Vol. 407 No. 6
8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach his views on the arrangement that should be made to allow national parliaments to play their full role in the Community's development, having regard to the conclusions on this matter of the European Council on 14 and 15 December 1990; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The Government favour national parliaments playing the fullest possible role in the development of the European Community consistent with the Community Treaties and with each member state's constitutional provisions, and on the basis that it is for each state to settle the specific arrangements for the discharge of the role of its national Parliament.
In view of the fact that the Rome Summit specifically drew attention to the need to make additional or new arrangements for the involvement of national Parliaments, may I ask the Taoiseach what new arrangements over and above those which already exist he contemplates for the involvement of Dáil Éireann in European Community business in view of the statement of the Rome Summit to which he adhered in December?
The Rome Summit did not say anything about new or different arrangements; it simply said that consideration should be given to arrangements allowing national Parliaments to play their full role in the Community's development. I have no doubt that this Parliament will play its full role, as it has always done.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that if the Rome Summit envisaged no change in the present arrangements they would not have adverted to the matter and that it is only reasonable to conclude that the summit, at least, and some other members states envisage some enhancement of the role of national Parliaments in European affairs following on the additional competences which are to be given to the Community under the results of the conferences? May I ask the Taoiseach, therefore, if he has any proposals to engage in any discussions, either through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or otherwise, with the parties in this House to see how Dáil Éireann could play a more meaningful role in European affairs in view of the fact that Europe is to be given many extra powers under the results of these two conferences?
I see no matters arising out of either of the two IGCs in regard to which this House will not be able to play its full role. We have our normal procedures for dealing with these matters. In fact, I would think that we are dealing with Community matters here and now at Question Time. I have indicated that we will have a full debate on the emerging position as soon as possible. We have the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. Whatever emerges from the two IGCs will require not just the participation of this House in deciding upon it and ratifying it but also a vote of the people by way of referendum.
May I ask the Taoiseach if he would favourably view the evolution of the European Parliament into a bicameral parliament, the second house of which would be representative of the national parliaments of the member states?
I do not think there should be any reference to a second House.
I am not particularly enamoured of that idea. I know it recommends itself to some people but I do not think it is finding any particular favour among the member states at this stage.
It is not finding favour among member Governments.
I understand that some consideration has been given to the question of allowing members of the European Parliament to report back to this House through the committee system or otherwise. Has this matter been considered further? Secondly, is consideration being given to a committee on foreign affairs? The Taoiseach did not mention that committee in his reply and I trust it is still a possibility for this session.
Yes.
What about the MEPs?
There has been no discussion about that aspect yet.
Would the Taoiseach favour replacing the joint committee with an EC committee which would have common terms of references with other committees throughout Europe, and such committees having a common approach to dealing with EC directives before they are approved at the Council of Ministers stage? If so, would he favour providing proper financing for such committees so that they can carry out their work properly?
I am talking about replacing the joint committee with an EC committee with common terms of reference with other committees throughout the member states.
I already indicated to Deputy Barry that we are prepared to consider some extension of the functions of the joint committee. That would, perhaps, be the best way to approach it. With regard to a common approach by these committees around Europe, I see enormous difficulties. The Parliaments in member states in many cases operate on a different basis to us. As the Deputy is probably aware, in Denmark, for instance, they have a particular committee system of their own. It would be difficult to establish any sort of homogeneity between the different committees but we are certainly not averse to looking at the possibility of extending the role and functions of the joint committee.
