Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the proposals for additional amendments to the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8922/02]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Constitutional Amendments.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution that have to be implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8923/02]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:5 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach his plans for further constitutional amendments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9990/02]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:6 Mr. Higgins (Dublin-West) asked the Taoiseach the steps he has taken to implement the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10109/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, together.
There is a general recognition and expectation that a second referendum on Nice will be held in the autumn. As the House will be aware, I indi cated to my colleagues at the EU Council meeting in Barcelona that the Government would seek a declaration on the treaty at the Seville European Council in June that would address the key concerns of the people prior to bringing the matter back to the people in another referendum.
In relation to the question of recommendations of the all-party committee which have been implemented and those which remain to be implemented, I refer the Deputies to my lengthy reply to a similar question on 21 November last in which I fully outlined the position. Since then, as the House will be aware, the seventh progress report of the committee, entitled Parliament, was published on 21 March.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply and following the statements we had on the Barcelona summit meeting of the European Union Council, does the Government intend to publish, within a very short period, a draft of the declaration it would seek to obtain from the European Governments at the Seville Council meeting later in June of this year? Arising from the Taoiseach's interview in today's The Irish Times in which he refers to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, doing some work on the European Union Bill, will the Government fully endorse the Bill adopted on Second Stage last June, nearly 12 months ago, and proposed by the Labour Party so that the context within which the promised second referendum on the Nice treaty scheduled for the autumn of this year can be clearly changed?
Does the Taoiseach accept it is not acceptable to put the same question to the people in the autumn, that it will have no prospects of success unless the context within which it is put before the people is changed and that that context requires the issue of democratic deficit and political accountability in this House with regard to dealing with Council of Ministers meetings? The European Union Bill does that. Does the Taoiseach agree we need to have a debate on the draft declaration that might emerge from Seville before the Seville Council? Will he indicate his attitude to those two components of changing the context so that we can have a successful outcome to the second referendum?
I fully agree we have to change the context and I hope in a lot of the work, not only by Government but by parties and other agencies, that has gone on for the past six months that is being done in many ways. The IEA, students for Europe and other groups are doing a good job on that. The answer to the Deputy's two questions is "Yes". On the declaration, I am prepared to consult widely on that issue. I have not yet decided in what forum we will do that, whether in a committee of the House, with political parties or otherwise.
Does the draft of the declaration exist either in the Department of the Taoiseach or the Department of Foreign Affairs? If it does, can it be published in draft form? The Government said it accepts in principle and substance the European Union Bill, 2001. The Bill addresses all the issues of accountability. Can it be enacted? Does the Taoiseach agree that following a general election in May and a referendum in November we will not have time to change the context unless we move now? Will the Taoiseach enable the balance of the European Union Bill, 2001, to be enacted before the dissolution of this House? Does the Taoiseach have a draft of the declaration that he would like to see in Seville? If so, will he publish it in draft form for consultation and discussion?
A draft exists and has been worked on since I first mentioned it. There have been suggestions that there should be discussion on it by the parties to the forum and those parties not at it. It was quite clear that had we published the draft last week at the forum there would be some people waiting to attack it. There must be consultation but I would like to see it worked on further before it is released. My Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs have discussed the draft.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs has accepted the spirit of an enormous number of the suggestions made in the Labour Party's private Members' Bill. Other suggestions have already been made. It remains to be seen whether it needs legislation or if we can put as many as possible of those suggestions in place as soon as possible. That is our intention. If it needs a legislative base to do that afterwards, that is another matter.
Legislation will give a safeguard to people who want it.
Yes. Because of time constraints we must first put parliamentary scrutiny in place within Departments and agencies.
Has the Taoiseach made any progress in convincing persons and groups who opposed the Nice treaty at the last referendum to support it next time? Have they given any indication at the forum that they may support it? Has the Taoiseach given any consideration to the allocation of resources to the opposing sides the next time the Treaty of Nice is put to referendum?
No consideration has yet been given to the allocation of resources to opposing sides. All the parties and groups represented at the forum have agreed that they are in favour of the enlargement project. They differ on other issues but it is significant that all parties understand and give their support to the enlargement process. That has been warmly welcomed not only by applicant countries but by member states. The Nice treaty primarily deals with the enlargement process but there are other issues we have to address. It is quite clear from the last five or six sessions of the forum that there are issues on which people will not agree. There are issues on which they will never agree. The forum has been useful in spelling out the arguments and cases where issues raised were factually wrong. Good points raised at the forum have been taken on board. It is clear that the ten countries will be ready at the end of the year to apply.
(Dublin West): What is the Government's view of the key proposals in the seventh progress report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution? Does the Taoiseach agree that the age for eligibility to stand for Dáil Éireann should be reduced from 21 to 18 years? Does he agree the age limit of 21 years is insulting and patronising to young people? Does he believe this should be changed forthwith?
With regard to the Seanad, does the Taoiseach agree that a House of Parliament elected by less than 1,000 Deputies and councillors, a few thousand college graduates and the Taoiseach, who nominates 11 Members, is undemocratic, insulting and patronising towards the majority of citizens and taxpayers who fund the Houses of Parliament? Would the Taoiseach agree that the report's recommendations do not go far enough? Has the Seanad not become a vehicle for the major political parties to offer patronage to their members that loyally follows the Government line on every issue, as this Oireachtas bears out? Does it not need to be abolished rather than reformed?
I have commented already on the seventh report. With regard to the Deputy's questions, I have no problem with reducing the age limit from 21 to 18 since people vote at that age already.
On Seanad reforms, I have no objection to northern representation, but I disagree with the Deputy's characterisation of the Seanad. As an Upper House under the Constitution, it has been reformed before and plays a useful role, which is not to say that no institution should be examined or reformed. We should consider the work of the all-party committee and the proposed reforms. They would make the house fundamentally different from the one presently constituted, as 48 members would be elected by popular vote on a list system, for example. Proposals for Seanad reform have been suggested over the years and people have different views on it. It is a useful House and this report can be used as a basis to reach agreement on the matter.
Northern Ireland representation, as I said, must be examined carefully. We want more northern viewpoints in the Seanad, but this has been done by successive Taoisigh in their appointments over the last 25 years and that has worked well.
The Seanad is a consultative, legislative forum which works. The report has to be examined and proposals made based on it. I am not against reform as I have made clear already.
(Dublin West): The Taoiseach stated there was a need for a change of context in the event of a second referendum on the Nice Treaty. Does he realise that the objection of many who opposed the first referendum was to the militarisation process in Europe? That was not simply an objection to this State being involved in a European Union army but a fundamental objection to the advancement of an EU armaments industry and an EU army, which is clearly the intention of some of the principals in Europe. Does the Taoiseach not understand that a mere declaration would only amount to this State saying we will step aside but will allow the project of EU armaments and an EU army to be created? The objections of some of us who oppose the militarisation of Europe are much deeper than merely saying this State will have a declaration that we will not be involved but we will allow others essentially to create a new monster in the global context.
I have answered these questions previously for the Deputy. The reality is that there are references to European security and defence issues, which many people want to see addressed, as well as the question of the Petersberg Tasks and humanitarian and crisis management issues. Where people are under threat, through ethnic cleansing or whatever, decisions could be made on a case by case basis and these issues dealt with. A large number of people want that. I know the Deputy is against any European security and defence policy. His position is that we should not be involved in that in any way and when a crisis arises, Europe should not play any role but simply whinge that nobody is doing anything about it.
(Dublin West): That is a different approach entirely.
I do not share that view. It is not the way we should go forward. People here want to play their role. They do not want to be an aggressor but they want to be involved in peacekeeping missions. We have a triple lock system in place in terms of how that is controlled. There must be a UN mandate, it has to be a decision of this House and it must come within the remit of our Defence Acts.
I have not heard anybody advocate that we should take an adversarial attitude to European security and defence. I do not know the reason some people advocate that because there is no danger of it happening. No decision has been taken in that regard but others say that because people put forward that approach it requires clarification. The declaration will ensure that our position on military neutrality—
(Dublin West): In fairness, the Spanish have let the cat out of the bag.
—is spelled out, which is appropriate.
I am not sure if Deputy Higgins attended the meeting last week but I noted that as soon as we moved on to the declaration, the ground shifted to something else. That goes back to the reply I gave earlier to Deputy Quinn, although I agree with him on the declaration. In fairness, since the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties, the process of European security and defence has been spelled out and we now have to ensure that people understand it. It removes references to the Western European Union. Some years ago, people here were saying that the Nice treaty might remove those references. It is important that our position is spelled out in the declaration.
Will the Taoiseach not agree that references to the militarisation of Europe are misleading? Will he agree that it is an historical fact that since 1914, Europe has engaged in less military activity than is currently the case? Not long ago there were three military dictatorships in southern Europe. Until 1989, there was a military divide across the continent, the spend as a percentage of the national economies and the GDP of the European Union countries was much higher on military affairs than is currently the case and a number of countries maintained conscription as a manifestation of the level of militarisation that existed in Europe at that time.
Will the Taoiseach agree that it is misleading to refer to the militarisation of Europe at a time when all the objective facts show that the intensification of military activity is going in the opposite direction to the one Deputy Higgins described?
All those points are correct.
(Dublin West): It costs €60 million a year.
It is still too high.
The Deputy should leave this country out of it. Deputy Higgins is wrong in what he said in that the entire effort of those involved in European security and defence is to police our borders and consider how they can assist in conflict resolution. I have not heard or read of anyone in the European system who is doing other than trying to make the Continent more peaceful.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree with the Spaniards?
It is those people's motivation to try to make the Continent more peaceful for the future.
That concludes Taoiseach's questions. We will now move on to priority questions.