. The Minister knows well that for the next two weeks we shall be discussing his Labour Party colleague's motion on the question of divorce, so Private Members' time is ruled out for the next two or three weeks because of that. Would the Minister not agree that the particular sentence I mentioned, which in effect says that defence co-operation is essential, is not compatible with the maintenance of Irish neutrality? We would like to hear the views of Members of the House on this. Would the Minister not further agree that in the interests of democracy——
Your speech is getting too long.
These are a series of questions. To the best of my recollection, I used the phrase "Would the Minister not agree".
As I often say, you could read the local newspaper after saying that and it would not be a question.
Would the Minister not agree that the views of the Members of Dáil Éireann should be listened to on such an important issue?
It is very important that the time of the House is not wasted. We must have a debate on this matter between signing and ratification and to have another debate before signing would be just repetition. I do not think it is so important to have that debate. The Deputy says he thinks it is very important, but it is not important enough to give up some of the Private Members' time.
We have not got it to give up.
There are a full five weeks between now and 17 February and if the Deputy considers it that important I should have thought it would have been suitable for Private Members' time.
There are 11 days between now and the date on which the Government propose to sign. This is an important issue. Would the Minister agree that this Treaty provides no permanent safeguards for Irish neutrality and flies in the face of the Tánaiste's statement in Madrid that Irish neutrality is not negotiable? Would the Minister not agree that the wording of article 8 means that Irish neutrality is negotiable? I am protecting the interests of the Tánaiste and the Coalition Government at present.
I am sure that he would be very touched by that.
He might be far more touched by what I do for him than by what some of his colleagues over there do.
I am sure he will be very touched, I will tell him all about that.
He is touched to be over there at all.
Good man. I did not think of that. It is very obvious that there are some Members over there who are trying to press the ejector button, including the Minister's colleague.
Deputy Wyse on the Opposition side is my constituency colleague. That must be remembered. I thought it was Deputy Wyse that the Deputy was talking about. He ejected himself.
Deputy Coveney is anxious to use the Coalition ejector button.
I do not agree at all with the interpretation that Deputy Collins is putting on this. The Taoiseach said it in December, I said it on the Adjournment Debate, I am saying it now and will repeat it again when this matter is debated prior to ratification.