Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Jun 1998

Vol. 155 No. 22

European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1998: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Andrews)

This Bill is very short and primarily technical in nature. Similar Bills have been necessary following each previous Treaty since our accession to the European communities in 1973. The Bill gives effect in domestic law to those provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam which affect the EC Treaties and the European Court of Justice. It is necessary to bring this Bill forward at this stage because these provisions must be made part of the domestic law of the State prior to the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty.

The Bill contains just two sections and amends the European Communities Act, 1972, as previously amended. Section 1 is the principal operative part of the Bill. It adds the relevant amending provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam to the list of Treaties and other instruments contained in the definition of the "treaties governing the European Communities" in section 1(1) of the European Communities Act, 1972, as amended. These are Articles 1.13, Articles 2 to 12, and annexed Protocols. For the convenience of readers of the Bill, in a table to the section, there is set out the complete list of the "treaties governing the European Communities" contained in section 1(1) of the 1972 Act, as amended, with the amendment now proposed in respect of the Amsterdam Treaty.

Section 2 contains normal provisions concerning the short title, collective citation, construction and commencement of an Act of the Oireachtas. That is a normal piece of wording required in the introduction to a piece of legislation of this nature.

I now propose to outline briefly the contents of those Articles of the Amsterdam Treaty which will be given the force of law in the State by the Bill. They fall into three broad categories: substantive amendments to the European Communities Treaties, simplification and renumbering of the Treaties and the role of the European Court of Justice.

Articles 2 to 4, together with annexed Protocols, represent the main body of the substantive amendments to the EC Treaties provided for in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Articles 2 to 4 deal with amendments to the European Community Treaty, the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty and the Euratom Treaty respectively. I do not propose to go through the provisions contained in the above articles in detail today as the Seanad has already debated the Treaty. The contents of the Treaty were also examined and debated in the course of the referendum campaign in which the Government sought approval of the constitutional amendment which will permit the State to ratify. However, as Senators will be aware, articles 2 to 4 include a very wide range of provisions which improve the capacity of the Union for action, including: closer co-operation among member states, non-discrimination, free movement of persons, employment, consumer protection, environmental protection, institutional reform and the right of access to Community documents. Taken together they represent a modest but important contribution towards European integration and greater effectiveness and efficiency within the Union. The changes also help the Union to prepare for enlargement and bring it closer to the citizen.

Article 5 of the Amsterdam Treaty deals with certain changes made in relation to the election of representatives to the European Parliament. In this context, and as additionally outlined in article 2, the new Treaty will impose an upper limit of 700 on the membership of the Parliament, which is now 626. It will also strengthen the role of the Parliament through a considerable extension of what is known as the "co-decision procedure". The co-decision procedure makes the Parliament in effect a co-legislator with the Council in the adoption of Community legislation.

Articles 6 to 11 deal with the simplification of the Treaties establishing the European communities and certain related acts. The simplification of the Treaties was necessary to prune them of long obsolete provisions relating to the setting up of the Communities, the establishement of the Common Market, etc. The complicated numbering system in the EC Treaty and the EU Treaty has also been rationalised and simplified by article 12 of the Amsterdam Treaty. The end result of this is that the Treaties on which the Union is based will be shorter and more readable when the Amsterdam Treaty comes into effect.

As I have already mentioned, the Amsterdam Treaty contains provisions on the European Court of Justice. These are contained in article 1.13 which establishes the scope of application of the powers of the European Court of Justice. The Court of Justice has always had jurisdiction under the First Pillar. However, when the Second and Third Pillars were set up by the Maastricht Treaty the Court of Justice was not given jurisdiction over them, with one small exception for certain conventions concluded under the auspices of the Third Pillar. However, under the Amsterdam Treaty, the Third Pillar has become more like the First Pillar and in particular the Court of Justice now has general jurisdiction over "Police and Judicial co-operation in criminal matters". This of course replaces the Justice and Home Affairs designation in the Maastricht Treaty. Thus, because it is important that Ireland be in a position to comply with the judgments of the Court of Justice on Third Pillar matters in the same way as it complies with its judgments in the First Pillar, it is necessary to give the force of law in the State to article 1.13 of the Amsterdam Treaty. I would like to assure Senators that this measure will ensure that police and judicial co-operation is carried out not only with increased efficiency but also with increased protection for human rights.

The amendments to the European Communities Act do not include matters relating to the common foreign and security policy provisions of the Treaty as these provisions, which are essentially intergovernmental in nature, do not require to be made part of domestic law. This was also the case with the Maastricht Treaty. Subject to one exception in relation to the European Court of Justice, police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters are also not included in the amendments to the Act. This is because police and judicial co-operation, or the Third Pillar as it is commonly known, is contained in Article 1 of the Treaty of Amsterdam but is dealt with outside of the framework of the EC Treaties. Police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters under the Amsterdam Treaty will build on the co-operation which has already taken place under the Maastricht Treaty, but the role of the Commission, European Parliament and the Court of Justice have been strengthened.

The changes provided for in the Amsterdam Treaty will increase both the effectiveness and the democratic nature of the Third Pillar. As a result they will make the Third Pillar more like the First Pillar or European Communities. However, in keeping with its approach throughout the period since signature of the Treaty the Government has been careful to seek no more authority in this legislation than is strictly necessary for the purpose of giving effect in domestic law to the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Thus, no authority is sought to make statutory instruments for issues relating to the Third Pillar which may arise in the future. These would be matters of sufficient weight as to merit primary legislation and, thus, full scrutiny by the Houses of the Oireachtas. It has not been necessary to make the main provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty relating to police and judicial co-operation part of the law of the State.

The remaining provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty deal with amendments to the common provisions of the Treaty on European Union and also matters of international treaty law in that Treaty and the Amsterdam Treaty. Due to their nature these provisions do not need to be made part of domestic law. In short, the terms of section 1 of the Bill have been carefully drafted to ensure that the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty which it is necessary to make part of our domestic law prior to ratification are made part of Irish law, but the Government has not sought to go any further than is necessary in order to achieve this aim.

Senators will be aware that the amendment to the Constitution approved recently by the people provides that the options and discretions provided for in the Treaty of Amsterdam would be exercised by the Government only with the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. These would include the provisions for closer co-operation among member states and free movement of persons within the EU to which I have already referred. The Government has been keen to ensure that all significant steps to be taken by it under the terms of the Treaty of Amsterdam will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.

Following the endorsement on 22 May by the people of the necessary changes to the Constitution, the President signed the constitutional amendment Bill into law on 3 June, thus paving the way for Ireland to ratify the Treaty of Amsterdam. This will take place as soon as possible after the consideration and passing of this legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas and the terms of the Treaty are approved by Dáil Éireann.

To date, two member states — Germany and Sweden — have ratified the Treaty. Senators will be aware of the positive outcome of the referendum in Denmark; I understand that Denmark intends to deposit the instrument of ratification of the Treaty in Rome tomorrow. A further five member states are expected to ratify before the end of July. I understand that Portugal may hold a consultative referendum on developments in the EU later in the year, which will probably not be specific to the Treaty of Amsterdam. The target date for completion of national ratification procedures remains 1 January 1999, although the possibility of some slippage cannot be excluded.

In accepting the proposed amendments to the Constitution required to ratify the Treaty of Amsterdam the Irish electorate, for the third time since accession, showed its continued support for keeping Ireland at the forefront of European integration. Some have claimed that the Treaty was a difficult document to understand and left many voters confused or doubtful about its significance, resulting in a lower level of support than on previous occasions. I would acknowledge frankly that the Treaty lacked a central issue which could engage popular attention. The Treaty of Amsterdam is an amending Treaty, not a stand-alone text, and read in isolation it is without question a difficult document to comprehend.

However, I do not accept there exists or that the outcome of the referendum implies any diminution of support among Irish electors for our membership of and full participation in the European Union. There is not a facet of Irish society which has not been affected in some way by our membership of this unique project of pooling sovereignty and the results have been overwhelmingly positive for our people. The majority of the people remain convinced, with good reason, that European integration is the way forward and Eurobarometer polling bears this out.

Given its complexity, the Government decided to publish a White Paper on the Treaty of Amsterdam and set about producing a document which would be comprehensive but also accessible to non-experts. It is not just the Government which believes that this aim was achieved. Many commentators at home and abroad have complimented the White Paper for its lucidity and thorough treatment of the issues. The Government also established a Referendum Commission. Its role was to prepare and disseminate information on the Treaty and to promote public debate. Research carried out by the commission bears out my belief that the information campaign organised by the commission was successful in raising awareness of the Treaty. The Taoiseach has stated that the Government will review in due course the manner in which information is provided for referenda. This issue is also being examined by the all-party committee on the Constitution.

It is the task of all Members of the Oireachtas who support our membership of the EU, the efforts of member states to achieve further integration and who want to see Ireland continue at the forefront of these developments to examine seriously how we can bring Europe closer to the citizen. The EU is there for its citizens and it serves no higher purpose. The Government will continue to play its part but the subject is too large to be left to Government alone. All political parties, the media and the social partners have a responsibility to ensure that European issues are aired not only prior to constitutional referenda.

In accepting the Treaty of Amsterdam on 22 May by a substantial majority, the Irish people did a service to the further integration of Europe and to Ireland's place in Europe. No one in this House or in Dáil Éireann should, however, be under the illusion that support for the European project can be taken for granted. Information on the issues is one matter and the Government will examine this in due course, but political engagement and relevance is quite another. We cannot assume that because of our spectacularly good performance within the Single Market, EU affairs somehow do not need political impulse within our own society. European issues are as diverse as any other field of international relations and real debate, based upon real prospects and options, is the oxygen which an informed public opinion requires. For these reasons, I look forward to the continued vigorous interest of Members of this House in developments in Europe. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

This is a technical Bill designed to amend legislation on EU Treaties. The Minister concluded by referring to the possibility of diminished support for membership of the EU. It is easy to make such a statement but we should not close our eyes to the voting patterns that have emerged in the referenda held since 1972. The numbers turning out to support European Treaties continue to decline. On the day of the Amsterdam Treaty referendum the British-Irish Agreement was also voted on and it was extraordinary that only 56 per cent of those entitled to vote felt strongly enough to do so. Had the other referendum not been held on the same day one wonders how many would have turned out to vote for the Amsterdam Treaty. Of the 56 per cent of voters who turned out, slightly over 60 per cent voted in favour of the Treaty. In other words, about 33 per cent of those entitled to vote were convinced that it was worth voting in favour of the Treaty. We must address that issue.

The Amsterdam Treaty did not have a central issue or focus. It lacked substance compared to the Single European Act or the Maastricht Treaty. It has more of an aspirational policy focus than anything else and many of the issues to which it aspires are pursued as national policy by most of the member states. The Treaty was a means of putting together our combined aspirations to remove discrimination, to provide for the free movement of persons, to exchange views on health research and to try to reduce unemployment numbers. These are all aspirations that each Government would be doing anyway. The Amsterdam Treaty did not catch the Irish public's imagination, and we must be aware of that as more referenda on the EU will be held in the future. We must not acquiesce and think those will be passed, because the graph shows a definite decline. We cannot be casual.

I am not saying there was no campaign, because there was one, but the media did not give the Amsterdam Treaty the same coverage it has given to other issues. Coverage of the Treaty was sparse for the preceding months until the last week, when there was a flurry of activity, and those trying to promote the Treaty found it difficult to get coverage for it.

The electorate does not like to be taken for granted, and there is a feeling that Europe has too much control. This concerns more people now than it would have in 1972, when there was great debate on Irish sovereignty. Despite that debate, people voted in throngs for entry to the EEC. People now feel that Ireland is regarded as a small member state in the northwest of Europe that is only part of the paraphernalia of the EU. The vote in this referendum was an indication to the powers in central Europe that the Irish electorate is not to be taken for granted. The cynicism in the public's perception of Europe may also be attributed to the fact that Ireland is so financially buoyant. People may have forgotten the time when we needed the support system and financial assistance of the EEC and may now feel that we no longer require that assistance.

The serious questions about our Objective One status are related to this. The success of the Celtic tiger means there is a real danger that we are to be relegated to Objective Two status, which is not good for half of the country. In the past, EU Commissioners were brought through the most disadvantaged areas of the west from Cork to Donegal. As a result of those visits Ireland was classified as extremely disadvantaged and received wonderful support through Structural and Cohesion Funds that were well used in the country.

However, the western half of the country is still seriously disadvantaged. One need only check the figures on income and development to find that the western counties are nowhere near the qualification criteria for Objective One status. Past moneys were brought in on the back of the western disadvantaged areas, but the bulk of that money was not spent in those areas. It was spent in areas that were relatively economically buoyant. If western politicians are seen as being ultra careful on Objective One status, it is because they feel they were cheated the first time on the use of funding and that the situation in the west was used to the advantage of more prosperous areas.

This is a serious issue that the Government will have to deal with at European level. The Commissioner feels it is merely a case of making a case to secure additional moneys, but that it is not true. A case will have to be made for areas of severe disadvantage which need the money. Those areas are as bad as any retaining Objective One status, and I hope the Commissioner can be convinced of that by the Government. There will also have to be serious control and monitoring of where that funding is spent, because the west has been used in the past and did not benefit. It will be difficult; the Commission must deal with areas of disadvantage all over Europe and, given the strength of our economy, an observer might think it unreal that a country so buoyant would appeal for Objective One status. The Minister should bring the Commissioner to the most disadvantaged areas in the country to see that this is a real issue.

This is a technical Bill. It simplifies previous Acts, protocols and treaties that have been incorporated into our legislation, which is welcome. As the Minister said, the Amsterdam Treaty is an integral part of all the previous measures. It does not make a special impact on its own.

This Bill contains provisions regarding police and judicial co-operation, which has been going on since the Maastricht Treaty. There has been great co-operation between the Garda and police forces across Europe in combating drugs and other serious crime. I am delighted that this has been legislated for in the Bill and hope that that co-operation goes from strength to strength. It is important that the Second and Third pillars are put on a par with the First Pillar in relation to judicial and police co-operation, and this provision is progressive and welcome. However, as the Minister said, it is not unlimited. We would like to keep some control within our State, and there is good balance on this issue.

It is commendable that this Bill gives more power to the European Parliament because that body's members are directly elected by the citizens of each member State. The Parliament has more powers as a result of the Amsterdam Treaty, which I welcome. I am sure that issues regarding the other institutions such as the Commission will arise again during the enlargement debate. When that debate begins the right of every State to a Commissioner will be questioned.

It is very important that we fight hard for that. The fact that we are a small state should not diminish our right to proper representation in all European institutions such as the Parliament, the Commission or the Council of Europe. It is very wrong to set the size of a state as a criterion for representation. I hope that issue will be put on the backboiler and will not have a negative effect on Ireland.

I welcome the fact that all these issues are incorporated in this Treaty. I am particularly pleased the Minister has seen fit to introduce this Bill in the Seanad, thus making the Seanad more relevant to the legislative process. However, as far as Irish citizens' views on the future of Europe are concerned, I do not think we politicians should acquiesce to Irish voters being taken for granted. It will be a challenge for us in the future to obtain a positive vote in referenda, particularly on the issue of a common defence and security policy. We must be prepared to run a good campaign to ensure a satisfactory outcome to such a referendum. The result of the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty is a warning to us for the future.

Mr. Lydon

As the Minister and other speakers said, this is a short Bill and we need not spend much time on it. We have already debated the Amsterdam Treaty. Last month the Irish people voted in favour of that Treaty and this Bill is a straightforward but essential piece of legislation to formalise its ratification in line with our domestic law.

Ireland is one of only three EU states which put the Treaty before its people by way of ratification. It is very important to remember that. One of the three states is a monarchy and the other two are republics. The fact we put the Treaty before our people shows our commitment to openness and frankness about the European Treaties which does not always exist in other states.

The Bill amends the original European Communities Act, 1972, which brought us into the EEC. This is the fourth time the people have amended that Act, and each time the benefits for Ireland have increased. By amending the European Communities Act and ratifying the Amsterdam Treaty the people have voted for peace, security and prosperity founded on the principles of democracy and human rights, not only within the European Union but also in the wider world. By ratifying the Amsterdam Treaty we will have underpinned and secured a continuation of the huge economic benefits we have enjoyed over our 25 years of EU membership. We will allow for a measured and carefully balanced response to the real challenges facing the Union by enabling it to address more effectively the direct concerns of its citizens and will equip it to function more effectively.

The Treaty is complex and not easy to read. However, it deals with down to earth questions about jobs, freedom, security, a clean environment and accountability to the voter. Beneath the complexity are immeasurable benefits for the Irish people. This Bill is simply a mechanism to bring the Treaty into effect. About a dozen Acts and Treaties are amended by this Treaty, including the Treaty of Rome, EURATOM, treaties for the accession of new member states, provisions of the Single European Act, protocols and so on.

Senator Taylor-Quinn highlighted the fact that many people do not understand what is happening in Europe. It is incumbent on us as legislators and on the Government to make clear to the people what exactly is involved, to show them we are on a path towards a greater European Union and to remind ourselves why the European Communities were founded in the first place. Those of us old enough to remember the last war know the Communities were founded in essence to keep Europe peaceful and prosperous. We can argue about all the rubbish that was talked about at the time of ratifying the Treaty, such as the possibility of us being sucked into a European army. I commend the Minister on his anti nuclear initiative, which shows what a small state and an intelligent Minister can start. I hope that initiative spreads.

The Irish Business Bureau produces a magazine called the European Monthly Newsletter. It did a survey in which 70 per cent of respondents admitted they knew nothing about the Amsterdam Treaty. One of the reasons for this is the language used in the Treaty, with words such as “subsidiarity”, “peripherality”, “articles” and “pillars”. How many people know what a pillar is, other than something which supports a house? We need to explain these matters and the best place to start is with children like those in Visitors' Gallery at the moment. I hope Senator O'Toole will see to it that all children are educated about the provisions of the European Union and what it holds for their futures. I know that, as a far seeing man, he will do that.

Mr. O'Toole

The teachers of Ireland will see to that.

Mr. Lydon

Yes, and the Senator will see to them.

There was a great deal of talk about the McKenna judgment, which resulted in the use of scare tactics by those opposed to the Treaty. We should not be afraid of that. While we may not always agree with what is said, we should defend the right to say it.

Mr. O'Toole

That is a new approach for the Senator.

Mr. Lydon

I have always allowed people say what they believe — I do not have to agree with them.

Mr. O'Toole

I am glad the Senator is finally starting to listen to me after ten years.

Mr. Lydon

It is 12 years. The Minister frankly acknowledged the Treaty lacked a central issue. It is very hard to have a central issue in a Treaty which amends so many other Treaties and provisions, which is why education on these matters is so important. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Education and Science should get together to see how people could be educated on these matters. I am not interested in pushing a message but in making people understand for what they are voting.

As a confirmed European of many years, I believe we can bring people along with us if we let them see the benefits of the European ideal. If it is taken to its logical conclusion, we have a large conglomeration of countries which maintain their own national identities but which act together on crime and drugs and have more time for citizen's rights and social inclusion. The European Union brought about the Social Chapter, for which Commissioner Flynn fought so hard, and the Irish proposals on social inclusion.

This is technical Bill and its passage through the House should not be delayed by long speeches on matters which have been spoken about many times before. It should be passed because we have done the ground work on it. However, legislators have an obligation to bring the message to the people that we are trying to promote a union of peoples where war will not exist, where people will be economically better off and will have more constitutional rights, where there will be less discrimination and where everyone will profit and benefit. We should not begin educating people to understand this a number of weeks before the referendum on the next Treaty; we should start doing so now. There should be an ongoing process of education so that, when a new Treaty to modify the effects of the Amsterdam Treaty is introduced, people will understand on what it is they are being asked to vote.

Some of those who voted no to the Amsterdam Treaty did not do so because they oppose the European ideal but because they were told a number of untruths about what might happen if the process of integration continues. These people did not listen carefully to the arguments regarding what might happen if we do not continue down that road. I encourage Senators to allow the Bill to pass as quickly as possible so that we might proceed with other business.

Mr. O'Toole

Like other speakers, I congratulate the Minister on his extraordinary initiative in respect of reducing nuclear weapons during the past week. It is great that a nation such as Ireland could take such an initiative. I will return to that point later when I comment on common European policies in respect of defence, etc. We must have a clear understanding of what we can and cannot do in these areas.

It would be wrong if I did not refer to the UK challenge to certain European expenditure, which is very germane to the points made by Senator Lydon in respect of Irish cultural values. One of the casualties of the UK's challenge to the expenditure of money at certain levels by the European Union has been support for the Irish language as a minority language. I hope this funding will be restored because this is one of the areas where we have come to depend on European support. As Commissioner Flynn stated earlier, this development will be bad for Europe because the type of spending the EU has been able to provide for certain projects in various member states represents the human side of its initiatives. Will the Minister give careful consideration to this matter?

I must reiterate the point about Irish cultural values. In the early 1970s when we discussed joining the then EEC, those who opposed our accession stated that Ireland would be suffocated, suppressed, lost, swallowed up and drowned in the European macro-culture. However, the reverse has happened. Irish culture is stronger now than ever and our music, language and personalities have come to affect Europe. In my opinion, Irish culture and tradition have been strengthened during the 25 years since we joined the EU. In furtherance of the point made by Senator Lydon, it must be remembered that when we discuss the impact of Europe on Ireland we are discussing not only the big issues, such as agriculture, but the also the small issues. Ireland is firmly a part of the European Union and we are influencing its policies.

That leads me to ponder the great conundrum of how to deal with common defence and social policies? On the day I entered this House in April 1987 the first item discussed was the Single European Act and I recall speaking at length on sovereignty, neutrality and many other issues. As was the case then, I remain unsure about how Ireland can take its proper place in trying to influence the international community to move towards a peaceful, improved and non-nuclear environment.

It is strange that the Minister will be applauded for his efforts to bring everyone into line against nuclear testing. He will be asked to make similar efforts in Europe, particularly in respect of France. I heard him speaking on the 1 o'clock news on radio earlier in the week and I smiled because the Minister has two chances of bringing the French into line in respect of nuclear issues. Nonetheless, he will try to do so. We must remember that we could have more influence on France under a common European policy dealing with nuclear arms, disarmament or testing because it would have only a single vote among a collective of 12, 14 or 20 nations. By using such a policy we would have greater influence on its activities in the South Pacific than we would if we remained outside that tight circle.

In the past number of years Irish people have taken a strong, anti-European attitude in terms of seeming to stand idly by when problems occurred in places such as Rwanda, Bosnia and, more recently, Kosovo. What should we do in these instances? I do not pretend to have the answer. I have written to the Minister about Kosovo on six occasions in the past three years and he has provided extraordinarily explicit and lengthy explanations of the action he has taken in respect of the situation there. I must emphasise that this correspondence took place a long period before Kosovo made headlines on the 9 o'clock news following representations I received from teaching colleagues in Albanian speaking areas around Kosovo, who asked me to bring problems there to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I still am unsure what should be done about this situation.

I have always supported Irish neutrality. However, I have never been able to define neutrality. Sweden, Switzerland and Austria have been offered as examples of neutral countries. Whatever about Austria, Switzerland has become rich by laundering the money of every discredited organisation and regime throughout history and it is hardly an example of what a neutral country is meant to be. Neutrality was never intended to be an "I'm all right Jack" philosophy. That is proven by the fact that the people most likely to man the barricades in defence of this country's neutrality are cut from the same cloth as those who were first to travel to fight in the Spanish Civil War. I have often asked those people if that was the right thing to do. What action should a neutral nation take?

I have asked colleagues on the left of Irish politics what they would have done if they were in Government in the 1930s when the Spanish Civil War began. I also inquired if they would have sent support or sold our neutrality for that country. Now that Ireland is a member of the European Union we must ask if Europe is entitled to defend itself. If it is, how will we go about doing so? What role will Ireland play in defending Europe? That is a difficult matter to discuss.

Sweden puts itself forward as a neutral nation. However, that country's idea of neutrality is to sell arms to both sides in any conflict. That is hardly what is meant by neutrality; neither is trying to return the money gained from such sales in other ways.

In recent years I have come to the conclusion that were we to be part of an individual qualified majority voting system on European foreign policy, our Government could do more to represent the views of the people of Ireland in terms of what they expect of Europe in dealing with crises in places such as Rwanda, Bosnia or Kosovo. Many people will disagree with me — I do not blame them for doing so — but my entire being is opposed to the conclusion with which I am faced. However, a discussion should take place on this matter.

The Minister stated that Articles 2 to 4 of the Amsterdam Treaty include a very wide range of provisions which improve the capacity of the European Union for action, including the area of non-discrimination. During this morning's debate on the Employment Equality Bill, in which I have a particular interest, I referred to the Amsterdam Treaty. Will the Minister engage in a consideration of that Bill in as much as it deals with education, particularly at primary level, and the operation of schools? The Bill, which has been passed by both Houses and has been dispatched to the President for signing, is in conflict with the spirit if not the letter of the Treaty of Amsterdam.

The way teachers can be discriminated against on the basis of so-called ethos was never envisaged under the Treaty of Amsterdam. Will the Department look at this? I wish to obtain a legal opinion from the Minister on this issue. Is the Employment Equality Bill, 1997, in conflict with the Treaty of Amsterdam, for which the people voted last month, particularly in areas of anti-discrimination, areas where it demands diversity and where it refers to parity of esteem for culture and beliefs? I want this examined because some of us are committed to testing that legislation in whichever courts we have to in Europe, especially if it is necessary to defend teachers whom we believe it has discriminated against. I hope it will never be necessary, but I suspect it will.

I congratulate the Minister on his work in the areas I mentioned but I wish to refer to the criticisms that have been levelled at the Government and his Department on the extraordinary no vote in the Amsterdam Treaty referendum. The most effective vote in a democracy is a 51 to 49 per cent vote and I say that as leader of a teaching union. I would be devastated if I ever did a deal with Government which was then put to the membership and accepted by 95 per cent because my negotiating hand would be very much weakened the next time I would sit around the table and I would be inclined to get less from Government.

I think the same in terms of the Minister's negotiating hand in Europe. The result of the vote was about right. I take a different view to my Independent colleagues on this. I differ very much with the Supreme Court on the McKenna judgment for the simple reason that it in some way perverted democracy. Democracy means people electing a Government to lead them, the Government defines its policy thereby reflecting the people's wishes and if that means putting forward a change to the Constitution, the Government is entitled to push that hard as its point of view. That is my view, but the democratically constituted Supreme Court took a different view and we need to look at our approach to these issues. The media has become so powerful that if one agrees to give equal time on an issue, one is effectively hitting people with two sides of the argument whereas that may be not representative of the views of the people or the leaders they elected to enunciate their views.

That needs to be looked at but not by people whinging there should not have been a no vote of that size. There is nothing wrong with a strong no vote. This country has a long history of challenge, questioning and not being passive. If Ireland is to be successful in Europe we do not want passive people but people who will question, challenge, push, probe and lead.

Senator Lydon raised the question of education. I was delighted it was included in the Maastricht Treaty, which was the first amendment to the original Article in the Treaty of Rome. It moved from training only to include education and also allowed education "to support and supplement". Each member of European Union could still rightly determine its education policy, but the EU could also support and supplement that in certain ways, such as through European languages.

That process began in primary schools this month. A large number of schools have opted to participate in a pilot programme on the introduction of modern European languages. That is important and we will see the value of such initiatives in a wider context. It was good that upon the introduction of European languages in primary schools people were not saying our culture would be threatened. They no longer feel that as they have developed confidence, a new sense of being European and do not feel any less Irish. That is good because it would be hypocritical of us who said for many years that it was possible to be Irish and British. We now know it is possible to be Irish and European without any diminution or reduction in our cultural values.

Europe contains a broad spectrum of people. We recently looked at the question of immigration and refugees. We need to hear more Ministers speaking out and putting that issue in context because newspaper headlines which refer to tides and floods of immigrants do not reflect reality. The 4,000 or 5,000 people seeking asylum here is approximately one-tenth of the number of Irish people who lived illegally in north America ten years ago or one-sixth or one-seventh of the number of people exported to England annually up until seven or eight years ago. The people should be allowed to give vent to their natural sense of welcome. By understanding different cultures and people, they will be more open to and accepting of them and recognise they will add to our culture. I wish the Bill well.

Dr. Fitzpatrick

I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his recent initiative on nuclear power. While parts of the world indulged in lunatic actions with nuclear devices, his was the one sane voice. Senator O'Toole pointed out the difficulties he faces with one of the largest nations in Europe a committed nuclear power, with over 70 per cent of its electricity alone generated by nuclear energy.

I welcome the positive vote on the Amsterdam Treaty by the people on 22 May. Over 61.8 of us voted in favour of the referendum. While I canvassed for the yes vote for the Amsterdam Treaty and peace in Northern Ireland, I found there was no problem with the peace vote, as it subsequently turned out, but people had a problem with the Amsterdam Treaty. Perhaps, as the Minster said, the opaqueness of its language and the lack of accord with the Treaty meant people could not concentrate their minds and that was probably one of its greatest defects. Also, those of us in favour of Europe and who wish to see European integration proceed know of the great benefits involved. Our membership of Europe has given younger generations a new sense of security, well being and self-confidence. In the late 1950s and early 1960s Irish self-confidence was at its lowest, but now a total reversal has taken place in younger people's attitudes.

I do not fault the McKenna judgment. Ideas should be tested openly and in a democracy it is only right and proper that they should be debated before the people, but those of us in favour of the Amsterdam Treaty allowed the argument to go by default. We were too focused on the yes vote for peace in Northern Ireland and took our eye off the other ball that was in play. Some outrageous remarks, insinuations and allegations were made about the effects of this Treaty. I was amazed by the attack on Europol which was designed to increase co-operation between police forces with a wave of international crime hitting Europe. Criminals are not interested in the niceties of European co-operation. They would prefer if co-operation between police forces within Europe and worldwide broke down as it would give them a freer field to play on. There were no coherent or studied replies to these allegations. However, the people made their judgment. Some 38 per cent voted no while 61.8 per cent voted yes. Upon that basis we can build and develop Europe.

The Amsterdam Treaty is a European initiative which addresses the issues of concern to the people of Ireland in a positive, structured and coherent manner. I am pleased it was supported by a healthy majority in the recent referendum.

Mr. Gallagher

I support the Bill. There was extensive debate in this House on the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty prior to the referendum. I keep up to date with European affairs, am familiar with developments in Europe and am interested in and supportive of further co-operation and enlargement. Given the public has judged the Treaty suitable for ratification, why does the Bill only incorporate parts of it into Irish law? I am sure there is a good reason for this. The Minister addressed these matters to some degree in his speech. However if, having explained why further co-operation is necessary and outlined the advantages of further involvement and the deepening of relationships in the EU, we seek and obtain the support of the public for a Treaty to that effect but only incorporate part of it into Irish law, what happens to the other aspects? These are legitimate questions for members of the public to raise and may explain why many decided to vote no in the recent referendum.

While the concept, aspirations and objectives of European co-operation and union are easily explained, the law relating to them appears to become ever more complex. Surely the provisions in the Treaties and agreements outlined in the table in the Bill are a case for consolidation legislation? While I commend the Minister's initiative regarding nuclear issues, I ask him to urge his colleagues to consider such legislation.

Opponents of the Amsterdam Treaty argued that a yes vote would sanction related measures and provisions. There was an aspiration at the start of the Intergovernmental Conference to bring together various legal agreements. It is not an easy job; we have difficulty doing it in our jurisdiction for complicated areas, such as tax and social welfare law, but it has been done. One of the best ways in which Governments of the member states can seriously address those who are well disposed to European issues but are concerned about the omission or inclusion of aspects they are not told of is to consolidate legislative provisions and such like. For example, what will happen those aspects of the Amsterdam Treaty which are not provided for in this Bill?

The 38 per cent no vote in the recent referendum was not the disaster some suggest. The majorities in previous referenda may have been too large, perhaps because issues were simplified. People realised the Amsterdam Treaty incorporated a range of different issues. The Maastricht Treaty referendum centred on whether we would get £8 billion by way of EU funding, which did not do justice to the Treaty. The fact that people considered the Amsterdam Treaty and that a proportion of them decided to vote no is a healthy development. It puts a greater onus on those of us who support the yes side to make our views known without the carrot of further European money being put before the people, which does a disservice to them and to the ideals of the EU.

Talking to people who voted no I found mixed motivations. Some said because there were two referenda on the one day they focused on the referendum on the Belfast Agreement. Perhaps there is a lesson in this when we decide on how questions should be put to the people in the future. Some people read the Treaty and decided they did not like aspects of it. That is a healthy development. Despite the best efforts of the Referendum Commission many said they did not understand the proposals. The commission should not be blamed for that. It did a very good job in the short time available and under the constraints of having to provide information on the two referenda. I know the Government is considering changing the way information is disseminated. However, we should not move lightly away from the commission. It conducted research on the effectiveness of its work from which it can learn, as can we as legislators. Perhaps the members of the public should be encouraged to seek further information to better inform themselves.

Some voted no on the basis that we will have to contribute to the EU. Given that we have benefited so much from membership, not only financially but also legally, we are the last country to make such an argument. Our membership has contributed to developments in labour law, women's rights and many other aspects of our legislation. We justifiably pride ourselves, perhaps to an inordinate degree, on our contributions, financially and otherwise, to the Third World. If countries in central and eastern Europe seek to join the Union from which we have benefited so much, we should welcome them with open arms. If the same argument had been used against us by the six member states in 1972 how much poorer would this country be?

There is one area which these Houses could look at to improve the links between the people of this country, the decision making processes in this State and those of the EU. Too often Brussels is blamed for everything. Our Ministers attend meetings of the Council of Ministers and our MEPs attend the European Parliament. The MEPs are allowed attend meetings of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs but the times of the meetings do not suit them. The sessions are usually mutually exclusive. We should find a better way which would allow MEPs to report to Members of the Houses on their activities and the job they are doing for Ireland in Europe.

The Joint Committee on European Affairs should consider the more effective scrutinisation of the actions and decisions of our Ministers on the Council. Sweden considered this matter carefully before deciding on the measures that would be put in place prior to its accession to monitor Ministers. It did not follow the Danish model under which a Minister is required to have almost a negotiating mandate prior to attending meetings of the Council and then must make contact from Brussels to ask if the European Affairs Committee will allow him or her to go further. I do not agree with that extreme. However, the Swedish model should be examined.

I urge Senators who are members of the Joint Committee on European Affairs to consider how the committee could scrutinise, liaise and report on the plans, ambitions, projections, performances and decisions of the Council of Ministers more effectively. This would be a better measure than many other proposals to assist the people in understanding how our Ministers participate and involve themselves so effectively in the Council.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Andrews)

I am grateful for the quality of the contributions which have been most helpful. Some of the interventions were extremely well thought out and I thank Senators for their points of view which enhance the ongoing debate on the European experience.

Senator Taylor-Quinn complained that only 56 per cent of the electorate voted. However, that is a matter for the electorate and it would be wrong of me to criticise that outcome. It was disappointing because the two issues were most important. As Senator Fitzpatrick said, perhaps we took our focus off the Amsterdam Treaty referendum as a result of our efforts to ensure a large vote in favour of the peace process. The latter probably was achieved at the expense of the former. The campaigns on both referenda were good but those of us who canvassed in our constituencies and elsewhere found that the reaction to the Amsterdam Treaty referendum was one of puzzlement while there was a historically warm welcome for the peace process.

It is interesting to note that politicians on all sides, with the exception of the Green Party, supported the Amsterdam Treaty. Perhaps this says something about the party political process and involvement, but I am not a critic of Dáil Éireann or politicians. I strongly support the political process and people who give their lives to politics through membership of the Seanad and local councils. They are good and genuine people and I applaud them for their involvement in the political process and their contribution to democracy.

I am not negative towards Oireachtas Éireann or politicians of all parties who have made enormous sacrifices to reach this point. Those of us who have been in the political mainstream for over 30 years have experienced the ups and downs of the lives of many politicians, some of whom bit the dust in the most terrible circumstances. I pay tribute to the political process and those who involve themselves in it.

The points made by Senator Taylor-Quinn were of a high quality. She and others said in relation to the comprehension of the Amsterdam

Treaty that it was difficult to get across the message. The Treaty did not contain a central idea. It was a measure designed to amend and improve structures; it was less than an emotional experience. However, I reject the criticism about the lack of involvement in the debate on the Amsterdam Treaty by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

One of the star productions of the debate was the White Paper on the Treaty of Amsterdam and the accompanying précis. Even the people who said no expressed strong support for the White Paper produced by the Department of Foreign Affairs in terms of its comprehensiveness and simplicity of language. Politicians on both sides praised the paper and I accepted that praise on behalf of the officials who produced it. They deserved it because they went to much trouble to produce the paper and also because of their involvement in the Treaty of Amsterdam process.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I criticised the political campaign rather than the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Acting Chairman (Mr. R. Kiely)

The Minister without interruption.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I made that point in case the Minister misunderstood me.

Mr. Andrews

Of all the political parties, my party involved itself in strong campaigns on both issues which cost a considerable sum. Party funds were put at the disposal of a fine organisation which did an exceptional job.

I agree with Senator Taylor-Quinn about being on guard against the remoteness of Brussels. This is an important point. People are becoming fed up with the lack of linkage between Ireland and Brussels and politicians have a duty to ensure that the issue of subsidiarity is given a proper focus and the intended meaning.

Regarding the 38 per cent of the electorate which voted against the Treaty, in a democracy these people should not be patronised by suggesting that they did not understand what they were doing. Many people may not have been happy with the Common Foreign and Security Policy or the information they received. As Senator Taylor-Quinn said, they may have been concerned about the apparent remoteness of Brussels and the suggestion that Europe was too much in control of our affairs. However, the European experience is one of shared sovereignty. This has been happening since 1973 and it appears the people have accepted it as a reality.

Senator Taylor-Quinn also raised the issue of Objective One status and the suggestion that Ireland may be relegated to Objective Two status. I assure the Senator that I have been extremely vigilant about Agenda 2000, the transitional arrangements required in the context of the Structural and Cohesion Funds and, in conjunction with my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the CAP.

As the Senator said, the Celtic tiger gives a veneer of economic strength but behind it are certain weaknesses, one of which, as she pointed out, is our lack of infrastructural development. The country is almost in gridlock because what purport to be highways between cities are actually country roads. The Celtic tiger also hides the marginalised in our society. Large tranches of people are excluded from the current economic benefits and we must be vigilant on their behalf.

In the context of enlargement and reform of the institutions we are fighting to retain Commissioners for small countries. As far as we are concerned, it is a given that Ireland will retain its Commissioner in exchange for weighted voting under which larger countries will have a greater say. I give an undertaking on behalf of the Government and myself that we will not lose our Commissioner but will retain the post in the context of enlargement, which will progress in 2003 or 2004. I am grateful to Senator Taylor-Quinn for her intervention.

Senator Lydon said the Treaty is a complex document and there is no question about that. He mentioned the good provisions in the Treaty, those concerning jobs, freedom, security and the environment which might be described as bringing it closer to the citizen. He said a recent survey had shown that 70 per cent of people did not understand the complexity of the Treaty, and that is a fair point.

I thank Senator O'Toole and others for their congratulations for my initiative on nuclear nonproliferation. It is an important move for this country and was begun well in advance of the explosions by Pakistan and India. It will be our function, with the support of the other countries in the initiative, to ensure this declaration becomes a resolution, if not at the UN General Assembly in September then at the following one. This initiative was begun by a former Minister for External Affairs, the late Frank Aiken, and it is a question of making it relevant to the next millennium.

The Senator also mentioned the UK challenge to EU spending and asked for support for Irish as a minority language. I am an Irish speaker and although I may not be as fluent as I should be I make an effort. I do interviews on Raidió na Gaeltachta and Teilifís na Gaeilge as a way of supporting the language and will continue to do so even if I do not distinguish myself on those excellent media. I will also support Irish as a minority language in the European context. It was people like myself during the peace process who gave the Irish language a new relevance in Northern Ireland, as can be seen in the British-Irish Agreement of 10 April. I assure the Senator that Irish is in safe hands as far as this Government and myself are concerned. I pay tribute to Teilifís na Gaeilge; it came in for a lot of criticism at its inception but it is a greatly improved service in terms of news and sport. It does a singular service for the Irish language. It has come on terrifically and I wish it well.

I agree with Senator O'Toole that there is great emphasis on money in the EU — we used to call it the European Economic Community — and probably not enough on the cultural aspects of membership. The EU is not only concerned with economics, it has opened a huge vista in the last 25 years. Our young people can move around EU countries with great confidence and come back to us to use their experience to our advantage. This is a singularly important value of EU membership.

I assure the Senator that I have intervened on a number of occasions about the obscenity in Kosovo. There has been universal condemnation of President Milosevic. I reject Senator O'Toole's criticism of Sweden — it has an arms industry but nevertheless it has been helpful to this country in our efforts to take an initiative on nuclear nonproliferation. Perhaps we can become involved in peace-keeping in Rwanda, Bosnia and other areas and our record in that context has been heroic and historic. Speaking as a former Minister for Defence, the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána have made a huge contribution. On the legislation before us, we have subscribed to the Petersberg tasks and have no problems with them.

The Senator wanted a legal opinion on whether the Employment Equality Bill was in conflict with the Amsterdam Treaty. I have studied both and do not think there is a conflict but I will let the Deputy have the opinion he has requested to ensure that my view is the correct one. I do not want it to be said that I misled the House. He quite properly said that Irish people have developed a new confidence since we joined the EEC, as it was then.

I thank Senator Fitzpatrick for his remarks about my involvement with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. He mentioned the difficulties with understanding the Amsterdam Treaty, that is a given. We did our best and I think it was good enough. A successful result of 68 per cent compared to 32 per cent was an achievement which should not be underrated or criticised. When one looks at the Danish experience of European referenda, our experience has been a spectacular success.

Senator Gallagher queried the contributions and the fact that we may lose our Objective One status. I will appear before the Committee on Foreign Affairs on Tuesday to give a complete account of the Department of Foreign Affairs following the Votes on the departmental subheads. That is an annual account and any issue which occurs to the members of that committee can be raised with the Minister of State or myself.

I thank the Senators for their contribution to today's debate. I apologise if I have not fully answered all their queries but I will deal with them on Committee and subsequent Stages. In my opening statement I referred to the need for all of us to focus on European matters, and not just at times of constitutional change; for example, as EMU approaches we can expect to see an increased examination of the consequences of this enormously significant economic project.

There is also a need to expand our awareness of other issues before the European Union, as Senator O'Toole said. As Agenda 2000 is developed we will need a third debate on our developmental priorities in the next decade. As enlargement of the Union draws closer we will need to examine its implications, not just in economic terms but also in light of the effectiveness of the Union's institutions and the stability and security of Europe as a whole.

Ireland's interests are not achievable without regard to those of her existing and potential partners in the European project. The future direction of Europe is as significant as the hugely impressive economic balances with which the voter is already familiar. It is the task of those engaged in the formation of public opinion to promote debate on these issues and their impact on Irish economic interests.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. Lydon

Next Wednesday.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 17 June 1998.

Sitting suspended at 4.05 p.m. and resumed at 4.30 p.m.