Jan O'Sullivan
Question:8 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made to date by the Intergovernmental Conference; and when the process is expected to be concluded. [16845/00]
Other Questions. - IGC Agenda.
The Intergovernmental Conference began in February of this year with a meeting of Foreign Ministers and is due to conclude at the Nice European Council in December. The conference has held five meetings to date at ministerial level, while the preparatory group of personal representatives, on which Ireland is represented by Noel Dorr, has met on a further nine occasions.
The agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference chiefly comprises those items left unresolved from the negotiation of the Amsterdam Treaty, namely the size and composition of the Commission, the re-weighting of votes in Council, the possible extension of qualified majority voting and changes to the institutions necessitated by enlargement. The aim of the Intergovernmental Conference is to ensure that the EU and its insti tutions can continue to work effectively following enlargement.
Ireland's objective for the conference is to prepare the EU for enlargement, while maintaining the carefully constructed balances and relationships between the Institutions and the member states which underpin the EU. We, therefore, attach particular priority to maintaining the right of each member state to nominate a full member of the Commission. This is an important element in enhancing the democratic legitimacy of the EU in the eyes of its citizens. I am encouraged by the level of support for this principle among our partners. However, as with all other issues, the question will not be resolved finally until negotiations are concluded.
While we do not believe a re-weighting of Council votes is entirely necessary, we could agree to some modest change provided the reform package as a whole is satisfactory, particularly with regard to the Commission. The conference has considered various re-weighting schemes but the discussion remains very much at a preliminary stage.
We are taking a constructive attitude to the possible extension of QMV, while insisting that in certain areas, such as taxation, the retention of unanimity is appropriate. Given the range of national positions, it is fair to say there are relatively few articles for which there is universal support for a move from unanimity. However, it remains likely that the final outcome will see a further increase in the already large number of articles governed by qualified majority voting.
The Feira European Council later this month will decide on possible additions to the original Intergovernmental Conference agenda. One item likely to be included is flexibility or closer co-operation. The conference is likely to be asked to ease the rules governing the use of closer co-operation, perhaps by removing the veto provision, or by permitting fewer than half the EU's total membership to participate in some future arrangement. While not opposed to flexibility in principle, we will wish to be reassured that any provision for increased use does not undermine the principles and practices on which the EU is constructed.
Other issues considered thus far at the Intergovernmental Conference include reform of the Court of Justice and changes to the European Parliament, the Court of Auditors and the Committee of the Regions. In all these areas, we are seeking to maintain the essential balances which underpin these institutions. I will continue to seek to ensure that the eventual outcome takes account of our national concerns, while contributing to the effective functioning of an enlarged EU.
The Irish Times correspondent reported on what was described as a depleted meeting with many Ministers attending the funeral of President Assad. The correspondent suggested the Intergovernmental Conference's agenda had been extended. On what areas does the Minister see the alleged new groupings concentrating? If there was an opportunity to extend the agenda, what proposals does the Department have for resurrecting the old Santer proposal for expanding European citizenship, consciousness in Europe or the even older, long-neglected area of European culture?
In Luxembourg this week, the GAC was basically approving the Presidency text for consideration by the Heads of State at the European Council next week. It is fair to say that, given the considerable discussion which has taken place on flexibility, this is an issue which will be added to the Intergovernmental Conference's agenda.
The French Foreign Minister, Mr. Vedrine, will take over the Presidency after the Portuguese term and has indicated he is in favour of a restrictive agenda. The French are anxious to ensure the Intergovernmental Conference has a successful outcome at Nice, the best guarantee of which is to restrict the agenda to the Amsterdam leftovers, which can be easily listed but not so easily resolved. Together with the idea of an enhanced co-operation mechanism, this will form the basis of the discussions.
The Council will also hold a discussion with Mr. Herzog on progress on the idea of a charter of fundamental rights which is currently under discussion by a technical group on which some members sit. It seems that a political declaration is favoured rather than a legal basis being given to those rights which would have major treaty amendment implications. However, this is a matter for discussion by the Heads of State. Mr. Herzog will take on board the views of the Heads of State in determining how this issue will progress over the coming six months. However, I do not expect the matter to be concluded before the Nice summit.
If that is the case it would mean the rights issue would have retreated to the area of being somewhat rhetorical rather than legal. At the same time, flexibility is being sought on unspecified areas. For what is the flexibility being sought among groups who would be less than full members of the EU?
We are running out of time on this question.
The discussion has to move from the conceptual to the pragmatic and this is what the next six months will be about. I am interested in what new areas of competencies the enhanced co-operation mechanism will involve and for what purpose. It must be remembered that we already have an enhanced co-operation mechanism under existing EU treaties, Article 43 of the general provisions and Article 11 of the First Pillar.
The important point is that this can only be triggered on the basis of a Commission initiative and must have a QMV vote to proceed. The discussions concern whether we amend the requirement for a majority of states to trigger the mechanism and whether a member state should have the right to appeal to the Council if it feels its national interests are affected.
I am more of a pragmatist than a visionary and I am reassured by Mr. Vedrine's suggestion that there is no question of unravelling existing Community-wide practices. In other words, what has been achieved on a committee basis will not be compromised by the proposed changes. Therefore, the concerns expressed by member states need to be addressed in that context.
May I ask a question, a Cheann Comhairle?
We are well over the time limit. The Chair has no discretion on this matter.