Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Nov 2002

Vol. 558 No. 3

European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 2002: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. B. Lenihan)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill is short and technical. Its three sections simply amend the European Communities Act, 1972, to make appropriate reference to the Treaty of Nice. It is, however, of wider significance to developments across Europe.

The Bill is a necessary part of Ireland's preparation for ratification of the Treaty of Nice. All Deputies in this House will be aware of the long journey that has led to this point. We have had two referenda seeking the electorate's approval of the treaty. We have had serious and important debates about the future of Europe and Ireland's role within it. We are standing on the threshold of an exciting new era in the Union's history, with ten of the applicant countries close to being in a position to sign an accession treaty with the European Union. For this to happen, the Treaty of Nice must enter into force, having been ratified by all of its signatories. The Bill, therefore, has a small but important role to play in developments of an historic nature.

Mr. Quinn

I am reluctant to interrupt the Minister of State, but will his script be circulated to Members?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes, it is intended to circulate it. In commending the Bill, I would like to set out in brief what it contains and why it is necessary. Given its relevance to the future of Europe, I also wish to make some comments on the wider background against which the Bill is being debated. The decision to ratify the Treaty of Nice was taken by the people in the referendum on 19 October. However, a few further, essentially technical, measures must be taken in law before the State can actually ratify the treaty. Passage of this Bill is one of those measures.

A fundamental aspect of European Union law is that Community legislation has direct legal effect in each of the member states. This was recognised and allowed for in the original constitutional amendment enabling Ireland to join the EEC, as it then was, in 1973. The European Communities Act, 1972, listed the various treaties and other acts which would have direct legal effect in the State, and allowed for further implementing regulations to be made by Ministers. As the original Communities have grown and developed through successive treaties, it has been necessary in each case to amend the European Communities Act accordingly to take account of these next treaties. On each previous occasion, before Ireland has ratified an EU treaty, it has, through legislation, made relevant provisions of the treaty part of the domestic law of the State, so that at the time of ratification it is fully able to discharge its obligations. That is the purpose of this Bill. In proposing this measure, we are acting on the authority given to us by the people in the referendum.

The Bill contains three sections and further amends the 1972 Act. Section 1 is the principal operative part of the Bill. It adds the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Nice to the list of treaties and other instruments contained in the definition of the treaties governing the European Communities in section l(1) of the 1972 Act, as amended. These are Articles 1.15 and 2 to 10, together with annexed protocols. For ease of use, the 1972 Act, as amended. contains a table with a complete list of the treaties governing the European Communities. Section 1(2) of this Bill adds reference to the Treaty of Nice to that table.

Section 2 is a new section, added to the Bill in the Seanad by the Government, reflecting an amendment tabled by the Labour Party in the Seanad. It ensures that options and discretion available under the Treaty of Nice, referred to in the new Article 29.4.8º of the Constitution, fall within the remit of the European Union (Scrutiny) Act, 2002. This is the legislation under which all EU legislative and policy proposals can now be scrutinised by relevant Oireachtas committees. This was always intended to be the case. The new section makes the position totally clear and puts the matter beyond doubt.

Section 3 contains normal provisions concerning the short title, collective citation, construction and commencement. It provides that the Act will come into operation on such day as may be appointed by order made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. That day will coincide with the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice itself.

If Members will bear with me, it is worth outlining briefly the logic behind the selection of those Articles of the Treaty of Nice which, through this Bill, are to be made part of domestic law. Article 1 of the treaty amends aspects of the Treaty on European Union. Measures adopted under the treaty in the foreign policy, justice and home affairs areas differ from directives, regulations and decisions adopted under the Community treaties in the main social and economic sectors in that they do not have direct legal effect. The obligations which are created are intergovernmental and purely international in scope. For the most part the European Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction in these areas. Therefore the Bill does not include reference to Articles 1.1 or 1.14 of the treaty. Article 1.15, however, amends provisions relating to those limited areas under the treaty in which the European Court of Justice has jurisdiction. It is therefore necessary to include it in the list of those provisions of the Treaty of Nice which, through this Bill, are being made part of our domestic law.

In the areas of justice and home affairs, some instruments once adopted by the Council require subsequent legislative implementation by member states. In preparing this legislation, consideration was again given to whether provisions relating to justice and home affairs matters should be brought within the terms of the European Communities Act. This would allow for justice and home affairs legislation to be given domestic effect by regulation rather than by primary legislation. However, as was the case when the matter was last considered as part of the Treaty of Amsterdam, it was felt that these matters are of sufficient weight and sensitivity to merit implementation through primary, rather than secondary, legislation.

Articles 2 to 10 of the treaty, together with annexed protocols, represent the main body of substantive amendments to the European Communities Treaties under the Nice treaty. Article 2 amends various aspects of the treaty, establishing the European Community. It is much the most substantial of the Articles. Article 3 amends provisions of the treaty establishing the EURATOM. Article 4 amends aspects of the treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community. Article 5 amends the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank. Article 6 amends the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities.

Articles 7 to 10 are part of the treaty's transitional and final provisions, and provide, inter alia, for certain repeals consequent to the new provisions of the Treaty of Nice. All of these Articles are therefore included in the Bill. Articles 11, 12 and 13 also form part of the treaty's transitional and final provisions concerning matters of international treaty law. They provide that the treaty is concluded for an unlimited period. They set out how it is to be ratified and when it is to enter into force. They list those languages in which it is to be equally authentic. It is not deemed necessary that these aspects of the Treaty of Nice become part of domestic law.

There are four protocols to the treaty which form part of the Bill. Two are particularly important. The Protocol on Enlargement sets out the new arrangements governing the European Parliament, the weighting of votes in the Council, and the composition of the Commission. The Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice makes significant changes to the operation of the court. They are intended to allow it cope with enlargement and with a far greater case load.

As I hope will be apparent to Deputies, and in keeping with past practice, the terms of the Bill have been carefully drafted to ensure that only those provisions of the Treaty of Nice which it is necessary to make part of domestic law prior to ratification are made part of Irish law. The Government has not sought to go any further than is necessary to achieve that aim. Once the Bill has been enacted it will be possible for Ireland to draw up and to deposit its instrument of ratification with the Italian Foreign Ministry in Rome, which maintains the archive of all the treaties as a depository of the treaties.

The Treaty of Nice states that it will enter into force "on the first day of the second month following that in which the instrument of ratification is deposited by the last signatory state to fulfil that formality". As Ireland will be the last signatory state to take that important step, if we deposit our instrument of ratification before the end of this year, as the Government expects, the treaty will enter into force at the start of February.

The timing of this could not be more significant. As Deputies will be aware, there are twelve countries currently negotiating to join the European Union. Of these, ten are expected to be ready to sign an accession treaty later in the spring. In a very real way, Ireland will open the door to allow them in.

The enlargement negotiations for these ten countries are drawing to a close. The European Council meeting in Brussels at the end of October, in welcoming the outcome of the Irish referendum on Nice as paving the way for the treaty to enter into force, endorsed a Commission paper which stated that the ten countries in question Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia, fulfil the political criteria and will be able to fulfil the economic criteria to assume the obligations of membership from the beginning of 2004.

The Council decided to allow the Union to present negotiating positions to the candidate states on all outstanding issues by early November, with a view to concluding enlargement negotiations at the European Council in Copenhagen on 12 and 13 December and to signing the accession treaty in Athens in April 2003. This process remains on track.

We should not lose sight of the fact that all of the candidate counties have made enormous sacrifices to come this far, achieving the standards necessary to join the European Union has forced all of them to make difficult choices and to take tough decisions. Despite the attempts of a great many people to offer reassurance, there is no doubt that the result of the first referendum on Nice was a serious blow to their hopes, throwing into doubt the European Union's ability to achieve the timetable to which we had all been working. The result of the second referendum was, therefore, particularly welcome in the ten countries concerned.

In all of the discussions we have had here on the future direction of the European Union, whether in the debate that preceded the referendum, in the National Forum on Europe or elsewhere, there has been an overwhelming national consensus in favour of enlargement. Irish people—

Mr. Gormley

On a point of order, I do not wish to interrupt again but this is a ridiculous situation. I am trying to follow the Minister of State's speech and I do not have a copy.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Gormley

It is a point of order. We need a copy. It is a normal courtesy that Deputies on the opposition are given a copy of the speech. I do not want to be rude or interrupt but—

Mr. B. Lenihan

The Deputy is more than free to interrupt. I made it clear that a copy would be available.

Mr. Gormley

We are still waiting for it

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I am seriously concerned about this House being used merely as a rubber stamp. This may be part of the same thinking. I have seen a situation where opposition deputies have sought an adjournment of the House until copies of scripts were made available. There is limited time and I am not pushing it at this stage but it is not good enough. If a government is not competent to produce copies of their ministerial scripts, it says something about that government.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The script should have been available. It is a technical matter and—

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

If the Minister of State spoke more slowly we might be better able to follow it.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I assumed the scripts would be available. The Bill is technical and it is difficult to follow without a script.

Mr. Quinn

I am sure the nation is with bated breath watching our proceedings, including the press gallery. If the Chair would be lenient with regard to the Minister's reply on second stage, we could pose some questions and have them answered.

An Ceann Comhairle

The House is at the—

Mr. Quinn

I know that. We can go up to one o'clock according to the order of the House for the completion of second stage. If we can be facilitated with questions and answers at the end of second stage it might be helpful.

An Ceann Comhairle

The second stage must conclude by one o'clock and the remaining stages by 1.30 p.m.

Mr. Gormley

What are the speaking slots? What are we talking about?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The speaking arrangements are not really governed by a Standing Order.

Mr. Gormley

I think the only speakers on this Stage will be the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, Deputy Quinn and me.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

We have it to ourselves.

Mr. Quinn

May I propose that the Minister of State proceed slowly and we will receive the text in due course?

Mr. Gormley

That is agreed.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I am happy to facilitate Deputy Quinn's request.

As I indicated a few moments ago, the discussions we have had about Europe have shown an overwhelming national consensus in favour of enlargement. Irish people, who have felt the pain of conflict and division, see the expansion of the Union and the ending of the unnatural division of the European continent as a project of historic import. When we ratify the Nice treaty, allowing it to enter into force, another important step towards the achievement of that goal will have been taken. Ireland will be the last member state to ratify the treaty and the Government is conscious of why this is the case. Had the people not voted "No" in the first referendum, we would have expected to have completed the necessary procedures more than a year ago. While this would have made our lives considerably simpler, we would not have had the thorough and detailed debate on the future of the European Union and Ireland's role in it that preceded the second referendum. We have all gained from the experience, difficult as it certainly was, and the lessons we have learned will stand us in good stead for the future.

It is probably true that successive Governments tended to take comfort from the generally strong support which the people continued to feel towards the EU, assuming it would automatically translate into a favourable outcome in a related referendum. The result of the first referendum on the Nice treaty, therefore, was a wake-up call in many ways. It forced us to do more to listen, explain and respond to the concerns people raised. That we did so sincerely and, I hope, effectively, was reflected in the outcome of the second vote. I pay tribute to Deputies and indeed to many other people outside the House who did much to ensure a positive result in the second referendum. I do not doubt that the result was the right one for Ireland and Europe.

We have learned valuable lessons – for example, last year's result made it clear that we were not engaging the people sufficiently well in wider debates about the future of Europe. Many people felt that things were changing in a way that gave them little opportunity to discuss what was happening and to make their views and opinions heard in a meaningful way. In response to this concern, the Government established the National Forum on Europe which, under the excellent chairmanship of Senator Maurice Hayes, has made an enormously important contribution to furthering the debate on European issues. I commend the decision to take the debate out of Dublin Castle and into many parts of the country, rural, urban and suburban.

As a result of the roadshow conducted by the forum, the debate on Europe has a much more localised and genuine flavour. Deputies will be aware that discussions on the future shape of the EU are continuing, including at the European convention, to which I will return in a moment. The Government is pleased that, having played such an important part in facilitating discussion on enlargement and other aspects of the Treaty of Nice, the forum will continue to play a central role in ensuring that Irish people have a full say.

The outcome of the first referendum reflected a feeling that EU legislation was being imposed without a chance for elected representatives in the Oireachtas to examine it properly. As the House is aware, the Joint Committee on European Affairs is at the centre of new scrutiny measures which ensure that every legislative or policy proposal from Brussels is given appropriate consideration in the Oireachtas. The committee's work began in July and its arrangements now have a statutory footing in the form of the European Union (Scrutiny) Act, 2002. The work of the committee is a significant step towards addressing the democratic deficit sometimes associated with Europe. I pay tribute to the members of the committee, especially its Chairman, Deputy Gay Mitchell. The committee is doing an excellent and effective job in a new and challenging area. It is in everyone's interest that Governments are held to account.

The debate on the Nice treaty revealed a worry that membership of the EU somehow tends to diminish Irish identity and difference. I have never believed that this is the case and many people would argue that Ireland's culture and identity have been reinvigorated and enriched through our participation in and membership of the EU. Some people fear that our distinctive traditional policy of military neutrality may be encroached upon without people being given the chance to make a decision on the matter. In the declarations made at Seville earlier this year, however, the Government and its European partners made clear that this is not the case. Nothing in the EU treaties impinges on Ireland's traditionally neutral status. In an effort to offer reassurance that no change will be made without the people's approval, the second referendum on the Nice treaty proposed a constitutional prohibition on Ireland joining an EU common defence programme without a further referendum on the matter. I am pleased that, as a result of last month's vote, this position is now entrenched in the Constitution.

If I was asked what was the single most important lesson learned during the course of the Nice treaty referendum campaigns, I would say it is that the Government and elected representatives need to listen more carefully and respond more actively. This is an enduring lesson that we will do well to remember, especially as the debate begins to take shape at the European Convention on the Future of Europe. Under the Laeken declaration, the convention is charged with examining ways in which the Union can be brought closer to its citizens, play a full and active part in a rapidly changing global environment and be better organised to meet the challenges ahead. This is a task about which we should feel positive and enthusiastic, particularly given our recent experiences.

The convention brings together representatives of Governments and Parliaments from member states and applicant countries, together with MEPs and representatives of the Commission. It has been meeting since February under its President, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, but its work has recently begun to gather pace. Ireland has been well represented at the convention by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, who has played a full and active part as the Government's representative since his predecessor in the role, Mr. Ray MacSharry, stepped down after the general election. I also pay tribute to the work of his colleagues representing the Oireachtas, especially Deputy John Bruton, who is a member of the convention's presidium.

The convention represents a significant opportunity to make Europe more relevant, transparent and accountable. Many positive suggestions have been made as to how this can be achieved. There is widespread support, for example, for a simpler and more coherently organised treaty, an approach that was reflected in the preliminary draft constitutional treaty. If the necessary subtleties are maintained in the various policy areas, a single unified text will be a positive step towards making the treaties more accessible to the lay person. The proposed removal of the distinction between the Union and the Communities would be a further helpful step towards simplification. We would welcome measures aimed at giving more meaning and substance to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. It is clear from the convention's discussions that no great appetite exists in most areas for a significant transfer of competence to the Union. Equally, nobody is contemplating a tilt in the other direction by transferring competence back to member states.

Valery Giscard d'Estaing has stated his intention to seek an agreement that will endure for a generation or more, stand the test of time and bring to an end the sense that the Union is engaged in a constant process of reconstruction and development. Such an outcome would be welcomed by most people in Ireland. There are challenges ahead for Ireland as for all member states, but we should keep our eyes on the big picture – a more intelligible and transparent Europe – and not get lost in the plethora of proposals that exist. The Government will continue to take an active part in the proceedings of the convention. Genuine and meaningful steps can and should be taken towards giving the people greater ownership of the European project. From our point of view, it is a question of striking the right balance, of protecting what is good about the Union while preparing for the challenges ahead.

That is all for the future. I know that Deputies will continue to follow matters with great interest and to make an intelligent and meaningful contribution through speeches in debates such as this. Today's task is to take a further step towards ratification of the Treaty of Nice. As I hope I have explained, the Bill is a simple one, but it is significant. I warmly commend it to the House.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

There is a real danger that the Government will return to its bad old habits in relation to European affairs. I was hugely concerned to see a headline in The Irish Times this morning that read: “Open contempt for Convention on Future of Europe may cost Irish dear.” The article over which it appeared was written by a respected journalist, European correspondent Denis Staunton. He outlines very tellingly the lack of input from the Government to the convention. The Minister acknowledged the importance of the work of the convention in shaping the future direction of Europe, but the Government has little or no input into it. Worse than that, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has virtually dismissed its work and made it clear that, as far as he is concerned, any decisions of consequence would be made at the subsequent Intergovernmental Conference, which is technically correct. However, on that basis he seems to think that the work of the convention is, to a large degree, irrelevant.

The contrast between the approach adopted by the Government to the convention and that of other Governments is becoming clear. The two major continental powers, Germany and France, now that their relationship has been restored, have recently appointed their Foreign Ministers as representatives at the convention. I have a warning for the Government. The old approach of taking the people for granted, as in the case of the Nice referendum, has been seen to be a failure. I admit that the Government has accepted this and it had to mend its ways before the second referendum was held.

Mr. Quinn

The Deputy is back in the old groove.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I do not want to see the Government falling back into the same old ways. It would only be storing up trouble for the future by standing idly by while important decisions are being arrived at in the convention. From the Opposition point of view, every effort is being made to provide as significant an input as possible from Ireland. My colleague, Deputy John Bruton, who is virtually living in Europe at present as a member of both the convention and its governing presidium, is trying his best to project an approach that is in the interest of Ireland. Mr. Proinsias De Rossa MEP has also been making significant contributions. Others, including Deputy Gormley, have been trying to influence the direction of the convention in the best interest of Ireland as they see it.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, is there as well.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Why, in the detailed discussions that are taking place, is the voice of Ireland, as represented by the Government, absent? A most important gathering of Ministers, organised by the Dutch European Affairs Minister, was held last week and was attended by representatives of virtually all the smaller countries and many of the candidate countries. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, did not attend. Why? He was not invited to do so because he was seen to have no input to make.

Mr. Quinn

That sounds very unlike the Deputy Roche I know.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

This is a most dangerous situation. If the attitude of the Government is to be that the same old approach will do for the next treaty, we will encounter big trouble. Important decisions will be made at the convention. They may not be legally binding or ratified at the Intergovernmental Conference, but they will have an enormous influence on the ultimate outcome of that conference. If we do not contribute at Government level – not just at parliamentary level, which is working fine – and lay out our stall on behalf of Ireland, decisions will be made which, as highlighted in the newspaper headline to which I refer, may cost the Irish dearly. To some degree, that view is reinforced by the Minister's contribution in which he referred to the convention in broad terms.

We are discussing the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 2002, This is an obvious opportunity for the Government to outline its approach in detail, to engage in a debate on this matter and to inform us of what it will seek to have accepted by the convention. That has not happened. Instead we heard broad, bland phrases to the effect that the Government will take an active part in the proceedings and that the Minister believes that genuine and meaningful steps can and should be taken towards giving people greater ownership of the European project. What does that mean? I have been around long enough to know that Ministers can produce bland words to cover any situation, but we have gone past the stage of blandness.

We know what the Government does not want. There are a couple of simple things that we did not want to come about through the Nice Treaty, namely, tax harmonisation or of the transfer of dealings with tax from unanimity to qualified majority voting. What else does the Government believe in? For what is it fighting at the Convention on the Future of Europe? What is its philosophy? I know where I stand; I believe that the EU is a work in progress and that it will evolve. I do not accept the approach of Giscard d'Estaing that what happens at the convention, followed by the Intergovernmental Conference, will put the matter to bed for a generation. The European Union is a unique body which will continue to advance over the years.

I favour further integration in areas of benefit to Ireland and Europe, such as the environment, social policy, cross-border co-operation and crime and especially the fight against narcotics and international terrorism. I am completely open in this regard. What is the Government's approach? Does it favour changes in relation to the institutions, which might involve the direct election of the President of the European Commission? If so, why not debate that? Does it favour direct election by the people or by the European Parliament or does it favour direct election at all? This is just one of the issues. Is the Government in favour of a second house in the European Parliament? Is it in favour of the legal enforcement of the charter on fundamental rights?

Does the Government support a further extension of the powers of scrutiny of the Select Committee on European Affairs? I put forward a proposal in this regard, but I accepted the Bill that was passed. This is just a stage on the way, however. I want the Select Committee on European Affairs to have powers which would allow it to vet appointments by Ireland to European institutions. I refer here to the appointment of a Commissioner or of somebody to the Court of Auditors or the European financial institutions. If it had possessed such powers in the past, a number of difficulties might have been avoided. In the Convention on Europe and in this House we should have a genuine debate based on a detailed setting out by the Government of what it is seeking from the Convention. What have we instead? A report from the Convention on Europe suggesting that the Government is making no meaningful input. It is certainly not making any meaningful input here.

A Member of this House, Deputy John Bruton, is a member of the Presidium of the Convention. He has never been asked by the Government for a briefing at any time on the inner body directing the affairs of the Convention. We must get serious and ensure there is an understanding at Government level of the changes taking place as a consequence of the work of the Convention on Europe. The Government must make its input and ensure its proposals are fully debated in this House. We must also involve broader society and avoid the late night bargaining on the Nice treaty that led to a cobbled together compromise that took the people by surprise. The Government must not fall back into the bad old ways that led to problems in the past.

The Minister said the first Nice referendum was a wake up call. It was, and the Government had to respond to it. It had to accept our views on how to deal with it from the point of view of the declarations from the European Council and the change of approach for the second referendum. Having passed the referendum, this is no time for the Government to sit on its hands awaiting the same disaster. It is vital that we look ahead and involve the Oireachtas and the electorate in the debate. There will be another referendum in two or three years time and we should involve the people in the ongoing debate in Europe.

An issue that always arises and that has not been satisfactorily clarified is our security and defence policy. It will arise not only in the context of the next referendum, but much sooner if President Bush decides to have a go in Baghdad.

Mr. Quinn

When President Bush decides.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The Deputy is probably right. When neutrality is raised, I wonder what people imagine it to mean. It is like asking how long is a piece of string. It is important to be clear where we stand on this issue. We are not neutral in the conflict against international terrorism, the struggle against ethnic cleansing or other gross violations of human rights. I know where we are not neutral but there should be a greater understanding of where we are neutral and what that implies. If neutrality involves not being part of a mutual defence pact, and the Oireachtas deciding our line on any issue, let that be clear. The time is right for our neutrality to be examined in full and a comprehensive White Paper should be produced to address our position on it in the new Europe and an uncertain world. That would provide clarity.

Mr. Quinn

Would the Deputy agree to ordering our business? We have no ruling other than that we must conclude Second Stage at 1 p.m. I would like the Minister to respond for ten minutes on Second Stage. Committee and Remaining Stages will conclude at 1.30 p.m.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is provision. Deputy O'Keeffe has until 12.20 p.m. and Deputy Quinn has until 12.50 p.m. The Minister will have to be called to reply at 12.45 p.m. but that would mean Deputy Gormley would not have any time.

Mr. Quinn

That is why I am on my feet.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I am glad Deputy Quinn has raised the issue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is up to the Deputies to make an arrangement between themselves because the Minister must be called at 12.45 p.m. to reply.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Under no circumstances do I want to hog the floor. I have made most of the points I wanted to raise. I am in favour of this Bill in that it is the technical ending of the Nice treaty chapter. As someone who wanted that treaty to be ratified and the entrance of the candidate countries, I support it. The Minister might deal with some on my points on Second Stage and we might then have the opportunity for further interventions on the other Stages.

Mr. Quinn

I assume we are also debating the motion to ratify the Nice treaty and we can discuss that as well. It has not been formally moved.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes.

Mr. Quinn

Can we avail of Committee Stage to have questions and answers? Is that in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The normal course of events on Committee Stage will take place.

Mr. Quinn

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I congratulate him on his elevation. In his speech, however, he said that, looking back on the journey we have made, if asked what was the single most important lesson to be learned, the answer would be that the Government and elected representatives generally need to listen more carefully and respond more actively. We have got off to a bad start. Whoever is organising business on the Government side seems to be unaware that the National Forum on Europe is meeting in Dublin Castle as we speak. People who would have liked to contribute to this debate cannot be here. Due to an administrative cock up the normal courtesy of having a copy of the speech was not available. The Minister for State at the Department of Foreign of Affairs, with responsibility for Europe, who would be better informed than the well informed Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is not here.

Speaking on behalf of a party that has vigorously supported this project, it is obvious the Government has not followed the admonition in the Minister of State's speech. It has not learned or listened. One reason for that is that the Department of Finance is not resourcing the European section of the Department of Foreign Affairs sufficiently.

Also, it is not resourcing the scrutiny subcommittee of the Committee on European Affairs. It is not possible for those of us who are members of that committee, with the normal requirements of a Dáil Deputy, to go through the documentation piling up on our desks and to scrutinise it in a meaningful manner without back-up resources. This is not a matter for the Minister of State but, presumably, someone in the Government will read the text of this debate. We will not meet our requirements if we do not put our money where our mouth is, and the Minister will not have listened. The cost of the second referendum was way in excess of anything we are looking for in terms of resources.

This process ratifies the Nice treaty and transposes into domestic law those sections of Community legislation which require to be transposed through secondary legislation. It makes all the other adjustments in a somewhat complex and technical manner, which I will not go into in great detail. I appreciate, however, the fact that in regard to justice and home affairs, the Government wisely decided to retain the instrument of primary legislation rather than secondary legislation because of the sensitive nature of many of these measures and the fact that it is not accountable to the courts in Luxembourg or, in most cases, to the European Parliament, even though there have been some changes.

Having said that, the primary purpose of the legislation is to give effect to enlargement. Much of the Minister's speech in this House and his colleague's speech in the other House referred to Ireland being the last country to ratify, that the process of enlargement can now proceed and it is quite possible that in the first half of 2004, under Ireland's Presidency, the actual formal accession of the candidate states will take place. Sadly, we are not taking full advantage nor are we properly prepared to do that task. For example, there are 12 accession candidate states, including Bulgaria and Romania, who will not be part of the first ten but undoubtedly will be down the road. Unlike each of the 15 member states, with the exception of Luxembourg, we do not as yet have embassies in all those accession candidate states. That is a matter of resources.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs in the previous Government spoke about his desire to open embassies, but we have not yet done so. If we are in the business of making alliances with other small member states, and if we are trying to help other countries become potential partners, decision-makers and co-decision-makers with us in the changing political structure that is the enlarged European Union, we need to get to know the new members and we should begin by having embassies in those countries. Many of these countries do not make much distinction between Ireland and the rest of these islands, except in recent times when they looked at the performance of the Irish economy. Therefore, there is a requirement for the Government to announce a programme indicating when it will introduce the embassies, even though I know it will be the first casualty of the retrenchment of Government finances. It is an unwise economy because it would be an expensive decision from Ireland's point of view.

This is not just about embassies. Enlargement requires us, in anticipation of the membership of these countries, to enter into bilateral programmes of help and assistance. We have an enormous ODA budget, part of which could be considered from the point of view of bilateral programmes. There are other programmes in the context of existing budgetary provisions that would enable applicant and candidate countries to come to Ireland, send personnel to Ireland and learn procedures relating to the aquis communitaire. English has become de facto the first working language of the enlarged Community and Ireland is uniquely placed as a small member state whose working language is English to offer these facilities. I know the IPA has done so in the past but the programme now needs to be accelerated, and we are not taking advantage of that.

The last thing I would say in regard to the enlarged European Union is that it has been the experience of any of us who campaigned in the recent referendum, on whatever side, that it was very difficult much of the time to engage the attention of people about the proposed changes in the decision-making rules of the European Union when many, if not most, of them had no idea of what the existing rules were. I invite the Minister of State to consider a Government initiative, which would probably come from the European affairs section of the office of the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, whereby some form of information, communication, wall chart or whatever would be put up in every primary and secondary school classroom showing how decisions are made in the European Union.

The Minister of State may recall that in 1966, the fiftieth anniversary of the insurrection, a wall chart and documentation was put into every classroom. It is impossible to discuss changes in the off-side rule in soccer if people do not know what the primary rule is. It is virtually impossible to have a rational debate with people, many of whom are influential in our society, about changes in the operation of the European Union if they do not fundamentally understand the role of the Commission, the responsibility of the Council of Ministers, the role of the Parliament and the powers of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Without that understanding of what is currently in place, any meaningful discussion on the outcome of the convention will be seriously impaired because it would be a discussion taking place against a set of changes and proposals to an existing infrastructure which is not properly comprehended by the rest of the Community.

I do not know if the Minister of State had a chance to read Denis Staunton's article, but if it is true it is seriously disturbing. I have no reason to doubt its veracity and I must say it confirms other things I have heard recently. It confirms the isolation of the Irish Government and, as someone who had the privilege to be in the same position as the Minister of State, it confirms an Iveagh House-Department of Finance congenital response about which I have written and spoken elsewhere, and which runs as follows:

Let us not put our head above the parapet in respect of anything. Let us wait and see as to what is emerging. Let us be agreed as to what it is we are opposed to and not look for allies for anything which we might actually have a positive view upon, because we do not need to, in fact, have a positive view on anything because we are net recipients of largesse from Europe. Therefore, let us not rock the boat but defend our own interests.

That caricature has characterised many attitudes from different Departments through successive Administrations. It is partly informed by a lack of resources in the European Union section of Iveagh House and other Departments. It is a policy we can no longer pursue for two reasons. First, the work of the convention is of such a serious nature that we cannot afford not to have our voice heard at the appropriate time. The informal meeting convened by the Dutch Ministry for Foreign Affairs of similar small member states and candidate states was one to which we should have been asked. If we had an articulate voice expressing Ireland's point of view in regard to the constitutional evolution of the future of the European Union, it would have been incomprehensible that the Irish representative would not have been invited. If, as the article suggests, that person was not invited, it indicates we do not have a positive view to express and that we are simply there with a watching brief, like a lawyer in court, for a secondary client who may be named in proceedings and, therefore, will jump in at the appropriate time to defend their interests. That is not the way to proceed.

I would like to hear from the relevant Ministers what the Irish view is in regard to the emerging structure and outcome of the convention. If, as reported by Denis Staunton in today's edition of The Irish Times, the Government thinks it can afford to ignore the proceedings of the convention and it is business as usual with an intergovernmental conference like at Nice, Amsterdam or Maastricht, then it has totally and utterly missed the sea change that has occurred throughout the European Union.

Mr. Gormley

Absolutely.

Mr. Quinn

Deputy Gormley, as an alternate member of the Convention on the Future of Europe, is better placed and better informed than I am. My information is second hand while his is first hand. He may confirm what I have said and I look forward to his contribution.

The Nice treaty was a disaster, and I am on record as saying so, in terms of the incompetence of the French and the way in which it was negotiated over four nights. I want to know now, not at three minutes to midnight, the Irish Government view with regard to a written constitution for the European Union and whether the Government wants to have the Charter of Fundamental Rights incorporated into that constitution and have it accessible in legal terms. I know of the conservative neo-liberal reservations of the current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Is that the Irish Government view? While it is consistent with the views of former Deputies O'Malley and O'Kennedy, does it reflect the view of the Fianna Fáil Party, particularly the progressive element of that party?

What is the Government view of the election and selection of the President of the Commission? I want to know the Government view with regard to the balance of decision-making powers between the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament, and the balance between the unique legal creature that is the European Union, as Deputy O'Keeffe mentioned. What should the balance be between the mixture of intergovernmentalism and the Community decision-making that makes it so unique? What is the Government attitude with regard to the Union becoming a legal entity so that, for example, the Union would represent Europe at the Security Council and France and Britain would give up their Security Council seats so that the council is broadened and enlarged.

I welcome this debate. The Labour Party will support it and that is consistent with what we said during the Nice treaty campaign. However, I am disappointed as there may be a reversion to old ways. If this is the way the Government intends to proceed with European business in this or any other Chamber following the second Nice referendum, the admonition set out in the Minister's speech may simply be for other people but does not apply to the Government.

Mr. Gormley

I wish to share my time with Deputies Ó Caoláin, Harkin, Connolly and Cowley, by agreement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Gormley

As my time is limited, I want to get straight to the substance of this debate, which is the convention. I confirm what Deputy Quinn has said and what was stated in today's edition of The Irish Times, namely, that the Government is not taking the convention seriously. I regret that but it is the case. There may well be reasons for it and I would give the benefit of the doubt if possible. The general election intervened and the Nice treaty referendum was held. The Government may have taken its eye off the ball. The Nice treaty campaign is finished. The Irish people have spoken and, as a democrat, I accept the will of the people even though they spoke for a second time, something I regret. I accept what is before us today but the Government, having succeeded with the Nice treaty with much help from the Opposition—

Mr. Quinn

For which we got no public thanks on the day in question.

Mr. Gormley

—has now put the treaty to one side and ignored the process. Those who believe that the work of the convention can be unstitched are living in cloud-cuckooland. I see first hand the seriousness with which the French and Germans are taking this. Mr. Joschka Fischer is not going to this convention for the good of his health but to do a job. He was put in because Mr. Giscard d'Estaing was running away with the convention.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The Deputy did not listen to him very much during the referendum campaign.

Mr. Gormley

I am giving the House good advice and it should be taken in the spirit with which it is given. I disagree fundamentally with what is proposed at the convention but do not know the Irish Government position.

Mr. Quinn

Exactly.

Mr. Gormley

It seems the Government is adopting the Seamus Heaney approach, whatever you say, say nothing. The Government is sitting back and putting nothing in writing. I have tried to make progress. I regularly phone people in Iveagh House and had a good meeting with them yesterday. However, they must be circumspect because this is a peculiar situation, which I will now outline.

The job of those in Iveagh House is to serve the Government. They are dealing with what they see as a diverse group from the Opposition. They would possibly see Deputy John Bruton and Mr. De Rossa MEP as federalists. I read a very interesting article by the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Dea, which categorised them as arch-federalists, so there may be a suspicion of them. Those working in Iveagh House may look at me and say that I am the person who tried to undermine them at the time of the Nice treaty referendum and that they must be careful with me.

Those are backward views. The Government will have to accept that representatives in Europe should work as a team. They should go there to get a good deal for Ireland and that is the spirit in which things should be done.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That has always been the philosophy on this side of the House.

Mr. Gormley

The Opposition has never received a briefing document.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

What does the Deputy want?

Mr. Gormley

We have no back-up. Members of the Opposition must deal with their constituents and go out three days a week. There is no back-up.

Mr. Quinn

This must be taken seriously.

Mr. Gormley

It must be taken seriously. I have pleaded with the Minister, Deputy Cowen, and I now plead with the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Lenihan. I am also trying to get a message across to the Minister for Finance that there is a Franco-German alliance. Those countries have just put forward a paper on defence. We must get to the nitty-gritty of their proposals. The Joschka Fischer paper proposes applying enhanced co-operation to the area of defence. This was clear to me at the time of the Nice treaty referendum although my words fell on deaf ears. As part of the Nice treaty, this would require eight countries but France and Germany want to reduce that number.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is impossible under the Nice treaty.

Mr. Gormley

I want to know the Irish Government response. I have to produce a paper in response to Mr. Barnier for early tomorrow. I have some inkling of what the Department is thinking but, as of yet, do not have anything in writing. This is a very peculiar way to do business.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is extraordinary the Deputy wants the advice of the Department when he would not take it previously.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

That is a shallow comment.

Mr. Gormley

We should not get into such partisanship now. I accept the result of the Nice treaty referendum as I accepted previous results. However, Deputy Lenihan should know that much of what I warned has come to pass. With regard to militarisation and the partnership for peace, it was interesting to see the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, at the Prague summit and to hear Deputy Lenihan's comments following the Nice treaty referendum that the PfP was not a military organisation. The reality of the Government commitment is clear.

When talking in the defence working group, it is interesting that Ireland is never referred to as neutral, it is simply referred to as non-aligned, and that is how we are seen. I agree with Deputy Quinn although I probably disagree with his views on the substance of neutrality. A debate is required in this country. The convention is trying to separate defence from external affairs. European security and defence policy must be a fundamental part of the common foreign and security policy. Once that is moved out, difficulties will be experienced.

The events of 11 September are increasingly used as a pretext for further military spending. It is as if terrorism was invented on 11 September. Each country in the European Union has experienced terrorism and they know that it cannot be defeated by military means alone. This is something I have tried forcefully to get across to Lord Robertson when he addressed the committee. I hope he and others have taken this on board. However, there is a fundamental question on defence that must be faced up to.

There are those at the convention who want to move away from the United States and NATO on defence. That is fine, but they must realise that it has very severe cost implications for the defence spending of the EU. This country would have to substantially increase its defence spending. Do those people, including Green Party colleagues such as Mr. Joschka Fischer, really believe EU militarism is superior to American militarism? Do they want to tell their electorates that they want to spend more money on arms? I certainly do not want to do that. It is much more important to invest in health, the environment and education.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I am not in favour of leaving defence to NATO.

Mr. Gormley

At the time of the Nice treaty debate, I repeatedly said this constitutional amendment applied to a decision of the European Council. It was a very deliberate decision and has left the back door open for us to join NATO. Deputy Harney's maxim that we are closer to Boston than to Berlin is very true. We are much closer to joining NATO than a European common defence organisation. That is where the Government is coming from, but it is always unstated, nothing is put in writing and the Government is playing its cards very close to its chest. It is a bad long-term strategy. Once the Government goes to the Intergovernmental Conference and starts to play hardball we will be asked where Ireland has been for the past ten months.

Mr. Quinn

That is the very point.

Mr. Gormley

I cannot fathom the Government's ad hoc approach. It is vital that EU citizens have a sense of ownership. Many convention members pepper their contributions with the idea of citizenship and the citizen. I listened to some of the delegates from the youth convention who came before us with their ideas for the future of Europe. They made the grandiose statement that the young people of Europe want more qualified majority voting. I can think of many things the young people of Europe might want, like more sex, drugs and rock and roll but I am sure most of them do not know what qualified majority voting is.

Mr. Quinn

They probably think it is a record label.

Mr. Gormley

We need to be realistic when talking about citizens. The citizens do not know about qualified majority voting but they want to be involved in the European project. The one good thing about the referendum process is that our citizens know more about the Nice treaty than those of any other EU member state. We require more involvement from the citizens of Europe and it can be done if the proper institutional changes are made. Unfortunately, the convention does not seem to have the bottle, or the wit, to do that.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I take no pleasure in speaking on this Bill as it codifies aspects of the Nice treaty into domestic law. Sinn Féin remains steadfast in its opposition to the treaty, the substance of which we outlined in two referenda campaigns. Moreover, we remain opposed to the agenda the Nice treaty represents at international level, within the EU and in Ireland. It has an elitist, militarist, big-business agenda and it is not the agenda we want to see driving developments in Europe, Ireland or elsewhere.

There is no need to go into a Nice treaty campaign post mortem other than to remind the pro-Nice treaty parties that the result indicated a significant sector of the electorate remain committed to voicing their ongoing concerns around democracy, neutrality, militarisation and the influence and power of the global big business agenda that dominates the EU. Despite this very clear statement, the fast tracking of this Bill, as with the fast tracking of the treaty debate and the European Union Bill, confirms the Government believes that unless the people vote its way their vote and their voices do not count.

During the most recent referendum campaign, Sinn Féin emphasised that the Government "Yes" campaign was yet another campaign of Government lies. In the context of this Bill I am forced to return to this assertion. The Government's stated neutrality commitment was a lie – it cannot be dressed up in any other way. In the days and weeks after securing the referendum result, the Government signalled its intention to support and co-operate in the impending war in Iraq and sent a Minister of State to participate in Ireland's first NATO summit to discuss NATO expansion. Only now are we hearing the post-Nice rumblings—

Mr. Deasy

I wish to raise a point of order.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I cannot accept a point of order; I am pressed for time as it is.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormack)

I have to accept the point of order.

Mr. Deasy

I am seeking a ruling from the Chair on the use of scripts in the Chamber.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Ó Caoláin is referring to notes.

Mr. Deasy

It does not look to me like he is doing that. I have asked for a ruling. Can I have it deferred to next week?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

The Deputy can have anything he likes deferred. He is aiding the Government in wasting Opposition time.

Mr. Deasy

I am not addressing the Deputy, I am asking for a ruling from the Chair.

Acting Chairman

My ruling is that he is using notes.

Mr. Deasy

I am asking for a ruling from the Chair.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

The Chair has just ruled. May I proceed?

Mr. Deasy

I disagree with the ruling; I do not think he is using notes.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

May I proceed? Believe me, I am not asking Deputy Deasy.

Acting Chairman

You may proceed.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Only now are we hearing the post-Nice rumblings about how neutrality is an outdated policy for wimps and how it does not mean there will not be participation in foreign wars.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Those rumblings have not originated from the Government.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

These rumblings are not only signals of the anti-neutrality policy shifts to come, they belong to an anti-neutrality policy continuum. The Government has increasingly pursued a policy that includes a reversal of its stated position on Ireland joining NATO's Partnership for Peace, committing troops to the EU's Rapid Reaction Force and appointment of an Irish Army officer to one of the top EU military positions in Brussels. It includes allowing Ireland to be used as a staging ground for the war in Afghanistan and the impending war in Iraq without seeking prior Dáil debate, much less approval.

The development of the EU is now reaching a critical stage. One month ago today the Convention on the Future of Europe presidium released its highly controversial draft EU constitutional treaty. The treaty, which will be debated in the coming months and finalised next summer, represents the next frontier, or the site of the struggle in shaping Europe. All those who opposed the Nice treaty in the interests of democracy, neutrality and sovereignty, as republicans did, will watch these developments very closely. I reiterate my call for an early debate in this House on the proposals for a draft EU constitution to allow the representatives of the people have a full input in the process. It is very well for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to treat the convention with, as The Irish Times says today, “open contempt”, but he cannot and must not treat this House, and, by extension, the electorate, with the same contempt.

Ms Harkin

I campaigned for a "Yes" vote in the Nice treaty referendum and strongly support the enlargement of the EU. The "No" vote in the first referendum gave all of us cause for concern. We are on the road to enlargement but must learn lessons from what the electorate told us. Many people have said we should look at the concerns of those who voted "No", and we should, but we must recognise that many people that voted "Yes" have genuine and grave concerns about our involvement in Europe, the direction it will take and the role we will play in it. I am one of those people who voted "Yes". However, I still have concerns even as a Member of this House. People might ask how I, as a Member of Dáil Éireann and of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, can be concerned. I listened to Deputy Gormley, one of our representatives at the convention, express his concerns about his role there. That is enough to make me more concerned. What is being discussed, negotiated and decided at the convention will have major implications for the future direction of Europe.

I want to reflect on my role as a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. I am a new Deputy who has an interest and a lot to learn. However, people in the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim and nationally expect me to be their eyes and ears and to help to eliminate the democratic deficit which both "Yes" and "No" voters recognised in the recent referendum. The reality of my situation is reams of paper and armfuls of documents which I cannot trawl through. I can scan them, but I cannot examine them. I cannot put my hand on my heart and say to the electorate that I am its eyes and ears. I need greater resources and backup. The committee structure may need to be changed so that I can do my work effectively. I cannot carry out my role effectively as a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. The promises made to the electorate before the recent Nice treaty referendum about the role of the Joint Committee on European Affairs have not been honoured.

Mr. Quinn

Hear, hear.

Mr. Connolly

I welcome this important Bill which seeks to include certain sections of the Nice treaty with a list of EU treaties in the European Communities Act, 1972. The Bill arises from the resounding acceptance by the electorate of the Nice treaty in the recent referendum. The part played by the Forum on Europe to convince the electorate to vote "Yes" cannot be overstressed.

Some 40% of the electorate voted "No" in the referendum. It is appropriate that the fears of those people are adequately addressed and that they are given concrete assurances on issues such as neutrality and common European defence. One of the major fears expressed during the referendum campaign related to the democratic deficit. This fear looms large in the minds of many people and it should be addressed.

I hope the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs will be given an expanded role in terms of vetting proposed EU legislation. The joint committee played a significant role in the run up to the referendum. It received presentations from delegations from several of the first tier applicant countries for EU membership and from Commissioner Chris Patten. There was tremendous enthusiasm for EU membership among the applicant countries and confident anticipation of Ireland's acceptance of the Nice treaty in the first referendum. The hopes and aspirations of countries in the second tier were dashed on that occasion. However, they greatly appreciated the result of the October referendum.

Military neutrality was an issue of major concern to many people during the referendum campaign. It was made patently clear during the debate that our neutrality would not be compromised. It was further established that any change in status could only happen through a constitutional referendum. That helped to reassure the people.

It would be an important step for Ireland to establish embassies in the applicant countries, many of which have already set up embassies in Dublin. Several of the second tier applicant states have already opened embassies in Dublin. This legislation is a sine qua non to clear the way for the final ratification of the Nice treaty. It is also a further step on the road to completing the enlargement process.

Dr. Cowley

I am happy to support the Bill. I am particularly happy for the 12 applicant countries and that the historic process of EU enlargement can proceed as planned. We have always had a generous spirit and I am glad these countries will have the same chance we had. We have done well out of Europe. However, I would be happier if the west had done better. They got EU Structural Funds on our backs. We worked hard for Objective One status. However, when the money is not available, what good are higher grants?

People are aware of our place in Europe and there is a major obligation on us to allow the people to be part of what happens in Europe. The Government must be more careful in how it interprets European directives. It should have more of an input into the directives before they are made. The problem is that the directives have been grossly over interpreted. We are still suffering in the west from the effects of the nitrates and habitats directives. They have done more harm than anything else. The west is still suffering from these sterilising statutes. This issue must be addressed.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I hope the EU will be more democratic and that the Council of Ministers will be able to come back to the committee and accept its directive.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. B. Lenihan)

I thank Members on all sides of the House, with one notable dissent, for their general welcome for the Bill's principle. I welcome the fact the Bill is seen as a necessary technical measure on foot of the authority the people have given us as a result of the referendum. I also welcome the wide ranging debate in the House on the result of the Nice treaty and the convention on the future of Europe, which is now in session. I propose to deal with the points raised by speakers in order in my reply.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe referred to an article published in The Irish Times about a dinner or luncheon which has been convened in connection with the convention. The article emanates from the hothouse world of Brussels speculation. We had similar articles prior to the plebiscite about the possible existence of a plan B. I am glad the people in their wisdom ignored such material and studied the issues involved.

I agree that we must focus on the issues raised by the convention. The Government is approaching the convention and will approach the subsequent Intergovernmental Conference in a positive and constructive manner. We recognise the outcome of the convention will be a significant factor in shaping the debate as we move towards the Intergovernmental Conference. The Government representative at the convention is the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, who has been charged with special responsibility for European affairs. He is playing a full and active part in the proceedings of the convention and in the networking and alliance building which must take place on the margins of the formal meetings of the convention. Deputy Roche played a full and vigorous role not alone in the referendum campaign but also in the proceedings of the convention and its associated meetings.

We recognise the need for reform if the European Union is to rise to the new challenges ahead and to sustain and develop public support across the member states. We should not lose sight of the fact that the Union has been a great success. In moving forward, we should take great care to protect the existing institutional balance. That is the Government's position. The broad policy mix of competences has served us well to date and there is widespread support for this point of view throughout the convention. The Government, in co-operation with all the parties, has established the national Forum on Europe. That continues in session, as Deputy Quinn reminded us this morning. The forum is a unique experiment among all the member states. It allows for continuing engagement on these issues which, as all Deputies acknowledged, is of fundamental and critical importance in this area.

Like Deputy Quinn, I salute the work done by all the parties and the Independent Deputies, such as Deputies Cowley, Harkin and Connolly, in persuading the people to make their minds up to support the treaty in the referendum. It was tremendous that there was a greater turnout and participation by the electorate on that occasion than on the previous one. That gives a unique democratic legitimacy to the result given by the people. It is often said that it is a woman's prerogative to change her mind. It is also the prerogative of the people. They did that and that is their entitlement.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

For the Minister of State's information, I accept the outcome of the referendum.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Dáil Éireann has the unique responsibility of deciding what proposals should be submitted to the people and I found it very tedious throughout the referendum debate to have this silly argument from the "No" campaign with regard to whether or not we could ask the same question again. It is perfectly within the rights and powers of this House to resubmit a question to the people and because the matter was so grave and moral in character for the great majority of Members of this House, it gave us no pleasure to have to ask again. However, we felt entitled to do so as it is our democratic right. We are elected by the people.

Mr. Gormley

Cannot the Minister of State be gracious and magnanimous in victory and say "Thank you"?

Mr. B. Lenihan

I have thanked those who supported the result.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

He might also acknowledge the increased "No" vote in the second referendum.

Mr. B. Lenihan

In his excellent contribution, Deputy Gormley touched upon a point it is very important to make in connection with the convention. A referendum will be required in the case of any proceedings emanating from the convention and agreed upon at the Intergovernmental Conference which involve a substantive change in the identity of the communities of the European Union. The Government has not obtained final advice from the Attorney General on this matter and cannot obtain such advice until the final shape of the proposals is clear, but the possibility that we may have a further referendum must be factored in to our preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference.

Questions were raised about the degree of consultation that is taking place between the Government and members of the convention, but members of the convention are sent to it to use their intelligence, their undoubted judgment and their good sense. I say to Deputy Gormley that I did not mean any disrespect to them when I interjected during the debate. The convention is independent in its purpose and scope and it is not meant to act according to the dictates of officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs or its Minister, not even in the case of the Government representative. Members have been sent to the convention to exercise their undoubted wisdom and perspective and it is open to Deputy Gormley to formulate an alternative constitution for Europe to put on the table at the convention.

Mr. Gormley

Should I do a bit of typing?

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

What is the Government offering?

Mr. B. Lenihan

I would very much appreciate the submission of such a text. The Deputy seemed to have very little difficulty producing immense amounts of typing during the recent referendum campaign and I hope his research department can be reconstituted for the purpose of this exercise. As all Deputies have pointed out, we should participate intensively in this convention. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe raised the matter of consultation and it is important that I inform him that Deputy John Bruton met the Taoiseach earlier this week to discuss the matter.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

It is about time.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Many Deputies said that the process that led to the Nice treaty involved late night bargaining in Nice and that there was a danger of us sitting on our hands at the convention stage. Of course there is that danger, but we should remember the fundamental point that the convention and any Intergovernmental Conference can only be implemented through free decisions of the sovereign states which make up the European Union in accordance with their constitutional requirements. On that I have to disagree with Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. The reason there has to be an Intergovernmental Conference is that sovereign states have to agree on any treaty before it can be implemented. Sovereignty may be a very unattractive sight at a late hour at Nice, but it is something this State possesses still.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe called for a White Paper on neutrality and a full examination of our policy. In a sense we have had a full examination of that in the run up to the referendum and the Government has set out a very clear position in regard to it. The people approved that. There was a White Paper on foreign policy when former Deputy Dick Spring was Minister for Foreign Affairs, but this Government has no immediate plan to bring forward a document on neutrality. When speaking on this subject, it is very important to have clarity in our terminology.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Absolutely.

Mr. B. Lenihan

In September 1939, the Government made it very clear that we were not participating in the hostilities then and that has remained the position from that date until now.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

That war is over.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Any participation in operations overseas has been under the mandate of the United Nations, just as before 1939 we endeavoured to make the League of Nations machinery work. We have tried since we acceded to United Nations membership to operate the system of collective security implicit in that. I say that in connection to a remark referred to by Deputy Ó Caoláin about the use of facilities at Shannon. Anything that is happening at Shannon is done in accordance with well established international usage.

Mr. Gormley

Why does the Minister of State not have it debated on the floor of the House?

Mr. B. Lenihan

The use of the airport at Shannon in the pursuit of Al Qaeda is dealt with under a United Nations resolution. I do not know if Deputy Ó Caoláin's party objects to the United Nations or not, but Deputy Joe Higgins has recently voiced reservations about the organisation.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Of course not. I have made the position very clear in this House on many occasions.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I agree with Deputy Quinn that it is unfortunate that our debate this morning co-incides with the session of the forum, but we must take matters as we find them. Deputy Quinn raised the very important issue of our representation in the candidate and applicant states, a matter also raised by Deputy Connolly. In recent years our network of embassies and missions has expanded significantly to include a number of the applicant states and as of today we have embassies in the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia. It is the policy of the Government to complete that network as soon as is practical. We have diplomatic relations with all of the states involved, but those are the embassy footholds we have established which is very important. The effort should be furthered.

Mr. Quinn

Five embassies are outstanding.

Mr. B. Lenihan

There are fewer than that on my list, unless the Deputy is taking 12 states into account.

Mr. Quinn

I am referring to the 12.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I welcome the fact that Deputy Quinn drew attention to the important distinction between primary and secondary legislation which we may return to on Committee Stage. While the justice and home affairs pillar always requires implementation through primary legislation, it is often the case that such legislation is also required to implement EU directives. This is very important work which the committees charged with these matters must undertake.

Deputy Quinn raised one of the most valid points of the debate. One of the key findings of much of the field research we conducted during the recent referendum campaign was how small a proportion of the population is aware of the institutional workings of the European Union. Perhaps that is because the institutional balance is very new and different to the conventional Montesquieu model of legislative, executive and judicial institutions that we in this House understand, or try to. Many in our population do not realise the precise functions of the Commission, the Parliament, the Court of Justice and the Council and there is a clear need for more information. Deputy Quinn's suggestion of a wall chart or illustrative device for primary schools is excellent and I will take it up. I am authorised to say on behalf of the Minister that it will be discussed with the Minister for Education and Science. It is vital that we deepen our understanding of these institutions which have such power to shape our lives and it is important that we are able to shape them also.

The position of the Government regarding to the role of the European Parliament and issues arising in relation to the convention has been dealt with by the Minister in reply to a parliamentary question. In opening this debate, I made the key point that we very much welcome the drive towards clarity and simplicity in the formulation of the fundamental European document.

Acting Chairman

I ask the Minister of State to conclude as I am obliged to put the question.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I regret I was not able to refer to the contributions of some of the other Deputies but there were points I wished to make.

Acting Chairman

The Minister of State might get an opportunity on—

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

We will invite the Minister of State to make further comments.

Question put and agreed to.