Vol. 453 No. 3
7 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he and his Department have formulated a position on the European Parliament's Bourlanges/Martin report, in particular its recommendation that the commission appoint a commissioner with specific responsibility for defence policy. [9332/95]
9 Mr. Davern asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the Governments position on the suggestion by the European Commission, in its report on the functioning of the Maastricht Treaty, that a Europe of several speeds can be considered. [9333/95]
25 Mr. Davern asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will comment on the Martin report currently being discussed by the European Parliament, in particular its recommendations regarding the composition of the European Commission and enhanced powers for the European Parliament. [9303/95]
26 Mr. Hilliard asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the forthcoming Reflection Group meeting in Italy. [9310/95]
35 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he agrees with the recent comments of the President of the European Commission, Jacques Santer, that majority voting in the Council of Ministers must become a fact of daily life and that unanimity should be reserved for essential institutional and constitutional decisions. [9307/95]
40 Mr. O'Leary asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will resist any move to remove the EU Presidency from smaller member countries; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9299/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos, 7, 9, 25, 26, 35 and 40 together since they all relate to the 1996 intergovenmental conference and because of their link to positions which the Commission and the European Parliament may take at the Reflection Group and at the conference itself.
The European Council meeting at Corfu in June 1994 agreed to establish a Reflection Group of Personal Representatives of Foreign Ministers to prepare for the 1996 intergovenmental conference. The group will also include a representative of the President of the Commission and two members of the European Parliament. Ireland's representative on the Reflection Group will be the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Gay Mitchell.
The European Council also agreed that the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament should establish, before the start of the work of the Reflection Group, reports on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union which would provide an input to the work of the group.
The Reflection Group is mandated in particular to examine those provisions of the Treaty on European Union for which a revision is foreseen, including notably, the common foreign and security policy and the powers of the European Parliament. It is also mandated to elaborate options in the perspective of future enlargement of the European Union on certain institutional questions including the weighting of votes in the Council and the number of members of the Commission.
The Reflection Group will have its inaugural meeting in Messina on 3 June. It is envisaged that the Reflection Group will report to the Madrid European Council in December 1995 and that the intergovernmental conference will open during the Italian Presidency of the Union in the first half of 1996. It will continue throughout the Irish Presidency of the Union.
The Council's report on the functioning of the treaty was adopted on 10 April. Copies of the report were lodged in the Oireachtas Library for the information of Deputies and the report was considered by the Joint Committee on European Affairs on 2 May 1995. The European Commission's report was published on 10 May.
The European Parliament adopted its position in a resolution based on the reports by two MEPs. Mr. Martin and Mr. Bourlanges, on 17 May.
The European Parliament's resolution on the functioning of the treaty goes beyond an analysis of the existing treaty provisions and includes ambitious and detailed proposals for the revision of the treaties in the perspective of future enlargement. Parliament's position reflects careful and detailed consideration of the issues facing the Union and represents an important contribution to the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference.
In its vote on the Bourlanges and Martin reports the European Parliament did not take on board the proposal that there should be a Commissioner responsible specifically for defence. This proposal does not, therefore, feature in the resolution as adopted by the Parliament and, consequently, does not represent a proposal of the Parliament.
The Parliament's resolution, contrary to some media reports, accepts explicitly that there should continue to be at least one Commissioner from each member state. I fully agree with this view which is in accordance with the Government's policy approach on the composition of the Commission.
With regard to the powers of the European Parliament, the resolution suggests that the Parliament should have equal status with the Council in all fields of EU legislative and budgetary competence.
The extension of the scope of the co-decision procedure which provides for the European Parliament to decide on legislation jointly with the council will be one of the key issues at the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. The Parliament believes that this procedure should be extended into as many areas as possible. Our approach is that there is scope for an extension of the legislative areas to which the co-decision procedure applies. While much detailed work needs to be done, the Government's approach to an enhanced role for the European Parliament will be generally positive while at the same time maintaining the broad inter-institutional balance.
Another important issue to be discussed by the Intergovernmental Conference, which has been highlighted by President Santer and others, will be the possible extension of qualified majority voting to areas where unanimity is, at present, required. The Commission's report on the functioning of the treaty mentions that future enlargement has reinforced the need to examine improvements to the decision making process and that, in this context, there should be increased recourse to qualified majority voting.
There is a good case for the extension of qualified majority voting to some of the areas in the first pillar of the Maastricht Treaty, that is on European Community business, where a requirement for unanimity exists at present. We will adopt a broadly positive approach to this discussion at the Intergovernmental Conference. At the same time, some areas including matters which fall under the second pillar — the Common Foreign and Security Policy — and the third pillar — Justice and Home Affairs — are particularly sensitive. We are not convinced of the arguments for a move to majority voting in such areas.
The Commission's report also touches on the question of what it describes as differentiated rhythms of integration. The report points out that this concept already exists, for example, in the area of economic and monetary union. The Commission believes that it is natural to grant certain member states a reasonable period in which to adapt to a particular policy. At the same time, the report stresses that such a differentiated approach to the implementation of a common policy must take place within the single institutional framework. The commission also points out that a permanent derogation from a common policy suggests a Europe à la carte, a structure which the commission rejects.
In our approach to the European Union we have consistently opposed the creation of an exclusive inner core of member states. Ideally we also favour a single speed approach to integration. We have, however, accepted that a differentiated approach to a common objective, such as economic and monetary union, in so far as timing is concerned, is an obvious and sensible approach to the implementation of a common policy in which not all member states are capable of participating fully.
I agree with the Commission's rejection of any differentiated approach which would, in time, lead to a so-called à la carte European Union. I also agree with the Commission that any arrangement envisaged for a differentiated approach should ensure the preservation of the single institutional framework.
The system of the rotating six-monthly Presidency of the Union may also be discussed at the Intergovernmental Conference. Ireland would oppose any proposals which would have the objective or effect of depriving the smaller member states of their right to hold the Presidency. The rotating Presidency is important because of the pivotal position the office occupies in the present treaty structure as it enables each member state in its turn to play a central role in the development and implementation of policy. There is nothing to suggest that the efficiency of a presidency is affected by the size of the member state that holds it.
I thank the Tánaiste for his comprehensive reply. As time is limited I will try to restrict myself to one or two supplementary questions. On the matter specifically mentioned in Question No. 7, does he agree that defence policy is outside the area of competence of the European Commission; that the Commission does not have the right of proposal in this regard and that defence should remain outside the area of competence of the Commission?
As I said in my reply, referring specifically to Question No. 7 from Deputy Burke, the European Parliament did not take on board the proposal of a commissioner with responsibility specifically for defence and I do not believe that proposal will receive support from any country at this stage.
I generally agree with the reply of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to the other broad question on the need for each country to have a commissioner, the need for a rotating Presidency, the role of the Commission, with its power of initiation and the role of the Council and so on. Will he assure the House that in the relationship between the Commission, the Council and the Parliament, the Council will remain and will have the primary role as far as Ireland and other small countries are concerned as otherwise small countries will be swamped in the 700 member parliament?
The House will accept that we, as a smaller member state, have been well served by the inter-institutional balance in the European Union. It is our aim to protect the role of the Commission, particularly in relation to the initiation of legislation and the Council. The difficulties to which the Deputy avers in relation to the European Parliament are very obvious. At the same time the Euroepean Parliament has a role to play in relation to the democratic deficit in Europe which everybody has been debating——
We had an example of it here about half an hour ago.
—— in the context of the Maastricht agreement. These are the issues and it is important they are discussed. We are prepared for those issues, the Joint Committee on European Affairs has a major role to play in that regard and I am aware these issues are also being discussed by the committee.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs admits that with our number of MEPs we, as a small country, would be swamped in the European Parliament. Last week President Santer declared that the CAP was one way of killing it but that there were more subtle ways of doing so by enlargement of the Community. Is he aware that the CAP is the cornerstone on which the Community is founded? What is the Government's attitude to President Santer's comment, particularly in light of his proposed expansion of the Community into the eastern European countries when, by relative comparison, Ireland will number among the rich countries?
The Deputy, as he attempted to do last week, is raising a very valid and legitimate concern on behalf of the people. At the intergovernmental conference there will be a very serious and tough debate on the future of the European Union and its functions. I think enlargement will happen and seems to be the order of the day in relation to central and eastern European countries.
The European Commission is preparing papers on the future of agriculture and the impact of enlargement on the agricultural industry of central and eastern European countries, these are matters we will have to debate. The budgetary debate in the European Union leading up to 1999 will be very difficult and, from the Irish point of view, we have major concerns on the funding of CAP and Structural and Cohesion Funding. We will have to be well prepared to ensure that we represent our constituents and our country.
