P. J. Sheehan
Question:9 Mr. Sheehan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the changes, if any, needed in EC institutions to accommodate the possible enlargement of the Community to include a total of 17 members.
Ceisteanna Questions. Oral Answers. - Enlargement of the Community.
Godfrey Timmins
Question:17 Mr. Timmins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the changes, if any, needed in EC institutions to accommodate the possible enlargement of the Community to include a total of 17 members.
Ivan Yates
Question:24 Mr. Yates asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the changes, if any, needed in EC institutions to accommodate the possible enlargement of the Community to include a total of 17 members.
Jim Mitchell
Question:32 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the changes, if any, needed in EC institutions to accommodate the possible enlargement of the Community to include a total of 17 members.
Avril Doyle
Question:46 Mrs. Doyle asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the changes, if any, needed in EC institutions to accommodate the possible enlargement of the Community to include a total of 17 members.
John Bruton
Question:64 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the changes, if any, needed in EC institutions to accommodate the possible enlargement of the Community to include a total of 17 members.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 17, 24, 32, 46 and 64 together.
It is clear that a certain measure of change in European Community institutions will be required to accommodate the accession of the four EFTA countries currently involved in enlargement negotiations — Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway. For example, it will be necessary to adjust the membership of the Council of Ministers of the European Parliament and of the Commission.
The question of whether any wider institutional change would be needed in connection with enlargement was considered at the Lisbon European Council in June 1992. The European Council concluded that that enlargement of the Union to include the EFTA applicants was possible on the basis of the institutional provisions contained in the Treaty of European Union and attached declarations. The European Council did not envisage any major innovation in the institutional framework of the union. Ireland shares that view. I would see the basic institutional balance and structure established under the Treaty on European Union as catering adequately for a membership of 16 or 17. Limited adaptations will, of course, be necessary to take account of the increase in the number of member states. This will happen in areas such as the number of MEPs, the number of Commissioners and voting strengths in the Council.
Will the Minister state what impact the announcement by the British Government yesterday in regard to the Social Charter and the difficulties being experienced by the UK Parliament in ratifying the Maastricht Treaty will have on the process of enlargement within the European Community? Does he envisage that this decision will lead to a setback in terms of enlargement? What impact would the rejection of the Maastricht Treaty for a second time by Denmark have on the process of enlargement?
With regard to the position in the United Kingdom, I would not like to speculate on an internal British matter.
We can expect that the British Government will proceed because they are committed to getting the legislation through and to ratifying the Maastricht Treaty; there is no doubt about that. With regard to the Danish position, the most recent opinion polls show 51 per cent in favour of voting "yes", 30 per cent voting "no" and the remainder do not know. I do not envisage any problems emanating from that quarter. With regard to the overall question of enlargement, that will simply proceed as planned. I would perceive those two areas as being separate. I am convinced that they are as committed as ever to getting the legislation through and to ratification of the Treaty.
With regard to enlargement of the Community and the requisite changes to be effected within EC institutions, would the Minister say whether any decision has been taken on the number of Commissioners that will obtain after enlargement, on the size of the European Parliament, or on how large it will be allowed become?
An Intergovernmental Conference is scheduled for 1996 which will examine a range of institutional issues concerning the operations of the provisions of the treaty. In the meantime, the Lisbon European Council concluded that the round of discussions on enlargement to include EFTA countries was possible on the basis of the institutional provisions contained in the Treaty on European Union, a position that Ireland supports. Deputy Owen asked about the position vis-à-vis future Commissioners. At present we are allocated half the number of Commissioners compared with Germany and a quarter of the number of MEPs from the larger member states. Under the present institutional provisions, set out at the Lisbon European Council, Ireland is doing quite well. We are anxious to proceed with the debate on enlargement and to be involved in the run-up to the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. It goes without saying that it will be important for the new Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to be involved in that debate. Some time ago my Department sent a report on enlargement to the former Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, which will be replaced by the new Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs. That report covered a range of issues dealing with enlargement, including the implications for the institutions of the European Community. I hope this committee will address this issue without delay and I look forward to having the benefit of their deliberations before long.
On the general question of enlargement and the future of the European Community, would the Minister say whether the Government intends producing any discussion paper, Green Paper or otherwise, containing their views on how the EC will evolve over the next four to five years, given the difficulties being experienced in relation to the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and the likelihood that, even if it is ratified by all of the current member states, significant sections of it are unlikely ever to be implemented, and also given that there are increasing signs of a developing security problem worldwide needing to be addressed by the European Community? Are any or all of these matters being considered by Government and will they let us have the benefit of their thoughts on these issues?
It is my understanding that there is a debate continuing, not just at Government and departmental level, on the issue of institutional reform within the Irish Council for the European Movement and the Institute for European Affairs. It is my opinion that the views emanating from these fora will contribute substantially to that continuing debate. They are important fora within which to discuss the overall question of institutional reform. It is also my view that the new Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs will have a considerable amount to contribute in this area. It is obvious that I, as Minister of State with responsibility for European Affiars, and the Tánaiste will be closely involved in that debate. Certainly it is an issue the new Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs should take on board immediately. I can assure the House there will be an open debate in preparation for 1996.
All of the questions raised relate to whether we should move forward on institutional reform now rather than wait until 1996. My spontaneous response would be that we should await the enlargement of the Community to put in place any new structures since Ireland, because of its size, has done quite well at European Commission, European Parliament and other institutional levels.
Would the Minister of State agree that the enlargement of the European Community to accommodate additional member states will lead to a further diminution of the Irish voice and influence in EC institutions, particularly within the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament in addition, perhaps, to a reduction in the benefits we have reaped over the 20 years since we became a member?
That is the very point I was raising, that we must be very vigilant on how Ireland may fare in any new institutional arrangements. That is central to our considerations of and debate on this issue. I would suggest that, across party lines, at the level of the new Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, we could and should explore these issues in depth, evaluating how we fare at present at institutional level, comparing our thinking with that of other EC member states. It is also part of my brief to meet other Ministers of those countries wishing to join. For example, I had meetings recently with my counterpart in Sweden and, within the term of office of the previous Government, I had meetings with my counterparts in Austria and Norway. It is important that we ascertain their thinking but we must also be very vigilant in assessing how Ireland would fare institutionally within an enlarged Community.
Arising out of the Minister of State's remarks in relation to the new Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and his hope that that committee would consider the document prepared by his Department, would he make sure that people like myself, who have just been appointed to that committee, actually see this document if we are to give it immediate consideration? In the same vein, would he say whether he would devise a system within his Department to service that committee with all these briefing documents, with material which could be useful to its members, on a back-issue basis? There would be very little reason to expect that the committee could give immediate attention to a document circulated to a former committee now defunct.
I will certainly do that. As a member of the former Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, I am conscious of the need for a proper back-up service. At times, Members receive three or four documents together. There is a case to be made for a proper back-up service, which I can assure the House I will take on board.