JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Friday, 17 Jan 2003

Vol. 1 No. 7

Convention on the Future of Europe.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Roche)

In my introductory comments I will deal with the three issues you mentioned, Chairman, after which I will respond to members' questions. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the committee on the outcome of the working groups on national parliaments, subsidiarity and complementary competences and to give an indication, however brief, of where we stand on social Europe. We will probably discuss the latter again in some detail.

The working groups on national parliaments, subsidiarity and complementary competences are part of the first wave of six groups that were appointed by the convention in June last year and which reported in the autumn. It should be pointed out that prior to my appointment and taking up my current responsibilities in the convention, several of these committees had finalised their work. Neither myself nor my predecessor, Mr. Ray MacSharry, was a member of the three working groups. Given the small number of us who go to the convention, it is not possible to cover every working group. That is not a defensive point but simply a point of fact. Notwithstanding that, I hope my comments will be helpful to the committee.

As Deputy Bruton said, it is wise to consider the work on national parliaments and subsidiarity as parts of the same continuum because the two issues are related. He is also right to point out that the institutional issues of the European Parliament and how it will be involved in other institutional matters also effectively arises, although it is not mentioned, in the working group on the national parliaments. I will deal first with the recommendations on national parliaments and subsidiarity. The issue of subsidiarity is of great significance to the Irish people and has been subject to extensive public debate. The fundamental concerns of our citizens have been that there be greater clarity and more certainty as to who does what within the European Union and where the boundaries lie.

I believe all institutions of the Community are mindful of the continuing work that needs to be done in respect of subsidiarity. That comes across during the debates even on other working groups within the convention. The current situation is not perceived as satisfactory; indeed, it is unsatisfactory. The institutions, with the best will in the world, sometimes have a momentum of their own so there is a propensity to stray. At the same time it is important to ensure that any changes being contemplated should not complicate the decision making process further. The working groups' reports in both these areas strike a pragmatic and a workable balance that we can generally welcome. The mechanism that is proposed, particularly in the area of subsidiarity, is suitable and flexible.

National parliaments have a particularly important role, in connection with the people who elect them, to widen political debate within the Union. That is a fundamental objective within the convention. I therefore welcome the recognition in the working group's report of the importance and the role to be played by the national parliaments. The proposal to grant national parliaments the right to make known their views on compliance with the subsidiarity principle at the beginning of the legislative process is an important recommendation which has come at an important time. The suggestion that national parliaments should have the right to appeal to the Court of Justice if it is felt that their concerns have not been addressed also seems sensible. I do not imagine that such a power would be used frequently by national parliaments. The cause to use it should seldom arise. The existence of such a power would be an important reassurance to the public and an important recognition of the role and responsibilities of national parliaments.

The recommendations on subsidiarity were strongly endorsed by the working group on national parliaments. The subsidiarity and national parliaments working groups were effectively operating together. The national parliaments working group made further recommendations, in its own right, as to how best to enhance the role of national parliaments in EU affairs. Its suggestion that the Commission present an annual legislative programme to national parliaments seems sensible. Again, it would help to strengthen the relationship between national parliaments. The suggestion of a European week linked with the presentation, whereby national parliaments across the member states can engage in discussion in their legislatures on European issues, is interesting and worthy of study. It would be interesting to hear the committee's views on it. Proinsias De Rossa MEP had a significant role to play in the origination and development of this idea.

I also strongly support the recommendation that the importance of national parliaments be reflected through a specific reference in the treaty. One of the issues on which the treaties have been silent is the role of national parliaments and its significance. That is a deficiency in the existing treaty structure and it is a good proposition that it be addressed. The formal recognition suggested by the report on parliaments will help to anchor the Union further in the member states and to increase the sense of democratic legitimacy. It also addresses the concern that the Community somehow operates in isolation from the concerns of the national parliaments and the citizens of the Union.

I welcome the fact that the report of the working group on national parliaments has clearly identified the importance of enhancing national scrutiny systems. The existence of this committee is a recognition that the Oireachtas realised there was a deficiency in this regard in the past. It was addressed by the re-establishment of this committee and by putting it on a legislative basis. This issue is important to myself and the Government and it is one of the positive developments that emerged from the first referendum on Nice.

I wish to deal with an issue which is topical at present, the relationship of national parliaments in the context of the discussions which are about to be held in the convention on the institutional arrangements. Deputy Bruton and I have a particular personal interest here so if I appear to be riding a hobbyhorse, Deputy Bruton will do likewise. The Government is seeking to find other ways to give national parliaments an enhanced role in the forthcoming treaty. I have submitted a paper on the election of the Commission President to the convention and it will be considered shortly. Deputy Bruton has already submitted his paper on the issue.

The basic objective is to enhance the legitimacy and authority of the Commission President and, at the same time, to give specific recognition to the interests that exist in the national parliaments in the matter of the selection of the Commission President. Deputy Bruton has submitted a paper to the convention on the direct election of the president by the people of Europe through the national parliaments. It is no exaggeration to suggest that the paper is creative and innovative. It has attracted a remarkable degree of interest and attention, not just in this country but also, deservedly, outside it. It remains to be seen, however, whether it will attract sufficient support within the convention. The paper is good. In a few years' time we will probably say it was in advance of its time. I compliment Deputy John Bruton on what he has done in this and in other regards.

There are differing views within the convention as to how the President of the Commission should be elected. There are those who favour the current system where the member states, through the European Council, play a dominant role, but there is strong support for an election by the European Parliament. In the Franco-German paper, which was published subsequent to the preparation of these notes, there is support for an election by the European Parliament. There is support in the Benelux paper for an election by the European Parliament on a super majority. There is a reference in the recently published paper by the Commission on the same issue.

From the start of the convention, both myself and the Government argued strongly for a major role by national parliaments in this area. By playing a role in the election of the President of the Commission, national parliaments would help to bridge the gap between the Community and the citizens. Logically it could be argued that both the European Parliament and the member states, two sides of the institutional triangle, should have equal roles in the appointment. My paper to the convention explores the concept of an electoral college which would involve both the European Parliament and the national parliaments. This would represent a middle way between the current system and election by the European Parliament. It would ensure that the President of the Commission derived democratic legitimacy both at European level and at a national or member state level. That would reflect the dual nature of the Union. It would also allow for full reflection of the diversity of political opinions and preferences across the Union and within the member states. With respect to all the suggestions made about election through the European Parliament, I do not believe it can achieve that reflection of diversity.

If the basic concept is worthy of consideration, then a range of detailed issues arise for reflection. These are elaborated in my paper, although I do not wish to go into them in too much detail. I suggest that national parliaments and the European Parliament should be equal. They should each have 50% of the votes. It is interesting that yesterday I received a paper from the Danish Embassy which shows that the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, supports the proposition of an electoral college. He supports the details I have put forward, such as those relating to nominations, although he does not deal in detail with the election system. Each parliament should be involved and should be allowed to split its vote to reflect its own internal diversity. Voting would take place simultaneously across Europe through delegates or electronically which would give a pan-European dimension to the process. As regards the electoral system, the STV system we use in our presidential elections could be adopted to the electoral system. Members of Dáil and Seanad Éireann are the world-wide experts in the STV system.

I also deal in my paper with the issue of nominations. There has always been a criticism and a view that major roles, such as that of President of the Commission, should not be decided in smoke-filled rooms late at night beyond the view of the public. I have argued that nomination should be by a number of member states, perhaps five, by a group of MEPs, by a fixed number of MEPs or by a system which would allow all three ways to be applied. I envisage a period of campaigning after the nomination and before the election to allow the people who are nominated to come forward. I suggest that the most appropriate way for that to happen would be for the putative candidates to come before parliamentary committees, such as this one.

In putting forward these ideas, my aim is to stimulate debate. Our views on the issue are not dogmatic or fixed. The proposition in the Government's paper is to help to stimulate debate. It is intriguing that within the same week two Irish papers have been put forward on the same issue, although they adopt different views. Both are intended to stimulate debate and both have been well received. The response will be interesting in the coming weeks.

As regards complementary competences and the complementary competences working group, one of the things we are trying to do in the convention is to simplify what we mean in Europe. In this context, the term complementary competences requires a degree of simplification. We are talking about the relevant competences which exist between the member states and the Union and processes whereby one can complement the other. Having taken so much time on the issue of national parliaments, I will be brief in my comments on the conclusion of the complementary competences working group.

Chairman

I understood we would take national parliaments and subsidiarity.

Deputy Roche

It would be a good time to break. I will speak for only two minutes on the complementary competences.

Chairman

Subsidiarity and national parliaments.

Deputy Roche

I will break then, Chairman, and I will be delighted to hear the committee's views.

Deputy J. Bruton

I will not repeat anything which has been said by the Minister of State. The subsidiarity group recommends what it calls an early warning system whereby a majority in a number of national parliaments, depending on the number of national parliaments involved, can trigger either a delay in a Commission proposal or, if enough parliaments sign the relevant motion, a withdrawal of the proposal on the ground that it offends against the principle of subsidiarity. In other words, it is a proposal which should more appropriately be the subject of action at national or sub-national level rather than at European level. This early warning system is a novel idea in the sense that it has not been part of the legislative system of the European Union in the past. It will mean that the Commission must take more care in preparing its proposals to ensure they comply with the subsidiarity principle. At present, the Commission must give a certificate with each proposal to the effect that it is compliant. However, it is my understanding that in practice that is a formality which does not necessarily reflect deep thought. If there is the possibility that majorities in national parliaments will have the proposal either referred back for reconsideration or forcibly withdrawn on the ground of such an issue, that will require greater attention to be paid to subsidiarity.

I have expressed in the convention two reservations about this issue. The first reservation I expressed was that it will introduce yet another hurdle in the passage of EU legislation. To the extent that one regards EU legislation on a matter to be urgent, that is a consideration which must be borne in mind. It will slow the process down and it is a matter of judgment whether that is a price worth paying. It probably is, but it is a point worth considering.

The other concern I raised is more serious, namely, that majorities in national parliaments may use this mechanism - in other words, the Government of the day. If a Government does not like a proposal, in addition to opposing it in the Council, it will get its whip majority - most Union countries have whip majorities - to pass a subsidiarity early warning motion to slow the process down on two fronts. It will endeavour to slow it in the Council, but it will also endeavour to have it withdrawn or delayed. I do not have a problem with that, but it is wrong that it should only be Government majorities which are able to do that. I argued at the convention without success - I do not think I will have any more success in the future with this point of view than I have had in the past, although it is correct - that if a sufficient number of opposition parties in a sufficient number of countries are of the opinion that something offends against subsidiarity, they should also be able to trigger it, although a larger number would be required. I suggest that if one could get 40% of members of parliament in, say, more than half the parliaments of the Union, that would be enough to trigger the mechanism. It would give the Opposition a role because it seems that if the Opposition does not have a role, there will not be any real discussion about the issue in Parliament. This will just be another instrument available to a Government which does not like a proposal and it will keep the information to itself because at the end of the day it will be able to stop it anyway. It will not happen without its support because a majority is required. If a succession of Opposition parties, or Governments, could get together to trigger the mechanism, it would mean the entire Dáil and Seanad would be more likely to be involved.

There is another aspect of this proposal which I do not like and think is quite dangerous - the proposal that countries' national parliaments which have used the early warning mechanism in the first stage may subsequent to a proposal being adopted have the matter referred to the court. While one may say, "What is wrong with that?" it will mean that only countries using the early warning mechanism may go to court. On a fail safe basis, that will create an incentive for a lot of countries to use the early warning mechanism, whether justified or not, in order that they have the locus standi to go to court subsequently. That will lead to over-use of the early-warning mechanism. In that respect I do not agree with the Minister of State’s relative optimism that this will not be an over-used instrument. That aspect should certainly be dropped. Either every parliament, whether it uses an early warning mechanism, should be able to take the matter to court or nobody should be able to do so. It should not, however, just be the ones which use the early warning mechanism that should be able to do so. If that happens, we will have a lot of problems and it will slow the whole process down. The risk of the convention is that in our anxiety to be more open we could lose the dynamic.

That is what I was anxious to say about subsidiarity, although I will have less to say about the report on national parliaments because it is not terribly difficult to agree with. It does not contain anything very radical. It suggests that the constitutional treaty should recognise the role of national parliaments and that COSAC should be more clearly defined. It makes a very good suggestion that there should be more sectoral committee networks. In addition to European affairs committees of the various parliaments meeting through COSAC, the justice and agriculture committees should also meet in this way. If we want to build up an understanding of Europe among all Members of the Dáil, while one would always want to respect the superior role of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, and its Chairman——

Chairman

I do not know why we should have the pressure and the pain, exclusively.

Deputy J. Bruton

Exactly. I was afraid you were going to disagree with me and was taking out insurance in that case. However, I do not need it now because you have agreed with me. It would be good to have them more involved in a networking role. That is not to give them the overall policy-making role, because that has to be cross-cutting with a committee like this, which is cross-cutting, but they should at least develop the expertise in order that when proposals emerge, they will not be greeted with a sense of "Oh, we were never told about this," or "Where is this coming from?" or "What is the reason for that?" If people have been meeting regularly, say, twice a year, in an assembly of agriculture committees in Brussels, they will know what is coming down the tracks and, while they may agree or disagree with it, they will not be taken by surprise.

With regard to the issue of national parliaments, the report of the working group, of which I was chairman - the justice and home affairs group - has made further recommendations that would go beyond what is in this report. We have suggested, for instance, that when Heads of Government are defining the priorities of criminal law policy at European level, which they will do at the European Council every so often, the national parliament, the Dáil, should be consulted in advance by the Taoiseach of the day about what he or she is thinking in that area. We stress that there is no point in consulting the Dáil after something has been agreed, that it should be consulted before it is announced or decided. The report recommended specifically that each parliament should be consulted on this aspect before a proposal was decided upon. We also suggested that each parliament should be in receipt of the annual report of Europol, the European police body, given that it involves co-operation between national governments in order that national parliaments would be reasonably well informed.

Deputy Carey

I do not want to go over any of the detail into which other speakers have gone. For those of us who are members of national parliaments, these two reports are extremely useful because they underpin the future direction of the engagement of national parliaments with the European process. As Deputy John Bruton said, while the report to national parliaments is not terribly radical and contains no great vision, it is something we ought to tease through. There is an interesting attempt to give COSAC a role. Those of us who have been involved in COSAC during the years realise that it has been rattling around without any real function for a long time. There is now a real attempt to make some progress.

I agree with what Deputy Bruton said about the sectoral committees. It is important that this proposal is teased through some more. On subsidiarity, if we believe in anything, we ought to be pursuing this matter in a radical way. I am not certain that I agree entirely with Deputy Bruton about the appeal mechanism to the European Court of Justice. Perhaps it should be confined either to everybody or nobody as to whether they can appeal under the early warning system. As I am not really sure about this, we need to tease the matter through.

Through all of this, there has been an attempt to give a role to the Committee of the Regions from which a good submission was made to the working party. I stress that I was not a member of the working party then, having been appointed when most of the work in this area had been completed. The proposals concerning the Committee of the Regions were certainly interesting. Members of this committee have a particular interest in the subsidiarity provisions.

While most of the points have been addressed, we need to explore some of them. For example, are we satisfied with the scrutiny mechanisms being proposed? Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, has made an interesting proposal concerning European weeks. Anecdotally, it strikes me that we have just gone through a European week here. Some of us seem to have been stumbling all week from one European convention event to another. It is a great pity that the public has not been more engaged in it and has not heard more about it. Perhaps it is something that might be formulated.

Both reports are worthwhile and practical. Some of the other working parties' proposals probably go beyond what the reports are proposing such as the one Deputy Bruton suggested and the one of which I was a member dealing with freedom, security and justice, and the right of initiative. Those issues will arise time and again. I strongly suspect that some of the proposals contained in the report on social Europe may go further also. It is early days to discuss some of them.

Chairman

I would like to make some comments at the opening of this debate. Together with other members, Deputy Carey will be aware that the scrutiny process has started. We are trying to keep on top of that new process. Since October we have dealt with 106, not 18 as some people seem to think, draft regulations and directives in advance of their being considered, or finalised, by the institutions of the Union. That is a huge amount of work. We only referred on about 22 draft regulations and directives but if we had not dealt with all 106, the other committees would have been clogged up. That is the purpose of the sifting process we have started.

The hybrid terms of reference of this committee based on the terms of reference given by the Dáil and the legislative scrutiny terms are good, except we cannot do the job. All this talk about fine structures in Europe will be just talk. I hope that when sectoral committees become involved in COSAC, it will not be like the experience we have with COSAC now in that we have difficulty getting members to go because, quite frankly, it is a boring body of which to be part. It needs to be given a role.

As regards how we fulfil our role, I am glad members of the forum have been given some support and facility, albeit basic support, but I find it practically impossible to exercise my functions as Chairman of this committee and the scrutiny sub-committee without one additional resource. Resources are not put into the committee. Briefs are coming in for members and we do not have a plan. We must think not only in terms of structures but of support. This week alone there was a meeting of the steering group of the forum, the forum itself, the foreign affairs committee, the scrutiny sub-committee and a double session of this committee. Next week I will be in Brussels for three days - Monday to Wednesday - in Mayo from Thursday to Friday evening and the following Monday and Tuesday I will be at COSAC.

Members need some support. All the structures are fine but if the national forum can get support, parliamentary committees must also get support to do the job. Over the years we as parliamentarians have not stood up for ourselves no matter who was in office. There is an idea that parliament should not be resourced. No civil servant in the Department of Foreign Affairs would attempt to take on this workload without the required resources, and I know they are under pressure. I make that point because it will have to be made more forcefully until something is done to address the issue.

The chairmanship of COSAC is coming up for Ireland, as is the Presidency. The reports of the convention and the forum, the Intergovernmental Conference, the Presidency and enlargement are all major issues on the Irish agenda for the coming 18 months and we, as a committee, will be expected to be on top of them. We need to give urgent consideration to this matter.

We facilitate and welcome MEPs' attendance here. It is an important contact and I am glad Avril Doyle, MEP and Patricia McKenna, MEP are here this morning. If there is to be interaction, why does it have to be at major structural level? Why can the Ceann Comhairle not nominate the chairman of the European affairs committee or another person from the national parliament to go every so often to the European Parliament, as MEPs have access to contribute to our debates, to raise concerns on behalf of our parliament? I am not talking about the right to vote or to be an observer but to go - not only when invited - occasionally as a right to address issues of concern to the national parliament. It would not increase the number of members of parliament and the individual nominated would not be there every week or even every month but would have the right to go and raise issues, as MEPs have the right to make useful contributions here, thereby making this committee much more worthwhile. I raised this idea before and would welcome the views of forum members on that.

Ms Avril Doyle, MEP

Deputy O'Keeffe apologised for having to leave. There has been a family bereavement so he has had to go.

The Chairman's final point was about reciprocation. We come here and make our contribution when it is physically possible for us to do so - we can make it on Fridays more often than midweek. We finished two weeks after Christmas and could not come to last week's mid-week meeting. I think you will accept that as de facto. We are usually not here mid-week.

I am not sure why it evolves but there is a huge gap between MEPs of the major parties - I cannot speak for the smaller parties because I do not know what the dynamics are with them - at home and the MEPs in the European Parliament. It is a lost opportunity. If some of the contacts were more structured, the Chairman would hardly need to make the point he made because we are supposedly representing your views in Europe, the views of the country or our party or whatever the case may be. There is, however, a huge gap between what is going on here - albeit with the best efforts of this committee to integrate us - and what is happening out there.

Nine times out of ten I read about my party's views - I will not trespass on what other parties do but, from speaking to other MEP colleagues, I know it is not much different - on European matters in the Irish papers. There is no attempt to involve us in the loop before the statements are made. There is a sort of gap and it is not that we agree or disagree, it is a matter of being in the loop somehow. Physically, that is difficult to achieve. We are over there and you are here 99% of the time and it is extremely difficult to be part of the decision making.

With respect, Chairman, I am not sure I agree there is a need for TDs, Senators, Ministers of State and others to be in Europe putting questions, except if there was a meeting structure, although certainly not in the full Parliament as you suggested. If there were a relevant committee in Europe which one wished to attend, observer status is all that could be afforded under the present system. Maybe it is something which could be changed under the new discussions in the forum. I do not think we are making the best use of all our resources at the moment and I am not quite sure yet how to do it. We come here sporadically. We miss every other meeting or several meetings in between so it is hard to have continuity and to know what is happening. Likewise, I am not sure how we would reciprocate.

I move from that point to that commented on in the media this week about lack of cohesion in the Irish approach to what it wants from the convention. When we go to Europe as MEPs, we find people have never heard of the Civil War and do not understand the difference in our philosophical standpoints. Once we get people one to one, we can tell them but we are Irish MEPs. When one goes to Europe, one largely togs out in the Irish jersey. MEPs belong to different political groups, which makes a political statement, and, with respect, the group to which I belong is making an enormous contribution to the Parliament.

The excellent work being done by our superb Minister of State, Deputy Roche, differs from the excellent work being done by Deputy John Bruton. I am not sure what stage the committee's involvement is at. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, issued an excellent statement albeit somewhat late in the day. Other MEPs attending the convention differ from the parties I mentioned. There does not seem to be any coherent Irish approach to the convention.

A rather ill-informed criticism was made in the Irish press this week and I think the committee could have done more to defend the excellent work it is doing. That sort of view flagged by the Irish media is certainly the view strongly held in Europe because they do not understand the different approaches by the various parties involved.

What will be the final position? Will there be a way in which we can draw the Irish view together, from the different political philosophies feeding into it from the different political parties, to present a more coherent view in the final stages? By doing that, we will get more from it because we will seem more irrelevant if we have four different ideas about how the president of Europe should be elected or whether there should be one or two. It is not the most significant issue but it is the most populist and easy for the newspapers to cover. We should clear our heads as a country in terms of what we want from the convention at the end of the day. Serious work is being done by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, Deputy John Bruton, Proinsias De Rossa MEP and others.

I am an ordinary MEP who is not part of the convention. However, my colleague JohnCushnahan MEP is a subsidiary member of the convention in Brussels. We have inputs all over the place. How will you, as Chairman of the committee, deign to present an Irish view in a few months?

Chairman

With great difficulty. I have never heard the MEP described as "ordinary".

Ms Doyle, MEP

Leave that aside. Will you answer my question?

Ms Patricia McKenna, MEP

I agree with Ms Doyle regarding the relationship between MEPs and national parliaments but the media is not wrong to report the lack of coherence because that is the case. It is unrealistic to expect there will be a consensus between all the different parties at the convention. Fianna Fáil, Fine Gaeland the Green Party, represented by DeputyGormley, will have their own positions, which will overlap. Sometimes we may find ourselves agreeing with Deputy Roche on various issues, perhaps more so than with Deputy John Bruton but, at the end of the day, there is a major difference between the representatives and policies on where we see Europe going and what direction we want to see it take, as was highlighted during the Nice treaty debate.

Some people want a federalist, united states of Europe and others do not, while some want something in between. It is unrealistic to ask the Irish delegation to the convention for a coherent position. We will align ourselves with Europeans who have adopted a similar position. The Minister of State will align himself with other groups which have adopted a similar position to Fianna Fáil, while Deputy Bruton will align with other parties. The parliamentary delegation will not have a unified position and that was one of the reasons it was proposed that a delegation from each parliament should be sent to the convention and should comprise Government representatives and those of parliamentary parties which have adopted different positions.

The problem is what will emerge from the convention. The Government parties must be clear about their vision of the convention and Deputy Bruton must give a clear indication of his position because he is part of the presidium, which is an extremely powerful body within the convention. It is not open and transparent and that is a major problem. The presidium is hand picked and it does not represent all the member states.

Deputy J. Bruton

I was elected to the presidium.

Ms McKenna, MEP

Yes, but it lacks transparency. The presidium is not open and it meets in secret. There has been controversy over what has been discussed at the presidium and that is one of the strongest criticism of the operations of the convention.

It is important that we should find out what exactly is being discussed. Deputy Bruton, as a member of the presidium, should be open about that. We have heard of papers being circulated at presidium meetings that are collected at the conclusion of the meeting. If we are serious about being open and transparent and involving the people of Europe, none of the convention's bodies should meet in secret. It is undemocratic that the person who represents Ireland is appointed by the Government, whether one agrees with his or her views. It is Deputy Roche in this instance and he should have more input into what is happening at the presidium, even though one may not like it. Why does the Deputy not continue to raise the issue of the lack of transparency in the presidium because other member states have done so at the convention?

Ms Doyle, MEP

There is an answer to that.

Deputy Roche

The discussion has been broadened. Chairman, you mentioned the issue of resources, which both of us have discussed on many occasions. I do not want to go back over old ground but both of us agree the issue of resources will only be resolved when the Dáil is given control of its own budget and is not treated as an adjunct of the Department of Finance. While I will get into trouble with the Department in this regard, I have always espoused that view.

Both MEPs have raised interesting issues, which should be debated. Ms Doyle stated MEPs felt they were out of the loop but that is an issue for parliamentary parties. The major parliamentary parties meet during Dáil sittings, which coincide with meetings of the European Parliament, and that makes life difficult. I took an initiative recently in Strasbourg by inviting all Irish MEPs to meet for dinner but it could not be organised because they are so busy and working in many different places. I will follow up on that initiative because it would be good if all the MEPs and, perhaps, the convention representatives could sit around the same table.

However, concern has been raised by a national newspaper about my dietary habits because I did not attend a Dutch lunch. My agenda next Sunday includes a late dinner and two early breakfasts and a lunch and a dinner. I will put on weight but it is correct that we should all meet at regular intervals. I agree with Ms McKenna that all of us have approached the convention from different viewpoints. The purpose of the convention is not to have dogmatic national views trotted out, as happened previously. The convention aims to take into account the diversity of political views that exist throughout Europe and in individual parliaments. It would be a lesser place if we did not have that.

MEPs, for example, have a significant role within the convention. The difference in attitude among them is quite dramatic. The most federalist views in the convention are being propagated by them. Some, I jokingly said, must be living in a parallel universe because they could not conceivably be reflecting the views of citizens in their states. However, they hold sincere views, with which I disagree absolutely and fundamentally, but it is healthy that different views should be reflected.

As Ms Doyle stated, there has been an astonishing attempt to suggest there should be a single, "Team Ireland" view. That suggestion is absolutely mad and it is inconsistent with the ethos and positivity of the convention. The Dáil made a wise decision when it decided there would be a Government representative and two representatives from the main Opposition parties in the delegation attending the convention. That is healthy and it was one of the better decisions made by the House. Deputy Bruton and I do not agree on everything. He is frequently wrong and I am always right and, therefore, naturally, we do not agree on everything.

Deputy J. Bruton

Only the Minister of State's wife would agree with that proposition.

Deputy Roche

She is right more often than me. An interesting interview with Proinsias De Rossa MEP about his philosophy and approach was published on the convention's website. It is great that we have differing views because none of us has absolute wisdom. Some issues which Deputy John Bruton and Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, have brought to our discussions have been helpful. Deputy Bruton is a member of the European People's Party and, as Avril Doyle, MEP, would remind me, we are in a lesser group.

Ms Doyle, MEP

The EPP is the largest group whereas the Minister of State's party is the largest in the House, which creates its own interesting dynamic. That is why Deputy Bruton is a member of the presidium.

Deputy Roche

There is a dynamic. It is wrong to suggest, as has been the case - I resent it because it is untruthful - that the Irish are not punching their weight in the convention and not representing the diversity of views that exist in Ireland. This is fundamentally and demonstrably wrong. Anyone who examines the objective materials available can see that this is wrong. It is surprising that, in the Forum on Europe, an academic who should know better admitted that he had done his research by referring to a few fellows he met in the pub. That is not acceptable. The reality is that we have a coherent approach towards keeping in contact with each other, but naturally we have different views. I agree with Patricia McKenna that it is healthy for there to be different views in the convention. There is a coherence in our approach and, if the committee wishes, I could go into detail about the structures for dealing with it.

I agree with Patricia McKenna MEP that it is possible to incorporate the different alignments in the convention, and she is right to say that a unified position is neither possible nor desirable. We have tried in the convention to recognise that there is a diverse range of views. I have suggested and the Minister made clear this week that it would be wrong of us to approach anything in a dogged or dogmatic way. To assume that our proposition is always right is to start from the wrong basis. For example, I disagree fundamentally with the Franco-German paper issued this week, but I will not reject its contents out of hand. They are two large nations which have a right to their view and we have a responsibility to listen to them. As a small nation, we have a right to make our views known and they have a responsibility to listen to us. That is the process in the convention.

Patricia McKenna MEP mentioned her concerns about the presidium. Deputy Bruton was not hand picked by anyone, but was elected to it democratically. He will be better able to defend himself. There is a concern, however, which I share, about the approach taken. This has been raised on a number of occasions and to such an extent that I wrote a letter of protest to the president of the convention regarding his views on what constitutes a consensus. That arose over working paper No. 6. I believed that I was alone, but we, the British, the Swedes, the Latvians and the Estonians believed that a wrong interpretation was taken of the view of the convention. We wrote a letter of protest as a result and that is a matter of record. I am not revealing anything new. There is a danger that when we get to the drafting stage, some people will be of the view that a consensus exists because it happens to be the same as their opinion. The diversity of opinions must be represented.

Within the Irish group that attends the convention, I have received valuable support from Deputy Bruton and have had valuable exchanges with Proinsias De Rossa. I have discussed issues of concern with Deputy Gormley. I have certainly tried to ensure that briefings are available. I am grateful for Deputy Bruton's acknowledgement and Proinsias De Rossa's MEP in today's newspaper of the fact that the resources and access available to me as a Minister of State are made available to our representatives. We also meet each other. The myth has arisen that we do not meet; we meet and discuss issues at the outset of each plenary session.

Networks operate at different levels within the convention and Patricia McKenna made a valid observation in this regard that it would be wrong and foolish to expect there to be consensus on everything. There is not.

Chairman

There are more issues to deal with before we proceed to the ordinary business of the General Affairs Council. Do Deputies Bruton or Carey wish to respond to any of the comments?

Deputy J. Bruton

Yes. Deputy Carey and I have discussed the Chairman's suggestion that the Joint Committee on European Affairs or the Ceann Comhairle would nominate a person who would have right of audience or hearing in the European Parliament. This proposal was not contained in the report of the national parliaments' working group, but as the Chairman has made proposal, it should be put before the convention. We have agreed that if he or the committee draft a proposal along the lines of what he said, we will table it as a contribution on our joint behalf in the convention and it can be taken forward from there.

Chairman

Would it be raised as an idea?

Deputy J. Bruton

Yes.

Chairman

That is all we need.

Deputy J. Bruton

Rather than simply being expressed with no follow-up, we should table it in writing. There is a facility to do that in the same way I tabled my proposal about the president. We can table it as a contribution and it can be taken from there by whoever wants to take it further.

Deputy Roche

I believe there is value in collecting information on and reflecting the various issues relating to national parliaments, rather than referring to the sectoral aspects that arise. Perhaps other members of the convention and I can pick up on that specific point. It would be helpful.

Chairman

I thank the Minister of State.

Deputy J. Bruton

I was not appointed to the presidium. This is the second occasion on which Patricia McKenna has said that I was appointed to it. There was an election to the praesidium and I was elected with the support of the EPP. Gisela Stuart was elected with the support of the socialist group. I had to contest within my group. I spent two to three days on the phone seeking support for my election. There were other possible candidates who withdrew in light of the level of support I obtained. That was an election. I hope Patricia McKenna will not repeat this incorrect statement that I was not elected.

Ms McKenna, MEP

On the transparency issue and the secrecy, that——

Deputy J. Bruton

Ms McKenna made two statements——

Chairman

There should be no cross-talk. Deputy Bruton is in possession.

Deputy J. Bruton

Patricia McKenna made two statements: first, that I was not elected and, second, she referred to transparency. I have dealt with the first issue. As far as the second is concerned, the point is moot. I do not believe the presidium would work if it met in public. The Cabinet does not meet in public and the presidium is the equivalent of the Cabinet as far as the convention is concerned. That is where the work is prepared, where confidential information is exchanged about difficulties certain Governments have with specific proposals and where people are allowed to speak their minds on the basis that they may have to change them within 24 hours in light of what they hear from others. It would not be possible for the presidium to meet in public as Patricia McKenna would wish.

The presidium does not meet in secret because what we do is known well in advance. When we come to the discussion on competences later, I will discuss with the committee, without revealing who said what, etc., what happened in the presidium this week. There is no problem about that. I have taken the initiative of briefing the Irish Government after every presidium meeting so that it is aware of what is happening. While we do not have identical views, we are on the same team representing the country and we must co-ordinate and co-operate.

Deputy Carey

The strength of the convention system is that it can accommodate diverse views and there is constant interaction between the various groups. There is a myth that Ireland is aligned only to certain viewpoints. I was a member of the economic governance working party which was a strange alliance depending on whether we were talking about tax harmonisation, the stability and growth pact or engagement with international fora. The same applied to justice issues, in respect of which I represented the Irish position. I am very happy that the working methods of the delegation, where we meet and hear each other's views and network with a variety of interests both here and abroad, mean there is a fruitful and engaged approach by the Irish delegation as a whole to the convention. Our position is very strong. The working party on social Europe emerged from the working party on economic governance in which we played a significant part. We acknowledged that there was a need to explore further issues which could not be addressed under the mandate given to us in the economic governance working party on which there is an ongoing vibrant debate. It is good to hear a diversity of views here also.

Deputy Harkin

I am pleased that divergent views are being heard at the convention because that makes it more European. If we were to tog out in the national jersey, we would only be representing Ireland rather than looking at this in a European context. I was going to ask Deputy Bruton who elected him to the presidium but I know the various groups within the Parliament elected their representatives. If that is not accurate, he might correct me.

If there is concern about what is going on in the presidium - Ms McKenna, MEP, is expressing this view very forcefully - does Deputy Carey; the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, or Ms Doyle, MEP, have any comment to make or is it just Ms McKenna's view? If it is a reasonably widespread view, it could damage outcomes from the presidium which supposedly is about making the European Union more accessible to its citizens. If the mechanisms in use block this from happening, it needs to be examined.

The Minister of State mentioned a letter of protest he and others launched on a matter of consensus. Can he elaborate on this as I do not know what he is talking about?

Deputy Roche

On the last point, at the end of the plenary session, regarding the report of working group No. 6, the group which dealt with economic governance and on which we were very well represented by Deputy Carey, it did not reach consensus on the thorny issue of tax harmonisation, in which there is huge interest as Ms McKenna will be aware. Many MEPs have very strong views on the issue. There was no consensus on the floor. While there were differing opinions, at the end of an all-day debate the president announced that he believed there was consensus. I was of the view that it was very important to reflect the very point Deputy Harkin made - that there was a diversity of views. Since we signed and sent in our letter other members states have approached us and indicated they have the same concerns.

Deputy J. Bruton

But he did that on his own behalf rather than on behalf of the 13 members of the presidium.

Deputy Roche

Sorry, I should have made that very clear. It was purely a personal observation by the president and represented his views.

Regarding the presidium, I see the arguments on both sides. While it would be very difficult for the presidium to work absolutely in the open, it is not a particularly secretive meeting - people know what is going on. The only concern I have is that at the end of the day, when we are finally writing our report, the fact that there is diversity should be recognised rather than one or two people's views. The convention is not made up of one person but of 105 people plus 102 alternates.

Deputy Carey

In relation to the letter of protest, the president of the convention indicated that he was unhappy that the economic governance working party was not ambitious enough. I remember writing down at the end of his summation at the plenary session when he was commenting on a consensus that he regarded it as somewhat above a majority. At that stage we were quite disturbed, but I am concerned more by the relationship between the presidium and the rest of the convention and whether the presidium may become the engine for work that will be rubber-stamped by the convention. I do not think that will happen. My personal view is that there is now a better balance than there might have been earlier.

Ms Doyle, MEP

Regarding Deputy Harkin's point, the biggest criticism of the presidium in Europe among those of us on the ground relates directly to what the Minister of State said. When the president makes a statement, there can be confusion as to whether it is a personal view, a French view or a statement on behalf of the presidium. To be ecumenical, when Deputy Bruton makes a statement to the press, is that the view of John Bruton, Fine Gael, the EPP or the presidium? I pick two different persons but those remarks to all members of the presidium as it causes some degree of confusion. While I do not agree with the views of Ms McKenna on transparency, I agree with Deputy Bruton's comments on the issue. We know what is happening and what has happened, even if we do not know the status of the comments.

Chairman

As we have a long way to go, I am bringing this to a conclusion. We still have to deal with competences and the GAC agenda to discuss. The Minister of State should lead us off on the issue of competences. Perhaps he will also deal with the matter of social Europe.

Deputy Roche

While there is little to be said on social Europe, regarding competences, the conclusion in the complementary competences paper was largely non-contentious. The report, as I mentioned, looks at what we mean by complementary competences - how competence in the Community should be treated into the future and whether member states should be accorded full competence in matters in which the Union at present has complementary competence, and so on. The first sensible decision it made was to rename complementary competences as supporting measures, which is what this is all about. It relates to issues where there is no Community responsibility but national responsibility.

Chairman

Will the Minister of State explain the term complementary competences? There are new members.

Deputy Roche

The idea of complementary competences arises from the fact that there are national competences and competences which lie within the Community. In other words, there are issues for which member states have responsibility and issues for which the Community has responsibility. Clearly these will not exist in separate universes and there is a degree of interaction between the two. An area such as education would be one where there is national responsibility but there would also be supporting measures arising from the fact that we are a member of the Community. That is the reason there was a debate about the title and there was a change.

Broadly speaking, what was suggested was that Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, which refers to ever closer union, should be redrafted to avoid the impression that the extension of Union competences was an aim and objective. The importance of this point is that naturally nobody wanted the convention to become an excuse for creeping competences within the Community. It was suggested the supporting measures should be defined as applying to policy areas where member states have not transferred competences to the Union, thus allowing the Union to supplement national policies. Legislation such as regulations and directives may not be adopted in these areas by the Community as to do so would be to grant a competence to the Community. The Community could then support member states. The group recommended, for example, that employment, education and vocational training, culture, industry, research and development, public health and trans-European networks should be considered areas where it would be appropriate to have supporting measures.

Broadly speaking, we welcome the findings of the report in which there is nothing very contentious. There are other welcome recommendations such as the strengthening of the national identities of member states and a recommendation to include an article specifically stating powers not conferred on the Union remain with member states, the purpose of which is to prevent the creeping extension of competence. Many people are concerned that the Community is developing beyond where the nation states had decided to allow it to go.

The social working group is well represented by Ireland because Deputy John Bruton,Proinsias De Rossa and I are all members. The social working group will produce its first draft today. It has been looking at the seven questions set by the convention, the first of which was on the values of the Union. This is a broad discussion on the social values and objectives of the European Union.

The second question related to the objectives of the Union. It is just a broad statement of what the Union is about and the values it espouses. The second question was to be more precise to identify the objectives of the Union. For example, we had a discussion on whether full employment should be an objective of the Union. The third question related to the competences of the Union in the social field. This area is of interest because the Union clearly has a social aspect as well as an economic aspect. The idea of this question is to establish the extent of that social aspect.

The fourth question dealt with the methods of co-operation and whether the open method of co-operation should be placed within the constitutional treaty, which is being debated. The fifth question was what relationship can be established between the co-ordination of economic and social policies. This arose out of a concern of members that the Community focuses too much on the economic aspect of community as opposed to the social policy. Procedures about co-decision and the extension of qualified majority voting which were discussed in other working groups were revisited in this particular working group.

The final question related to the draft constitutional treaty dealing with the democratic life of the Union, and it defines issues such as the social partners. It is a bit premature to discuss what exactly this group will do because the first draft of Georges Katiforis's report will be out today. Perhaps we are a little previous in discussing this matter.

Chairman

We have set out an agenda for considering issues and this is one to which we will return. We spoke earlier about the scrutiny process. Members may be aware that Commission document 488 regarding the security of supply of petroleum products is being examined by the Oireachtas committee on marine and natural resources, to which this committee referred it. Therefore, the scrutiny process has begun. I mention that because members who are at the forum might not know that we have begun the scrutiny process. Deputy Bruton may wish to speak on competences and the social aspect in Europe.

Deputy J. Bruton

It is good we are taking these two items together because competencies will deal with who does what and the social Europe report will deal with what we are going to do and what are the values and purposes of the Union. Unfortunately, we are currently discussing competences in the presidium without any decision having been taken on the social Europe report. In a sense, we are discussing the "who does" part of the question without discussing the "what" of the question, which is back to front. This is causing a particular problem for the Commission which was reflected in the papers in recent days. They have been quite concerned at the categorisation of competences we are using in this matter.

Three categories of competences are contained. Exclusive competences are areas where the Union alone may enact legally binding instruments. Shared competences are where the Union or member states may enact legally binding instruments but if the Union, so to speak, by agreement enters a particular field of action, it becomes the primary legislator. Supporting competences are where the Union will support what member states do, but it will not enact legally binding instruments. Up to now we have worked on the basis that the Union did what it wanted to do on the basis of its objectives and everything it did not do was left to the member states. That was felt by many to be insufficiently clear so we now have this new categorisation, exclusive competences, shared competences and supporting competences, which we have been asked to elaborate on in the Laeken declaration by the Heads of Government at the convention.

The problem is that the Commission does not agree with this categorisation. It is not happy with the notion of exclusive, shared and supporting. It wants a different way of looking at the issue. To some extent, the train has already left the station as far as it is concerned because these categories were contained in the Laeken request to us. However, I think the Commission has a point because there is a real risk that it may well transpire we will have lists of issues, including agriculture. Under what list will agriculture appear? For some aspects of agriculture there must be exclusive competences in the Union. Agricultural trade could not be negotiated individually by different countries. Further aspects of agriculture will be shared. If one decides to put, say, public health into shared competences, some will say it should not be in shared competences, it should be in supporting competences because there are some aspects of public health on which Europe should never be allowed to legislate. There should be other areas which should, perhaps, be Union exclusive competencies. Once one begins to draw up lists, there will be an awful lot of problems deciding whether a particular act is being carried out in the right area and whether it is covered by something on the list. My worry is that this will become a fantastic playground for lawyers - no disrespect to the lawyers present - and that the European Court of Justice, which already takes two years from the initiation of a case to make a decision, will be snowed under with objections from business interests who do not like what the Union is doing and who have found a way of saying the proposal is not covered in the list which is put into the constitution.

My nightmare scenario is that the European Union will be tied up with first, the black knots of the subsidiary early warning system, which was discussed earlier. If one gets through that, one will get one's law onto the Statute Book and there will be legal eagles combing through the competency saying this is not an exclusive competency, it is not included and it should not be done under the list. The Commission proposals would get over that. However, having been at the presidium all day yesterday, I do not think we will win on this issue. I think we will get a list. I foresee a lot of problems with that list, not that people will not be happy on first reading it that it sounds terribly reasonable, but when the matter is worked out in practise a lot of sand will be thrown into the machine, not entirely from a constructive perspective.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh

If possible, would Deputy Bruton elaborate on the alternative the Commission is putting forward? Some of these issues will exercise us in the future and I agree that the exclusive category should be broken down into two - exclusive to the EU and to the national parliament. I do not think we should go down the road of creating a list. The population of Europe looks at Europe as being very bureaucratic and the aim was to make it non-bureaucratic. Deputy Bruton is correct that if we go down this road we will tie everything up in courts and documentation.

Deputy Andrews

The concept of complementary competence is very difficult to understand. Ms Doyle, MEP, has been prompting me to let me know what it actually means. Deputy Bruton is the only Irish member of the presidium and Ireland is the only country that will need to put this to the people. That may not be correct, as it is a treaty. I will need to campaign and speak to people on the doorsteps about these issues in two years' time just as we did with the Nice treaty. If I need to explain these terms, I must understand them. The members of presidium seem to be divided about what it means at the moment, based on Deputy Bruton's comments.

Deputy J. Bruton

They know what they mean, but I do not think what they mean is a great idea.

Deputy Andrews

They do not know where they are going with it.

Deputy J. Bruton

They do, unfortunately.

Deputy Andrews

Perhaps they do, but I am not clear as to where they are going with this. As a member of this committee I would like the presidium's proposal to be made quite clear to me. Once it leaves this committee we will not see it again until it is a treaty on which we will have to canvass for support.

May I refer back to the issue of subsidiarity?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Andrews

Deputy Bruton mentioned that a simple majority of a national parliament would be required to trigger the opinion system. Has he considered something more than a simple majority, say 70% or 75%, of a national parliament should be required to trigger the system thus bringing in non-government parties to the process? This would also raise the hurdle by making it more difficult to initiate the process, because it would require——

Ms Doyle, MEP

A qualified majority in euro-speak.

Deputy Andrews

Exactly. Alternatively it could require a plurality of national parliaments. It would be a different way of making the system more difficult to trigger. What happens when a parliament gives its opinion? The European Commission must either give reasons or commit to a re-examination of the text. Assuming it had reasons in the first place, it will not delay matters to provide them.

Chairman

There was a very good explanation in the preamble to the documents of the working group which states:

In the case of complementary competence, states retain full powers, which does not prevent the introduction of assisting and co-ordinating measures at European level . . . for example, the Erasmus programme for large scale student exchanges.

Deputy Roche

I would like briefly to address Deputy Andrews' concern. One of the most welcome aspects of the report on complementary competences is that it recommends the inclusion and strengthening of national identities of the member states. In that regard, there is a recommendation to include an article specifically stating the powers that are not conferred on the Union and which remain with the member states. The Deputy is right in saying the use of an obscure term like "complementary competences" is unhelpful in a forum which is supposed to be demystifying Europe. The benefit of what is proposed is to try to create a clear indication as to what lies with the member states and what lies outside them, and the areas on which there can be joint support.

Deputy Bruton is correct in saying one of the biggest problems is in becoming excessively prescriptive. In that case only one profession gains and out of that comes confusion instead of clarity. Under questioning at the IEA this week, the Minister said one of the most sensible approaches is that adopted in the Irish Constitution in regard to non-enumerated rights. There is a concern there should be clarity as to what is national and what is a member state. We should not achieve that by making it impossible to achieve the very point to which the Chairman has drawn attention, the kind of approach where joint co-operation is good. There are arguments on both sides of this case. The point made by Deputy Bruton is a very significant one of which we need to be very careful.

Deputy J. Bruton

I will not be able to answer Deputy Ó Snodaigh's question about the Commission's proposals as fully as I would wish. They were tabled very late on the day before yesterday. We only got them in French the night before the meeting. I now have an English version, which I have not yet read. As far as I can figure out, they are based on varying degrees of intensity of co-operation and are more closely related to the objectives to be fulfilled and whether this is the correct level at which to fulfil them. They do not include a list of things to be done at different levels. The issue of the level at which an issue is to be dealt with is more or less determined pragmatically based on the intensity of co-operation necessary to achieve the objectives. That is roughly what is involved.

There is not a need to have a list of exclusive competences. Perhaps there is a list of exclusive competences of member states, because the Union is created on the basis of three principles, which will be enumerated as follows: proportionality, subsidiarity and conferral. Conferral means the Union can only deal with items conferred on it by member states and anything not conferred on it by member states is the exclusive competence of member states. In attempting to draw up a list of the exclusive competences of member states, something might be left off by mistake. By definition that would allow the Union to act on it, which could be disadvantageous. It is an issue about which one would need to think much more carefully than I have, to decide whether we should pursue that route. However, we are probably covered as is.

The points made by Deputy Andrews are valid. He may be right in saying the level of obligation placed on the Commission by the subsidiarity mechanism includes withdrawal but that is not the only option. It may not amount to any great problem. I am concerned it is just another stick that can be used by people who have the right to oppose what comes from the Council anyway. I hope he is right and I am wrong, because I believe the proposal about subsidiarity early warning will happen. I would be more worried about the list of competences. That could prove to be a major problem in the long run, but not in the short run, because it would look good in the short run.

Deputy Andrews made a very good suggestion about using something more than a simple majority in national parliaments for the creation of certain rights and we, in the delegation, should reflect on that.

Chairman

That concludes the discussion on that part of the agenda. I thank the members of the convention and the alternates. I encourage them in the good work they are doing. They are obviously putting in considerable time and effort and their work is important. As I was involved in the reflection group for six months, I know how trying it can be and it is not easy work. We appreciate it and are grateful for the briefing.

Next week we will come back to deal with other issues including reports on freedom, security and justice, external relations, defence and legal personality and fundamental rights. The simplification of economic governance will be dealt with at a later meeting in February. We will deal with the remaining items on 24 January and at a meeting in February, so there is much work still to be done on this particular issue.

Deputy Roche

I have already informed the secretary that I have to attend two bilateral meetings in Poland next week and I cannot be present here. On the day the committee is due to meet I will be attending a ceremony in what remains of the Warsaw ghetto.

Chairman

Could Mr. McDonagh attend?

Deputy Roche

I am sure the Department will be represented.

Chairman

I received that message, but co-ordinating the various diaries is difficult. Proinsias De Rossa, for example, cannot be here today and there are other problems to do with that. I am also grateful to the Minister because we are due to be in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday of next week and the Minister and Minister of State have difficulties on Wednesday, so, in so far as is possible, we will deal with the pre-GAC meeting today. We are about ten days in advance in that regard. Normally we would only be three or four days in advance. We will move on to part 1——

Deputy J. Bruton

Will the committee visit the convention because we are due to have a session on Monday and Tuesday?

Deputy Roche

It would be good if we could get a sense of its proceedings.

Chairman

I believe it is on the agenda.

Part 1 deals with external relations - items 1 to 10. We will deal with the second part - general affairs - when we have dealt with this part of the agenda. Would the Minister of State like to make some introductory remarks?

Deputy Roche

It has been a long morning and I will try to be as brief as possible, but there is a substantial number of agenda items. As Members will be aware, this committee will meet some time in advance of the next Council and the agenda, therefore, is not expected to become clear until after the meeting of COREPER on Wednesday, 22 January, so we have a timetable difficulty in that regard. As is standard, the Council will meet over two days - Monday, 27 January, will be devoted entirely to external relations items and Tuesday, 28 January, will focus on general affairs. The EU-ASEAN ministerial will take place in Brussels on the margins of the Council. It is expected to address economic relations, EU relations and development issues during the course of its meeting.

I will confine my comments to the main items on the agenda. Turning to the external relations items, the first and most significant of those will be conflict prevention. Under the broad heading of European security and defence policy, discussion will focus on conflict prevention issues and short procedural conclusions may be adopted. A first progress report on implementation of the EU programme on the prevention of violent conflict was submitted in June 2002 to the Seville European Council and a furtherprogress report will be presented during theGreek Presidency at the European Council in Thessaloniki in June of this year.

Turning to the European security and defence policy, ESDP, discussion will take place on the anticipated EU military monitoring operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYROM. This arises following conclusion of permanent arrangements between the EU and NATO at the Copenhagen Council held on 12 and 13 December last. While it is envisaged that the EU will take over the FYROM mission on 1 March next, arrangements in this regard have still to be finalised. Some discussion may also take place in the Council on the broader issue of EU-NATO relations, the recently launched EU police mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina and on a possible EU take-over of the current SFOR military mission.

Following the agreement reached under the Spanish EU Presidency on principles for the financing of EU-led crisis management operations having military or defence implications, Ministers are likely to be invited to note the progress achieved on necessary follow-up measures. These comprise a package of financing operations from which the Council may choose in the event of possible future military crisis management operations, as well as the treatment of financial contributions by participating non-EU states. Neither of the operations will give rise to direct financial implications for Ireland and issues such as participation in actual missions or actual expenditure will remain for decision by national authorities. Ireland will continue to operate the triple-lock arrangements before considering any involvement in this regard.

At this month's Council, the incoming Greek Presidency has proposed to open a debate on its priorities for the western Balkans region. Given its geography, Greece has identified the western Balkans as a key priority for its Presidency. Its agenda for the region will be situated in the context of a summit meeting in Thessaloniki on 21 June next at which EU Heads of State and Government, together with the leaders of the accession states, will meet with their counterparts from the western Balkans plus Bulgaria, Romania and, interestingly, Turkey. They will debate the Presidency priorities for the western Balkans region.

The Council will also consider the current situation in the Middle East. The major development has been a meeting of the quartet - the EU, the United States, Russia and the United Nations - at Foreign Minister level in Washington on 20 December. The quartet considered the text of the so-called road map for the development of a Palestinian state. This is likely to be finally adopted in February. The Presidency will also brief on the visit to the region, which its Foreign Minister intends to undertake in early February. The United Kingdom will provide a brief on the outcome of the Conference on Palestinian Reform and Nation Building held in London on 13 and 14 January. Ministers will also consider the political scene in Israel prior to the general election which is due to take place on 28 January.

On 9 January, the arms inspectors reported that, to date, Iraq had not failed to co-operate with the inspection process; there have been developments in the inspection process in the past 24 hours. They indicated, however, that Iraq would need to be more proactive in its co-operation with the process and that many questions still had to be answered. The inspectors will report again to the Security Council of the United Nations on 27 January. They have already indicated that this report will be an interim one and that considerable work remains to be completed in the period ahead.

The Government believes the inspectors must be given the opportunity to complete their tasks and that the process currently under way holds out the best prospect of resolving the issue without recourse to the use of military force. Iraq has been offered a rigorous and fair way forward towards meeting its disarmament obligations. There can be no doubt, however, that Iraq must now co-operate fully with the arms inspectors and reassure the world that it has finally divested itself of weapons of mass destruction, the means of delivering such weapons and the means of production of such weapons.

Turning to Africa, issues involving the EU, Africa and, in particular, Zimbabwe will be discussed in the Council. The Ministers will discuss the EU-Africa summit which is due to be held in Lisbon on 4 and 5 April. There is a major difficulty surrounding the question of participation by Zimbabwe, which members of the committee will fully understand. As they are aware, Zimbabwe has been the subject of EU sanctions since February 2002. Last month, the Council decided to send a troika mission to South Africa for discussion on how the Zimbabwe issue can be addressed. Ministers will hear at the Council meeting the report of the troika mission. It is fair to say the South African side was clear that it wants the summit to proceed as planned. The EU now must consider how the EU will respond to that.

The holding of the summit does not mean that the EU or any member state is soft on the issue of Zimbabwe. At the Council, Ministers are likely to extend for a further period the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the General Affairs Council in February last year as a result of its failure, inter alia, to end political violence and protect human rights. Ireland supports the extension of the sanctions on Zimbabwe in the light of the continuing political violence and intimidation which have taken place since the presidential election in March 2002. Following his recent visit, the Belgian Foreign Minister, Louis Michel, will brief the Council on the current state of affairs in central Africa and, in particular, the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Council will consider the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which is still listed as a possible item on the agenda. Discussion is likely to concentrate on the most recent events with regard to a nuclear weapons programme, a matter of grave concern to the European Union and the international community. Since the November discussions of the DPRK in the Council, more worrying developments have occurred. The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors were asked to leave the DPRK, leaving its nuclear facilities unsafeguarded. On 10 January the DPRK notified the Security Council that it was withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the foundation stone of the international non-proliferation regime.

I will now turn to the general affairs items which will be dealt with on the following day, Tuesday, 28 January. The principal items for discussion are enlargement and the spring European Council, specifically the Commission's synthesis report. The Greek Presidency will present its work programme to complete the outstanding formalities regarding the accession of the new member states. The process of drafting the accession treaty for the ten acceding countries is advanced. The Presidency hopes to be in a position to announce at the Council that the drafting process is complete or almost complete. Its work programme will include submission of the treaty to the European Parliament for its assent.

The treaty will be signed by the Heads of Government in Athens on 16 April and will then need to be ratified by the member states and the acceding countries, in the latter case by referendum. Accession of the new member states will take place on 1 May 2004 which will be a significant day for Ireland because the European Community will conduct this major expansion during its Presidency. The expansion during Ireland's Presidency will be one of our priorities in terms of developing closer relations and alliances with the acceding countries, on which we will concentrate. The Minister, the Taoiseach and I will visit a number of the acceding states in the near future.

With regard to the two countries which have not finalised their accession negotiations, Romania and Bulgaria, the aim is that they will become members in 2007. Both aspire to completing their negotiations for membership in the first half of 2004 during Ireland's Presidency. The Presidency will announce the schedule of work for the negotiations with them for the next six months. The Presidency will probably mention its hope of an agreement on Cyprus. In recent days there seems to have been some moves in that regard.

The spring European Council will be devoted to the so-called Lisbon process. The Lisbon strategy agreed at the Lisbon European Council in March 2000 set a target for the European Union to become, by 2010, the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Each year the Commission prepares a report - the synthesis report - for the European Council on progress achieved in implementing the strategy.

The Government is committed to the Lisbon process. We are pleased with the broad thrust of the Commission's report that the process remains the best opportunity for the development within and across Europe of flexible, strong and open markets, in accordance with the Union's social and environmental objectives. Ireland has emphasised to the Commission our view that the key areas on which we might most usefully concentrate at the forthcoming spring Council include employment, education, regulatory reform and e-Europe. We are pleased that these priorities are reflected in the Commission's report and look forward to working closely with the Commission and our partners in ensuring a successful outcome to the spring Council.

I will be happy to discuss any of the agenda items with members of the joint committee.

Chairman

Thank you. We will discuss external relations, Nos. 1 to 10.

Senator Lydon

When the Minister of State was discussing financing crisis management operations, he mentioned the triple lock arrangement. Will he explain what that is? I know what it is supposed to be but perhaps he will elaborate.

Deputy Harkin

I am looking for information on the same issue. The Minister of State said:". . . following on from the agreement reached under the Spanish EU Presidency on principles for the financing of EU led crisis management operations. . . " and, later, ". . . issues such as participation in actual missions or actual expenditure will remain for decision by national authorities." Does this refer to Ireland or all countries? If decisions were reached under the Spanish Presidency on principles for financing, there appears to be a contradiction in the Minister of State's later remark.

Second, the Minister of State said the options that would be discussed would not give rise to direct financial implications for Ireland. If Ireland was to participate in any of these crisis management operations, would there be financial implications and how would those decisions be taken? I am unclear as to what the Minister of State meant.

Deputy Andrews

Is it correct that Mr. Kevin Dowling is head of the disarmament section in the Department of Foreign Affairs? His position as an inspector is presumably not affected by Ireland standing down from the Security Council. What role does he have since Ireland stepped down from the Security Council? Does he have a genuine input? Will he lose his position as a result of these changes?

With regard to Zimbabwe, I am not a great supporter of sanctions as they tend to hurt ordinary people. A leader will not be affected by them.

Ms Doyle, MEP

With regard to military crisis management operations and the general terms and conditions of the Petersberg Tasks, I understand there will be an extension of areas in which we may get involved. Will the Minister of State, on behalf of the Government, warmly welcome these extensions? I also hope Ireland will play its full role in military crisis management operations to the best of its ability. We have a proud tradition in this area and now have well trained and better equipped Defence Forces. I hope we will propose active engagement where we can help in regions of the world that badly need such help.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh

Are there any reports on the effectiveness of the sanctions? Like Deputy Andrews, I am doubtful that they have a real effect on the governments in the areas where they have been implemented. It is usually the poor who suffer.

Chairman

I, too, have a couple of questions for the Minister of State. I am surprised Iraq is not being dealt with separately on the agenda. The Middle East is mentioned and I presume Iraq will be discussed at that point. Confidential discussions may take place over lunch. We would like an assurance that Iraq will be high on the agenda for the meeting on 27 January. God knows what will be the global position at that stage.

I wish to ask the Minister of State four questions about Iraq. Why is it not a specific item on the agenda? As far as I am concerned, it should be given specific attention. Does the EU accept the need for a further UN resolution before any action, if that is required, is taken against Iraq? I refer here to the Council of Ministers, as a body. Has the European Union subjected the Blair dossier - which was not only presented to the British Parliament, but circulated widely to other parliaments - to any form of independent examination through the Common Foreign and Security Policy structures, Mr. Solana or any other process?

Has the European Union given any consideration to Iraq post-Saddam Hussein? In other words, is the planning being left to the Americans? The US is a big political player in the Middle East region, but the European Union is a big paymaster there. Secession from Iraq, whether by the Shi'ites or the Kurds, will have huge implications for the region, not least Turkey and Iran. Has the European Union given consideration to stability post-Saddam in Iraq?

As regards EU-Africa relations, is the landmine issue on the agenda for that discussion? Perhaps the Minister of State could answer those questions.

Deputy Roche

I will try to group the questions together. The nature of the triple lock - this relates to Deputy Harkin's question - means that Ireland only participates where there is a United Nations mandate, where there is a specific Government decision and where there is Dáil approval. As a result of the referendum, we are more committed, if that is possible, to this arrangement. Deputy Harkin's point relates to that because it deals with financial commitment. She wanted to know if we could be forced to pay for operations in which we are not involved. The principles agreed in the General Affairs Council last June on the financing of possible crisis management or military operations provide that any element of common cost will be limited to what is necessary. There would be a common cost across the Union. Any member state will otherwise only be responsible for costs occurred in their own military forces. Crucially, full respect will be maintained for the treaty provision that member states which choose to formally opt out of any specific operation shall not be obliged to contribute to the financing of that operation. These principles are fully reflected in the latest package to be put before the Council. The Deputy was concerned that we could be forced to be paymasters, even if we were not actively involved in an action. The answer is no.

As regards Avril Doyle's question about the review of the Petersberg Tasks, this matter is under discussion at present within the convention. We are being open and constructive on the issue. Irish people will look at aspects of the Petersberg Tasks, such as those relating to humanitarian issues, and I see no difficulty with that. We must be conscious that any stance we take must be in line with our traditional role, which is to focus on peacekeeping and humanitarian issues and is formulated in the context of our military neutrality. The latter has a constitutional context. We are not adopting a dogged view on the issue, but we must operate within a specific context. We are not planning to change that.

As regards Iraq, to which the Chairman referred, at the Copenhagen meeting on 13 and 14 December the European Council issued a declaration on Iraq in which it expressed its unequivocal support for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. It noted Iraq's acceptance of the resolution and submission of the declaration required by the resolution. The EU expressed its continued support for the efforts of the UN to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq with Resolution 1441 and for the work of the weapons inspectors. The EU has made it clear that it is looking forward to the assessment of the inspection teams of the Iraqi delegation. It insists that the role of the UN Security Council in maintaining international peace and security must be respected. The UN must be the determinant. The European Council stated that it is now up to Iraq to seize this final opportunity and comply with its international obligations.

The Chairman also mentioned the agenda and why Iraq was not mentioned separately. I understand the issues are grouped together. I suspect that between now and the date in question it will assume more significance.

Chairman

Do I take it that the EU General Affairs Council does not have a common position in relation to Resolution 1441 and the need for a further resolution by the UN before any action can be taken?

Deputy Roche

As regards Resolution 1441, the EU position at the recent December European Council meeting is clear, namely, that Resolution 1441 must run its course. The European Council insisted that the role of the United Nations Security Council in terms of maintaining international peace and security must be respected. Resolution 1441 is clear about the obligations on Iraq.

As regards the Chairman's question about the British dossier, that was a national paper which was not published. It was available to the partners. The EU partners received the assessment as did the general public. The British are not attempting to seek an endorsement of their view of the position. Other than receiving and noting it, the Council feels there is no further responsibility for it.

Chairman

Did the secretariat of the High Commissioner carry out an assessment of it?

Deputy Roche

We are not aware of any assessment. To do so would be to try to evaluate it, rather than receiving and noting it.

As regards the Union's position on the other demands the US is making on Iraq and our position on the issue of regime change, our policy is focused on ensuring the full implementation of Iraq's existing obligations under international law. The question of regime change does not come within the scope of the Security Council resolutions. The resolutions make a number of demands on Iraq. One of the most important Security Council resolutions is the demand in the preceding resolution, Resolution 687, that Iraq rids itself of weapons of mass destruction and accepts weapons inspections. We have not lost sight of the fact that the relevant Security Council resolution covers more than simply weapons' inspections. We believe the present situation is the beginning of what must be a longer process for compliance with Iraq's international obligations. We hope a sequence of events will now unfold which will avoid the use of force, remove any threat to peace and security and lead, ultimately, to the lifting of sanctions to which Deputy Ó Snodaigh's question referred. Obviously, we wish to see a situation arise in which sanctions will not be necessary and where the human cost of sanctions will not arise. Ultimately, it is within Iraq's power to ensure this happens. We all hope it happens sooner rather than later. I make the point about regime change, Chairman, because you raised it. That is not covered in the United Nation's resolution.

Chairman

What if Saddam were overthrown in the morning to prevent the war? The United States has spoken a lot about what it would like to see in Iraq after him. Has the European Union given any thought to that? Will Iraq disintegrate? What sort of problems would that cause?

Deputy Roche

There is a general concern which is perhaps being expressed outside Council. It is fairly well known that one of the major concerns is that there could be destabilisation. The current focus is on trying to create conditions in which peace will be assured, where the threat - perceived or real - from weapons of mass destruction will be addressed and where the conditions arise to remove sanctions and to normalise the relationships between a people. We must remember that the EU and Ireland, in particular, has no row with the Iraqi people or anxiety to impose any difficulties on them. We have a concern about the impact of a particular regime's attitudes in terms of world peace.

Turning to Deputy Andrew's question, we received the Iraq declaration as a member of the Security Council. Our term came to an end on 31 December but we are, on a national basis, assessing the material received.

In reference to Deputy Ó Snodaigh's point, I think there would be an anxiety on all sides of the House to make sure that the Iraqi people do not suffer unduly or unnecessarily under sanctions, that the issues which caused the sanctions to be put in place would be resolved and that the sanctions would be raised as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.

Deputy Harkin

I did not fully understand the Minister of State's reply. Perhaps my question was not clear. A someone without any in-depth knowledge of what is going on, this seems to read that Ministers will note progress and follow-up measures. These follow-up measures include a package of financing options. It reads that neither of these options will give rise to direct financial implications for Ireland. As a lay person reading this, I understand it mean that Ireland will not contribute. I am not expressing an option as to whether it should; I am just asking about it. The Minister referred to common cost. What is that? Are we part of it? Is there a ceiling on it and is it flexible? If we participate in a particular mission, what are the options?

Deputy Roche

I was not sufficiently clear about that. Where direct costs arise out of a particular mission, member states which are part of that pick up those costs. There is a question, however, of generality. Common costs arise in just administering the EU. It is difficult to sort it out and decide which pencil was used in that detail. There may be some minor costs which arise out of general budgetary considerations but we will not be responsible for any identifiable and direct costs relating to any mission in which we have decided not to participate. There will be no financial obligation on us. I am sorry I was not clear about that.

Chairman

The Minister of State has dealt with the general affairs issues on the second part - items 1 to 7. Are there any questions on those matters?

Deputy Haughey

I apologise for my late arrival.

In relation to the accession countries, I note what the Minister of State said on progress being made regarding their joining the European Union. I assume from what he said that a referendum is needed in all the accession countries. Do we have any information on support for accession within those countries, including opinion poll information or otherwise? Is there a likelihood that some of these countries may not be able to ratify the treaty? Perhaps the Minister of State will comment on that in a general way and maybe refer to the situation in Turkey. There was a lot of publicity sponsored by Turkey before Christmas as regards its joining the European Union. Will the Minister of State outline the views of the Government on Turkey joining the European Union?

Chairman

Will the operational programme be made available to the committee once adopted?

Deputy Roche

It is either in transit or has arrived.

Chairman

Perhaps you will address Deputy Haughey's questions.

Deputy Roche

As I understand, all the accession countries, with the possible exception of Cyprus, are to hold referenda. After our referendum, I made arrangements to meet the ten and the two and, in fact, Turkey. I have meetings with them all. I understand Cyprus does not require a referendum but that all the others will hold referenda.

As regards opinion polls and the information we have on the likely outcomes of those referenda, I have spoken to a number of states and I will pay a number of visits over the next two weeks. In general, it seems public opinion is positive. There are two countries in which there was some indication - mostly in the press - that it was mixed. One of those countries was Poland. I met a parliamentary delegation from Poland yesterday, as did the Chairman. The information I could glean from those meetings was that the situation in Poland is generally positive, that there has been a positive reaction to the decisions made in Copenhagen and a feeling that they did as well as they could.

Malta is a country on which it is more difficult to get a measure because Maltese politics, looking at it as an external observer, seem to be extraordinarily polarised on all issues, including issues relating to Europe. I sit between two Maltese representatives at the convention and, from my experience, I assure members it is polarised. I think Deputy Carey had the same experience. One must find out to which school people went and what are their politics are before one can work out how things stand there. They will have a robust debate. They have their own interesting issues to discuss. It is not up to us to make a judgment on them but it could be quite close. The latest information I have is that Malta is to have its referendum early but perhaps it is no more than gossip. The suggestion is there will be a general election later in the year. I do not know what will happen. As we know from our experience, general elections are not something one can predict within a country, let alone from outside. Those are the two countries in which there is the most discussion on the difficulties of the referendum. All of the other states with which I have had discussions are confident that there is a positive attitude towards Europe.

Deputy Haughey

Has the Minister of State given them any advice on how to win referenda?

Deputy Roche

If groups ask us privately, we will perhaps, as politicians, talk to them, but it would not be up to Ireland to advise other countries how to run their referenda. I have pointed out the positive effects of the original referendum in Ireland and the necessity for accurate and truthful information about both the positive and negative aspects of the debate. Many states are interested in the work of the Forum on Europe.

Deputy Haughey referred to the publicity relating to Turkey prior to Christmas. It was strange and I am not sure whether Turkey has helped its cause. If Turkey complies with all the requirements of EU membership, there is no reason it should be prevented from making an application. We do not share recently expressed views that Turkey should be excluded at all times from consideration. Turkey has been knocking on the door recently and has been talking about an application for almost 40 years. There are issues which complicate matters. If, however, Turkey meets all the requirements there is no reason to prevent it making an application, which the Union will then be obliged to discuss.

Chairman

The Greek Presidency should result in the cases of Bulgaria and Romania being progressed. How confident is the Minister of State about them acceding by 2007?

Deputy Roche

It is an ambitious target. Both countries are making a great deal of progress. There is sympathy for their cause and a willingness to help where it is possible to do so. We will know better by the Irish Presidency in 2004. Our general attitude would be to be as supportive as possible because it will help to stabilise the region by assisting countries who have been less fortunate in recent history than Ireland to reach their full potential and to share the benefits of being Europeans.

Chairman

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their attendance.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.55 p.m. and adjourned at 1.05 p.m.