Vol. 418 No. 7
9 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if, in view of the considerable public disquiet about the possible implications of the Maastricht Protocol, the Government will consider providing for two separate questions on the ballot paper, one dealing specifically with the Protocol and the other with the rest of the Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
10 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if the Government have sought the agreement of the other EC member states for the deletion, as distinct from the amendment, of the Maastricht Protocol; if he has raised this matter directly with any other EC heads of Government; if so, if he will outline the response to any such request; if he has considered whether it would be feasible for the Irish Government to unilaterally withdraw the Protocol; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
11 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the ultimate negotiation on the Protocol to the Maastricht Treaty regarding Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution.
12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the nature of the solemn international commitments entered into by the Irish Government in the Solemn Declaration it agreed with the other states on Protocol Number 17 to the Maastricht Treaty; and if he will give details of the proposed means and timetable for the fulfilment of these commitments.
13 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the reason he decided to hold the Maastricht referendum prior to the referendum dealing with the constitutional amendment on travel and information rights.
14 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the consequences for Ireland, and for Europe, of a failure by one of the signatories to ratify the Treaty of Maastricht.
15 Mr. Shatter asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the terms of the Solemn Declaration entered into by the Government with the other EC states; whether the declaration has been adopted by the other EC states; and if he will give details of its effect.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 to 15, inclusive, together.
The White Paper on the Treaty on European Union, published last Thursday and circulated to Deputies, sets out the origins and purpose of Protocol No. 17.
It would just not make sense to have two separate questions on the ballot paper on 18 June, one dealing with the Protocol and the other with the rest of the Treaty. The Treaty was negotiated as a package. It has either to be ratified in its entirety, or not at all. Signatory states just cannot adopt an á la carte approach, picking and choosing what sections of a Treaty they will or will not ratify.
Such an approach would, indeed, amount to a renegotiation requiring the convening of another Intergovernmental Conference. As I said here on 7 April, the EC General Affairs Council, for these very reasons, was unable to agree to an Intergovernmental Conference to amend the Protocol. Deletion of the Protocol would also have involved an Intergovernmental Conference to which the same fundamental objection applies. As other member states made very clear, they did not want the Pandora's box of an Intergovernmental Conference at this stage for any purpose, with the pressures it would bring for other amendments by other states.
All this is apart from the fact that amendment or deletion of the Protocol would not solve all the problems for us arising from the Supreme Court judgments. The bar on travel in Irish law implicit in those judgments would still remain.
As indicated, a separate question on the Protocol is not feasible. It is also unnecessary because, since the Council meeting on 6 April, the Government have been successful in securing the agreement of our partners to the Solemn Declaration, the text of which is set out in the White Paper.
Under the declaration, Ireland is a party both to the legal interpretation of the Protocol given by all the High Contracting Parties to the Treaty and to the separate political declaration. This declaration sets out the favorable disposition of Ireland and all the other High Contracting Parties to amendment of the Protocol, after the entry into force of the Treaty, so as to extend its application to any amendment of Article 40.3.3º, so long as the amendment does not conflict with freedom to travel or to obtain or make available in Ireland, subject to conditions which may be laid down by Irish legislation, information relating to services lawfully available in member states.
The Declaration will be formally adopted by all member states at the informal General Affairs Council in Portugal on 1-2 May. It will be part of the documents to be sent by all member states to their legislatures as part of the ratification process of the Treaty. It will be included among the Treaty documents which will be officially publicised by the Community along with the Treaty following ratification.
On its interpretation, we must take it that member states do not lightly set their hands to Solemn Declarations to be included formally with the Treaty documentation. They mean what they say.
In addition, Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Law and Treaty states that in interpreting treaties there shall be taken into account, together with any context, any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions. The Solemn Declaration is undoubtedly such a subsequent agreement.
The referendum on the Treaty on European Union is being held before that on issues raised by the Supreme Court judgments, first, because of the massive importance for Ireland of ratifying the Maastricht Treaty. We must have a full voice in the decisions affecting the future of Europe — the industry, agriculture, economy and international relationships of Ireland — and, most immediately, in the Council decisions on the Delors II proposals on future financing of the Community.
Next, there would be no advantage in holding a referendum on travel, information and perhaps other issues first, even if we were in a position to do so. This is because the Protocol relates only to Article 40.3.3º, as it stood on 7 February, when the Treaty was signed. The protection of the Protocol would not extend to any changes we might make now in Article 40.3.3º, and it is clear that our partners will agree to a change in the Protocol only when the ratification process of the Union Treaty is complete in their countries: that will be on or after 1 January, 1993. As the Solemn Declaration says, they will then be favourably disposed to extend the protection afforded by the Protocol to future amendments of Article 40.3.3º. We must deal with the situation now as we know it and not base policy on hypothesis or guesswork.
In the light of what I have just said, it should be clear that from the standpoint of the right to life of the unborn, a referendum on the abortion issues now, before that on the Maastricht Treaty, would be a futile exercise, and haste could, as we know, produce totally the wrong result.
I should emphasise that it was not the Community that brought about this situation: it arises from our Constitution, our law, and our court judgments; and ratification of the Treaty, even with an unamended Protocol, will in no way prevent or inhibit our Legislature and people from further amending our Constitution in this area, if we so wish.
I can understand the concerns of those who are apprehensive about the rights to travel and information. These doubts do not stem from the Maastricht Treaty. The Protocol, even in its present form, does not take away rights to travel and information under European law, which, of course, is applicable to Ireland. All EC member states have, in the Solemn Declaration, confirmed that this is the proper legal interpretation which the Protocol will have when the Treaty to which it is annexed comes into force. While recourse to the European Court of Justice would very probably vindicate the rights in any particular case, it is through action in Ireland in regard to our Constitution and public policy that the availability of these rights can best be generally guaranteed.
As indicated in the White Paper, a referendum will be held in November next to deal with the travel and information issues which arise and with any other questions which, on completion of the Government's consideration of the issues raised by the Supreme Court decisions, emerge as necessary and feasible to deal with by constitutional amendment.
In the meantime, as I said last Thursday, the Attorney General has informed me that once there is a positive vote in the referendum on 18 June, no further State injunctions will be sought by the law officers — in discharge of the Attorney General's independent and non-governmental duties under the Constitution or otherwise — which would interfere with the right to travel.
Absolute rubbish.
The original action by the Attorney General was in pursuance of his understanding at the time of public policy as expressed in Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution and it was proper that the matter should have been interpreted by the courts. Once the people have endorsed a Treaty, to which is annexed Protocol No. 17 and with which is associated the Solemn Declaration, to which, of course, Ireland is a party; it will then be demonstrably clear that public policy as expressed by the people in the referendum does not contemplate interference, consequent on Article 40.3.3º, with rights to travel. The people are supreme in constitutional matters and once they have expressed their view by voting yes, no further state injunctions will be sought.
(Limerick East): The Taoiseach should resign.
Let the Taoiseach give legal grounds for that statement.
I am confident that the Maastricht Treaty will be ratified this year by all 12 member states. There is, of course, no precedent for a member state failing to ratify a treaty negotiated at Community level. What would happen in the event of non-ratification by one or more member states must, therefore, be a matter of speculation. The formal position is that the Treaty, to be binding in its present form on the 12 contracting parties, could not enter into force.
The political reality is different. With the enormous political investment that has been made by all member states, the high probability is—as, for example, was the case with the European Monetary System in 1979 and also with the Agreement on Social Policy concluded at Maastricht — that the ratifying member states would go ahead and conclude among themselves a treaty or agreement which would be exactly the same as the Maastricht Treaty except for the number of participants and any technical changes related to that, leaving a non-ratifying member state in a lower tier as a second-class member.
Even this scenario may be unduly optimistic, since the Maastricht Treaty so extensively amends and supersedes the existing Community treaties across so many chapters as to make it very questionable whether a European Community could or would be continued in existence, parallel to but separate from European union in order solely to cater for non-ratifying countries. The point is that outside the union framework, we would have no say in the union, as it develops, and we would have to accept what the other member states thought fit to give us — a most peculiar and untenable position in which to find ourselves, as a State which has always been a committed Community member, when so many other states now outside it, are queuing up to join. Can we really think of voting ourselves out on issues which have nothing to do with Maastricht, when so many countries are so anxious to get in?
The Taoiseach does not recall his stance on the Single European Act.
The Deputy should go back and read it. For Ireland, the benefits of the Maastricht Treaty are immense indeed. I am convinced that our people will look to their interests and their future and give a resounding "Yes" vote on 18 June on one of the most important issues in this century on which they have been asked to give their verdict, realising full well that the issues regarding abortion are separate issues which will be dealt with next November.
Before calling on the Deputies in the order in which they tabled their questions I have to inform the House that Question No. 13 in the name of Deputy John Bruton was omitted from the Order Paper due to a printing error. It appears on the Supplementary Order Paper which has been circulated to Members and reads as follows: "To ask the Taoiseach the reason he decided to hold the Maastricht referendum prior to the referendum dealing with the constitutional amendment on travel and information rights". I now call Deputy Proinsias De Rossa whose Questions Nos. 9, 10 and 11 refer.
Could the Taoiseach explain to the House what is the Government's preference with regard to the Protocol? I understand from an interview with the chairperson of the Council for the Status of Women today on radio that the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated that the Government sought the deletion of the Protocol. Is that the Government's preferred option and, if that is the case, what steps has the Taoiseach taken to date to pursue that option? If that is not the case, the Council for the Status of Women are being misled. May I additionally ask——
I would earnestly appeal for brevity for the obvious reason that I am obliged to proceed to deal with priority questions at 3.30 p.m.
On a point of order, the Taoiseach gave a very lengthy reply.
I have no control over Ministers' replies, Deputy Bruton, and well you know that.
On his own decision he decided to take the questions together.
I have advised Deputies to utilise their time very carefully. I am proceeding, in accordance with Standing Orders, to deal with priority questions at 3.30 p.m.
This is most unhelpful to the public interest.
I appreciate the point but I am referring to three questions in my name, Nos. 9, 10 and 11, of the six questions before us.
There are other Deputies' questions also involved.
I appreciate that but I put down three of them.
I put down five questions.
Would the Taoiseach indicate how it is possible to negotiate an addition to the Maastricht Treaty by way of a declaration when it is not possible to negotiate the deletion of the Protocol?
The Deputy misunderstands the position. First, the option of deletion or amendment of the Protocol is not open to us. As I have made abundantly clear on a number of occasions, the member states have steadfastly set their face against any amendment of the Treaty or the Protocol, withdrawal of the Protocol or anything in relation to it. Withdrawal of the Protocol would mean the setting up of another intergovernmental conference and that option is not open. Therefore let us not go further down that cul de sac. In relation to the second part of the question, all 12 member states will be signatories to the Solemn Declaration, and member states do not give this type of declaration lightly. They mean what they say. Only after the Treaty is ratified by all 12 member states will we be allowed come forward with a change in the Protocol——
Is the declaration part of the Maastricht Treaty?
——or after we have made whatever constitutional change is required. I want to make it clear that it is only after ratification takes place that any changes can be made.
Deputy John Bruton.
When we vote on 18 June will we be voting for the declaration?
Deputy John Bruton has been called.
In relation to Question No. 12, does the Taoiseach agree that the Solemn Declaration binds the Irish Government to introduce a constitutional amendment to guarantee travel and information rights and if so, when will that be done? Second, may I ask the Taoiseach in respect of his statement that there will be no further State injunctions in regard to the right to travel, what is the position in regard to private civil injunctions that might be taken prior to or subsequent to the vote? Third, in regard to Question No. 14, would the Taoiseach not agree that the danger is not so much that Europe might go ahead without us but that Europe might not go ahead at all with European union for 300 million Europeans if the three million people here turn down the Treaty? There might be a reversion in Europe to a Europe of nation states which caused so much war and bloodshed on this Continent for the last 200 years up to the foundation of the European Community.
I ask for brevity for obvious reasons.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that as a nation we have a major responsibility to ensure that Europe does not revert, in the event of our rejection of the Maastricht Treaty, to a Europe of nation states, which has caused so much hardship, including genocide, in this century on this Continent?
Nonsense.
First, in relation to the latter part of the Deputy's question, I agree that there is a heavy responsibility on us as a nation to ensure the progress of Europe to closer integration. As I have said clearly in my reply, should we decide to vote "No" in the referendum it is a matter for the other member states to go ahead with the Treaty with only 11 contracting parties instead of 12. It is open to them to do that.
There is no guarantee that they will do so.
Please let me answer the question. It is open to them to do that and they will decide what they can do. It is not in the interests of Ireland or of Europe to say "No" to Maastricht on 18 June, and I fully agree with Deputy Bruton in relation to that. The second part of the question relates to the Solemn Declaration and its basis. We will be signatories to the Solemn Declaration which fully sets out the clear intentions of the Government in this regard. To copperfasten what I have said today and last Thursday, there will be a referendum in November that will involve the right to travel and to information, to be regulated by legislation to be passed in the Houses of the Oireachtas, and whatever other issues may require to be dealt with in a constitutional or legislative manner or a combination of both. Deputy Bruton was quite right when he said some time ago that time is needed for consideration of this matter. He said — and I use his own words to Shane Kenny on a radio programme — he would not rule out two, three or four months in this regard. It is quite unreasonable to expect the Government to come up with an answer to this complex matter in such a short time. There is no advantage for anybody in doing that. I have made the position clear in relation to travel after a "yes" vote will have been passed on 18 June. I should also like to make clear the converse position which would be the result of a "no" vote in relation to travel after 18 November next——
What about private injunctions?
——that is that there would be a return to State injunctions if there was a "no" vote on 18 November next. Members opposite may not like to hear that but that is the reality.
The Attorney General is participating in the campaign.
The Taoiseach is demeaning the office of the Attorney General.
Third, there is no logical reason to push for a referendum on all of these issues in advance of the Maastricht referendum before changes can be made to the Protocol or the Treaty——
I am sorry to interrupt the Taoiseach but the Chair must now proceed to deal with other questions.
What about private civil injunctions?
Private civil injunctions can be taken any day of the week on any matter. One can go down to the Four Courts with a barrister and seek an injunction. Whether one succeeds or not is a matter for the courts. Members should remember the courts would also take into account the positive decision of the electorate on 18 June.
I am now proceeding in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House.
Sir, on a point of order——
Deputy, I am on my feet.
I am entitled to raise a point of order.
How dare you, Deputy, when I am on my feet, challenge me in this fashion. Deputy Shatter resume your seat.
Sir, I am seeking to raise a point of order.
Not now.
I have stood up for the second time only. I want to raise a point of order.
Not now. You are not entitled to raise a point of order while the Chair is making a statement to the House.
I am entitled to raise a point of order.
You are not.
There is nothing in the rules of the House, Sir——
Sir, am I not entitled to raise a point of order under the Standing Orders of this House?
I am informing the House that, in accordance with Standing Orders, I must now proceed to deal with priority questions. The Chair is administering the Standing Orders of this House and will give way to no Deputy while doing so. I am calling Question No. 22 to the Minister for Agriculture and Food tabled by Deputy Deasy.
On a point of order, Sir——
No, I have called Question No. 22.
Sir, you have an obligation to defend the Members of this House and not to treat them with contempt.
There is only 15 minutes allocated to these questions. The Deputy is being deliberately disorderly.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 22, 23——
On a point of order, Sir, would you not agree there is nothing in Standing Orders which precludes the raising of a point of order at Question Time?
Not while the Chair is on his feet ruling. Please let the Minister of State proceed.
You are diminishing the standard of this House by your behaviour.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 22, 23, 34, 37, 38——
You are now seated, Sir, and I would like to raise a point of order.
No, Deputy. If the Deputy persists I shall have to ask him to leave the House.
Why not?
Questions are in train; Question Time is in train.
Sir, why is it that whenever I get on my feet you threaten to put me out of this House?
Deputy, if you persist——
Sir, your behaviour does not do justice to the rights of Members of this House.
Deputy, look here, if you persist in insulting the Chair in this fashion I must ask you to leave the House.
Why is it Sir, you constantly ask me to leave the House whenever I try to perform my constitutional function?
I am conforming with the rules of this House.
A Cheann Comhairle——
No, Deputy. I will tell the House what I will do. Since certain Members of the House have disrupted me in carrying out the orders of the House in providing 15 minutes for priority questions perhaps we had better adjourn the House altogether.
A Cheann Comhairle, that is a mature response.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 22, 23, 34, 37, 38——
May I ask the Chair what precedent is being quoted?
I will explain the procedure to the House. I have mentioned the preciousness of the——
I asked you to quote the precedent, Sir. May I ask you to quote the precedent for dismissing the raising of a point of order?
If the Chief Whip of the Fine Gael party is prepared to disrupt the proceedings of the House in this fashion I am left with no option but——
Sir, I have been 23 years in this House and I have never seen a Member prevented from raising a point of order and the Chair refusing to hear him.
Already practically five minutes of the precious time provided for priority questions has been eroded——
Sir, there are procedures for raising a point of order.
No, there is no room for points of order in respect of adherence to Standing Orders dealing with priority questions.
There is no ruling at all on the raising of points of order in the Standing Orders. You, Sir, are bound by the rules of this House the same as everyone else. Members are entitled to raise a point of order.
I am seeking to conform to the rules of the House.
You are ruling against a particular Member, that is fairly obvious, and we will not stand for it.
A Cheann Comhairle——
No, Deputy.
A Cheann Comhairle, is it in order for you to dismiss the Chief Whip of the Opposition party when he seeks to raise a point of order?
Would Members please allow the Minister of State to proceed.
