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.