Vol. 412 No. 3
4 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the reason the Government is going to publish a White Paper on proposed changes in EC treaties after the completion of Inter-governmental Conferences when all the relevant issues will have been decided at that stage; and his views on whether such a White Paper would serve a far more useful purpose if published now.
As has already been announced in the programme for Government, it is proposed to publish a White Paper on the new Union Treaty which it is expected will result from the current negotiation in the Inter-governmental Conferences on Political Union and on Economic and Monetary Union. These negotiations are due to conclude at the European Council in Maastricht on 9-10 December. The new Union Treaty will be ratified by member states in the course of 1992 so as to come into effect on 1 January 1993.
It is most likely that a referendum will be necessary in this country to enable the Union Treaty to be ratified. It is the Government's intention that there should be a full and wide-ranging public discussion on the issues involved in the new Treaty so that the referendum can take place after a fully informed debate on this further stage of European integration that will be of such crucial importance to the future prosperity and wellbeing of our country.
In a changing negotiating situation within the Intergovernmental Conference, it is not possible to predict the final outcome. For this reason it would only be possible to publish a White Paper when the terms of the Treaty have been elaborated in full.
Does the Minister not accept that traditionally a White Paper sets out Government policy? A Green Paper sets it out in draft and a White Paper sets out Government policy. The idea of publishing a White Paper after everything is nailed down and put in place is absolutely ludicrous. Would the Minister not accept that not just the political parties but the country is entitled to know what is the Government policy in relation to European political and monetary union? Would he also agree that the prospects of the referendum being carried successfully would be far greater if there was an active debate in this country arising from the establishment and publication of Government policy in a White Paper?
The Government, the Taoiseach and I, and others, have already made public statements to the effect that a White Paper to inform public opinion will be before them in time for the referendum. The Deputy will be aware that the issues before the Intergovernmental Conferences have not been fully finally negotiated. In these circumstances it would be difficult to do justice to the provisions of the new Union Treaty but the Deputy can rest assured that a White Paper will be published in good time to enable an informed public discussion to take place before the referendum.
The Single European Act — and the Deputy would have better reason to remember this than I because he was a Minister of State in the Department of Foreign Affairs at the time — was signed by Ireland in January 1986 and we had the explanatory booklet and documents about same in about November of that year before we went for the referendum. So the Deputy should understand the situation.
I accept what the Minister has to say. I am in fact drawing from my own experience as one of the negotiators of the Single European Act. It is arising from that experience and the problems we had subsequently that I came to the conclusion early on that we should have a White Paper. I made the point that a White Paper is an expression of Government policy, not what is agreed. Is it not true that the only document of consequence in relation to political union that has been published has been published by the Institute of European Affairs? It is a very fine document which I would recommend to everybody, but in all that situation and in the situation where we have no Foreign Affairs Committee to debate it, will the Minister accept that before Maastricht we should have some real glimpse of what the Government are trying to achieve in these conferences and that that would be of benefit to the entire country and would be especially of benefit in getting the referendum through?
I agree with the Deputy in so far as he says that the booklet he referred to is a very solid basis for discussion as far as it goes. The Deputy will also know from the launching of the particular book which I was asked to do on behalf of the institute that during the course of my remarks I paid tribute to all those who were involved. For the first time — and this did not happen in 1986 — we had the senior officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Finance and other Departments contributing directly to the discussions that are taking place within the institute giving position papers on the situation as it is at the particular time. The Deputy must have regard to the fact that we are in a developing situation given that the negotiations are still taking place. The Deputy is incorrect when he says that this is the first effort which has been made to stimulate or promote a public debate on the issue. That is not so. The Taoiseach made a complete statement on the entire issue in the Dáil on or around 9, 10 or 11 July last. We have had many questions and answers on the issues involved. Indeed, the Deputy need only look at the Order Paper for the remainder of the day to see that I am to be questioned on practically every detail of the discussions taking place at present.
That is the only way to get information.
That is not so. In some instances I will be able to give full information in respect of those areas where agreement has been reached but a number of sensitive problems have still to be resolved so it will be impossible to outline the position on them.
Let us come to deal with other questions.
Is it not ridiculous that we have had to table over 100 questions to get information on the White Paper?
Fine Gael could have tabled those questions at any time they liked. They need not have waited until now and they would have been given full replies.
We have not had a Foreign Affairs Question Time for the last six months.
We do not have a foreign affairs committee.
In fairness, I have used every public occasion which has come my way to talk at length about this issue. The Deputy knows that.
Question No. 5, please.
The Minister is weighing his words.
That is a good reason for having a foreign affairs committee.
We will have one of those, too shortly.
