Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 26 May 1998

Vol. 491 No. 3

Ceisteanna—Questions. - Official Engagements.

John Bruton

Ceist:

1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Scotland. [11662/98]

John Bruton

Ceist:

2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Boston in the United States of America. [12021/98]

John Bruton

Ceist:

3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the relatives of victims of violence in Northern Ireland whose bodies have not been discovered. [12022/98]

Ruairí Quinn

Ceist:

4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Glasgow; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12025/98]

John Bruton

Ceist:

5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the referenda held on 22 May 1998. [12029/98]

John Bruton

Ceist:

6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone conversations with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair. [12031/98]

John Bruton

Ceist:

7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the leadership of the Alliance Party. [12032/98]

Proinsias De Rossa

Ceist:

8 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Scotland and on his meeting with the Scottish Secretary of State. [12035/98]

Proinsias De Rossa

Ceist:

9 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the United States of America. [12036/98]

Proinsias De Rossa

Ceist:

10 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to meet the British Prime Minister to discuss potential developments in the aftermath of the two referenda. [12037/98]

Proinsias De Rossa

Ceist:

11 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the referenda on the British-Irish Agreement. [12038/98]

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

12 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his contacts with leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland since the referenda on the British-Irish Agreement. [12081/98]

Ruairí Quinn

Ceist:

13 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his trip to the United States of America; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12093/98]

Ruairí Quinn

Ceist:

14 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his views on the outcome of the referendum on the British-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12098/98]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 14 together.

The people have endorsed the British-Irish Agreement in overwhelming numbers. More than 71 per cent of the voters in the North and close to 95 per cent in the South — 85 per cent of all those voting on the island — have bestowed on it not just political force but true moral force. The people have shown clearly and emphatically that they want peace, that they want an accommodation and that they want to work together for the benefit of everyone, North and South, and for the benefit of the islands of Ireland and Britain. There is now no greater claim to authority, no greater claim to legitimacy, than the collective voice of the people recorded last Friday.

The decision of the people to endorse this Agreement was not simply a political act. It was a command to all political leaders to begin the work of peace. It is now the responsibility of everybody engaged in the political process to make the Agreement work. We all have to engage constructively together to ensure all aspects of the Agreement are put in place.

I have always said this Agreement will bring real, tangible benefits. It is now time to make the Agreement a reality. Reaching agreement in the multi-party talks was a long and arduous process. It will take an even greater commitment by all of us to realise the full vision set out in the Agreement.

During my recent contacts with the Prime Minister Mr. Blair, our focus had been to maximise the "yes" vote in the referendum. This was also my priority in all my recent contacts, including with Lord Alderdice, whom I met on 19 May.

On 17 and 18 May, I visited the United States. My primary engagement was to accept an honorary doctorate degree at Boston College, where I made a speech on the British-Irish Agreement to the assembled audience. I also took the opportunity to attend an Ireland-Israel-US software conference which was a showcase to investors by a number of innovative companies in this area.

During my trip to Scotland on 9 May I met Mr. Donald Dewar MP, the Scottish Secretary of State, Mr. Brian Wilson MP, Minister of State for Education and Industry at the Scottish Office, Mr. Alex Salmond MP, the leader of the Scottish National Party, Mr. Frank McAveety, Leader of Glasgow District Council and other elected public representatives. In our discussions, we covered the implications of strand three of the British-Irish Agreement and the institutions which will be set up on that basis, connecting the interests of Scotland and Ireland and how we could best promote these. I also had a meeting with Cardinal Winning of Glasgow.

In my reply to questions on 12 May I explained that the previous weekend I had met some of the families of those who are missing. This is an issue I have continued to raise with republican sources, and which I will continue to raise until we have had a satisfactory answer which will put an end to the suffering of these families. I welcome the promise made by Gerry Adams last week to try to help rectify the injustice whereby a family has been bereaved and the body has not been returned to them.

Why did the Taoiseach not refer to the Amsterdam Treaty referendum result? Will he rectify that?

I am sorry, I should have done so. I am extremely pleased that it was carried successfully, although the majority was not as high as I would have wished. As I said over the weekend in many statements, we have often had 30 per cent of the vote against in a referendum. While the "no" vote was quite high, it did not give cause for great concern. I would have liked a higher "yes" vote but in a good poll more than 60 per cent emphatically supported the Amsterdam Treaty. The information available in the public domain was sufficient but, as I said over the weekend and in the House, the arrangements for holding a referendum warrant examination. That is what I intend to do.

In interpreting the result of the Amsterdam Treaty referendum the Taoiseach stated that it was his view that there was no support in Ireland for federalism. Will he elaborate on this? Is he aware that the Maastricht Treaty commits this country to an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe which, in essence, involves federalism? Do the statements he made after the Amsterdam Treaty referendum result represent a turning away from a European Union by his party?

The Deputy knows nobody did more work than my party and the Government to make sure that referendum was passed. I supported the provisions in the Amsterdam Treaty. European integration and the concept of federalism put forward by some people mean two different things. I wholeheartedly welcome European integration and what will happen in the enlargement process. I have supported what has happened in that process and I have supported in every way possible the countries which are in various stages of accession. As I said last week, people here have a strong view on neutrality issues, but there was some confusion about those issues in the campaign because some people put forward views on issues not covered by or mentioned in the treaty. During the campaign we managed to explain to the people the issues involved as best we could under the circumstances that prevailed. The people voted overwhelmingly by 60 per cent to 40 per cent for the treaty, which is a good majority in any referendum.

Will the Taoiseach agree the scale of the "no" vote, the highest ever in any of the referenda we have had on the European issue, is a cause for concern, particularly for European institutions? Will he also agree that if that result were repeated in other countries, it might lead to the Amsterdam Treaty not being ratified, in Denmark for example, because of the scale of disenchantment? Does the Government intend to adopt a more proactive view or position on European institutions? For example, does it intend to propose that the Council of Ministers meetings should be open to the public or the media and be broadcast? Does it intend to endorse the recent call by the former President, Jacques Delors, that the process of electing the new President of the Commission, which is due to take place in less than 18 months, should be done in a transparent and democratic manner? Are those matters to which the Government intends to give its attention, as the Taoiseach stated in his reply?

The "no" vote in the referendum was quite high. As Deputy Quinn will be aware from the only analysis carried out two reasons for it were put forward. Some people said there was a lack of information on the treaty, but I do not accept that. There was a great deal of information and the media carried a great deal of data on it daily, even though two referenda were being held on the same day. The other reason given was the neutrality issue, which is not part of the treaty.

On the wider question of the Amsterdam Treaty, following the Maastricht Treaty people said that such matters should be made more Europe friendly. As I said two weeks ago, a good attempt was made to do that by examining issues that affect people's daily lives such as crime and unemployment. I accept the legal text of the treaty must be put forward, but I do not believe many people studied it. However, there was a high demand for the White Paper which was available in public libraries, information centres and citizen advice bureaux and it was checked many times since last January. That may come as a surprise to some people, but that is the case. I am aware from meetings I attended throughout the country that the document put forward by the Referendum Commission was well analysed.

European institutions must strive to make European matters a part of people's daily lives and ensure people genuinely feel those issues affect them. Many people thought the type of issues covered by the Amsterdam Treaty should not be put to the people, but that is the procedure provided for under our Constitution. I have answered questions on chat programmes, local radio programmes and at public meetings around the country. European institutions should constantly strive to explain their role, not only when there is a referendum on the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty or the Amsterdam Treaty. Deputy Quinn will recall the ECOFIN Council and other councils have allowed televised broadcasts of their way of doing business, which is a good way of making them more open.

While I share the Taoiseach's analysis and do not disagree with him, does the Government intend taking a proactive position in relation to this matter? Will the Government consider proposing that the process of selecting the next President of the EU Commission be conducted in a much more open, transparent and democratic manner, in contrast with the manner in which Jacques Santer was selected? At the next Council meeting in Cardiff will the Taoiseach propose that henceforth all proceedings of Council of Ministers meetings be open to the public as the proceedings of this House are?

I do not want to give decisions on issues the Government has not discussed. However, I support the principle of trying to make the workings of the EU Commission, Councils and other meetings more open and understandable to the public. I will be glad to put forward any initiatives the Government may decide upon following its reflection on last week's vote.

We are dealing with the referenda on the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Northern Ireland Agreement. Does the Taoiseach agree that attempts by some people in Northern Ireland to achieve pacts on the basis of a sectarian head count are unhelpful in terms of elections to the assembly and that the objective ought to be to have the broadest number of people elected who are pro the Agreement and the assembly and its operation? Given that we are entering the election campaign for the assembly and the potential damage which problems over marches can give rise to, will the Taoiseach urge a voluntary moratorium on all marches by all sides for the summer in order to give the people of Northern Ireland a chance to heal the wounds of the past 30 years and enable the Agreement to bed down? In this regard will the Taoiseach consider inviting the Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, to address the Dáil as a mark of our appreciation of the excellent co-operation between the two Governments in putting the Agreement together with the parties in Northern Ireland? It would enable us to express our appreciation of that co-operation which opens a new era of co-operation between our two states.

Regarding sectarian groupings or pacts, I would rather see people looking to what will best make the Agreement work. The people have voted and the result of Friday's referendum on the Agreement is a message of hope, particularly in the North where people voted in enormous numbers. The people of Northern Ireland obviously have a passion for peace and they have spoken there and in the South in the clearest and loudest possible manner, putting hope back into the island after 30 years of giving up on hope. The result was a good one for the country. We are moving to the next phase with an overwhelming majority endorsement of the Agreement. People want to see the democratic wish they expressed last week carried out. If we are to have peace and stability all aspects of the Agreement must work. A very important part of it is the Assembly, the institutional mechanism charged with making so much of the Agreement work. I encourage those voting in the elections to think carefully before voting and to vote on the basis of electing people who will contribute constructively to making it work. It is not for me to say how anybody should vote, but I ask that the wishes of the people be recognised and reflected in the Assembly, something I hope will happen.

Regarding other initiatives, I have noted what the Deputy said about inviting the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to the House. I hope Prime Minister Blair will visit Ireland in the near future to discuss the Agreement and other matters with me at Government level. I will consider other initiatives over the longer term.

Deputy De Rossa inquired some weeks ago about following up on the initiatives contained in the Agreement. An interdepartmental group, under the aegis of the Department of Foreign Affairs, is considering all of the initiatives contained therein and has begun to process those.

I urge the Taoiseach to give active consideration to inviting the British Prime Minister to address the House.

In regard to the Amsterdam Treaty, does the Taoiseach agree that, in spite of the Referendum Commission's job in regard to the distribution of information, political debate is clearly required on issues of this kind? The presentation of neutral information pro and anti a particular position was insufficient to generate interest in what is essentially an EU political agreement. We must seriously consider an alternative means of ensuring that real political debate occurs around issues such as the development of the EU; information on its own is not sufficient.

Does the Government intend to examine the referendum returns by constituency to ascertain the socio-economic breakdown of those who voted for and against the Treaty? At a cursory glance, it appears to me that the most marginalised constituencies displayed least enthusiasm for the EU, perhaps because they do not feel its benefits.

EU treaties will be further revised in the coming years. Will that process of revision be brought more into the open in terms of debate on the issues involved? There is no doubt in my mind that the very public debate which took place on the Northern Agreement, in which the various issues were thrashed out, resulted in people being in a position to judge the issues for themselves. However, in regard to the Amsterdam Treaty, people were presented with a series of amendments to a complex treaty almost overnight and were unaware of its possible impact on their daily lives. A more open process of debate, which would include the Dáil and other public fora, on the future revision of European treaties would result in a more informed electorate at the time of referenda.

There is little doubt that recent court judgments have hampered the conduct of Government referenda campaigns. In my view, the current regime is overly restrictive and makes it difficult to communicate the effect of a referendum proposal to the people. The Government allocated substantial resources to the Referendum Commission which did an excellent job within the constraints imposed upon it in regard to the conveyance of information in both referenda. However, the onus on the commission to meet every argument in favour with a contrary argument does not realistically deal with the matter nor does it reflect the concerns of the people, as can be seen from the 95 per cent vote in favour of the British-Irish Agreement even though the commission was obliged to balance the arguments for and against that agreement. I do not believe that is the correct approach. It should be reviewed and we intend to review it.

I agree with Deputy De Rossa with regard to the constituencies. We have not yet carried out an analysis of the vote by constituency but a brief glance at the results suggests that urban areas which suffer higher unemployment and greater social disadvantage yielded a higher "no" vote.

Two areas must be examined in the next process, the issues which were not completed in the Amsterdam Treaty and enlargement of the Union and what that will mean for the Commission, majority voting and so forth. There will be a review and there will also be limited discussion in Cardiff about that process which is due to start again and which might take some years to complete. The Deputy's proposal as to how that should be done is worth examining. I am willing to reflect on it and how it should be done as we move forward.

I was directly involved in the referenda on the Maastricht Treaty and the Single European Act some years ago. The difficulty with those and the Amsterdam Treaty is that they are complex legal texts which are not easy to understand. The Amsterdam Treaty in some ways offered more real advantages for people. I am sure other Members of the House who attended a large number of public meetings on this issue found that the question which most often arose was why, having voted for Europe in 1972, 1987 and 1992, people were once again being asked to vote on it. When they looked at the documents and tried to get their heads around matters such as the Schengen Agreement, it was not easy to explain them. I had this difficulty with employer groups, trade unions and community groups.

The difficulty is caused by how we have organised our constitutional amendments. It causes confusion and the public has expressed that confusion. It was, therefore, easy for some people to say that if one was in doubt, one should vote "no". I met many people from all political parties who said it was the easiest option and they appear to have used that option for that reason.

I strongly endorse Deputy De Rossa's suggestion that Prime Minister Blair should be invited to address a joint session of the Dáil and Seanad. It is ironic that joint sessions of the Houses have been addressed by the German Chancellor, the President of France, three Presidents of the United States and other heads of state but not by the Prime Minister of Britain, our nearest neighbour. Now that there are normalised relations with Britain it is about time we invited the British Prime Minister to address a joint session of the Houses and stopped maintaining the constitutional fiction that our relationship with Britain is different from our relationship with other states.

Does the Taoiseach agree that one of the issues that could cause problems during the summer is parades in Northern Ireland? Does he further agree that a solution might be found if the Orange Order would agree to meet all residents' groups and if, in return, the residents would agree to allow parades of a non-confrontational type to pass with relatively modest frequency through their areas? Does he agree that a compromise can be found on that basis? Now that the people have endorsed the Agreement, it is time for flexibility on the part of both the Orange Order and the residents' groups.

Of course it is true that if people would compromise, progress could be made on this issue. I am not aware of the views of some of the committees of the Orange Order following last Friday. Prior to that date their stated position was that the Orange Order and the Loyal Lodges would meet the residents but they wish to have a veto over who represents the residents. This has been an issue for some years.

Some years ago, as a result of a difficulty with the Orange Order meeting certain residents, the residents elected their representatives to public office positions. The Orange lodges will not meet leaders elected by the community and the public at large. That remained the position up to last Friday. I agree with Deputy Bruton, but if both sides could be moved on this issue progress could be made. It is entirely reasonable that there is compromise. Out of the hundreds of marches that take place about a dozen are contentious and difficult. If compromise could be reached by a twoway process, progress could be made. I am due to meet residents' groups shortly. Last year I met the Orange lodges and people who have some say with both sides and I asked them to see if compromise can be reached.

It would be a tragedy if the good work of recent months was undone by difficult positions being taken up because people will not meet. I am not saying there will be agreement when they meet, but if there was some dialogue it would open up the possibility of seeking compromise. I do not wish to understate the position. Most compromises that have been considered in the past three years have been rejected, but in the aftermath of last Friday it is worth considering them again.

Was the Taoiseach's official trip to Boston paid for out of public funds? Did the Taoiseach undertake a party fund-raiser while on the trip?

It was an official trip. The only activity I undertook for the party was that I met a group of eight people for a short period, people in the Boston area who support the party.

(Dublin West): On the Amsterdam Treaty, is the Taoiseach astonished that the political parties which achieved more than 90 per cent of votes of the electorate in the recent general election and which favoured carrying the treaty were rejected by almost 40 per cent of the electorate who voted against the treaty? In view of what the Taoiseach said about the complexities of the matter, will he agree those of us who said the referendum should have been put back until the autumn to allow wider discussion to take place were right? Will he agree the result shows there is great concern about the military provisions in the treaty? The people have stated categorically that not only do they believe this country should not participate in adventures of a military kind but they do not want to be seen to encourage the EU to move in that direction, whether in terms of military formation, an armaments industry or a nuclear capacity.

Given that the health service comes under one of the joint committees set up by the Agreement and in view of proposals for severe cutbacks in the health services in the North, will the Taoiseach ask the British Prime Minister to freeze cuts until the assembly is set up and the position is taken in hand by local administrations? Is the Taoiseach aware that tonight in Dungannon up to 20,000 people are expected to protest against the rundown of the south Tyrone hospital?

These are separate matters. The Deputy is going into detail and it is not in order.

(Dublin West): Will the Taoiseach make strong representations in the interests of ordinary people who are concerned about health services in the North?

One of the North-South implementation bodies will deal with health issues. I note the Deputy's statement, but I will not get into debate on meetings, protests or cuts in the health system in the North. In terms of the vote, more than 60 per cent of people voted. Any country in the European Union would be satisfied with such a high turnout on polling day. While I had mixed feelings about holding the referenda on separate dates, I am now convinced we made the correct decision to hold them on the same day. It would not have made sense to expect people to come out on another date to vote on the Amsterdam Treaty.

(Dublin West): It would have given more time for discussion on the matter.

It would have suited those who are anti-Europe to hold it on another day because they would probably have used the lower vote to benefit their campaign. I thank all the non-political people who, since last January, worked extremely hard campaigning for Europe. I also thank Deputy Dukes and other parliamentarians who worked extremely hard throughout the winter in this regard. It would have been unfair to those people, who campaigned with very limited resources, to delay the referendum until the autumn. A large amount of information was disseminated on the matter and a large number of people turned out to vote.

I have already commented on our position in regard to neutrality. The commitment given by all the major parties that any change in that stance in future discussions on Europe will be put to the people stands. It was not an issue in this case.

Does the Government propose to analyse the effectiveness of the Referendum Commission? If so, will it be done by a committee of the House since it concerns all parties and not just the Government? In view of the satisfaction expressed by a large number of people about polling stations being open from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Friday, will the Government confirm this will be the conventional norm for all future elections? It facilitates those who live away from home during the week, particularly students and young people whose participation in democratic politics we wish to encourage.

The Government will analyse the effectiveness of the Referendum Commission and I will discuss with the Whip the question of this being done in a committee of the House. I agree it concerns all parties.

A large number of people suggested that, like those in Northern Ireland, polling stations here should have opened at 7 a.m. That matter deserves consideration. Some members of my party carried out 40 polls across Dublin on the numbers voting at particular times during the day and, as in December last, they showed very few people voted after 8 p.m. The poll between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. was lower than at any other time during the day.

Those polls were taken in Dublin and do not take into account the people who travel from, say, Maynooth to Galway or Clare to vote.

We attempted to address the problem in respect of students. During the campaign students claimed that, because of examinations, polling should be held on Saturdays. While I believe Friday is more appropriate than Saturday, the figures do not show that more people turn out to vote on Friday. However, it facilitates some people. Even though we extended the postal vote and the late register in recent years, it is still difficult to achieve more than a 50 per cent turnout in elections.

I am intrigued by the Taoiseach's earlier response when he seemed to indicate that he does not favour a federal Europe. If that is the case, why has the Government brought us into the EMU where we have created a European currency and a European central bank which has subsumed many of the powers of national central banks? Can the Taoiseach clarify what the Government's — or, at least, Fianna Fáil's — position is in relation to the integration and development of Europe?

Flexible federalism.

I asked a serious question.

I am not here to give the Fianna Fáil position on it, I am here to give the Government's position. As I said earlier, the Government is committed to the integration of the European Union, economic and monetary union and enlargement. We are not committed to the true sense of federalism, as I outlined last week in the speech referred to earlier by Deputy Bruton.

A number of Deputies are offering who have not tabled questions but we only have five minutes left. I will ask the three Deputies concerned to put their questions and perhaps the Taoiseach will reply to them together because time is running out.

I tabled a question to the Taoiseach on the referendum but for some reason it was transferred to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. I join the Taoiseach in welcoming the result of the referendum on the Belfast Agreement.

On the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty, the Taoiseach said the interpretation of the McKenna case was overly restrictive. I agree with him on that. Can the Taoiseach explain why the summary of the White Paper, which is quite a good document in terms of its objectivity, was not more widely circulated to people? It was a relatively small document.

Does the Taoiseach accept that, simply because people are sceptical or opposed to this phase of European integration, it does not necessarily mean they are anti-Europe? Will he accept in good faith that they would describe themselves as pro-actively European in terms of a critical analysis of their involvement?

Will the Taoiseach also take in good faith the point made by people that their lack of information, as they perceived it, was a genuine reason for voting "no"? The Schengen Agreement, to which the Taoiseach referred was not available in any library or anywhere else as far as I could see. That this information was not generally available was mentioned on various chat shows.

During his visit to Scotland, did the Taoiseach have an opportunity to raise with any of the authorities there Strand 3 of the Belfast Agreement regarding the Council of the Isles? Earlier, we discussed the suggestion concerning the islands of the North Atlantic, under the acronym IONA. Did that gain any favour in Scotland, particularly? Did the Taoiseach mention it or was it the subject of any discussion during his visit to Scotland?

Will the Taoiseach agree that, in the aftermath of the most significant development in relation to Northern Ireland that is likely to occur in the lifetime of those of us in this House, it is important that political momentum be maintained. Will he agree that one of the ways in which this momentum could be maintained is in relation to "the disappeared"? A number of Members of the House are becoming very dissatisfied that no progress is being made on this matter.

Will he also agree that, in terms of the possibility of making progress on Orange marches, perhaps Mr. David Trimble might contact his constituents, particularly in Portadown, to sort this out?

Will the Taoiseach further agree that what is needed for the immediate future and well into the future is an emphasis on building bridges between the two traditions in Northern Ireland, rather than any pan-nationalism that might be suggested in certain quarters?

I listened with interest to my constituency colleague, Deputy Joe Higgins. I am glad our constituents ignored his advice to vote "no" in the referendum on Northern Ireland. His advice on the south Tyrone hospital in Dungannon would not be welcomed by people like my brother who is leading the campaign.

Does the Taoiseach think the people's overwhelming endorsement of the Belfast Agreement was assisted by the removal of section 31 of the Broadcasting Act which prohibited the broadcasting of certain people's utterances? I ask this question in view of the widespread dissent at that action at the time.

As regards the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty, is it not the case that the size of the poll and the "no" vote were so significant because market considerations since the treaties to which the Taoiseach referred, passed in 1972, 1982 and 1987, have been taken entirely out of context to the extent that they wipe out every other consideration? Continued discussion of the process of eliminating obstacles in the marketplace to the exclusion of every other right in the treaties — the right of free competition has been taken out of context to the extent of suppressing other rights — has led to considerable disillusion about the European Union. We are preparing for the European elections next year. However, the suppression of the European social agenda and the total silence on the cultural aspects of Europe have been damaging and concentration on market considerations has disillusioned the population in relation to Europe. A cynic might say that having taken most of the advantages in terms of the economy and having heard nothing about the other dimensions of the treaty, a considerable gap has been created between Europe and Ireland.

As regards Deputy Sargent's comment on the White Paper, while it was not sent to every household, it was widely circulated. The Minister for Foreign Affairs made it clear that it would be available in libraries and agencies. Anybody who raised questions about it with any Department, particularly the Department of Foreign Affairs, was given a copy of it. Perhaps it was not circulated as widely as it should have been, but it was freely available.

I accept the people's decision should not be regarded as anti-European. I do not believe that 38 per cent of the people are against the Amsterdam Treaty. Many were of the view that they did not know a great deal about it. Perhaps they did not bother to listen to the arguments or they found them confusing so they decided to vote "no". We must all take some responsibility for this. I assume that many people would be in favour of other issues relating to Europe. The message, "when in doubt, put it out", is easy to get across. That was the only message of some people in the campaign. It would have been nice if they had a political ideology other than saying "no". We condemn other people for saying "no". That is people's prerogative in political life but it is not a clear message.

As regards Deputy Sargent's point about the Council, I discussed that at length with the Secretary of State and with other politicians. Scottish politicians are as anxious as I am to avail of the opportunity to develop the council concept. It is a long time since the Republic had political contact with Scotland. Such contact was always with the United Kingdom and Westminster. That point was repeatedly made to me by the Scottish representatives. Deputy Currie referred to political momentum. I made the point that of the aspects of the Agreement we have to implement some are legislative and some are administrative. Decommissioning and prisoners issues will always get more of the limelight but reform of the criminal justice system, the equality agenda and the human and civil rights agenda are equally important. A range of things need to be done. Both the Northern Ireland Office and the British Government are doing them. They are quickly filling the various positions. In relation to Orange marches, we will do whatever we can. I hope all politicians, including Mr. Trimble and others, will do all they can to help to de-escalate the tension that always arises on these issues.

What about "the disappeared"?

I will continue to raise that issue and I am glad we have at least got some response from Mr. Gerry Adams.

He said that two and a half years ago.

At least they have taken up some of the cases. I replied at length on that issue recently. It is not exactly a simple issue but at least we are getting people to make an effort to try to locate information and we will continue to do that. It is a question of trying to get the organisations involved where we do not have direct contact with the people who carried out these atrocities, but at least we have tried, through the political groupings associated with them.

We cannot say it would be a surrender.

Certainly not. Deputy Higgins asked two questions. I am sure section 31 of the Broadcasting Act was of assistance.

Not every party joined the IRA overnight.

Sometimes I wonder whether those who argued for the change, along with the Deputy, believe it worked out exactly as they expected. As one who strongly supported the Deputy when he brought forward those proposals I think it was useful.

The question about market issues is a fair point. I have said that the European Community should be about people's issues, including unemployment and crime. Parts of the Amsterdam Treaty were about those issues but the European Commission and the European Union, in which we are all involved, should try to highlight it. As anyone who has ever been a Minister is aware, there tends to be just one item on the agenda in which the lobbyists will have a huge interest and that is the reason debate on the treaty has been dominated by market issues rather than the effect on people. On the European Social Fund, an enormous amount of resources is used in helping to alleviate social exclusion and for other issues but it is not a huge item on the agenda.

Barr
Roinn