JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 19 May 2004

European Constitutional Treaty.

Chairman

I welcome all of you to the 31st meeting of COSAC. I realise the room is a little crowded. One of our difficulties is that this is the only facility we could find to host a meeting with 17 different languages using interpretation boxes. We ask for your forbearance in this matter. I am delighted to see such a great turnout for this, the first meeting of COSAC in the 25-member format.

The Irish Presidency occurs at the most significant moment in the recent history of the EU. The enlargement of the Union that took place on 1 May last, which was celebrated in this very building, means that for the first time ever, COSAC is attended by representatives of 25 national parliaments as well as the European Parliament, all participating as full members. It is my hope that the agenda proposed by the Presidency for this meeting will meet with the approval of members.

For this meeting the Presidency, in consultation with the Troika, has invited representatives from the Parliaments of Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Ukraine to participate as special guests. It has also invited Mr. de Vries, counter-terrorism co-ordinator of the European Union. I welcome each of our guests to Dublin.

We have circulated the agenda and the programme for this meeting. Additional copies of COSAC documents are located on the document table outside the main entrance of the meeting hall. The agenda for the proceedings reflects the decisions made at the meetings of chairpersons on 19 February last. As the agenda is rather extensive, I have allocated short time slots to certain items of business, in particular Nos. 5, 6 and 7, the involvement of European regional legislative assemblies in COSAC, the language regime in COSAC meetings and the proposed amendment to the rules of procedure. I hope we will be in a position to make up some time from that allocated to other items. Therefore, in the event that any item concludes early, I propose to move directly to the next item on the agenda.

I do not wish at any stage to propose strict time limits on contributions; however, I ask members to try to keep their contributions to under four minutes. This is in accordance with Rule 11.4 of the rules of procedure and should allow as many contributions as members wish to make. For those seated at the back of the room without microphones, there are roving microphones which will be brought to you.

I welcome Deputy Brian Cowen, Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am grateful to the Minister on taking time out of his busy schedule to address members. As a representative of the Presidency of the Council, his responsibilities are onerous. He has been a frequent visitor to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, at which he has reported progress of his programme for the Presidency and briefed us on the General Affairs and External Relations Council in advance of Council meetings on a monthly basis. Before the conclusion of the Irish Presidency, there may be advances in the discussion on the constitutional treaty. On behalf of COSAC, I offer our best wishes to the Minister in this very important task.

I intend to call Mr. de Vries as the first speaker after the Minister, then to open the discussion to intervention, following which the Minister will respond. We need to finish this part of our discussion before 11.30 a.m.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I wish all the delegates a warm welcome to Dublin Castle this morning to the 31st COSAC plenary meeting. I am particularly pleased to address the first meeting of COSAC following the Union's enlargement, which we were delighted to host in Dublin earlier this month.

In many respects the enlargement of the European Union re-focused attention on what the European ideal is and what it stands for, and why the continued development of the Union is critical to the future security and prosperity of the Continent. I cannot adequately describe the sense of genuine joy and palpable emotion felt in the Phoenix Park just under three weeks ago when our ten new partners were formally admitted to the European Union in what I felt everyone believed was an elegant and fitting ceremony. This truly was an historic moment in the history of the continent of Europe. Ten states and 75 million citizens joined a family of 15 other democracies to work together to build a better Union for all Europeans. In nine of these states the decision to join the Union was taken directly by the people in referenda. In choosing to join the European Union, these citizens expressed a vote of both trust and confidence in the Union, like millions of citizens, including my own compatriots, before them. As we in Ireland have discovered, this trust will not be misplaced.

All across our Continent millions of Europeans celebrated the enlargement together. In Ireland, ten major towns and cities welcomed one of the new member states and its citizens into the Union and during that weekend of celebrations citizens from very different lands celebrated together, forging friendships and building contacts.

All our citizens know that the foundations of peace and partnership on which the Union is built are the way forward for this Continent and that, like previous enlargements, this fifth enlargement of the European Union will equally benefit both new and old member states and the wider Union as a whole. Yet even as we move forward, the key challenge for all, at both Government and parliamentary levels, is to seek to re-engage our citizens in the debate on the European Union to focus on what we have achieved together and what we can achieve in the future in the longer term. We need to encourage all Europeans to express their views on the European Union and on their expectations as to how it evolves into the future.

The delegates, as directly elected parliamentarians, play a key front line role in meeting this challenge by assessing and reviewing the impact of draft EU legislation on the daily lives of their citizens, on business and on the future of their countries. Through the delegates, citizens have a direct say in defining European Union legislation and in shaping developments within the Union. Our own Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, expertly chaired by the conference Chairman, Deputy Gay Mitchell, is a testament to this fact. For example, at its last meeting the Sub-committee on European Scrutiny of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, responding to concerns expressed on a draft Commission proposal, invited representatives from Ireland's information technology sector to meet officials from the relevant Departments and parliamentarians to discuss the draft measure. As with all meetings of the committee, this discussion was held in public session and members of the public were free to attend. Such initiatives demonstrate to both citizens and business that they have a voice in the European Union, whether through national parliamentary committees or in the European Parliament itself.

I compliment the Sub-committee on European Scrutiny of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs for its work in this regard. The committee was established less than two years ago and in that short time not only has coped efficiently with a heavy workload in terms of examining draft EU legislation, but also has acted as a watchdog for the citizens who need to be reassured that their national Parliament is indeed closely scrutinising developments in Brussels and the impact legislation may have on life here in Ireland.

The committee does not limit itself to examining draft EU legislation. Every month I, or one of my ministerial colleagues, brief the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs prior to General Affairs and External Relations Council meetings, affording members the opportunity to make their views directly known to Government on a range of issues. This demonstrates again that open, frank and public discussions on EU issues are not only possible but positive for all concerned, and proves to citizens that their views count, whether expressed through their representatives in national assemblies or the European Parliament. For this reason, it is imperative that citizens exercise their right to vote in the elections to the European Parliament next month to shape how they wish the European Union to evolve over the coming years.

In October 2001, the Government also established an independent National Forum on Europe to promote greater public discussion and debate about Ireland's role in the European Union and in its future. The forum, under the chairmanship of Senator Maurice Hayes, has played a significant role in keeping the public informed about how the EU impacts on their lives. Meeting here in Dublin Castle in plenary session, travelling through all regions of Ireland to bring the debate to the local level and engaging young people through media and competitions, the forum has provided a valuable means to engage Irish people in the debate on Europe, offering a place for voices and views from all sides to be heard. As with the scrutiny procedures, this initiative demonstrates, once again, to non-governmental organisations and citizens that they can make their views known on policy and legislative developments in the European Union and that their opinions will be listened to.

Under the Europeans — Working Together theme, the Irish Presidency has also sought to bring the Union closer to its citizens by pursuing and promoting a range of policy and legislative initiatives aimed a creating a better Europe for all Europeans. For example, the Irish Presidency placed a particular emphasis on revitalising the Lisbon strategy to create a stronger and more robust European economy to build and focus on our greatest strength, that is, our own people. I firmly believe that the wide-ranging package of legislative proposals under the Lisbon strategy, many of which will be subject to review by the committees of the delegates, will if implemented have positive and tangible effects, not only for business but for the lives of all Europeans.

Our Presidency objectives of working closely together with partners in bringing the European Union closer to its citizens has also been reflected in our approach to the draft constitutional treaty. Since assuming the Presidency in January, we have worked intensively with the partners to make progress towards concluding the IGC and reaching agreement on a new treaty for the European Union, and we have sought to ensure that the remarkable work of the European convention and that of the previous Italian Presidency is built upon.

The convention succeeded in consolidating the existing treaties and in producing a draft constitutional treaty, which is written in language that is considerably more accessible and legible to citizens and which stands head and shoulders over those existing treaties in terms of simplicity and straightforwardness. The treaty was debated in a much more open and transparent way than any previous one and representatives of national assemblies and the European Parliament played an important role at the Convention on the Future of Europe in drafting and shaping it. This treaty is citizen-friendly and consolidates the democratic foundations of our Union. The treaty will help to demystify the European Union for many citizens, setting out clearly and coherently the common values and shared principles, to which we all can subscribe and which go to the heart of what the European is and what it is trying to achieve.

It is important to note that while a number of important amendments have been proposed to the draft, the essence of these key Articles has not been questioned in the IGC at any stage. The changes that will make decision-making in the Union more comprehensible through the substantial reduction in the number of different legal instruments are unchallenged. The constitutional treaty makes clear who is responsible for decision-making and in what areas.

The role of the European Parliament has been further enhanced and, with it, the democratic oversight of the Union itself. The charter of fundamental rights is also set to become an integral part of the treaty. National parliaments, in particular, have been given new powers. The proposal in the protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality to allow national parliaments to issue a yellow card, so to speak, to Commission proposals on the basis of a breach of the principle of subsidiarity, and to appeal on the same grounds through their member state governments is a major innovation. I understand the committee will continue discussions on this issue later this morning.

COSAC is also being encouraged to promote the exchange of best practice between national parliaments and the European Parliament, specifically to organise interparliamentary conferences on particular topics such as the Common Foreign and Security Policy or the security and defence policy. This proposal will greatly enhance the flow of information between EU institutions, including the European Parliament, the member state governments and national parliaments. Such innovations will ultimately lead to more public discussion about public policy and contribute to promoting greater and wider understanding about the EU, its policy orientation, legislative priorities and our shared objectives as Europeans.

There were issues of concern to all parties that needed discussion and resolution in the IGC. The Italian Presidency made significant progress on many of these issues and it was unfortunate it did not prove possible to conclude negotiations last December. A few issues remain outstanding but the commitment and renewed political will demonstrated by partners in the course of our consultations in the first half of our Presidency helped the spring European Council to conclude that the negotiations should be reconvened and that they should be concluded no later than the June European Council. Since then we have put in place a programme and a timetable aimed at fulfilling that mandate. Earlier this week we had a successful two-day meeting of Foreign Ministers and at the beginning of this month senior officials met in Dublin to try to resolve some of the less sensitive and complex non-institutional issues. We will have further meetings of Foreign Ministers next week and perhaps again but certainly on 14 June before the European Council on 17 and 18 June.

The Taoiseach's pre-European Council tour of capitals is well under way and he is discussing the issues of concern to each partner in the course of these meetings. The outstanding issues will be familiar to all members of the committee and I do not need to go into detail on them. Based on the earlier meeting of senior officials, and confirmed by our meeting at Foreign Minister level earlier this week, we are very close to a broad consensus on many of the non-institutional issues and hope that it will not be necessary for these to be raised again in detail. We also discussed several other more sensitive non-institutional issues such as the budgetary procedure, the common commercial policy, and the charter of fundamental rights on which progress was made. We also held a useful orientation debate on questions about the scope of qualified majority voting, and put forward a paper on the Commission to Foreign Ministers. In essence, we believe that we would retain one commissioner per member state until 2014 whereupon a move would be made to a smaller Commission on the basis of equal rotation. This proposal meets the twin principles of efficiency and legitimacy. While agreement on this issue will form part of an overall institutional package the initial reaction of partners was constructive. We have not made any specific proposals on the issue of voting weights in the Council and are continuing to discuss this issue with all of our partners. I am confident a solution that can ensure efficient and effective decision-making while addressing the concerns of member states can be found.

In response to the Taoiseach's letter to his colleagues on the European Council asking them to take a positive and focused approach in negotiations and to avoid raising issues not previously signalled, partners have been pragmatic and constructive. They are aware of the need for a balanced and fair outcome that respects the positions of all member states. There undoubtedly exists a strong political will among all partners to conclude the negotiations and finalise a constitutional treaty that will enable the enlarged Union to continue to function effectively and efficiently and to play a leading role on the world stage. As parliamentarians within governments those here will again be prominent in explaining the treaty and outlining its aims, objectives and implications to citizens. It is vital that we promote a strong dialogue and disseminate full and clear information on this treaty to our citizens to enable them to make an informed decision and express their views, either through those present or by voting in states where the treaty will be put to the people in a referendum.

Even at this stage the latest Eurobarometer findings indicate that most voters in the EU 15 support a constitution for the Union. By constantly focusing on the disagreements within the EU and the negatives, we tend to lose sight of the bigger picture. The EU is the world's largest trading bloc and EU membership has contributed to the prosperity of the Continent and every member state. Fundamentally the Union has ensured peace and security for its members for over half a century. The European Union works and the treaty will make it work even more efficiently and effectively.

I thank the committee for inviting me to address it and I wish it every success with the conference and in working even more closely together with COSAC to build a more open and transparent Europe for our citizens.

Chairman

Thank you very much, Minister. We have eight names of speakers so far. The first speaker will be Mr. De Vries, followed by Mr. Napolitano. Members are aware that the Declaration on Combating Terrorism made in Brussels on 25 March 2004, at paragraph 14, on the establishment of the position of a counter-terrorism co-ordinator, states:

The European Council emphasises that a comprehensive and strongly coordinated approach is required in response to the threat posed by terrorism.

The European Council accordingly agrees to the establishment of the position of a Counter-Terrorism Co-ordinator.

The co-ordinator, who will work within the Council Secretariat, will co-ordinate the work of the Council in combating terrorism and, with due regard to the responsibilities of the Commission, maintain an overview of all the instruments at the Union's disposal with a view to regular reporting to the Council and effective follow-up of Council decisions.

The European Council welcomes the decision of the Secretary General — High Representative Solana to appoint Mr. Gijs De Vries to the position of Counter-Terrorism Co-ordinator.

We are very privileged to have him here this morning.

Mr. Gijs De Vries

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be here, first to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Cowen, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs. As a former member of the Dutch Government I know the weight of the responsibility that he carries on his shoulders in moving us towards a successful conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference. I have full confidence in his powers of persuasion and I very much hope he will be successful, particularly when it comes to my responsibilities in making sure that my decision-making in the European Union becomes as effective as it can be with respect to legislation affecting counter-terrorism. It is essential that the European Union in this area can act swiftly and effectively and I believe that the proposals of the Convention will go a long way toward allowing the Union to act as such. I therefore very much hope Mr. Cowen will be successful in making sure these paragraphs will be endorsed by our member states.

I also thank the Presidency for inviting me here to discuss very briefly some points that fall within my current responsibilities. As a former member of my national parliament and as a former member of the European Parliament I am delighted to see here several former colleagues from both the old and the new member states and I very much hope that we will be partners in the fight to make Europe safer. Terrorism is an attack on the values of liberty, democracy, tolerance and the rule of law, values which are cherished by men and women the world over, regardless of nationality or religion. Terrorism denies the very values on which the European Union is founded, which are enshrined in our founding treaties and which have inspired the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is why there is no cause or reason that can justify terrorism.

Unfortunately terrorism is not a new phenomenon in Europe, as many of my colleagues know well. In Ireland, Spain and Britain alone, more then 5,000 lives have been lost to terrorism over the past 30 years. Our experience has taught us that the only way to defeat terrorism is to confront it. As an all-out attack on the essence of a free society, terrorism requires an all-out response, which means we must do everything in our power to stop the terrorists and their supporters and put them in jail. It also means draining the swamps and transforming any environment that allows terrorists to fester and prosper.

Because terrorism is an all-out attack on our system, there is a temptation to believe that any measures can be used to fight this threat. I caution against that. In our combating of terrorism we must be careful to preserve and protect the rights, liberties, principles and values terrorists are seeking to destroy. Otherwise, the terrorists will have won. In the long term, victory in this battle will only be won if legitimacy remains fairly on our side.

The Madrid bombings on 11 March this year drove home to us what we had known and said for a long time, namely that Europe is both a target and a base for al-Qaeda inspired terrorism. The risks, as we all are aware, of new major attacks in Europe remain high. No European country is immune to this threat. We are all vulnerable. That is why we must remain united in action.

Much has been done, in terms of European Union action and legislation, since the attacks on 11 September 2001 in the United States but much work is still ahead of us. First, we must ensure that counter terrorism is a central component of the foreign relations of the European Union. We must ensure that it remains high on the agenda in our contacts with like-minded countries and with international institutions. I have just returned from the United States where I discussed with the United Nations how the Union and the UN can work together, and from Washington where I discussed how the United States and Europe can work together.

Second, we must ensure that our intelligence and security services, policies forces and judicial authorities work closely together. We must improve our capacity to share and analyse information. At the June European summit, together with Secretary General Solana, I will make specific proposals to reinforce the European Union's intelligence capability.

Third, it is important that we have sufficient legal instruments in each of our countries to allow our police forces, security services and judicial authorities to do their work as effectively as possible. This means that we must act at European Union level to establish the necessary legislation. Some legislation is in place at EU level. However, there is a problem with it to which I want to draw the conference's attention.

Let me use the example of the European arrest warrant. Until recently our countries had to go through lengthy procedures to be able to extradite suspected terrorists to other EU member states. Today there is a European arrest warrant which means that when, for example, Swedish prosecutors now issue an arrest warrant, the police of any other EU member state must arrest the suspect in question and extradite him or her, even if the person in question is a national of that other country. This means that extradition can proceed much faster and that it is much harder now for criminals to escape arrest and to find a safe haven in other member states. However, this important agreement has not yet been ratified by all national parliaments.

Another example of the work at EU level is the creation of so-called joint investigation teams, which means that law enforcement authorities of two or more member states can set up joint teams for criminal investigation. For example, German and Danish police and prosecutors can work together in one team with their Portuguese colleagues in Lisbon. However, the same difficulty applies here in that this important legal instrument has not yet been ratified by all national parliaments.

I draw the attention of delegates, as legislators and as the elected representatives of the people of Europe, to the importance of swift implementation of the legal instruments we need to be effective in the fight against terrorism. Perhaps it is not sufficiently well known that there are several dozen pieces of legislation which have been agreed, either by the United Nations or by the European Union, which are still awaiting national ratification. I am sure this has not yet been an issue which has been addressed in detail in all national parliaments but I plead with the delegates, as former colleagues and as the representatives of the people of Europe, to assess domestically in each of their parliaments the procedures used to scrutinise European legislation in this domain and, where possible, speed up these procedures.

The delegates will ask me what the Council of Ministers can do to help them in that work because I know from previous experience that sometimes national parliaments deal with a great deal of legislation coming from Brussels but often national parliaments do not know exactly when we will be confronted with a particular proposal. That makes it difficult for national parliaments to plan the work. I would like the European Council in June to help the national parliaments in that respect by establishing a clear timetable of all the legislative work of the Council of Ministers during the next three Presidencies — the incoming Dutch Presidency, the Luxembourg Presidency and the British Presidency. This would provide a clear road map indicating when the European Commission will table certain proposals, clear deadlines for the Commission and when the Council of Ministers is expected to take a decision. That kind of forward planning should help the work of the Council, but I very much hope it will also help the delegates' work in scrutinising legislation in time.

We have a common responsibility, as representatives of our member states in government or in parliament, to do everything possible to be effective in the fight against terrorism. National governments have a role to play but they cannot do that effectively without the delegates' support, engagement and looking at the necessary domestic procedures. I very much hope that at future meetings of COSAC the delegates could take stock of their work in this area, compare experiences, identify best practices and ensure that we continue to work together towards this important aim. I thank the delegates and look forward to working with them.

Mr. Giorgio Napolitano

I express my deep appreciation to the Minister, Deputy Cowen, not so much for his statement this morning but rather for his tenacious and wise commitment on behalf of the Irish Presidency, which has been working for months to reach agreement on the draft constitution treaty by June. I express a deep concern however about the manner in which the Intergovernmental Conference is proceeding. The Minister said a large number of amendments has been presented but that the essence of the treaty has not been called into question. Perhaps we have had too many amendments. Too many issues have been reopened in the IGC. What has happened is what everyone wanted to avoid. We have opened a Pandora's box. Everyone has presented a position which had already been settled to the final compromise in the Convention.

What is the essence of the treaty? It is not easy to describe, but basically it is that the 25 member states of the European Union should be placed in the best possible position to take decisions and act, and to rise to the new challenges that we have all identified together. We must absolutely avoid weakening the draft constitution with regard to extension to qualified majority voting, judicial co-operation, the integration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the treaty and enhanced co-operation. We do not know exactly what the government positions will be on all these crucial issues. The Minister said that the work of the Convention had proceeded in full transparency and that it was possible to follow proceedings daily, but we would like to know which representatives of parliaments and governments supported certain positions. Regarding the Intergovernmental Conference, everything becomes much less transparent, more confidential and more difficult to understand. We have to rely on the small amount of information published in the press.

I am a representative and a Member of the European Parliament, and in the Intergovernmental Conference we supported the positions for which we were given a mandate by our Parliament. We know that concerns have been expressed about the powers of the European Parliament, in particular with respect to the budget. I do not want to have to face a choice in the European Council in June between no constitution or a weak constitution. We must have a constitution. It will be a terrible blow to the credibility of the EU if we show that we are powerless to conclude this matter and if we were to waste six months of the convention's work. We must also approve a valid constitution, not a weakened one compared with the one prepared by the convention. Otherwise, in the coming years for all our governments, national parliaments and the European Parliament, new and older member states of the European Union, there will be extremely different times and we may not be up to the task.

Chairman

There are 17 people offering to speak and we must close the list because we cannot accommodate everybody. Speakers should confine their contributions to two or three minutes, otherwise later speakers will find themselves excluded.

Mr. Elmar Brok

I took part in the IGC over the past two days and spoke to interlocutors there. I will say a little on how I see the situation and the points taken on board by the Irish EU Presidency. I will address two or three points very briefly because I have heard them confirmed here. Towards the end of his speech, Mr. Napolitano talked about going round and round in our negotiations, and about certain delegations attempting to take certain courses. I thank the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, for resisting such moves.

Having listed to Mr. De Vries I want to talk of remit, particularly when it comes to security and justice policy. It is important for us to have good co-operation at European and national levels. We also need to undertake work at European level because there are certain cross-border issues, but for that we need to have majority voting, majority adoption of decisions. Certain proposals fall back behind the position established by the Amsterdam, Maastricht and other treaties. It is important we make sure that we represent the points of view of our citizens because it is important for them to know that what is decided in Europe is what they want.

From the point of view of the European Parliament, majority voting is very important if we want to make good decisions, particularly in an enlarged Europe. The budget, for example, must be very well balanced. The European Parliament should not play a subsidiary role when it comes to budgets. All parliaments are involved in the drawing up of budgets. It is their responsibility, task and remit. Looking to the future, it is important to make sure that the governments are not ahead of the European Parliament. That is not the point of the exercise.

I am concerned about the European framework research programme, a crucial issue for all of us in the future. We need to ensure that the parliaments, including the European Parliament, are fully involved in the decision-making process there.

Mr. Mario Greco

Like last year's conference in Rome, this conference is being held at a particularly sensitive time. Just a few days ago we extended our welcome to the ten new member state of the EU, who are now full participants in our work. Yesterday the meeting in Brussels chaired by the Minister concluded, and that is another step down the road towards the constitutionalisation of the treaties. As we have seen from the initial contributions, we all wish to see matters concluded as soon as possible, but we want to ensure that the text produced by the convention is respected in its essence. At the 30th COSAC conference in Rome, we made a commitment in that regard which needs to be reiterated here. This is a message to the IGC to say that we should not weaken on certain points.

The Minister was correct, as was the Irish EU Presidency from the outset, to recommend to all the parliamentary delegations not to reopen points already agreed in the first phase of the IGC under the Italian EU Presidency. We note with regret that, as Mr. Napolitano said, a very large number of amendments has been tabled which run the risk of opening a Pandora's box. We are concerned about that.

The work of a convention is itself the result of a great deal of finely-balanced work and compromise and we do not wish to upset that. I know that the Council would not wish to move away from the idea of majority voting. We have been paralysed by the unanimity rule in foreign policy areas and hope to move beyond that. Europe will be in a better position to rise to the challenges cast before us if, as Mr. De Vriespointed out, it can adopt a modus operandi which will enable it to take decisions. The unanimity rule has to be ascribed to those areas of a purely constitutional nature, certainly as regards the policies of the EU. We are looking here at the role of the national parliaments in constitutional terms. Obviously we would like to see more, but as the Minister pointed out, the work done in the Convention constitutes a major move forward in the democratisation of the Union.

The Minister mentioned the principle of subsidiarity. I will conclude as I realise my time is up. However, we should not ignore the real relevance of parliamentary co-operation anchored in COSAC. Both the Common Foreign and Security Policy, CFSP, and the common defence and security policy, CDSP, are areas we could well look at. There could be a third chamber to look at certain areas. There are opportunities for that in the draft constitution.

Ms Maria Eduarda Azevedo

In the first half of 2004 Europe will have witnessed two unforgettable historical events, which are extremely valuable in the creation of a new geographical dynamic and the promotion of our development. On 1 May we had the biggest enlargement in the history of the Union, with the new membership of the central and eastern European countries. The southern dimension of the Union has been strengthened as well. The second event is the long-awaited approval of the constitutional treaty of the European Council on 17 and 18 June.

I heartily welcome the enlargement which will allow Europe to breathe with both lungs, as Pope John Paul II put it. I was honoured to participate in the Convention on the Future of Europe. I participated in the drafting and I believe certain shortcomings should have been considered — the draft treaty in respect of the role of national parliaments and political scrutiny of the European area of freedom and justice. The most regrettable feature, however, is European security and defence policy. That is the most difficult issue. Despite the intergovernmental nature of that policy, which is based on joint action and the capacities of the member states, including international budgets, the draft treaty omitted political intervention.

We only referred to the collective role exercised through COSAC and related conferences organised for that purpose. However, there is no obligation to have institutional dialogue between the Council and COSAC. If this were to be the case, COSAC would be given greater responsibility, but we feel that political scrutiny is weakened for national parliaments. That situation is worse than what we have at the moment. Obviously we have time to improve on this to benefit the citizens of Europe and to strengthen our democracy.

The Intergovernmental Conference is reaching a conclusion. It is proceeding apace. In this context it is important to draw conclusions as to whether we should complete the constitution as drafted or whether we should take somewhat more time before approving it to ensure that the ambitions enshrined in the treaty will indeed be realised. As we all know, within the European Union we must base our actions on new paradigms for the future, better democratic quality and the more effective and efficient operation of our institutions. We must be more ambitious politically and express solidarity, confidence and commitment with our European partners. We cannot compromise this entire project.

Mr. René van der Linden

I thank the Minister and the speakers for the excellent contribution to this debate. I congratulate the Irish Presidency, which is still going strong. I hope final consensus may be reached at the next Council.

My first remark is concerned with the accession of the new member states. This is a great and historical opportunity. Many of the old member states looked upon the accession of these states as a new problem, but I reject this because we have an obligation to welcome them as full members and present them with the opportunity to be honoured citizens of the EU. In this regard I regret very much that the new members do not have full access to the labour force of the old member states. It is a missed opportunity. Export of products to the new members and investment presents major opportunities for them, but we do not accept the free movement of the labour force. I express my personal opinion in this regard in solidarity with them.

My second remark is concerned with the intervention of the Minister. He said only a small number of issues remain. However, I share the concerns voiced by Mr. Giorgio Napolitano and Mr. Elmar Brok. I have an impression that an increasing number of amendments will be tabled by different member states in the last days. I therefore do not believe that only a small number of issues remain. Take one example, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, on which we had a discussion in the working group and it came to a final conclusion. Then we had a discussion in the convention. I was a member, as were many others here and we came to a final conclusion. Now the Charter of Fundamental Rights is again being reopened. It is the key issue at the heart and soul of the constitution and we have to stick to the agreement of the convention.

My last point is that the draft constitution is a product of representatives of the governments and the parliaments. I cannot see why the representatives of the Parliaments, who were fully involved in framing the outcome of the Convention, now come up with fundamental changes in the draft constitution. I urge the Irish Presidency to stick to the constitution as agreed under the Italian Presidency and not to accept new amendments which will open a Pandora's box. For that reason I wish the Irish Presidency much success. I hope that the failure to reach consensus does not occur a second time. This would be a bad signal to the citizens of Europe and must be avoided.

Mr. Kimmo Kiljunen

: I too congratulate the Irish Presidency on conducting the Intergovernmental Conference so well. We hope we will have the result of his effort by the middle of June. There is no alternative. It will be unbearable if the constitutional process is not finished in time.

Of course individual countries will have different opinions and compromises are needed. We in Finland are particularly pleased about the compromises found in the EU common defence policy during the Italian Presidency. Now we realise that the Irish Presidency has taken seriously the premise that welfare services should remain within national competencies under the common commercial policy, for the future. That is a major issue for us.

I admit there are some disappointments. The major one is qualified majority voting, QMV, particularly in taxation. We support the extension of QMV in respect of corporate and capital taxation as well as in the Common Foreign and Security Policy. As regards the institutional questions, I ask the Minister whether it is totally unrealistic to expect that the single double majority system for Council of Ministers decisions would be agreed. That would be a clear simple system. Everyone can understand it and clearly, it is also just. I understand that the institutional issues should be discussed together in the Council where questions of EC competition and the rotation system are involved. Nevertheless, simple double majority would be the best system.

These were the issues we discussed in the Convention, of which I was a member too. I have written a book about my experiences in the Convention which has been published by the Finnish Parliament. It is available outside the conference hall.

My final remark relates to ratification. Obviously, each country should have a constitutional way of deciding about the constitution. When we discuss the options for the referendum, we should discuss them after the constitution is agreed by the Intergovernmental Conference, not before. We would know the results and there would be no misunderstanding about the sincerity of the referendum proposals made by some governments.

Chairman

The Presidency will have to charge Mr. Kiljunen 10% for promoting his book.

Mr. Kimmo Kiljunen

I agree.

Mr. Kurt Bodewig

First, I take the opportunity to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Mr. De Vries for their presentations which gave a good structure for our discussions. I wish to refer to a point made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, namely, the challenge to go as far as possible, have a clear vote for the European Parliament and strengthen our position. In COSAC we have a proposal on this point and I very much hope an appeal in the general election campaign will be possible. I also hope there will be contributions. I think this is the unanimous point of view of COSAC.

I thank the Irish Presidency for the way in which it has proceeded and acted. I am a little concerned, however, about what has happened during the past few days because new amendments have come in. There is no doubt that this is a tactical step which has been taken by some national governments which have tried to take practical steps in the procedure. I am concerned as it seems there is a possibility of opening a Pandora's box. That is dangerous because once it has been opened, it may be very difficult to shut it again.

We have enlargement of the European Union which, of course, we welcome. We welcome the fact that new member states have joined our ranks which I think makes Europe stronger. In fact, it is a reconsolidation of Europe as it was which is certainly to be welcomed.

Alongside enlargement, we also need a deepening of our world for which we need a constitution without which Europe will be weaker. That is why I argue as a Member of Parliament that we should talk to our national governments and remind our representatives how important this is. A number of crucial votes and provisions that need to be agreed have been worked at by the Convention, excellently so. One important point concerns the weighting of votes, making sure the different interests of our countries are maintained at the same time. In any event, we want to take further the Europe we conceive. I hope this responsibility will be taken by national governments across the board. COSAC in its conclusions should perhaps make this point very clearly. It is an important challenge for us to carry out that task. We want to ensure the Intergovernmental Conference finishes successfully and that at the end of the day we have a constitution that is adopted. I would be very grateful if the Presidency and COSAC as a whole could approve such a point that it be part of our conclusions.

In regard to co-operating in the fight against terrorism, Mr. De Vries gave us a road map with a very clear indication of what we might do. That is very positive. It is also good for successive EU Presidencies and a very good way of co-operating. I do not think there is any point in drawing up new rules and regulations. What we need to do is use what we already have at our disposal and try to ensure decisions are not taken in those areas where they have not reached a consensus. In our national parliaments and the European Parliament we have a major task ahead of us but the Executive and legislative powers also need to be involved in this process.

Mr. Claus Larsen-Jensen

I thank the Irish Presidency for its handling of matters. My point concerns the composition of the Commission. This has much appeal for people to work very strongly for each country having its own Commissioner. Are the Irish not worried that if all countries are not represented all the time in the Commission, not just according to a rotational principle, that many will see it as a breach of equal rights for all countries, because if you are not part of the rotational principle and the core of the Commission, the smaller countries will feel they will be treated differently where it will depend on whether you are a large or small country? I, therefore, ask that the Irish Presidency works hard towards one Commissioner per country which should continue after 2014. Does it cause disquiet if a matter such as this will be divisive for the European elections if people feel they will lose something, even though the principle of rotation warrants equality?

Mr. Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis

As a country that joined the European Union on 1 May 2004 and which has full rights, we thank Ireland for the excellent Presidency and the excellent environment which allows us to speak in our native languages. I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his presentation on the panorama which we have seen in the past week.

I support the ideas of the previous speakers who were concerned that we might open a Pandora's box. In our understanding, a compromise on the Convention is a good compromise. Therefore, in our opinion, we should maintain that compromise.

My question is whether we could limit ourselves to just resolving the issue of the formula of qualified majority voting and also resolving the obligatory legal formula regarding the charter of fundamental rights. We should also speak about the participation of the European Parliament in the budgetary procedure as it has been agreed at the Convention. In this case, we could get a clear signal that no other issues would be opened.

Chairman

To avoid confusion, Mr. Kiljunen's book is available free of charge at the registration desk. However, let me say the Chair still has to charge him 10%.

Mr. Christian Philip

All of us would very much like to see in a month's time the European Constitution becoming a reality but I believe that what previous speakers said demonstrates that we are all concerned to know exactly its nature. It is not a matter of achieving a constitutional treaty of any type for the sake of it. I restate the importance we attach to ensuring that the text that emerges from the Convention will not be unravelled. We fully appreciate that in the home straight leg of the Intergovernmental Conference there are proposed amendments and that there will be necessary adjustments but it would be extremely grave if we agreed to enter into such an operation because where would one stop at that stage?

Allow me to say how important it is to ensure that tomorrow's European Union is genuinely capable of taking decisions. We are all concerned to ensure the right balance is struck on voting patterns within the Council. Furthermore, a text adopted next month has to be readable, something of which our citizens may claim ownership. The compromise should not be the lowest common denominator. We have every faith in the Irish Presidency on these issues, but it is important that whatever compromise is agreed, all of us are capable of demonstrating that this text will constitute a new phase in the construction of Europe, not the ultimate goal. The text may attract criticism on some of its aspects, but it will be important to be able to demonstrate that this text embodies its own dynamism. Let us therefore go for it next month, but we should not reach agreement for the sake of having an agreement. If we want to avoid problems of ratification, there has to be a given dynamic in the text. It is important that this COSAC expresses such concerns and wishes to the Governments, and I hope that each of our national parliaments will echo this position in order that we can ensure that next month will be a significant date in the construction of Europe.

Mr. Jasa Zlobec Lukic

I have been waiting for ratification for a long time. We would like to congratulate the Irish Presidency for having taken on the impossible challenge of concluding negotiations. The document adopted by the Convention is obviously of key importance. It is a very representative and democratic document thanks to the composition of the Convention. We wish to avoid complications with ratification which affect not only results but also the whole logic behind the text. I would like to ask Minister Cowen two questions on this issue. I am concerned about countries' positions on the double majority. What are the positions of the various member states? What solutions have been proposed by the Irish Presidency? We have all been discussing enlargement and qualified majority voting. In which areas would qualified majority voting be used?

Mr. Jerzy Czepulkowski

It is an honour for me to speak before such a prestigious body as the representative of what is now a member state of the European Union. The Irish Presidency, in its statement of goals and objectives at the beginning of the year, decided to take up the enormous challenge to bring the IGC to an end. That is a very important objective, and Poland expresses its conviction that the objective will be achieved and attained during the Irish Presidency. Previous speakers have been so kind as to note that a few problems remain outstanding, albeit in a sea of commonly shared formulations. One of those problems is the way in which decisions will be taken. That is a problem of particular importance to the Polish Government and Polish society. That is why I would like to devote the few minutes allotted to me to that important aspect of the constitutional treaty for Poland.

In Nice, the principles of weighting votes were established. They set out certain relations between the large, medium and small member states, and that provided for a major political role for Poland in an enlarged European Union. That is something that balanced out and still balances out today. The dissatisfaction that Poles feel with some of the other aspects of accession to the EU have been highlighted by the Netherlands, such as economic access to labour markets. Those principles were set out in the accession treaty and they were broadly publicised in the course of our pre-referendum campaign in Poland. People voted yes in the referendum on that basis. After the referendum, the Polish Parliament and Polish society were confronted with a proposal to change those principles in a way that would weaken Poland's political role in an enlarged EU. It is particularly important that in the course of further work on the constitutional treaty, we manage to find an appropriate compromise that could be acceptable to our citizens. It could be based on what is set out in the Nice treaty or on the basis of a double majority proposal, but in such a way that the political role of Poland will not be weakened.

Mr. Knostantinos Spiliopoulos

We are very aware of the importance of this COSAC conference in the aftermath of enlargement. The citizens of Europe have taken a decisive step. We want Europe to be an area of peace, security, justice and stability. We would like to contribute to a more secure and democratic world. We congratulate the Irish Presidency for all the efforts it has already undertaken and the results it has already achieved. The work done by the Convention is of such a nature that it brings us closer to a Europe where we have common values. We hope the efforts undertaken by the Irish Presidency will lead to a positive conclusion at the Brussels Summit. Greece is in favour of finishing this work and it is not in favour of opening up new discussions on new subjects. If we were to do that, there would be far too many problems to be resolved. Greece is in favour of double majority voting and is sticking to the Convention's proposals because we believe this is the only system that will guarantee democracy and representation. We favour having one Commissioner per member state; we do not want any discrimination in this area. We also favour drawing up a genuine common security and defence policy. We believe that by having such a policy, Europe could play a more important role on the global scene. Furthermore, we wish to ensure that island matters are safeguarded within the EU.

Mr. Antonios Skyllakos

Since the last conference of Community and European affairs committees, decisive steps have been taken with regard to combating terrorism, among other things. We did not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the recent images of torture there lead us all to reassess our approach. Certainly, terrorism must not be used as a pretext for sheltering behind other concerns. We are disappointed with what we hear from the European Union; it is taking exactly the same approach in respect of Israel and of Palestine. We should have hoped that the Council of Ministers would also take a different approach to defend the integrity of the personal data of passengers travelling in the EU. In fact, Article 48 states that EU member governments are empowered to take steps to combat terrorism, even so far as the use of armed force. We very much oppose that approach and believe that we need a total re-evaluation of those positions.

Mr. Alberto Costa

I would like to thank the Irish EU Presidency for the efforts it has deployed to conclude negotiations on the constitutional treaty. I would like to endorse the opinion of several colleagues that we must not have a minimalist constitution with minimum innovations. It is not so much the matter of the number of amendments that concerns me but rather the possibility of achieving a minimal result, which could be very negative. It is not important whether we solve the problem over one six month period or the next, because we are dealing with issues that are important for future generations. A minimalist constitution will not enable us to resolve the problems and challenges facing Europe in the coming years.

The anti-terrorist message expressed by Mr. Gijs De Vries was extremely important, particularly the link he drew with fundamental rights. Europe today must of course combat terrorism, but not by sacrificing fundamental rights. This is so important that I suggest that when we assess this subject in external policy, as suggested by Mr. De Vries, we should always raise the issue of fundamental rights in contrast to the anti-terrorist efforts that are deployed. This, if forgotten, would undermine the anti-terrorist cause.

Finally, I am puzzled because it is unclear whether our anti-terrorism efforts have been uncoupled from the area of freedom and justice that we have developed in Europe. People have mentioned the various instruments — the European arrest warrant, the joint investigation teams, Eurojust and Europol. All of these were promoted on the basis of the area of freedom and justice. Therefore, it is not clear to the EU public why this type of co-ordination is leaving this context, especially when our draft constitution also aims at further developing this area of freedom and justice, where the fight against terrorism finds its proper role and where it should be properly enshrined.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I thank my colleagues for their remarks. I will try to respond in a general way to the concerns that have been raised. First, my colleague Mr. Giorgio Napolitano questioned the transparency of the Intergovernmental Conference. All the documents submitted by the Irish EU Presidency are available online to anybody who wishes to see them. There is no lack of transparency.

Second, the Intergovernmental Conference is a debate. If the Convention text were to provide a consensus agreement, the Intergovernmental Conference would begin and end on one day. However, we do not have a consensus on the Convention text as it stands. When we were presented with the Convention text, we said it was a good basis for our work and it remains so. However, we should not like anyone to think that this Presidency, or indeed any Presidency, is approaching the effort to bring about a consensus on this huge ambitious project in a less ambitious way than has been articulated by our colleagues here today. We share your ambition and we want to see advances on previous treaties, including the Nice treaty. We want to see progression and not regression. However, we must realise that if we want to get agreement, if we want everybody to reach that level of ambition, to meet the public commitments that have been given collectively at the March European Council, then we must have faith in the Community methods. One cannot impose a consensus. One must rather be prepared, as is the European way, to discuss in a rational and constructive fashion the issues that are raised.

When people express worry about opening a Pandora's box, I must point out that the focal point group issued a document that was discussed, containing 43 annexes. These incorporate a consideration by the Presidency as to where the broad consensus should lie regarding those reasonably important matters that provoked debate in the text. Ministers and colleagues asked that this be discussed at our two-day meeting this week and I have no problem discussing the text. I do not believe the Presidency would be meeting its responsibilities if it refused to have a debate about the text. However, as Mr. Elmar Brok would confirm, the debate on that text was held by 24 member states in 50 minutes over lunch. The fact that people raise another point with me, or the same point on which we had already come to some broad conclusion as far as the Presidency is concerned, does not mean that I accede to the change in the text. I have to explain why it is in many cases that their request cannot be acceded to. However, it is important if people want a consensus, if the Presidency is ultimately being asked to present a text that will attain the agreement of 24 colleagues, that we have a structured debate so people understand why the Presidency is putting a particular proposal. They would know from the debate taking place, like the debate that has taken place over the last two days, that the varying opinions cannot be accommodated like that; that we must of course use the Convention as the basis of our text and keep as close as possible to it.

There are issues that have to be resolved but which cannot be resolved based on what the Convention has proposed. One of the issues concerns that Commission. There is no consensus on a two-tiered Commission and there is no prospect of it being agreed. There are people here who are strong advocates of the Convention path and who accept and acknowledge that.

One of my Greek colleagues mentioned that we must speak to the press and not open new issues. He mentioned the islands. I said we might see how we might accommodate it in a textual way on the basis that we are talking about maintaining a cohesion policy, not creating a whole new cohesion policy by way of a textual change that re-opens matters. In other words, there are issues of text and substance we can debate. This Presidency, on its own judgment based on our discussions, has every intention of going to the European Council on 17 and 18 June, but not with many unresolved issues, although nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

I need to have constructive discussion, as Mr. Elmar Brok will confirm, which is succinct and deals with issues as I raise them. People are giving me their views and we are not going off on long rhetorical flourishes. People are addressing the issues. Please, let us not think, in the same way as COSAC seeks more dialogue, institutional or non-institutional, with other institutions of the Union that this Presidency or any other Presidency is capable of bringing forward a solution to this problem in the absence of debate and dialogue. COSAC is about dialogue. That we discuss issues does not mean we turn them upside down. We must have clarification because the Community message is that through discussion people get a greater understanding of the requirements of the position we are in and the need for us to generate esprit de corps and a sense of solidarity and common cause that will enable us to agree a text and a constitution that is fit for the citizens for whom we are trying to draft it. That is the position.

I am not afraid of dialogue. There are those who tell me to close down the discussions and to come forward with something quickly. It is as if there was about to be a major conflagration. Of course the media will suggest World War III is going on inside the IGC. It would not be churlish if it did not. It is trying to sell newspapers. As you are all aware, when you come to these discussions, some of the issues can be mundane but there are serious policy questions that we have to discuss among ourselves. Let us retain confidence in our ability to do this job. We all have a political desire to get this job done. A political desire on its own will not do the job: there has to be a political commitment which has been expressed at the European Council meeting. We hold our colleagues to that commitment. We will go to the European Council in June with a text with which we believe everybody can and should agree, not based on dimming our ambitions but based on a realistic understanding of what it is we are trying to achieve and where the area of consensus lies. One cannot create an area of consensus here if it does not exist. By the same token — I take the point from my French colleague — we do not intend to unravel the text. I attended such an IGC — the Nice treaty — and spent 12 months trying to start ab initio with a text. It does not work. Of course we are going to use the work of the Convention but there are issues we need to discuss, about which I wish to say something.

The Presidency believes the only basis for a consensus on the weighted voting under the Council is a double majority system. The Presidency is prepared to seek to accommodate sensitivities through the member states and population threshold mechanism. The Taoiseach has made it clear. He has been upfront and frank about it. He has said it to your leadership in honesty and truth as a small country, whose influence has grown because of its membership of the European Union. The work of the European Union is not to build on the basis of confrontation or on the basis of exclusion. All 25 members have to find effective decision-making processes so that Mr. De Vries and all of us can do our job. The challenges we face in the 21st century are very different from those faced by the men of vision who created the European Union. I believe we will meet that responsibility but in doing so let us have a sense of realism as well as idealism because idealism without realism is meaningless and, perhaps, our citizens are fed up with it. What we need is a coherent approach and we will have it. After 30 years experience of the European Union, this country and its representatives want to see the new members achieve what we have achieved and all the other 15 member states want that also. Let us not create the idea of an "us" and "them", or of trying to keep others out.

There are difficulties with the free movement of labour for some. There are transitional arrangements and, I believe, caution is unwarranted. We do not have that problem here. Thankfully, I am from the first generation of Irish people who can live and stay at home and work in their own country. Our diaspora extends to millions throughout the world. Without the European Union we could not bring about the economic and political independence we now enjoy working with others.

If I cannot go through all the details, please accept and understand we do not want to have a constitution on the cheap as someone has called it. We realise this is important business but if we are to get the results we want, we must maintain the well-tried methods that have served the European Union well thus far, namely, the Community method of mutual respect, recognising that there are some questions which attach to national sovereignty so that a QMV decision is not possible at this time.

Let us also remember that if we want a balanced constitutional text we must, in fairness to those who want to go further, improve the enhanced co-operation mechanism. We must enable people if that is their wish. We have to think about that and come up with something that will work, that is, if we are genuine about finding a balance. If we are genuine about acknowledging some sensitivities, on the one hand, we must also enable those by agreement together to go forward, not in a way that creates a two-speed Europe but in a way which acknowledges there are decisions that can be taken here that need not be in conflict with others.

The issue we are dealing with is complex. I assure those present that because we have a debate and because I do not generate unanimity at the first meeting that does not mean we cannot make progress. This is the first meeting of the IGC in this format in five months and there are people here who were not at previous meetings. Are Ministers like me to sit there and not be allowed speak because they were not there five months ago? Let us be realistic and sensible. People are entitled to come who may or may not reiterate the same position as a previous administration. Without a sense of mutual respect and inclusivity what is the reason for a constitution? If we have all these laudable objectives in our constitution let us practice them when trying to agree on it.

Let us be calm and remain confident in our ability to do this job. Without a common political will no human agency on earth will get this done. We need the support of everyone. I know we have the support of everybody of goodwill who wants to see an outcome of which we can all be proud. We will go to the European Council. This Presidency is determined to succeed on the basis of a willing partnership and on an understanding by us all that the compromise that will come forward will retain the spirit and belief in our Union as an effective instrument for prosperity, security and freedom in our society.

Chairman

I thank the Minister and Mr. De Vries for their participation in the conference and for giving us so much of their time. I thank also all those who contributed. I hope you will all agree that we had a very interesting opening session.

Sitting suspended at 11.40 a.m. and resumed at 12.10 p.m.