Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Nov 1991

Vol. 412 No. 3

Written Answers. - EC Treaty Proposals.

John Browne

Question:

19 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the provisions in Title XIV and XV of the Luxembourg Draft Treaty of the Union of the European Community in regard to industry and tourism in so far as the provisions in regard to industry impose a very firm obligation on the Community to ensure that certain things happen whereas the provisions in regard to tourism merely refer to the encouragement of co-operation; and his views on whether the provisions in regard to tourism should be strengthened.

Andrew Boylan

Question:

25 Mr. Boylan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the provisions in Title XIV and XV of the Luxembourg Draft Treaty of the Union of the European Community in regard to industry and tourism in so far as the provisions in regard to industry impose a very firm obligation on the Community to ensure that certain things happen whereas the provisions in regard to tourism merely refer to the encouragement of co-operation; and his views on whether the provisions in regard to tourism should be strengthened.

Seán Barrett

Question:

51 Mr. S. Barrett asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the provisions in Title XIV and XV of the Luxembourg Draft Treaty of the Union of the European Community in regard to industry and tourism in so far as the provisions in regard to industry impose a very firm obligation on the Community to ensure that certain things happen whereas the provisions in regard to tourism merely refer to the encouragement of co-operation; and his views on whether the provisions in regard to tourism should be strengthened.

Paul Bradford

Question:

86 Mr. Bradford asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the provisions in Title XIV and XV of the Luxembourg Draft Treaty of the Union of the European Community in regard to industry and tourism in so far as the provisions in regard to industry impose a very firm obligation on the Community to ensure that certain things happen whereas the provisions in regard to tourism merely refer to the encouragement of co-operation; and his views on whether the provisions in regard to tourism should be strengthened.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Collins)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 19, 25, 51 and 86 together since they have been put down in identical terms.

The negotiations on future competences in the revised draft Treaty have not yet been completed. The texts on industry and tourism to which the Deputy refers are ones which have yet to be considered at ministerial level.

As regards the industry proposal, Ireland does not favour a specific article. Our view, at this stage and subject to a final package at the end of the negotiation, is that the Community has sufficient competences to ensure the development of an industrial policy. As far as tourism is concerned, and subject again to further negotiation in the Inter-governmental Conference, we feel that the proposal made by Luxembourg reflects the views of member states on the extent to which Community co-operation is possible in this area.

Gerry Reynolds

Question:

20 Mr. G. Reynolds asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline his views on the proposals in the Luxembourg Draft EC Treaty provisions which would allow the European Court to interpret EC agreements on visa policy and asylum policy and on matters of criminal law.

Fergus O'Brien

Question:

28 Mr. O'Brien asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline his views on the proposals in the Luxembourg Draft EC Treaty revision which would allow the European Court to interpret EC agreements on visa policy and asylum policy and on matters of criminal law.

Michael Noonan

Question:

40 Mr. Noonan (Limerick East) asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline his views on the proposals in the Luxembourg Draft EC Treaty revision which would allow the European Court to interpret EC agreements on visa policy and asylum policy and on matters of criminal law.

Paul McGrath

Question:

68 Mr. McGrath asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the proposal in Article 235A of the Luxembourg Draft EC Treaty revisions which would allow the EC to extend its sphere of activities into home and judicial affairs.

Gay Mitchell

Question:

89 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the proposal in Article 235A of the Luxembourg Draft EC Treaty revisions which would allow the EC to extend its sphere of activities into home and judicial affairs.

Jim Mitchell

Question:

99 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the proposal in Article 235A of the Luxembourg Draft EC Treaty revisions which would allow the EC to extend its sphere of activities into home and judicial affairs.

Edward Nealon

Question:

102 Mr. Nealon asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the proposal in Article 235A of the Luxembourg Draft EC Treaty revisions which would allow the EC to extend its sphere of activities into home and judicial affairs.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Collins)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 20, 28, 40, 68, 89, 99 and 102 together since they have been put down in similar and, in some cases, identical terms.

The current Presidency text derives from a proposal put forward Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand in December 1990 for the extension of Community competence to immigration, visa policy, asylum policy, the fight against drugs and organised international crime. Until now co-operation in these areas has been carried out at an inter-governmental level and has not been a matter of Community competence.

What is now proposed is that the level of co-operation should be increased and formalised but that the procedures for co-operation should remain essentially for the intergovernmental pillar rather than for the Community pillar. However, to reflect the desire of some partners to have an element of Community competence in certain less sensitive areas consideration is being given to providing a mechanism which would, with the unanimous agreement of all the member states, allow for aspects of visa and immigration policy be made a matter of Community competence and to be subject to the provisions of the EC Treaty.

Ireland favours increased co-operation in the area of home affairs and judicial co-operation. We take the view that at the present state of the Community's development it is sensible to apply the system of intergovernmental co-operation to most of the areas involved. This is particularly so in the case of criminal law, terrorism, drug trafficking, serious forms of international crime and fundamental policy decisions in areas of immigration and asylum.

For this reason we have argued that in general the intergovernmental model should be used. Decisions should be taken by unanimity. The classic Community procedures of Commission initiative and review by the Court of Justice should not apply automatically. Consequently the role of the Court of Justice would be limited and the right of initiative in certain areas would be shared between the Commission and the member states, while in others, such as police and judicial co-operation, the Commission would have no right of initiative.

Of course, if it is agreed that some areas of visa policy and immigration policy become a matter for Community competence, Ireland would accept that the classic Community procedures of Commission initiative and review by the Court of Justice would apply in those areas.