I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 24, 44, 49, 63 and 77 together.
The Presidency attaches the highest priority to seeking to negotiate a successful conclusion to the Intergovernmental Conference at next month's European Council. While obviously I cannot say with absolute certainty that agreement will or will not be achieved, all partners fully share our goal of finalising the negotiations and have engaged with us in a positive and constructive way, including at this week's meeting of Foreign Ministers and on the Taoiseach's tour of capitals. With the necessary political will, I believe we can succeed.
The House will be aware that one of the main outstanding issues at the Intergovernmental Conference relates to the definition of qualified majority voting. We have made clear our view that only solutions based on the principle of double majority are likely to command agreement. Within that framework, and in response to the sensitivities of some member states, we can consider adjustments, including to the member state and population thresholds and to arrangements for transition from the current system. I am aware of media reports setting out possible solutions to this question, and I also am aware that President Giscard d'Estaing has suggested a certain approach. It will ultimately be for us as Presidency to table our own proposals. We have not yet done so, and are continuing to consult with partners.
Two working papers were circulated by the Presidency in advance of this week's meeting of the IGC. The first contained those proposed texts which the Presidency felt did not require further discussion by Ministers at this time. The second contained three areas for discussion by Ministers: first, a small number of issues previously discussed by officials, such as the budget, common commercial policy and Presidency of the Council of Ministers, on which we tabled revised proposals; second, the overall QMV/unanimity balance, where the Presidency did not put forward new texts but wished to have a collective discussion before moving on to make its own proposals in due course; and, third, on the Commission, where the Presidency put forward new texts on some secondary issues and a discussion paper on Commission composition.
Member states gave a broad welcome to our two papers, and I believe that significant progress was made. While nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, we have, I believe, succeeded in reducing the number of outstanding issues and clarifying the questions which remain to be resolved. We hope that further progress will be possible at next week's additional meeting of Foreign Ministers.
The Presidency is not proposing to make specific provision in the treaty for an EU Commissioner for Development Co-operation as to do so would undermine the prerogatives and independence of the Commission President. Article I-26 of the draft constitutional treaty provides that "the President of the European Commission shall ... decide on the internal organisation of the Commission, ensuring that it acts consistently, efficiently and on a collegiate basis". Article III-254 provides that "the responsibilities incumbent upon the Commission shall be structured and allocated among its Members by its President". I note that these provisions are entirely in line with the existing treaty situation.
The Presidency is not considering a plan B in the event of a failure to finalise negotiations on the constitutional treaty. Our aim is to achieve an agreement on a constitutional treaty that all member states can welcome and subscribe to. I am confident that in such a situation, and after a proper public and political debate, ratification by all should be possible. I note that the convention draft includes a declaration providing that, in the case where four fifths of member states have ratified the constitutional treaty within two years and one or more member states have experienced difficulties in doing so, the European Council would discuss the situation.