JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Friday, 29 Nov 2002

Vol. 1 No. 4

Convention on the Future of Europe: Presentation.

Chairman

Today the committee turns to one of the most important areas of our work, the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is rapidly approaching its proposing phase. It is essential that the Oireachtas and its convention representatives work closely together and this is our first substantive discussion with the delegates. We cannot cover the entire range of the convention's work today, but we can make a good start and lay the groundwork for future discussions. As members of the committee will be aware, there are ten convention working groups, each of which reports to the plenary. Six working groups have already finalised their reports and they are the groups working on subsidiarity, legal personality, national parliaments, fundamental rights, complementary competences and economic governance. The remaining four groups - defence, external action, simplification and the working group chaired by Deputy John Bruton on freedom, security and justice - have yet to complete their work.

After today's general discussion, I propose to return to each of these areas to discuss them in more detail in the coming weeks. I suggest that in three meetings over January and February we deal with all ten issues grouped together as follows for the purposes of discussion. The first meeting will deal with national parliaments, subsidiarity and complementary competences, which appear to sit together, the second with external relations, defence and legal personality, also an inter-related group, and the third with freedom, security and justice, fundamental rights, simplification and economic governance.

I understand that a further working group on a social Europe will be established at the next plenary session. Once that is up and running we can consider how best to fit it into our work programme. Ideally we should devote a meeting to each of these areas but as time is against us we need to sort out dates quickly, with a view to having as many delegates as possible here for each meeting. It has proven very difficult to do that, which is why we are having a meeting on Friday. I know that presents difficulties for members outside Dublin. Tying up diaries is a nightmare, particularly when members are outside Dublin midweek at the convention. At the very least, we hope to have the presence of those in the working groups dealing with the specific issues under discussion at each meeting.

I invite each of the delegates to make a presentation of up to five minutes or so, on their view of the work of the convention with particular reference to the working groups they have chosen to follow. Delegates might also wish to comment on where they believe the convention is headed in the coming months and how far it will go towards a new treaty before the intergovernmental conference is convened. That is an issue which is currently receiving some public comment. We will then open the floor to a more general discussion and to questions and answers. I invite the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, to make his contribution.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Roche)

I mentioned to the Chairman several times that I was very anxious to meet with the committee. I hold a similar belief to its members in regard to the fundamental importance of the convention which is focused on the future of Europe. We are a part of Europe and it is critically important that the Houses of the Oireachtas be involved in the process. I am grateful to the Chairman and the committee to have this opportunity today.

The convention's work is gathering pace and things are beginning to take shape. It is more important than ever that here in the Oireachtas, and elsewhere in Ireland, we have the fullest possible discussion of the issues involved. I pay tribute to the work of the other Irish representatives here today. Given the extensive range of issues covered by the work of the convention, it is important that Irish views be represented whenever and wherever they can. I wish to record my gratitude to Ray MacSharry who was my predecessor on the convention as the Irish Government representative and Mr. Bobby McDonagh of the Department of Foreign Affairs, my alternate, who has put huge energy into the convention.

I was appointed seven weeks ago to the convention and the pace of what has taken place in that time is extraordinary. This may be something Deputy John Bruton will refer to in his contribution later. The convention is made up of a heterogeneous group of people. I am not suggesting that my advent onto the stage gave countries like France and Germany the nod, but there is now a more political focus. I pay special tribute to Deputies John Bruton, Carey, Gormley and to Proinsias de Rossa, MEP, who represent the Oireachtas on the convention. In particular, I wish to highlight the role that Deputy John Bruton has played as a member of the praesidium. I think we all agree that we have a shared interest in advancing Ireland's case together and we are, therefore, seeking to work together to the greatest extent possible.

From outside, the convention may appear an unusual creature. It is large, with a plenary of 105 members and 102 alternates. It breaks into working groups, but those are not necessarily representative of all viewpoints or, indeed, of all member states. The working group reports are then debated in plenary but, given the size of the gathering, individual interventions are necessarily short. The most extraordinary element of the convention is just how open it is. It is in complete and absolute contrast to the way all of the other treaties have been reached, which have all been formulated out of sight, as we know from the negotiations on the Nice treaty. The convention not only meets in public, but its documents are fully available on the Internet. This degree of openness is very welcome. The chairman of the forum, Senator Hayes, compared the current pace of the convention to a TGV as opposed to a steam train. It is an interesting analogy, as progress is coming down the tracks at a pace of knots. We need to be careful, focused and positive about it.

The convention is a matter of the highest priority for the Government and one with which we are engaging very closely. It is one of very few issues discussed at the special meeting of the Cabinet on 16 November. The Cabinet sub-committee on European affairs is giving it detailed consideration at its fortnightly meetings. I am chairing a convention overview group which meets weekly, drawing together the senior officials from the various key Departments and highlighting issues coming up in the short, medium and longer term to ensure that we are fully prepared.

The Department of Foreign Affairs chairs a wider interdepartmental group which ensures that all relevant departments are kept fully in the loop. It is important that our approach is both focused and co-ordinated. There has been a complete re-orientation of the institutional arrangements for keeping up with EU affairs and linking into the convention, particularly since the ratification of the second referendum on the Treaty of Nice.

As I have said, one of the key features of the convention is the amount of networking and contact that takes place outside the formal meetings. This is an area in which we have been particularly active. We meet regularly with representatives of other countries, in groups, where appropriate, or bilaterally. In the past week or so, we have met on convention issues with the Finns, the Estonians, the British and the Swedes. This is where a lot of important work is done and the pattern of meetings will clearly intensify as the work of the convention proceeds. I appreciate that for those not involved in the work of the convention on a day-to-day basis, it is sometimes difficult to keep an eye on all that is going on. That is why the work of this committee is so critically important, not just in informing the Oireachtas but, hopefully, in informing the general public, if the committee gets the type of press and public attention that it deserves. Six of the working groups have now finalised their work and the remaining four have either just concluded or are close to doing so. Next week a new group on social affairs will be constituted.

Late last evening the working group on simplification, on which I serve, completed its work. The working group on subsidiarity has examined how this important principle can be more effectively monitored and applied. It recommended that national parliaments be given the right to send an early warning to the Commission that a particular proposal did not comply with subsidiarity requirements. The group's work has been very close to another group, that on national parliaments. The latter group also stressed the role national parliaments have to play in effective scrutiny of EU business. In this regard, the arrangements we now have in place are among the best in Europe - and I pay tribute to the members of the committee who are working the new arrangements. This group has also brought forward the simple yet useful proposal that there should be a week during which parliaments across the EU would simultaneously debate European issues. That is an interesting suggestion that would bring the peoples of Europe together.

The working group on a charter of fundamental rights is dealing with a very sensitive area. Bobby McDonagh was a member of this group and did important and productive work in proposing amendments to the charter's so-called horizontal provisions, which would delimit its scope and application with greater certainty. As members of the committee will be aware, there are complex and delicate issues involved which merit the closest and most careful consideration. If the charter is to be made legally binding, as many at the convention propose, it is vital that we have teased out fully all of the possible constitutional implications involved before any decisions are taken. There are diverse views in the convention as to how the charter arrangements will link into the treaty.

Another working group deals with the issue of legal personality. On the surface it appears to be a very prosaic activity. The work here is technical and may appear to be dry, but what this group has been talking about is fusing the personality of the Union and the Community. That fusion is very important if we are to prepare the type of single treaty outlining Europe's position on key issues. This is a very important dimension to the work of the convention. There is a need for a single comprehensive treaty that is accessible to citizens and allows them to fully understand the process.

Another working group examined the question of complementary competences. I am pleased to report it has now been renamed "supporting measures", a much more understandable title. Complementary competences exist in areas where the Union does not have competence, but can only act in support of the member states, hence the new title. It covers areas - including education, culture and public health - that are properly matters for member states. The group proposed greater definition of the various types of competences that exist in the Union framework.

The working group on economic governance has attracted more than its fair share of attention. I compliment Mr. Ray MacSharry and, subsequently, Deputy Carey, on the valiant work they have done in representing Ireland's interests in this group. The Government was not unduly surprised when the working group tasked with examining this area failed to reach an agreed outcome on many of the issues it tackled. In plenary session, it was said the group, of which Deputies John Bruton and Pat Carey were members, faced a truly impossible task. Some in the group proposed extension of the use of QMV in the area of taxation; our firm view that unanimity should continue to apply was shared by other states. Interestingly, the view was more widely shared in bilateral meetings than in plenary session.

On monetary policy, the group supported the current breakdown in competence between the Union and member states. However, there was further division on the question of whether the Commission should be given a strengthened role in oversight of the broad economic policy guidelines and stability and growth pact. In both of these areas, the Government believes the current arrangements get the balance right.

The external action working group, of which Mr. Bobby McDonagh is a member, was asked to consider ways in which to improve the coherence, efficiency and visibility of the Union's external relations, including its development programme, external trade policy and the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Mr. John Cushnahan MEP also serves on this committee and has made some distinguished contributions. Discussion in the group has focused on institutional arrangements in the area of external action and practical measures which can be taken to enhance the Union's role on the world stage in support of its agreed principles and objectives.

Issues relating to defence have been discussed in a separate defence working group. Ireland is represented on the committee by Mr. Proinsias De Rossa,MEP and Mr. John Cushnahan MEP. The Government is committed to strong and coherent external relations for the Union, including in the CFSP, and has played an active role in this group. We need to find ways in which we can bring about greater coherence in our efforts, while maintaining the role and voice of member states.

The defence working group was asked to consider the Union's role in the field of security and defence and, in particular, whether there is support for developing this role beyond the arrangements agreed at Amsterdam. The Government is not represented on this group, although Deputy Gormley and Mr. Proinsias De Rossa are both parliamentary members. Discussion in the group has focused on issues such as the Union's ability to realise its objectives in the crisis management area and the scope of the treaty definition of Petersberg Tasks. The group's chairman, Mr. Michel Barnier, the French Regional Affairs Commissioner, has brought forward a preliminary draft report. The draft remains under discussion and is nearing completion.

The simplification working group, of which I am a member, completed its work yesterday and its final report will be issued shortly. The group was looking at ways in which the number of different instruments could be reduced and perhaps renamed so that they will become more accessible and comprehensible to citizens. The group recommended that the number of instruments be reduced from 15 to five, with the two main instruments - regulations and directives - being re-named "European laws" and "European framework laws". I was not enthusiastic about simply changing names, but that was the decision taken. The group also considered ways in which procedures could be simplified. I submitted to the meeting yesterday that the group should go further in examining ways to improve the relationship between citizens and the European Union. We in Ireland can speak with some authority on that because we are conscious of the relationship between the citizen and the Union.

Issues that have yet to be addressed, such as the institutions, will come more to the fore. In approaching these questions Ireland will operate from a pragmatic, rather than dogmatic, position. The balance between the institutions - the Commission, the Council, the Parliament - has been one of the Union's strengths. The current balance is right from the viewpoint of smaller member states. While we would support measures to make them more effective and to prepare them for the challenges of a very much enlarged Union, we share the widespread view at the convention that any changes agreed should not upset these important balances. The Government will continue to approach the convention in a positive and constructive manner and it recognises the vital need for reform if the European Union is to rise to the challenges ahead.

Ultimately, the Intergovernmental Conference will make the final decisions on the content of the next treaty but the convention will play a formidable role in forming the Intergovernmental Conference agenda. The exact timing of the Intergovernmental Conference is not yet certain. We have proposed a period of reflection between the end of the convention, in June or July 2003, and the Intergovernmental Conference, and this view was shared by many at the convention. We strongly support the view that the new member states must be in a position to play a full role in the Intergovernmental Conference, but there are different views in the convention on this. I feel this is a critically important principle and I cannot believe the work will be done well if we donot have participation, with full rights, of all states.

We should bear in mind and not lose sight of the fact that the Union has been an overwhelming success. In moving forward, we should take great care to protect the institutional balances and the broad policy mix that has served the people of Europe well. I am sure my colleagues here will confirm that there is wide support for this view across the convention.

I look forward to participating fully and actively in the convention's work. I thank the Chairman and the committee for facilitating a closer relationship between the convention and the Oireachtas. I look forward to the meetings he has proposed and feel they will be very helpful.

Deputy J. Bruton

It is important that we be in a position to attend each of the three meetings the committee plans to hold. Although some of us are on certain specialist committees, all of us will be concerned with the issues because a consensus will have to be forged between all members of the convention. The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, welcomed the idea of an "EU week" in all national parliaments. This idea emanated from this committee and was adopted by the working group on national parliaments, thus demonstrating the direct relationship between the work of this committee and the convention.

I prepared a document which has been circulated to members. I will not take up the time of the committee by going through it in detail, because it is too long. However, I pointed out in the document that this convention is in some ways self-consciously modelled on the 1787 Philadelphia Convention that founded the United States. While this comparison may appear somewhat esoteric, it is quite helpful in terms of understanding the difficulties we face. Like the members of the Philadelphia Convention, we in Brussels do not know the size of the entity for which we are preparing a treaty. For example, will the Union ultimately include the Ukraine, Russia or Turkey? These are questions that are still being debated. We are designing a house but we do not quite know the number of inhabitants it will ultimately hold. This challenge was also faced by the Philadelphia Convention.

Whereas in Philadelphia they were only drawing up a constitution for four million people who spoke only English and German, we are designing a political house for 500 million people who speak 20 different national languages and many more regional dialects. We do not meet as often as they met in Philadelphia. They were more or less in continuous session for about three months, meeting six days per week. We only fly over now and again to Brussels, although it seems like forever in terms of the amount of time one is out of the country. We fly in and fly out and there is not that sense of continuity or building up of mutual understanding that is essential for the work of this convention.

I anticipate that when we come towards the end we will probably have to stay more or less continuously in Brussels for a period of two, three or more weeks to complete the work. The idea of travelling back and forth for meetings will not really work if the business is to be done in the convention. If the business is done somewhere else and the members of the convention are presented with a fait acompli to rubber-stamp, then the convention is not needed at all. That could be done by the conventional Intergovernmental Conference method. However, I think most people agree that this method did not work, that Nice was probably one of its least glorious products and that a different method is required.

If there is to be a truly different method, the various members of the convention must be involved in all of the compromises. That is going to be enormously difficult in terms of logistics, which is something to which I wish to refer. We know that, in the end, whatever the convention produces will have to be agreed to by the Government representatives. That is why the role of the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and Mr McDonagh is crucial. They must have a negotiating mandate going to the convention. They must be representing a Government which accepts that the real business is going to be done in the convention and not afterwards at the Intergovernmental Conference.

There are ambiguous messages coming from the Government on that issue. All of the other Governments, as far as I can see, accept that the real business will be done in the Convention and that the Intergovernmental Conference may make some changes in terms of detail or on one or two points that are particularly important, but that the main work of the comprehensive balancing of the necessary compromises will be done in the convention and not at the Intergovernmental Conference.

The convention is not a rehearsal for an Intergovernmental Conference, it is where the game is going to played. Hopefully it will be a game in which everybody will be a winner and there will not be any losers. The working method of the convention needs to be changed to take account of the challenge. However, I will not deal with that matter now.

One of the measures of success for the convention will be if it comes forward with a package that is demonstrably going to deal with global crime problems such as terrorism - including biological terrorism, which is spread from one country to another - trafficking in persons, offences against children, drug trafficking, corruption, fraud, cyber crime, contract burglary and tobacco smuggling. These are all threats to order in each of the member states that can only be effectively tackled at European level. We need to have a European regime that works on this and that means we need qualified majority voting. The idea that one can achieve unanimity among 25 states in an enlarged union in dealing with these issues is unreal. We will need qualified majority voting for action on cross-border crime.

Concerns were expressed in this jurisdiction, by members of the legal profession and others, that we may find that aspects of our procedure, which are particularly important, might have to be given up or changed in some small respect. That is a legitimate concern, but we should also recognise that some of our citizens will find themselves facing justice under the legal systems of other countries. The counterpart for giving them some influence on the content of our system is that we will have some influence on the content of theirs. We will be able to influence some of the less desirable practices that may exist in some other jurisdictions, such as the acceptance of hear say evidence, for example, or detention for interrogation of people. Rather than qualified majority voting in this area being seen exclusively as a threat, it should be seen as an opportunity for us to improve the legal systems of other countries in which Irish people might find themselves struggling to maintain their liberty against false accusations. It is a two-way process and, like all of these issues, it is a question of whether one considers the glass half full or half empty.

A major challenge for the convention will be to establish a genuine sense of European patriotism. The European Union was founded on the basis of a genuine sense of never wanting to see war again and of a genuine sense on the part of Germany that it had to pay more so that a European Union would succeed in order that the threats that were present to peace in that country in the first half of the 20th century would never again recur. That idealism is vulnerable to an attitude to Europe which is increasingly prevalent among the Governments of members states. It was encapsulated by Mrs. Thatcher saying "I want my money back" or others saying things like "what is in this for me?" or "are we winning the battle of ideas in Europe?" It is as if this is some kind of battle where one country must prevail over another.

If that becomes the norm for discussions in Europe then the European Union is finished. For that to be overcome, the convention faces the challenge of trying to create a genuine European political identity, a sense that Europeans - albeit with different identities - are one people working together. It is worth considering the idea of the people electing the President of the Commission in the same way that the President of the United States is elected.

There are risks in the convention, including the risk of fossilisation. There are particular risks in a rigid list of competences which would sap the dynamism of the Union. I see risks in an over-fastidious pursuit of the principle of subsidiarity, which could mean that genuinely necessary initiatives would be stifled by excessive proceduralism. I also see risks in a change in the balance of power in Europe against the Commission and in favour of the Council. The proposal for a president of the Council, who would be the super-president of Europe and would overlook the President of the Commission, would shift the balance of power - unfavourably to the interests of small countries - towards the Council and away from the Commission. The Commission is the ultimate protector of small countries and the idea of a president of the Council is bad.

I am not keen either on the proposal contained in the praesidium draft, for which, of course, I have some responsibility. However, that does not prevent me from criticising it. This is the idea that there should be a clause granting countries the right to withdraw. We have never had a withdrawal clause in the European Union, notwithstanding the fact that Greenland has withdrawn from the European Union. We know that it can be done, but the introduction of a formal withdrawal clause will not help small countries. If Ireland threatened to withdraw, people would drum their fingers on the table and look over our heads. They would not say anything, but the implication would be "go ahead, make my day". If Germany, on the other hand, was to threaten to withdraw unless it got its way, matters would be different. This clause would completely change the balance between small and large states. The very introduction of such a provision is potentially subversive of the relative strength of smaller states vis-à-vis larger ones. This is very popular with many people and most believe it is a good idea. I do not.

There are also risks in people wanting to have a smaller Commission. I am in favour of a Commission of ten or 15 if it could be managed, but we have not yet reached the stage where smaller countries are not going to want a commissioner of their own. This is particularly so for new countries, such as Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, entering the European Union which have only very recently enjoyed independence. For Latvians, the idea that there would be no Latvian on the Commission, for example, would for the time being be quite upsetting.

The notion that there is no work for 30 Commissioners is wrong. If Commissioners were given a representational role, for example, and if there was a Commissioner from Ireland who would be responsible for appearing regularly in the committees of three or four countries, other than Ireland, to keep those national parliaments informed of what is happening at the Commission and to return with the ideas expressed at those parliaments, there would be plenty for 25 or 30 Commissioners to do. We should not contemplate moving away from that, although I acknowledge that the pressure will be quite severe.

On the question of economic leadership, we must acknowledge that the European Union is an area of comparative economic stagnation at present. The growth rates in Europe are well below those in other regions apart from Japan. There is a need for some loosening of the stability and growth pact, but that could not be agreed to unless there was a concomitant commitment to economic reform on the part of countries such as France and Germany which have fossilised systems of economic development that they refuse to reform. The only way in which a loosening of the fiscal strings would be justifiable would be if it was accompanied by a major economic reform package, consisting not of promises but of delivery.

Those are the main points I wanted to make. The most important point is that Europe is about flesh and blood. It is about people. Whereas the people of Europe have a sense that they can change their national governments, they have no sense that they can change the government of Europe. You cannot vote out the government of Europe in the same way as you can vote out the Government of Ireland. The lack of that ability is one of the reasons people feel distant from Europe and do not feel part of it.

The reason I propose that the people, not the Parliament, should elect the President of the Commission is that it would create the existence of a figure, who, on election, would incarnate, in the same way Ireland's President does, the sense of destiny of the people of Europe. It would incarnate a united sense of destiny chosen by all the people of Europe on the same day with the same debate in all parts of Europe. If people did not like what happened in the subsequent five years, they could vote that person out and would thereby be given a direct sense that they can achieve change in Europe.

Although people can change their MEPs at elections, they do not see any visible result from that other than a different MEP in their constituency. There is no sense that the Commission changes or that there is any big change in Europe as a result of a European Parliament election. If one were also to have a European presidential election, then people could see things change.

Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I will try to avoid repeating what has already been said, but will perhaps take up one or two points. The first point which needs to be made strongly - it has already been made by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche - is that the convention is one of the most open and most representative processes ever established at European level to prepare for changes in the treaties of the European Union. It is not a secretive process. Some have claimed it is, basically because they have not bothered to read the documentation from the convention, attend the open sessions of the convention or, in some cases, even read about it in the newspapers.

It is a very open process. It is important, from the point of view of the legitimacy of the outcome, that the debate taking place there is conveyed as efficiently and effectively as possible to the citizens. The media has a role in that. Some members of the media in Ireland are taking that role responsibly, some are not. It is also the responsibility of the political parties to make sure that the views, not only those being debated in the convention but also their views in response to that debate, are being conveyed to the public so that we develop a real debate about the issues being discussed.

For this reason, it is important that the conclusions of the convention will be extremely difficult to subvert because it is representative politically of the member states, the candidate states, the national parliaments, the Commission, civil society and the social partners. It would be extremely difficult for a subsequent Intergovernmental Conference to throw it aside and say, "we are going to do our own thing". Therefore, it is important. That importance is reflected by the recent strengthening of various delegations by the appointment of, for example, the German, French and Belgian foreign ministers, who have come to the conclusion that this is a game of one half, not two.

I want to deal with the areas with which I have had some direct involvement, that is, the working group on national parliaments and the working group on defence. The working group on national parliaments has concluded its work and its report is available on the convention website. I am pleased that one of the proposals I put forward at that working group, the idea of a co-ordinated European week, has been adopted by the convention work group and has been referred to favourably by the convention and, both today and other occasions, by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche.

The problem, as we know, is that parliaments generally meet at the same time. The European Parliament and national parliaments usually meet on the same days of the week. In general the same political calendar applies, although perhaps the European Parliament may sit for a greater number of weeks. We need, therefore, if we are going to engage MEPs and the Commission in the role of national parliaments addressing European issues, to co-ordinate weeks when both can come together. In other words, it should not be a case of the European Parliament simply stating that it will not be meeting in a particular week in order to enable MEPs to participate in a debate in their national parliaments for the following three or four days on which the Commission will be present. I suggested that the debate should initially focus on the issue of the Commission's annual work programme, which it announces this time each year and in which it outlines what it proposes to do and what initiatives it proposes to take over the coming 12 months.

The Commission announced its new programme only last week and has already had an initial debate on it in the European Parliament. I suggest it would be a good idea for the Oireachtas to take the initiative and organise a European week debate some time in January, where MEPs and the Commission would be invited to address the issues in this work programme. We would then make very real the issues being addressed at European level, but it would also give both the Oireachtas and the public an insight at an early stage of the process of policy-making. Rather than waiting until the Commission produces a draft directive before we begin to understand or relate to the issues, we would be looking at them in the pre-policy formation stage. It is important that we do so because often it is too late to influence events to any significant extent when the draft directive is already on the table. We would be setting a headline in Europe if, having adopted our Bill on scrutiny of European issues, we take matters a step further.

Among the range of issues the work group addressed was the idea of the congress. Despite the fact that this idea continues to generate debate, there was almost no support for it in the work group of national parliaments nor in the convention. The idea continues to stick to our shoes like a piece of chewing gum which we cannot get rid of.

It is not supported because of two basic ideas. One is that if the congress is given power, from where will that power be taken? Will it be from the Council, the Commission or the European Parliament? It becomes a competitive organ for some element of power at European level. If it is not given power, it becomes a talking shop we do not need. The other point is that if it is given power, a new layer is created with greater complexity at European level. I know we will have a debate later on these issues but I wish to make it clear that there is not a strong sense from the convention, the European Parliament or the national parliaments work group that a congress is required.

The congress idea has been suggested in some quarters as a way of electing the President of the Commission. I support the idea of the election of the President by the European Parliament, not because I happen to be a Member of the body but because it creates a more direct line of democratic legitimacy. In other words, the people of Europe would elect their MEPs who would elect the President of the Commission and sack him if they deemed it necessary to do so. It is the same way the Dáil elects the Taoiseach and can sack him or her any time he or she loses a majority. There is a much more connected view of where power and influence lies at European level.

There are probably three distinct views as to how the President should be elected. The Government view is that an electoral college of national Parliaments should be used - Deputy Gormley has suggested he or she should be directly elected and I have suggested the European Parliament option. The key point is that all our views are concerned with the creation of a more democratic Europe and more democratic legitimacy. While we have different ideas on how that might be achieved and while they will be resolved in the course of debate at this committee and in the convention, the ultimate aim is greater democratic legitimacy for the Commission, especially the President.

Deputy Gormley and I are members of the defence working group, and I am sure he will address some of the issues in this regard. I have made a submission to the group, copies of which are available on the convention website and I can make some available if necessary. In it I have placed markers against a number of proposals which have been made. One is the notion of what is referred to as defence solidarity. I make the point that this is a euphemism for the Article V clause concerning mutual defence and I have made it clear that, while I have views as to the rights and wrongs of that, it is not politically feasible to run with that idea from the convention. I am not sure what the outcome of the report will be, but members can be certain there will not be unanimous support for proposals coming from the defence working group.

The other proposal is that the Petersberg Tasks should be modernised and made more flexible. I have suggested that they are flexible enough as they are phrased and do not require amendment. I have also suggested that the existing treaty provisions relating to the common foreign and security policy and European security and defence co-operation should remain the same and should not be changed. I argue that both the common foreign and security policy and defence policy must be seen as one and the same and should not be separated. I also suggest that the perceived new threat of international terrorism needs to be dealt with primarily as a justice and home affairs issue rather than a defence issue, although as in Ireland, the armed forces could be brought to bear in aiding the civil power. However, there should be no question of creating a new defence competence in this area.

There are many matters in my submission which members may wish to examine. Perhaps it could form part of the debate we will have later. The working group is scheduled to conclude its business on 10 December. We will have a day-long meeting on that day when it is intended to conclude the report which will be presented to the convention on 20 December.

There has been resistance in the convention to taking on board the area of social policy. I have argued, as has the political family in Europe to which I belong, that social policy and economic governance should be dealt with as a single issue, that there cannot be a single market unless there is a social policy underpinning for Europe. We have succeeded in persuading the convention that a work group on social policy should be established and that will happen next week. The mandate for it has been prepared. It is wide-ranging and, in terms of the meetings suggested for debate by this committee in the new year, economic and social governance should be on the same day and part of the same debate.

Chairman

We can accept that suggestion and incorporate it in the debate.

Proinsias De Rossa

I argue strongly for the incorporation of universal public services as part of the European social model in the constitution. The idea of social solidarity does not appear in the draft constitution and I have argued for its inclusion as well because it is the glue of the European Union. Social and territorial cohesion needs to be incorporated in a stronger manner.

On the size of the Commission, I accept the importance of each member state having a presence but there will be a strong push for a smaller Commission. One way of dealing with that is for there to be two deputy Commissioners for each of the ten or 15 Commissioners. The ten or 15 could be rotated and it could be ensured that each member state would have at least one deputy Commissioner where they did not have a full one. One of the deputy Commissioners could be responsible for relations with national parliaments. This would connect with European integration. I do not put this forward as a hard and fast proposal, merely as an option that could be considered in light of the debate.

On the organisation of meetings, complementary competences would probably fit better with national parliaments and subsidiarity rather than in the other area. However, it is matter for the committee because it is more a global idea. Putting it into security in a sense would narrow the focus.

Chairman

That is what we are proposing.

Deputy Carey

I will not go back over what has been said by previous speakers. As an alternate member, I have been attending both the plenary sessions and the two working parties in which I have been involved. I replaced Ray MacSharry on the economic governance working party about halfway through its deliberations. It presented its report, which is not conclusive, at the last plenary session. There has been a divergence of views, particularly in the area of tax harmonisation. A variety of alliances was built up during the discussions about the whole area of proximation of taxes and tax harmonisation generally. There was a view among certain participants in the working group that broad guidelines should be outlined for a taxation limit and so on. The majority of applicant countries took a view similar to us and the north European countries wanted to retain flexibility in the area of taxation policies.

There was some discussion on the stability and growth pact, even though the subsequent debate which has emerged was not ventilated. We talked about issues such as the stage at which the Commission should warn member states about excessive deficits, etc. There will be further vigorous debate on the issue and there will be probably a breakdown along political lines in the area of taxation.

I am also involved in the working group on security, freedom and justice, which Deputy John Bruton has been chairing. It has completed its discussions, though inconclusively in certain areas. Its report has not yet been finalised, but I believe it will be published in the next few days. The whole area of visa, asylum and immigration policy has been addressed. The fact that consultations would be required with the European Parliament in regard to qualified majority voting was raised.

The issue which caused serious dissension within the group was the whole notion of a European public prosecutor, albeit in the financial area of the Union. A number of participants felt the whole Europol-Eurojust area needs to evolve and bed down and the anti-fraud area needs to be strengthened. Some countries, including Ireland, put forward the view that there may be a need for cross-Community evolution into some sort of prosecutorial service for the Union. Last Wednesday there was a concerted attempt by the German and French participants to have a much stronger role for the European public prosecutor. That would have divided Ireland and the UK and the Swedes and Finns would probably have taken a different view on the issue. It remains to see what will emerge in the final report.

Deputy J. Bruton

There were divided opinions on the matter.

Deputy Carey

That is probably where it will break down.

Obviously this has been an exciting exercise. Alliances are being built constantly and Ireland, as a small country, has developed a good working relationship with other small countries. Many of the applicant countries hold views similar to those Ireland is putting forward in the economic area and for that reason it is imperative that they play a real role in the finalisation of the next Intergovernmental Conference. It would be wrong, on a range of political and moral grounds, if a deal were concluded in advance of their accession. It would make it very difficult for some countries to ratify accession treaties if a deal were done. There may be a danger that pressure will be exerted to conclude a deal.

The other point I wish to make relates to the whole notion of engaging the public in discussions on the convention and its work. Perhaps this committee will take a lead role in this area and I know the Forum on Europe has done some work. Those of us who were closely involved might think that the public is very keen on hearing more. They probably are not, but I believe we managed to raise the debate during the Nice referendum to a level which was fairly unique in Europe. We should ensure, through the forum and the Oireachtas, that there is an ongoing and vigorous debate on all the issues so that nothing comes as a surprise to people at the end of this process.

The constitutional treaty has been the issue of debate and it will be fleshed out. The implications of the proposals from the ten or 11 working groups will be taken into account. During the next year or 18 months the Oireachtas should find ways, through European weeks and other mechanisms, to have an open, public and vigorous debate on all the issues. Certain Members in this House never liked me using the phrase "civil society" but, whether we like it or not, civil society and the general public need to engage in the debate. Deputy Durkan is already reaching for his pen, but that is my view. While this is not a unique exercise, clearly it is important and exciting.

Deputy Gormley

Given that we are all Europeans, I suggest we should apply European Parliament rules to proceedings. There is a very effective rule where people speak for a short time to try to get their point across. I will try to do so now and I hope I succeed.

Deputy Carey

The Deputy has one minute.

Deputy Gormley

I thought I had three minutes, but I will try to do it in five.

First, I would like to deal with the idea of full members and alternates. There is a myth abroad that we act as substitutes and only go to Europe when others cannot make it, which is not the case. We are out there all the time. There were distractions in my case in terms of the general election and the Nice treaty referendum, but I am trying to engage in the process to as full a degree as possible. It is very time-consuming. Deputy Carey and I agree that, in terms of dedication and commitment, it distracts from one's constituency work and so on. From their work on this committee, members will be aware of the amount of legislation they must sift through and how difficult that can be. As this is a very important process, we must have sufficient support to carry out our work. As this is an ongoing discussion between ourselves and the Government, I hope there will be a resolution of the issue.

I would like to take up some of the points made by Deputy John Bruton. In his paper he used the analogy of Philadelphia, which is a good comparison. He said that whereas they were an elite, we are not an elite. I do not fully agree with that because the project has been elitist. Jacques Delors once said that Europe is too important to leave to the people which, unfortunately, has been the case.

Proinsias De Rossa

Jacques Delors never said that.

Deputy Gormley

I have seen it attributed to him. However, there has been a lack of engagement and identification with the project and that is regrettable. I would welcome people becoming more engaged.

Giscard said he had been reading the federalist papers over the summer, and that is good. Federalism is often confused with centralism but it is also about the idea of empowerment. When the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention talked about the role of the smaller states they recognised immediately that they had to have a sense of ownership of the project and they decided that each state would have two votes in the senate regardless of its size. Similarly, the idea of enhanced co-operation was dismissed in Philadelphia because it would interfere with the integrity of the union, as the delegates saw it. Considering the gathering in Philadelphia presents some interesting points of departure.

I agree with my colleagues that the convention on the future of Europe is extremely important. It is not a dress rehearsal. It is clear that the French and Germans are taking this matter extremely seriously. There was a perception that Giscard was running away with the whole thing and the Germans put in Joschka Fischer to stamp some German authority on the proceedings. It would be a grave mistake to believe that what is agreed in the convention can be unstitched later in an intergovernmental conference. That is not going to happen. I caution the Government against complacency in that regard.

This arose out of the Laeken meeting, where we wanted the idea of bringing Europe closer to the citizen. I listened to Erwin Teufel saying that as far as he was concerned this was about simplifying but not adding to the existing treaties. That is important. I agree with the idea of the European week. However, how does one decide on the whole question of subsidiarity? Who has a role in that and should the national parliaments have a role? I believe they should. When we have the work programme we can decide, by majority or otherwise. There are different ideas on the table on many different matters but the national parliaments should have some say in this matter. We should have decision making at the lowest effective level. The Commission is a legislation factory and it is not possible to keep up with the amount of stuff being churned out, some of it unnecessary.

The working group on defence is now reaching its conclusion. Commissioner Barnier has produced his own report and I am making a submission, which I will e-mail to his office this afternoon. It is very clear that 11 September is almost seen as a moment when terrorism was invented and to which we must produce a response. I do not accept that. We have had terrorism in Europe for some time and I do not believe that a common defence or investment in more armaments will defeat terrorism. I said this at the working group and to Lord Robertson when he addressed the group. It is a completely incorrect approach. Nor do I believe the idea of applying enhanced co-operation to defence, as the Franco-German paper is proposing, is a runner.

The greatest threat to humanity is not global terrorism but global warming. In the context of the new constitution and treaties we need to look at the idea of sustainability, which is not high on the agenda. I find this remarkable and it is something I have discussed with my Green Party colleagues in Europe. There is a real role for the European Union in dealing with the idea of sustainability. In terms of economic instruments, for instance, I do not object to harmonisation of energy taxes. There are many area on which I can agree.

I believe in bringing Europe closer to the citizen and involving the citizen. However, I tend to agree with the Government approach on the election of the president. We need electoral colleges. Otherwise, it is clear the president will come from one of the larger states and the sense of ownership which has been such a part of the Union will fade into the background. That sense of ownership came from the rotating Presidency, from each member state having a member of the Commission and from all the things which are now being unravelled. This is regrettable. If we want a strong and effective European Union there must be a sense of ownership. The convention should try to move the Union in that direction.

Chairman

The committee will have four meetings outside Dublin next year. The first will be in January 2003. I propose to put a draft plan before the committee as to how we might engage the public and how we might participate in the European week.

The reflection group, of which I was a member, went through this process for the Amsterdam treaty in a different way. Michel Barnier was one of the members of that group and I was the Irish member. I have a sense of déja vu because I constantly raised the issue of Commissioners coming to parliaments.

My views on Europe are well known. I am in favour of European Union integration. However, I intend to watch this convention like a hawk and I do not intend that anyone in Europe will decide for the Irish people. I want to see proper engagement of national parliaments and the public in this debate. This is important and necessary. There is no hope of having a successful referendum on any major proposal for Europe unless we carry the people with us. We must learn from the Nice process in that regard. As well as carrying the people with us we must also carry their representatives.

I am chairman of this committee and of the sub-committee, I attend meetings of COSAC, I meet ambassadors and visiting groups and read briefs every day and I chair a meeting of the advisers of the committee every week, yet not a single extra person has been assigned to assist me in that regard. This is not right. The committee does not have sufficient personnel to ensure that briefs are sent to members on time. The attendance at this meeting is commendable. Members have come to Dublin from their constituencies on a Friday.

I recently complained about this situation to a senior public servant and he said he knew what things were like because he was under great pressure himself. He does not know what it is like. He does not have to run for re-election. Members of the Oireachtas have a representative as well as a parliamentary duty to do and we must have the required staff. I am not asking for major investment or even for the level of staffing Ministers or Ministers of State have in their private offices. I was a Minister of State and I know their staff is not large. However, compared with them we have nothing and we cannot function. We want to close the gap and this committee cannot continue to function on a shoestring. I have tried to advance this issue quietly and I recognise that progress has been made. I am not asking for the Taj Mahal but merely for the resources to do the job and to be serious about it.

We have access for MEPs to this committee, the House and committees in general. Would the world end if chairpersons of the European Affairs committees of national parliaments had access to the European Parliament, not to vote or attend every meeting but to turn up occasionally and raise the concerns of member parliaments? This access would not be provided by anything written into the treaty, but by the terms of reference of the European Parliament itself. Occasionally a representative should be able to go and raise concerns such as the feeling that the Commission is not doing its job or that the democratic deficit needs to be addressed. This is done in reverse so there is no reason it could not be considered the other way round.

There is no point in discussing the convention unless we address the issues involving defence to which Deputy Gormley referred. The Deputy, other Members and I are not of the same view, but the issue has been avoided and has not been debated. We are doing a disservice to our Parliament and to the public. We should approach this by looking at where Europe wants to take us - into some sort of common defence. We have rendered ourselves the most vulnerable state in Europe because, unlike other neutral states, we are not equipped to defend our neutrality, nor are we in any alliance. If anything similar to the 11 September terrorist attack should happen here, we would have no facility to prevent it even if we knew of it in advance. It is time we had a proper debate on the issue. As foreign affairs spokesman for my party I have put forward my views of how that should be done. Specifically, the Article V issue, to which Proinsias De Rossa MEP referred this morning, should be addressed. I would like to see that as a protocol which only members who wanted to be involved would sign. The defence of Europe and that of Ireland are issues of concern. Let us have a mature debate and hear different views.

Deputy Haughey

I am conscious that there are a number of speakers so will confine my remarks to three general questions. There is something impressive about these wise men drawing up laws and rules for a continent. It is awesome and the wisdom of Plato is needed to advance the work.

We are all grateful for this first briefing on the convention. We cannot deal with the work of the working groups today, but I am looking forward to doing so at future meetings. Due to the fact that most Members are quite new to the convention, we will need time to get into the detail of that work.

I address most of my remarks to the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Roche. A number of members have mentioned the issue of resources and support for convention members. It was mentioned also in the Dáil and at the Forum on Europe. There seems to be concern that convention delegates are without resources. Will the Minister of State deal with that issue?

A number of speakers referred to the role played by the Government in the convention. Deputy John Bruton said that the Government must accept that the real business will be done in the convention. Deputy Gormley mentioned that the French and Germans are taking the convention seriously. The Government needs to do that also. Oireachtas Members are there representing the Parliament and not the Government. It is interesting to note the differences among the members that reflect those in the Parliament. We need reassurance that the Government is taking the convention seriously and would like clarity on its role.

Deputy Carey mentioned the role of networking, alliances and contacts. There have been concerns in the national media about this. An article in The Irish Times yesterday said that the Irish delegates were not invited to some dinner at which networking and alliance formation were discussed. Perhaps we could deal with that. Can we be assured that networking and alliance formation is under way, particularly with applicant countries, and that we need not be concerned? With regard to what Deputy Carey said about applicant countries, what progress is being made on our ambassadorial and embassy representation in that area?

The creation of a European political space is important. The election to choose the President of the Commission is an issue. Deputy John Bruton made a brave suggestion, although I feel very few will get involved in canvassing and the turnout will be low. The suggestion to bring Europe closer to the people is significant. We argue about whether we are closer to Berlin or Boston. As a public representative, I believe many people see us as being closer to Boston. It is vital that we create this European political space and that we look seriously at Deputy Bruton's suggestion.

Other speakers mentioned that the convention will involve many sensitive issues for Ireland such as the charter of fundamental rights, economic governance, tax harmonisation, a mutual defence commitment, justice, security and freedom. Are all delegates conscious that we face a referendum arising from the Intergovernmental Conference? Is Ireland again likely to be the only country to hold a referendum? I understand that I cannot have a definite answer on that until the intergovernmental reports are published. It is important that delegates are conscious of these matters. We had a brief discussion on the matter at a recent meeting of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party and the suggestion that we will have another referendum was greeted with enthusiasm. I hope delegates will be practical about these sensitive issues.

Patricia McKenna MEP

The Chairman referred to future meetings. It would be useful if he could also consult with MEPs so that we can attend. Many MEPs would like to attend meetings of the Joint Committee on European Affairs that deal with the convention. It is important that staff are properly resourced in regard to EU issues, especially legislation from the Union. This is not just concerned with re-election but with accountability and transparency. It is difficult to follow through on what is going on if there is no support.

On the issue of access to the European Parliament, it is possible to obtain such access and members are welcome to attend committee meetings, or whatever, at any time, but they are not permitted to speak. If a member wants to push something within the European Parliament, it would be quite easy for the Chairman, Deputy Mitchell, or anyone else to do that through their MEPs.

Deputy John Bruton spoke about the openness of the convention. I have a serious problem in this regard because the praesidium is really the steering committee of the convention. The praesidium is hand-picked and meets in secret. There is no openness and accountability there and that is a major problem. I wonder what the Government's view is on the fact that it is not represented on this praesidium, which, to a certain extent, creates a democratic deficit. At the very least it should be open and the Government representatives should be at the praesidium, even as an observer so that it is aware of what is happening. After this praesidium, the draft convention was circulated in numbered copies and then taken back and the public had no access to it.

The draft constitution has since been published but there needs to be much more openness. It is fine that the convention and the working groups are open, but the praesidium has a huge amount of power and influence in steering exactly how the convention is going to work and setting the agenda. That this is all done in secret is just the way the EU - for example, the Council of Ministers also works in secret - operates. If we really want openness and transparency, there is an onus on the Government and the Government of other member states to complain about this. It is not even representative of the Governments of the countries represented on the convention. This is a major democratic problem that needs to be addressed.

There is a major problem on the issue of the fight against terrorism. The emphasis is on the fight against terrorism and there is very little focus on the civil liberties aspects. That is a major problem because since 11 September everything has speeded up in relation to major changes being made in the guise of fighting against terrorism and this has had a huge impact on our civil liberties. It is now possible for all our communications to be intercepted and this is a gross assault on our right to privacy.

As far as I am aware, the common legal system or corpus jurus was launched in secret in 1997 in San Sebastian. It was said that it was only to be used in relation to crimes of fraud against the EU, but at the time of that launch it was stated quite openly by the then President of the European Parliament that it would start off as a weapon in the fight against fraud but that this system would eventually be used for all criminal matters. This poses a major problem for our country and for the United Kingdom. It is one of the key issues that should be debated in Ireland because it is going to affect us much more than some of the other countries which have a completely different legal model to ours.

Deputy John Bruton spoke about European patriotism. I have a major concern about the idea of creating a sense of European patriotism. What is meant by it? People will say that I am being unpatriotic towards the EU because I said that it was undemocratic, centralised and lacks accountability. Patriotism can be quite a dangerous thing; it could mean being patriotic towards something that is perhaps indefensible. It could be a new form of super pseudo-nationalism and we need to be very careful about that.

I agree that there should be a withdrawal clause. Deputy Bruton knows that when this secret document, the draft convention, was circulated at the praesidium it contained the concept that if the constitution was rejected by any individual member state it would mean that the state was basically out of the EU. I heard from others that this clause has been removed from the document, but this is where the problem lies. Deputy Bruton can say that it was not in the document and I can say that I heard it is——

Chairman

I ask Ms McKenna to conclude.

Patricia McKenna

I will conclude now. Deputy Bruton can say it was not there and I can say it was, but without openness in the praesidium, it is his word against mine and that is the problem.

Deputy J. Bruton

I was there.

Chairman

The Chair will not allow exchanges and I ask Ms McKenna to conclude.

Patricia McKenna

Because there is no transparency and openness in the praesidium, we cannot prove one way or the other whether it was there.

What happens if this constitution is not accepted by certain member states? There will be referenda in some of the other countries, including the United Kingdom. There is a movement in Europe which favours others countries having referenda. I know that in Germany it is against the law to have a referendum. In most other countries there is a possibility of holding referenda and I know that Denmark will hold one. There should be a referendum in every member state in relation to the results of the convention.

Deputy Mulcahy

I thank the Minister of State, all the members of the convention and the MEPs for coming here today. It has been far and away the most interesting meeting of the committee that I have attended and many of my colleagues will agree. It has been a very interesting and substantive discussion.

We owe a debt of gratitude to all the members of the convention who are toiling away in some cases without the necessary resources. They are working at addressing the philosophical side of the development of the European Union and that is very important. This committee and the Oireachtas has a little bit of catching up to do. We must have a debate in the Dáil on the future of Europe, on whether a new treaty is needed and, if it is needed, what it should contain.

It is possible to view what has happened thus far as being a little bit unfair on the convention delegates. They have gone to the convention without the benefit of a Dáil debate on the subject. Delegates to any convention have a mandate and are expected to report back to the body which sent them. It is very welcome to see that at the beginning of this process we are having this feedback. The committee should come up with philosophies and thoughts on the future of the European Union in order to have a dialogue with the members of the convention.

We must remember that in a series of judgments, most notably in Crotty v. An Taoiseach, the Supreme Court has clearly decided that any alteration to the Constitution must be by way of a referendum and that is a central tenet of Irish constitutional law. It is inconceivable for the Intergovernmental Conference or anyone else or even the convention to sign off on anything that is agreed without reference to the Irish people and they will very reluctantly pass anything unless they have been involved in the process.

I do not wish to criticise the draft constitution as drafted by the praesidium, because it is more work than I have ever done on the subject, but it has the appearance of something that is coming down from on high which will be presented as a fait accompli to the people which they can either accept, reject or go home and forget about it. That will not work.

I spent four weeks canvassing on the second Nice referendum campaign. I got the impression from the public that the referendum was just about as far as people were prepared to go with constitutional change.

I thank Deputy John Bruton for his excellent report. The comparison with the Convention of Philadelphia is, as Deputy Gormley said, very interesting and I think it is a little scary. Listening to Deputy Bruton, it sounded like an anthem for a super-state and I believe that is not in keeping with what many people on this island would want. Most people would want a secession clause. There was a civil war in the United States of America because there was no secession clause. Nobody would want a directly elected President of the European Commission. I cannot see a farmer named O'Reilly from Kerry voting for Theo Papadopulous from Thessalonica for President of the European Commission. It is a ridiculous notion.

Deputy J. Bruton

His daughter could be married to him.

Deputy Mulcahy

It would be much more of a reality for the Parliament to elect the President of the Commission as suggested by Proinsias De Rossa MEP. I thank all the delegates. This has been very interesting, but the members of this committee need to get our skates on and give more input into the dialogue at the convention.

Deputy Kirk

I join the other members in welcoming the representatives today. It has been a very useful and well-attended meeting and it reflects the interest people have in the subject. Clearly the interest of the public and their representatives has been aroused by the recent referendum on the Nice treaty. If, as I expect, there is to be a European constitution, what will be the implications for our Constitution? Will it be superior to ours and, if so, will we effectively neutralise the considerable benefits which our Constitution confers on the Irish people. I am not sure who can answer that one, perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, or one of the other representatives.

Deputy John Bruton made a proposal for the direct election of the President of the European Parliament. I ask him to flesh out the mechanics of how this might work. How would the candidates for presidency be nominated? Would groupings in Europe, individuals in member states or a bloc of the population have nominating rights? How would he envisage the campaign functioning? Would the respective candidates drop into Dublin, Drogheda, Dundalk and Navan as part of the campaign or would it be principally fought through the media, particularly the television?

I quote from the Deputy's thoughtful contribution on this subject as a member of the convention:

I know of no better way of creating that space than the holding of a European presidential election to choose the President of the Commission. This directly elected European President might not have enormous power. He or she might do little more than chair meetings.

Should people go to the bother of organising a presidential election among 500 million people to elect a person just to chair meetings and with very limited power in the functioning of the Union? I would like that point fleshed out somewhat. Is it intended that the President would have the right to nominate the Commission members? Clearly the paper is largely based on the American model and this appears to be an attempt to transpose its experience in Europe. After the Deputy has gone through that in more detail, I might have some more supplementary questions.

Senator McDowell

I join others in welcoming the members of the convention. This is a useful start to the process. I wanted to break from the consensus of applause. The contribution by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, was disappointing. It was in some respects inadequate and in most respects deeply conservative. I still do not know the official Government view on most of the issues outlined in the discussion we have had for the past two hours. I have listened to the Minister of State at least twice or three times in the past week or ten days. For example, is the Government opposed to the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights? If one reads the press, one believes it is and that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, is against it. Having listened to the Minister of State today, I still do not know whether the Government is against it.

The Minister of State only referred in passing to defence. He said nothing about the view of the Government on defence issues, which are huge, other than that we have a long-standing view.

Deputy Roche

To be fair, I had material on defence, but I said I would leave it to the members of the committee with responsibility for defence.

Senator McDowell

That is fair enough. If it were just a matter of what the Minister of State said here, that would be fine, but it is part of a pattern. I listened to the Minister three times in the past week. It is part of a pattern where we have no clear notion of the negotiating position of the Government. When the Minister finished his comments, he stated that the convention made an extraordinary contribution, but basically the decision would ultimately be down to the Intergovernmental Conference. In the text of the Minister's speech he says the decision is one for the Intergovernmental Conference. He says nothing about the convention making a useful contribution. I wonder whether the text does not more closely reflect the feelings of the Government.

The contribution has been deeply conservative and the Government is entitled to that view if that is its view. However, it would be a useful start for it to say so explicitly. In so far as I can determine from what is being said, the Government is not in favour of any change in competencies or the institutional balance within the European Union. It is not in favour of any extension of common security and defence policy or common foreign security policy. It has a deeply conservative, short-sighted and strong-headed view of fiscal harmonisation. As far as I can tell, it seems it does not favour changes in the stability and growth pact - if it does favour such change, it has not said so. It also seems to be against the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights.

The only things the Minister endorses are policies on subsidiarity, about which I am somewhat concerned. They appear to be about returning competencies to national Parliaments and undermining the capacity of the existing institutions to do the work of the Union.

As with others, I do not want to get into the individual details. However there is a difficulty in starting the debate. Obviously the Government will reserve some of its negotiating position, but we need to know, with some measure of clarity, the Government's view on these important issues. Frankly, even after this morning's debate, I do not have that.

Deputy Durkan

I apologise for the fact that I am suffering from a cold. The temperature in this underground room is not particularly helpful to that state, notwithstanding the warm nature of the debate.

Chairman

I have just sent somebody to check on it.

Deputy Durkan

I compliment you, Chairman, on the work you are doing. I agree with you and recognise the need to provide further resources. The degree to which the committee will have to work in future will be huge in comparison with the past if the committee is to have an impact. I have expressed my view in the past that this is the premier committee to deal with European issues and the necessary resources need to be deployed as a matter of urgency.

I do not want to digress into a debate on history, but the American Civil War had a deeper and more fundamental cause than the lack of a secession clause. We can go into that another time.

Deputy J. Bruton

It still does not have a secession clause.

Deputy Durkan

That is the point. The war was fought because of the prospect of the break up of what was seen as a union. We have a different way of doing it in Europe and it is no harm that we take note of that.

Deputy J. Bruton

We do not have a withdrawal clause in Europe either.

Deputy Durkan

That is correct. We have democracy in operation. I compliment the members of the convention on their dedication to the job, because if they were not there and involved, it would go ahead without them. The critical issue is that of convergence or divergence in Europe. Some groups, both in this country and Europe, do not believe in convergence and do not believe in the European project. All their utterances have been against it. If that is the case we must examine the alternative, which is what took place in Europe in the past. There was divergence of opinion, the growth of militarism and the conflict that arose as a result. The American union may have been in wars outside its own territory, but it has acted as one inside its territory and has benefited economically from that. The convention has a huge task in hand. It must second guess parliaments, the European Parliament, member state Governments and my old friends from civil society, who Deputy Carey and I have discussed on many occasions. That is a substantial task and I wish the convention well.

I would also like to comment on the Chairman's views on defence. There should be a debate on this as it is of critical importance at this time. Modern international terrorism knows no barriers or boundaries and does not recognise neutrality; all that it wants is to score a political or PR coup at the expense of the biggest group of people or largest amount of property possible. It is a matter for ourselves to decide how to combat that, but we will have to combat it at some stage. We are extremely vulnerable at present.

I will conclude on the subject of the election of the president and the formation and composition of the Commission. I have an old-fashioned view of the need to have a Commissioner representing each member state. How the Commission is chosen is something that can be usefully debated and it should be thought about. I am not sure there should be deputy Commissioners because that will promote a tendency towards a second tier and I would not be happy about that. To give some impression of democracy in terms of choosing who our figurehead is, there should be some method of election of the president, although it is not sure who should make that choice. Should national parliaments make the decision or would the people, as Deputy Bruton usefully proposes, decide? Should the European Parliament decide? That would be an interesting way, but one that would be seen with some suspicion by national parliaments and by the Commission because of the ongoing debates and tug of war that takes place between the various agencies involved. Direct election might be the best way to go.

There is much that we could talk about but my final phrase on defence is that the atrocities that took place in the former Yugoslavia, including at Srebenica, would never have taken place if there had been a deterrent, and if Mr. Milosevic had been afraid of retribution.

Senator Mooney

I reiterate the welcome to our guests and take up the point made by Deputy Carey, who used the word "excited". It not the sort of word one normally hears in dry political debate, but it captures the mood of what is happening with regard to the convention and its deliberations. All involved in those deliberations, from the Minister of State to the MEPs, Government and parliamentary representatives, are in a very honoured position. This is a critical period for the future direction of Europe and I wish those involved well in the deliberations.

I agree with the comments of the Chairman and others concerning lack of resources, but I am surprised that this debate is taking place now. I was privileged to represent the Seanad on a sub-committee of the Members' interests committee - the international benchmarking committee - which had a brief, though I like to think effective, mandate which lasted for some three months at the beginning of this year. The findings of that committee were incorporated into the Deloitte and Touche report. That company was also involved in another report on the Civil Service side. The result of this process is that the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Bill, 2002, is currently before the Houses.

It was made perfectly clear in the mandate that committee was given that specific proposals regarding the resourcing of committees had been put forward that would help substantially and would change the entire landscape of committee work in the Houses. I understand the Bill is currently a work in progress and that, in order for it to be effectively completed, it requires significant financial resources, which is a matter for the Government. I hope Deputy Mitchell and the other Members involved in this legislative process, if they really want change and effective committees, will ensure those resources are provided.

I have had some experience on committees in recent years and fully endorse everything the Chairman said. Real action needs to be taken. I am not referring specifically to the current Government in this regard, though it happens to be in pole position. It is a scandal that lip service is paid to the concept of committee work without proper resources being put in place. I agree with what the Chairman, Deputy Mitchell, said, but responsibility is in the hands of Dáil Members because that is where the real power lies in the hierarchy of power in the Houses. I know the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, who has expertise in the area of public administration, will be the first to agree that it is necessary and important. I do not want to take up much time on this, but it is a vital issue because, without it, we are just sitting around at a talking shop.

I listened at the Forum on Europe yesterday to Dr. Andreas Maurer, a respected political scientist who has served on a number of EU groups, is an independent commentator on European affairs and is taking a keen interest in the work of the convention. That is why he was invited to address us by Senator Hayes. Of everything that Dr. Maurer said, one statement struck a chord with me. He said that there was no objection to a Commission of 25 to 30 commissioners and that he saw no administrative or other objection to that.

I could not but reflect on a meeting I attended prior to the negotiations on the Nice treaty, which discussed these points. Deputy Durkan, as former chairman of the committee, may remember that meeting at which the issue of commissioners for individual member states was central to the discussions. My understanding was that the Irish Government was totally committed to the idea that we would not sacrifice our commissioner.

I understand that when the debate on the treaty was going into the early hours of the morning, and the question of tax harmonisation loomed large, Ireland was in a difficult position. We managed to forge alliances with a number of major players in this area and we all know that the outcome was that tax harmonisation was moved off the agenda. It seems that the compromise was that we would somehow agree that the idea of a Commission of 20 following the enlargement process to 27 or more states would become a fact. It is now known that this issue is before the convention again and has not been decided upon. The impression I get from listening to Deputy Bruton and others is that there is now a move towards having a Commission of ten or 15 members, possibly with deputy commissioners.

Deputy J. Bruton

There are all sorts of ideas.

Senator Mooney

We need assurances. There is a genuine commitment by the Irish electorate that we continue to have a commissioner. As Dr. Maurer made the point yesterday, there are no political or administrative blocks to having that. Do I take it that we will continue to fight for that decision?

On the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I was an alternate delegate from the committee on foreign affairs and attended many sessions of the charter deliberations. I am surprised that Deputy Bruton says that they are not happy with the competences. The Deputy makes the point in his superb document that the charter provisions will only apply to Union actions or member state actions on behalf of the Union, but remains unclear as to how far the courts will go in enforcing the charter provisions in judgments. There is also a final point where Deputy Bruton notes that the charter only sets out the rights of Europeans and is silent on responsibilities. I thought the raison d’être for the charter negotiations was that the charter would set out rights for Europeans and state that the European Union institutions would respond to those rights. According to the legal advice received by the foreign affairs committee, if the charter were incorporated into a future constitution for Europe, certain articles of that would be repugnant to our Constitution. Is that accepted? This is separate to the Coffey judgment in relation to treaties which was outlined by Deputy Mulcahy. Articles of the charter as currently presented are repugnant to the Constitution, particularly in social areas, and we would have to have a referendum if they were incorporated in their totality. I am surprised that there seems to be a major debate on this when the horizontal provisions included made it quite clear that there would be no extra competencies added to the charter. That is what the charter is right now, yet it is being indicated that those protocols are going to be removed and I would like that to be clarified.

The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, will know where I am coming from on this because he was leader of the delegation. What, if any, future is there for the Western European Union parliamentary assembly? That group believes there is a lack of Europe-wide accountability in defence matters, growing development of a common security and defence policy and a turf war between it and the EU Parliament which wants more powers in this area and it would be quite happy to see the Western European Union consigned to the scrap heap. I say with MEPs present that it is not in Ireland's interest to continue to support an enlargement of European parliamentary laws in this area.

Chairman

There are still three speakers to contribute.

Senator Mooney

I am aware of that. In fairness, I am trying to be as quick as I can. I watched the clock as people spoke for ten to 15 minutes.

Chairman

Convention members are indicating that they are under pressure.

Senator Mooney

I was trying to get through the points as quickly as I could while being as focused as possible. I appreciate the point that these are complex issues and I do not expect we are going to get simple answers. As they are important issues, I wish to feel that I am contributing to the debate. I agree fully that there should be a debate on neutrality. We are not a neutral country, that is a misnomer.

Chairman

I am sorry I interrupted, but there are others still to speak.

Deputy Andrews

There is a lot to be said in two to three minutes and I do not mind sticking to two.

The convention is going far too fast and way ahead of the people. We have not settled the issue of enlargement which is still hanging out there. Referenda have to be held in the applicant states and it has not yet been decided if they will be voting on the Nice treaty or on bits and pieces from the convention. We have just put Nice to bed and now that we are up and running there is the proposition that there may be another referendum. The issues that have been outlined here are unquestionably very complex. How would the question of whether the constitutional proposals supersede the Constitution be perceived by the people? That should be clarified sooner rather than later. We already have problems in this regard and it is something that should be addressed.

Deputy Bruton referred to terror and everybody is talking about the fight against terrorism. Nobody in the convention, the European Parliament or the United Nations is talking about peace and conflict resolution. It is a very difficult task to beat terrorists on the scale we have now, but there seems to be a growing conflict between Judeo-Christian Europe and Islam which is extremely dangerous. That is what should be addressed by the convention rather than engaging in the absolutism of saying that we are going to war.

With regard to the proposition of electing a president, we would have two million voters and the Germans 50 million. How would that work? I find the issues which relate to the Constitution very difficult. I agree with Deputy Bruton with regard to Commissioners. If we have Ministers of State in our Government, why not have junior Commissioners as I have often suggested? We are way ahead of the people of Europe who have no idea what we are talking about and we need to clarify it. This might be the beginning of debate taking place in Ireland, and I hope it is. There is too much "Giscardian" nonsense coming out of the convention and Giscard is a man in his 80s though I am not getting into ageism.

Deputy J. Bruton

He is as sharp as a razor.

Deputy Andrews

I am being careful. The problem with Giscard d'Estaing is that he is yesterday's man and the convention might well fall into old patterns of the presidium holding private meetings, lack of transparency and failure to come forward. I cannot blame politicians, but I blame the concept of a convention going forward with a proposition for more referenda. It is important that it should be done, but the settling of enlargement should come first.

Deputy Harkin

I will endeavour to be brief. I thank delegates and MEPs for attending. As a new Member, I have found the day most interesting and very informative. I echo Deputy Haughey's comments about resources and back-up for convention delegates and for the Chairman. Ms McKenna was right to say that accountability and transparency are key, but the Chairman was also right to comment that re-election is part of the picture - to ignore that would do nobody a favour.

Deputy Gormley said that global warming is a bigger threat than global terrorism. Both threats are real. There is a role for the EU to deal with sustainability and any comments on that from the convention members would be appreciated. A number of speakers said that we need to have a discussion on defence, with which I agree. Deputy Gormley told us what would not defeat terrorism and I am interested to hear what people think would. In this country we tend to put our heads in the sand as far as defence is concerned and we hope that all will be well on the day.

Civil society was mentioned and I wonder if there is any mechanism to involve it. We have spoken about a European week and other measures, but is there a more structured method available and do delegates consider that such measures would be useful? I get a sense that the convention is moving too quickly and while there is a need for parliamentarians to lead, we are too far ahead of people. The Minister of State provided us with a brief résumé of the working groups, which was very interesting, but I would also like to have been given some idea of the Government's negotiating position in each of those groups.

Deputy Sexton

I have much to say, but I will try to be as brief as possible. I thank the contributors for a very interesting discussion. As a member of the EU Committee of the Regions, I was surprised at how little I knew. I thought I was well ahead of the posse and as Mr. Andrews has said, if I as a parliamentarian and a member of five years' standing of the Committee of the Regions find myself on the back foot having listened to contributors, this process must be going far too fast. There is no doubt that we are going to lose the people on this. If all this comes down to another Nice type treaty we will be in serious trouble. People will not vote or they will turn out in small numbers, which will not be representative. We have to slow the process down. Listening today I was worried to hear of the pace at which this is moving and the pace at which parliamentarians are expected to grasp it all. There is Euro fatigue out there and the majority of people do not know or understand the buzz words we are using. By the time this matter is decided by our people, we will have lost them and they will have moved further away from the whole idea of Europe. Those of us who are pro-European want to see it work.

The European Union is based on the principles of proximity and subsidiarity. I and other members of the Committee of the Regions believe that the current treaties provide no clear means for giving effect to these principles except in terms of the relationship between the EU and the member states. If the subsidiarity principle is to be given teeth, it must be done in a comprehensive and defined manner. This is not happening at national level. We need to take it on board at national level to push it at European level.

I turn to the recent work of the convention. It is very disappointing that the convention and its working groups made very limited reference to the local and regional levels. While that is probably inevitable in terms of institutions or tiers of Government, it is unfortunate it has tended to focus on the national and European levels. This is an area in which mistakes are being made. If we could bring it to local and regional government in the proper fashion, we would be able to sell it to the people and its success would be much easier to achieve than by trying to force it on people when all the decisions have been taken. The Committee of the Regions made a submission on the issue which I will not discuss in detail.

The attempt by Mr. d'Estaing to bring publicity on himself has done the whole convention no favours. Instead, it has created an air of suspicion about it. Patricia McKenna MEP said much of the discussion is taking place behind closed doors. While I do not agree this is the case, in today's world everything is about perception and people believe decisions, over which they have no control, are being taken behind their backs.

Now is the time to slow down the process. It is important the committee makes such a request. Being asked to slow down must be a horrendous notion for those people who are passionately involved in the European project. Because these kinds of processes generally take a long time, it is sometimes welcome when they proceed rapidly. However, when they are going too fast it is necessary to ask that the horses be pulled up for another while.

Chairman

To allow people to consult their diaries, I will now propose dates for the next three meetings. These are Friday, 17 January; Friday, 24 January; and Friday, 7 February. I am aware Friday is a difficult day.

Deputy Roche

While I am aware that the joint committee must be the most important consideration when setting dates for meetings, I remind committee members that the convention also meets on Fridays. I mentioned this to the National Forum on Europe because I am conscious that members of the convention cannot be in two places at once. It would be a good idea to take as a starting point the dates on which the convention will meet. It is not, however, a big issue for this meeting. The chairman is correct that Friday may be a good day for a meeting. There may, however, be a clash with one of the convention meetings. I ask the committee to reconsider the dates suggested.

Chairman

I mentioned the three specific days to allow members to consult their diaries. They are not written in stone and members can comment on them before the end of the meeting. The difficulty we have had so far is getting members of the convention, Deputies, Senators and MEPs to the Houses on Friday. Before responding to the points raised, I ask the Minister of State to inform the Taoiseach of the range and level of concerns expressed about the staffing issue.

Deputy Roche

I will address that point first. My views on the way the Oireachtas committees have been treated by successive Administrations are a matter of record and have not changed. I only assumed responsibility for the convention seven weeks ago. Members of the convention present will be aware that the issues which arose concerning resources for convention members have been resolved. Issues concerning the alternates, an issue I raised earlier, must be resolved also. I will deliver the committee's views on this matter.

The real issues were raised at the end, namely, how we will engage the people of this country with the future of Europe. There is an irony here. I have been described as conservative. However, if one does not bring the people of the member states along, one loses the entire process, a point I repeated ad nauseam in the convention. One issue on which we can advise the rest of Europe is the significance of ensuring the people are brought along. The suggestion that there are radically different views from ours in Europe is correct. For example, there is a view that Europe is not an issue in which the common man should be involved. My firm personal view and that of the Government is that citizens must be involved.

I have addressed this committee several times and I appreciate that members have agreed to meet on Friday. The first step towards getting people involved in the debate must be to have debates in the Oireachtas and in the National Forum on Europe.

To take up a point made by Proinsias De Rossa MEP, there is no point in us talking here in isolation. The media, in particular the national broadcaster, have a role to play in this matter. If public service broadcasting is to show its teeth, it must assume a degree of responsibility in this area and I hope the committee will get more coverage than the statutory 2.5 seconds at 2 a.m. We are dealing with an issue that is critically important to every one of the 470 million people in Europe. We in this country have something special in that we will consult our people. I am one politician who does not see the idea of a referendum as a chore. It is the most extraordinary example of democracy in action.

Speaking to one of the network groups a few weeks ago, I suggested to their horror that it would be a good idea if every country held a referendum and in that sense I do not disagree with Patricia McKenna MEP. It could be a salutary experience for people who believe they can float off into the stratosphere.

I will turn to the points made by Senator McDowell and work back from there. I do not wish to be defensive but the Senator illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the convention's task, which is specifically not to seek out new competencies. If one considers its remit, one notes that it was charged with drafting a new treaty to replace the existing ones, setting them out in clearer, simpler terms and examining the Union's objectives, principles, institutional structures and key issues.

To be fair to Mr. Giscard d'Estaing who comes in for considerable flak, on each occasion I have heard him speak on this issue he made it very clear that he does not believe his remit is to incorporate new competences. It is not conservative to suggest we have new competences.

Senator McDowell

I referred not only to competences but also to institutional balance.

Deputy Roche

To address the point raised by Deputies Harkin and Sexton and Patricia McKenna MEP, the overwhelming view is that the issue of competences does not arise in this context. One of the great strokes of genius in terms of the European project was the extraordinarily clever framework devised for it, which has served us well for 50 years. If there is a better one, let us see it. Nobody should automatically presume that the existing institutional framework, including the institutional balance, has not served Europe well.

I was seized by the writings a long time ago of Walter Hallstein who described the framework and the balance between the Council and the Commission in much the same terms as they are being described here. He found them to be sufficient. The two sides, he said, need to operate like a scissors if progress is to be made. While the suggestion that the current balance should be more or less maintained may be conservative, nothing better has been proposed in the debate to date. There is a fundamental difference that has to be taken into account with regard to the issue of tax harmonisation. A minority of states have taken the view that tax harmonisation should not be achieved by qualified majority voting. Others take an alternative view. As Proinsias De Rossa MEP has said, the fact that there are different views on issues does not mean that one side or the other is right or wrong. The process requires that people listen and try to evolve to an agreed position.

In regard to the selection of the President of the Commission, Deputy Bruton put forward the point that there would be tremendous benefits from a popular election. Without rejecting the idea, I can see practical difficulties in that. I also disagree with Proinsias De Rossa MEP that the European Parliament should elect the Commission President on the basis that it gives the President a certain legitimacy. I am a proponent of the notion of an electoral college made up of members of the European Parliament and members of the member state Parliaments. The question was asked as to how the nominationprocess would work. That has not yet been discussed.

An important point was raised by Senator McDowell which I have not addressed because I am anxious to move on to the fundamental charter and the rights that are in treaties. Some committee members referred to the point that we enjoy a unique position in constitutional terms in this country. To return to the point of Deputy Sexton, we cannot move people too far, too fast in any direction or they will say no, and they would be right to do so. It is our job to persuade the people and bring them along having done the best possible job in negotiations. It is wrong to suggest that the convention is a place where negotiations are taking place. It is a place where views are put down by people representing the widest range of views in Europe. I agree with Deputy Bruton that it is a remarkable exercise, not least in the degree of openness of its operations. It will have a very compelling effect on the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference but it is wrong to suggest that the Intergovernmental Conference should rubber stamp it. We must remember that the charter of fundamental rights was one of the big negotiating issues coming up to the Nice treaty referendum. At that time it was considered that it should be given the status of a political declaration, a stance we supported. Some wanted it to move forward to a full incorporation at that time.

To return to the point made by Deputy Sexton, the last way one should negotiate anything is the way it was done for the Nice treaty. That produced the worst possible result. I hope that the next treaty will be better produced, but at that time the compromise solution was the agreed approach. We were not satisfied that all the legal issues associated with the possible incorporation of that draft of the charter had been addressed, and they had not. When we spoke about the charter and the ECHR later we were doing so in so far as the competence of the community is concerned. In reply to Deputy Andrews MEP there is no question that this treaty or constitution, or whatever it is called, will surpass anybody's constitution. Deputy Sexton made the point that Irish people are wedded to the Constitution and it is critical that they do not perceive a fundamental threat to it. This goes back to the competence issue.

Deputy Andrews MEP referred to "Giscardian" nonsense. If the convention was better covered we would have a better view of how it is doing. I have already dealt with resources and back-up. Deputy Haughey mentioned the Dutch dinner and there has been much interest in that and in my dietary issues in recent times. Those people who are concerned that I might die of starvation because I am involved in the convention, among other things, can rest assured——

Chairman

This is a new concept of going Dutch.

Deputy Roche

I have enjoyed many dinners, breakfasts and suppers because that is the way one networks. We were not the only people left out of the Dutch dinner so we do not need to worry unduly. This has assumed a national importance over and above what it merits.

The role of the applicant countries in the Intergovernmental Conference was mentioned by several committee members. One of the great benefits of the convention is that it is intellectually challenging. It forces people to take different views. We should not take the view that we are in a zero sum game here. We are in a win win situation. We should begin to be positive about ourselves as a nation. Just because we are small does not mean we are going to be left on the sideline. However, if we do not engage in the issues we will be left on the sidelines. It is important to get the balance right.

The applicant countries should be closely involved in the Intergovernmental Conference. There would be a certain benefit in that. A good job is worth doing well and it may take the convention a little more time than is currently envisaged. Those involved in the convention are in a better position to talk abut it. There is a huge amount of pressure within the convention to finish its job in 2003. The suggestion is now being made, particularly by some of the larger states, that there should be an Intergovernmental Conference soon after that. That is a fundamentally wrong view and it is not conservative to say it. There needs to be a period in which one can sit back and absorb the issues. The views of all the member states are changing as this debate goes on. A statement made today by a Minister or governmental representative may not necessarily be the view in future. I do not believe that the views expressed by Mr. Fischer represent what the German Government's position will be in the Intergovernmental Conference.

It would be fundamentally wrong to propel us through the convention process, which is unique and open, straight into an Intergovernmental Conference. Many state Parliaments need a period to digest it and the citizens also need time to digest it. A question was asked about referenda - I think it was by Deputy Harkin. It would be a great idea if every state had a referendum, but I know they will not. Germany will not do so for a combination of constitutional and historical reasons. One or two others will. I am concerned about the role that will be played by the new member states. It would be wrong if they were put into a secondary role. We are very anxious that the process not be propelled along in a way that would disadvantage the applicant states. Those who are calling for haste here are ignoring the rights of the applicant states.

Deputy Harkin referred to sustainability. The external action group has certainly referred to it. I cannot think of a more appropriate place to address the global environmental issues within Europe. There is an opportunity here. Getting the balance right is the political task and getting the people to understand what is happening is a task for us all, the media, politicians and the Government of the day. The result of this process will be a treaty that will take Europe into the end of this century so it is worth taking a little time to tease out the issues.

I listened to the contributions of Deputy Bruton, Proinsias De Rossa MEP and others. People should not be attacked because they put forward views. They should be celebrated because they have the courage to put them forward. We must look at this as a challenging opportunity and not as something about which we need to be overly defensive. That means there must be a gap of a minimum of 12 months between the end of the convention and the Intergovernmental Conference because the applicants will not be ratified members of the European Union until the middle of 2004 whereas the convention is due to finish in June 2003. By any standard, that gap of 12 months is too long. Either the convention will have to be prolonged until the end of 2003 or we will have to accept that the Intergovernmental Conference will have to, formally at least, negotiate as 15, with the others participating but not as full members. What the Minister is looking for is politically the correct thing but I am not sure if it is chronologically possible.

As a member of the praesidium, is it possible to participate in all of the meetings of this committee?

Chairman

That might not be possible. I will try to facilitate it but we are trying to tie up so many diaries that it would be wrong to give the impression we can tie up everybody's diary for one member. However, I will try to facilitate the Deputy as best I can. There are also Ministers to consider.

Deputy J. Bruton

I know. I do not want to cause difficulty if possible and am not in a position to do so. I am in your hands, Chairman, and you may set the meetings when you want. However, I am very frustrated that the forum is organising meetings at an inconvenient time for members of the convention to attend.

Chairman

We will try to meet your concerns.

Deputy J. Bruton

I do not want to have to listen to comments to the effect that the praesidium is a secret body that does not want to listen to anybody. The only reason it cannot participate in the work of the forum and the committee is that appropriate note is not taken of the constraints of our diaries. As a member of the presidium, I have to attend a large number of meetings that other members of the convention, including the Minister, do not. I am out of the country for that reason also. I ask in all seriousness for that consideration.

Ms Patricia McKenna MEP should understand that the praesidium is not hand-picked. I was elected to it by the parliamentarians of Europe. I am sorry Ms McKenna is not here to hear this but she is wrong in saying that its members were hand-picked; they were all elected. I am surprised that a member of the European Parliament is not aware of that.

Ms McKenna was dismissive of the notion of European patriotism. Patriotism is about a willingness to make sacrifices for others. There is no doubt that in the Europe of the future we will have to make sacrifices for others. The idea that countries can pursue individual interests without taking others into account is not viable. Ireland is a member of the single currency, for example, and that may mean that we have to pursue economic policies that are not ideal for Ireland. That requires a form of patriotism and it is in that sense that a European patriotism must be created, not in a warlike conception of patriotism.

The idea that some countries would go ahead while others do not is not in the draft considered by the praesidium. It was, however, mentioned in an ill-advised interview with Der Spiegel given by the president of the convention, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing. He should never have done that and I have told him that to his face. It is not appropriate to give that sort of interview, which was particularly sensitive for a country such as Ireland which has to have a referendum. As the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, said, the method of nomination of candidates for the presidency of the Commission has not yet been considered. I could give my ideas to Deputy Kirk but that might take up more time than is available.

To those who argue that the European Parliament should elect the President, I say that one of the successes of the European Union has been the separation of powers. The mandate of the Executive comes from a different place from the President, and the Commission comes from a different place from the Parliament. If the Parliament started to elect the Commission, the Commission would then become the creature of Parliament or vice versa. Separation, important for smaller states, would be lost. I am hesitant about the Parliament electing the President not just because I would prefer a direct mandate but also because it cuts across the separation of powers which is an important part of the theory of a federal constitution based on Montesquieu's ideas.

Deputy Mulcahy

The Dáil elects the Taoiseach.

Deputy J. Bruton

I do think the parliamentary system is appropriate to a federation or a confederation such as the European Union in the way it is appropriate to a unitary state. It is not the system in the United States, for example. It is right that the Dáil elects the Taoiseach because Ireland is a unitary state but as far as Europe is concerned it is a looser thing and I favour that for reasons Deputy Mulcahy would agree with.

Deputy Andrews MEP refers to us going too fast. To that I say that the Government has set a deadline and we have to be finished by June. We have lives to live. If the Government is prepared to extend our mandate, we might be prepared to negotiate terms but we would be looking for better terms in some respects.

I will try to say something to the Minister that he will not be able to reply to as the chairman will not let him. I know that the Minister did not go to the Dutch dinner but he should go to the Greek dinner. A dinner is being given by Mr. Katiforis at which it is important we are represented. Small countries have to work together. The big boys are stitching it up and unless we get together with other small countries we will not win. I am prepared to go jogging with the Minister to work off all the weight he might put up dining for Ireland but he should go to the Greek dinner.

Deputy Andrews

They are going. The Deputy should not worry.

Chairman

If Members could respond briefly, we might even get to an Irish lunch.

Proinsias De Rossa

I will be as quick as I can. With regard to the point on civil society, there was a hearing held at the convention where the case made by civil society was listened to intently. There is a proposal, for instance, that the obligation to consult civil society should be incorporated into the new European constitution on legislative proposals.

On subsidiarity and the Committee of the Regions, the committee should look at the submission by its Irish members as there is a conflict in their position. They argue that subsidiarity should be incorporated in the constitution while also arguing that subsidiarity is primarily a political issue. It cannot be both and I argue that it is primarily a political issue. Flexibility is necessary and needs to be defined. The idea of subsidiarity should be incorporated, but locking it into a defined position would be a mistake, and it would be a mistake for national Parliaments to argue for it.

To argue that the project is elitist as Deputy Gormley has done is an unintended admission that the Deputy is now part of the elite.

Deputy Gormley

I am afraid so.

Proinsias De Rossa

It is not elitist and that has been dealt with. We have a responsibility as elected representatives to get the debate onto the streets. In terms of going too fast, any position of leadership is, by definition, ahead of the posse in thinking and other ways. Whether we are too far ahead is a matter of judgment but we cannot claim to lead if we are not ahead and out there arguing for new ideas and ways of doing things.

The constitutional affairs committee of the European Parliament and committees of national parliaments with similar remits have regular meetings two or three times a year. I do not know if Irish committees are invited to participate, but there is nothing in current procedures to prevent it and there is a proposal in the national Parliaments' work group to the convention which argues for more sectoral interaction between, for example, social affairs committees at national level and the European social affairs committee.

Senator Mooney mentioned the parliamentary assembly of the Western European Union. In so far as they apply to the European Union, the functions of the Western European Union have been incorporated through the Nice treaty. The EU already has a parliamentary assembly in the European Parliament and the Western European Union as a parliamentary assembly is redundant. We need to guarantee that when the EU deals with security and defence matters there is full accountability to the European Parliament, the people's assembly. We need more parliamentary scrutiny of these issues at European level, not less.

I realise it is a question of perception, but to imagine that the proposed preliminary draft constitution is coming from on high is to ignore the fact that Ireland has a forum which is debating this issue. There is a parliamentary committee here today debating the issue and it will continue to do so. Our Parliament and Government are represented there. We have to deal with the perception and, as public representatives, we should not give it any legs. This is not an elitist project, it is a very representative one.

Neither the charter of fundamental rights nor a European constitution will be superior to the Constitution except in so far as the people from time to time agree that is the case. We have done that with the Amsterdam and Nice treaties and the Single European Act.

Deputy Mulcahy

That is not true.

Proinsias De Rossa

I said except in so far as we agree to it. We agreed a certain sharing of responsibility under the Single European Act.

Deputy Andrews

This is adding confusion to the issue. Mr. De Rossa is talking about a constitution and people do not know what he is talking about. Is it a European constitution that will supercede ours?

Proinsias De Rossa

No.

Deputy Andrews

These things are not known to the people.

Proinsias De Rossa

This is precisely what I am saying. Neither the Charter nor the constitution will supercede our Constitution unless the people decide at some point that they should.

Deputy Mulcahy

That is not the case.

Deputy Carey

The proposed constitutional treaty will apply only in the areas where the EU has competence. I agree with Senator McDowell that we need a comprehensive statement in which Ireland describes the role it will play in Europe now and in five years. For that reason we need to engage the public. How that is to be done can be worked out, but it is vital. I totally sympathise with Deputy Sexton when she says that we may be running far too quickly ahead. We have to make a start somewhere and as I said earlier, I do not want the Irish people to find suddenly that we have landed them with a package that we cannot sell them.

In relation to civil society, Mr. De Rossa mentioned a three day youth convention in July and there will be a further one later. Engagement of sectors of the population like that is important. The Committee of the Regions have observer status, with the trade union and employer groups, at the convention.

Deputy Gormley

I saw some of the contributions on the monitor and the point Deputy Sexton made related to her party saying after Nice, "Thus far and no further." That is not a reality, we are going further and further. It is almost like trying to stop a bolting horse. People need to be aware that the project goes on and develops, which in some cases can be good, but in others may cause fundamental disagreement.

The Chairman and I disagree fundamentally on the issue of terrorism. The strongest power, the United States of America, is incapable of stopping an attack and it is very difficult to defeat terrorism by military means as we know from our history. We have infiltrated terrorist cells and acquired better intelligence which are things that ought to be done. There should be co-operation on these fronts, but I do not see how having a common defence and increasing hugely spending on armaments will deal with terrorism. That does not make sense. Terrorism is being used as a pretext by many within the EU and I hope sincerely that we are not gripped by the same hysteria that occurred in the USA which allowed President Bush immediately to go before Congress and demand increased military spending. There is a fundamental choice to be made and if we go down that route we will have to increase massively our military spending within the European Union. The Chairman may wish to tell his voters that he would prefer to spend money on tanks and guns rather than on health, education and other things of great importance. These are choices that have to be made.

Chairman

The choice we have to make is to provide for the security of the citizen and on the day after a plane crashes into Sellafield what the Deputy has just said will not stand. There are two viewpoints on this and neither of us may be correct, but we should not seek to dismiss the views of others by constantly saying that money can be spent on health or education.

Deputy Gormley

That is a fact.

Chairman

The State has to provide for security, whether it is the Garda or whatever. That debate has not taken place.

Deputy Gormley

Let us have that debate, but the United States spends about 3.2% of its GDP on the military. European spending is much lower, as has been raised all the time in our working group on defence.

Proinsias De Rossa

Globally, Europe is the same. In fact, spending is greater.

Deputy Gormley

It is not. I saw the table laid out and our spending is lower.

Proinsias De Rossa

Europe in general has more planes than the USA.

Deputy Gormley

We know that, but they are the wrong sort of planes as has been made clear.

Average spending is lower. Ireland has the lowest spending on defence in Europe at 0.75% of GDP.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Defence Forces do not thank us for that.

Deputy Gormley

If you want to increase that to even 2% of GDP it is substantial and the basis of a political debate. I am all for that debate. All I am saying is that there are choices to be made.

Deputy Harkin

Everybody has said that we need to bring the people with us and we need to know what we are talking about. A fundamental issue was discussed a few moments ago. I am sitting here and I still do not know the answers. Deputy Mulcahy asked if the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights and the European constitution could override the Constitution and we were told by one side that they could not unless the people agreed, while the Deputy is adamant that is not the case. If it is possible, I would like that to be clarified.

Deputy Roche

Proinsias De Rossa MEP was absolutely correct. There is no way the product of the convention can supercede the Constitution.

Deputy Mulcahy

Nobody said that.

Deputy Roche

I am addressing my comment to the question which was rightly raised by Deputy Harkin. The last thing we need to do is create confusion in the minds of the people when the whole point of today's positive meeting is to commence a debate based on facts. The answer to the question is no. The point Proinsias De Rossa MEP made was that in so far as there has been a surrender of sovereignty from 1973 onwards, it has been done with the will of the people as recorded in referenda. This process will be no different.

Chairman

I thank everybody for their contributions to this very useful debate. While it lasted a little longer than our debates usually do, we needed an overview of the matter. I found it very interesting and hope the same applies to members of the convention, the MEPs in attendance and members of the committee.

The dates I set out for the next meetings are indicative only. I ask members to leave the matter in the hands of the Chair and we will produce firmer dates later. I thank convention members for participating and for the very civilised and constructive debate which contained many ideas, questions and criticisms. I propose to place the papers we circulated on the committee web page.

The joint committee went into private session at 2.55 p.m. and adjourned at 3.05 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 4 December 2002.