The first item on our agenda is a discussion with Ms Margot Wallström, European Commissioner for institutional relations and communications strategy. I thank the Commissioner for taking the time to attend this meeting. Members have been looking forward to her visit for some time. The format of the meeting is simple. I will invite the Commissioner to make a brief presentation after which members may present their questions.
European Commissioner for Institutional Relations and Communications Strategy: Presentation.
Ms Margot Wallström
I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it on the work programme of the European Commission and its relations with national parliaments. I look forward to being scrutinised by members even after more than two hours at the National Forum on Europe.
As members know, the Commission's strategic objectives distil the EU's aspirations into three goals, prosperity, security and solidarity. This very much reflects what we know from Eurobarometer opinion polls are the desires of EU citizens in terms of the role and activities of the EU. The objectives are concerned with creating jobs, for example, but also with Europe's role in the world. Security issues, meanwhile, have climbed up the political agenda in the wake of terrorist incidents.
The treaty provides for sustainable development to be the framework of all EU policies. This will underlie and steer all our work. Prosperity is only possible in a climate of solidarity and security. In the present context of declining growth, a main task must be to restore growth and create more and better jobs. Unemployment is far too high and the skills and potentials of EU citizens must not be squandered in poor quality jobs.
It is important for planning that national parliaments have a clear idea of when and what proposals the Commission intends to adopt. Ensuring the reliability of our work programme is the first step in this regard. I am chairing a small group of commissioners that has the task of communication and programming. This group monitors the work programme to ensure that the Commission delivers on its commitments. Unfortunately, the Commission's track record is not that good because usually it has promised hundreds of actions but delivered less than a half. I think it is better that the Commission makes fewer promises for its work programme and then delivers on all the promises in the programme. That has been the starting point for the discussion on the work programme.
The Commission is anxious to maintain high quality in its proposals. The work programme echoes many of the details in the strategic objectives about how the Commission should do its business. In particular, in 2005, all work programme items, with the exception of Green Papers and social partner consultations, will be accompanied by an impact assessment. These impact assessments will look at the effects of the items from an economic, social and environmental perspective. We hope national parliaments will find them of genuine assistance in understanding the thinking behind proposals.
A number of items for adoption in 2005 are consultation documents. This is no coincidence because the Commission is committed to full consultation on key initiatives and to listening to the results. We wish to step up dialogue with national parliaments. Consultation provides an opportunity to have an impact on policy making at an early stage. This provides more opportunities to influence and more time to find compromises and makes disagreement less confrontational. I urge national parliaments to devote energy to participating in these consultations and putting their views on the table at an early stage.
I will now address the relationship between national parliaments and the Commission during my mandate. For the first time, this is an explicit task that has been given to a Commissioner. President Barroso asked me to do this and it is part of my portfolio. I said in the hearing in the European Parliament that we have to create a culture of co-operation between the EU institutions and vis-à-vis the national parliaments. This would be a culture where we stop the blame game and instead the European institutions would work together. It is easy for Ministers when they come home and things have gone well to claim the credit for them. When things go badly, however, Ministers blame bureaucrats in Brussels. The Commission is also guilty of this practice. The Commission blames the Ministers and the European Parliament probably blames both. This is what I call the blame game.
I see the role of the committee in scrutinising the Government as fundamental in helping to stop the blame game and create a culture of co-operation. We must increase shared ownership of the European project and maybe we can ultimately find a common narrative or language on what we want to achieve over this five-year period. For the first time, we have also been very quick to go to the European Parliament to present all our planning documents. Maybe there is planning fatigue at the moment in the European Parliament. We have taken the strategic objectives, the work programme, the annual policy strategy and every planning instrument to the Parliament. Now all this has to be delivered.
Regarding how I see my role, I promised I would visit all national parliaments within the next year and a half. I will also fulfil my commitment to participate in the COSAC meetings. We should issue an annual information report on the Commission's relations with the national parliaments in order to take stock, describe our perspectives and be able to describe how to fulfil and plan both short and medium-term goals for co-operation. I hope to convince all colleagues — Commissioners and our officials — to be accessible and prepared to assist national parliament committees in their inquiries into EU policies. I have encouraged them to attend parliamentary hearings or inquiries every time they are invited. Sometimes, parliamentary committees come to Brussels and invite Commissioners to discuss various issues. It is a matter of listening to the national parliaments and their views on how this co-operation should be designed.
We aim to issue regular newsletters highlighting the Commission's activities regarding relations with the national parliaments and distribute them to the Commission administration and national parliaments. We have just issued the first version in recent days and we are also planning to use the existing network of EU affairs liaison officers in the national parliaments. Every national parliament has an EU liaison officer and Brussels representative, the Irish EU liaison officer being one of the most effective. I will now distribute the newsletter we have just produced. We have also been looking at the practical exchange of information and what we can do to make our systems more compatible with the electronic information system that the parliaments have and the IPEX system. This is a very practical measure that we can take to make our documents available and we promise to look into that.
I will end with what should probably have been my starting point, the three overall key objectives for the Commission's co-operation with the national parliaments. The first is mutual service, which is continuous and open dialogue; the second is concrete networking to make full use of each other's expertise; and the third is connecting with people and their elected representatives because a greater voice to parliaments is a greater voice to Europe's citizens. This is how I see the broad lines along which it is hoped we can work closer together. I do not know if we have distributed the ten very concrete points on how we can work together but they include this information exchange and the newsletters. I have listed it all in order that members can see how the Commission intends to plan its work.
I visited the COSAC chairpersons' meeting and I am aware that there is a pilot project being prepared to see how we could start to work along the lines of what has been proposed in the new European constitution and give the national parliaments the role of watchdog and controllers of subsidiarity. I signalled to the COSAC chairpersons that if even if the Commission cannot go as far as to accept legally that it applies in advance of the European constitution, it can help to ensure that the information reaches the national parliaments and support the pilot project as much as it can without violating the current treaty. The Commission will show absolute openness to trying to find a way to co-operate.
I will explain to Commissioner Wallström what the committee has been doing regarding the constitutional treaty. We have set about putting together a series of meetings on the treaty and working with the Government, successfully so far, to inform people about the EU constitution. Commissioner Wallström mentioned some of the issues that have been raised by the detractors of the treaty. I know members of the committee will want to question the Commissioner about some of these issues as they affect Ireland.
Due to Commissioner Wallström's new status as the point person from the Commission to the national parliaments, I would like to raise with her an issue that surfaced here last week. It is incredibly important as far as Ireland's competitiveness is concerned. This issue is the refusal of the Commission to provide a grant for Intel for its new manufacturing centre in Kildare. By all accounts, the efforts made by the Taoiseach and Government were ignored by the European Commission. As the Taoiseach noted, refusal of grant aid in this case would have serious implications, not just for Ireland but for the reputation of Europe. The Commissioner spoke at length about sustainable growth and maintaining employment levels. This is a serious issue for Ireland. The case has been made that in the long term low corporation tax is the most vital aspect of our efforts to enjoy continued growth and attract inward investment, especially from the US. Many believe we still need to retain the State subsidies for Ireland to remain competitive in the global marketplace.
We cannot understand how, in one case last year concerning a German company, the European Commission approved more than €500 million in grants for one of Intel's competitors. The only reason that Intel's grant was refused is that when one looks at the entire market, it was underneath the 25% threshold. Moreover, in this case, no other competing country was involved within Europe. Hence, the jobs involved are being jeopardised by the European Commission's decision, which is serious. The natural competitors for these jobs are in Arizona and Israel. Many, myself included, believe the European Commission has shot itself in the foot with its attitude that rules are rules.
Like most of my friends, I left Ireland in 1986 and while I was lucky enough to be able to return, some of my friends never did. One reason we were able to return was that Ireland became globally competitive and we will maintain that competitiveness. While I appreciate that Ms Wallström is not the Commissioner for competition, it is unacceptable that the Commission is permitted to tinker with Ireland's competitiveness in any way. This is a serious issue. Over the next nine months, the joint committee will discuss the EU constitutional treaty and, in general, Ireland is very favourable towards the European concept. However, if this situation is allowed to continue without a change of direction by the European Commission, one will see a rapid change of heart by the Irish people about the direction of the European concept and Ireland's place within it.
The factory in question is located in County Kildare and employs 5,000 people. The situation does not simply affect the people directly employed in the factory but also the contractors, sub-contractors and others relying on its operation. I am not making a political point about the issue but have adopted a viewpoint on the European Commission shared by many in Government. Other members of this joint committee feel as strongly. I believe the Commissioner understands my position and while I understand she is not the Commissioner for competition, the issue must be raised with the Commission as soon as possible.
Ms Wallström
I have prepared for this question by trying to get the available information on the Commission's position. I understand that after contact was made, no Commission decision was taken on the issue. The Irish authorities decided on 1 March 2005 not to proceed with the aid to Intel and withdrew the proposal. In the end, no formal decision was made. However——
Essentially, it amounted to the same thing.
Ms Wallström
Yes. The Commission restated the rules on state aid and competition. Under the rules governing state aid, no aid to investment can be approved if the beneficiary possesses or attains a market share of more than 25%, except where the investment creates new market share through genuine innovation. This means that no aid can be approved that would allow a company to reinforce its dominant position for the production of goods where it already had significant market power. Clearly, Intel is in a dominant position in the microprocessor and chip markets and the investment project referred to the manufacture of such products. These are the guiding principles of the rules. It was also uncertain whether any new jobs would be created. In addition, no transfer of research and development was mooted. As far as I am aware, these were the arguments raised in the discussions. It is possible to provide some state aid, albeit at a lower level than €170 million. The sum of €13.5 million can still be granted for an investment project in the relevant region. This is the current position.
The response appears very similar to the official response when the Commission tried to explain its position. People in Ireland, particularly in Kildare, need to know what economic advantage follows this decision. What possible economic advantage accrues to the EU when it disallows Ireland from giving this grant to Intel? At the same time, we are bailing out Italian airlines and giving more than €500 million to a German competitor of Intel's. I recently listened to the Commissioner's speech in Luxembourg regarding the Lisbon strategy. The strategy pertains to job creation, technological innovation and a good business environment. Essentially, after this decision was made, one had Intel spokespersons stating that it would reassess its future position in Ireland. We cannot permit this to happen. The procedure was lengthy and bureaucratic and did not make economic sense because we may lose jobs to locations like Arizona in the United States or Israel. Ireland and the EU will be the losers.
Ms Wallström
The counter argument is that we should not achieve this through state aid. There are clear rules on state aid which have been agreed collectively by the member states. In addition, it is uncertain that any new jobs would have been created. I cannot comment on the German case because I do not have all the facts.
That is fine, but all I can say——
Ms Wallström
I think it is always very difficult to make comparisons. One must look into the particular case to be able to judge. We have absolutely nothing against making investments and we need to develop the market. However, this case touches upon the issue of state aid rules and the outcome is the way forward.
That argument does not hold water because no other company within another EU member state was in competition for the project.
Other joint committee members wish to make contributions. The Commissioner has answered the question and if the Chairman needs further details, he should get them later. In the meantime, we have contributions to make and other meetings to attend. The Chairman should wrap up the point he is attempting to make and allow the Commissioner to deal with the matter she came to discuss.
The Deputy will not prevent me from saying that the problem is——
We are trying.
The argument holds no water because no other company or state was competitively involved as far as this is concerned. Ultimately, the loser will be the EU and Ireland because the investments will go elsewhere.
I wish to deal with other questions, including our Constitution and competences, enhanced co-operation, subsidiarity and the work of this joint committee. Regarding the issue raised by the Chairman, I come from the county where Intel is located. I am sure that Commissioner Wallström is well aware that inward direct investment is hugely significant in terms of the growth of the Irish economy. It is one of the factors that has helped generate the Celtic tiger. The Commissioner would permit us to be bit cynical when we see the larger countries breaching the Stability and Growth Pact apparently with impunity while something that is centrally important to what we are doing is questioned. If ours is to be a knowledge-based economy, a development such as Intel would appear to be central to that notion. If one looks at the European constitution and what it says about grants, one would think that a company that was on the leading edge of research and technology would qualify. It is a hugely significant issue. Does the Chairman want to proceed with the other issues or should I wait for a response?
Senator Dardis can go ahead.
I thank the Commissioner for attending. I was particularly impressed by what she said at the National Forum on Europe this morning and the clarity with which she said it. If Commissioner Wallström were to do one thing when she returns to Brussels, it should be to try to get all her colleagues to speak in simple language, whether it be French, English or German. Commissioner Wallström certainly has that facility for speaking in simple language and I suspect it is the result of her background in television. If Commissioners could simplify matters, that would definitely help to get the message across. We heard about acronyms this morning and the significance of them. I will not return to that issue.
One of the elements of the constitutional treaty that concerns me is enhanced co-operation. As Commissioner Wallström is aware, reservations have been expressed in the past about two-speed Europe and what that might lead to. I appreciate the difficulties of everybody coming together in a community of 25 member states and the issues of deepening and widening. Nevertheless, it does seem that if states are minded to do so, they can leave other states behind. I accept that the initiation comes from the states and it goes to the Commission but there is an implicit invitation for people to carry on. I do not think it is quite the same as the euro or other aspects.
Another issue concerns subsidiarity and the work of this committee. The former Minister, Mr. Alan Dukes, made a point this morning with which I disagree because I think it has changed since he left Parliament. We are much more involved in the scrutiny of European legislation and we have a European scrutiny sub-committee of this committee. The issue I want to discuss concerns the yellow card and subsidiarity and how we exercise that. I do not think we have intervened in any of the documents that have come before us so far. The sub-committee is just a clearing house in the sense that it sends the documents to the other relevant committees which consider them in more detail. At what stage should we put up the yellow card? Should it be at committee level? I am not clear about how the yellow card system will work in practice.
Another point I would like to discuss concerns the disconnection of the people from the European project. Commissioner Wallström heard Professor Sinnott this morning and is aware of our Eurobarometer polls. One of the reasons for that disconnection is the lack of transparency in how the Commission works. We know that there is a provision in the European constitution that leaves the Council open to public scrutiny when it legislates but there is a lack of transparency and openness, on which I would like to hear Commissioner Wallström's comments.
Ms Wallström
I do not feel entirely pleased leaving this other issue, which is very important to Ireland, unanswered. I think the committee deserves a more elaborate reply and we should think about how to organise that because I am not the right person to go into the details.
That is fair. Could I make a suggestion?
Ms Wallström
I think the committee deserves a good reply. It also deserves to see the Commission's argument presented and to see what the legislation means.
That is fair and very reasonable. Could I make a suggestion? Considering Commissioner Wallström's new role and the depth of feeling that exists, particularly with Enterprise Ireland which was involved in this matter, perhaps she could speak to the new competition Commissioner on this issue. The new guidelines as I understand them will pertain from 2007 through to 2013. It is essential that there is clarification regarding Ireland's role within those state aid rules within that multi-framework. The Taoiseach lobbied very hard, even with the President of the Commission, but his pleas were rejected. If Commissioner Wallström could speak to the competition Commissioner, members of the committee would be very grateful.
Ms Wallström
I will do that because I think we should follow up and the committee deserves a good, more elaborate answer. I can also tell the committee that this issue falls well within the discussion about the rules because it concerns how competitiveness or a market leading position is defined. I know it from a case that concerned the country I know best. The committee could be given some of the arguments in this debate. Let me follow up and see how we can organise it.
Regarding the comments made by Senator Dardis, many people fear that we will have a two-speed Europe. If we do not succeed in ratifying the European constitution, some people fear that a core group of countries will go ahead and seek closer co-operation. There are very clear rules in EU treaties concerning enhanced co-operation. A country cannot do it other than by inviting other countries which want to join, it has to comprise a certain number of member states and the rules are clear on the areas where countries can co-operate. It would be very unfortunate if we ended up in such a situation and there would also be a risk of large countries possibly being pitted against smaller states. We have been moving in the opposite direction by creating rules to prevent large states from dominating smaller states.
It is not clear yet how the yellow card and subsidiarity check system will work. That is why we must start to examine how it should be interpreted and implemented and how we can exchange documents so that this can be handled in a practical way. In general, it is very important that the whole European project is anchored within the political tradition and life in every member state. That is why national parliaments are so important. In many member states, work on EU affairs is now spread out among specific political committees — the substance committees — in order that EU affairs are dealt with at all levels and will trickle down into the political culture and political party system. This is extremely important if we want the EU project to be anchored.
Regarding the six-week co-operation period, I think it is a very short period. That is why it is necessary to find out exactly how to work in it. This is what is being done now within COSAC and within our co-operation set-up, namely, an examination of how we can ensure that we can stick to this timeframe, exactly when we can send documents and how can we do it. There is no given answer. It is not clear yet but we have started to work on it to see how we can set up the system.
The six weeks presents a major difficulty for us. We are quite limited in resources and personnel and it places a huge burden on us, particularly on the professional staff. As we do not have much individual research back-up ourselves, the six-week turnaround is an extremely tight timescale. I appreciate that the Commissioner wants to advance legislation and cannot be held up indefinitely.
Ms Wallström
That is the other side of the coin. According to every national parliament, the whole of the European legislative process cannot be kept waiting too long. We must work together to find the practical means and tools to do this. We are also reflecting on how to make the Commission more open. Until now, it has been most difficult with the Council.
I welcome Commissioner Wallström. It is always good to have Commissioners visit and we understand it is difficult for them to travel to all the parliaments. The European affairs committee of the Swedish Parliament visited us last year and I was happily surprised that we shared much in common with its members, particularly as they take a practical and slightly sceptical approach to European issues. I do not wish to label myself as Eurosceptic. I am, rather, Euro-realistic. I found that members of the Swedish committee were on the same wavelength as us in respect of practical issues.
It is a step forward that the Commissioner's portfolio, as given to her by the President of the Commission, is to liaise with the European institutions and the national parliaments. I am a member of the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny which examines the EU's new legislation. One of the messages I wish to give to the Commissioner directly is that the EU is becoming a law-maker of huge volume. I am of the opinion that, in general terms, less is more and that this approach should apply in respect of EU legislation. Matters are getting out of hand in terms of the sheer number of laws and the detail involved. If this continues in the long term, people will feel alienated and be of the view that it is too complex. Consideration must be given to this issue.
I wish to address the matter of the yellow flag process relating to subsidiarity and proportionality in the new EU constitution. I have attended COSAC meetings and I am aware that it is only at the beginning of its work. It is considering experimental ways in which a contemporaneous or simultaneous scrutiny of proposed EU legislation can take place. Will the Commissioner become involved in this process in respect of resources? National parliaments must ensure there is a code of conduct whereby they each have the same amount of resources of technical and legal expertise. Perhaps some of this could be done in an audio-visual way in order that every parliament could have a simultaneous presentation from the Commission on a particular topic and reply within the same timeframe. Much work needs to be done on this matter. We are currently only at the very beginning of this process.
I welcome the Commissioner's statements on the culture of co-operation and mutual service. National parliaments have been the poor relation in the European project. The latter has lost a great deal because the process to which I refer was not in place. People refer to the democratic deficit. There is a practice called cosmology — which I term "codology" — whereby if national governments fail to reach an agreement on certain issues, these are returned to the Commission for final decisions. Is the Commissioner aware of this?
Ms Wallström
Yes. It is comitology. It is no better to call it comitology, though.
Comitology sounds even worse. This practice is undemocratic. No one elected the Commission. It is completely unacceptable that when member states fail to take responsibility and make important decisions on particular matters, they can pass this responsibility on to an unelected body. This helps to fuel the democratic deficit.
I agree with other members that we are at the guessing stage as regards the yellow flag process. Could we not bring this process forward at an accelerated pace, even on an experimental basis, prior to the referenda? COSAC is discussing this matter. Would it not be possible to fast-track the process because it may be a year or two before the parliaments pass the treaties and ratify them. We should not wait for that to happen.
Ms Wallström
We are not only waiting. We are trying to see how we can improve our exchanges of information, for example, in order to allow this fast-track procedure. COSAC is preparing a pilot project on the transport package whereby the process can be tested. The Commission will examine how to contribute and help, in so far as is possible, without violating the treaties.
It is informal.
Ms Wallström
We will do everything practical that we can. The Deputy has put forward some good ideas.
Meanwhile, we receive bundles of new documents and laws every two weeks and there is no co-operation between national parliaments in debating the issues involved. Time is running against us in that regard.
Ms Wallström
The Deputy has put forward some good ideas. Why not have a joint presentation or discussion through audio-visual means? We can examine all suggestions. I will visit all the national parliaments for this reason in order to listen while the Commission continues to try to put the suggestions into practice.
Comitology is not an aspect of the European Union system of which I am proud. Not only can it be questioned from a democratic point of view but the composition of the committees has been kept secret. We have promised to make it public to the European Parliament and to open it up so that anyone can monitor the expert committees and discover what they are doing. The role of the Commission in this has been clearly carved out but the position is slowly changing. Someone must be responsible and it must be made clear where as to this responsibility lies. If member states cannot agree on a particular issue, for example, what should be the position and who should bear the responsibility?
It is terrible that the member states fail in their responsibility to make decisions and then leave that responsibility to others. I am critical primarily of the member states because they are at least accountable to their electorates when they make decisions. The Commission is, more or less, not accountable to anybody.
Ms Wallström
Details regarding to whom the Commission is responsible and its role are clearly set out. When we discuss quality legislation and better regulation, new legislation can sometimes be improved. I will use the example of REACH. I accept this may be controversial but I am familiar with it. If we introduce a new chemicals legislation, we could replace more than 60 existing directives and regulations with one. We would, therefore, have a one-stop-shop and we could get rid of very strange divides between old and new chemicals. New legislation does not, as is sometimes stated, only introduce new red tape. We can also get rid of some of the complicated and detailed legislation that has existed until now. We must ensure that better regulation is interpreted in that way. However, the Deputy is correct in many of his comments.
I welcome the Commissioner's statement that there will be enhanced co-operation between the Commission and the national parliaments. Other members referred to subsidiarity and comitology. The first referendum on the Nice treaty failed on the basis that we did not connect with the electorate. We are about to fail again unless we know how to get the message across about the role of the Commission and the role of the national parliament. If the people felt that the Commission was telling us how to live our lives and what to do in the example highlighted by the Chairman, they would react. One of the fears is that, as a small country, we will be absorbed and will have to acquiesce to any major decisions made. One might think that as we are doing very well out of Europe, we should go with the flow, but Irish people do not think like that and they would react very quickly if the example highlighted today got into the public arena. That could be used against us at the time of the next treaty. It is important that the role of subsidiarity is enhanced and that we complement each other.
I am conscious of the time and will not repeat the points made by my colleagues, but I support them. We are about to launch the next constitutional referendum campaign and to seek the best ways to interact with the public. The Commissioner has given us ideas and we must take them on board, establish how to get the message across and ensure a successful referendum when the time comes. It is a useful exercise and this is our starting point.
Ms Wallström
I will try to be very short. Often, we are obsessed with institutional issues. We love to discuss and explain to people how a proposal goes to first reading in the parliament, but I do not think people care about that. They want to know how this affects their job opportunities or one's life in the village where one lives. If it is any comfort, it is the same discussion in all member states. In that case, we have failed across the board.
This is something I see as the main task: to ensure that we start to speak a language that is comprehensible and that we provide the stories that people can connect to. We have to explain what it is the European Union does. What kind of decisions are taken that affect one's everyday life in Ireland or Sweden or any other member state? We have a long way to go. This culture has developed with economic co-operation because the project was to create an internal market, but it has not gone much further than that. Today people want and expect us to communicate better, and this is part of our new communication strategy. How many people know what subsidiarity is, not to mention cosmology or comitology? I like "cosmology" even more.
The Commissioner can use "cosmology" for the new television interactive meetings that we will have.
I welcome the Commissioner and congratulate her on moving quickly to visit the member states to discuss her role. It is important to strengthen links. The Commissioner has inspired me with the confidence of her responses to many of the contributions, including the Chairman's, on which I interrupted him, on because it is not necessarily the Commissioner's brief, yet she was prepared to tackle it and promised to take it further. Hearing her responses inspires me.
I had read the Commissioner's contribution to the National Forum on Europe, although I was not present to hear it. Clearly, she has her finger on the pulse of all matters raised in every member state, such as defence, sovereignty, abortion, the weakening of national parliaments and the primacy of Union law. The Commissioner is clearly a woman clued in to what people want from the Commission. They want clarity, and to know how it affects them in practice. That has not happened until now.
I do not know whether I should say this because it is probably politically incorrect but the Commissioner is a woman and women always simplify issues to what is happening and how they will affect the family, the wider community and cities. That practical approach is needed. There is a great deal of political jargon and we seem to be caught up in the notion of papers and how they must go to three readings. People do not understand it and they do not want to know. I am a member of the so-called "clearing-house" committee, and I believe that our role will be enhanced. We in turn will be able to inspire confidence in the electorate.
The Intel matter is serious. Until it is explained properly, people will feel that we are being punished for something others get away with. The way the Commissioner has dealt with questions has been very inspiring. I welcome more communication like this and more sensible people like her.
Ms Wallström
I am also very practical. I think it would be very helpful if we could follow up. If the committee wants to reflect on some of the practical things mentioned, maybe a list of things wanted from the Commission could be made. We could also circulate it in our newsletter.
We might bring it to the Luxembourg COSAC meeting and to the Commissioner.
Ms Wallström
Yes. That would be helpful in order that we have the committee's views on what can be done next. We can collect this from all member states.
Can I just add one question? Perhaps the Commissioner cannot answer it. The Commission has stated that among its new approaches to the work programme it intends to be more politically focused. Could the Commissioner expand on that in another way if she is under time constraints?
Ms Wallström
I know what that means now. I did not understand what the Deputy said but Mark explained it to me. We will concentrate on 100 proposals in the work programme rather than on working on 500 and delivering fewer than half. We will try to extract and focus on the most important ones, and then we will try to deliver. That is the role of my group of Commissioners. When a director general makes a proposal, there should be a first page where they have the ideas on how to communicate their proposal. What name do we give it? Why have we presented this proposal? Can it be described in five lines? What groups should be informed and consulted? This sounds naive or simplistic but this is one way that can help us to focus on communication from the very start.
I read the Commissioner's interesting speech at the forum this morning. With her background in media I think she is the right person for the job. I want to make a few points as someone who supports the constitution and will campaign to see it passed. I speak of them here in anticipation of difficulties. Commissioner Wallström spoke about shared values from the Roman world, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Despite this, there is not one mention in the preamble of Christianity. They are even afraid to mention the word "God". It is extraordinary. The preamble is a secular masonic preamble and it will present difficulties.
On the European army, to pretend that we will not have an army is a lie. We will and I believe we should, especially for defensive purposes and to act in places such as the Balkans. We are moving towards unity and unanimity on foreign policy, as can be seen by Europol and the eurozone. We will have battle groups under unified command. That is an army. Why do we not call it an army and let it be?
Commissioner Wallström raised the issue of abortion. Ireland had a protocol attached to the Amsterdam treaty protecting the constitutional prohibition on abortion. That seems to have disappeared in this new document. Is it still in place? Is it annexed?
It is in the protocol.
If it is in the protocol I did not see it. Commissioner Wallström said there are no EU laws concerning abortion. However, there are laws in each state concerning abortion, and if enough states come together and declare this as a service, can it be imposed?
Ms Wallström
These are some of the most controversial questions and were already in the Convention when new text for the constitution was prepared. I replied to the army issue. This will continue to be a very heated debate in Europe. Where will we go when it comes to military and defence capabilities in Europe? These decisions are still taken unanimously. One member state can never be forced to participate or contribute in any way that is against its will or national legislation. This is a given looking at the history of the states in the European Union. The debate will continue on the exact role of defence in Europe but no member state can be forced to participate or contribute to any army or activities against its will or its people. That is very important.
A very interesting debate also took place about the mention of God or Christianity. The dominating argument against this was that the state should be secular. In a text such as the constitution, which comprises rules for 25 member states with very different religious backgrounds and groups of different religious origin, it is too challenging to mention God. It is not in the current treaties but it is in very many national constitutions. There is a mention of respect for any religious conviction and the fact that one has a right to express religious conviction. Respect for all different religious views that exist is included. A general religious background is also mentioned.
I have another question. What will happen if one country refuses to ratify the constitution? Will it be expelled from the European Union?
Ms Wallström
No, this would leave us with the existing treaties. There is no such clause. How could it be done?
Is Commissioner Wallström saying that if 24 countries agree and one does not that——
Ms Wallström
There is no plan B. The leaders of the European member states would have to sit down and analyse the situation. They would examine if there is there an ad hoc solution, as there has been on previous occasions, and the reasons there was a “No” vote in that particular member state. I cannot imagine a European Union where 24 member states would say that the 25th would have to leave the Union. There is no such provision in the current treaty.
Would the country have to ratify the treaty before leaving the Union?
Ms Wallström
How could one stop a country that wanted to leave the Union from doing so? After all, it is a voluntary undertaking.
If Ireland did not ratify the treaty, would it be asked to do so again?
Ms Wallström
It would be up to Ireland to decide the level of voter turnout necessary to carry democratic legitimacy. The European Union can never do that, only the individual member state.
I thank the Commissioner.
I thank Commissioner Wallström and hope she did not think we were too abrupt. This is something the people will examine because it directly affects them, is relative to them and is very practical. This is the third time I have heard the Commissioner speak. She brings a clarity to these issues that has long been absent from the European Commission. She deals with issues practically and is a major bonus to the Commission. The right person was appointed to be the contact person for national parliaments. I thank the Commissioner for attending because it was worthwhile for members. I hope she enjoyed it.
Ms Wallström
I thank committee members very much for taking the time to meet with me. It was very useful for me also. I will take back to my fellow Commissioners information on preparing for co-operation between national parliaments and the Commission.
Sitting suspended at 3.35 p.m. and resumed at 3.40 p.m.