Trevor Sargent
Ceist:1 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the current status of plans for referenda in May 2001. [5750/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Referendum Plans.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:2 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the decisions that have been made with regard to holding a referendum or referenda in 2001. [6507/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:3 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the plans he has to hold constitutional referenda during the lifetime of the current Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6725/01]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:4 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if the Government has plans to hold any referenda before the summer break of Dáil Éireann. [6817/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
On 6 February I informed the House that the Government was considering a number of possibilities on the question of holding referenda during 2001. Matters which were considered were the Nice Treaty, the International Criminal Court, judicial oversight and-or impeachment and the removal of references to the death penalty from the Constitution.
The question of whether ratification of the Treaty of Nice will require a referendum is still under consideration and the Government will take a decision when the advice of the Attorney General has been received. I hope and expect that we will soon be in a position to take that decision. However, I have asked officials to ensure that the preparatory work necessary for a referendum is put in train to give the Government the full range of options for timing. The Attorney General has advised, in relation to the International Criminal Court, that a constitutional referendum is required for Ireland to ratify the statute. The Department of Foreign Affairs is currently drafting the appropriate legislation which I hope will be published at an early date.
In relation to judicial review and-or impeachment, this matter is being examined by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in light of the Report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution of November 1999 and the Report of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Ethics of December 2000. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is also considering the issues around removal of references to the death penalty from the Constitution. Yesterday the Government approved the drafting of Bills on both these issues. The Government will decide in due course both on a specific package of measures which shall be put to the people for consideration at a referendum or referenda and on the appropriate timing.
Is it possible to have a copy of the treaty and its various annexes provided for Members? I mention the annexes because I understand they provide information about evolving EU defence arrangements as well as the treaty itself.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the Nice Treaty will effectively remove the veto on the development of a two-tier Europe which existed under the Amsterdam Treaty? As such it will be difficult not to have a referendum on that matter from a constitutional perspective. That said, does the Taoiseach regard the time between now and summer as adequate for a full debate on the complexities of the treaty? A White Paper was published six months before the Amsterdam Treaty to allow debate on that treaty. When does the Taoiseach see a referendum commission being put in place if there is to be a referendum on the Nice Treaty during the summer?
The legal texts and annexes have just been received by the Attorney General. The signing was last week and the linguistic versions were only made available then. I think they are all available but I will check and if they are there I will not have any difficulty giving them to party leaders. I presume they will be published shortly in their full form. The Attorney General is examining these matters carefully and there is a process to be followed in which they are fully examined, annotated and so on. We hope that will happen soon.
On 6 February I answered Deputy Quinn regarding any doubts about this matter. I know the Tánaiste commented recently on enlargement and said we would be more focused on having a referendum than not but we must await the formal consideration of this matter by the Attorney General and his report. Those are the procedures set down and we hope it will be completed in the next few weeks. The referendum Bill would then have to be prepared and, as I said in February, we hope that can be done speedily but we will go ahead with as much other work as possible in any case. The White Paper will not take as long but work has been done on it in recent weeks.
It looks fairly certain at this stage that no other country will have a referendum. The Swedish Prime Minister told me last week that most of them have already voted on this in their national parliaments and only a few remain. It would not then be a good idea for us to delay this unduly. I will do my utmost through the referendum commission, through the Bill itself and through the White Paper to deal with this as quickly as possible. I still intend to deal with it by the summer if that can be achieved.
There is still some confusion as to whether a referendum on Nice will be afforded the people and from the Taoiseach's response it is clear that the Government is considering putting several issues before the people on that day. Can the Taoiseach confirm that this is what he is considering – a multi-referenda situation in the event of the Nice Treaty being put before the people? What would the questions be? Does the Taoiseach not agree that holding multi-referenda is a recipe for disaster, as was demonstrated in the past? The Amsterdam Treaty was taken along with the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement, which was most unfortunate.
What is the Taoiseach's position on the question posed by the EU Commission President, Mr. Romano Prodi, in the European Parliament on 13 February when he asked if we were all clear that we wanted to build something that can aspire to world power status?
My response to that is a clear and emphatic "no" and that would be the position of my party. Does the Taoiseach share Mr. Prodi's sentiments?
I will restate the position since Deputy Ó Caoláin thinks it is not clear. The final text of the Nice Treaty, the jurists' translations and versions of that, with the annexes, have just been received by the Attorney General following the signing last Monday week in Nice by the Foreign Affairs Ministers. They will be examined by the Attorney General under the normal procedures. He will draft a legal opinion and the Government will have to make a decision.
I have outlined my views on the principle of enlargement on several occasions, including in March and October last year. The people of this country should have an opportunity to give their views on it. I believe they will be supportive of enlargement which is, effectively, what the Nice Treaty is about. It is about allowing the enlargement discussions to be finalised, hopefully in time for new countries to enter on 1 January 2004 or earlier, for the system to take account of them and for the mechanisms of the Community and other international bodies to deal with them. On that basis, I would confidently put it to the people in a referendum so they, too, can show their support for enlargement.
There is no evidence that Irish people get confused by multi referenda. Deputy Lenihan and Deputy O'Keeffe have been urging—
They were very wise in November 1992, if I recall.
They have proved time and again, as far back as the 1950s, that they can make up their minds. It might not always have suited my party but people were well able to distinguish what they wanted to do.
And to whom they wanted to do it.
Yes. I do not anticipate any difficulty in that regard. In fairness to the all-party committee on the Constitution, it has produced an enormous amount of work which probably requires some tidying up. There is an ongoing examination of how that can be done with regard to a number of issues.
There are, effectively, four issues being considered for this referendum. One is the Nice Treaty, which is a straightforward issue. There is also the issue regarding the judicial conduct and ethics report and the all-party committee on the Constitution's report on judicial ethics some time ago. We have received Justice Susan Denham's report that the issue should be dealt with. There is also the commitment we have had for many years – I believe Deputy Spring made it initially – to remove hanging from the Constitution. The former Minister, Deputy Andrews, brought that forward and the work has to be completed. Finally, the international court issue is outstanding. It should have been passed before the end of December. We are not alone in that regard, however, because many other countries have not passed it yet. These four issues are urgent and we have given commitments on them. I do not believe there will be confusion in putting any or all of them to the people.
Does the Taoiseach have any proposal to amend the Constitution to alter the manner in which the right to life is protected? Is it Government policy to bring forward such a referendum? Has the Taoiseach or anybody on his behalf given a commitment in this regard to the four Independent Deputies who support the Government?
I have answered those questions several times and the position is unchanged. Following examination of the Green Paper by the all-party comittee and its report, the Cabinet sub-committee has had a number of meetings – it met this morning, incidentally – and it has still to conclude its deliberations. The commitment I gave to the House was that if there is an amendment and legislation in that area – my personal view on the issue has been well documented for many years – there will be a separate referendum. Until there is a conclusion of the work of the Cabinet sub-committee, however, there will be no decision on it.
What about the commitment to Independent Deputies to have a referendum in that regard?
There is no commitment. That position has not changed.
The constitutional review group proposed an amendment to Article 40.1 of the Constitution in relation to equality before the law. I raised that matter with the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, last week in the context of the disabilities Bill. She indicated that it was proposed to include such an amendment in the next tranche of amendments to go before the electorate. Is it Government policy to include such an amendment? The Labour Party has published a Bill in that regard. Will the Taoiseach consider allocating Government time to debate it?
I will discuss that with the Minister of State, if that is what she said. A number of issues have been put forward by the all-party committee and we have selected the important ones. There were also reports on tidying up the gender balance and other equality issues. It will not be dealt with this time. The four issues I described are the likely ones for this group of amendments but I will talk to the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, about the Bill.
Will the Taoiseach accept there has been a variety of recommendations from the all-party committee in the last three or four years and that there has been a deficit of action on the part of Government in bringing any of the recommendations before the people? Will he also accept, in relation to the International Criminal Court, there has been criminal neglect on the part of the Government in putting the necessary referendum to the people given that we signed this international agreement in 1998?
In relation to the proposed judicial council, will the Taoiseach clarify whether he is accepting the recommendation of the all-party committee for a constitutional referendum to establish such a council with lay participation on the council or is he accepting the recent report of the judges committee, chaired by the Chief Justice, which proposes the establishment of a judicial council composed only of judges and which, according to the report, would not require a referendum?
The work of the all-party committee has been valuable but Deputy O'Keeffe will be the first to admit that this Government has held many more referenda than normal. There have been four or five and there will be at least one more to cover three or four issues.
There is a range of other issues. We have been looking at the possibility and the legality – something on which I do not claim to be an expert – of having an omnibus referendum on a number of them. The difficulty is, to refer back to Deputy Ó Caoláin's remarks, that one runs the risk of confusion if a number of items are grouped. In one of the committee's reports alone there might be 15 or 16 proposed amendments. I am not saying they are not all necessary; most of them are. I have given each of the committee's reports to each Department for thorough examination and, where possible and necessary, asked them to bring forward legislation.
With regard to Justice Denham's report and the report by the all-party committee, we will bring forward legislation in that area. There will be a constitutional amendment and there will be lay participation.
Is the Taoiseach rejecting the approach recommended by Mr. Justice Keane?
(Dublin West): The Nice Treaty has serious implications for the people of this State, not least of which is the context in which certain European powers and those in the European bureaucracy see the future in terms of the creation of an economic super power with a military wing which will rival the US. In view of the serious implications, what timescale does the Taoiseach envisage allowing for the national debate which should take place?
The Taoiseach has stated that the Government has not decided whether to hold a referendum but it has put in place provisions in case such a referendum is held. Will the Taoiseach state whether the referendum will be held before the summer recess? That leaves only four months for the debate. Will the Taoiseach be specific, not on the exact date but on whether the referendum will be held before the summer recess?
Does the Taoiseach agree in principle that when important issues such as the Nice Treaty are to be debated in the lead-up to a referendum, the vote should not be tied in with general or local elections? I am not asking the Taoiseach to give a date for the general election. However, in the event that a general election comes into play will he rule out holding that election and the referendum on the Nice Treaty on the same day?
If we do not manage to hold a general election this year but hold it next year, I would hate to lose the advantage of seeing the Deputy canvassing to allow Hungarians and other former eastern bloc countries to be part of the enlarged Europe so they could obtain the same benefits as us. Rather than just canvassing in Dublin West, I am sure the Deputy will mobilise his organisation to canvas nationally for this objective.
I am always amused at how people start using terms like super powers, armies and forces when it comes to referenda.
(Dublin West): That is what they want.
I spent a long time debating and studying the Nice Treaty but one will find no reference to armies or super powers. The treaty concerns enlargement and providing a mechanism for allowing people in eastern Europe to be a part of the Union. This objective is supported by the Greens all over Europe.
It is about a two-tier Europe.
The Greens are in government all over Europe and strongly advocate and support this measure. It is not a good idea to hold general or local elections at the same time as referenda as they tend to get lost. However, it is sometimes necessary to do so.
People could get confused.
I do not think people get confused. Deputy Quinn is right in stating that people look at the issues. This has been proved time and again.
People in CavanMonaghan will not get confused.
I do not think that is a factor. No other European country thinks there should be a referendum. The Danes are normally like ourselves and hold a referendum in most of these circumstances. However, the Danish Parliament voted unanimously to support the Nice Treaty. We will probably be the only country to hold a referendum so we should be moving along as quickly as possible.
(Dublin West): Before the summer?
If possible.
We believe the Taoiseach when he states he has received legal advice to the effect that it would be unconstitutional to ban corporate donations. At some stage would he be prepared to introduce legislation to amend the Constitution to make the public's manifest desire in this respect a legal reality?
We could have a good debate on this issue if I could obtain a good definition of what constitutes a corporate donation and how it can manoeuvre its way left, right and centre. However, we have not reached that stage.
The Taoiseach cannot be serious.
I am prepared to discuss all these issues in the all-party committee I suggested last April. I am happy to take up this issue at any time.
The Taoiseach did not deal with the issue of the international criminal court in his response. Does he not accept that it is criminal neglect on our part that we have not passed the necessary referendum legislation to ratify the international criminal court agreed in Rome in July 1998? Does he not accept that we should be giving a lead in this regard and that the court cannot be set up until it is ratified by a certain number of states? Does he further accept that Ireland is in serious default and that, as part of the EU, we urged other states to ratify the court even though we have not done so?
This legislation is a simple matter and I circulated a Bill on behalf of Fine Gael yesterday. Will the Taoiseach explain why the Government has been dragging its feet on this issue which is besmirching the name of Ireland at the UN and in international circles?
The Deputy should not be getting excited about this issue as most countries have not ratified the measure. We are one of the countries which has at least indicated it is going ahead with the referendum this year. It looks as if many countries will not do so for a long time.
The Deputy is correct in stating that Ireland signed the Rome statute of the international criminal court in October 1998. The Attorney General has advised that for Ireland to ratify the statute, a constitutional referendum is required. A Bill has passed Cabinet and will come before the House; sorry, it has not passed the Cabinet that was the other issue.
The Taoiseach can use my Bill if he so wishes.
There will be some ceding of jurisdiction in the judicial field but ratification is not expected to have any adverse effect on Irish law or civil liberties. The International Criminal Court will not supersede but will complement national jurisdictions. Irish courts will continue to have priority in investigating and prosecuting crimes within this jurisdiction.
The International Criminal Court will act only when national courts are unable or unwilling to exercise jurisdiction. Because of our commitment we should get on with this but it will not affect things. The Deputy will have an opportunity to support and advocate the measure this summer.
I have circulated a Bill which is being held up by the Taoiseach.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the Nice Treaty involves a fundamental change for the Irish people? We joined a partnership of equals and, up to the Amsterdam Treaty, it was possible to veto a two-tier Europe. However, it will not be possible to do so after the Nice Treaty. Is that the Taoiseach's understanding of the essence of the change, notwithstanding the annexes and the various EU defence developments which are also relevant?
As regards the convening of one or more referenda, will the Taoiseach take cognisance of the challenge being posed to people to fully weigh up all the implications of each referendum? Will he start by referring to referenda rather than a referendum given that it will be a plural exercise? Will he state whether the spirit and the letter of the McKenna judgment will be fully complied with, notwithstanding his haste in dealing with the matter?
I do not see how anyone could say we are dealing with this with haste when most parliaments have finished with the matter.
The Taoiseach had a six month run in to the Amsterdam Treaty.
There was about a three year debate on enlargement and that is what the treaty is about. I challenge any other definition. The entire debate has been about trying to make the structural mechanisms within the Union so it can move from 15 to 28 or 30 member states over the years ahead. It is also about the size of the Parliament, how Commissions will be formed, the weighting of votes, qualified majority and those countries who wish to move on and enhance co-operation. Those are the issues and that is what the Nice Treaty is about.
Neither Deputy Higgins nor I raised the issue of the "world power" quotation. As he did not answer in the first instance, will the Taoiseach state his opinion of, position on and answer to the European Commission president, Mr. Romano Prodi, who clearly stated on 13 February that that is the purpose and intent he and his colleagues have, and that Nice is part of that whole programme? Nice concerns more than EU expansion, and that difference is clearly between us. Does the Taoiseach agree that the Commission's recent rebuke regarding the budget demonstrates a need for caution in order not to further diminish our sovereignty and our control of our own economy, which will undoubtedly flow from the ratification of the Nice Treaty? Does the Taoiseach accept that there are serious consequences for Ireland in the ratification of the Nice Treaty and the programme which the Taoiseach is clearly recommending should continue?
No, I would not because, in 1972, I canvassed against that kind of philosophy which, in the 30 intervening years, has proved to be wrong. I do not accept the philosophy of an isolated Ireland that wants to be alienated from the rest of the world. I do not think this country should play that role.
There is a better alternative.
I do not like or understand the kind of independence attitude the Deputy is putting forward. The concept of Romano Prodi, or any of the other leaders, has been to make Europe a strong economic bloc that would help to give its citizens more freedom, improved services, better livelihoods and less unemployment. That concept seeks to deal with the problems of the 15 million people who are still unemployed in the EU. It also seeks to ensure that the single currency will have a strong and significant influence against the yen and US dollar zones. That is a noble objective and one to which I totally subscribe.
The enlargement process is doing no more than giving people who are either in economic difficulty or in less advanced stages of economic development, the opportunity that we got a generation ago. I do not see anything wrong with ceding some sovereignty and some power, while seeking co-operation and compromise in order to achieve that. It is right to do so. As I have said on the record of the House many times, I do not accept that one can expect to go from 15 EU members states to 27 or 28 without making changes in an evolving situation. I disagree with the Deputy's view, if it really is his view. He raised the point as a question so perhaps it is not his view. The Treaty of Nice is worthy of support and that is why people in all other countries have wholeheartedly supported it, without any great debate in national parliaments.
I am not aware the discussion has taken place in all other countries, but I am open to correction. The Taoiseach might indicate those countries in which the discussion has taken place. Will the Government take into account the opinion that might be expressed by the European Parliament and would that affect the timing of any referendum?
My second question arises from the Taoiseach's repeated answers to Parliamentary Questions and supplementary questions in which he has suggested that the form of words to be put to the public will ask their opinion on enlargement. This does not fit easily with his previous statement that the Attorney General is providing a legal opinion to the Government. I imagine the legal opinion will deal with the institutional changes arising from Nice. Therefore, are we to have the referendum – if it should happen – on a consultative basis on the issue of enlargement, or will it be on the totality of the treaty? On the one hand, it is the Attorney General's role to prepare an opinion on the implications of the totality of the treaty in an institutional sense. That is one form of consultative referendum, although another may be necessary if the Attorney General decides it may be required legally. If the referendum is simply consultative and the Taoiseach is asking whether the public is in favour of enlargement or against it, it becomes merely rhetorical. Either way, in so far as the European Parliament is an institution affected by the changes proposed in the text of the treaty, would it not be valuable to await the opinion of the European Parliament in deciding what it was that the Taoiseach asked his Attorney General to advise him on?
I do not think Deputy Higgins was here, but earlier on I answered that the Attorney General will bring forward his advice, which he has not done yet, and the wording.
No, I heard the Taoiseach.
As soon as that has been forwarded, we will introduce the referendum Bill and the White Paper.
On the treaty as a whole, or on the Taoiseach's favourite topic?
No. On the totality of the treaty. One has to bring it forward, as with the Amsterdam Treaty or any of the other treaties. The discussion at Nice was about making way for the enlargement process, nothing else.
What about the issue of the opinion of the European Parliament as an affected institution? Will the Taoiseach's suggestions, or his engagement with the public, wait until after the European Parliament has reached a conclusion?
We will make our own decision. The Deputy asked a question about other parliaments and to the best of my knowledge all other parliaments have discussed this matter. In fact, seven or eight of them did so in one week at the end of January. That was the week after the European Parliament had discussed it.
The European Parliament itself?
The European Parliament has to make its report but that will not affect our process.
Is the Taoiseach committed to following the spirit and letter of the McKenna judgment on organising referenda? Is the Taoiseach of the view that Ireland is still a militarily neutral country?
The answer to both those questions is "yes". As regards the first question, it is the law of the land, and as regards the second one, we are probably more neutral than most.
Than most? One would call it shifting.
No.
From what the Tánaiste and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, have said, it seems the Government has clearly decided there will be a referendum irrespective of what the legal advice may be. As my colleague, Deputy Higgins, has just intimated, however, the legal advice could influence the form of the referendum. Having regard to his replies to Deputy Sargent and others, does the Taoiseach think it is desirable that a decision on this matter, including a referendum, should take place before the end of the summer session? If so, taking the four months that Deputy Higgins referred to, we really need to obtain a clear timetable from the Government that will allow for a proper debate.
Having regard to the legal framework within which we all must act following the McKenna and Coughlan judgments, is it the Government's intention to publish a White Paper that would not only illustrate the content of the Nice Treaty – which may not legally require a referendum to have it endorsed – but also the Government's own position on enlargement, and address what has become known as the finality debate? What is the end configuration of an enlarged European Union? Does the Government have a view on that and will that view be communicated so that when people are being asked to vote for enlargement, for the first time since the Treaty of Rome, they would not be confronted with the "ever closer union" mantra, but would be given a description of what the end configuration of the European Union might be? In that way, they can have a clear idea as to the extent of the enlarged union in the end.
I have stated on previous occasions that perhaps someone will indicate, in precise terms, what they consider Europe to be.
The Taoiseach is in a good position to do so, from his perspective.
It is easy for me to do it from my perspective.
We would love to hear that perspective.
On the way Europe is likely to evolve, the Deputy will be aware that the Swedish Presidency has decided to centre the debate at the Gothenburg Summit on the Union's relationship with Mr. Putin and Russia. Discussions took place not too long ago at Istanbul about the likely evolution of Europe, particularly in terms of its relationships with north African countries and other countries on that continent.
The question of how the Union should evolve will be discussed when the next Intergovernmental Conference takes place in 2004. The debate in this regard is already taking the interest of academics and I do not doubt that it will enter the political arena in a year or two. Our views on this matter will be outlined in the White Paper.
Does the Taoiseach intend that the McKenna judgment should be applied in the same way to the forthcoming referendum as it was to the previous referendum or does he have proposals to alter the way the judgment will be applied?
The Government is considering that matter. One way or another, the spirit of what was decided will have to be adhered to. We are considering it in terms of whether it is the only way or the best way to proceed, but we have not yet reached a conclusion.
Will the Government bring forward proposals?
If the Government decides to make any changes, proposals will have to be brought forward.
Will the Taoiseach clarify his remarks about a referendum on the death penalty? As far as I am aware, there has not been a hanging in this country for almost 50 years and current legislation precludes the use of the death penalty. I do not recollect a debate taking place at the All-Party Committee on the Constitution in respect of the death penalty. What is the impetus behind this proposal, particularly in light of the extreme urgency of bringing forward many other measures?
There are two reasons for bringing forward the proposal. First, the death penalty is still contained in the Constitution and in legislation and, second, we gave a commitment to the International Court of Human Rights to remove it.
The Taoiseach referred to the possibility of bringing forward new proposals if his way of interpreting the McKenna judgment was to change. Will those proposals include the introduction of new legislation?
To repeat what I said earlier, we will have to adhere to the spirit of the McKenna judgment. However, if changes are required we will have to introduce legislation.
I presume the Government will have to or intends to publish a document on the enlargement issue and the Nice Treaty. Does the Taoiseach not agree that the people want a clear indication of what will be the final destination in terms of enlargement? Is it the intention of the Government, both Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, to indicate in a White Paper what the European Union will look like when the enlargement process is completed, the number of member states it will contain and what will be its eastern frontier? Does the Taoiseach not agree that it seems many people, not just in Ireland but in many other European countries, are reluctant to buy into something that appears to be open-ended. He may not like it, but Deputy Ahern is Taoiseach and he has a responsibility to provide leadership. We would like to know if he has a view on this matter and if he would be so kind to share it with us.
First, I like being Taoiseach. Second, the Deputy has been in attendance at many of these European conferences and has heard my views on many occasions. Third, I have no problem reiterating those views and, fourth, and most importantly, my views would not be shared by other EU Heads of Government.
Is that a reason for the Taoiseach to keep his views secret?
My view is clear. After the enlargement process is finished there will be 28 member states. This is unlikely to change. There is a view abroad that this will be the position in 2020. However, I do not believe matters will end there because one can see the various blocs and groupings forming already. In 25 years' time there will probably be a different configuration. Academics, as opposed to politicians, are already considering the new frontiers. On many occasions at ECOFIN Council meetings when the question of frontiers was discussed, I informed Jacques Chirac – I have since reiterated my views to Romano Prodi – that it would be good if people indicated what they consider Europe to be.
Views expressed in academic debates are a different matter. It is known, for example, that Mr. Putin, given that he is from St. Petersburg, considers himself to be a European and many of his recent speeches have dealt with that matter. If account is taken of the relationship between the north African states and Europe, it is obvious that matters will continue to evolve. However, setting down our current position – which will probably apply to this generation and, perhaps, the next – is an easy thing to do.
The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, may even join the EU in time.