Jim Higgins
Ceist:7 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline his views on the proposal to reduce the membership of the EC Commission to one member per State.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - EC Commission Membership.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:27 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline his views on the proposal to reduce the membership of the EC Commission to one member per State.
Pat Lee
Ceist:84 Dr. Lee asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline his views on the proposal to reduce the membership of the EC Commission to one member per State.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 27 and 84 together.
The efficiency and effectiveness of the Community has been one of the principal subjects for consideration by the Inter-governmental Conference on Political Union.
The proposal to reduce the members of the Commission to one per member state has been put in this context. The Luxembourg Presidency has proposed in its draft Treaty that the number of Commissioners be reduced to one per member state. The proposal remains at the conference table.
Ireland welcomes the proposal. It will increase the efficiency of the Commission by concentrating the distribution of the portfolios within the Commission. Furthermore, the prospect of the accession of a number of new member states in the years to come reinforces the need for a new arrangement to maintain the neutrality of the Commission and, in this context, the proposal is a sensible one. It is important, in view of this, to impose some limits on the growth in size of the Commission to ensure that it does not become too unwieldy and that it retains its effectiveness.
At last we have a point of agreement regarding the EC proposals.
There are many other areas of agreement.
We can agree that it will cost us nothing. Of course, it is easy for us to agree to such a proposal when we have only one Commissioner. I should be interested in the reaction of the member states who have two Commissioners. I should like to tease out two points with the Minister. Does he accept, in relation to our general approach to the Commission, that it has a record of being protective towards the interests of smaller member states and that, from that point of view, it is in our interests to ensure that the Commission remains a powerful and vibrant body within EC structures? At the Irish Council of the European Movement Conference yesterday I suggested that a possible way forward, from the point of view of the democratic deficit and legitimacy of the institutions, would be for the direct election of the President of the EC Commission. Will the Minister say how he sees the Commission generally? I also invite him to react to my proposal in relation to direct elections for the President of the EC.
I will deal first with the more important element of the Deputy's supplementary question. Of course he is quite right in saying that the Commission has always been seen by the smaller member states as the protector of their interests. The Deputy knows that, right through the course of discussions and negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament are very conscious of any disturbance in the competencies of the particular institutions. The founding fathers of the European Community were very wise and sensible in the way they distributed powers to the three institutions. We should be concerned about any fall-out resulting from the disturbance of these competencies which have operated well within the Community up to now. President Jacques Delors is on record as suggesting that perhaps some member states would like to see the Commission weakened, to see it reduced to a mere bureaucracy, but it was never envisaged that the Commission would work in that way. In regard to the right of initiative, I have negotiated with this view in mind because it is shared by the Government who instructed me in this regard, to ensure that the Commission retain the right of initiative and that we do not allow three or four larger members of the Community to take unto themselves the power, authority and role of the Commission.
What about the direct election of President?
On Sunday evening last — this is an important element as it backs up what Deputy O'Keeffe is talking about — foreign ministers of the four less well off states in the Community, Spain, Portugal, Greece and ourselves, had a meeting with President Delors because there were certain matters before the Intergovernmental Conference for consideration which we wanted the Commission to understand. That is an example of how the smaller and weaker states look to the Commission to ensure that they are not pushed aside. With regard to Deputy O'Keeffe's suggestion that the President of the Commission should be directly elected, does he mean it should be done by the people in a general plebiscite?
Yes.
I am not too sure, in fact I am somewhat sceptical about it. Everybody knows Jacques Delors but if he finishes his second term and does not look for a further term at the end of next year somebody new will come on the scene and the name would not mean much to the people.
What about the Minister?
I do not think I will bother. If the Prime Minister of Denmark decided to run — although I believe he is not a runner — his name would mean very little.
My proposal is a new one modelled on the fact that there is a President of the United States and that we do not have any directly elected President in Europe. I do not see it being implemented in Maastricht but it might be considered as one way in which the democratic deficit could be eliminated in Community institutions.
Deputy Blaney, a member of the European Parliament, is in the House and he could tell you the role which the European Parliament plays in the confirmation of the appointment of the President of the Commission. Therefore, there is provision for it. One of the things with which it is hard to come to terms is the fact that the Council appoints; Parliament can terminate the appointment but do not make appointments — one hires and cannot fire and the other fires but cannot hire. There is a delicate balance. Later questions ask about the democratic deficit to which Deputy O'Keeffe referred and I believe we can do that by making Parliament play a fuller role.
I want to call Deputy Dukes, Deputy Connor and Deputy Shatter.
I heard what the Minister said about the reduction in the number of members of the Commission although I am not sure what, if anything, he will do about it. Is the Minister aware that there has been quite a lot of discussion about the effects on the efficiency of decision making in the Commission if the number of member states in the Community is increased? There are several knocking on the door including Austria and Sweden; we may have Norway and we must also consider the Eastern European countries. Will the Minister get involved in the discussion to prevent the kind of paralysis in decision-making in that regard which arises from the outrageous expectation that we will have a Commission of 25 or 35 countries before we know where we are? We all know it will be a long time before there are even 15 member states of the Community and much longer before there are the 20 or 25 member states that the pundits are commenting on now. Would the Minister undertake to do something to bring this discussion in the institutions back to some semblance of reality, to where we will be talking about Commissioners in a Community that now has 12 member states and for the foreseeable future will have no more than 15 member states?
Members are anticipating questions further down the line. These questions refer to No. 8. That question is being encroached upon.
My question is a supplementary——
I will call the Deputy.
My question is a supplementary to Deputy Dukes question and might be more effectively dealt with now.
Usually we hear the Minister in respect of a query.
In reply to Deputy Dukes, there is no argument between us. We have to have regard to future developments in Europe. We have the list, as outlined by Deputy Dukes, of countries who at present have applications before the Community for full membership, and within a further period of time another five or six countries will also make application. A Commission with the type of membership that would result from the system at present in operation would be a very unwieldy Commission and would not be in the best interests of the Community. This is being stated during the negotiations.
We are encroaching on other questions.
In relation to the declarations received so far by the member states on this proposal — we have heard the Minister's declaration here today, we would accept one Commissioner per country — have the United Kingdom, Italy, France and Germany made any declaration in relation to the reduction of the size of the Commission?
The Deputy is putting his finger on a sensitive button because the negotiations are still taking place. It is important to remember that at the end of the day we can only have successful conclusions by consensus. Obviously member states with two Commissioners are not prepared to agree to a reduction in that number. Obviously we are having regard to the best interests of the European Community when we agree to one Commissioner per country. Of course from a national point of view we are in a stronger position, having a Commissioner from Ireland as one of twelve, although, as Deputies know, the Commissioner has to devote himself to matters other than home affairs when he takes up his responsibility as Commissioner. We still have some distance to go before we get consensus on this matter. Further suggestions are being made in regard to a new rank of assistant commissioner but this matter has not been addressed yet during the negotiations.
Let us deal with No. 8. Clearly questions are anticipatory of No. 8. Would Deputies steer clear of Deputy Durkan's question, No. 8?
In the context of the one seat we have on the Commission, in light of the developments of the last 24 hours has the Minister received any indication that the current Commissioner might be returning prematurely to this country?
No. 8 please, Deputy Durkan's question.
One can always depend on Deputy Shatter to——
Put his foot in it. He does not know the rules.
——try to distract us from what we are doing.
It is not the people in front of him whom the Minister need worry about but those behind him.
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:8 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has satisfied himself that Irish interests are safeguarded fully in the event of the expansion of the EC from the present 12 members; his views on whether the suggestion of a two-speed Europe will materialise; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Under the terms of Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome any European state may apply to become a member of the Community. Applications have been received from Turkey, Austria, Malta, Cyprus and Sweden. The Commission has already given its opinion in respect of the applications from Turkey and Austria and is currently examining the remaining applications. Negotiations have not yet begun and are unlikely to do so until the two intergovernmental conferences have completed their work. The Commission has expressed the view that new members are unlikely to join the Community before the completion of the internal market on 31 December 1992. However, enlargement is likely to be a major issue on the Community's agenda from next year and the Government will ensure throughout any future negotiations on the accession of new countries that the interests of this country are safeguarded.
The Government have already rejected the concept of a two-speed Europe in the context of the European Monetary Union negotiations and would be concerned to ensure that the expansion of the Community from the present member states does not result in such a development.
Would the Minister agree that there appears to be a great deal of emphasis on the expansion of the European Community in recent times while at the same time there appears to be quite a variation in the emphasis placed by the various EC Heads of Government both on the extent of European integration and on the speed with which it can be achieved?
The Deputy is quite right in that there is quite a lot of focus on the concept of expansion of Europe. I have already listed the countries which have made application for membership, and soundings and indications from other countries are to the effect that they may be considering same — I am talking about EFTA countries. Three members of the Government of Switzerland, after the conclusion of the EEA agreement, indicated that Switzerland would seriously consider the question of application for full membership. Of course, it is also very much on Norway's agenda. We know they made application in the early seventies when we applied but a referendum prevented them from becoming members.
There is undoubtedly a very strong motivating force within certain members of the Community to enlarge the Community. Countries of Central and Eastern Europe — Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary — are now associated with the Community as a result of the Second Generation Association Agreements which have been concluded with them. They have clearly indicated that they, too, want to be part of Europe, and one can readily understand the reason. They have come in from the cold, as it were, and they are tryng to build up a democratic and open market system. They were attracted by the Community before they broke loose, and they obviously want help and support along the way. We should acknowledge that there has to be stability in Central and Eastern Europe. Otherwise the Community would be destabilised. This is part of a very wide-ranging ongoing debate and one in which we have to be fully involved.
Does the Minister accept that the question of a two speed Europe arises not only in relation to monetary union? While I endorse entirely what the Minister has said in relation to monetary union, that we should under no circumstances get into the slow lane, would he not accept that the variable geometry, which I think is the in-phrase, could also apply in relation to political union? There is a warning in the provisional White Paper from the institute that there is a danger that if we are not fully involved in discussions on a common foreign policy and a common security policy, we could find ourselves in a second lane as far as political union is concerned. The authors of this document clearly state that that would not be in Ireland's interest; I believe it would not be in Ireland's interest and I would be very glad to hear the Minister say so.
Deputy O'Keeffe is pointing out the logic of the position of the Government in that we are fully involved in all discussions with regard to the developments that are taking place within Europe. We have been very active and up front on all the issues. We are continuously involved in all these areas and we have no intention of changing that position.
Since the question relates to safeguarding Ireland's interest in an expansion of the Community, is it the case that the EC need to expand own resources, the system of financing in the Community?
Of course.
By taking in countries that are poorer than we are it would naturally stretch the existing resources to a serious limit. Would the Minister make a statement on the proposals we are making in this regard?
We have made the position very clear, that the question of own resources has to be addressed and it will be addressed. The financial directive is due to expire very shortly and we will have to have a new directive. The Deputy is aware of the present level of resources — it is barely sufficient to meet the needs of the Community. Early next year we will have serious discussions on a new percentage to be negotiated — it might be increased from 1.1 per cent of GNP to perhaps 1.3 or 1.4 per cent. Again, it is a matter for the member states to take into account.
What will we be looking for?
We will be looking for the maximum, obviously for very good reason. Why should we not look for the maximum, but, of course, that has to be governed by the realism of the situation and what would be acceptable?
What is the Minister's judgment on that?
The Deputy should understand that we will be talking about a negotiating position. We will not be going into any negotiations with a hostage to fortune attitude.
The Minister should pitch his price high enough.
I would not object to 1.6 per cent.
Or even 1.9 per cent.
Even 2.9 per cent.
As big a percentage as he and I might hope for, we would both be very pleasantly surprised if that percentage materialised.
I would like to be pleasantly surprised.
Would the Minister not agree that the concept of a two speed Europe, while interesting as a piece of rhetoric, is in flagrant violation of the basic treaties governing the European Community? Would he not further agree that the use of this rhetoric of a two speed Europe is not only in violation of the spirit of the existing treaties but is seriously prejudicing the discussion prior to the treaty that is likely at some stage in some unconsidered form to be put by way of referendum to the Irish people.
I thank Deputy Higgins for the thrust of his two supplementary questions. I agree with him wholeheartedly in the first instance. If it were so, it would give rise to what he suggests in his second supplementary question. It is our business to ensure that this concept is dismissed.
Arising from the Minister's reply would he agree that the mooted expansion of the Community, while desirable in the long term, may have the effect of bringing to the fore the concept of a two speed Europe and may lend greater credence to it?
I acknowledge that the Deputy is correct in saying there is quite a desire to expand the European Community and that desire is not confined to the applicant countries presently under consideration. As I said member states also have that desire, particularly those who may have a common border with some of these countries, for very obvious political as well as trade reasons. This matter will have to be discussed. When the opinion of the Commission is brought before us at the Council we will then have to see where we are going. The House would do well to remember that in the past 12 months the Community has undergone considerable expansion with the inclusion of 17 million people from the former German Democratic Republic, which is now part of the new Germany. As far as marketing and trading is concerned we have expanded the scope of the Community by bringing in the EFTA countries which brings another 30 million to 40 million into the market. The expansion of the Community is an ongoing process and there is nothing anybody can do to prevent it. As I said in reply to an earlier question, the Treaty of Rome provides that all countries may apply for membership of the Community and may not be denied it if they meet the criteria required.
In an expanded EC will a two speed Europe not be inevitable?
I have ruled that out. There is no room in my vocabulary at negotiating level at any time for that particular phrase. I will not accept it.
Hear, hear.
Deputy Michael Higgins made it clear that it goes against the spirit of the Treaty of Rome and we are not about to change the Treaty in any shape or form through any backdoor method.
Does that include political union and all that entails?
We will come to that in a few minutes.