Vol. 417 No. 9
3 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the basis on which counsel for the State conceded a right to information about abortion in certain cases before the European Court of Human Rights and if he will make a statement on the matter.
4 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he has received the second statement to Government from the Commission on the Status of Women dealing with the aftermath of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Attorney General v. X; if he will outline his response to the statement; if he intends to take any action on the Commission's recommendations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
5 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will list the Heads of Governments of other EC member states with whom he has discussed the proposed changes to the protocol to the Maastricht Treaty regarding the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if the Government are discussing possible amendments to the Protocol relating to Article 40.3.3º in the Maastricht Treaty with other European Governments, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach whether the Govenment intend to delete or amend the wording of the Protocol to the Maastricht Treaty; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will confirm that representatives of his Department have consulted with representatives of the Heads of Government of the other Community states in relation to proposed revisions to the Protocol (details supplied) of the Maastricht Treaty; if he will outline the exact alternative wordings of the revision which were discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 8, inclusive, together.
As Deputies will be aware, the Government intend to ask our EC partners to agree to an amendment to the Protocol to the Masstricht Treaty relating to Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution, arising from the recent Supreme Court case. The following addendum has been proposed as the basis for a consensus approach in this regard:
This Protocol shall not limit freedom to travel between Member States or to obtain, in Ireland, information relating to services lawfully available in Member States.
This wording is the product of the most serious consideration of the complex and sensitive issues involved, taking fully into account the views expressed by interested parties, including the Commmission on the Status of Women. It has received a wide measure of support domestically. I would like to welcome in particular its acceptance by some Opposition parties.
In the meantime, and pending the outcome of efforts to achieve all-party consensus, our permanent representative in Brussels has, on an exploratory basis, presented to his counterparts the proposed addendum — and no other wording. As Deputies will be aware, the agreement of the other eleven will be necessary to any change in the Protocol.
The position taken by the State recently at the European Court of Human Rights related to the specific circumstances of the cases being held there. Pending fuller consideration of issues under public discussion following the recent Supreme Court judgment, counsel for the State simply drew the logical corollary in respect of information, by reference to the decision of the Supreme Court.
I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise that there is no reason — and never has been any reason — to believe that the Community has any wish to take action that would result in the availability of abortion on demand in Ireland. The purpose of the Protocol as originally drafted was simply to put that question beyond all possible doubt. The purpose of the proposed addendum is simply to put beyond doubt, arising from the recent Supreme Court judgment, the right of women to travel and as a necessary consequence to obtain, in Ireland, information relating to services lawfully available in member states.
Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to affirm in the House the Government's wholehearted support for the concept of the right to life. Nothing in the Protocol or in the proposed amendment we have suggested would affect the status and protection of the unborn child and its right to life unshrined in Article 40.3.3º which, as Deputies will recall, acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and refers to the need to have due regard to the equal right to life of the mother.
A number of Deputies have tabled questions on this subject and I will call them in the order in which their questions appear on the Order Paper.
May I put it to the Taoiseach that the situation which is now developing in relation to this matter is both dangerous and divisive and that every effort should be made to resolve it? May I ask him to consider holding a meeting with the party leaders to discuss the issues involved and making the advice of the Attorney General available either on a confidential or other basis to all the parties?
I agree with the Deputy when he said that this could develop into a divisive debate which could only have an adverse effect on the referendum to ratify the Maastricht Treaty which has serious implications for the future of this country in relation to the Structural Funds, the Delors II package and the cohesion package. I will spare no effort, as I have done up to now, to try to find a political consensus. I will take on board the suggestion made by the Deputy and will have my office, later this evening, contact the party leaders to see if we can, finally, reach a consensus. This matter is too important for the nation to let any political nitpicking or anything else get in our way.
We published our proposed text in all good faith after serious deliberations and having received the best legal advice available to us. I recognise the right of others to hold different views and put them forward. I look forward to hearing from Deputy Bruton, at his own convenience, in due course as to when he might be in a position to respond to me. I agree with the Deputy, and I think the House would agree, that this is not a matter on which there should be political point scoring but rather we should get the question right in the interests of the nation to have the referendum passed. We will need all the credits we can muster for ourselves in the tough negotiations that will take place in the coming months in relation to the Delors II package and the Cohesion Fund. Other pressures are building up in the opposite direction against us and, consequently, I will go whatever distance I can to try to reach a consensus.
I welcome the Taoiseach's response to Deputy Spring's request. May I ask him if he will consider the suggestion I made that we deal with the Protocol by way of a separate question on the ballot paper? I am not asking him to necessarily agree with it at this point but to at least consider it as a means of disentangling the issue of abortion from the major and significant issues surrounding the Maastricht Treaty. May I also ask him if he intends to have a discussion in the House at some stage before reaching agreement in relation to the wording? I am aware that he is in the process of consulting with our partners in the European Community but it is important that the Members of this House should get the opportunity to discuss the issues before we go to Europe with it.
In response to the Deputy, we could usefully discuss at a meeting of the party leaders what might be the best way forward. Certainly, this House will have an opportunity, at the appropriate time, to discuss the issue, be it the discussion on the White Paper which is almost completed. There are some aspects which should be understood. There appears to be a misunderstanding in relation to the Protocol, its existence, its status and what this Parliament and Government can do with it in our own right.
First, I clearly outlined the purpose of the Protocol and I do not intend to cover that ground again except to say that, when we signed last February, we signed for the position as it then stood. Any addendum to the Protocol can only be brought about if the other 11 member states agree to it. It is not a question, as has been suggested, of any referendum held in advance of any referendum on the Maastricht Treaty automatically changing the basis for that Protocol. That is not the position. The timing of a referendum will not alter the basis on which we signed last February. What we signed cannot be changed one iota if we do not get the agreement of the other 11 member states. That agreement will not be easy to get whatever the substance of our amendment.
There are pressures building up in many other member states for changes in the Maastricht Treaty. Consequently we can expect a reluctance on the part of many member states to open the door even a little, because, by opening the door, there will be pressures to open it wider and we could all be big losers at the end of the day.
There is the added complication of the British general election. If the Labour Party were to form the Government, they are committed to renegotiating the treaty and including the Social Charter. The popular vote in Denmark is running very strongly against the referendum. There are a lot of changes and we should bear that in mind. The Protocol does not belong to Ireland. We are not free agents to change it as we wish either by referendum or otherwise. That is the position as we approach this important debate.
I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach has confirmed today that the Government are continuing to seek to deal with this matter by means of consensus. I assure him that the Fine Gael Party take their responsibilities very seriously in this matter, but are equally concerned to reach a consensus. We have given very careful thought to and are working very actively on a considered response to the Taoiseach's letter. Would the Taoiseach agree that the lessons, particularly in regard to the drafting of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, indicate that we must proceed carefully to ensure that any wording chosen is absolutely clear and is not liable to subsequent misinterpretation or reinterpretation because of the risks that would follow in the referendum which could jeopardise the Maastricht Treaty such as those in the case of the 14 year old child? Would the Taoiseach agree that it might be useful to publish a legal paper setting out the legal basis for the Government's choice of words or for the choice of words ultimately agreed, if one is agreed between all the parties, so that the public will understand the legal and policy basis for the decision, and that it will not be seen as something coming from a small group in Leinster House, because this matter is of concern to everybody and the people must understand exactly what we are doing on their behalf?
I welcome Deputy Bruton's approach. The sentiment he has expressed here runs through his letter to me. My interpretation of his letter is that he agrees in principle with the objectives we are trying to achieve in relation to travel and information and that his is a question as to how one achieves that objective. The Fine Gael Party will have their own views and I await with interest their response to the position as it is at the moment. I am open to finding consensus because the future implications of what we do are great. That is why, from the start, the Government approach to the very detailed consideration we gave this matter has been very careful, and we have been criticised by some for taking too long.
In choosing the words we were trying to get the simplest form of words to achieve the objective. The words are simple and easy to understand and yet fulfil the legal requirements of what we are trying to do. We are trying to let everybody know what we are about. If members of the other political parties have any doubts what the words mean, we can deal with that around the table. That is what political consensus is all about.
Will the Taoiseach consider making the Attorney General's advice available either on a confidential basis or otherwise, in order to help us in our discussions?
As a former Cabinet member, the Deputy will fully appreciate that I cannot present to him the Attorney General's advice as he presented it to Cabinet, but I will give the Deputies as much advice as I can to try to elucidate and elaborate on any points about which the Deputies may have doubts.
Can I take it that the Government will be making it clear to the other EC member states that the Protocol has to be amended, that because of the Supreme Court decision there is no way it can be accepted by the people unless it is amended, and that, therefore, there is no option for this country with regard to this Protocol — it has to be changed or dropped? Likewise, is the Taoiseach satisfied that the point made by the Commission on the Status of Women with regard to the need for counselling is also incorporated in this proposed amendmenmt to the Protocol?
There has been concern that voluntary organisations cannot engage in providing information and advice. My legal advice is that they can and that is desirable. With regard to informing the member states of our position, all we have done so far is to produce a proposed text for an addendum to the Protocol to our ambassador who had informal discussions with his colleagues on last Thursday evening. He has put his colleagues on notice that this is the basis on which we are trying to build a consensus. We will revert to Europe when we have a definite position and wording worked out.
To assist the House, will the Taoiseach outline the procedures that must be followed at European level to obtain agreement to an addendum to a Protocol of this kind — who must be consulted, what legal proceedings must be gone through and so on? Will the Taoiseach confirm that this matter is not to be dealt with at a meeting of Foreign Ministers to take place this week and that, unless a special meeting is called, it will not be dealt with in the normal course until the May meeting of Foreign Ministers?
I confirm that it will not be finalised at a meeting of Foreign Ministers this week, next Monday or whenever the meeting is. The question as to the final ratification of our proposed addendum to the Protocol has not been definitively decided yet. I have not had a formal response on whether we can have a reconvened IGC or if this can be done on the basis on which it was signed in February by the EC Ministers for Finance and Ministers for Foreign Affairs. This is a legal question which has not been finally resolved. I will keep the Deputy informed as developments take place.
What are the procedures for reconvening an IGC and what time frames are involved in that process? How do those time frames relate to the time frame for the referendum to approve the Treaty, including the Protocol, in Denmark?
Regarding the time frame, I have not yet the final details because the question remains. A meeting could be called very quickly if it were decided that Ministers for Finance and Foreign Affairs could be the signatories for a reconvened IGC. It is a bit premature to speculate. The debate on the Danish referendum has already started and is expected to be finalised in the Danish Parliament some time in early May. We have not a definitive date by which the debate will close but our best advice is that it will be in early May. The referendum date is fixed for 2 June.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that the very clear account he has given of the difficulties caused by this Protocol, the complexities of the measures needed to deal with it and the consequences it might have for the whole Maastricht Treaty, are a very eloquent indictment of the irresponsibility of his predecessor in inserting it in the first place? Would he further agree, given the fact that we have had a particular experience with the wording of the Eighth Amendment, that it is not sufficient for us to make a decision on any form of wording on the basis of probabilities or likelihoods but that we need certainty in this matter? Would the Taoiseach also agree that if we are to seek consensus in this House on this matter, although we were not consulted about the previous Protocol, we should seek consensus not on the basis of what I might term the highest common factor but on a conclusion that puts the matter beyond doubt?
I do not propose to go back in history and try to apportion what the Deputy might term blame or otherwise. I am leaving all that behind me and looking ahead to see how we, as a Parliament, and as a nation can confront and find the best solutions to these complex problems. The Deputy talks about absolute certainty, but I am sure he would be the first to agree with me that, in interpretation of either a protocol or a constitutional amendment, there is no such thing as 100 per cent legal certainty. We should aim at getting as close as we can but nobody should hoist a flag on the question of absolute certainty in relation to what may or may not happen. We can go as far as humanly possible to get the most desirable wording to give effect to what we want to achieve, but at the end of the day, as in 1983 when everybody thought there would be a certain result——
Not everybody. Far from everybody.
Not everybody, but two-thirds of the people voted thinking that was the position.
Two-thirds of those who voted.
Two-thirds of those who voted. We can only count the people who voted. Let us keep the consensus that we have. I am sure the Deputy and the party opposite are well aware that there is no such thing as legal certainty in relation to this and that we have to go as far as we can to get the best wording to do the job.
The Taoiseach should not forget that.
I have never forgotten it.
It is a pity he did not remember it in 1983.
There is another uncertainty about State injunctions in relation to women travelling. I have it on the best advice that the wording will ensure that the State will never again have to be involved in a State injunction. Having said that, one does not have to be a legal person to understand that any private person anywhere in this country can, if he or she so decides, for whatever reason, go into a court and seek an injunction about any particular problem. That is their right and nobody can take it away.
Is there a procedure in the Danish Parliament whereby their foreign affairs committee have to agree separately certain matters agreed by their Government at EC level? If that is the case, is there a possibility that any amendment or addendum we might wish to put forward to our Protocol, so to speak, might have to be cleared not only at EC level but also cleared so that a Danish Minister could agree in the Danish Parliament?
I have not been so advised but I will certainly look at the matter. I will refer back to the Deputy if that is the case.
Does the Taoiseach anticipate a proper debate in this House on the issues we are discussing?
That has been adverted to.
I have already answered that.
