Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Mar 1998

Vol. 489 No. 1

An Bille um an Ochtú Leasú Déag ar an mBunreacht, 1998: Céim an Coiste (Atógáil). Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1998: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Atógadh an díospóireacht ar leasú a 1:

I gCuid I, leathanach 7, líne, 6, "Ní chuirfidh an daingniú seo as do bheartas an Stáit seo maidir le neodracht mhíleata. " a chur isteach i ndiaidh "a dhaingniú. ",

agus

I gCuid II, leathanach 7, líne 14, "This ratification shall not compromise this State's policy of military neutrality. " a chur isteach i ndiaidh "1997. ".

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

In Part I, page 6, line 6, after "a dhaingniú. " to insert "Ní chuirfidh an daingniú seo as do bheartas an Stáit seo maidir le neodracht mhíleata.",

and

In Part II, page 6, line 14, after"1997. "to insert" This ratification shall not compromise this State's policy of military neutrality".

—Deputy Gormley

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I express my support, and that of Sinn Féin, for Deputy Gormley's amendment. Members who would misrepresent those of us who take an alternative view on the Amsterdam Treaty should note that I speak as a concerned European. It is entirely consistent to support the maximum possible constructive co-operation between the peoples of Europe and, at the same time, to defend Irish sovereignty and Irish neutrality. James Connolly, who has been mentioned already in the debate, said: "the internationalism of the future will be based on the free federation of free peoples". What is being constructed under the Amsterdam Treaty is not a free federation but a joint super state with no democratic accountability to its citizens. Everyone in the House knows that the further political power gets from local level and the more the political institution grows, the less democratic it becomes. Structures and institutions become more and more remote from the citizen. That is a huge problem at a state level. It is much more so at the level of the European Union where an unelected bureaucracy forms policies and implements decisions over the heads of tens of millions of citizens across a whole continent without their input and often without their knowledge. A handful of MEPs representing a million or more citizens per constituency in a European Parliament is not democracy. That is the context in which we voice our Opposition to the erosion of neutrality in the Amsterdam Treaty. This is not a red herring or a false debate. The clauses are there in black and white and commit this State to a common foreign and security policy and the "progressive framing of a common defence policy".

I deplore the patronising and insulting tone of a number of speakers who have treated with disdain the legitimate position of all those who oppose the Amsterdam Treaty. There have been attempts to smear and discredit those of us who defend neutrality. We have been aligned and so maligned with the extreme right in Europe but, strangely, Deputy De Rossa has had no difficulty in lining up with the traditional right in this State when in Government. The long time advocates of so-called democratic centralism have found a new and a great toy in the European Union where their advocacy echoes on sympathetic ears.

Those who support a common EU foreign and security policy and the framing of a common defence policy have not answered a very simple question. They have not told us against whom we are supposed to be defending the European Union. Who is the enemy? Where is the power that is going to attack Europe? Surely that is the greatest bogey man of them all and another justifiable argument that this treaty arose from neutrality.

The European Union is now a huge economic power bloc, rivalling the United States. From where is the military threat to this bloc to come? Clearly the drive towards common foreign policy, common security and common defence does not come from any need to protect European citizens from external or internal aggressors, rather the drive is coming from those who want to move towards a super state with a military arm allied, as clearly stated in the Amsterdam Treaty, to an armaments industry.

Another Deputy referred to the alleged shame of the Irish people in observing conflicts in other countries about which we felt or feel powerless. We have no cause for shame. Unlike most other members of the European Union we in our history as a nation had no hand, act or part in the empires which exploited people around the globe and left a legacy of conflicts which continue today. This State, above all, has committed itself to the peacekeeping role of the United Nations. That peacekeeping role should be strengthened and the United Nations should be democratised so that the veto and the domination of the big powers is removed. Instead, under this treaty we are moving away from that towards an exclusive EU bloc, asserting its power on the world stage by turning the European Union into a military alliance. The original agenda of purely peaceful economic co-operation, the basis on which the people of the State joined the EEC in 1972, is being set aside.

A recent opinion poll showed that the vast majority of people do not even know of the existence of this treaty, and, as I said on the previous debate on the Bill, an effort is being made to slip it past the people. That is because the proponents of this treaty know that if it is exposed to full public scrutiny the violation of neutrality will be clear for all to see. This amendment is simple. The Labour Party has faced the electorate on several occasions with a commitment to enshrining neutrality in the Constitution. This is its opportunity. If, as the Government says, the treaty does not violate neutrality this amendment should cause it no difficulty either. I fully support the amendment and I commend my colleague, Deputy Gormley, and the Green Party for bringing it before the House.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Treacy)

I have no difficulty whatever, nor has the Government, with the right of any individual Member to table any amendment and to make any comment they wish. That is the prerogative of every individual here. Since morning I have deliberately refrained from making any contribution to give all Members every opportunity to make their contributions pertaining to this important treaty. Some 19 contributions have already been made since morning.

I listened with great interest to what was said regarding the amendment. It would appear that many of the contributions are a repeat of Second Stage. We are now dealing with the matter on Committee Stage and it is important to focus on what is being proposed. With regard to the amendment to Part II, 5º of the Schedule, as proposed by Deputy Gormley, I refer the House to the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, when moving the Second Stage of this Bill on 3 March. In that statement the Minister made it clear that Ireland's policy of military neutrality remains unaffected by the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam. This view was shared by speakers on Second Stage and by most of the parties represented in the House.

In a statement to the Dáil on Second Stage on 4 March, Deputy Gormley asserted that the Amsterdam Treaty endangered international peace and security. The exact reverse is the case. The European Union is a project for peace and security, founded on the principles of democracy and human rights. The common foreign and security policy provisions of the new treaty reflect the concern of the vast majority of citizens that the European Union should make a greater contribution to international peace and security, commensurate with its economic strength and its political responsibilities. Members should reflect on that important statement.

I wish to reply briefly to the points made in this debate, a number of which were previously made on Second Stage and to which the Government responded at the conclusion of that Stage on 4 March. Deputy Gormley referred to Denmark as a model we should follow in the defence area.

Mr. Gormley

I did not say that.

Mr. Treacy

The Deputy referred to Denmark as a model.

Mr. Gormley

I said we should have secured a protocol in the same way as Denmark.

Mr. Treacy

I did not interrupt the Deputy and I wish to make my contribution without interruption.

Deputy Gormley, however, did not mention that Denmark is a loyal and long standing member of NATO and that Denmark attaches importance to the primacy of NATO in European security and defence. Is this the Danish approach which the Deputy proposes Ireland should follow?

Deputy Higgins and Deputy Gormley made a number of comments about armaments. The Amsterdam Treaty does no more than recognise the existing situation and creates no new obligations for member states. Ireland is not and never has been silent on this issue. We have a strong commitment to the control of and restraint in arms transfers and we will continue to promote such restraints at European Union and United Nations level. Our history in this century has been one of neutrality, independence and moderation. We seek consensus to achieve that which is best for the evolution of mankind.

I wish to set the record straight with regard to the role of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Deputy Gormley suggested that Ireland should have nothing to do with the Amsterdam Treaty's provisions on peacekeeping but that we should focus on the United Nations and the OSCE. There is no conflict between the objectives of the UN and the OSCE and the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty. The Amsterdam Treaty explicitly situates the European Union's common foreign and security policy in the context of the principles of the United Nations Charter and the OSCE's basic document. I refer the Deputy to the text of Article J.1.

The OSCE explicitly supports and encourages co-operation between the range of organisations dealing with security in Europe. This cooperative approach is seen in its clearest form in Bosnia. Far from being incompatible with the peacekeeping and crisis management role of the EU and the Western European Union, the OSCE welcomes the support and co-operation of the European Union and the Western European Union.

Deputy Gormley's remarks appear to indicate confusion about decision making under the common foreign and security policy. No member state will be forced to do or to agree to anything with which it disagrees. In the final analysis, any member state, including Ireland, can block a decision. I have been a Member of this House for almost 16 years. In the past nine years I have been a member of various Governments and I have attended several meetings of the European Council of Ministers. Ministers attend such meetings as equals and seek to achieve a consensus on that which is best for Europe and the member states of the Union.

Nobody is under any inhibition or suffers any impediment when attending Council meetings. On many occasions Ireland has had the support of Germany and France to achieve consensus on what is best for Europe and Ireland. On other occasions Ireland has had the support of the UK and the other smaller countries. Support varies according to the issue. Ireland has no difficulty in continuing its expanded role within the European Union.

The Amsterdam Treaty incorporates the Petersberg Tasks, which are listed in Article J.7.2, so the European Union can play a more active and constructive role in the search for international peace and security. They are not a code word for a European army engaging in adventures around the globe. Deputy De Rossa was correct to point out that the Amsterdam Treaty creates no obligation on Ireland or any other member state to participate in a conflict.

Far from representing a threat to Ireland's policy of military neutrality, the Amsterdam Treaty enables the European Union to respond to the new challenges of the post-Cold War world in a manner which is in keeping with Ireland's traditions of United Nations peacekeeping and the traditions of the other three neutral members of the European Union. This is achieved by the inclusion of the Petersberg Tasks in the treaty. These are humanitarian — rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management — tasks which were conceived in the context of support for United Nations and OSCE peacekeeping and crisis management.

The tasks are voluntary on a case by case basis and are to be distinguished from commitments of common defence. Neither a European Union common defence nor the integration of the Western European Union into the European Union is an objective of the Amsterdam Treaty or its protocols. They remain mere possibilities and are subject to a number of lock mechanisms. In his statement on 3 March, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, set out the scope of and safeguards in the treaty. If the issue of a European Union common defence were to arise in the future it would be put to the people for their decision in a referendum.

Despite suggestions to the contrary, the European Union does not aspire to become a nuclear superpower, waging war on neighbouring countries or regions. There is nothing in the Amsterdam Treaty which supports such a contention. The inclusion of the Petersberg Tasks in the new treaty should not be seen as a threat to the United Nations. Indeed, successive United Nations Secretaries-General have called for greater regional support for the efforts of the United Nations in peacekeeping and crisis management. The treaty explicitly situates the common foreign and security policy in the context of the principles of the United Nations charter.

As there is no question of Ireland's policy of military neutrality being compromised by the Amsterdam Treaty, Deputy Gormley's amendment is unnecessary, superfluous and unwarranted.

Mr. Gormley

Perhaps it is appropriate to quote from a statement by Éamon de Valera in 1955.

Mr. Treacy

I hope it is in a positive context.

Mr. Gormley

He said the following:

A small nation has to be extremely cautious when it enters into alliances which bring it, willy-nilly, into those wars. As I said during the last war, the position was that we would not be consulted in how war would be started — the great powers would do that — and when it was ended, no matter who won, suppose the side we were on won, we would not be consulted as to the terms on which it would end.

Mr. de Valera was a patriot and he cared passionately about Irish neutrality. It is clear from the Minister of State's contribution that he is willing to throw that neutrality away.

Mr. Treacy

Ridiculous.

Mr. Gormley

An MRBI poll which was carried out in 1996 showed that the Irish public supports neutrality. Of the people questioned, 69 per cent said they favoured neutrality, 20 per cent wished to change the policy and 11 per cent had no opinion. The five political parties in this House which reject this amendment are only representing the 20 per cent of people who wish to change our policy of military neutrality.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Will the Deputy give way?

Mr. Gormley

In a few minutes. The Minister of State claimed that we have not been silent when confronted with changes in our neutrality. That is not true and I can refer to a number of instances.

Neutrality has traditionally meant that Ireland has not become involved in military alliances and has not accepted their doctrines. However, in 1995, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs agreed to a fundamental doctrine of NATO and the Western European Union, the principle of nuclear deterrence. Deputy Spring gave me a hard time this morning and I regret he is not present so I can confront him with this. He told the House this morning that he did not agree with nuclear deterrence. However, at an important meeting in Madrid in 1995, he accepted the principle. The same principle has been accepted by this Government.

Attending the Madrid meeting of the Western European Union Council of Ministers, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, gave his assent to a Western European Union strategy document European Security: A common concept of the 27 Western European Union countries. It was endorsed by all the countries involved in the Western European Union, full members, observers and associate members. It states: "The independent nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France which have a deterrent role of their own contribute to the overall deterrents and security of the Allies". The footnote states that the four neutral countries in the European Union — Austria, Finland, Sweden and Ireland — were not party to certain NATO and Western European Union decisions on the role of nuclear weapons, that none of the four countries stated any objection to those decisions and did not seek to distance themselves from them. By endorsing the Madrid document they accepted without question the principle of nuclear deterrents.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Will the Deputy give way?

Mr. Gormley

Yes.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I thank the Deputy. When Deputy Spring was Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and I had responsibility for European Affairs a White Paper was published setting out the six principles which govern participation in security and defence organisations.

The Deputy quoted statistics. He will be aware that in the MRBI poll conducted in September 1996 almost 80 per cent indicated that they favoured participation in Partnership for Peace. Since the Partnership for Peace and Petersberg Tasks are similar I presume the Deputy would have no difficulty in incorporating them in the Amsterdam Treaty to be approved by the people.

Mr. Gormley

It was a wonderful PR exercise to call an organisation Partnership for Peace. People do not have a clue what it stands for. They do not have a clue what the Petersberg Tasks are.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Do they know what the Western European Union and NATO stand for?

Mr. Gormley

A total of 69 per cent indicated that they supported Irish neutrality. That is all that matters. If people do not know what Partnership for Peace stands for and what the Petersberg Tasks are, it is a deception.

The Deputy mentioned the long-awaited White Paper, the first comprehensive statement on Ireland's role in world affairs. For that reason it was welcome. It states:

The values that underlie Ireland's policy of neutrality have informed almost every aspect of our foreign policy. These values have been a principal motivation behind our involvement in the search for collective security arrangements in the United Nations, in our participation in international peacekeeping, in working together with our partners in the European Union to preserve peace in Europe and worldwide, in our work for human rights and development and in our promotion of arms control and disarmament.

The White Paper addressed the issue of nuclear weapons and recalled Ireland's pioneering role in developing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty through its sponsorship of a UN motion on disarmament. It states:

Twenty five years after the entry into force of the NPT and five years after the end of the Cold War the Government sees no justification for stocks of nuclear weapons and missile materials that exist today. Successive Irish Governments have advocated the complete abolition of nuclear weapons and have worked for and encouraged concrete steps to that end.

We should look at what Deputy Spring did at the Madrid conference. There is a contradiction.

We will say one thing on this side of the House and Deputy Mitchell and the Minister of State will say something else. It will be up to the people to decide who they should believe. As we approach 22 May the propaganda machine will hit high speed and we could, possibly, lose but that does not take from the validity of our case. I am convinced this represents an erosion of Irish neutrality and is a serious backward step. For that reason I again ask Members to support the amendment.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Will the Minister of State comment on the point made about the timing of the two referenda?

Mr. G. Mitchell

I am glad Deputy Higgins has raised that matter. It is a matter about which I am concerned. If the referenda on the Amsterdam Treaty and the Northern Ireland peace process are held on the same day, 22 May, it could give rise to many complications, not least confusion. The Referendum Commission is being funded to put the case for and against the Amsterdam Treaty. If the referendum on the Northern Ireland peace process is held on the same day, I presume we would be obliged to follow the same procedure and ask the Referendum Commission to put the case for and against. That is daft. We may find ourselves in a difficult situation if the State has to provide money to the Referendum Commission to put the case for and against something which will have been tortuously agreed through the peace process. I ask the Minister of State to convey my concerns to the Government.

Mr. Treacy

A number of Deputies, including Deputy Gormley, referred to a recent opinion poll on attitudes in Ireland to the Amsterdam Treaty. It was conducted last November, long before the debate commenced.

Deputy Gormley quoted the revered founder and former leader of my party, Éamon de Valera, who ensured Irish neutrality was one of the great political statements this century. Successive Governments have consistently maintained this position. If one is to quote Mr. de Valera, it should not be taken out of context. The European Union is not a military alliance to which Mr. de Valera was referring at the time.

Mr. Gormley

The Western European Union is a military alliance.

Mr. Treacy

We are underestimating the intelligence of the electorate. They are a sophisticated electorate. They are well able to make up their own minds on any issue and fully understand the exigencies and complexities of national and international issues. They are very much in tune with what is happening in Europe. I have no doubt the Government will take a positive and responsible attitude and do what is right. I have noted the points which have been made.

Cuireadh an leasú.

Amendment put.

Mr. Gormley

Vótáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputies who are claiming a division please rise?

Deputies Gormley, Sargent, Higgins (Dublin West), Ó Caoláin and Gregory rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

As fewer than ten Members have risen I declare the question is defeated. In accordance with Standing Orders, the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Treacy

Tairgím leasú a 2:

I gCuid I, leathanach 7, línte 7 go 9 a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina n-ionad:

"6º Tig leis an Stát na roghnuithe nó na roghanna a fheidhmiú a shocraítear le hAirteagail 1.11, 2.5 agus 2.15 den Chonradh dá dtagraítear i bhfo-alt 5º den alt seo nó fúthu agus leis an dara Prótacal agus leis an gceathrú Prótacal atá leagtha amach sa Chonradh sin nó fúthu ach beidh aon fheidmiú den sórt sin faoi réir ceadú a fháil roimh ré ó dhá Theach an Oireachtais. ",

agus

I gCuid II, leathanach 7, línte 15 agus 16 a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina n-ionad:

"6º The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.11, 2.5 and 2.15 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 5º of this section and the second and fourth Protocols set out in the said Treaty but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. ".

I move amendment No. 2:

In Part I, page 6, to delete lines 6 to 9 and substitute the following:

"6º Tíg leis an Stát na roghnuithe nó na roghanna a fheidhmiú a shocraítear le hAirteagail 1.11, 2.5 agus 2.15 den Chonradh dá dtagraítear i bhfo-alt 5º den alt seo nó fúthu agus leis an dara Prótacal agus leis an gceathrú Prótacal atá leagtha amach sa Chonradh sin nó fúthu ach beidh aon fheidhmiú den sórt sin faoi réir ceadú a fháil roimh ré ó dhá Theach an Oireachtais. ",

and

In Part 11, page 6, to delete lines 15 and 16 and substitute the following:

"6º The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.11, 2.5 and 2.15 or the Treaty referred to in subsection 5º of this section and the second and fourth Protocols set out in the said Treaty but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. ".

In his statement to the House on 3 March, at the commencement of its second reading of the 18th Amendment of the Constitution Bill, the Minister for Foreign Affairs explained that the Government, on Committee Stage, would move an amendment to the proposed wording of Article 29.4.6 of the Constitution as contained in the published Bill. The amendment as set out by the Minister for Foreign Affairs three weeks ago was formally published on 19 March. It relates to the second paragraph of Part I and Part II of the Schedule to the Bill.

The Government amendment reads:

The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.11, 2.5 and 2.15 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 5 of this section and the second and fourth Protocols set out in the said Treaty but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas

Taken together, the three Articles and two Protocols cited in the amendment correspond to the areas of the treaty cited in the explanatory memorandum to the published Bill in relation to the need for the new subsection 6. The explanatory memorandum stated that the new subsection 6 was necessary, in addition to the new subsection 5, in order to confer on the State sufficient powers for it to exercise the options and discretions provided by the Treaty of Amsterdam should it so decide. The explanatory memorandum instanced, in this connection, general provisions in the treaty on closer co-operation, flexibility, police and judicial co-operation and free movement pursuant to which obligations may be entered into by a number of member states of the European Union short of the full membership.

Following a lengthy, detailed and helpful round of discussions, the Government brought forward a modified wording of subsection 6. During the debate on the Bill on Second Stage, the modified wording was endorsed by the three parties which formed the Government when the treaty was negotiated. It is this modified wording which is before the House today as a Government amendment.

The purpose of the Government amendment is to make clear that the State is explicitly authorised to exercise the options and discretions provided by or under the three named Articles and two named Protocols to the treaty but that any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The amendment does not prejudice, and is not intended to prejudice, any other provisions of the treaty which are covered by the proposed Article 29.4.5.

Taking the three Articles and two Protocols seriatim, they cover the following: Article 1.11 covers police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters; Article 2.5 allows for closer co-operation under normal Community business, known as the First Pillar; Article 2.15 inserts a new Title IIIa into the European Community Treaty and covers visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons.

The second Protocol sets out how the Schengen arrangements are to be integrated into the framework of the European Union. Inter alia, it provides that Ireland or the United Kingdom or both countries, which have not signed up to the Schengen agreements, may at any time request to take part in some or all of Schengen. The Council will decide on such a request.

The fourth Protocol establishes the position of the State in relation to Article 2.15. Ireland and the United Kingdom are exempt from the provisions of the new Title IIIa as long as they maintain the common travel area arrangements, although they may either together or individually participate in the adoption of specific measures. Ireland has stated in a declaration to the final Act that it intends to exercise its right to take part in the adoption of measures under Title IIIa to the maximum extent compatible with maintenance of the common travel area.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs in a statement introducing the debate on Second Stage set out at some length the complex set of interrelated provisions in the Treaty of Amsterdam regarding what were known under the Maastricht Treaty as justice and home affairs. These interrelated provisions account for four of the five specific elements covered by the amendment proposed today, namely Article 1.1 1, Article 2.15, the second Protocol and the fourth Protocol. Article 2.15 and the second and fourth Protocols are closely related to each other in substance and I shall therefore group them together in my further comments. Before doing so, I shall say a word about Article 1.11 and I shall look briefly at Article 2.5, which concerns closer co-operation in the First Pillar.

Article 1.1 1 of the Treaty of Amsterdam provides for the replacement of Title VI of the Maastricht Treaty by a new restructured Title VI or Third Pillar, which will be concerned exclusively with provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. The new restructured Third Pillar has three Articles under which options may be exercised by any member state. These options or discretions enable a member state to adopt a convention established by the Council; such conventions may come into force once they have been adopted by a majority of the member states; to agree to accept the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings at the request of national courts on points of Community law relating to a wide range of matters adopted under the Third Pillar — within this option there are two sub-options, namely states may decide whether any of their courts or tribunals may request preliminary rulings or whether only courts and tribunals of final instance may do so; to join in the new provision in the Third Pillar for closer co-operation among at least a majority of member states, using the institutions of the Union, in matters coming under the restructured Third Pillar.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs in a statement introducing the debate on Second Stage also made clear that, in areas of the treaty related to free movement, Ireland in negotiation secured a number of opt-outs, with the possibility of opting-in on certain conditions. The Minister said then, and I repeat today, that what Ireland has negotiated is, in a sense, an ideal arrangement. Our right to preserve the common travel area with the United Kingdom is confirmed, but we and the United Kingdom may also request to participate in any actions at the level of the Union — either under the new Title lIIa or in the context of Schengen which covers matters some of which fall within the new Title IIIa of the European Community Treaty and some of which fall within the new Third Pillar — where we consider it to be in our interests to do so. These opt-outs for Ireland, with the possibility of opting-in on certain conditions, arise under Article 2.15, and the second and fourth Protocols.

The possibility for this State to opt-in to actions under Article 2.15 and the second and fourth Protocols having been expressly negotiated, it is appropriate that the State be given the power to avail itself of these options. It is, I suggest, especially right and fitting that the exercise by the State of these particular options should be subject to prior parliamentary approval.

As the House is aware, Ireland and the United Kingdom do not participate in the Schengen co-operation system, which has developed outside the European Community-European Union Treaty framework and which the Treaty of Amsterdam will bring into that legal framework for the 13 member states which are involved. The Schengen acquis consists of a comprehensive series of measures aimed at the gradual abolition of checks on persons crossing internal borders between participating States. These measures are in the following areas: the harmonisation of visa and asylum policies; police and security co-operation; the harmonisation of provisions on weapons and ammunition; judicial co-operation; the development of a common information system in relation to entry, the granting of visas and police co-operation.

Under the second Protocol, Ireland and the United Kingdom will not be bound by what has already been agreed in Schengen but will be able to opt in at any time to some or all of what has already been done and to take part in any new proposals to build further on it, in both cases subject to terms and conditions which are set out in the Protocol. Schengen deals with a range of issues such as borders, immigration controls and policing which overlap with the provisions of the new Title IIIa on visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons. Other areas of Schengen co-operation will be dealt with in the new Third Pillar.

Article 2.5 of the Treaty of Amsterdam will add general provisions to the European Community Treaty which will allow a group of member states less than the full membership to use the Union's institutions to develop closer co-operation between themselves under the First Pillar. To ensure that the introduction of general flexibility provisions would not over time damage the coherence and solidarity of the Union, the treaty defines a tight framework of rules to govern the circumstances in which flexibility provisions may be invoked. The rules specify that the exercise of closer co-operation should aim at furthering the objectives of the Union, respect the principles of the treaties and the single institutional framework of the Union, only be used as a last resort, concern at least a majority of States, not affect the acquis communautaire, be open to all member states, and comply with the specific additional criteria applicable to closer co-operation in the First and Third Pillars.

Article 2.5 establishes specific additional criteria, to the effect that closer co-operation in the First Pillar must not concern areas of exclusive Community competence, affect Community policies, actions or programmes, concern the citizenship of the Union or discriminate between nationals of member states, go beyond the limits of Community powers under the treaty or constitute a discrimination or a restriction of trade or distort competition between member states.

As I indicated earlier, one of the options which arises under Article 1.11 is the option to participate in closer co-operation in the restructured Third Pillar. The general flexibility provisions of Article 1.11 and Article 2.5 do not apply to the Second Pillar, which concerns the common foreign and security policy.

Taken as a whole, the amendment reflects the fact that the specific Articles and Protocols which it identifies contain options and discretions. The other new element which it introduces is a requirement for prior parliamentary approval for the exercise of the options and discretions provided by or under those specific Articles and Protocols. From what I have said about the specific Articles and Protocols, it will be clear that they concern matters which are important to the citizen and which could impact directly on him or her. It is therefore, I suggest, entirely right and appropriate that, should the Government wish in the future to take up the options in question, it should first lay a proposal in this regard before the Dáil and Seanad. It should make its case fully and in context to the elected representatives of the people, engage in a full debate and, subject to parliamentary approval, proceed to exercise the option in question.

I have set out at some length all that is covered by the amendment which I am proposing today on behalf of the Government. The purpose of Article 29.4.6 of the Constitution, amended as I have proposed, is to provide legal certainty with respect to the State's ability to implement the flexibility provisions of the treaty and to exercise the opting-in rights secured in the negotiations, subject to the prior approval of Dáil and Seanad Éireann. On this basis, I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Government in the way it handled sections 5 and 6 and the subsequent amendment to section 6 was close to breaking a consensus of the majority of parties in the House on how we would approach this issue; it came close to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The provisions in section 6 allowing for opt-ins were not necessary. It is something of a belt and braces approach. The amendment has been tabled as a face saving exercise because the Government simply would not admit there was an error of judgment in including section 6 in the first place. However, a belt and braces approach is better than none and I will not oppose the amendment.

Options have been exercised in the past. Under the Maastricht Treaty, for example, EMU criteria deal with the option to qualify and if qualified to opt in or stay out. There can hardly be any option more dramatic, serious or historic than the option to join EMU yet that was provided for in the treaty, without an equivalent in section 6 of the Referendum Bill or the amendment before us.

Fine Gael is a strong, unapologetic pro-European integration party. It is important that the Amsterdam Treaty is passed as it is one in a series of treaties and acts which are bringing about the peaceful integration of the continent of Europe. It started in 1951 with the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty six years after the end of the Second World War. A total of 60 million Europeans killed each other during the first half of this century in the cause of so-called nationalism. The strongest navy and army determined the power of a nation in Europe. In the second half of the century, beginning with the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty, 15 states in western Europe have integrated. The integration process is ongoing and those who knocked EMU should not forget it is part of the process. I am happy to support the amendment.

Mr. Ferris

The Labour Party accepts the amendment and thanks the Minister for his reference to the detailed and helpful round of discussions that took place. By so doing, any anomaly or misrepresentation that could have existed has been removed before the matter is put to the people. It is important to deal with this matter correctly rather than leave any room for manoeuvring.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The process of European integration involved writing a constitution for Europe and this is an element of it. It is important for the people of Europe that the process continues. People raise questions but this continued process will be a legacy for our children and grandchildren. We will strongly support and advocate a "yes" vote in the campaign.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): I support the amendment which arises from the Government rowing back very fast from its original position because it was facing a serious political situation. Any provision that has the safeguard of at least allowing a debate in the House should be supported. There should again be more discussion on the key issues covered by the Bill. It is unthinkable that the Government without reference to the House or the people could have had the carte blanche provided for in the initial proposals.

An example of what is at stake is the development of Europol and action on international crime, such as heroin trafficking, etc. The Bill dealing with this passed all Stages in the House with virtually no debate. It provides for potentially serious developments in future that will finish up in the House again. Essentially, a supranational police force is being created which is not accountable to the European Parliament or any other democratic institution within the EU or individual states. This should not have been accepted by Ireland yet, as usual, it was but I fear this will not be the end of the matter. Undoubtedly, any such force will overstep the mark and under the cover of cleaning up the horror of drugs, etc., will create interference with the genuine civil liberties of law abiding citizens. As a result of the Government recognising the political reality and the wish for democratic accountability by ordinary people, at least Members will have the opportunity to debate individual decisions that the Government wishes to put before the House.

Mr. Treacy

I thank those who contributed to the debate and all parties for their unanimous support for the amendment. I deeply appreciate the consensus we arrived at to ensure the amendment would be acceptable. This is the way to make progress and it replicates the ethos of Europe. Ratification enjoys almost unanimous support in the House and this reflects the overwhelming support in Ireland for European integration and participation in that process. Ireland's future is inconceivable without the European Union. The Treaty of Amsterdam is the next necessary step in the creation of a larger, more responsive and ultimately more successful European Union. I am sure the House will join with me in urging that no effort be spared to ensure a very high turnout in the forthcoming referendum. This objective will be assisted by the referendum commission. It behoves us all to ensure that Ireland makes a strong, positive statement when the treaty is put before the people in May.

Aontaoídh an leasú.

Amendment agreed to.

Aontaoídh an Sceideal mar a leasaíodh.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Aontaoídh Alt 1 agus 2.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

Tideal aontaithe.

Title agreed to.

Tuairiscíodh an Bille le leasúithe.

Bill reported with amendment.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Mr. Treacy

Tomorrow, with the agreement of the Whips.

Ordaíodh go dtogfaí Ceim na Tuarascala Deardaoin, 6 Márta 1998.

Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 26 March 1998.