Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:6 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he expects legislation on the Nice Treaty to be circulated; and the likely referendum date in this regard. [8097/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. Priority Questions. - Nice Treaty.
Michael Bell
Ceist:10 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's objectives and priorities for the post-Nice process agreed at the December 2000 summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8403/01]
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:11 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the extent to which he has engaged in discussions with his EU counterparts with a view to positively influencing the future development of Europe in the post-Nice context; if he has received from or offered support to any or all of his counterparts with a view to increased cohesion on the European project; if a particular or single objective has been identified as being imperative in this regard. [7837/01]
John Gormley
Ceist:15 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when a White Paper on the Nice Treaty will be produced. [7844/01]
Emmet Stagg
Ceist:36 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the proposed procedure for the ratification of the Nice Treaty; the proposals there are for an information campaign on the contents and implications of the treaty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8402/01]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:69 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if there will be a referendum on the Nice Treaty in May 2001. [4899/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 10, 11, 15, 36 and 69 together.
The Government has decided, on the basis of the Attorney General's advice, that a referendum will be required to allow Ireland to ratify the Treaty of Nice. Work on drafting the necessary legalisation is in hand and it is hoped shortly to publish a Bill containing the wording of a constitutional amendment. It is the intention to hold the referendum before the summer. It is understood that in other member states decisions on ratification are likely to be taken by the respective national parliaments.
As part of the process of providing objective information for the public about the new treaty, a White Paper will be published next week. This will provide a factual account of the background to the negotiations and the decisions taken in Nice. It is intended that the White Paper, and a concise summary of the White Paper, which is also in preparation, will be widely distributed so as to facilitate access by the public to information on the treaty. In addition, it is envisaged that, as with the previous EU-related referendum in 1998, a referendum commission will be established with a mandate, as provided for in the relevant legislation, to disseminate information concerning the treaty.
As regards the post-Nice agenda, it will be recalled that in Nice it was agreed that there should be a broadly based discussion on the future development of the Union, leading in due course to a more detailed consideration of a number of issues, including the distribution of powers between the Union and the member states; the future status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; the simplification of the treaties; and the role of national parliaments in the EU framework.
While giving immediate priority to the ratification of the Nice Treaty, which, as I have indicated, will involve a referendum, and the expected accompanying public debate, consideration is also being given to how Ireland's contribution to the wider debate might best be organised. Given the emphasis on ensuring the debate is representative and broadly based, it will be important to ensure all relevant interests have an opportunity to put forward their point of view, and we will be considering a range of options to help achieve this objective.
While these developments, which are on the agenda for the Gothenburg European Council in June, have yet to be discussed in detail at the General Affairs Council, I had the opportunity to review progress in this area at my recent meeting with the German Foreign Minister, Joscka Fischer. In stressing our commitment to closer co-operation within the EU framework, I emphasised that the Government intends to participate constructively in the ongoing debate. We both looked forward to contributing to the development of the Union in order that it was capable of meeting the challenges of enlargement, while remaining responsive to the needs of its citizens.
Will the Minister clarify whether the decision to hold a referendum is a political or legal decision? Is the decision based on the advice of the Attorney General or is it a political decision to hold a referendum, which would be a plebiscite rather than a referendum? It has been mentioned that the referendum will be held on 31 May. Does the Minister anticipate that the onset of the foot and mouth crisis which has befallen the country will upset that arrangement? It has been suggested that four referenda should be held on the same day. I favour availing of the opportunity to place more than one issue before the people on the same day. Does the Minister foresee any danger to agreement on the Nice Treaty referendum by placing it before the people with three other issues? Is there a danger it could affect a positive outcome to that referendum?
The answer to the first question is that there is a legal basis for holding a constitutional referendum.
Is there a legal requirement?
Yes.
That is news to me.
It is bad constitutional practice to hold referenda unless there is a requirement for them. I do not believe in holding referenda for the sake of it.
Has the Attorney General advised that there is a need for a referendum?
Yes, there is a requirement for a referendum. I do not believe in holding one for any other reason. The assessment of this morning's developments will continue and the situation must be monitored. The arrangements outlined were based on us not experiencing an outbreak of foot and mouth disease as intimated at yesterday's Whips meeting. A case has been confirmed and we must assess the situation. The planning continues apace, however, until a decision is taken to the contrary.
I do not believe holding four referenda on the one day will be a source of confusion. People are interested in supporting Ireland's membership of the Union, providing for its enlargement, ratifying the international criminal court and abolishing the death penalty from our Constitution. We have gained support on these issues and I look forward to a good debate when the legislation relating to these issues is brought forward and listening to what everyone has to say. A broad measure of opinion is supportive of the Nice Treaty, which provides for effective decision-making and the political imperative of enlargement to proceed at pace.
The preparations for the recent Intergovernmental Conference and the Nice Treaty were woefully inadequate in terms of public consultation. How has the Minister concluded that there will be a constitutional referendum rather than a plebiscite? If there is to be a constitutional referendum, he will, probably, reply that words will be inserted in the Constitution. What are the words and with what aspect of the treaty will they deal? My difficulty is that the Government has indicated its attitude to the treaty by signing it. The European Parliament has yet to reach a conclusion on the treaty. The Government proposes to hold what it calls a referendum and others call a plebiscite before the summer and before the European Union has reached a conclusion. This is woefully confusing. The Minister referred to preliminary discussions in other European countries. They have all concluded there is need for wider consultation between now and the next Intergovernmental Conference in 2003 and that citizens must be involved. What is the Minister going to do about that?
If there are three referenda, dealing with hanging, the International Criminal Court and discipline of the Judiciary, then there are clear constitutional requirements. There is one on which opinions have been offered that might or might not be legally required and in any case the Government has signed the treaty. The Minister is creating a situation in which there is a huge chance that people will not be sufficiently informed by public debate on all aspects of this matter. How is the Minister going to select the aspect he is going to put before the people or will he put the entire treaty before them? Does he agree there is enormous merit in treating the Nice Treaty separately, publishing a White Paper, beginning the work of consultation for the next Intergovernmental Conference and doing this properly? I do not understand this because some of the Minister's colleagues have described what will happen as a plebiscite. If there is a plebiscite, the Minister has said he is against that. If there is a plebiscite or a constitutional referendum, why not on a separate day?
As I said, the Government indicated that we would have the four referenda on the same day and we do not believe that confusion will arise. We will have to agree to disagree on that.
We have referenda when they are constitutionally and legally required. The legal advice the Government receives comes from the Attorney General and he has indicated that this is required. We are still in the deliberative process in that the referendum Bill is coming before Government next Tuesday. As soon as it is approved it will be published on the Thursday. We can then have a proper debate on it and it will be clear; we can discuss our views then. It will be transparent and available for all to see in due course once the Government approves it. As a former member of a Government the Deputy will know that until it is approved there is not much point in talking about it. The legal advice from the Attorney General is that a referendum is required and because of that we need to have a referendum.
I am making my position plain. I do not believe in having a referendum for the sake of having one. We have a referendum because we are required under the Constitution to have it. If the legal advice was, as in the case of Denmark and other member states, that it would be possible to ratify the Nice Treaty simply by legislating for it in the Oireachtas, that would be the course of action I would propose to Government and ask it to agree on. The fact is that our Constitution requires a referendum and the wording and approach will be similar to that taken last time. The discretions involved which are being changed require a constitutional yes vote from the people to safeguard this against legal challenge and we will proceed on that basis.
Does the Minister accept that having the four referenda on the same day is a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters? Does he accept that a full copy of the final Nice Treaty is not available to Members in the Dáil Library? Will he also provide, when providing the treaty, the declaration on European security and defence policy and its annexes? It is part of the Presidency report. The annexes are vital as they spell out the relationship between the EU and NATO, which is something the Green Party is very interested in.
Why have we had such a delay with the White Paper? We had the White Paper six months before the Amsterdam Treaty. If the Minister wants a full debate why has he delayed so long in providing this? It seems to be further evidence that he does not really want a debate on the issue but wants to hurry it through. Regarding the legal advice from the Attorney General, is it not the case that the reason we require this referendum is the enhanced co-operation articles in the Nice Treaty? Before this there was a veto because of Amsterdam. Is it not the case that this veto is now to be removed and that is why we require this referendum?
How can the Minister expect the Referendum Commission to do its job with four referenda in the timescale he has outlined?
I do not accept for a moment that there is any attempt to muddy the waters. I look forward to a debate, particularly with the Deputy, on a number of issues. That would be good for both of us.
I will check immediately on what documentation is available and whatever is available should be in the Library. I will arrange for that. Regarding the legal issues involved, it would be helpful before we debate the Bill itself if the Joint Committee on the Constitution, chaired by Deputy Brian Lenihan, had a day's debate on the matter to enable everyone to discuss the legal issues involved. We could have a proper debate there before debating the Bill in the House.
Regarding he publication of the White Paper, we must await, as I said here before Christmas following discussions on the treaty, the legal texts being finalised. That will require the Attorney General's views legally once he has the texts. The White Paper simply outlines the factual position as a result of negotiations having been completed in December and we are producing it within two months of that. That is not a delay. It will be informed and people can take whatever view they wish.
There is no attempt to muddy the waters on my part. I look forward to the debate, which I hope will be constructive and informed. Clearly there are differences of opinion between us on a number of opinions. Let the people hear those clearly. I have every confidence the Referendum Commission will do its job in relation to these referenda.
Does the commission have adequate time?
Yes.
Will the Minister lay the legal advice regarding the basis for a referendum on the Nice Treaty in the Library? There is confusion and it has been indicated to us on this side of the House that this is perhaps being held for political reasons so that the Government can push it away from criticism. I do not mind the people having a say in it but it would be good to know the legal basis on which the referendum is being held, such as which section of the Constitution is being amended.
In view of the anti-European statements made by a number of Ministers and the actions of Ministers like Deputy McCreevy, regarding sanctions by the European Commission as a result of our budgetary position, does the Minister agree that publishing the White Paper on one day and taking the legislation two days later is not conducive to wide ranging debate among or interest from the general public? By the time the general public gets the White Paper the debate will be over and the legislation passed.
How does the Minister propose to circulate the White Paper? Will it be dropped into every household throughout the country? In view of the foot and mouth outbreak today and the fine work done by groups like the Irish European Movement – and anti-European groups – in the debates before such referenda, will there be a problem if we go ahead with these referenda at the end of May? People may be confined in areas and public meetings may not be held, so we will not have the kind of debate that is needed. There is the risk of a low turnout and a decision against the treaty, which would not be a good decision. Does that risk exist and is it being taken into consideration?
As I said, I expect the Joint Committee on the Constitution to have the opportunity to discuss these issues and their legal aspects. I will inform the committee and the House of the basis on which we are bringing forward the legislation, the way we are doing so, what Article is being amended and so forth. That can be dealt with in a transparent way. We are taking the legal advice of the Attorney General and that is the basis on which we are proceeding. We will outline that basis in due course, once Government has formally approved the Bill. We must await the deliberative process to be completed by Government. That will happen next Tuesday.
With regard to the date, we can proceed with the publication of the White Paper and the taking of the Bill with the agreement of the House. There will be a debate in the Dáil and the Seanad. What determines the date of the referendum, once the Bill is signed, is when the order is signed by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. There is a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 60 days from that time to hold the referendum, so we can proceed with the legislative process and the debate involved without that dictating the date of the referendum.
Developments today have to be monitored and assessed. We must look at the situation but we can do certain work without prejudice to any of that.
The Minister referred to the all-party committee on the Constitution which is chaired by his colleague, Deputy Brian Lenihan. I am vice-chairman of that committee. The committee met this morning to discuss this and other issues. Does the Minister not accept that the real problem is not informing the Members of that committee or of the House on the legalities involved – we can look at the Attorney General's opinion – but to have the issues understood by the general public? We need an informed general public to make an informed decision. This is where the real imperative lies. Will he take on board a view discussed in the all-party committee this morning, that there might be televised public hearings to which we would invite people from both sides to debate the issue? Would the Minister support that approach?
I welcome any work of the committees of the Houses which would assist in increased public understanding of the issues involved in the Nice Treaty. I have no problem with that in principle and I am willing to listen to all proposals which might be helpful. I am confident that we can win the arguments.