Vol. 430 No. 5
1 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the approach adopted by him in his discussions with the Prime Minister of Malta on the institutional problems associated with EC membership for Malta; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The European Commission will address the institutional implications of Malta's application for EC membership in its forthcoming opinion on this application. Ireland's approach to Malta's application will depend on the content of the Commission's opinion which will have to deal, in particular, with the important institutional issues arising. I indicated this to Dr Fenech-Adami, the Maltese Prime Minister, in what were very useful discussions on Monday last, 3 May, while assuring him of our general goodwill to Malta as a small European country.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the Commission, which comprises 17 members, is large enough to be effective and that from the point of view of it being an effective body in future we should be aiming towards having one Commissioner only per member state, certainly in the short term, to maintain the numbers at not more than 17?
The European Council is satisfied that the present proposals for enlargement can be contained within the present institutional arrangements. I will not speculate further regarding the implications the Commission may see in publishing its opinion regarding Malta's application.
I understand that the Maltese have made it clear, in the context of their application for membership, that they are not insisting on a commissionership, that they would perhaps be willing to share a commissionship and that they may not insist on their right to the Presidency by rotation. Will the Taoiseach confirm whether that is the case?
The Prime Minister said they were flexible in regard to the type of issues raised by the Deputy.
Does the Taoiseach not see institutional problems with an enlargement that does not include Malta in so far as if one adds the Scandinavian countries and Hungary and Austria, we will have 16 or 17 members? A conventional tour de table at the Council of Ministers, in that event will take up to one and a half hours, even if each Minister speaks for only four or five minutes. Does the Taoiseach not see major practical problems in reaching consensus in that type of setting?
This has been widely discussed, it was certainly discussed at Lisbon. In regard to the question of the adequacy of the present institutional arrangements, it will certainly take up a greater amount of time, there is no question about that. However, they can cope with the present enlargement applications and it will be interesting to learn their opinions and ideas, for instance, in relation to Malta.
Is the Taoiseach aware that members of the incoming French Government have expressed the view that the issue of enlargement cannot be settled until the institutional problems associated with it have first been settled by the existing members? Will he agree there is a need to address the whole issue, not just the size of the Commission but also the institutional arrangements for the Council of Ministers, before binding and final decisions have been taken on enlargement? What is the Taoiseach's view? Which does he think should come first?
The question deals with Malta. We are now having an extension of the subject matter.
I am aware of the views expressed by the incoming French Government in that regard but, as I said, the European Council has agreed that the institutional arrangements can cope with the present enlargement proposals. I am sure Deputy Bruton will agree that we have a vested interest in relation to institutional arrangements.
As has Luxembourg.
Will the Taoiseach accept that because Malta is a small country — of approximately 400,000 people — we have a vested interest in ensuring that small countries are not squeezed out in the context of an enlargement to perhaps 20 member states and that perhaps, strategically, we have a long term interest in ensuring that we side with Malta, as a small country, in whatever stand they take on the institutional question?
That is true. I accept we have a vested interest in that regard. We must be careful that larger countries do not avail of the opportunity to improve their position in relation to their standing at institutional level. We have an interest in as many small countries as possible being included but we also have an interest in whatever institutional arrangements might be proposed.
Will the Taoiseach agree that it is not in Ireland's interest to have a large number of small micro states excluded from the European Community because they could become tax havens and operate in a manner which would undermine the objectives of the Community in regard to cohesion?
I accept Deputy Bruton's comment in general terms. However, Switzerland is on the outside, it is not at present applying but I hope that will change. It was one of the weaknesses of the taxation and investment package that finally put it to bed at European level as it was not possible to control what was happening outside the Community, the same point made by the Deputy.
The Isle of Man is another example.
