Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Mar 1999

Vol. 502 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - EU Commission: Motion.

Mr. Quinn

I move:

That Dáil Éireann–

(a) notes that the resignation of the President and members of the European Commission highlights the need for more democratic structures and for greater accountability on the part of the non-elected Commission;

(b) notes the positive role played by the European Parliament in highlighting mismanagement and waste, and believes that the Parliament should be given greater powers in regard to the appointment and monitoring of the Commission;

(c) calls on the Government to take a more proactive role in promoting democratic reforms within the EU, with particular reference to greater democratic powers for the Parliament;

(d) recognising that the interests of smaller member states require a strong but democratically accountable Commission, urges the members states to move decisively and urgently to re-establish the standing and authority of the Commission by nominating a President and membership free from any taint of wrongdoing or mismanagement;

(e) believes, in these circumstances, that the nomination of Pádraig Flynn for reappointment to the Commission would be inappropriate.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Quinn has 40 minutes and I understand he is sharing his time with Deputy Gay Mitchell.

Mr. Quinn

The decision by the entire European Commission to resign last week has thrown the European Union into crisis at a critical stage in the negotiations on Agenda 2000. In so doing they have brought to a close one period in the Union's history and I hope opened a significant debate about its future.

At the heart of the Commission's decision was its own mismanagement of the allegations made against it by EU officials and an inherent flaw in the existing EU treaties which render the Parliament incapable of bringing a motion of censure against individual Commissioners. This flaw will remain even after the final ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty by the Parliament which should take place sometime after May. That Treaty, although it represents some progress in securing the democratic accountability of the Commission, falls short on a number of fronts, the accountability of individual Commissioners to the Parliament being one of them.

Clearly, as my former colleague, Barry Desmond, outlined when speaking on RTE over the weekend, there is a need to fundamentally reform the manner in which the Commission disburses funds. Similarly, there appears to be general acceptance that contrary to a common public perception, the Commission itself is understaffed. Even Mr Santer's belated and inadequate defence of the Commission's position, as outlined to the Parliament, warrants careful examination. His central accusation that the Commission was perhaps deliberately underfunded by the member states may not be as extreme as one might think.

The decision taken by the Parliament last week was as much against the manner in which the Commission handled this crisis as the actual allegations themselves and for that President Santer and his Commission have nobody to blame but themselves. Some commentators have pointed out that some of the sins that the Commissioners were accused of would count merely as venial sins if put into comparison with the behaviour of members of some national Governments. Given what we now know about the conduct of Government of this State in the late 1980s and early 1990s, this is not difficult to believe.

Yet, the Parliament was correct in exercising its power in the way that it did. Perhaps for the first time, the national electorates when they vote in European elections this June will understand that the body to which they are electing people is not a toothless tiger. They may also feel that again for the first time ever they can have a say and exercise some control over the Brussels monolith. If this is the case, the Parliament's action may come to be seen as the most significant step towards enhancing the Union's democratic legitimacy.

The perceived unaccountability of the Union has been one of the most fundamental problems dogging it since its foundation. Whether national Governments are comfortable with it, the only meaningful solution to the problem is to increase the Parliament's powers to hold EU officials accountable, a power which is the essence of democracy. I note reports in yesterday morning's papers that Prime Minister Blair has been talking about increased subsidiarity. While subsidiarity when appropriate is important, I do not believe its extension to other areas of policy will necessarily enhance the reputation of the Union among its citizens. It is a poor replacement for direct democratic accountability where that is appropriate.

The Union's failure to tackle effectively key social and economic problems such as unemployment has also undermined its support, but that is only one half of the story. In our country, Europe has been responsible, particularly in the social field, for improving the quality of life for many citizens in the workplace, at home and in their private lives. Unfortunately, as tends to be the case, these good news stories tend to receive a lesser degree of publicity than the problems on which the Union has found it difficult to make progress. All news is bad news as we know in this world of politics.

However, there is little point and some degree of irony in the comments made by some national politicians across Europe about the weakness of the European Commission as a body, particularly the current Commission. Many of those difficulties are there by design rather than accident. The inability of the Parliament to hold individual members of the Commission democratically accountable exists because national Governments decided that this should be so, a position endorsed as recently as two years ago in the negotiations on the Amsterdam Treaty.

That this Commission should be weak was a deliberate political choice forced on the other member states by the then British Prime Minister, John Major, at the behest of his Eurosceptic Conservative Party. It is somewhat ironic to see the Conservatives seeking to gain political capital on this issue from a Eurosceptic perspective when one recalls the jubilation which greeted their perceived emasculation of the very same Commission. It should also be remembered that ultimately John Major was supported by other EU leaders, exhausted by the dynamism of the Commission under the Delors Presidency that had fought vigorously to protect the influence and independence of the Commission.

The reality is – this point has been made by political commentators over the weekend – that a strong Commission is in Ireland's interest, but not necessarily in the interest of the larger member states. A strong Commission acting in the interest of the Union and all its members states can act as a counterpoint to the power of the larger members states.

I agree with the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, when he says that the current difficulty presents us with opportunities as well as short-term problems. Mr. Blair's determination to set the agenda for the next couple of months in terms of the Commission is in stark contrast to the performance of our Government on the issue, but I will return to that issue later.

The resignation of the Commission, particularly the President, gives rise to one opportunity, the replacement of both with more dynamic forces. The situation should serve as a springboard for meaningful debate as to an appropriate relationship between the Commission and the EU Parliament and EU citizens. It has been floated by Jacques Delors that the President of the Commission should be directly elected by Europe's citizens, as representatives of the political parties within the European parliament. In other words, the main competing political groups for the forthcoming European elections should, as part and parcel of their electoral campaign, nominate who they would like to see as President of the Commission and that depending on the outcome of those elections, the incoming Council of heads of government would be required morally, if not in any other way, to give some strength and credence to that and to select that person. This is what Delors proposes, and there have been other such suggestions as to how more democratic accountability and representation could be found for the Parliament.

The question is, what role will Ireland play in this process? It is in our national interest to seek the earliest possible appointment of a new President and Commission. Even leaving aside the importance of the ongoing discussions on Agenda 2000, which may or may not conclude this week, there are other important issues to be resolved, for instance, the commencement of the new round of World Trade Organisation talks later this year.

There appears to be little point in seeing the Commission resign if its members are to remain on indefinitely in a caretaker capacity. The Commission's decision to work only on urgent business in front of it is the correct one in the circumstances but is unsatisfactory from the point of running the Union. A quick decision on replacement is needed. I welcome today's news of the appointment of the former Italian Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, but the suggestion that the acting Commissioners remain in their positions until June is unacceptable. Watching the six o'clock news this evening, which colleagues may also have seen, it would appear that Mr. Prodi will not take up his post as incoming President until July of this year. We have a de facto situation where Jacques Santer will be caretaker President until then at least, and this needs to be clarified between now and 9 April when these decisions will have to be more formally agreed.

Mr. Prodi's qualifications for the job are unquestionable. He has experience of political affairs at the highest level and also brings the freshness of approach of somebody who has not been involved in politics for his or her whole life. The task that lies before him is not an easy one and will require courage and determination on his part. The courage he displayed as head of the olive coalition in Italy, in the transformation of Italian politics with the entry of a central left Government for the first time since 1948 and the reform of Italy's public finances to ensure it qualified to meet the Maastricht criteria and thereby enter the single currency are a testament to his extraordinary courage and leadership.

Speaking on radio on Sunday, the Taoiseach appeared to be backing the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Wim Kok, but I have no doubt he will have few complaints about the appointment of Mr. Prodi. Mr. Kok was not available and ruled himself out of the contest. In reality the Leaders in Berlin today had but one choice before them, Mr. Romano Prodi. The fact they had only one choice is not to denigrate in any way the ability or quality of that choice. The correct decision was made in Berlin today.

As I said, however, the choice of a new President is only half the job. That decision will be effective only if it is followed on by a speedy process to reappoint members of the new Commission. While there is an understandable logic in the suggestion that the new President and new Commission be appointed for a five and a half year term, there are considerable difficulties with that.

The current Commission has been replaced because the Parliament could not hold individual Commissioners responsible for discrepancies within their sections. Given the importance of the issue of democratic accountability in the current crisis, it is imperative that no attempt is made to bypass the Parliament's power to acede to the appointment of the new President – powers that will come into effect upon the final ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty. That date is two months after the final national ratification papers are lodged. It is expected to come into effect at the end of May.

The manner in which the Government has reacted to the current impasse is disappointing. It has been underwhelming to put it mildly. It is hardly surprising considering the manner in which the Government has handled itself on Europe related issues since coming into office. We were not to know it at the time, but the bungling of the appointment of a Minister for European Affairs on day one was to set a trend. It has all culminated in the difficulties we experienced over the past week, which arise, in part, from a failure to explain fully to our European partners the difference between our GNP and GDP levels.

Put simply, this Government's European agenda has been a particularly passive one. Such an approach has, however, proven particularly inappropriate at a time when Ireland's role and standing within the Union is undergoing fundamental change. Rightly or wrongly our European partners feel they have witnessed our coming of age in recent years. Rightly or wrongly they feel they have financially contributed to this. They now expect us to act our age.

In this crisis, as in others, the Government appears satisfied to stand by and allow the larger countries dictate the agenda. As a significant member of the European Union for over 25 years, a more constructive and proactive response from the Government might have been reasonably expected. Yet there is little or no evidence that the Government has done any real thinking about securing for Ireland an influential position within the European Union in the years ahead. For instance, of the six new applicant states, Ireland has resident embassies in only three of them. There are no plans, to my knowledge, in the short-term to establish resident embassies in Estonia, Slovenia or Cyprus. Neither is there any sign of Ireland establishing our own enlargement programme to actively engage the applicant member states on a bilateral or multilateral basis. Is it not obvious to the Government that we need to develop contacts with these members states whose support we may need in the long-term to take advantage of the rebalancing between large and smaller states within the Council of Ministers?

Enlargement will also place considerable difficulties on the decision-making structures of the Union, issues which, as I said earlier, were not addressed at Amsterdam. The prospect of up to six further members operating under the existing structures is a nightmare scenario. Ireland is in a unique position to offer solutions to these problems and to play a constructive role in overcoming obstacles ahead. Our 25 years of experience in the Union is admired and even envied by some of our fellow member states. It is time to put it to good use.

That Fianna Fáil should be largely unaware of these possibilities and has been unable to exercise influence in the past is hardly surprising. For instance, its MEP bloc in the European Parliament, because of its isolation, carries less weight than Bernie Malone or Pat Cox.

Nevertheless, it is time to start asking the questions. Is the Government satisfied that further institutional reform is needed within the Union to give the Parliament more powers? If it is, why has it not said so? Does it have a view as to whether the President of the Commission should be more directly responsible, in some fashion, to the people of Europe, perhaps elected directly by the people as candidates of the larger political groupings within the Parliament? Does it accept the Union's recent difficulties are merely symptoms of a general malaise within the Union, which undermines support for the Union among the European people and requires serious remedial action? How long does the Government think the caretaker Commission should remain in office? What view did it express to the Chairman of the European Council, Chancellor Schröder when he visited Dublin on Friday evening last? Is it satisfied the acting Commissioners, having resigned, will be left in office for at least another three months or possibly longer? Is it prepared to create the necessary impetus behind the appointment of a new Commission by indicating its readiness to move quickly on an Irish appointment? The prevarication from the Taoiseach on yesterday's Order of Business on this matter was not particularly encouraging.

Thankfully the sorry saga surrounding our Commissioner has come to a close. The Government's lack of dynamism on this issue has been all too apparent. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, has made the position of the Progressive Democrats very clear from the outset. They said they did not wish to see Pádraig Flynn reappointed. The Taoiseach has prevaricated on the issue for months and I am certain that had the acting Commissioner not indicated his disinterest in the position, the prevarication would have continued indefinitely. When it comes down to the national interest versus minor internal Fianna Fáil squabbles, the latter will win out every time in this Government.

Commissioner Flynn is to be congratulated on securing a clean bill of health from the Commission's auditors, having regard to the substantial scale of the portfolio for which he is responsible and the massive amounts of money allocated for his responsibility. In the circumstances it would have been impossible for the Government to reappoint him. From the very outset, my party has taken the view that allegations made against a person holding high public office should be answered as soon as is feasible and that continues to be our view. Mr Flynn's decision to resign and not seek reappointment has taken the heat out of the situation.

It is unfortunate the Taoiseach was not able to be present this evening, but I realise he is on important business elsewhere, on which I wish him the best. Yet, as he enters into what are obviously difficult negotiations, he should reflect on how he, the Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have pursued European policy since coming into office. A fundamental rethink by the Government of European policy is required.

Mr. Durkan

I have great pleasure joining my colleagues in this debate. It is an opportune time to pass some comment on events that have taken place not only in the past few months but over the past few years. Europe now stands at a crossroads. The good aspect of the recent resignation of the European Commission is that politicians all over Europe will now focus on those institutions and ask themselves the questions which were being asked in only certain quarters over the past couple of years.

The leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn, pointed out that the President of the recently resigned Commission was a compromise candidate. A considerable amount of lobbying occurred throughout Europe at the time he was appointed. It is not a reflection on him but a fact of life that he was a compromise candidate and that a great deal of horse trading took place before he was appointed. The final decision was not necessarily made in the interests of the European Union or the member states, which is not a personal reflection on the President. The appointment of the President of the European Commission is a serious one that requires serious thinking and input. The person required is the one most likely to have the greatest impact on bringing cohesion to Europe and implementing the various treaties. I think the person who has now been nominated will prove to be a very good President.

I agree with Deputy Quinn that the sooner the appointment takes place, the better. The less of a vacuum that exists at this time, the less the European institutions will lack credibility. The longer we procrastinate on the appointment of a new Commission and on allowing the new President to take office, the greater the degree of despondency there will be and the greater the lack of credibility trading partners outside the Union will have in the EU institutions.

As I said, Europe stands at a crossroads, as was borne out by what the previous speaker said. We must reflect very quickly on what has happened. I was a member of the European Affairs Committee 15 years ago and I have observed the thrust towards European integration, the implementation of the various protocols, directives and treaties over the years and the putting in place, particularly by the last Commission, of the mechanisms which would ensure Europe moved ahead. That seems to have taken a breather and been put on the back burner in recent times. There has been a re-emergence of national interest, which is now referred to as renationalisation. Renationalisation, to which the previous speaker correctly referred, is not in the interests of the smaller countries but quite the reverse.

If we reflect on our recent history, we find that the more powerful trading partners were quite happy to allow the status quo prevail because they did best in that situation. Our almost total dependence on one trading partner – by which I mean no disrespect to that partner – coincided with our economic difficulties, for various reasons. When we broke out of that arena and moved into the wider playing fields and when tariff barriers were removed and we were able to sell our products throughout Europe, our economy flourished. Some people in the European institutions claim that this country's economic success has resulted solely from the injection of money by the European Union, but that is not so. The real secret of this country's economic success is that it has been able to trade in the wider European market without barriers or interference.

Over the past couple of years there has been interference in that trading freedom, with interference with the export of our beef products at the UK ports and by the French truck strike. This has had the effect over the past couple of years of raising questions within the European institutions, questions which should have been asked and addressed by the European Commission in the first instance.

The European Affairs Committee, recognising that this was happening, sought meetings with the various Commissioners, including the Irish appointed Commissioner. To be fair to them, most of them met the committee although the President, for reasons best known to himself, did not have time to discuss these important issues. These issues may not have been important from the standpoint of the President of the European Commission, but they were important from the standpoint of the political representatives of a small EU member state.

The European Commission must be alert to what is happening and what can happen in regard to enlargement. I say to those in the European institutions who say they want to improve Europe to put it on a better footing and to ensure it is more economically viable and competitive, with less barriers to trade, that Europe has not done so badly over the past 50 years. It has come forward quite a bit and removed many obstacles. We have had, and I hope will continue to have, relative peace and economic stability in Europe, which had never before been achieved in European history for such a long period of time. That came about because of the foundations laid by the founding fathers.

Everyone now wants to improve Europe. Some member states have decided there should be reform of the European institutions. It is true they should become more efficient, however, the smaller countries should not become the victims of that efficiency. The danger is that that will be the case. There were serious signs of renationalisation in the previous Commission which will ultimately, if not checked, seriously affect this country's economy. I hope the new Commission will come into office quickly and will take control of those areas and address them urgently. If it does not do so problems will arise.

Some member states, notably the larger ones, have proposed a second tier of the European Parliament to ensure greater representation. Ironically, the numerical effect of that will be that the larger member states will have greater influence emanating from that second tier. That is sad, but it is the case.

The point raised by Deputy Quinn is important. It is in this country's interest to have a strong Commission that acts independently and is not immune to the views of member states or impervious to the representations made by them, but which is not the pawn of any one member state. The Commission must be fair and impartial. It remains to be seen whether the new Commission will achieve that. However, if it does not, Europe will not become the effective economic, social and political entity which it can be. That is the important aspect from our point of view.

As others have said, Europeans perceive Ireland at the moment as having done extremely well as a result of our membership of the EU. I remind them and the House that we also paid quite a high price for our membership. Prior to our membership of the EU we had the protection of tariffs and trade barriers, albeit trading with mostly one partner. We lost that for the motor assembly, tyre manufacturing, textile, clothing and boot and shoe industries. I have reminded our European colleagues of that on several occasions and at various meetings. They do not seem to know or understand that we initially paid a high price for our membership. It does not necessarily follow that we should have to pay a price again.

We should not apologise for being good Europeans and a constructive influence within Europe and for pointing out to our stronger and more powerful colleagues that they have also benefited to a large extent from membership of the Union. The gravy train runs not only in one direction. It is true that Ireland has received billions of pounds in supports over the years but other member states have derived huge economic benefit even though they might not want to recognise it.

With regard to the recent discussions on Structural Funds and Objective One status, it is not good for a Government to make a submission just for the laugh. I am not suggesting that is why it was done as I am sure there were other reasons, cogent or otherwise. However, if it goes down that road it puts Ireland in a position where it cannot be treated seriously. It is a dangerous way to go and diminishes our credibility on the international stage. We are good and constructive Europeans. Why should we become facile and decide for political purposes that this looks good and the people at home will love it? Others look at this and see what we are trying to do. If we do not treat European institutions seriously, they will not treat us in a similar manner, therefore, it is up to us if we want to be treated seriously. A great deal more could have been done to identify a mechanism through which funding could be channelled in future and it can still be done.

Our colleagues in France and Italy continually raise institutional reform which will ultimately lead to the abolition of the right of smaller member states to a Commissioner. I am sure Commissioners represent far flung regions within the Union equally but I would be happier if I were guaranteed that Ireland would still have a Commissioner in future. On many occasions it has been suggested that there cannot be 25 members in the Union. America comprises 50 states and it has no difficulty. The administrative problems involved have been faced before and, no doubt, will be again. Therefore, it is not true that the number of people around the boardroom table will be so large that they cannot administer. The excuse that the number of Commissioners must be reduced, thereby removing representation for smaller members, is not valid.

Of course, it should not be looked at on the basis that a Commissioner represents a country. He or she represents the Commission and is supposed to be totally independent in that role. Each country in the Union is supposed to be treated equally. Every manufacturer in the EU is supposed to gain equal access to all parts of the Union, without exception. For example, German, Italian and French motor manufacturers are entitled to distribute their products in all member states without interference, impediment, embargo or surcharge. Likewise, Ireland is entitled to export its products to all countries within the Union without impunity. That is how the EU and the Single Market is supposed to operate. When internal subsidisation or other mechanisms are introduced to assist business within the Union barriers are put up which are reminiscent of the old days.

The old days were not good for Ireland and it is essential that that is remembered at this juncture in EU institutional review. It is not long since Ireland first achieved a trade surplus and now it has a healthy surplus annually. However, that was not always the case and, consequently, our predecessors travelled the world in order to obtain employment and eke out an existence. That is the saddest reflection of the system that prevailed heretofore. However, it highlights the fact that our membership of the EU must be supported and continued.

Subsidiarity was trotted out in recent years and everybody wondered what it meant. It was mentioned a great deal during the referenda on the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties. Some member states saw it as a means whereby the people would have a greater affinity with the decisions taken at European level, have influence over them and identify with them. Smaller countries forgot that subsidiarity could also mean that the major powers would have an ever increasing influence within the Union on its policy. That is precisely what happened and Ireland should have been alert to that because smaller powers, economically, socially and politically, will always lose out in that battle.

Naturally, if the four big powers get together it is not to Ireland's advantage if they want and get something that is of common interest to them. They had all the power and influence in the old days and dictated what happened socially, politically and economically. They left a trail of disaster behind them for a long time. Therefore, they have nothing to teach the rest of us. However, the loss of sovereignty for smaller countries was minimal and they can say to their larger colleagues that in return for their loss of sovereignty and independence they have had peace for more than 50 years, which has been a very important ingredient in the evolution of the Union.

It is imperative that the new Commission is appointed quickly and addresses the tasks ahead knowing that for Europe to progress into the next millennium it is essential that it learns lessons from its evolution over the past 50 years. A caretaker Commission is not a realistic option. A new Commission must be appointed quickly and given its tasks so that it can carry them out. Ireland has had much to be grateful for in terms of the EU. It has made a major contribution to it and still has a great contribution to make. I totally reject the suggestion in some quarters that Ireland benefited from a gravy train to which it did not contribute. However, we need to treat European institutions seriously.

Minister for Education and Science (Mr. Martin)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann–

(a) notes the decision of the European Commission to resign in the light of the findings of the Committee of Independent Experts;

(b) notes the positive role played by the European Parliament in highlighting these issues and the fact that the Commission, in resigning, took political responsibility for the situation described in the experts' report;

(c) acknowledges the work of the Commission during its period in office, which contributed substantially to important strategic decisions of the European Union;

(d) notes the Government's work in promoting democratic reforms within the EU, in particular on the basis of the relevant provisions in the Treaty of Amsterdam;

(e) affirms that the European Union needs a strong Commission capable of taking action and of protecting the interests of smaller member states in particular;

(f) expresses its satisfaction that the European Council, meeting in Berlin, has nominated Romano Prodi to be the next Pres ident of the Commission, subject to confirmation by the European Parliament probably at its April session, in line with the procedures specified in the Treaty of Amsterdam;

(g) notes also that the President Designate will thereafter consult with the Governments of the member states with a view to the identification by common accord of the members of the new Commission which is to be confirmed as a body by the European Parliament after the June elections;

(h) notes, in this context, that the Irish Government will nominate to serve on that Commission a person of suitable qualifications who will be able to make a strong and valuable contribution to the development of the European Union.

I am speaking in place of my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs who are, as we all know, occupied elsewhere on vital national business in which I know the entire House wishes them well.

This is a very important week for Ireland in its relationship with the European Union; a relationship which has had a dramatic impact on our society and economy over the last three decades. Because of this ongoing impact, the standing and effectiveness of the Union's executive must be of grave concern to us. It is right that we should take a step back from the controversies that led to the unprecedented resignation of the entire Commission and reflect on each element of the future direction of the Commission, the balance of powers within the Union's institutions and our relations with the different institutions. In addition, the importance to Ireland of the effectiveness of our Commissioner is worthy of comment.

There is absolutely no doubt the Commission's resignation signifies an extremely significant development with long-term implications. It represents a landmark of accountability, the spirit of which must be responded to by each of the Union's institutions. For our part, through our representation in the Council and our involvement in the formation of the new Commission, we must do all we can to ensure the Commission continues to be a dynamic force for the betterment of Europe.

In this debate it is important that we fully set out the context for recent events and appreciate the various structural reforms which are already under way. This should not be a shallow points-scoring exercise; we need balance and reflection to inform our discussions.

The immediate reason for the resignation of the Commission of the European Communities in the early hours of 16 March is well known. Having seen the report of the Committee of Independent Experts regarding fraud, mismanagement and nepotism in the Commission, all 20 Commissioners resigned in light of the virtual certainty that the European Parliament would otherwise pass a censure motion under Article 144 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities, which would have obliged the members to resign as a body.

To pass such a censure motion would have required a two thirds majority of the votes cast in the Parliament. The size of the vote against the Commission in the Parliament on 14 January, when it narrowly avoided censure, left little doubt that this majority would have been present for a censure motion tabled after publication of the report of the so-called "Wise Men". In these circumstances, the President and the other members of the Commission resigned pre-emptively. As has been said previously by my colleagues, the Government respects that decision. A Declaration by the Council, issued on Monday, following discussion of the matter at the Conclave of Foreign Ministers, similarly "notes and respects" the Commission's decision. I will return later to other elements of that declaration because it encapsulates the approach of the Council, fully shared by the Irish Government, towards finding a way forward in this matter.

The deeper meaning of what has occurred has already generated a great deal of comment and forms the essential core of both the Labour Party's motion and the Government's amendment. The resignation of the Commission is an unprecedented event in the 40 year history of the European Union. In bringing it about, the European Parliament has made an important shift in the balance of accountability within the Union, both in its own favour and to the benefit of the Union as a whole.

The Council of Ministers, which until the Commission's resignation had remained at one remove from the dispute between the Commission and the Parliament, is fully engaged in the task of putting in place a strong Commission capable of taking action as needed. The Heads of State or Government of the member states, meeting today and tomorrow in Berlin, have shown themselves to be eager to retake the initiative while complying with the procedures specified in the Amsterdam Treaty.

As I have said, I believe this debate should be firmly grounded in the facts. Over the 40 year history of the Union, the Commission has grown to the point where it employs some 6,000 officials of 15 nationalities under the political control of a President and 19 other Commissioners. Under the current Treaty, the President has few powers over the Commissioners. The Santer Commission, ironically, is the first Commission which set out, under the President's direction, to modernise its own administration, in particular by improving organisation, personnel management and financial control and by introducing greater transparency in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Amsterdam Treaty. A major report on Commission reform, which has been under preparation for many months, is scheduled to be presented to the European Council in Cologne in June. President Santer saw it as the blueprint which he would bequeath to his successor. While acknowledging the serious issues which led to the Commission's resignation, it would be grossly unfair to ignore this work. Unfortunately for the Commission, the necessarily painstaking process of reform moved too slowly, particularly in the eyes of the European Parliament.

The directly elected members of the European Parliament face elections in June. A high level of participation in these elections would be good for the Parliament and the Union as a whole. As my party's director of elections for last year's referendum on the Treaty of Amsterdam, I have direct experience of the difficulty of capturing the interest of Irish voters for European affairs, critical as they are to the welfare of every one of us. I hope, for future referenda and elections, the other parties which also espouse a positive attitude towards our European experience will also run national campaigns in order, at very least, to respond to incessant misrepresentations and occasional conspiracy theories of Europe's determined opponents in this country.

MEPs of all 15 nationalities share the difficulty of mobilising voters to turn out in European elections. In this context, some issues are more potent than others. There is no doubt the Parliament's assertiveness in relation to the financial and administrative affairs of the Commission will have heightened the public's sense of the Parliament's role. I hope the forthcoming campaign will be used as an opportunity to focus on a more positive agenda.

The motion tabled by the Government acknowledges the key role played by the European Parliament in highlighting the issues on which the Committee of Independent Experts reported – namely fraud, mismanagement and nepotism in the Commission. The Government, however, does not share the somewhat simplistic view expressed in the Opposition motion that it automatically follows that the Parliament should, on this account, be given further and greater powers beyond those already to be provided, particularly in regard to the appointment and monitoring of the Commission. As I shall outline later, the powers of the Parliament are already to be significantly enhanced by the Treaty of Amsterdam and particular measures are included in relation to the appointment of the Commission.

I will place on record the mandate and the essential findings of the Committee of Independent Experts as this is essential to a sound assessment of subsequent events. The primary task of the committee, in accordance with its terms of reference, was to "seek to establish to what extent the Commission as a body or Commissioners individually bear specific responsibility for the recent examples of fraud, mismanagement and nepotism raised in Parliamentary discussion". The scope of the report which issued on 15 March is limited to this matter. The responsibility of the Commission services, as distinct from that of the Commission as a body and of specific Commissioners, will be addressed in a second report expected in May.

The committee examined six specific areas where fraud or mismanagement has been alleged, namely, tourism; Mediterranean programmes; the European Community Humanitarian Office; the vocational training programme (Leonardo da Vinci); the security office and nuclear safety. It also investigated allegations of favouritism by six Commissioners, specifically, Commissioners Cresson, Liikanen, Marin, Pinheiro, Santer and Wulf-Mathies. It did not find any instance of direct or personal involvement by a Commissioner in fraudulent activities. It found no proof that any Commissioner had gained financially from fraud or mismanagement. It did, however, find instances where the Commission as a whole bore responsibility for fraud or mismanagement.

With one qualification, the report does not find the individual Commissioners concerned with the six areas examined solely or even mainly responsible for mismanagement. It did find that one Commissioner failed to act in response to known and continuing irregularities over several years and failed to inform the President of the Commission and, through him, the Parliament of the problems relating to the Leonardo Da Vinci programme. The Commissioner involved was Commissioner Cresson.

While not accepting that inadequate resources excused the human resource problems identified, the report concluded that the Commission as a whole, or previous Commissioners, bear responsibility for not providing the resources needed to implement programmes properly in the six areas examined. Other management failings were identified such as failure to set priorities, to assess in advance the volume of resources required for new policies and to lay down in advance how new policies should be implemented. The report found control and audit mechanisms and procedures for investigating the responsibility of individual officials for irregularities inadequate.

The report found no justification for the allegations of favouritism against three of the six Commissioners about whom this allegation was investigated. It found that Commissioner Cresson bore responsibility for one instance of favouritism, that Commissioner Wulf-Mathies used an inappropriate procedure to recruit a person to her personal staff and that Commissioner Pinheiro should not have employed a close relation of his to work in his private office.

These findings, while undoubtedly serious, would not perhaps have precipitated the Commission's resignation were it not for the far graver finding of a failure by Commissioners to accept responsibility for what was happening in their areas. The committee observed that Commissioners pleaded that they were not aware of what was happening in their services. The report judged such protestations as "tantamount to an admission of loss of control by the political authorities over the Administration they are supposed to be running". More than any other element, the conclusion of the report concerning responsibility was felt by the Commission to have discredited it as a body and made it necessary for it to resign en masse.

In its declaration of 21 March which I touched on earlier, the Council considered that a new Commission should be appointed as rapidly as possible and in compliance with the procedures specified in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Council expressed its expectation that the Commission would remain in office until then as provided in the current treaty and that it would resolutely represent the interests of the European Union to the outside world as well. I need hardly say that the Government, like the Council of Ministers, attaches importance to the Commission's remaining operational role in dealing with the tasks immediately before us, especially Agenda 2000. As such, today's agreement on the nomination of Romano Prodi to serve as Commission President is very welcome.

The Council declaration goes on, without ignoring the criticism levelled by the European Parliament or the situation described in the report of the independent experts for which the Commission assumed political responsibility in resigning, to record its thanks to the Commission and its staff for its committed work in the interests of the European Union. The Government shares this sentiment. It should not be forgotten that the Santer Commission made a significant contribution to important strategic decisions of the European Union, inter alia, in relation to the euro, the future financing of the Union and enlargement.

This country has particular reason to be grateful to the Santer Commission for the support it gave to the peace process in Northern Ireland. Various parties in this House have formed relationships with some of the Commissioners who were directly affected by the committee's report and have been appreciative of their work.

The Council declaration affirms the Union's need for a strong Commission capable of taking action. It states – this is a very important element – that the Commission's democratic legitimacy will be strengthened by the increased involvement of the European Parliament as pro vided for in the Amsterdam Treaty. It observes, soberly, that under that treaty, the rule of openness and closeness to citizens applies to all institutions of the European Union. This includes the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament as well as the Commission which, at this point, is the institution undergoing scrutiny.

The question thus arises as to where we go from here. It is clear that none of the institutions of the Union, including the Parliament, would actually have wished to see developments unfold as they have. It does not serve the Union or the cause of European integration well to have an institution as central and valuable as the Commission weakened. Ireland has traditionally and rightly recognised that a strong and effective Commission is the engine of the Union and, as guardian of the treaties, the greatest guarantor of the interests of smaller member states. We have no interest in contributing to the arguments of sceptics who may relish the undoubted difficulty faced by the Union as a whole in the wake of these resignations. We are all involved; the European Council must make decisions in the coming weeks which are a full and effective response to the loss of confidence in the Commission, which are consistent with the letter and spirit of the Amsterdam Treaty and which set in motion a revitalisation of the Commission and its relationship with the Council and Parliament. With regard to these latter two points, the Government motion specifically refers to the forthcoming entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty. Though not the subject of significant public attention at the time of its ratification, the Amsterdam Treaty provides for a very significant input from the Parliament into the process of selecting a new Commission President and, through him or her, to the nomination of individual Commissioners.

Specifically, the new treaty contains provisions designed to strengthen the authority of the President of the Commission within the collegiate structure of the Commission. This will be done in three ways. First, the new treaty will amend the provisions under which the European Parliament is to be consulted before the Governments of the member states, by common accord, nominate a person to be President of the Commission. The new provision will require that "the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament". Since the nomination of the President of the Commission will have been specifically approved, not only by the member Governments but by a vote in the Parliament before the other members of the Commission are appointed, the effect of this provision should be to strengthen the political authority of the President vis-à-vis the other members. Second, the treaties provide that the Governments of the member states shall nominate the other members of the Commission “in consultation with the nominee for President”. This will be amended to read “by common accord with the nominee for President”. The college of Commissioners as a whole will remain subject, as at present, to approval by the Parliament. Third, the authority of the President of the Commission will also be strengthened by the addition of a new provision to Article 163 of the EC Treaty and equivalent articles in the other treaties. It will provide that “the Commission shall work under the political guidance of its President”.

These provisions are very significant steps in enhancing the democratic nature of the choice for Commission President, while preserving the concept of collective responsibility which is vital for an independent and effective Commission. The Government's amendment calls attention to the provisions of the new treaty which will be respected in the decisions to be made by the European Council.

I would like at this juncture to correct any misapprehension concerning the question of democratic control within the Union as a whole. The public does not greatly distinguish between the institutions of the Union, and a difficulty for one is a difficulty for all. It is, however, not the case that the Union is undemocratic and insensitive to the wishes of European citizens. The Commission has until now been appointed by the Council, which is made up of elected representatives who are directly connected to their electorates by virtue of mandates received in national elections. The addition of the role of Parliament, provided for by the new treaty, will add a dimension of democratic input which is valuable, but which does not alter the fact that democratic input has always been an important part of the institutional balance within and between Union institutions.

Member states are the implementing agencies for European legislation. There is an extent to which it is easy to use the catchphrase ‘democratic accountability' while ignoring the fact that national Parliaments and the executives which are accountable to them, have a very large degree of influence. We may have all failed in the task of linking with our electorate on these matters, but this will not be addressed by downgrading the significance of national Governments and Parliaments in the Union's decision-making procedures.

While it required the refurbishment which informed the Amsterdam Treaty, the current balance of powers between the institutions has served both Ireland and Europe well. For a small and peripheral state such as ours, being reduced to the level of a constituency rather than a member state with considerable rights to enable it to protect its own interests, would do us immense damage. We have seen in recent weeks how the strong and assertive position, which we have through the significance of the Council of Ministers, has played an absolutely central role in winning vital concessions for this country. Both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture and Food are accountable to our citizens and they have been able to ensure that the interests of our citizens are properly considered at the highest level when key decisions on the Union's future have been taken. It is highly unlikely that we could have achieved so much if the essential balance of powers and responsibilities now in place in the Union were overturned.

It is the task of all of us, Council, Commission, European and national parliaments to exercise and demonstrate that democratic link to what our citizens want. The European Commission plays a vital role as initiator of legislation and as the initial point of sifting through proposals to ensure consistency with the treaties, equity between member states' interests and feasible but compelling timetables for implementation. Our public life here in Ireland has been transformed as we have brought our legislation in almost every field of activity into line with European initiatives inspired, negotiated and implemented by an able and effective Commission. This is why the Government motion refers to a strong Commission; one which is capable of retaining its central role in the complex nexus which governs Europe. This is why, for example, we would see adequate resourcing of the Commission for the tasks which it is given as an appropriate longer-term response to the current criticisms, rather than an effort to reduce Commission activities or influence.

In parallel with this retention of the rightful central role of the Commission, there is an equally compelling need for the work toward reform which is already under way to be carried forward as well as early implementation of anti-fraud measures. The Commission was already in the process of re-casting itself for a different role in advance of enlargement. The Parliament has legitimately asserted its right of oversight in relation to the Commission. Such a right is a necessary counterweight to a strong institution. Such a right carries with it the responsibility to work with and not against the other principal guarantor of democratic control and responsibility, the Council of Ministers.

I know the Heads of State or Government will, at their meeting in Berlin, respond to the requirement for effective and clear action. I hope all the other institutions of the Union can then support this course of action with a view to restoring momentum and credibility to a new Commission which will have the task of implementing the decisions made under Agenda 2000.

It should be obvious to us all that the Commission has been a good friend of Ireland in many ways and that central to this has been the exceptional ability of the Commissioners whom we have nominated.

Mr. Ray MacSharry was a brave Commissioner who piloted through major reforms and won the hard-earned respect of leaders throughout the world. In this he also achieved major things for this country.

His successor Padraig Flynn has stood out for his many achievements as Commissioner in the demanding and diverse Social Affairs portfolio. He has been innovative and effective across the wide range of his responsibilities and has won the respect of most of those predisposed to receive him negatively when he was appointed. Pádraig Flynn has been the Commissioner with whom I have had the most dealings since my appointment and I acknowledge the pivotal role he has played in developing a large number of progressive policies and programmes. I have always found him to be completely on top of the issues and it is clear he commands great respect from his officials. Because of his work, major funding has come to this country to support initiatives directly targeted at helping disadvantaged groups particularly in the education sector. New education, training and employment opportunities have been opened up for marginalised groups. I have no doubt that many of these would not have been possible without the active support of Commissioner Padraig Flynn. He deserves our thanks for his work.

The quality of our Commissioner matters; we have established a reputation of nominating people of the highest calibre from any side of the House, who can make a major contribution to the development of the European Union. The Government is committed to ensuring we will protect and enhance this tradition through the appointment of the new Commissioner. Today's agreement by the Council to nominate Romano Prodi for confirmation as President of the Commission is the essential first step in this process. He will now be involved in confirmation proceedings of the Parliament. Once this is complete an agenda will be developed to address the many issues which have arisen and to consult with the national governments on the formation of the full, longer-term Commission. The Government will seek to appoint a person who can carry on and enhance the traditions of our representation on the Commission. I have no doubt we will be able to do so.

This has been a difficult time for the Commission and the Union as a whole, but it can emerge stronger and more effective. To do this, it must complete important reform already under way and comprehensively address the many structural weaknesses which have been identified. For our part, the Government will do all it can to help the Commission in this work and we will ensure the person nominated by us to the Commission will be capable of fully participating in the ongoing project of building a European Union which is both effective and accountable.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Cecilia Keaveney.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Cecilia Keaveney

I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this motion on the European Commission and to welcome the news that Romano Prodi has been selected to be the next President of the Commission, subject to confirmation by the European Parliament in April along the lines specified in the Treaty of Amsterdam. This resignation of all the Commissioners on 16 March was unprecedented in the 40 years of the Union's history.

It is a landmark in terms of accountability. In the longer term it will lead to an even more dynamic Commission and I have no doubt Ireland will play its role in the formation of the new Commission. It is important to note there was nothing for or against our Commissioner. His role in the ban on smoking advertisements has been extremely important. This is a matter which members of the Committee on Health and Children have examined for some time. It is generally agreed that his role in Europe has been extremely significant in this matter.

This is a difficult juncture during which important negotiations are ongoing. All Members will wish the Taoiseach, the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister for Foreign Affairs every success in the negotiations in which they are involved.

Coming from County Donegal I am aware of the importance of the Cohesion and Structural Funds. I understand the important work done by the Minister for Agriculture and Food in recent weeks and congratulate him on his significant input to the negotiations and the result achieved. Often people in Ireland do not realise the important role of the Commission and the different aspects of the Council in our day to day lives, especially in agriculture. It is important that everyone is made aware of the role of Europe given its significant impact. It also provides £4 for every £1 contributed by us. I hope there will be a successful outcome to the negotiations this time round and that the drop in funds will not be as great as feared. We in County Donegal are hoping to retain Objective One status. I am confident the Taoiseach and his team will make every effort to ensure we get the maximum amount of funding to pursue the various infrastructural developments still outstanding.

Given the forthcoming European elections it is important to stress the role of Europe. The resignation of the Commissioners has brought the whole issue into the public domain and has put Europe on a bigger stage than in the past. The Opposition motion is bringing Europe to the fore and highlighting the existence of a structure which is not recognised for its importance in the daily lives of the public. I look forward to the reinstatement of a strong Commission, which will be of benefit to Ireland. I am aware of the benefits that come from our involvement with Europe. I wish the President designate Romano Prodi and the incoming Commissioners every success.

Mr. M. Higgins

I join others in congratulating Romano Prodi, the former Italian Prime Minister, and wish him well in the task to be carried out.

In the short time available I will comment on one aspect of the Minister's speech which was extraordinarily conservative. The Minister said:

I would like at this juncture to correct any misapprehension concerning the question of democratic control within the Union as a whole. It is a fact that the public does not greatly distinguish between the institutions of the Union, and a difficulty for one is a difficulty for all. It is, however, not the case that the Union is undemocratic and insensitive to the wishes of European citizens.

Unfortunately, such a distinguished person as Jacques Delors did not seem to share the Minister's opinion and stressed in one of his last significant speeches before ceasing to be President of the Commission that the greatest agenda was the building of a Europe of the citizens. He was quite critical of the manner in which Europe had not been able to forge stronger links with the European citizenry.

I find very strange the Minister's reference to the fact that "there is an extent to which it is easy to use the catchphrase ‘democratic accountability"'. The Minister's scriptwriters might want to put the term "democratic accountability" in inverted commas, but it is something which should not be highlighted for derision nor described as a catchphrase. Democratic accountability is what will decide whether Europe in future is involved, participatory, vibrant and makes the very significant and necessary step from an economic Union to a Union of European citizens.

There are many other points I could make but I wish to concentrate on this issue. Very few people on examining parliaments in Europe would agree with the point made by the Minister. The assumption that everything is fine in terms of democracy in Europe is dangerous. In every European country there has been a loss of power to parliament and from the realm of public accountability. In the past ten years in Britain a huge range of bodies have been established which are not accountable to parliament. There is a conduit between these and people in the public service so that amendment to legislation is less likely to take place in Parliament than to be the outcome of a consensus forged by a new union which is not accountable to Parliament or, practically, anybody else. It has resulted in what political scientists call incrementalism in politics at the cost of parliamentary accountability. One could go through all the Parliaments in Europe and find a similar situation. Therefore, it is very significant that the European Parliament has, exceptionally, been able to focus its attention on one of the other pillars of the EU. A benign outcome to what is happening would be the movement of accountability towards the Parliament.

The suggestion is that we should be happy with the formal illusion rather than the practice of power. What is important in a democracy is who frames the proposals as much as who finally assents to them. If the framing is outside democratic accountability, one does not have democracy. Viewing the exchange of bureaucratic privilege from national bureaucratic privileged elites to a new bureaucratic elite in Europe as a substitute for the citizens of Europe being able to look towards institutions in which they can have courage is very dangerous and conservative.

The moment must be seized so that we move on from this achievement by the Parliament. It is important that the process of reform through the institutions of the Commission be completed so that there is no longer a shadow of suspicion in terms of practice. It is also very important that, in the context of the relationship between the Commission, the Council and the Parliament, we do not have a grudging assent, as there was in the Minister's speech, to what was included in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Minister was director of elections at the time the Treaty of Amsterdam was put to the people. It was a product of Europe at a particular political moment. The citizens of Europe want to see, through the tiny window provided in the treaty, the creation of a Europe of citizens.

In the context of the congratulations given to the different Commissioners, I contrast the enthusiasm with which deregulation was ravaged across Europe in an un-thought out way with the total inactivity in relation to the concentration of ownership in one area of industry or the media, etc.

Our faith is in the people who vote and ensure accountability. They have been able to achieve a scrutiny, which is a good result, and we want the task to be completed. We wish success to Romano Prodi and the citizens of Europe who in the elections will demand a Europe of the citizens.

Proinsias De Rossa

Regarding the comments made by the Minister for Education and Science about Padraig Flynn, nobody on this side of the House has ever criticised the Commissioner for the job he did in Europe. The previous Government reappointed him at the end of his first term. My experience of him as a Commissioner during the EU Presidency was first class. We have no problem in acknowledging his record as a social reforming Commissioner.

Commissioner Flynn's problems are of his own making. They were not created by the Labour Party or Fine Gael, but by himself and unfortunately he must pay the price for mistakes he has made. We all must pay the price for mistakes we have made regardless of how good a job we have done in the past or are capable of doing in the future.

The resignation of the President and the entire membership of the European Commission last week was probably the most dramatic event in the history of the institutions of the European Union since the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957. It has raised very serious questions about accountability at the highest levels in the Union, about the relationship between the democratically elected institutions such as the Parliament and the non-elected Commission, and about the future direction of the Union.

Even if it was traumatic for those members of the Commission who have resigned their positions, including Commissioners who were not accused of wrong doing, last week's events have, at least, generated the beginning of a much needed debate on these matters. In the short-term important decisions will have to be made on how to deal with the immediate crisis facing the EU at the Berlin summit this week and at the special summit to be held in Brussels in a few weeks time, but there are also longer term issues that will have to be faced and dealt with if the EU is to develop, as I hope it will, into a genuine Union of citizens and peoples. If this is to happen there is an urgent need to reform the institutions and processes of the EU and ensure there is an adequate democratic basis to the way in which the EU is structured.

The resignation of the Commission was an essential first step to restore confidence in European institutions and the integration project. In many respects it was a laudable and courageous decision, bearing in mind that no Commissioner was found to have profited personally or found to have engaged in deliberate fraud and that only one, Mme. Cresson, was found guilty of corruption by favouritism.

The lack of responsibility identified in the report of the expert group increases the concerns that are held right across Europe in regard to allegations of fraud and financial mismanagement in EU-funded areas, of which we have had our own experience in regard to agriculture. We should not forget that 80 per cent of all fraud involving EU spending occurs in areas directly under the responsibility of national Governments.

Having said that, it is absolutely right that the political authority which failed to tackle the instances of corruption identified in the report and which happened on their watch should accept political responsibility and its consequences. It marks a step forward for European democracy and accountability.

If some of the more naive members of the Commission thought they were merely going through the motions and that the Commission would be re-appointed in its entirety, they were very much mistaken. It is clear that, when the matter first emerged, some Commissioners failed to appreciate the seriousness of the situation or the seriousness with which the members of the Parliament and a number of member Governments viewed the matter.

It is clear President Santer in his initial comments and in the press conference he gave on 16 March failed to understand his responsibility in the matter. Yet it is President Santer who must accept overall responsibility for the shortcomings found by the group of experts, especially for their most damning finding that:

It is becoming difficult to find anyone who has even the slightest sense of responsibility. However, that sense of responsibility is essential. It must be demonstrated first and foremost by the Commissioners individually and the Commission as a body. That concept is the ultimate manifestation of democracy.

Had President Santer taken more seriously the concerns expressed by the Parliament last year, when evidence became available of a loss of financial control by the Commission over some large aid projects, the mass resignation of the Commission might have been avoided. He did not do so and attempted to continue as if nothing had happened or would happen.

However, we should not fall into the trap of allowing the problems which have arisen to be used as an excuse for an all-out assault on the European Union from those who are opposed to the European project. Europhobes in Britain and our own home-grown variety, who have never accepted the verdict of the Irish people in successive referenda dating back to 1972, have been quick to latch onto these problems in an attempt to turn back the clock. We must not allow them to do so.

One statement of Jacques Santer's with which I agree is: "We must use this crisis as a catalyst for deep and lasting reform in all the European institutions". It was a theme taken up by Mr. Tony Blair who told the House of Commons that: "The appointment of a new President and Commission should be the opportunity to push through root and branch reform of the Commission, its mandate and its method of operation."

There is clearly a mood for change and reform throughout Europe, and it is essential that this be channelled in a positive direction. However, we have yet to hear from the Irish Government what its position is on such reforms. Vital decisions have to be made but the Government seems content to sit on the sidelines and allow others, especially the larger member states, to dictate the course of events. The motion tabled by the Labour Party is an attempt to open up a real debate in the Dáil and propel the Government into taking a more proactive approach. The weak and anaemic amendment to our motion tabled by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats suggests the Government is content to remain a bystander in this debate.

As a country of more than 25 years' standing in the EU and one which has held the Presidency with distinction under various Governments of different political hues, we should be taking a leadership position, trying to influence the nature of the debate and further the course of events. There are other countries in the EU with which we share common interests and we should be attempting to forge alliances with these. The interests and needs of the smaller countries do not always coincide with those of the larger member states. It is in the interests of the smaller countries that there should be a strong Commission, but one that is democratically accountable. The weak Presidency of the outgoing Commission was largely as a result of efforts of larger countries like the UK, especially under the leadership of the then Tory Government, which saw the former strong and decisive Commission under Jacques Delors as a threat or a rival to the power of the Council of Ministers.

The primary lesson to be learned from this affair is that the powers of democratic institutions of the EU, particularly the Parliament, must be further strengthened and the operation of non-elected bodies like the Commission made more transparent and accountable to the Parliament. The Amsterdam Treaty, which has been ratified by all countries and which will come into effect in the next few months, will provide some greater power, notably the requirement that the Parliament must consent to the appointment of the President of the Commission. However, we must go further. One simple reform which could be made is to amend the treaties to allow individual Commissioners to be removed from office for wrongdoing. It is not satisfactory that the only option open to the Parliament should be to remove the entire Commission, even where it is clear that Commissioners generally had been carrying out responsibilities conscientiously and were guilty of no wrongdoing.

A potentially positive outcome of this saga has been the coming of age of the European Parliament, which has unequivocally established itself as an effective watchdog which finally showed it has teeth. It must be allowed to go on to show it can call all the institutions to account and that it is capable of defending the citizens' interests on heavyweight policy issues in future which will require greater focus and stamina. It shows that the membership of the European Parliament is important and that it is in the interests of Irish citizens and citizens of every European state to cast their vote in the elections in June and influence the political composition of the next Parliament.

The European Civil Service, like the civil service at member state level, is a vital component of an effective democracy. It must above all be trusted to take decisions in the interest of the citizens and those decisions must be accepted as such, even when they are otherwise unpopular. For some years it has been evident that the Commission has been fighting off the back foot, suffering from low morale among ordinary staff and with no clear picture of the way forward. Whatever the cause of this malaise – it cannot have been helped by the attitudes and practices at senior administrative and political levels which led to political horsetrading over senior posts and contracts – it must be reversed if Europe is to have the quality, independent civil service that it needs. The current upheaval offers the opportunity for the new regime to start that process.

What must be done now? The Berlin summit has certainly acted quickly and decisively to nominate a new President of the Commission. In Romano Prodi we have selected a candidate of real substance and a committed European with a proven track record of political achievement in his own country. In the exceptional circumstances that followed the resignation of Jacques Santer, it was clearly necessary for the Heads of Government to act quickly to fill the vacuum, but in the long term we need to look at new procedures for the appointment of the President of the Commission. I hope that the new powers given to the Parliament for approving the nomination of the President will be followed for Mr. Prodi, even if they are not yet legally in force.

It is not desirable that Europe should be presented with a fait accompli from behind closed doors. There should be general consultation and discussion with the various institutions before a candidate is put forward for approval. The European Parliament and other institutions such as EcoSoc and the Committee of the Regions should be invited to express a general opinion prior to a final nomination being made. Members of the Commission should be appointed on a similar basis with member states clearly forewarned that, where individual nominees are found unacceptable by the European Parliament, the entire Commission could be rejected. The incoming President should be required to draw up a reform programme, taking account of what has already been stated by the other institutions, which would be set before the European Parliament for consideration at the time of his or her ratification in late 1999.

In all the circumstances, the Labour Party believes it would be inappropriate for Padraig Flynn to be nominated for reappointment to the Commission, given that he has continually declined to make a statement on the serious allegations made against him by Mr. Tom Gilmartin, or reply to the questions that have been posed to him in a number of Dáil debates, even though he has not been precluded from doing so by the tribunal. Fianna Fáil has now belatedly decided to ditch Mr. Flynn, and it is interesting that decision was announced in Berlin and not in the House. The next Irish Commissioner will serve through a vital period for the European Union during which the challenge of enlargement will have to be faced. It is vital that whoever is nominated is a figure of political substance and political and administrative experience who is capable of securing a significant portfolio. If a candidate of little standing or political experience is nominated, he or she is likely to end up with a nominal portfolio.

It is vital for Ireland and Europe's citizens that there should emerge out of this mess a reformed but politically strengthened Commission capable of discharging its responsibilities as guardian of the treaties and de facto defender of the interests of the smaller member states. At the weekend summit and thereafter we should strenuously resist the emerging efforts of some member states to use this as an opportunity to trim the Commission's powers in the name of so-called subsidiarity. It is by now generally recognised that the root of most if not all irregularities identified by the committee of experts was the failure to provide the Commission with the resources, especially personnel, needed to carry out its allotted tasks. This led to the inevitable necessity to cut administrative corners to get the job done, as in the ECHO programme of crisis aid for the Third World, and the wholesale transfer to outside consultants of the control and execution of Community programmes, as in the Leonardo programme for education and training.

Given what is emerging daily in Dublin Castle we should be the last to be surprised that not everything around such a honey pot smells of roses. The Council and the Parliament have responsibility for creating this situation in an institution with responsibility for a budget of about £63 billion Irish pounds, about five times Irish current expenditure, with less than half the numbers employed in our own Civil Service.

There can be little doubt that the European Commission and the cause of European integration has been injured by the recent events. It could have been much worse. The committee of experts' report might have been a whitewash. I have every confidence that Europe will recover and that, in time, these months will be regarded as a watershed on the road to a stronger, more transparent and democratic Europe. This will only be achieved if the other component institutions, the Parliament, Council and member state Governments, recognise that they were complacent about what was allowed to develop and that some of them have even more need to put their own house in order.

Amendment put.

Tá

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.

Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V.

Níl

Ahearn, Theresa.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.D'Arcy, Michael.De Rossa, Proinsias.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard.Farrelly, John.Ferris, Michael.Finucane, Michael.Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gregory, Tony.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.McCormack, Pádraic.

McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.