I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann–
(a) notes the decision of the European Commission to resign in the light of the findings of the Committee of Independent Experts;
(b) notes the positive role played by the European Parliament in highlighting these issues and the fact that the Commission, in resigning, took political responsibility for the situation described in the experts' report;
(c) acknowledges the work of the Commission during its period in office, which contributed substantially to important strategic decisions of the European Union;
(d) notes the Government's work in promoting democratic reforms within the EU, in particular on the basis of the relevant provisions in the Treaty of Amsterdam;
(e) affirms that the European Union needs a strong Commission capable of taking action and of protecting the interests of smaller member states in particular;
(f) expresses its satisfaction that the European Council, meeting in Berlin, has nominated Romano Prodi to be the next Pres ident of the Commission, subject to confirmation by the European Parliament probably at its April session, in line with the procedures specified in the Treaty of Amsterdam;
(g) notes also that the President Designate will thereafter consult with the Governments of the member states with a view to the identification by common accord of the members of the new Commission which is to be confirmed as a body by the European Parliament after the June elections;
(h) notes, in this context, that the Irish Government will nominate to serve on that Commission a person of suitable qualifications who will be able to make a strong and valuable contribution to the development of the European Union.
I am speaking in place of my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs who are, as we all know, occupied elsewhere on vital national business in which I know the entire House wishes them well.
This is a very important week for Ireland in its relationship with the European Union; a relationship which has had a dramatic impact on our society and economy over the last three decades. Because of this ongoing impact, the standing and effectiveness of the Union's executive must be of grave concern to us. It is right that we should take a step back from the controversies that led to the unprecedented resignation of the entire Commission and reflect on each element of the future direction of the Commission, the balance of powers within the Union's institutions and our relations with the different institutions. In addition, the importance to Ireland of the effectiveness of our Commissioner is worthy of comment.
There is absolutely no doubt the Commission's resignation signifies an extremely significant development with long-term implications. It represents a landmark of accountability, the spirit of which must be responded to by each of the Union's institutions. For our part, through our representation in the Council and our involvement in the formation of the new Commission, we must do all we can to ensure the Commission continues to be a dynamic force for the betterment of Europe.
In this debate it is important that we fully set out the context for recent events and appreciate the various structural reforms which are already under way. This should not be a shallow points-scoring exercise; we need balance and reflection to inform our discussions.
The immediate reason for the resignation of the Commission of the European Communities in the early hours of 16 March is well known. Having seen the report of the Committee of Independent Experts regarding fraud, mismanagement and nepotism in the Commission, all 20 Commissioners resigned in light of the virtual certainty that the European Parliament would otherwise pass a censure motion under Article 144 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities, which would have obliged the members to resign as a body.
To pass such a censure motion would have required a two thirds majority of the votes cast in the Parliament. The size of the vote against the Commission in the Parliament on 14 January, when it narrowly avoided censure, left little doubt that this majority would have been present for a censure motion tabled after publication of the report of the so-called "Wise Men". In these circumstances, the President and the other members of the Commission resigned pre-emptively. As has been said previously by my colleagues, the Government respects that decision. A Declaration by the Council, issued on Monday, following discussion of the matter at the Conclave of Foreign Ministers, similarly "notes and respects" the Commission's decision. I will return later to other elements of that declaration because it encapsulates the approach of the Council, fully shared by the Irish Government, towards finding a way forward in this matter.
The deeper meaning of what has occurred has already generated a great deal of comment and forms the essential core of both the Labour Party's motion and the Government's amendment. The resignation of the Commission is an unprecedented event in the 40 year history of the European Union. In bringing it about, the European Parliament has made an important shift in the balance of accountability within the Union, both in its own favour and to the benefit of the Union as a whole.
The Council of Ministers, which until the Commission's resignation had remained at one remove from the dispute between the Commission and the Parliament, is fully engaged in the task of putting in place a strong Commission capable of taking action as needed. The Heads of State or Government of the member states, meeting today and tomorrow in Berlin, have shown themselves to be eager to retake the initiative while complying with the procedures specified in the Amsterdam Treaty.
As I have said, I believe this debate should be firmly grounded in the facts. Over the 40 year history of the Union, the Commission has grown to the point where it employs some 6,000 officials of 15 nationalities under the political control of a President and 19 other Commissioners. Under the current Treaty, the President has few powers over the Commissioners. The Santer Commission, ironically, is the first Commission which set out, under the President's direction, to modernise its own administration, in particular by improving organisation, personnel management and financial control and by introducing greater transparency in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Amsterdam Treaty. A major report on Commission reform, which has been under preparation for many months, is scheduled to be presented to the European Council in Cologne in June. President Santer saw it as the blueprint which he would bequeath to his successor. While acknowledging the serious issues which led to the Commission's resignation, it would be grossly unfair to ignore this work. Unfortunately for the Commission, the necessarily painstaking process of reform moved too slowly, particularly in the eyes of the European Parliament.
The directly elected members of the European Parliament face elections in June. A high level of participation in these elections would be good for the Parliament and the Union as a whole. As my party's director of elections for last year's referendum on the Treaty of Amsterdam, I have direct experience of the difficulty of capturing the interest of Irish voters for European affairs, critical as they are to the welfare of every one of us. I hope, for future referenda and elections, the other parties which also espouse a positive attitude towards our European experience will also run national campaigns in order, at very least, to respond to incessant misrepresentations and occasional conspiracy theories of Europe's determined opponents in this country.
MEPs of all 15 nationalities share the difficulty of mobilising voters to turn out in European elections. In this context, some issues are more potent than others. There is no doubt the Parliament's assertiveness in relation to the financial and administrative affairs of the Commission will have heightened the public's sense of the Parliament's role. I hope the forthcoming campaign will be used as an opportunity to focus on a more positive agenda.
The motion tabled by the Government acknowledges the key role played by the European Parliament in highlighting the issues on which the Committee of Independent Experts reported – namely fraud, mismanagement and nepotism in the Commission. The Government, however, does not share the somewhat simplistic view expressed in the Opposition motion that it automatically follows that the Parliament should, on this account, be given further and greater powers beyond those already to be provided, particularly in regard to the appointment and monitoring of the Commission. As I shall outline later, the powers of the Parliament are already to be significantly enhanced by the Treaty of Amsterdam and particular measures are included in relation to the appointment of the Commission.
I will place on record the mandate and the essential findings of the Committee of Independent Experts as this is essential to a sound assessment of subsequent events. The primary task of the committee, in accordance with its terms of reference, was to "seek to establish to what extent the Commission as a body or Commissioners individually bear specific responsibility for the recent examples of fraud, mismanagement and nepotism raised in Parliamentary discussion". The scope of the report which issued on 15 March is limited to this matter. The responsibility of the Commission services, as distinct from that of the Commission as a body and of specific Commissioners, will be addressed in a second report expected in May.
The committee examined six specific areas where fraud or mismanagement has been alleged, namely, tourism; Mediterranean programmes; the European Community Humanitarian Office; the vocational training programme (Leonardo da Vinci); the security office and nuclear safety. It also investigated allegations of favouritism by six Commissioners, specifically, Commissioners Cresson, Liikanen, Marin, Pinheiro, Santer and Wulf-Mathies. It did not find any instance of direct or personal involvement by a Commissioner in fraudulent activities. It found no proof that any Commissioner had gained financially from fraud or mismanagement. It did, however, find instances where the Commission as a whole bore responsibility for fraud or mismanagement.
With one qualification, the report does not find the individual Commissioners concerned with the six areas examined solely or even mainly responsible for mismanagement. It did find that one Commissioner failed to act in response to known and continuing irregularities over several years and failed to inform the President of the Commission and, through him, the Parliament of the problems relating to the Leonardo Da Vinci programme. The Commissioner involved was Commissioner Cresson.
While not accepting that inadequate resources excused the human resource problems identified, the report concluded that the Commission as a whole, or previous Commissioners, bear responsibility for not providing the resources needed to implement programmes properly in the six areas examined. Other management failings were identified such as failure to set priorities, to assess in advance the volume of resources required for new policies and to lay down in advance how new policies should be implemented. The report found control and audit mechanisms and procedures for investigating the responsibility of individual officials for irregularities inadequate.
The report found no justification for the allegations of favouritism against three of the six Commissioners about whom this allegation was investigated. It found that Commissioner Cresson bore responsibility for one instance of favouritism, that Commissioner Wulf-Mathies used an inappropriate procedure to recruit a person to her personal staff and that Commissioner Pinheiro should not have employed a close relation of his to work in his private office.
These findings, while undoubtedly serious, would not perhaps have precipitated the Commission's resignation were it not for the far graver finding of a failure by Commissioners to accept responsibility for what was happening in their areas. The committee observed that Commissioners pleaded that they were not aware of what was happening in their services. The report judged such protestations as "tantamount to an admission of loss of control by the political authorities over the Administration they are supposed to be running". More than any other element, the conclusion of the report concerning responsibility was felt by the Commission to have discredited it as a body and made it necessary for it to resign en masse.
In its declaration of 21 March which I touched on earlier, the Council considered that a new Commission should be appointed as rapidly as possible and in compliance with the procedures specified in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Council expressed its expectation that the Commission would remain in office until then as provided in the current treaty and that it would resolutely represent the interests of the European Union to the outside world as well. I need hardly say that the Government, like the Council of Ministers, attaches importance to the Commission's remaining operational role in dealing with the tasks immediately before us, especially Agenda 2000. As such, today's agreement on the nomination of Romano Prodi to serve as Commission President is very welcome.
The Council declaration goes on, without ignoring the criticism levelled by the European Parliament or the situation described in the report of the independent experts for which the Commission assumed political responsibility in resigning, to record its thanks to the Commission and its staff for its committed work in the interests of the European Union. The Government shares this sentiment. It should not be forgotten that the Santer Commission made a significant contribution to important strategic decisions of the European Union, inter alia, in relation to the euro, the future financing of the Union and enlargement.
This country has particular reason to be grateful to the Santer Commission for the support it gave to the peace process in Northern Ireland. Various parties in this House have formed relationships with some of the Commissioners who were directly affected by the committee's report and have been appreciative of their work.
The Council declaration affirms the Union's need for a strong Commission capable of taking action. It states – this is a very important element – that the Commission's democratic legitimacy will be strengthened by the increased involvement of the European Parliament as pro vided for in the Amsterdam Treaty. It observes, soberly, that under that treaty, the rule of openness and closeness to citizens applies to all institutions of the European Union. This includes the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament as well as the Commission which, at this point, is the institution undergoing scrutiny.
The question thus arises as to where we go from here. It is clear that none of the institutions of the Union, including the Parliament, would actually have wished to see developments unfold as they have. It does not serve the Union or the cause of European integration well to have an institution as central and valuable as the Commission weakened. Ireland has traditionally and rightly recognised that a strong and effective Commission is the engine of the Union and, as guardian of the treaties, the greatest guarantor of the interests of smaller member states. We have no interest in contributing to the arguments of sceptics who may relish the undoubted difficulty faced by the Union as a whole in the wake of these resignations. We are all involved; the European Council must make decisions in the coming weeks which are a full and effective response to the loss of confidence in the Commission, which are consistent with the letter and spirit of the Amsterdam Treaty and which set in motion a revitalisation of the Commission and its relationship with the Council and Parliament. With regard to these latter two points, the Government motion specifically refers to the forthcoming entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty. Though not the subject of significant public attention at the time of its ratification, the Amsterdam Treaty provides for a very significant input from the Parliament into the process of selecting a new Commission President and, through him or her, to the nomination of individual Commissioners.
Specifically, the new treaty contains provisions designed to strengthen the authority of the President of the Commission within the collegiate structure of the Commission. This will be done in three ways. First, the new treaty will amend the provisions under which the European Parliament is to be consulted before the Governments of the member states, by common accord, nominate a person to be President of the Commission. The new provision will require that "the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament". Since the nomination of the President of the Commission will have been specifically approved, not only by the member Governments but by a vote in the Parliament before the other members of the Commission are appointed, the effect of this provision should be to strengthen the political authority of the President vis-à-vis the other members. Second, the treaties provide that the Governments of the member states shall nominate the other members of the Commission “in consultation with the nominee for President”. This will be amended to read “by common accord with the nominee for President”. The college of Commissioners as a whole will remain subject, as at present, to approval by the Parliament. Third, the authority of the President of the Commission will also be strengthened by the addition of a new provision to Article 163 of the EC Treaty and equivalent articles in the other treaties. It will provide that “the Commission shall work under the political guidance of its President”.
These provisions are very significant steps in enhancing the democratic nature of the choice for Commission President, while preserving the concept of collective responsibility which is vital for an independent and effective Commission. The Government's amendment calls attention to the provisions of the new treaty which will be respected in the decisions to be made by the European Council.
I would like at this juncture to correct any misapprehension concerning the question of democratic control within the Union as a whole. The public does not greatly distinguish between the institutions of the Union, and a difficulty for one is a difficulty for all. It is, however, not the case that the Union is undemocratic and insensitive to the wishes of European citizens. The Commission has until now been appointed by the Council, which is made up of elected representatives who are directly connected to their electorates by virtue of mandates received in national elections. The addition of the role of Parliament, provided for by the new treaty, will add a dimension of democratic input which is valuable, but which does not alter the fact that democratic input has always been an important part of the institutional balance within and between Union institutions.
Member states are the implementing agencies for European legislation. There is an extent to which it is easy to use the catchphrase ‘democratic accountability' while ignoring the fact that national Parliaments and the executives which are accountable to them, have a very large degree of influence. We may have all failed in the task of linking with our electorate on these matters, but this will not be addressed by downgrading the significance of national Governments and Parliaments in the Union's decision-making procedures.
While it required the refurbishment which informed the Amsterdam Treaty, the current balance of powers between the institutions has served both Ireland and Europe well. For a small and peripheral state such as ours, being reduced to the level of a constituency rather than a member state with considerable rights to enable it to protect its own interests, would do us immense damage. We have seen in recent weeks how the strong and assertive position, which we have through the significance of the Council of Ministers, has played an absolutely central role in winning vital concessions for this country. Both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture and Food are accountable to our citizens and they have been able to ensure that the interests of our citizens are properly considered at the highest level when key decisions on the Union's future have been taken. It is highly unlikely that we could have achieved so much if the essential balance of powers and responsibilities now in place in the Union were overturned.
It is the task of all of us, Council, Commission, European and national parliaments to exercise and demonstrate that democratic link to what our citizens want. The European Commission plays a vital role as initiator of legislation and as the initial point of sifting through proposals to ensure consistency with the treaties, equity between member states' interests and feasible but compelling timetables for implementation. Our public life here in Ireland has been transformed as we have brought our legislation in almost every field of activity into line with European initiatives inspired, negotiated and implemented by an able and effective Commission. This is why the Government motion refers to a strong Commission; one which is capable of retaining its central role in the complex nexus which governs Europe. This is why, for example, we would see adequate resourcing of the Commission for the tasks which it is given as an appropriate longer-term response to the current criticisms, rather than an effort to reduce Commission activities or influence.
In parallel with this retention of the rightful central role of the Commission, there is an equally compelling need for the work toward reform which is already under way to be carried forward as well as early implementation of anti-fraud measures. The Commission was already in the process of re-casting itself for a different role in advance of enlargement. The Parliament has legitimately asserted its right of oversight in relation to the Commission. Such a right is a necessary counterweight to a strong institution. Such a right carries with it the responsibility to work with and not against the other principal guarantor of democratic control and responsibility, the Council of Ministers.
I know the Heads of State or Government will, at their meeting in Berlin, respond to the requirement for effective and clear action. I hope all the other institutions of the Union can then support this course of action with a view to restoring momentum and credibility to a new Commission which will have the task of implementing the decisions made under Agenda 2000.
It should be obvious to us all that the Commission has been a good friend of Ireland in many ways and that central to this has been the exceptional ability of the Commissioners whom we have nominated.
Mr. Ray MacSharry was a brave Commissioner who piloted through major reforms and won the hard-earned respect of leaders throughout the world. In this he also achieved major things for this country.
His successor Padraig Flynn has stood out for his many achievements as Commissioner in the demanding and diverse Social Affairs portfolio. He has been innovative and effective across the wide range of his responsibilities and has won the respect of most of those predisposed to receive him negatively when he was appointed. Pádraig Flynn has been the Commissioner with whom I have had the most dealings since my appointment and I acknowledge the pivotal role he has played in developing a large number of progressive policies and programmes. I have always found him to be completely on top of the issues and it is clear he commands great respect from his officials. Because of his work, major funding has come to this country to support initiatives directly targeted at helping disadvantaged groups particularly in the education sector. New education, training and employment opportunities have been opened up for marginalised groups. I have no doubt that many of these would not have been possible without the active support of Commissioner Padraig Flynn. He deserves our thanks for his work.
The quality of our Commissioner matters; we have established a reputation of nominating people of the highest calibre from any side of the House, who can make a major contribution to the development of the European Union. The Government is committed to ensuring we will protect and enhance this tradition through the appointment of the new Commissioner. Today's agreement by the Council to nominate Romano Prodi for confirmation as President of the Commission is the essential first step in this process. He will now be involved in confirmation proceedings of the Parliament. Once this is complete an agenda will be developed to address the many issues which have arisen and to consult with the national governments on the formation of the full, longer-term Commission. The Government will seek to appoint a person who can carry on and enhance the traditions of our representation on the Commission. I have no doubt we will be able to do so.
This has been a difficult time for the Commission and the Union as a whole, but it can emerge stronger and more effective. To do this, it must complete important reform already under way and comprehensively address the many structural weaknesses which have been identified. For our part, the Government will do all it can to help the Commission in this work and we will ensure the person nominated by us to the Commission will be capable of fully participating in the ongoing project of building a European Union which is both effective and accountable.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Cecilia Keaveney.