The Ministers for Finance and ECOFIN comprise a powerful Council. The conclusions of the European Council and the ability of the Council to set the agenda for all the sectoral Councils has been one of the outcomes of the Feira process for which Mr. Guterres is to be congratulated. However, these are general points which are not germane to the specifics of this debate.
I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government to the European Union Bill proposed by Deputy Quinn. The Government fully recognises the need to bring the work of the European Union closer to its citizens. A key element in achieving this objective is to ensure greater transparency in the conduct of Community business, and, thereby, give the citizen a renewed sense of ownership of what is being done in his or her name. It is obvious that on-going and effective parliamentary scrutiny and participation is essential in this regard. Such a process contributes to building a culture of trust and to reinforcing the sense of democratic accountability which is the key to public confidence in any legislative process.
It is in this spirit that I welcome Deputy Quinn's Bill as a useful contribution to the debate on how we can best strengthen national procedures in this important area. We will obviously wish to proceed with this matter on a basis which takes full account of the complexity of the issues involved, and which at the same time commands the widest possible support in the House.
This debate takes place in the context of the outcome of the recent referendum. In this regard, and in response to those who have suggested otherwise, I emphasise that our partners, whose political leaders the Taoiseach and I met most recently at Gothenburg, fully respect the views of the Irish electorate, and recognise its sovereign right to decide as it sees fit.
We as a Government have a duty to proceed in this area in a manner which best protects the national interest. In doing so, we must take account of a number of realities. The first is that the commitment to enlargement must be maintained. All sides to the debate agree on that. However, while appreciating our assurances, it has to be said that the candidate states are in no doubt that the Treaty of Nice remains essential to realising their ambition for membership. They welcome our commitment to enlargement but are anxious that we also provide them with the means to implement it.
The second reality is that the other member states are not prepared to re-negotiate the treaty agreed at Nice. This is an important statement by the other 14 member states, supported by the applicant countries, of their political and legal position. It demands respect, just as our position requires respect. It means that each member state is fully entitled to pursue national ratification in line with its own democratic procedures. The insistence by some on the "No" side that other countries halt their national ratification pro cedures itself constitutes a refusal to respect the independence of the individual member states.
The third reality is that the treaty can only come into effect if all 15 member states choose to ratify it. In our case that decision, for which the deadline is December 2002, is, and will remain, the prerogative of the Irish people. However, the heads of Government did reaffirm their readiness to do everything possible to meet the particular concerns highlighted by the Irish referendum result.
The fourth reality is that the referendum result clearly showed that many ordinary citizens feel disconnected from the Union's decision-making process. It is in this context that the Government, well in advance of the referendum, signalled its readiness to proceed with the establishment of the national forum on Europe. In the same spirit we have also recognised that it was necessary to address the question of improving our procedures for scrutiny by the Oireachtas of European Union business.
Issues relating to parliamentary oversight are matters entirely within our competence. It was for this reason that I was surprised during the referendum campaign that some commentators invoked the need for reforms in this area as a justification for voting against the Nice treaty. The treaty contains nothing which precludes the organisation of our domestic monitoring arrangements on the basis judged most appropriate by the Oireachtas.
It is in many respects ironic that discussion of this issue is proceeding in the aftermath of the negative result of the Nice referendum. In the declaration on the future of the Union, the Treaty of Nice provides for an intensive process of debate and consultation on the future development of the European Union. Among the issues which it identified for further consideration was the role of national parliaments in the European Union framework. This would examine in detail a range of proposals for more active involvement by national Parliaments in the work of the European Union.
There are already arrangements in place which, through the Joint Committee on European Affairs, provide an important role for the Oireachtas in reviewing and advising on EU developments. The committee's terms of reference empower it to consider a wide range of matters arising from Ireland's membership of the European Communities. For example, under the European Communities (Amendment) Act, 1973, the joint committee can recommend to the Houses of the Oireachtas that regulations made by Ministers under the Act be annulled. The recommendation is then debated in the House which can pass a resolution to that effect. This is a severe sanction which has not been put into effect here.
Of perhaps greater operational relevance is the committee's power to consider proposals for Community legislation, as well as drafts of regulations, directives, decisions and recommend ations of the Council of Ministers. It is recognised on all sides that in this complex area the committee has worked hard and effectively to discharge a difficult and constantly expanding task. However, I would be the first to acknowledge, as has been argued eloquently by the chairman of the committee, that there is scope for considerable improvement of the existing arrangements. The volume of material coming before the committee continues to increase and poses a major challenge, not only in terms of quantity but also as regards the technical complexity of the issues involved.
The case for a significant overhaul of our oversight procedures is well made. There is clearly a need for an extensive and detailed examination of how best our current arrangements can be strengthened and made more effective. The Bill tabled by Deputy Quinn is a welcome and important contribution to that debate. The Bill rightly raises the issue of how best our oversight machinery can deal with proposals within the EU system while draft legislation is still in preparation. It also highlights the question of the role of Oireachtas committees with specialist briefs in relation to various Departments, and how this could complement the work of the Joint Committee on European Affairs.
The question of the most appropriate procedures for briefing of committees by Ministers and Departments is also usefully highlighted. We wish to examine all these issues fully and carefully, taking into account also the need to ensure the most effective use is made of modern information technology systems. However, it will also be necessary to ensure any new procedures are workable and compatible with our obligations at EU level. The Bill does not differentiate sufficiently between the wide range of EU decision-making procedures where the timescales for implementation can differ considerably. The Bill also omits other categories of measures which one might wish to bring within its scope, for example, resolutions, declarations or statements in the Council minutes. The Bill also does not indicate with sufficient precision at what moment a measure would come within its scope.
The proposed timescale which could delay the taking of a position for up to 42 days, two periods of 21 days each, will also need to be considered very carefully. This could prove very difficult to operate in the context of fast moving negotiations. The Bill also does not take account of the fact, as anyone who has participated in Council will be aware, that proposals are amended in the course of negotiations, and it is essential that the Government's representatives are in a position to respond, including in situations where a vote is called in the Council before the domestic parliamentary procedure has been completed.
I note, for example, that there is some recognition of the need for an urgent procedure in respect of joint actions under common foreign and security policy matters, but not in respect of the first or third pillars. In addition, it would be necessary to make appropriate provision for the necessary resources for both the committees and the Departments concerned in implementing improved review procedures. I raise these points not in any negative sense but simply to illustrate the fact that this is a complex area which requires detailed examination before decisions are taken with potentially very significant implications.
Recently, I have also had an interesting and productive discussion on these matters with Deputy Durkan, the chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, and the convenor of that committee, Deputy Pat Carey. Deputy Wall was unavoidably absent on that occasion. They have been in a position to give us the benefit of the valuable experience gained by the committee in the practical implementation of the oversight arrangements. In this regard, it is fully recognised that the overall objective is an optimal level of accountability which ensures effective parliamentary oversight, while at the same time enabling Ministers and their representatives to operate within the Council with the degree of responsiveness and flexibility necessary to ensure the interests of the country are fully protected in any fast moving negotiating process.
There is recognition on all sides of the need to get that balance right. Given the far reaching implications of changes in this area, the Government will consider carefully the changes which might be made, including the proposals in Deputy Quinn's Bill, and, in due course, bring forward its own considered response in this regard. Decisions in this area are primarily a matter for the Oireachtas. We wish to proceed to the greatest extent possible on a cross-party basis, recognising our common interest in the effective functioning of our democratic institutions.
Section 5 of the draft Bill relates to the European Union's common foreign and security policy. The Government is fully committed to openness and transparency about the EU's role in the world and Ireland's input to that role. In the course of this year, I have answered approximately 300 parliamentary questions from Deputies about our approach to EU foreign policy on issues ranging from, for example, the Middle East and the western Balkans, to East Timor. In addition, debates in this House, the Seanad and the Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and European Affairs have provided opportunities to discuss and review these and other important issues.
The Government is certainly open to suggestions for ways in which it can improve understanding in the Oireachtas and the public at large of what the EU's role in the world is and should be, and what contribution Ireland can and should make in that regard. Enhancing Ireland's national role in the development and conduct of EU foreign and security policy has certainly been a priority for the Government. This has also been reflected in the read across to our membership of the UN Security Council.
It is worth recalling that Ireland has been participating in consultations and co-operation on foreign policy issues with our partners in Europe since we first joined the EEC in 1973. Starting with European political co-operation, as it was then called, through to the development in the Treaty of Maastricht of what we now call the common foreign and security policy which came into operation in November 1993, Ireland has had the opportunity to consult, debate, and very often, agree on foreign policy positions or courses of action with our EU partners across a whole range of foreign policy issues.
On those occasions when the EU member states reach agreement and speak with one voice – for example, in the United Nations on many issues, or in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe – our combined weight can be very important in building international consensus and in promoting our world view in favour of the peaceful settlement of disputes, democratisation and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Ireland's experience over nearly 30 years is that our involvement in the formulation of EU foreign and security policy enhances our voice in the world.
I want to stress that Ireland was at the table and negotiated as full and equal partners the treaty provisions on the European Union's common foreign and security policy. The EU treaties set out the objectives of its common foreign and security policy which include: the preservation of peace and strengthening of international security, in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter, as well as the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, and the objectives of the Paris Charter, including those on external borders; the promotion of international co-operation; and the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Ireland contributed to the formulation of these objectives which reflect principles and objectives that have always informed our own foreign policy traditions. These objectives inspire and provide a yardstick for the conduct of the European Union on the world stage. Among the concerns voiced during the debate on the Treaty of Nice were concerns that the European Union was becoming a super state with ambitions to throw its weight around on the international stage. Others, on the other hand, have criticised the European Union for failing to live up to its obligations in the wider world and contribute more effectively to conflict prevention and crisis management. We need to explore these concerns and criticisms in depth and achieve a much better public understanding about the European Union's role in the world, and how EU foreign and security policy is negotiated and implemented.
In this regard, I welcome the suggestions in the Bill. I am, and the Government is, open to considering any suggestions or ideas that can enhance discussion, debate and understanding of the role of the European Union on the inter national stage, and the scope that this gives to Ireland to pursue our foreign and security policy goals and objectives.
Deputy Quinn's Bill also contains proposals for amendments to the defence Acts in relation to service abroad by members of the Permanent Defence Force. While the Deputy will appreciate that responsibility for this legislation lies with my colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, I am glad, on behalf of the Government, to welcome any suggestions consonant with the position consistently articulated by the Government, namely, that the deployment of Irish personnel and resources in any overseas missions will only be considered by the Government where a UN mandate is already in place. The Government is open to having this position clarified further. As part of its ongoing efforts to dispel fears and anxieties which arose in the lead-up to the referendum, we are examining what steps can be taken to allay people's concerns.
I note that the Bill contains specific provision for Ireland to participate in crisis management activities which might arise in an EU framework and under an UN umbrella. I welcome this approach which acknowledges that developments within the EU and UN in this area have proceeded in concert and will continue to do so. This point has been made clear by both sides on numerous occasions, including at a meeting between UN Secretary General Annan, and EU Foreign Ministers held in May and in formal conclusions adopted subsequently by the General Affairs Council.
As with all aspects of our involvement in the activities of the European Union, but particularly when we have such an extensive history of involvement in UN peacekeeping activity, it is essential that the issues are debated thoroughly on the basis of the facts. We should not proceed on the basis of scare-mongering, unfounded perceptions of what the EU is doing in this field or, in particular, as if the horrific events which we witnessed in the Balkans region over the past decade had never taken place. The efforts we are contributing to in the EU context are fully consistent with Ireland's tremendous record of involvement in UN peacekeeping operations over the past 40 years. I want Ireland to continue to play its part in preventing conflict and to have a positive role in international peacekeeping. To do otherwise is to fly in the face of efforts to try to prevent events such as the terrible ethnic strife in the Balkans region from recurring.
An equal if not greater disservice is done to the electorate if we do not make a positive contribution in keeping with our traditions and values. Whether by the design of some or through genuine misunderstanding and fear, doubt and confusion have crept into the debate on Ireland's role in European security and defence policy issues and how we should play our part in the international community. For instance, there has been confusion regarding the description of the capabilities for the EU headline goal as a rapid reaction force. It is emphatically not a standing army nor does it impinge on Ireland's policy of military neutrality to which the Government remains firmly committed. Rather the rapid reaction force is a catalogue of capabilities available to provide the means to carry out humanitarian or crisis management operations.
It is also important to highlight that European security and defence policy is not an exclusively military project. Extensive work has been done by the outgoing Swedish EU Presidency to ensure progress on civilian crisis management capabilities, particularly in the area of policing. Sweden has also presided over important developments in the field of conflict prevention. As the EU programme agreed in Gothenburg points out, "The development of ESDP has, since the outset, been intended to strengthen the EU's capacity for action on the crucial field of conflict prevention".
I have regularly briefed the House on these developments and on those under previous presidencies. I accept that greater efforts will have to be made to keep both the Oireachtas and the public fully informed on these matters. I will, therefore, approach future debates regarding Deputy Quinn's Bill in full listening mode.
I thank Deputy Quinn for the Bill he has put before the House. Action in this area is important, both in itself and also to underline the seriousness with which the Government takes the message conveyed by the electorate on 7 June. The Government is accountable to the Dáil and this fact must be fully reflected in our activity at European Union level. The Government will act quickly in this area and bring forward its views at an early date.
Transparency and accountability are not discretionary add-ons, they are the entitlement of the public in a democratic society. Moreover, I am confident that as the public becomes more familiar with what transpires at European level as distinct from the distortion and misinformation which is put in circulation by those who should know better, it will come to appreciate the enormous benefits which we in Ireland derive from our full participation in the European Union, and recognise that our continued active involvement in an enlarged Union on a basis which protects the essential role of the individual member states offers by far the best approach to the protection and promotion of our vital political and economic interests in the years ahead.
The Government does not propose to oppose the Bill on Second Stage this evening. I have indicated that the Government has a very positive disposition on the principle of greater parliamentary scrutiny and participation. We will need to examine very closely the detailed proposals in the Bill. I have asked the Attorney General's office to proceed with the necessary detailed examination as soon as possible. Observations will also be sought from the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. When that is done, we will consult again with the Opposition. The Government will, in due course, bring forward considered proposals in respect of the issues raised by the Bill. We welcome its overall purpose without committing ourselves as to its specific content at this stage, pending careful further examination and consideration of the issues involved.
It is the wish of the House that we get this right. I am aware that, in particular, we will want to ensure that the room for manoeuvre essential for Ministers involved in Council negotiations is maintained. As presently drafted, there could be a delay of up to 42 days between tabling a proposal and the Government taking a position. Flexibility is conceded only in relation to CFSP joint actions in the Bill as it currently stands. We are all agreed that in improving the situation that presently pertains, it is not anyone's intention to limit our capacity to operate effectively in Council. I am sharing my time with Deputy Carey.