JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Oct 2003

Vol. 1 No. 45

Bundestag EU Affairs Committee: Presentation.

Chairman

After attending here yesterday morning I ventured to NUI Limerick last night and got home late. I have already attended a Front Bench meeting this morning and I will finish tonight at about 10 p.m. with a meeting in Trinity College. I must inform Joe Duffy that I am not on holidays.

I am glad to have this opportunity to exchange views with our Bundestag colleagues, who are not on holidays either but are fulfilling their role as parliamentarians with this exchange. When we go abroad we do the same thing. I wish there were some sort of independent body to monitor the work of TDs and Senators so that a real measure could be obtained of the benchmarking effect of the work we do. There needs to be some reassessment in the face of the hysteria that is going on. Personally I must say we have kicked ourselves in the pants by allowing it to be known abroad that we are in recess this week. We must all take this into consideration. Everybody in this committee works extremely hard. I could not get through to "The Joe Duffy Show" yesterday, so maybe the show will get through to me today.

I have the pleasure of welcoming Mr. Kurt Bodewig, the head of the delegation from the Bundestag European affairs committee, Mr. Kurt-Dieter Grill, Ms Anna Lührmann and Mr. Jürgen Türk, representing the Social Democratic Party, the Christian Democratic Union, the Greens and the Liberals. They are accompanied by their Ambassador, Dr. Gottfried Haas, the clerk to the committee and an interpreter. I understand the delegation has already met with the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, and the chairman of the Forum on Europe and his officials, and that it is to have a meeting with the Institute of European Affairs directly after our meeting. I hope this visit has been helpful and informative. We recently received a copy of the joint declaration between your committee and the European affairs committee of the French Assembly reaffirming their support for the draft EU constitution and for the Convention process and the method of negotiation. Perhaps Mr. Bodewig will make some opening comments and then we can have comments and questions from the members. You are all very welcome and we are delighted to have the opportunity of meeting you.

Mr. Kurt Bodewig

We are very happy to be able to meet with the members of the Joint Committee on European Affairs of the Irish Parliament, especially since we are approaching two very important events for the European Union - the enlargement of the Union and the Convention treaty which we will soon have to sign. These things will bring the people of Europe much closer together and create much more transparent roles for Europe so that the population will understand what Europe is all about. We found it extremely interesting yesterday to hear that the national Forum on Europe does such a great job in bringing Europe closer to the people and giving them a better understanding of it. We are particularly happy to have the opportunity to discuss all these important matters today. When we met the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, yesterday, we pleaded for the acceptance of the Convention which, after all, was reached with the co-operation of national and European parliamentarians. We hope the Intergovernmental Conference will agree the result and implement it. The new Convention will make Europe much closer to its citizens and better understood by them. With the enlargement of Europe, we need to make it possible for people to understand Europe and to give it the opportunity to play its role.

As national parliamentarians and parliamentarians generally, it is vital that we are granted new competencies through this Convention, such as the six week rule. We must explain to our own populations what Europe is about and what it is doing. It is very important that we learn as soon as possible what decisions might be taken at European level so that we can get them across to our own citizens. The conference of heads of committees of the parliaments is very useful and we are always happy to co-operate with our Irish colleagues in this context.

We thank the committee for welcoming us and for giving us the opportunity to discuss these matters. I look forward to a lively discussion.

Chairman

I will introduce my colleagues. This is a joint committee of the Dáil and Seanad and members of the European Parliament have a right of audience and participation. With us is Deputy Ned O'Keeffe of Fianna Fáil, Senator Feargal Quinn, Independent, Deputy Seán Haughey of Fianna Fáil and Vice-Chairman of the committee, Senator Ann Ormonde and Deputy Pat Carey, both of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Mae Sexton of the Progressive Democrats, Mr. Joe McCartin, a Fine Gael MEP, Deputy Marian Harkin, Independent, Senator Don Lydon of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Séamus Kirk of Fianna Fáil and I am Deputy Gay Mitchell, a Fine Gael TD. There is quite a mix on the committee.

Senator Quinn

I welcome the members of the delegation. We look forward to learning from them and exchanging ideas with them. I find the scrutiny of legislation very difficult, there is so much of it. We have not found a way to do it effectively and efficiently here. How does the delegation handle the scrutiny of legislation?

I am concerned about lobbyists. In Europe they seem to work behind the scenes. Does the delegation have a formula to enable lobbyists to work at the beginning of legislation in a more transparent manner? We are struggling withthis.

On the new constitution, how would one Foreign Minister for Europe handle a problem like the war in Iraq when there were clearly conflicting views between Germany and Britain?

Deputy Carey

I welcome the delegation. It is always good to meet our colleagues from other Parliaments. I pay tribute to the contribution made by the German Foreign Minister, Mr. Joschka Fischer at the Convention. I had the pleasure of working with him, as I did with the German Minister of State for Europe, Mr. Hans Martin Bury, on one of the working parties. I know the compromises which were fashioned at the Convention were, to a great extent, due to the skilful negotiations of Mr. Fischer.

We have not fully explored subsidiarity in Ireland as there is no tradition of regional assemblies with significant powers like those in Germany. What role is there for those regional assemblies within the architecture of the new constitutional treaty? What taxation regimes apply at subsidiary level, particularly for incentives to industry and foreign direct investment?

Mr. Bodewig

I will try to answer the committee's questions but my colleagues might not have quite the same views; if not, they will certainly say so. I will take Senator Quinn's question about legislation first. After the new Convention treaty, European legislation - and that is all I am talking about at the moment - will be much simpler and easier for everybody to understand. In terms of differentiated voting rights, for example, it will be much easier to see exactly what is happening.

As for the scrutiny the Senator mentioned, we have tried to ensure that the national parliament knows as early as possible what is coming. We have hearings attended by Ministers so that we know what the Council of Minister is going to look at and what it might decide. The Ministers or Secretaries of State come to these hearings to tell us so that we are informed very early. We find this is absolutely essential. With the present procedure there is quite a loss of sovereignty. For example, about 70% of all German legislation is based on European legislation and must take that European legislation into account, whether it be in the form of a framework directive or whatever. The only way one can influence legislation at this stage is by making sure one knows early enough what is happening so that one can then influence the Government or, at least, try to exert influence afterwards when the legislation goes through the parliamentary hearing stage.

The second question was on lobbying. We have lobbying in our national parliament also, and the way this is being handled at European level will bring much more transparency. One must show one's hand as a lobbyist, and one is then included in the process. At least it creates much more transparency. Regarding the question of a European foreign minister or foreign secretary, the EU is currently represented by two people, Mr. Solana and Mr. Patten. This duality has not really done away with conflict, so it would be much better if we had a European foreign secretary who would be vice-president of the Commission and responsible for reporting back to the Council. That would bring the Commission and the Council closer together so it would be an improvement to have one person wearing the two hats, if you like.

The Senator's third question was on the role of the regions. Germany is a regional country with a regional structure and this federal structure is very well reflected in the new situation. We already have the Committee of the Regions at European level where the regions can play their role. This mirrors in a way the German situation. In Germany, we have created a new committee in our Parliament to look at the situation, especially the links between this regional level and the central level. We are starting a discussion there in order to see what can be improved in Germany.

Ms Anna Lührmann

I wish to add something in connection to the question about a European minister for foreign affairs. The Senator is quite right to be sceptical and the question is certainly justified, especially as we have unanimity in voting on foreign policy questions. The German delegation at the Convention very strongly advocated qualified majority voting there as well, which unfortunately we did not get. Even so, it would be an improvement.

The Senator asked about Iraq, and if we had had a European foreign minister during the war in Iraq it would have improved the situation and made it easier to find a common position. Before the European countries had to declare their positions, he could have tried to find out what the feelings were and tried to find at least some common ground in some areas. It would have been a much more forceful position. That is where I see the value added of a European foreign minister. It would be easier to get a common position for the Europeans and to put it across much more forcefully, despite the fact that we still have unanimous voting on foreign policy matters. It would still be a good and powerful thing. We saw that there was quite a value added in the recent visit to Iran, and it would have been even better if we had a foreign minister going along.

I have a question for everybody here. The committee members, as elected representatives, will have to present the Convention to the European people in a referendum, and I would like to know how the committee members see this referendum going. Does the Irish population know a lot about it already? Are the Irish people aware of the new constitution? Do they discuss it? Where do the committee members see the greatest difficulties for the Irish public in the constitution that might cause a problem in the referendum?

Mr. Jürgen Turk

I will be brief because several people want to speak. My party is very much in favour of keeping taxation at national level, within the sovereignty of the country, because in our language tax also means "to lead" and one can lead a country only if one has sovereignty over its tax. We are very impressed to see how the leaders here bring the people with them into Europe, make them like it and make them feel European. There are many things we can learn from the Irish. Having one person with two hats as European foreign minister is an advantage and will add value.

Mr. Kurt-Dieter Grill

We are absolutely opposed to a new European tax. We would like to have a system of financing Europe as it is at the moment and to keep it that way. I agree with what has been said here about the foreign minister. In response to Senator Quinn, I have one comment and one question. It is less important to control our Government and the Commission than to make sure that the European Parliament, which gains increased powers through the new constitution, has close links with the national parliament. That is particularly important when one is in Opposition. At the moment there is little discussion between the European and the national parliamentarians and that has to change. That is how we see it. The national parliament should have a bigger role and there should be some sort of early warning system whereby the political groups and the national parliaments would be informed early on of what is going to happen. In the European Parliament laws are made or passed or discussed which have a bearing on us but we come into the process too late to influence them. That is important because already the European Parliament is taking powers unto itself which it does not have and that will increase with the new constitution. We need an early warning system and some possibility of controlling the European Parliament which can be done only through better co-operation between it and the national parliament.

Mr. Joe McCartin, MEP

I welcome this development of co-operation between the national parliament and the European Parliament throughout the European Union. The attitude here is in that members of the European Parliament are members of the parliamentary party which enables us to participate. My party, which is EPP in the European Parliament and Fine Gael here, has the right to vote in the party room on all decisions, a form of integration that does not exist everywhere but which is quite healthy.

The question of scrutiny was raised. Democracy has legitimacy at every level, whether at county council or national parliament level. I have been a member of a county council, of the Seanad, the Dáil and the European Parliament. I did not feel that my position in any of these assemblies was any more privileged or honourable than in the others, whether at local or national level. I see them as concentric circles. We must give power to the European Union in a democratic way. The treaties are the constitution that oblige the Union to live within certain limits and the new constitution hopefully will replace that. It will be the constitution of the people of Europe and the powers exercised within it will be legitimately exercised, by the Commission, the Council of Ministers, and the Parliament working together. There are many safeguards there, as well as the lobbyists who at European level are admitted, listened to and are part of the process by which the decisions are taken. I do not object to the lobbyists. We are free to say yes or no to them. They have the right to come and talk to us and often they perform an educational role, especially those who are well briefed on complicated subjects such as European law dealing with the Single Market, standards and qualities.

Senator Quinn talked about informing our public. If only somebody could do it for us because we should not burden the Deputies and Senators with that job. Once the power is conceded to Europe and there is a democratic decision-making process, it will be good for national parliaments to know about it but they have their own equally important work to do, often a great deal of it. We should not overload them unless they need to know something about European affairs when, of course, they should inform themselves but scrutiny by national parliaments could go somewhat too far.

When I was a councillor I never demanded the right to scrutinise national legislation and I believed in having the maximum freedom in my council to make decisions. I do object, however, if the European Parliament is taking powers that does not belong to it. We were given the powers we have by the people of Europe and the speakers are perfectly right to say that the European Parliament tries to take powers that have not been given to it but it should try to achieve them in the democratic way. We do not want to transfer power through the back door. When I try to sell a constitutional amendment I tell people that it is the constitution of Europe, that they should read it, that we will be obliged by it and it would be a great betrayal of the public of Europe if we were to neglect that. On the other hand, I tend to believe that if we had common foreign and security policy we would not have had the Iraq war. If one asked people in the United States of America or the counties of Ireland about it one would have got different decisions, but a democratic Europe can organise itself to make democratic decisions on such vital issues. Such decisions would be better made jointly by all us rather than leaving them to 25 different states.

Senator Lydon

I understand it is official German policy that when it comes to European security architecture, Russia should be tied in more closely. What does that mean, the tying in more closely of Russia with European security architecture? Second, if it is tied in, do you foresee any difficulties, or any future difficulties, with regard to NATO or to our alliance with the United States of America?

One of the representatives asked what difficulties we foresaw in getting the European constitution accepted. If there is no reference to God in the preamble, there will be a difficulty passing it.

Chairman

I know this will be difficult for the interpreter but I understand we must finish by 1 p.m., and there are three more members offering. I will take them together.

Senator Ormonde

I thank the delegation and I am a good listener in relation to its views on the future of Europe. The thrust of the debate so far seems to be on how best we can connect with our population and how best we can get the message across to make sure we have a successful future for Europe and ensure that the enlargement will be a success. We must preserve our national identity and the principle of subsidiarity so that any decisions that can be made by a national parliament should be made by it or by local government, and that we should stand by that. Our people want it that way. There is a fear that we will be absorbed by Europe to the extent of losing our identity. It is very important for us as parliamentarians to get our message across to the public at large and alleviate that fear that may currently be out there. I disagree with Mr. McCartin, MEP, when he says that parliamentarians should not be involved in getting the message across. We must get our message across. There is no other way. We learned that lesson from the failure of the first Nice referendum when we did not get our message across. We were at fault. We presumed and took everything for granted. The second Nice referendum was such a success because we all got our message across and took the time to reach our public. If we detach ourselves once more from that, we will have a problem about being involved in the future of Europe.

It says in the presentation that we have learned from the present international crisis that the time is now ripe for a "more" Europe. I would like the delegation's views on that in relation to foreign and defence policy.

Deputy Kirk

I welcome the delegation. Regarding demographic changes in Ireland and Germany, but particularly the latter, the population of Germany, if we are to believe what we hear, is aging. In December 1999 the population stood at 82 million. With an aging population, the ratio of those available to work in industries and services generally in the economy will diminish and contract while the number of dependants at the other end of the age scale is ever increasing. How is this viewed by the German Government and the German economy in the short, medium and longer term and what sort of plans are being put in place to deal with the deficit in the working population and the increasing dependency ratio as a result of an aging population?

Deputy Harkin

The delegation said it would like to see us largely accept the result of the Convention. Our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, has said that he does not see the Intergovernmental Conference as a rubber stamping exercise, that there are issues yet to be debated. Regarding common security and defence policy, would the delegation prefer to see that remain as a national competence or would it support qualified majority voting in that area?

It has been noted already that the European Parliament attempts, at least at times, to assume powers that it does not have. Does the delegation see the new European constitution as a way of preventing that? Finally, given that there are 16 regions or lander in Germany, are there major economic divergences between those regions and, if so, how is that situation dealt with?

Mr. Bodewig

I will be brief but I will try to answer all the questions. In Germany there is a very good relationship between our two Chambers, the Parliament and the Bundesrat. In the Bundesrat there are representatives of the Government, not of Parliament. That means there is a balanced relationship between the two and both have their own powers. In the new constitution there could be the same balanced relationship between the Parliament and the Council. So far as the German regions are concerned, obviously there are differences but there is also much competition in coming up with good concepts and good ideas between the various regions.

To answer the question on the aging population, in Germany the population is getting older and older. We are trying to adjust our social systems to deal with it so that future generations will not have too much of a problem. The situation varies from country to country. Ireland has a relatively young population whereas we have a relatively aged population. In France there are more children. I do not think this can be harmonised at European level. Every country will have to find its own solution. There is one thing we have to harmonise because we want to get a knowledge based society. Therefore, the human resource and human capital has to be adequately catered for. We have to invest in education and we have to give the population the capacity to work properly.

On the security architechure question and the relationship with Russia, I think we have to clarify this and we have to do so within the concept of this new neighbourhood. Since Europe is about to be expanded eastwards these will be our new neighbours. This is absolutely feasible while at the same time remaining within the framework we have with NATO. I do not see this as an opposition. I do not see it as a difficulty. I do not see any contradiction between our relationships with Russia and our friends from the other side of the Atlantic. Certainly we will have our security partnership in NATO. We have it already and that will remain the case. With closer economic links with Russia, we will help to stabilise this new neighbourhood. Europe will have to learn to speak with one voice. Only if it speaks with one voice will Europe get the power it deserves.

Chairman

I wish to raise one question.

Mr. Bodewig

I know your problem.

Chairman

It is not our problem. I realise you have to go to the Institute of European Affairs. I wish to raise one question with Mr. Bodewig. There are people in Ireland who think we should tell all the other member states that they should have a referendum as well. They never say whether that means that 50% + 1 of the European population carries the day, irrespective of the member state, or whether it needs to be carried in each member state. Your experience of referenda is different from ours. Second, there is a sub-committee of this committee, which I also chair, which scrutinises all EU draft directives and draft regulations. Because our Ministers are legislators as well as MEPs, we have to tell our Ministers what we think of the legislation. By law it has to come to us within four weeks of it being received from the Commission with a commentary on its implications. We then decide whether it requires further scrutiny before the Council of Ministers.

I am concerned about the Franco-German trend to pre-empt the views of others in Europe. I noted your joint declaration with the French Parliament. I also noted Chancellor Schro1eder allowed the President of France to represent him and I noted other developments of this kind. I want to say to you, face to face, that I worry about those developments. It seems that Germany and France want to become the locomotive of Europe but we should all be on that train and the captain of that locomotive should not be only one or two nationalities. I am pro European Union integration but I ask you to be cautious about this. The Franco-German development of joint Cabinet meetings is your own concern, but please do not pre-empt the role of Europe and other states in Europe. That is a worrying development. I want the opportunity to raise this matter with you as parliamentary colleagues.

Mr. Bodewig

I will translate only the last part concerning the Chairman's last question. He is right in that we must discuss this matter and I am happy we can discuss it here with him. The 25 years that France and Germany have worked together is important, but the Chairman must remember that symbols are used at some stages. We had the fortieth anniversary of the Elysée Treaty, which was very important. The Chairman must accept that we want to celebrate that and in such a celebration gestures and symbols are used which are important, but that does not mean we want to pre-empt anything like he said. It merely means that we want to show how important that relationship is, especially when one considers what came before it and the many wars we had. Germany and France have been the motors of European development right from the beginning. It was due to them and to the fact that they wanted to incorporate peacefully that peace in Europe could be created. We wanted a Europe of peace and it is because of the peaceful basis on which France and Germany established Europe that it could grow. We want to promote this idea, but that does not mean we want to exclude anybody else - quite the contrary. We are in favour of Europe, a Europe where everybody is equal and all the countries of Europe play their role, but it must also be seen that Europe has been put on a peaceful basis and that is one of the reasons we celebrate the Franco-German friendship as we do.

Chairman

Thank you. I propose to defer consideration of the minutes and the correspondence - as there is nothing urgent in them - until next week's meeting. Our meeting next week will be with the Hungarian Parliamentary Ratification Committee. We should raise the question of interpretation because we could have a far better exchange if we had simultaneous interpretation. The next meeting will be on Wednesday, 5 November at 2.30 p.m.

I thank our colleagues from the Bundestag for coming here. I hope they found their visit of interest and that the remainder of their visit will be interesting. It is useful for us to have this exchange and during our Presidency we look forward to continued co-operation with you here and at COSAC.

Mr. Bodewig

I want to give the Chairman a small present from our Parliament and we thank you very much.

Chairman

Thank you.

The Chairman and Mr. Bodewig exchanged gifts.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.05 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 November 2003.