Billy Timmins
Question:1 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he last had discussions with the Chinese ambassador; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16661/08]
Priority Questions.
Human Rights Issues.
The Minister met the Chinese ambassador on 16 April regarding the situation in Tibet. During the meeting, which took place in a sensitive atmosphere, the Minister set out the Government's policy on the situation in Tibet, as well as on our relations with China as a whole. The Minister also raised the effects on Irish business people and tourists of the introduction of new Chinese visa procedures.
The Minister deplored the loss of life of both ethnic Han Chinese and Tibetans over the past two months and sought to urge all sides to exercise the maximum restraint, to underline the importance Ireland attaches to the right of freedom of expression and peaceful protest, to urge the Chinese authorities to allow greater access by the media and independent observers to Tibet to allow an assessment of what has been happening there, to establish from the Chinese authorities what has happened to the protesters, seeking assurances of their well-being and the release of imprisoned peaceful protesters, and to encourage dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama.
The Minister again raised these points with the Chinese ambassador, with a particular emphasis on the importance of dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama. The Minister made clear his view that dialogue is the only peaceful and sustainable way of ensuring the preservation of Tibetan religious and cultural identity, as well as addressing Chinese concerns regarding its territorial integrity. In this context, the Government welcomes the announcement last week that the Chinese authorities are to meet in the coming days with representatives of the Dalai Lama. We hope that these meetings can move quickly to remove any remaining impediments to more substantial talks which could address the issue of autonomy, within the framework of the Chinese constitution.
It remains the Minister's view that it is through open and frank dialogue, on a bilateral basis as well as through the EU, that we can best impress our concerns on the Chinese authorities. China remains a key player across a range of important issues, not only relating to human rights and the situation in countries such as Burma and Darfur, but also regarding climate change, sustainable development, trade and investment.
The Minister of State is aware that the Chinese ambassador left the Green Party conference when his ministerial colleague made reference to Tibet as a country. Was this issue raised by the ambassador or the Minister? If so, what was the view expressed? Does the Minister of State believe that this incident may have had an impact on Irish and Chinese relations?
The Chinese have given a commitment that they will reopen talks with representatives of the Dalai Lama. I understand those talks have not yet begun. When and where will they begin? Who will represent the Chinese authorities and who are they prepared to meet from the Tibetan Government in exile? What is the purpose of the talks? There is concern among the Tibetan community that once the Olympic Games are over and the world's focus moves away from Tibet that we will be back to square one.
On the other hand, I acknowledge that the Chinese situation is complex. There are 1.4 billion people living in China, while Tibet is the size of western Europe and not the size of Wexford or Wicklow. China has also started to move on the issue of human rights, albeit very slowly. However, it is important to acknowledge that Chinese people probably feel a bit under siege from the West, and that no matter what stance they take, we seem to be dissatisfied.
I cannot give an opinion on what happened following the statement made by the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I will communicate separately with the Deputy on that issue. The issue in Tibet is very complex and sometimes we form stereotypical views on it in the West, which is not helpful. I was in China for St. Patrick's Day and the dearth of information there made it difficult to make any coherent response. I share the Deputy's view that it is imperative that a meaningful dialogue begins and that restraint is shown. There should be a greater realisation that nothing but good can come from recognising human rights as inviolable, as we hold in the rest of the world.
In the cultural nature of things, finger wagging by the West towards China is not as helpful as it otherwise might be. Dialogue is far more likely to produce progress.
I agree with that, but within certain constraints we may have to take measures available to us if things do not move on. Can the Minister of State use his good offices to ensure that the international media are let back into Tibet and that those who were arrested following the riots are released? Does the Government propose to send a representative to the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games?
A final decision has not been taken on the issue of the opening ceremony. Discussion on this issue in Europe is ongoing, and different views have been taken. I am pleased that the Deputy focused on this aspect rather than an argument for boycotting the games. I agree with him that the contacts with China should include issues such as the admission to Tibet of the international media and the condition of those peaceful protestors who were arrested.
Michael D. Higgins
Question:2 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the efforts the European Union and Ireland are making to ensure a democratic response to the recent elections that have been held in Zimbabwe; the details of the talks that have been held with the African Union and neighbouring countries of Zimbabwe; and his views on the statements of leaders of civil society that the country stands on the brink of human rights catastrophe. [16868/08]
The Government is deeply worried about the ongoing situation in Zimbabwe. We believe that the democratic rights of the Zimbabwean people have been violated by the unacceptable failure to release presidential election results over a month after votes were cast. We condemn utterly the appalling violence and intimidation against opposition supporters and civil society activists in Zimbabwe, especially in rural areas. These indefensible attacks represent a catastrophe, not just for those subjected to horrific injuries, but also for the prospects of a secure environment required to finalise the electoral process.
EU Foreign Ministers discussed the situation in Zimbabwe at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Luxembourg last Tuesday. They agreed that the failure to release the presidential election results was unacceptable and insisted that the results, when released, must reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people. They strongly urged an end to violence and human rights abuses. Ministers expressed support for efforts by the Southern African Development Community and the African Union, and indicated the EU's willingness to put further pressure on Zimbabwe if the situation does not improve. They noted that the EU does not sell arms to Zimbabwe, and urged a worldwide moratorium on such sales. Ireland is in full agreement with this approach.
The EU and Ireland continue to believe that the most effective strategy is to work closely with Zimbabwe's neighbours, who have the greatest potential influence on events on the ground, as well as with regional organisations and the UN. The Lusaka Summit of the Southern African Development Community on 12 and 13 April urged the quick release of election results in accordance with the law, with verification and counting being witnessed and authenticated by all parties in the election. The SADC further offered to continue observing the counting process, as well as any second round of voting which may be required. Improved international monitoring of any run-off election will be vital.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The EU, including High Representative Solana, has been very active on the Zimbabwe issue, making contact with all of Zimbabwe's neighbours in the Southern African Development Community to express our concerns. Contact has also been made with key figures in the African Union. Development Commissioner Louis Michel attended the SADC summit in Mauritius on 19 and 20 April, and had a number of contacts with key regional leaders.
Ireland has also been active on a bilateral basis, using our network of contacts in the southern African region, especially with Irish Aid programme countries, to express our concerns directly. The Taoiseach had an opportunity to raise the issue directly with the Deputy President of South Africa in Dublin on 9 April while the ambassador and officers from our Irish Embassy in Pretoria continue to visit Zimbabwe on a regular basis.
I am grateful to the Minister of State for his reply. However, I would like to hear a little more on the conversations with Zimbabwe's neighbours, particularly South Africa. Is the Irish Government satisfied with the role of the South African Government on the continuing position in Zimbabwe? What efforts did the Irish Government make to have election observers appointed for the recent elections there? In respect of elections in that part of Africa — the Minister of State referred to the South African community — does he agree that it is in the interests of the region to have election observers appointed at the early stages of elections given that 70% to 80% of election abuses, including fraud, occur in the registration process at the early stages? These are important issues.
My next question concerns the human rights activists who have been arrested in Zimbabwe. I previously asked a question about whether the president of the Human Rights Commission was free and about the Human Rights Watch report on the arrest and abuse of members of the opposition. Does the Minister agree — I would like an explicit answer on this — that human rights vindication and protection cannot be frustrated by a bogus assertion of the concept of sovereignty? In other words, human rights abuses in Zimbabwe are not confined to a concern of Robert Mugabe or his Government but are matters of concern for the international community.
I have no difficulty in agreeing with the Deputy on that latter point. Human rights abuses are a matter for us all. Human rights are not indivisible but are universal and we should have a care for them. Those of us who have any influence should use it for the vindication of human rights because to trespass on human rights in one part of this planet is to trespass on human rights everywhere.
There are, as the Deputy will appreciate, certain practical realities which we must face. The Deputy asked a specific question about what is our adjudication as to the role played by neighbouring states. Our adjudication is that those neighbouring states could play a vital and real role. We believe it is very important to work closely with them and encourage them to be active. The Deputy who, over the years, has given great attention to matters African and dealing with the post-colonial crisis that reigns across that part of the world will agree that, in a practical sense, finger-wagging by Europeans may not be the best way of dealing with matters in Africa. However, we must encourage African neighbours and organisations such as SADC to be much more active in this area, to play a real role and to see that it is in their interests and those of their citizens and all humanity that the situation in Zimbabwe is addressed.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins may ask another supplementary question.
I appreciate the Minister of State's broad sympathy with my questions and I agree with his answers. What is the position of the Government in respect of a run-off election? Will it send observers? This is practical.
My next question relates to the previous one. Is the Irish Government concerned at the dispatch of a boat carrying armaments from China to southern Africa? Does he agree that the refusal of organised workers in South Africa to handle the boat is one of the high moments for democracy in Africa?
Absolutely. If there was any light in what is a tragedy, it was the extraordinary action taken by South African workers to prevent a boat which should never have taken to the seas to arm this regime.
There is a practical issue in respect of international observers and observation missions in the case of elections because it very much depends on the agreement of the host country. Frankly, I cannot see that coming from the Zimbabwean authorities. That is why I believe it is through SADC and the neighbours that the greatest amount of progress can be made. The Deputy will probably agree with me on this. One hopes that they will be more active in that regard.
Overseas Development Aid.
Billy Timmins
Question:3 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the funding that has been allocated to the world food programme from Ireland for 2008; the amount allocated in 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16662/08]
The United Nations world food programme, WFP, is one of the world's largest humanitarian agencies and is dependent entirely on voluntary contributions from donors. Last year alone, the WFP provided food assistance for 90 million people worldwide. Ireland is a long-term and committed supporter of the WFP.
Irish funding for the WFP comes from two sources. My colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Mary Coughlan, provides an annual grant towards the core funding of the WFP. My Department, through Irish Aid, provides assistance to the WFP for specific emergencies. The total amount provided for WFP in 2007 was over €24.5 million. To date this year, the overall total Government allocation for the WFP amounts to €20.1 million. This is composed of €9.9 million from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in core funding and €10.2 million from Irish Aid primarily for a number of humanitarian emergencies, including Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Zimbabwe and west Africa.
Irish funding to the WFP has increased rapidly in recent years as that agency has proved itself adept at getting much-needed food relief to those who most need it quickly and effectively. In 2003, total funding to the WFP amounted to approximately €7.8 million. This represents a tripling of assistance in five years. Ireland is now one of the largest donors to the WFP on a per capita basis and this fact has been recognised by the various executive directors of the WFP, who have paid frequent visits to Ireland.
This year, for the first time, the Irish Aid contribution includes a special grant of €3 million for the WFP's special market mitigation account, which has been established to cover the extraordinary increase in the cost of supplying relief rations, owing to recent food and fuel price increases. A further element in Irish Aid's contribution is a grant of €1 million to the WFP arising from the Government's rapid response initiative. The WFP is one of the key partners of Irish Aid's rapid response initiative and this grant covers €600,000 for the construction of a new warehouse facility for its logistics hub for Africa based in Accra, Ghana, as well as €400,000 to enhance the WFP's emergency preparedness capacity.
In addition to our direct support to the WFP, Ireland provides substantial indirect support to the WFP. Ireland is a strong supporter of the UN's central emergency response fund, CERF. This fund ensures that emergency funding is pre-positioned and ready for distribution quickly and effectively to assist those affected by humanitarian emergencies. Since its inception in 2006, Irish Aid has contributed €52.6 million to this fund, of which the WFP is the largest single recipient.
A second source of our indirect support is by way of the European Union. The European Commission recently committed €117 million as a response to the impact of the increase in food prices on the world's most vulnerable people. A substantial portion of this money will go to the WFP.
Does the Minister of State agree that in the region of 1 billion people live on less than $1 per day and that the dramatic increase in food prices has the potential to put another 100 million people in this category? It is estimated that it will set back by a full decade the policy of trying to bring people out of the poverty trap.
The WFP is one of the most worthwhile programmes out there. I plead with the Minister to consider moving money from some of our programme countries where we cannot find out what happens to much of the money . For example, Tanzania is to get in the region of €130 million over the next four or five years. Several Ministers out there are currently under investigation for corruption. Until such time as we are satisfied that such moneys are being spent the way we want them to be spent, I ask the Minister of State to consider moving money from the normal programme to the WFP. We give in the region of €20 million between Irish Aid and agriculture, which feeds 19 million people.
Does the Minister agree that very often if a popular theory takes off, we fail to analyse it? There is a conflict on this planet between climate change and the production of food. We cannot have it every way and we need to analyse this. Most people who express concern about climate change have a cause for concern. The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, will be familiar with this. However, very often, the same people are opposed to the concept of GM foods. We must look at science and technology. It is not necessary to increase the amount of land under cultivation but we must make it more productive.
It is the small producers in Africa who are the most productive.
I will come back with a supplementary. I thank Deputy Higgins for his assistance.
I completely agree with Deputy Timmins's praise for the WFP. I have long been a supporter of it. Deputy Timmins said that climate change has led to droughts and other climate-related difficulties in major cereal-producing countries such as Australia and Ukraine. The switch from the production of cereals as foodstuffs to the production of bio-fuels, most notably in the US where a Government subsidy is being used to promote bio-fuel production in a drive for energy security, has led to a reduction in the supply of food. The current food crisis is caused by a reduction in supply coupled with an increase in demand, which has triggered a steep rise in price. There is a close link between energy prices and food prices. I would like to continue to support the World Food Programme.
The Deputy mentioned Tanzania. I accompanied the Taoiseach to Tanzania in January and while we were there news of a scandal in the Tanzania Central Bank broke and the director of the bank resigned. The prime minster and other ministers resigned over it. The Tanzanian Government is working towards tackling corruption. I do not know if what the Tanzanian Government has done to address such corruption would happen in many member states of the European Union. It has taken action, dealt with the bank and with the Ministers who were involved in such corruption.
I agree with the Minister of State. The problem concerning food price increases is not necessarily on the supply side. The same level of supply exists but the demand has diversified from the biofuels sector and there has also been an increase in demand. I am not saying that the Tanzanian Government is not seeking to address corruption. I would expect that it would do so. This is an issue that may be addressed at a later stage on the Order Paper. I would like money to be moved to the World Food Programme, as it is a worthwhile project. I ask the Minister of State to consider doing that.
I can only say that I will support the World Food Programme.
I might add that we established a hunger taskforce, which was timely given that we established it before the issue of global food prices arose. That hunger taskforce has the input of 15 national and international experts. It was established by the Government to identify what Ireland can do to assist international efforts to reduce hunger. It has met on three occasions and I hope it will report to me before July. It will take into account the points the Deputy made. I do not want to pre-empt its recommendations but it will examine the questions of food price increases and global hunger.
I would like there to be a green revolution in Africa similar to the one that took place in Asia and that we would support agriculture and ensure there is an increase in food production.
World Trade Negotiations.
Pat Breen
Question:4 Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the reason World Trade Organisation talks were taken off the agenda for the recent GAERC meeting; if he had informal discussions with his EU colleagues regarding Ireland’s concerns at Commissioner Mandelson’s disregard of his EU mandate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16867/08]
We would all accept that a fair and balanced outcome from the WTO talks would be universally beneficial. In recent times there has been intensive activity at ministerial and official level aimed at ensuring that Ireland's concerns are brought to the attention of all the key figures in the negotiations.
WTO negotiations are regularly discussed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council. Such a discussion took place on 10 March when the Council briefed Commissioner Mandelson and exchanged views with him on the state of play in the negotiations. The Council at that time also noted the need for further progress in areas such as services and geographic indications.
The March Council expressed support for further improvements being sought in the negotiating texts issued last February by the chairmen of the Geneva-based WTO. It had been expected that the chairmen would issue new texts this month, but there has been slippage in this timetable, for reasons about which we can all speculate and probably know, and the texts were not available. In the absence of the texts and revised papers or other developments arising from discussions in Geneva, it was agreed that the WTO negotiations would not figure on the agenda of the April meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council.
The discussions which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have had with our European colleagues on the WTO negotiations complement the extensive range of efforts the Taoiseach and other Ministers have made with their European counterparts. When the Taoiseach met Commission President Barroso and Chancellor Merkel recently in Dublin, he set out our concerns about the impact an unbalanced WTO agreement would have on Irish and EU agriculture. These concerns were also raised during the meeting which the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance and the Minister for Foreign Affairs had with President Barroso in Dublin. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment also raised the issue with President Barroso during his visit to Cork.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, has been extremely active in regularly briefing her ministerial counterparts in other EU member states. The ongoing WTO negotiations were discussed at some length at the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 14 April. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, travelled to Brussels on Tuesday of this week to meet Commissioner Mandelson to again reiterate our concerns.
The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and his colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for trade and commerce, are also engaged in the WTO negotiations. The Minister of State, Deputy McGuinness, has undertaken an intensive series of meetings with key figures in Brussels, Geneva and EU capitals and continues to remain in close contact with his counterparts.
The Government will continue to use every possible opportunity to press home Ireland's concerns and to insist that the negotiations must provide an ambitious agreement, but one that is fair and balanced to all sides. We will spare no effort in our defence of Ireland's interests, including those in our vital agricultural sector.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. It is obvious that it was only following the march by 10,000 farmers in Dublin two weeks ago tomorrow that the Government woke up to the problem we face. This issue not only concerns the farming lobby, but our national interest is at stake, given that we are the fourth largest exporter of beef in the world.
I wish to put a number of questions to the Minister of State on the talks. Is he hopeful that the Foreign Ministers can reach an agreement within the EU? Now that the negotiations are at a crucial stage, what action does the Minister for Foreign Affairs intend to take in regard to Ireland's interests? That is important. As the Minister of State said, the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, had negotiations with Commissioner Mandelson, but it is obvious he is not for turning. He issued a very nice press release but there was nothing substantial in it. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, also had meetings with her German counterpart. Are further meetings due to take place with Foreign Ministers and Agriculture Ministers?
If Commissioner Mandelson proceeds with an agreement that is not in the interests of the Irish Government, it is important that the Minister of State come clean about our position in that event. The Sinn Féin President, Gerry Adams, said during a meeting of the Forum on Europe that in the event of the treaty being passed by the Irish people that the Irish Government would not be able to use its veto at the WTO talks. Perhaps Gerry Adams does not understand the treaty, but the Minister of State needs to tell us in this House this afternoon that in the event of non-agreement, the Government can use its veto.
I am grateful to the Deputy for that supplementary because it is critical that the truth be told in the debate in the run-up to the referendum. The Deputy can take it that the WTO talks and the Lisbon referendum are not in any way connected. He can also take it that, irrespective of where we are at in our internal referendum, under European law, if and when a decision is made at the WTO talks, it must come back to and be unanimously agreed in Council. I am not sure what Mr. Adams said because I was engaged in business in the other House and, unfortunately, could not attend the meeting of the forum. However, if he made that point, and I have no doubt the Deputy is accurately reflecting what he said, he was not stating the position correctly.
On the general issue, I met five Commissioners in the past while and we discussed the WTO on each of those occasions. A week and a half before President Barroso visited this city I happened to be in Brussels for a group of meetings with EU Commissioners and their cabinets and at the same time I met the Irish farming organisations, particularly the IFA. We had a lengthy discussion and, following a briefing I received there, I went and briefed each of the cabinets and the Commissioners. It is simply not correct to say that the Government has in any way been indolent or taken its eye off the ball. We are making contacts at every conceivable level.
To return to the Deputy's point, which is an important one and I am pleased he raised it, the Lisbon treaty does not have the effect Mr. Adams attributed to it. In the event of a different agreement at WTO — I believe the prospects for agreement at the WTO are not good — first and foremost it will have to come back to the Council and that is where we must have our influence. That is where building alliances in Europe will be critically important for Ireland, our agricultural sector and the future of European agriculture.
As I said, and I believe the Deputy will agree with me, on 13 June after votes are counted, who in this country believes we will be in a better position to negotiate and build alliances if we get a "No" vote?
I wish to ask a brief supplementary.
As we are well over the time allowed for this question, the Deputy can ask a very brief supplementary.
Nobody wants the veto to be used, but I take it the Minister of State is confirming we can use our veto in this regard. The Taoiseach was given assurances by Commissioner Barosso when he met him last week about copperfastening Ireland's veto in the taxation area. I take it the Minister is confirming that Ireland could use its veto if necessary.
Absolutely, I give a clear affirmative on that. This matter would have to come back to the Council, where it would have to be unanimously agreed.
EU Treaties.
Lucinda Creighton
Question:5 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will clarify the implications of Article 48 of the Lisbon reform treaty on the constitutional requirement to hold referenda on amendments to EU treaties in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17050/08]
Article 1.56 of the reform treaty inserts a new Article 48 into the Treaty on European Union. This article has been the subject of some of the most extraordinary distortions during the public debate on the reform treaty. Any suggestion that the treaty prevents any future referendum on EU issues is a complete misrepresentation. In fact, a Danish MEP who visited the Forum on Europe and who was the originator of this particular myth admitted that it probably did not apply to Ireland.
The treaty provides for both ordinary and simplified revision procedures. Under the ordinary revision procedure, the treaty requires that the constitutional requirements of the member state be completed before entry into force of any amendment to the treaties. This ordinary procedure is essentially the procedure currently provided for amending the existing treaties. In Ireland, this means, and will continue to mean, that advice will be sought from the Attorney General on each occasion as to the procedures required. As has always been the case, this could mean ratification by referendum, legislation or a Government decision. There is absolutely no question that a referendum could be ruled out by the Lisbon reform treaty or avoided by the Government. Those who suggest otherwise are guilty of trying to mislead the public. In that context, I was very pleased with the clear and unequivocal statement on this issue made by the chairperson of the Referendum Commission earlier this week.
The treaty also provides for simplified revision procedures. Regarding any European Council decision proposing an amendment to the internal policies of the EU, for example, energy, economic and agriculture policies, the treaty again requires that the constitutional requirements of the member states be completed before any such revision enters into force.
The Referendum Commission, which is an independent body, confirms this position on its website, which states
If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional traditions. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present.
Regarding any European Council decision proposing a move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in any policy area or an extension of the ordinary legislative procedure — the so-called passe passerelle provision — the treaty provides that this is open to a veto from any national parliament, including the Dáil or Seanad Éireann. It would require the unanimous agreement of all member state governments, the European Council and the European Parliament.
No new powers may be conferred via the back door. These arrangements are open, transparent and give us every opportunity to protect our interests.
I thank the Minister of State for clarifying the issue. Having read the treaty, my understanding is that under Article 1.56, amending Article 48, the ordinary revision procedure must be "...ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". I also understand that under the simplified revision procedures, a decision "shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". It is extremely important to place that on the record of the House and that there is absolutely no room for confusion on the matter.
I ask the Minister of State to confirm that this is the situation and that it is not changed by the Lisbon treaty in any sense. I refer to the Minister of State's assertion that ratification will be by referendum or by Government decision, according to the advice of the Attorney General, and that will continue to be the case under the Lisbon treaty.
I ask the Minister to confirm, in the interests of the people of Ireland who will be voting on this issue, that the claim on the website of the Libertas organisation that this will be the last say on Europe for a generation for Irish people is incorrect. Libertas also claims that there will be no need for the EU ever again to consult the Irish people, although I would respectfully suggest that it is the Government that consults the Irish people and not the EU. I ask the Minister to clarify the position in that regard.
I also ask the Minister of State to address the allegation that Article 48 is a devious, self-amending clause that allows the European political elite to avoid the necessity for further referenda. It is important that the Minister of State clarifies that this is not the case. It is essential that we, as elected representatives, provide a very clear statement on this for the people of Ireland.
I note that comments made by the Minister of State on this matter have been distorted by the media. Press statements have been issued by a certain organisation on the matter and an article by a Member of the European Parliament was published in The Irish Times two days ago. These are clearly misleading the people and it is important that we clarify matters on the record of the House.
I am pleased to confirm to the Deputy that my understanding of the issue, as well as the Government's legal advice and the advice from almost all sources, is precisely the same as hers. The suggestion that this is a self-amending treaty and that if the treaty is to be changed in any significant way in the future, the Irish people could simply be ignored is not true. It is not based on any fact.
The clearest view on the matter was expressed this week by the chairman of the Referendum Commission. I hope that during the course of this campaign, the commission, which is now operational, will deal with these issues with the same clarity. It is simply not the truth to make the assertion that referenda can be avoided in the future. As an amendment is made, in the normal course, the Attorney General is consulted. As has happened on this occasion, following that consultation, we will go through the referendum process.
It is a disservice to political debate for any organisation or political party to distort words to the extent to which they have been distorted. I welcome the fact that there are other players in the field and that there is a debate. However, I wish the debate could be kept factual and truthful.