Vol. 565 No. 1
52 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he expects the Government will conclude its consideration of the proposed incorporation of the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights into a new EU treaty; if the application of the charter will have the backing of Irish law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9856/03]
66 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the recent meeting in Luxembourg of the seven EU Governments, including Ireland, on the issue of the EU Conven tion on the Future of Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10109/03]
78 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the so-called Penelope feasibility study by the European Commission on the ratification for any future EU treaty; the Government's approach to the treaty ratification issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10112/03]
127 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he envisages the completion of the Convention on the Future of Europe chaired by Valerie Giscard d'Estaing. [9944/03]
130 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the work to date of the Convention on the Future of Europe; the input of the Government in the work of the convention; his views on the draft sections published to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9854/03]
178 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his vision for the future of Europe with particular reference to the need to achieve a consensus on its structures, economically, socially and politically; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10266/03]
179 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the extent to which he feels he can influence the thinking among his European colleagues with regard to achieving a convergence on the future of Europe and the elimination of friction between smaller and larger states; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10267/03]
180 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on how best the European Union should proceed through enlargement and into the future with particular reference to the need to keep in mind the objectives of the founding fathers of modern Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10268/03]
181 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the extent to which he intends to influence thinking in the European Union on economic and political matters towards the objective of achieving unity of purpose; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10269/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 52, 66, 78, 127, 130, and 178 to 181, inclusive, together.
The Minister sounds as if he is calling out bingo numbers.
There is significant interest in the Convention on the Future of Europe.
The questions are diverse.
One could choose one's lotto numbers from that list.
The Laeken Declaration under which the convention was established explicitly asked it to consider whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be included in the basic treaty of the European Union. To do so would give the charter, which currently has the status of a political declaration, binding legal effect.
The Government strongly supported promulgation of the charter at the Nice summit as a clear statement of the important values shared by the member states of the European Union. It has worked in the convention to ensure that if the charter is to be incorporated in the new treaty, there is the greatest possible legal certainty as to its scope and application. This is important not only for the Union's institutions and the member states, which will be bound by its provisions in so far as they are implementing Union law, but also for our citizens for whom we hope the new treaty will be a clearer, more comprehensible document.
Significant progress has been made at the convention. As a result of efforts by the Irish and United Kingdom representatives on the relevant working group, it recommended a set of amendments to the charter's so-called horizontal provisions which should help to bring greater legal precision. It would also be helpful for the commentary provided by the presidium of the charter convention, which sets out the thinking underpinning the inclusion of each of the various articles in the charter, to be given appropriate status. There has been extensive discussion of the issue by the Government as matters have progressed. The implications of incorporation have been given the most careful consideration. As I said in my speech in Brussels last week, I am pleased that it looks increasingly likely that it will be possible to incorporate the charter into the constitutional treaty in a manner that does not risk inadvertently creating new competences for the Union.
The recent meeting in Luxembourg, which was attended by the Taoiseach and me, brought together the heads of Government and Foreign Ministers of seven member states primarily to discuss institutional matters at the convention. A great deal of common ground was identified. including our shared requirement for the preservation of equality between member states, and balance between the Union's institutions.
The Government has set out its broad approach to the convention, and the future of Europe generally, on a number of occasions, including in my speech in Brussels last week. We hope that the process which is begun at the convention, and which will he concluded at the Intergovernmental Conference, will result in a simplified treaty which is more legible and accessible for our citizens. We hope it will prepare the institutions to face the challenges that lie ahead, including enlargement. We have been positive and constructive at the convention and our rep resentative, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, has been particularly active and engaged in building networks which can help to advance and protect our interests. The Taoiseach and I have also had meetings with our counterparts in various member states and, of course, with president Giscard d'Estaing during his recent visit to Dublin.
The convention has moved into its final drafting phase. Draft texts published to date include the treaty's general and final provisions. I emphasise that the draft article on ratification will not alter the current arrangements whereby a treaty cannot enter into force unless ratified by all the Union's member states. I do not believe that any other arrangement would have the necessary political or legal legitimacy. I do not support the arrangements proposed in the so-called Penelope document drafted informally within the Commission for that reason.
While good progress has been made by the convention, draft texts on important areas have yet to be brought forward. Articles on institutional matters and on CFSP and defence will be published towards the end of this month and debated in May. The European Council has asked president Giscard d'Estaing to present the convention's final recommendations to it at Thessaloniki in June. However, he has asked that there be a special European Council meeting at the end of June and will seek agreement for this in Athens next week. The Government is open to some modest extension. However, as I said previously, we strongly believe that, irrespective of when the convention finishes, there should then be a significant period of reflection to allow us to digest its recommendations and to allow for the necessary and important process of public debate.
The grouping of the questions means two separate matters are being dealt with but I am not interested in wasting time. My question relates to the charter while the others deal with the work and future of the convention. Do I take it that the Government's position is that the European Convention on Human Rights will be accepted in totality, without reservation, including its four additional protocols, and, therefore, the incorporation of the charter will be additional to the convention?
What distinction does the Minister draw between principles, as declared in the charter, and legal certainty, which arises under the European convention? In other words, is it proposed to extend the convention, give it constitutional status and extend citizens' rights or is it proposed to have a lesser existence, therefore incorporating aspects of the charter, as published?
The European Convention on Human Rights is a separate issue from the charter and has not been anticipated as part of a supplementary question. My understanding is that the acquisition by the Union of a single legal personality provides for the prospect of incorpor ation of the convention more easily into the treaties by reason of the Union having a single legal personality. I am not totally on solid ground on that but that is my understanding of the situation. It is being considered by the convention and will be considered in due course by the Intergovernmental Conference.
The issue relating to the charter's incorporation has been to make sure the scope of application of the horizontal clauses will ensure the Union's institutions adhere to the provisions of the charter and the human rights standards set out therein and a non-complementary or competitive set of jurisprudence within the constitution vis-à-vis the European Convention on Human Rights, which is a separate legal jurisprudence, will not be created.
The purpose here is to be sure about how we fit in the charter. It is not a question of anyone trying to dilute the provisions of the charter of fundamental rights but to incorporate them in a way that will not create further competing uncertainties in the legal framework between those provisions and how they will be interpreted and established provisions under the convention on human rights and how they are interpreted by the court in Strasbourg.
Until recently, my understanding had been that the Government wanted the charter of fundamental rights included by way of protocol. However, in his reply the Minister accepts that it can be incorporated. Will he explain why he has changed his mind?
The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, has done a fine job in terms of establishing networks. Does the Minister accept that smaller countries and many people on the convention are opposed to the idea of an elected president of the Council and the majority of people who spoke at the convention opposed this idea? Does he further accept that if the larger countries get their way with this proposal, that would demonstrate a lack of democracy in the convention?
It is important not to attribute something to the convention that it would be impossible for it to fulfil. The convention is a consultative forum, as representative as it can be of the institutions, parliaments and a limited number of other bodies. It cannot be suggested that if something comes out of it, it is not democratic. The convention is a consultative body that has been asked to brainstorm on critical and difficult issues. As I stated in my speech last week, a great deal of good work has been done by the convention which had not been done during past Intergovernmental Conferences regarding single legal personality and how to incorporate the charter, for example, into a new treaty. That work was necessary.
The Deputy asked why we are taking the view we are taking. We are more certain now that incorporating the charter will not cause the legal problems and competitions with established human rights jurisprudence under the European convention on human rights, which would otherwise have been the case, because of the work that has been done on the horizontal clauses. This has been done in a way to achieve conformity and to reduce confusion that might have arisen if that necessary work had not been conducted. That work was conducted following publication of the charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. It is a question of making sure the wish to incorporate something into a treaty has the effect that one would like it to have and will not have a consequential effect, anticipated or otherwise, in regard to human rights law under the European convention. That is the reason there is greater clarity on our position now in comparison to previously.
How consensus is defined in the convention is becoming a difficult issue to grasp.
To avoid a walk-out.
The Minister referred to the fact that fundamental rights will be justiciable. Where will stand the protocols to the treaties that have been negotiated, particularly the protocol relating to abortion, which recognises the Irish constitutional provision? What discussions have taken place on the status of the existing protocols, following publication of the Giscard d'Estaing convention report? A report will be given to a European Council meeting in June – presumably not the final report. When does the Minister anticipate that Giscard d'Estaing will vacate the stage and that the process of reflection, in between the end of the Convention and the start of the Intergovernmental Conference, will take place? Is it likely there will be a second treaty of Rome, is it more likely to be a treaty of Dublin, or will it go beyond that? What time scale has the Minister in mind?
In relation to the charter, it is important to point out that it will provide protection for citizens in respect of the manner in which European institutions interface or interact with citizens. There are national standards even higher than those in the charter and it is our view that they should apply. It is a matter of incorporating these legal concepts into the charter. While nobody would have any principled objection to any of them, it has to be done in a manner which does not allow jurisprudence to develop which would interfere with other established human rights, as I have already outlined. The protections in the charter will apply largely to the interface between citizens and the institutions.
With regard to existing treaty provisions being consolidated in a new treaty, that issue is still up there in the ether. I do not have the answers to all those questions at the moment. Clearly, however, whatever protections we have, we will endeavour to retain because they are important. The time-scale depends very much on when the convention ends. The convention has a very tight timetable, with very significant work still to do. It is envisaged that the final report will be at a special European Council beyond Thessalonica, by the end of June, followed by a period of reflection which we and other countries would like to take place and which is a requirement in some jurisdictions. In Sweden and Finland, for example, parliamentary consideration is essential before their Governments can go into an intergovernmental conference. It is expected that, on best guess, some time in the late autumn of the Italian Presidency this year, an Intergovernmental Conference will commence. We do not know, at this stage, how long that work will take, nor do we know what degree of consensus or agreement will emerge from the convention, what sticky problems will remain to be resolved or whether the political will to resolve them quickly will exist. It could come into the Irish Presidency.
What are the prospects for the treaty of Tullamore?
I do not believe there is any chance of that happening.
My point related to the distinction between principles and justiciable law. Is it the Minister's opinion that the European Convention on Human Rights will be capable of being added to, or is he speaking of two parallel streams which might have the effect of not adding to the net rights of citizens? I will put it much more simply and directly. As I understand it, the discussions so far were in the context of creating the capacity within the European Union, as a non-sovereign entity, to accommodate and accept the ECHR. If that is the case, would a very confusing situation not have been created for the citizen if the charter preceded the acceptance of that capacity?
The issues which the Deputy is raising are precisely at the nub of the situation. On the basis that there is a convention on human rights and that a jurisprudence has been built up in the Strasbourg court, if one proceeds to incorporate that into the institutions of the EU, which has its own European Court of Justice, there is the prospect of parallel court interpretations. The question arises as to the extent to which citizens' rights are being served by clarity, quite apart from rights or entitlements. While I am always open to good ideas which might be incorporated in a human rights context, one can sometimes create more difficulties than solutions. While one may be in favour of some suggestion, one has to make sure, when it comes down to the detailed work, that one is adding value, rather than detracting from existing reputable human rights law and jurisprudence which has been built up in the Strasbourg court. My position is that, while I have no objection in principle and I have heard of routes and means whereby it might be incorporated, I have yet to come to a firm decision as to what the Government's position should be, in terms of supporting it or not. I would need to see the detail and, so to speak, the devil is in the detail in relation to all of those legal matters.
We are discussing human rights and fundamental rights. Why has the Government totally changed tack and reversed engines with regard to Europe's position concerning the proposed UN convention on rights of people with disabilities? Is it true that the Government is, at least, not committed or, at worst, opposed to such a convention? Has it moved from an earlier position where the Government was proposing such a convention? Will the Minister clarify the position with regard to this very important convention? Why does the Government now appear to be opposed to it and, by extension, in this European Year of People with Disabilities, opposed to services for people with disabilities?
The matter requires substantial discussion to establish how we should deal with it. The Government has had a long-standing commitment towards advancing improvements for people with disabilities. There is no question of anybody in this House being opposed to that, although there have been arguments about the inability of successive Governments to provide adequate resources. Reality does not always correspond to the rhetoric. There are legal issues which have to be addressed in a dispassionate manner to ensure that we sign up to something which will be effective, helpful and add value. The need for proper consideration of these detailed matters should not be interpreted as, in some way, a resiling by Government from the principle of supporting people with disabilities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than rushing to sign up to several different provisions, we must deal with the issues on their merits, contribute constructively to devising these international instruments and proceed objectively and intelligently.
Why has the Government totally changed tack on this matter? Did the Government not propose this convention some years ago? Now, it is the only Government in the EU which is opposing it. What is the reason for the change of position?
As I have explained to the Deputy, it is not a matter of being opposed to the terms. It is a question of sponsoring resolutions which come up from time to time at the Commission on Human Rights—
Why has the Government's position changed?
If the Deputy wishes to hear the answer, I will answer. Certain motions or provisions come forward for sponsorship from time to time. We are currently considering how all of this fits into our own national law and how we can incorporate it.
Deputy Stanton is welcome to check my record and that of the present Government on disability rights, including rights for people with intellectual disability, by comparison with that of his party when in Government. Perhaps he would be better employed in devising a policy which will help the people concerned, rather than simply indulging in unfounded accusations.
We must move on to Question No. 53. We have used up the time available for these questions.
We have not had an answer from the Minister.
The Deputy does not wish to hear my answer, obviously.
Two different positions in relation to rights and disability are being prosecuted in Ireland's name at the United Nations. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is doing everything possible to obstruct the recognition of rights for the disabled while, in fairness, other Departments are anxious that work on the committee should be positive.
We must move on to Question No. 53.
