Vol. 408 No. 7
8 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the latest Presidency proposal on European Political Union; if he will further outline any amendments which he is proposing thereto; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
13 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the Government's position on the draft EC Treaty tabled by the Luxembourg Presidency last month; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 13 together.
On 15 April the Luxembourg Presidency submitted a composite text to the Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union. The draft text lists possible amendments to the Treaty of Rome on the main issues being considered by the conference. These issues fall into three specific categories.
First, there are amendments to the Treaty of Rome in the areas of environment, research and development, social policy, health, education, culture, trans-European networks and consumer protection.
Second, there are the proposals regarding a common foreign and security policy, and finally, there is the issue of intergovernmental co-operation in justice and home affairs.
The text draws on the wide range of views and proposals put forward by member states and by the Commission in the course of the first stage of the discussions. In order to facilitate discussion during the second stage, the Presidency has attempted to produce a text which, in its opinion, reflects majority views. The Presidency text is a working document and the Presidency has made it clear that it is not to be seen as a compromise proposal. The Government consider it to be a useful contribution to the conference — a document which will focus discussions and help to move them toward an eventual consensus. It is, however, very much a working document and is subject to constant amendment and revision to take account of the views expressed by member states and the Commission. Further amendments to the text will be both inevitable and necessary before we reach a final agreement.
We are still at an early stage in the second round of negotiations. At ministerial level, our discussions have concentrated almost exclusively on common foreign and security policy and on the future role of the European Parliament in the legislative process of the Community. It was not until last week that we had our first very general discussion on a number of other items including economic and social cohesion.
I can assure the House that the Government are participating and will continue to participate actively in the detailed examination of the draft Treaty with the aim of ensuring that our concerns and interests are reflected in the new Treaty. In submitting texts of draft articles to the Conference we must judge whether such contributions would be helpful to our interests and likely to gain general support from other member states. Our endeavours are now channelled into seeking to strengthen the articles to which we attach importance.
Finally, we are pleased that the text already reflects the language of proposals which we tabled at an earlier stage of the Conference on health, education and economic and social cohesion. Copies of these have been laid in the Library of the House.
Will the Minister tell the House whether the proposals in the Presidency text largely meet the Government's objectives in these negotiations?
Not necessarily so. It is a working document and there are quite a number of areas where the text of this Presidency working paper tries to draw together positions of the different countries in an effort to see if we can find a common ground between us. We had our first discussions only last week on a number of issues in relation to political union. It is no more than a working document and it would be wrong to call it a draft text for Treaty purposes.
Will the Minister indicate his objectives for this conference or, alternatively, outline to us in what respects the Presidency text does not coincide with his objectives?
The Presidency working document is no more than a working document and it is important to remember that. We are a long way from a draft text for Treaty amendment purposes. The discussions are ongoing. There will be much movement. For instance, as I said to the Deputy and other Members of the House on 17 April last in reply to parliamentary questions, there is a wide divergence of view between member states on security-military-defence elements being discussed at present. We are way out, far apart for one another in a number of areas and fairly close together on others. It will be a long time before we get to where we will have a draft Treaty to put forward for discussion.
It is the Irish view.
When the Taoiseach was replying today to an earlier question of mine I referred to a speech made by Mr. Jacques Delors in New York on 24 April in which he clearly indicated that he regarded defence as part of security. He indicated also that the EC should build on what it already had, which he named as the Western European Union. Will the Minister outline his attitude to the proposal that the Western European Union form the basis of a defence alliance within the EC? Does he see that proposal having any relevance in the current negotiations?
The Deputy is an MEP and will be only too well aware that on occasion Jacques Delors puts forward his personal point of view on matters affecting the Community and the way he would like to see the Community developing in the future. That is his right. It is an attitude we all respect and support even though we may not at all times agree with the point of view he puts forward. The question of common foreign and security policy is being discussed within the Twelve. No decisions have been arrived at. We are working within the guidelines laid down for us by the heads of State or Government at their meeting in Rome before Christmas. That is the framework within which we are working. It is open to Jacques Delors or anybody else, as the French have done in promoting the Western European Union role and the future security of Europe, or indeed the British and the Dutch in promoting a role for NATO within the European Community. Many suggestions are being made at present and all are being discussed but we are still a long way from arriving at a final decision.
Would the Minister not agree that the two conferences operate in parallel for a fundamental reason, that if we move towards a single currency under the control of a single central bank that implies the co-ordination of fiscal deficits in member states at European level, that it would be intolerable that that be carried out by the central bank without democratic control, that that necessarily implies an executive responsible to Parliament, appointed by Parliament, and capable of being dismissed by Parliament, to take decisions of such fundamental importance to our respective democracies? In the light of that, can he say whether our Government have pressed this issue and, if not, why is it not featuring as the principal element in the conference on political union?
I agree with Deputy FitzGerald that it is the wish of the heads of State or Government that both InterGovernmental Conferences would operate in parallel for the reasons he has given. Nevertheless, I want to say to Deputy FitzGerald we are still at a very early stage with regard to the discussions under each of the headings. EMU or political union. Many suggestions have been made and many of the suggestions have been abandoned. We are in the process of discussion, negotiation and we are still a long way from results.
May I raise a specific issue? With the view to ensuring that it is a major element on the agenda and that we press to have adequate democratic control of the whole fiscal area, which is implicit in the decision about the central bank and the currency, will we make that an element of our policy and put it forward strongly and has the Minister done so?
I agree this is an important part of our policy that it should be and must be.
Thank you.
Last February I suggested to the Minister that he produce a White Paper outlining the Government's objectives in relation to these two conferences so that we would have some benchmark on which to judge the conferences and also because the results will have to be put to the people in a referendum and at the time the Minister indicated he would seriously consider my proposal. I now wish to raise the issue with the Minister and ask whether he will now positively commit himself to the production of such a White Paper?
On more than one occasion I heard Deputy O'Keeffe raise this matter. The last time it was raised was with the Taoiseach. He was asked whether there would be a debate in this House and he agreed that there would be a debate in this House on the issue.
What about the White Paper?
That matter will be considered.
When can we expect to see the White Paper?
It is being considered.
When consideration is given to it we will let you know.
A final question from Deputy De Rossa, please.
Unless I missed the response of the Minister, he did not indicate the Government's attitude to the Luxembourg proposal with regard to Western European Union and also what his attitude was to the point made by Jacques Delors. I do not want to get into a dispute about whether Jacques Delors was speaking as President of the Commission because that is a debate which will lead nowhere. The Minister is on record — in the newpapers at least — as indicating that he is not happy that the European Parliament should have increased powers. Can the Minister clarify his attitude to that? There is a proposal in the Luxembourg document that the Parliament would have greater powers. I understand the Minister's response is that they would not like to see the current powers of the Council reduced in any way because they feel they have a greater clout at that level than they would have in the Parliament.
That is a very distinct matter worthy of a separate question.
It is related.
In reply to Deputy De Rossa, I will not go back over the part of his supplementary question which I dealt with earlier. In relation to the European Parliament, we already know the very strong views held by the Parliament about what it feels its role should be and what it wishes to see from the IGC on political union. Some member states are able to support almost everything the Parliament is looking for, while others are much more reserved. For our part we will look carefully at the demands of Parliament, see what improvements can be made to existing procedures and reflect together what additional powers might be granted to Parliament and in which areas. We will also wish to take into account the need to preserve the balance and efficiency in the operation of the Community institutions as we seek to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the Community and its democratic accountability.
In relation to the specific issue of codecision, I have already outlined to the House on previous occasions that we have some reservations about the procedures proposed by some member states in the Parliament. We believe the role of the Commission in the legislative process must be maintained, including its sole right to make proposals and its capacity to amend proposals at any stage in the process. As I have already stated, we accept there has to be a genuine increase in the capacity of the Parliament to make a substantial contribution to the legislative process; for example, this could include giving greater attention in the Council to the first opinion of the Parliament. We could also envisage the establishment of an effective and more extensive conciliation procedure in which all three Community institutions could meet to resolve outstanding difficulties and draft legislation.
Question No. 14, please.
