Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 2000 > Committee on European Affairs > Report No. 02 - EU Institutional Reform in the context of enlargement

TITHE AN OIREACHTAIS

An Comhchoiste um Ghnóthaí Eorpacha

An Dara Tuarascáil ar Athchóiriú Institiúideach an AE i gcomhthéacs an Mhéadaithe

HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS

Joint Committee on European Affairs

Second Report on EU Institutional Reform in the context of Enlargement

Samhain, 2000

November, 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Report of Joint Committee on European Affairs on EU Institutional Reform in the context of Enlargement

1. Introduction

1.1The Intergovernmental Conference on institutional matters was convened by the Helsinki European Council (10-11 December 1999). Its main aim is to prepare the European Union for the accession of new Member States. The Conference should finish before the end of 2000 with agreement on the amendments to be made to the Treaty.

1.2The IGC began work on 14 February 2000 and should conclude at the Nice European Council in December. Its mandate was set by the Cologne and Helsinki European Councils. It is to consider the size and composition of the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council, the extension of qualified-majority voting and other institutional matters deriving from the implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam.

1.3A progress report was produced for the Feira European Council in June, at which the question of closer cooperation was formally added to the Conference’s agenda. The Biarritz informal European Council (13-14 October) took stock of the negotiations on the major topics with a view to opening the way to agreement at Nice.

1.4Alongside the IGC’s work, a Convention made up of representatives of the various institutions and the national parliaments has drawn up a Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was endorsed by the Heads of State and Government in Biarritz and should be solemnly proclaimed at the Nice European Council.

1.5The Joint Committee presented a report to the Houses of the Oireachtas at the beginning of the reform process in 1998 and feels that it is now opportune for the Committee to revisit the various issues involved in this report to the Houses.

Parliament

2.1A ceiling of 700 was set on the number of MEPs in a protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty. It is the view of the Committee that this should not be seen as set in stone. It is important that smaller member states, like Ireland, maintain their current level of representation within the Parliament. This is necessary from the point of view of ensuring adequate Irish representation within the Parliament’s political groups as well as ensuring that the current European Parliament constituencies in Ireland have as strong a voice as possible in the Parliament. A reduction in the number of Irish MEPs could erode the perceived democratic legitimacy of the EU among the Irish electorate.

Commission

3.1At present the Commission comprises 20 members - one each from the ten small and medium sized states, and two from each of the five larger member states. A Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty provided that:

At the date of entry into force of the first enlargement of the Union … the Commission shall comprise one national of each of the Member States, provided that, by that date, the weighting of the votes in the Council has been modified …

3.2Recent discussions on the IGC indicate that some member states no longer subscribe to this view. The principal concern motivating them seems to be that a Commission of up to 28 members would not function effectively. No evidence appears to have been offered in support of this assertion. Many governments throughout the world function effectively with membership of twenty or more. Given the nature and complexity of the tasks confronting an enlarged Union, internally and in its relations with the outside world, it is our view that the Commission could function effectively as a unit of 27 or 28. Accordingly the Joint Committee sees no reason to change the view expressed in its first report that:

Ireland’s very firm position on Commission reform must remain. The Joint Committee considers that we must insist on nominating a full member given our belief that the institution must be broadly balanced as well as sensitive to national concerns in a Member State and acceptable to public opinion.

4. Qualified Majority Voting (QMV)

4.1Currently 73 articles and sub articles in the Treaties are subject to unanimity. They include issues such as appointments to some Community institutions as well as enlargement. The Joint Committee recognises that as the Union enlarges, decision- making by unanimity becomes more difficult. QMV in the Council makes decision making easier, as it has done so in the Single Market and other areas. It is now the norm for most Community legislation.

4.2The Joint Committee believes that some areas, such as sensitive appointments, taxation, Treaty changes, defence issues and the common foreign and security policy must remain subject to unanimity. Ireland has particular concerns and interests in these areas which make it essential that this remain the case. However the Joint Committee believes that all other areas should be examined with a view to seeing if they can be made subject to QMV.

5. Reweighting of votes

5.1A Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty envisages that the (5) large Member States would give up their second Commissioner, in exchange for an increase in their voting weights. The need for an adjustment in voting weights springs from fears that as the Union expands, the difference between the percentage of votes needed to form a qualified majority and the percentage of the EU’s population those votes represent will continue to grow. This would be to the disadvantage of the larger member states.

5.2The two principal systems of modification considered by the Conference are:

i)simple re-weighting, so that votes would be more proportionate to population, and

ii)a dual-majority system, where, to secure adoption, a QMV decision would also require the support of, say, 60 per cent of the Union’s population.

5.3The Joint Committee would favour the dual-majority mechanism, which would guarantee that decisions taken by QMV have the support of a sufficient percentage of the Union’s population. As an alternative, some limited adjustment which leaves intact the overall balances within the Union might be acceptable, in particular that future QMV decisions would require the support of a majority of Member States.

6. Revolving Presidency of the Council

6.1Although it is not on the agenda of the current IGC, the Joint Committee feels it necessary to reiterate its view that all member states should have the opportunity to preside over the business of the Union at regular predetermined intervals. The system of rotating Presidencies adds to the sense of ownership that the peoples, parliaments and governments of all member states have of the governance of the Union. It is particularly important that those countries set to join the EU can look forward to having this opportunity in the years to come.

7. Two-speed Europe/Closer Cooperation

7.1This term is also referred to as “flexibility” or “closer cooperation between certain member states”. Prior to Amsterdam, flexibility (or closer/enhanced cooperation) only existed in pre-determined forms, i.e., members of the Community fewer than the total number were permitted to cooperate more closely only in specified areas, e.g. EMU and the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty. The Amsterdam treaty sets out a procedure for authorising a group of member states to use the EU’s institutions to move ahead with an activity in first or third pillar areas, even though not all member states wish to take part.

7.2The conditions in which such an authorisation may be granted are carefully defined. For example, the proposed activity must not affect the operation of the single market, a majority of member states must take part, and non-participating member states must have the right to join later. Although the initial decision to authorise such “closer cooperation” is taken by QMV , any Member State that feels that important national interests are threatened may request that the decision be referred to the European Council, where it is decided by unanimity. This is the so called “emergency brake”. These provisions have yet to be used.

7.3Some member states have said, that as the EU enlarges, there will be more occasions where this procedure may need to be used. They view the current conditions as unduly restrictive and thus unlikely to be used in the future. The current French Presidency has suggested dropping the majority requirement and the “emergency brake”.

7.4The Joint Committee considers that caution ought to be exercised about such proposals. It would be particularly concerned that closer cooperation mechanisms ought not to undermine the Union’s coherence.

8. No enlargement without institutional reform

8.1It is generally acknowledged that rules drawn up for a community of six countries cannot work effectively for a union of twenty or more. It is vital that ways be found to reform the Union’s institutions and procedures to equip them to cope with the changed situation. The Joint Committee believes that while institutional reform will be necessary, care must be taken not to disturb the existing institutional balance, or the rights of member states.

9. Defence and Security

9.1Although not on the agenda of the IGC, the Joint Committee considers that the evolving nature of European Security and Defence Policy also merits mention in this report. Many of the applicant countries have also applied to join NATO, and Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland have joined NATO. The French Presidency will submit an overall report on ESDP to the Nice European Council. As well as the inclusion as appropriate into the EU of the WEU’s Petersberg tasks functions, this report will cover capabilities, the future permanent political and military structures, EU relations with third countries and with NATO, and civil crisis management. The Joint Committee believes that developments in ESDP must take into account the needs and concerns of the applicant countries.

10. The Vision

10.1When the original architects of the modern Europe sat down, in the aftermath of the Second World War, to chart a future for the people of Europe, they had a number of objectives. The first and most important one, was to create a situation whereby the people of Europe would never again wage war against each other. This objective was set against a background of a then divided Europe and of course, the Cold War. The concept worked extremely well. It did bring the people of Europe together, socially, economically and politically. It did prevent war and confrontation and for the first time, the wider market was opened up to all within the Community, in a way never experienced before. It did enable the smaller countries to develop and it did encourage the big powers to accept their responsibility. It can truly be stated of the European project, that it was successful.

11. The Challenge

11.1Europe now however is at a cross roads and faces a major challenge. Should the Union continue to integrate and should it welcome the applicant countries at an early date? Should institutional reform be a pre-requisite to enlargement? Will the bigger powers within Europe accept their share of responsibility for the future development and integration within the Union? Will the smaller countries continue to support the European ideal and refrain from manifestation of nationalistic fervour?

11.2It is generally felt that the inclusion of the smaller applicant countries within the Union is the best and only way to proceed and the Committee does not accept that institutional reform in the way suggested so far is either necessary or desirable. In fact, the reverse is the case. Once the acquis communituaire is observed the Union should proceed with the enlargement and at least let the stability accruing from this take effect – delays with enlargement for whatever reason will breed distrust and instability.

12. Institutional Reform

12.1The Union has already decided on an upper limit in respect of the membership of the European Parliament. Discussions are also taking place on:

•The size, composition of the Commission

•Qualified Majority Voting.

•Balanced or Weighted Voting.

•The Cessation of the Rotational Presidency.

•Two Speed Europe.

•European Defence

12.2It should be that some of these changes may not appear to be in the interest of countries like Ireland, but it must also be recognised that changes are necessary and that these need not militate against the interest of any member state. Therefore the secret is balanced reform which should be agreed, rather than forced on any state.

12.3Failure to proceed in a fashion that fairly meets the concerns of smaller countries or new applicants will result in destabilisation within the Union and further danger for the Euro. The lack of political leadership in Europe is likely to prove a greater threat to Europe and the Euro than market speculators.

13. The Future

13.1The future of Europe therefore rests very much with the Nice Summit. If agreement or accommodation can be reached on these issues then the people of Europe can expect even greater economic success that can be shared by all. Failure to reach agreement will set aside a great deal of the achievements of Europe to date and certainly increases the possibility of dissent in the future.

14. Ireland and the EU

14.1Ireland has from the outset been strongly supportive of the European concept, and has gained economically from access to the single market. Ireland must continue to strongly pursue the European objectives. To this end, Ireland has rightly involved itself in all aspects of European integration on the basis that it is better to try to influence the outcome of all discussions in a positive way from within, thereby contributing to the result.

15. The Committee therefore recommends :

(i)That the Government stand fast on the issue of the right to nominate a Commissioner.

(ii)The status of the Commissioners should be equal.

(iii)Any Changes in QMV should not allow a situation where voting blocs are created to the detriment of smaller countries

(iv)Balanced or weighted voting needs to be measured carefully lest in a package, the same voting result is achieved every time in the future.

(v)The rotational presidency has a symbolism that reassures many countries and should be retained, particularly to illustrate to voters in member states that – each country can play a meaningful role.

(vi)The Government should also resist the concept of a two-speed or two-tier Europe – such a concept will do little to create stability, could cause dissension, and could set back the evolution of Europe by several years. Ireland’s economic success proves that smaller countries, if given the chance can have a major contribution to make. Ireland’s success incidentally derives not from direct payment from Europe – but from access to the single market. Therefore participation and inclusion – not exclusion - has been the key.

(vii)The Committee therefore wishes the Government well at Nice and calls on all European leaders to rediscover the original vision of the modern Europe, as seen by Monnet, Schuman and Adenauer when they began discussions all those important years ago.

Proceedings of the Joint Committee

Imeachtaí an Chomhchoiste

Proceedings of the Joint Committee

Dé Céadaoin, 29 Samhain, 2000

Wednesday, 29 November, 2000

1.Chruinnigh an Coiste ar 1.11 p.m.

2.Comhaltaí i láthair.

Bhí na Comhaltaí seo a leanas i láthair:

Na Teachtaí Seán Ó Bairéad, Ulic De Búrca, Pádraig Ó Carú, Micheál Ó Coileáin, Brian Mac Dhurcáin, (i gCeannas), Antóin Ó Greagóir, Seán Ó hEochaidh, Séamus Ó Cuirc, Seán MacAonghusa, Séamus Ó Caoimh, Seán de Paor, agus na Seanadóirí Dónall Ó Cadhlaigh and Domhnall S. Ó Loideáin.

3.An Dara Tuarascáil ar Athchóiriú Institiúideach an AE i gcomhthéacs an Mhéadaithe.

Thug an Cathaoirleach dara tuarascáil ar aghaidh ar “Athchóiriú Institiúideach an AE i gcomthéacs an Mhéadaithe” a léadh agus a aontaíodh.

Ordaíodh: Tuairisciú dá réir.

4.Athlá.

Chuaigh an Coiste ar athló ar 4 p.m. sine die

1.The Committee met at 1.11 p.m.

2.Members Present.

The following Members were present:

Deputies Seán Barrett, Ulick Burke, Pat Carey, Michael Collins, Bernard J. Durkan, (in the chair) Tony Gregory, Seán Haughey, Séamus Kirk, John McGuinness, Jim O’Keeffe, Sean Power, and Senators Dan Kiely and Don Lydon.

3.Second Report on EU Institutional Reform in the context of Enlargement.

The Chairman brought forward a second report on “EU Institutional Reform in the context of Enlargement” which was read and agreed.

Ordered: To report accordingly.

4.Adjournment.

The Committee adjourned at 4 p.m. sine die.

Appendix I

Minutes of Evidence of 19th April, 2000

An Comhchoiste um Ghnóthaí Eorpacha

Joint Committee on European Affairs

Dé Céadaoin, 19 Aibreán 2000.

Wednesday, 19 April 2000.

The Joint Committee met at 2.03 p.m.

Members Present:

The Joint Committee commenced in Private Session and went into Public Session at 2.10 p.m.

Deputy B. Durkan in the Chair

Chairman: Item no. five of our agenda is the Intergovernmental Conference. We will shortly have a presentation in that regard. This issue has taken up a considerable amount of Irish time and interest since it began to be discussed. We must discuss a whole series of issues. We need to discuss enlargement and institutional reform which involves not only institutional change but constitutional reform. We must also discuss Ireland’s right to have a commissioner. This issue affects a number of smaller applicant countries with whom negotiations are taking place at present. We must discuss the number of Members of Parliament likely to be agreed upon in the future. We know that the European Parliament is being remodelled and enlarged to accommodate a maximum number. This is rather peculiar because the enlargement process is still going on. Other issues under discussion will be European defence and security and the rotational Presidency which will be of interest here. Each country hosts the Presidency on a six-monthly basis. It has been suggested in some quarters that smaller countries might not be in a position to host such an august gathering. Ireland does not seem to have had any difficulty with that in the past and I do not think it will experience difficulties with it in the future.

In respect of all of these issues we have Mr. Dorr, former secretary at the Department of Foreign Affairs, who will give a presentation on the IGC. He is the personal representative of the Taoiseach at the conference. He has, more than anyone else, vast experience of European and foreign affairs. He has extra special expertise in this regard. I welcome Mr. Noel Dorr and Mr. Pat Hennessy, counsellor, Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Dorr: I thank the committee for this opportunity to make a presentation about the Intergovernmental Conference which is very important. If the committee agrees I will make an opening presentation that should last ten minutes. The chairman can tell me if I go on too long.

Chairman: Correct.

Mr. Dorr: I will touch on the background to the conference, Ireland’s general approach, the mandate, the progress to date, the outlook and the prospects ahead and perhaps a word at the end of my presentation about the public presentation of whatever outcome we agree on.

I do not need to tell this committee that the purpose of the IGC is to negotiate between the 15 member states and prepare the European Union, its institutions and decision-making procedures for enlargement. The number of member states will increase from 15 to 28 or more in the next few years.

It is probably desirable, without turning this into a speech, to raise our eyes a little from the detail and look at the wider context and the background to the conference. If you look back a century, Europe has been a continent of turmoil. It has had a very troubled history. We have had two world wars, one more destructive than the other. We have had the great ideologies of nazism, fascism and communism. For 50 years in the second half of the twentieth century we had the cold war and a split which ran down the centre of Europe with a nuclear confrontation across that divide. This affected the world as a whole. During that time the western European countries, including Ireland for the past 27 years, built a structure which is new and unprecedented in international life. It is more than any international organisation has ever been and yet it is not a super-state, nor does it wish to be one. There is much to criticise it for, but what has been achieved is remarkable.

I must stress the particular character of what we have built in western Europe. For almost 50 years the European Union has knitted together the interests of its members in a wide variety of sectors. It has reconciled states such as France and Germany which were historically in conflict with each other. It has laid the foundation for economic prosperity and an integration of interests which benefited Ireland over the past 27 years. It is a structure created on the basis of treaties and co-operation. It is based on democracy, a concern for rights and the rule of law. It constitutes a new legal order which reaches down to affect the individual, not just the states. It has a directly elected Parliament, the first such in history, which has begun to play an increasingly important role. The relevance of this is that over the past decade the split that I talked about in Europe has ended. The cold war has ended and suddenly an historic opportunity has opened up for Europe to restructure itself as a continent based on democracy, on rights, on the rule of law; a continent at peace with itself, increasingly economically prosperous and playing a positive role in world affairs.

Everyone is looking to the western part of the continent where we have constructed the European Union to provide the framework for that restructuring of the continent. The question we must face is whether we will avail of this opportunity or look back in 50 years time and say it was tragic that the possibility of a restructured, democratic, peaceful Europe opened up over these ten years or so and that we were unable to avail of it.

The question is whether the structure we have already built for 15 member states will be strong enough to carry the weight it is asked to carry. That is the purpose of the Intergovernmental Conference; to ensure it is strong enough and that its procedures, institutions and decision-making can somehow be adapted to cater for 27, 28 or more member states without destroying the essential character which has made it attractive to those member states.

The need to explain to the citizens what is being done and to make them understand the purpose and the historic opportunity, as well as the economic benefits, must be stressed. There are substantial economic benefits to be gained. This applies to Ireland as well as to other member states. That is the purpose of the Intergovernmental Conference. It is the last opportunity before enlargement to make the necessary changes and the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have set out our approach to the negotiations.

To recap, some of the points they stressed include the view that the European Union is a structure unique and unprecedented in international life. It is more than any intergovernmental organisation has ever been and yet does not want to be a super-state. It is based on a separation of powers. There is a creative tension between the various institutions - the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the Court - and it is particularly characterised by a series of balances.

There are balances within institutions, between institutions, between large and small member states and particularly, a balance between intergovernmental aspects and supra-national aspects. These balances cannot be static. With enlarging membership, they must be dynamic, though we want to retain their essential character as they shift and develop with each enlargement. The question is how to preserve that character as the Union grows larger and to ensure that the aspects which attracted these candidate states to the Union are not lost to it.

That is the background. I apologise for speaking at length, but it is useful to lift our gaze from the detail and to see the reason behind all this.

The mandate for the conference, as committee members know, though it is as well to state it clearly, was set at the Helsinki European Summit in December 1999. It reads as follows:

“The conference will examine the size and composition of the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council and the possible extension of qualified majority voting in the Council, as well as other necessary amendments to the treaties arising, as regards the European institutions, in connection with the above issues and in implementing the Treaty of Amsterdam. The in-coming Presidency [that is to say Portugal which now holds the Presidency] will report to the European Council [i.e next June] on progress made in the Conference and may propose additional issues to be taken on the agenda of the Conference.”

To recap, the three issues highlighted are the size and composition of the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council and the possible extension of qualified majority voting. They have been described as three boxes, but there is another box. The fourth box includes other necessary amendments to the treaties which arise in connection with these issues and in implementing the Treaty of Amsterdam.

There is then what is loosely referred to as a fifth box, a vaguer category, which provides for the in-coming Presidency to propose additional issues to the agenda. That would be done at the European summit meeting in Feira, Portugal, in June. The first three issues have been described as the ‘leftovers’ of Amsterdam, which sounds like a pejorative term, but it should be realised that the Treaty of Amsterdam has done a good deal.

Its long-term effects have yet to manifest themselves. It only came into effect in May 1999, less than a year ago. Nevertheless, it was felt that it was not sufficient, that the Heads of Government did not agree to a sufficient extent on the institutional question. Those three issues are the so-called ‘leftovers’.

They raise many other questions and as we go on we delve deeply, so to speak, into the institutional foundations of the European Union. The idea that the conference agenda is limited to a degree, is true, but as we confront these issues it seems they raise broad questions in relation to the institutional structure of the Union. It is important we get it right to keep its character intact.

There is parallel work proceeding on two other issues, those of security and defence and also the charter of fundamental rights, which you are involved in yourself, chairman. We, who are working in the Intergovernmental Conference have been told that these are on a separate and parallel track, but a decision may be taken at some point to include them in the Intergovernmental Conference, if treaty amendments are needed. That remains to be seen.

The Taoiseach, in his speech at the Institute of European Affairs, said he would be concerned to ensure that no surprises are sprung at a late stage. His, and the Government view, is that the European Council Summit in June in Feira, Portugal, should take a decision. We should know then what the issues are rather than have some issues added to the agenda at a late stage.

The deadline set for the conference is December 2000. There will be a European Council Summit in Nice, France, under the French Presidency and we will no doubt be speaking next year about the Treaty of Nice just as we speak now of the Treaties of Amsterdam and Maastricht. We are enjoined quite strictly to finish in December.

The responsibility for the negotiations has been entrusted to the Foreign Ministers. The Helsinki statement states:

“the General Affairs Council will have overall political responsibility for the conference. Preparatory work shall be carried out by a group composed of a representative of each member state’s Government.”

That is the role which I have the honour of filling. We report to the Ministers, who meet once a month and review the progress of the work in the course of the General Affairs Council, or at least on the margin of the General Affairs Council.

The Commission representative, Commissioner Barnier, is present and contributes and two Members of the European Parliament attend all meetings and contribute fully to the discussion. Once a month, when the Ministers meet, the President of the European Parliament, Mme. Fontaine, makes a presentation and there is a dialogue with her also.

To complete the detail of the practical matters, we worked, at the last Intergovernmental Conference, in three languages - English, French and German. This time there was no agreement to do that and we are, therefore, working in 11 languages with interpretation in each of those languages. This makes the work slightly heavier and more formal.

On work to date, the conference was opened by the Foreign Affairs Ministers on 14 February and the working group, which I attend, meets approximately once a week for a day in Brussels. We have had six meetings so far and have reported to the Ministers at two meetings. They have reviewed our work for a few hours in the course of their General Affairs Council meeting.

Last weekend, on Friday and Saturday, our group met in an informal session in Portugal. We found the informal session better as we were able to engage in dialogue. We are proceeding on the basis of documents prepared by the Presidency, which, the Presidency emphasises, is acting as President. Portugal may have its own views, but it holds the Presidency and is acting in the broader interest. While it is not forcing any issue, it is trying to ensure we cover all issues and work our way through them. They will then proceed to a second reading which will probably begin after Easter.

So far, we have dealt with such issues as qualified majority voting, the Commission, the re-weighting of votes, the European Court of Justice, the question of flexibility and other issues I will touch on. When I say ‘dealt with’, I mean we have gone over them in a first reading, but we have yet to engage in full and detailed negotiations.

I hope I am not speaking for too long. I will review issues we have touched on and hope I do not forget anything.

The Presidency told us that they would prefer to begin with qualified majority voting, which sounds like a fairly technical issue and therefore, would excite less feelings of conflict and polemics between us, so to speak, and if it is reported on, would be less dramatic. We have gone through a series of issues where unanimity might yield to qualified majority voting in the treaty. At present, about 80 per cent of the decisions by the Council are taken by qualified majority voting, but there is a residue of cases where unanimity applies and we are reviewing those and seeing where it might be possible to have movement.

The reason for that is that unanimity would be very difficult if one has a Community or Union of 27 members and everybody has a veto. It is true that Ireland, for instance, might value the possibility of blocking a decision on something we did not like, but equally, we would have to face the point that other countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania or wherever, would have the right to block anything we wanted. One has to really consider the balance between holding on to one’s right to block and the danger that others can use their veto right to block what one might want. It also remains that the whole machinery creaks and does not work very well if everything depends on unanimity.

At Amsterdam, we in Ireland could have agreed to a package. We could have gone much farther than was agreed eventually in Amsterdam, but certain other larger countries who had been vociferous in advocating qualified majority voting did not quite agree at the end. The package did not get through although some progress was made. The Presidency has been putting the issues to us. The first question was that some countries wanted qualified majority voting to be the rule and only certain exceptions would be allowed, but the majority view was that we should approach it on a case by case basis. The Presidency is trying the approach of splitting some issues. There are some very sensitive issues such as taxation, environment, social protection and so on, which they feel are very sensitive, but where they suggest that some aspects could be dealt with by qualified majority voting, even though other aspects would be dealt with by unanimity.

We are taking a constructive approach and the Government is ready to examine it case by case. There are a number of matters on which we have been willing to agree to qualified majority voting, but there are some matters on which we consider it essential to keep unanimity, one of which is taxation. We do not believe that it could be split and that part of it could be done by qualified majority voting. On certain other issues, such as common foreign and security policy and issues of justice, home affairs and police co-operation, we and many others agree that they should be still done by unanimity. They are essentially intergovernmental.

On the reweighting of votes, that is, as the members know, how the votes in the Council of Ministers are weighted, the four largest countries have ten votes each and Ireland, for example, has three votes. The protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam envisaged that the larger member states would give up the right to nominate two commissioners and be content with nominating one, but in return that there would be a reweighting of votes in their favour in the Council. They also argue that when a considerable number of smaller countries join the Union, there will be an imbalance between the votes of the larger member states and the smaller member states.

We point out, as others do, that there is rarely, if ever, a division in the Union between the large member states on the one side and the small on the other. Nevertheless, reluctantly, we have accepted a certain political linkage, although we do not see a logical linkage between these two issues, but it would be only, as the Minister has pointed out, on the clear basis of one commissioner per member state agreed for the future and a full commissioner at that, that we might agree to the approach in the protocol of Amsterdam.

The size and composition of the Commission is another issue. The Commission itself has put two options to us. It has said that both options are radical. One option is that there be a reduced number of commissioners, less than one per member state, with a cap being put on the number of members of the Commission. In that case they say everyone would have a full commissioner, but not all at the same time. In other words, there would be a kind of rotation and any member state might expect to have a commissioner five terms out of seven, or something of that kind.

The other option, as in the Commission’s presentation, is that one would agree to have one commissioner per member state, but if that were the case, they argue it would be necessary to have a hierarchy within the Commission with senior and junior commissioners or vice-presidents with a special role or something of that kind. This is still very much early days for this argument. We very much want to see the concept of one commissioner per member state accepted. We make the argument that that is not just a national interest. We are not arguing simply that there should be an Irish commissioner. If in a miraculous result they all agreed that they would change the treaty so as to ensure that there is always an Irish commissioner, but that there would not always be a French, German or an Italian commissioner, we would still think that a bad outcome, because we believe and want to see a strong and effective Commission. We want to see it as the motor of integration. It has been the guardian of the treaties and to a substantial degree, despite some criticisms, it has been the protector of the interests of the smaller states.

If the Commission is to be effective, we believe it must have a voice at the table from each of the member states and the member states must feel that their nominee at least is sitting at the table and participating in this body which takes decisions by simple majority. This does not mean a representative. It does not mean that the commissioner should represent the country. That is the job of the Ministers and of the Committee of Permanent Representatives. It means that the voice and the sensitivities of that country should be understood before the Commission makes its decision, let us say on a matter of competition where it has considerable powers. We feel it would be less accepted and less effective for that reason throughout the Union if we abandon the idea that each member state has the right to nominate one member to sit around the table.

On the Court of Justice, the members may have read yesterday in the Financial Times the president of the court has written an article pointing out that the court is overloaded. The additional work given to the court in the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam and the prospect of enlargement mean that there is a great delay in cases now and there is a considerable need for reform and change there. Even the establishment of the Court of First Instance ten years ago has not been enough and the work and workings of the court have to be reviewed. The group I attend has asked a group of legal experts to study this, report on it and consult with the court. The group has given us a preliminary report, but we have asked them to deepen their work, so it is very much in the hands of experts, but something has to be done on that. On the European Parliament, in the Treaty of Amsterdam, an upper limit of membership of the European Parliament of 700 was agreed. I note, chairman, that you have questioned this yourself in a recent Dáil debate, but for better or worse, that was the proposal of the European Parliament itself. The Parliament now has 626 Members and the European Parliament itself proposed that it have an upper limit of 700, the argument being that if you have a very large body, it becomes wholly unwieldy even as a debating chamber and as an effective body. They proposed 700 Members and at the Amsterdam negotiations that was agreed as an upper limit no matter what the size of the Union. That means that if we take in a considerable number of member states now, that limit would be exceeded fairly quickly and that in turn would force a reallocation of seats.

The point has been strongly made that the Union is a union of states and of peoples and that the peoples are represented in direct elections to the Parliament, but that it is also necessary to take account of the fact that, as I said earlier, there is a balance between intergovernmental aspects and supranational aspects and every state, no matter how small, should have a minimum number of Members in the Parliament. We still have to argue out how that allocation will be done.

We have looked at other institutions also. We have no definitive conclusions yet on these such as the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and so on. Proposals have been put forward for an upper limit on membership because they too, it is argued, may become unwieldy.

We have reviewed a whole range of other issues in a rather cursory way. There is not much interest in adding unnecessarily to the agenda because there is a great emphasis on finishing on time.

Last weekend we spent time in Portugal where we discussed, in an informal atmosphere, the issue loosely called flexibility or enhanced co-operation. That idea was written into the Treaty of Amsterdam and refers to a new set of rules that could be applied in future cases where a smaller number of member states than the totality might be free to use the institutions of the Union to deepen integration between themselves. A specific example of this is economic and monetary union which consists of 11 member states at present. four others do not participate. The idea in the Treaty of Amsterdam was that there should be a general rule available, not a specific case spelt out in advance. However, the conditions were drawn rather tightly. In our view, and that of others, there is a danger that to allow groups to go in different directions, but use the institutions, could lead to fragmentation and that is why the rules were tight. Requirements were made that this provision must apply to a majority and there could be a possible veto right at European Council level. There is an argument now that these requirements are too tight. We had a big discussion, which has not been settled yet, on what direction to take on this matter.

With regard to the prospects ahead, it is probably true that any conference - and this is true of this conference - goes through three stages. The first stage is circling each other. In other words, there is a general debate where participants state their positions over and over again, perhaps without full engagement or real negotiation. The second stage comes when a document is put on the table. It is usually one with brackets and options and many things yet to be filled in. This begins the process of concentrating minds on a particular outcome. The issue then is how you react to that document, what options you are prepared for or whether you have your own ideas to put in their place. The third and final stage comes at the very end. At Amsterdam it was late at night when the Heads of Government at a high political level did the deal. The package which they agreed in Amsterdam in June 1997 was regarded as important in many respects, but a failure in others. The third stage will take place in December at Nice.

We are probably still at the first stage, but we hope to move on to the second stage soon, in other words, engagement. The Portuguese, who have the Presidency, will take us through the second reading or round over the next month or two in order to move us closer to an agreement. Then they will prepare a report for the European Council meeting to be held in the latter part of June at Feira, Portugal. They will report on the work to date and propose what items, if any, should be added to the agenda. They must do this in consultation with France because it takes over the Presidency on 1 July. We must get down to detailed negotiations soon after that.

With regard to the question of public presentation here, it is not for me to stress this matter too much. Members, as public representatives, are much more in that role. The obvious lesson learned from previous treaties, including Amsterdam, is that the more the public understands the sooner they will know why these things are happening and what is being proposed.

It is not for me to decide whether there should be a referendum. The Taoiseach said in his speech to the Institute of European Affairs:

“Until we agree the final treaty amendments we will not be able to decide whether constitutionally a referendum is necessary or not in Ireland. But the wider the scope of the IGC the more likely it is that a referendum will be necessary.”.

Apart from knowing whether a referendum is necessary it seems to be important to ensure, from the beginning, the widest possible understanding of why these things are being done. They are being done in the name of the people and they must eventually support them. I hope that they will.

Chairman: I thank Mr. Dorr for his very interesting appraisal of the situation. He touched on all of the contentious issues that we discussed as well as issues that are likely to become contentious.

Deputy P. Carey: I welcome Mr. Dorr and Mr. Hennessy. Mr. Dorr gave us a very clear presentation. He is one of our most accomplished and experienced diplomats and negotiators and I wish him well. I found his presentation extremely helpful. At the end he signalled what many of us have felt in recent times, that it is vitally important for this matter to be presented to the public and that they understand it. There has been a degree of suspicion that there is an ulterior motive and some people felt that the Amsterdam and Maastricht Treaties were slipped in through the back door. I know this was not the case, but that perception exists. If recent indications are anything to go by, we are probably living with a more sceptical and questioning public now, compared with earlier times.

From a public representative’s point of view, issues of public representation and ensuring that the interests of the country are preserved would be foremost in my mind. Without delivering hostages to fortune, which is a dangerous thing to do, it goes without saying and probably cannot be stated strongly enough, that it is imperative that Ireland always has a commissioner at the table. The chairman referred to this matter in recent times. It is important from the point of view of our national interest and for symbolic reasons that we have a permanent commissioner at the table.

I am not enamoured by the proposal to have rotating commissioners or a minister of state type commissioner. If this proposal went ahead then we would be left with a second class minister relegated to less significant duties. I was glad to hear that one of the Government’s key demands is to keep a permanent commissioner.

I do not pretend to fully understand the implications of rotating the Council. I am trying to grapple with this proposal and I may have a handle on it. I suspect that if the larger countries do not get their way and stop smaller countries having a commissioner they will come up with a mechanism that will minimise the influence of smaller countries. That would be a very retrograde step. The European Union is not just about size. I know size matters, but Irish, French and German representatives speak on behalf of a people and a democracy of a particular ethos and it does not matter whether they are big or small. I worry that we might have to compromise in this area because compromise is always inevitable.

With regard to representation at Parliament level, I do not hold the view that the number of MEPs should be limited to 700. Democracy is about representation and if the Parliament decides in its wisdom, or another institution decided, to build a building to accommodate 700 people, can they just rearrange the chairs and desks? I do not believe that a large Parliament means a less efficient one. We ought to be trying to ensure, for the sake of the authority of the Parliament and the understanding and relationship the public has with the Parliament, that the number of MEPs is preserved, as far as possible, at its present level.

I would like to hear Mr. Dorr talk about issues, apart from taxation ones, he sees as being fundamental in the area of unanimity and which ones he sees as coming within the ambit of qualified majority voting in the future. There have been rambling questions, but my concern is to indicate the importance for the next Intergovernmental Conference to be fully understood by the public both here and across Europe.

Senator Lydon: I welcome Mr. Dorr, whose fame has gone before him, and Mr. Hennessy too.

Can the Union get too large and too unwieldy? I differ from my colleague, Deputy Carey, in believing that a Parliament of a thousand Members is too unwieldy. It would not be possible to debate issues in a realistic manner.

Regarding the European Charter of Human Rights, the committee of which the chairman is a representative, is it a blueprint for a constitution for the European Union? If and when it becomes a reality will it over-rule our native Constitution?

Senator D. Kiely: I welcome Mr. Dorr and Mr. Hennessy and compliment them on the case put forward.

If the Union is to be enlarged, as Mr. Dorr states, to 27 or 28 member states, we are speaking of an extraordinary increase in the amount of representation in the European Parliament. How would Mr. Dorr envisage the retention of a commissioner for Ireland if 27 or 28 countries are represented around a table? Would the single currency be implemented in all 27 or 28 member states in that scenario?

If the Parliament is restricted to 700 seats will there accordingly be a reduction in MEPs for each country? Is that what is envisaged?

Deputy U. Burke: I welcome Mr. Dorr and Mr. Hennessy and acknowledge that Mr. Dorr has been a wonderful public servant through the years.

I worry that we are at the beginning of the establishment of a real two-tier system within Europe. While we can say we had a similar situation between larger and smaller states heretofore with only 15 members, we will have a significantly greater problem in the future when we enlarge to 27 members. Regarding the origins of the original members of the Union, whether it be the founding six or otherwise, we might have thought them incompatible, insofar as past European wars are concerned, but when the Union is hopefully enlarged to 27 members, we will be attempting to bring together peoples and Governments of vastly different origins. It will not be brought about by war or economics or such matters.

There is the example of the cold war, which split the continent into eastern and western Europe, and there is a significant task involved in uniting the proposed area. We will find it very difficult to overcome, no matter how diplomatic our negotiators, Governments and state representatives might be. It will be extremely difficult, initially at least, to embrace the problems of the eastern bloc, as it was once known, and include them in the Union.

I fear that we will inevitably give rise to a two-tier system. Many of the pertinent issues have been mentioned regarding the Commission. While commissioners in the past may have been seen as the protectors of the smaller states, future commissioners may not be. They will lose that identifying trait and assume a new function. A two-tier system even worse than the current one, if such exists, will develop from that. Many people would say that the larger countries were domineering and proceeded alone.

We have benefited extraordinarily well through the years from our membership of the EU. That period is now past, as we are becoming net contributors. What will happen after expansion? Will the effect be a reduction of membership privileges and even the loss of the right to nominate a commissioner? No matter how well we explain it to the electorate, it will have great difficulties if such a scenario arises and we have to accept that situation.

We have always been classed as good Europeans, probably the best, but to take the example of our most recent European-related referendum, there was an obvious decline in interest, by way of expressing our thoughts, judging from the numbers that voted. When there was only one referendum issue in question, that of ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the ensuing result showed for the first time that we could identify an indication that we were losing our ‘good Europeans’ status.

I would like if Mr. Dorr could comment on that.

Deputy Power: I welcome Mr. Dorr and Mr. Hennessy to the meeting. For a long time Mr. Dorr has done much of the spade work and never gets the credit he deserves. We appreciate the wonderful service he has given and we thank him for that.

I have a query regarding the last part of his presentation concerning the sale or explanation of the message to the public. His presentation was an excellent one, using simple language in explaining the issue, but it is obvious that the matter is extremely complex. One is dealing with so many issues that there will be great difficulty in trying to explain to the public what is taking place.

Some of my colleagues have referred to previous referenda, about which it was said that the Government has failed in its duty of explaining what is being proposed. I speak of the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam. It is a complex area.

Would Mr. Dorr feel that the Irish have a certain disregard for what is taking place throughout Europe? Is it possible to explain the situation clearly or are the people sufficiently interested that they want to know exactly what is happening?

Chairman: You have many issues to discuss there, Mr. Dorr. The issues raised are ones of concern to members of the committee and to their constituents and a point has been made by almost all speakers, that of explaining to the electorate what the European Union is undertaking, keeping in mind that a certain amount of scepticism will always exist. No matter what one does there will always be sceptics, critics and those who will condemn what is undertaken.

You mention the four main powers. This is something which has been a hobby-horse of the committee over some time. The committee has expressed, on many occasions, the responsibility which falls on the four main powers and whether they take them seriously. That means abiding by the rules laid down by the European Union such as the various treaties, access to markets, competition, etc.

It is much easier for the larger powers to bend the rules to suit themselves. There are situations which are discussed within this committee whereby access for our products, produced by a small country entering the European Union, has been impeded. There are terms of employment in respect of the citizens in other European member states being paid a different rate or level because they happen to be foreign to that state.

This generally comes from the four main powers. The question arises also as to the degree of commitment first of all to the European concept that they hold along currently and the degree to which they are committed to continuation of that commitment. Deputy Carey mentioned the symbolism of the Commission, about which he is quite right. On the matter of symbolism, insofar as Members of Parliament are concerned, to be able to say that we have a commissioner has much greater significance and importance than it has at the Commission for the reason that it is seen as part of the democracy. It is also important to remember that incoming applicant countries will look at that aspect of it. The symbolism of a reduction in the number of commissioners currently is one thing, but the removal of a commissioner from any country, regardless of its size, would to my mind, be a very serious backward step at this time.

Mr. Dorr referred to the defence and security issues. One of the matters at which I always marvel is the interpretation and the translation services and how at the mere prospect of enlargement, the European institutions all throw up their hands and say they could not really have translation services for all those people. Of course there is no difficulty at all. Many other organisations have to do that in the same way, but with much larger numbers of translators and one can go to the UN and various other places for that as well.

The hierarchy is the worrying aspect of it which was mentioned and the possibility of a two-tier Europe appearing once again, which would have disastrous consequences. We would expect to be in the very front row and we would look after the interests of the larger countries and they would look after ours, but that is one of those things that happens. The last point to which I draw attention is evolution, the Parliament and the size of the Parliament. Again, I find it odd and the Treaty of Amsterdam dealt with this, but times have changed since then. I am also conscious of the danger of revisiting various treaties except to improve them. One parliament immediately comes to mind which has numbers between its two houses at least on par with that currently envisaged for the European Parliament of all the parliaments in Europe. I refer to the House of Commons. If one matches the two houses together, one comes up with a figure that is very significant and significantly ahead of the total number envisaged for the European Parliament currently. I do not want to cause any dissension within the Government benches in that area, but I just mention that in passing.

Deputy G. Mitchell: I missed the introductory comments of Mr. Dorr, but I look forward to reading them from the record. Relating to the discussions on the extension of qualified majority voting or the potential for the extension of qualified majority voting, I understand from the Department of Foreign Affairs that the approach taken thus far in the IGC discussions is to identify the various articles organised by categories where unanimity currently applies and which might be considered for transfer to QMV and that the articles cover a broad range of areas including the environment, social provisions, international agreements and financial issues. I wonder if Mr. Dorr could give us a greater sense of the potential issues for transfer to QMV or even if they are not potential issues for transfer, what issues are being discussed? For example, what, broadly speaking, are social provisions and financial issues? I know, for example, taxation is an area which not only this Government, but many Governments, would be reluctant to transfer into the area of QMV. I wonder realistically, how many areas are still open for transfer from unanimity to QMV. Perhaps Mr. Dorr could give us some sense of that. Thank you, chairman.

Chairman: Thank you. Before we continue, we have only 15 minutes left. Mr. Dorr must cover all that in a short space of time.

Mr. Dorr: I have taken notes and I hope I hit most of the points. I thank the members of the committee for the nice compliments they have extended to me. I hope they will still be as willing to do that at the end of the conference as they are at this stage. I stress the back-up and support from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Hennessy, who is here with me heading a team from there. I work under the direction of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Government and the Taoiseach.

Having said that, I will try to answer some of the questions and perhaps group some of them. One point started by Deputy Carey and picked up by others, was the presentation of the outcome, which is worrying. I emphasise that the treaty will not be changed and no amendments will go through unless every country accepts it and ratifies it. In most countries that is done only in the parliament. In Ireland there has been a tradition of referenda and that emphasises, which is a good thing in many ways, the need to bring people along.

The danger is that when it comes, if we have a referendum, people will be told that if they do not understand it to vote no, as was said the last time. That is a dangerous thing. People should understand it because it is being done in their name for their sake. That is why, in a way, I started with a very broad and perhaps rhetorical presentation about the historic opportunity facing Europe currently and for Europe as a whole to organise itself for the first time as a democratic continent with rights and at peace with itself. We have to see that as an interest for Ireland.

It is not just a matter of the pluses and the minuses and whether we will have more opportunities for trade, as we will, or whether we will lose on one matter. People here need to have some sense of being inspired and encouraged to have a genuine sense of the role we should play in the world. It is not for me to emphasise this to the members as public representatives, but the more the idea gets across the better, that these few years are a very important historic opportunity for Europe as a whole and we are part of it and everyone is looking to the European Union to be the centre of that. We have to play our part in it. One can then also stress the benefits as well as that. There are benefits as well as some disadvantages.

Deputy Carey said it was important that Ireland has a commissioner. I can assure him that the Taoiseach has stressed that. He has said very clearly that it is essential that each country retain a full commissioner and he said it is just as important that we do not introduce different grades of commissioner. That was in his speech to the Institute of European Affairs. I would like to add another element which is not just that Ireland should retain a commissioner, but I have been trying to present the idea that it is important for the good working of the European Union that every country should have a voice at the Commission table. The Commission, after all, reaches its decisions in the end by a simple majority. It has a clear method of deciding issues. The point is that the voice from that country will say what the sensitive issues are and even more importantly, the people of that country will feel that someone from their country has had some input before the decision is made. The simple majority may go against the commissioner concerned, but nevertheless, the country concerned feels that their voice was heard and that makes the decisions of the commission more acceptable.

I have many questions here. I hope I can cover them all in the time. Deputy Carey referred to the reweighting and the influence of the smaller member states which is diminishing. That is true and I emphasise this to others who have also talked about the difficulty of expanding to 27 countries. It is much easier to have a small club and the larger the club gets the more difficult it becomes. The institutions are strained and the role of each member state diminishes and is diluted in a certain way.

I have tried to emphasise the historic importance of this enlargement. After all, when we applied for membership, we were regarded with some disdain perhaps by some member states at the time. It ill behoves us now to look down on those who are knocking at the door and anxious to join us. The question of the Parliament size with the figure of 700 was touched on by the chairman and Deputy Carey and others. That decision was reached in Amsterdam and written into the treaties. The European Parliament proposed that number and there was not much controversy over it. At the time it was accepted that anything over 700 would be unwieldy and less effective as a parliament. People may have a different view of that number, but it is contained in the Treaty of Amsterdam at present.

The chairman gave the House of Commons as an example of a parliament which has two houses and a large membership. It was worse until recently because the membership of one house was open ended and the number of peers who might attend was very large. One might argue that there should be two houses in the EU; that has been argued, but it is 700 at present. Some reallocation will be necessary when candidate countries join. There may be an argument yet to increase the number, but I doubt it. The figure of 700 is more or less accepted now.

Senator Lydon asked whether the European Union could grow too large and unwieldy, I have already answered his question. He also asked whether a Parliament consisting of 1,000 Members would be too unwieldy. I have tried to touch on this matter. He asked whether the European charter of rights would be a constitution and overrule our Constitution. I suggest the Senator directs his question at the chairman who is involved in discussions on this topic.

The European Council at Cologne decided that it needed to establish a charter of rights. It asked that a draft be prepared in advance of the European Council meeting in December which will be held in Nice. The Council indicated that it would then consider whether, and if so how, the charter should be integrated into the treaties. There is a diversity of views within that convention about whether it should be a proclamation or treaty law. How this would be done and how it would affect other statements of rights is very much in question. Fortunately, we are not engaged in this matter, but the chairman is.

Senator Kiely asked about the number of Members for each member state and whether 28 member states could avail of the single currency programme. At present, 11 member states use the single currency and the rest of them did not want or feel able to join. I do not doubt that a single currency will still be limited in a larger Union. There will probably have to be smaller groups of this type. There will be a transitional period for new entrants.

Deputy Burke talked about the danger of a two-tier system and he stressed the diversity of the countries concerned. The countries wishing to join the Union are very diverse. There is a diversity of culture, background, history and economic status. This will be a tremendous challenge and I have emphasised the historic nature of the challenge. There will be transitional periods. The system of flexibility, that is the general rules allowing for a smaller group to go forward in closer integration, is already written into the Treaty of Amsterdam. We have raised questions about this provision. We worry that it might lead to fragmentation in the EU. But at the same time we have stressed that if that develops, as it will possibly have to, we would want to take a positive approach and be inside of it. The Taoiseach mentioned that we should adopt a positive approach to it.

There will be some problems for Ireland, but I emphasise here the importance of the Commission and of the treaty structure. Some Deputies and Senators talked about the role of the larger member states vis-á-vis the small member states. The looser the structure, the more the larger states dominate. In any international organisation it is the smaller states that depend much more on a structure and a set of order and rules. In the EU, bodies such as the Commission, and the particular role it has under the treaties and the structure of those treaties, protect us and that is why we want to see the Commission role preserved and protected.

Members talked about the public’s concern about the EU. This was in the turn out for the European elections. As a citizen I hope that the committee, particularly as they are public representatives, and it is not my place to advise the committee, will find a way to convey the message to people that integration is in their best interest. I hope you will also inform people that we are so closely knitted and involved with this process that anything that slows it down, distorts it, creates problems or slows it up and makes it sclerotic and clogged up will damage our interests as well as make us miss an historic opportunity.

The chairman asked whether larger countries would abide by rules with regard to access to markets. I have touched on this subject. The system is imperfect and many countries, not just the big ones, experience problems. It is the structure, system of law being treaty bound, rules and the role of the Commission that protects smaller states. We want to keep the EU strong. As the chairman has stressed, the Commission has a symbolic role and it may be greater than in reality, but the reality is important too.

The chairman said he was worried about a hierarchical or two-tier European development. There may be, through the flexibility provisions, inner and outer groups to some degree on some issues. If there is, then we would want to join the inner group. With regard to flexibility, in the Treaty of Amsterdam it was emphasised that it is done in the interest of the Union. If it is in the overall interest that an advance guard approach is applied, then we would be willing to look at it. We would want to be very careful about any loosening of the rules for that, for fear it would lead to fragmentation.

Deputy Mitchell asked about the extension of qualified majority voting and the categories. It is true that the Presidency initially said that we should approach it by categories. Some member states thought that the best way to approach it was to say that qualified voting is the rule and now you have to prove it if there is any exception where there is to be unanimity. Most countries felt that we had to approach it case by case. It was useful to debate it in categories, but case by case was the only way we could do it. For us, taxation is central and we will not agree to any changes. The UK and Luxembourg do not wish to see any changes to taxation either. We do not want to see this aspect fragmented or an effort made to have some aspects of taxation changed by qualified majority voting. We are very open about many of the other issues.

Deputy Mitchell asked for some examples of areas. I have quite a list, but I will give you some examples of the kind of things we are looking at. They are; Article 18.2 of the European Community Treaty which refers to the right of citizens to move and reside freely within the EU, Article 47.2 refers to decisions involving amendment in member states of principles governing recognition of the professions, Article 71.2 - transport, Article 100.1 - financial assistance in case of severe difficulties, Article 151.1 - culture, Article 157.3 - industry and measures to support the actions of member states. There are articles covering financial regulation, social security, legislation on the professions, etc..

Deputy G. Mitchell: Would it be possible for us to get a copy of that list?

Mr. Dorr: Yes. I said at the beginning that we are operating on the basis of documents prepared by the Presidency which we discuss at each of our weekly meetings and work through. Those documents are freely available. They are on the Internet and it would be quite easy to access them. We will ensure that the committee can make them available if it has not got them already. We have already worked through these documents. They show the Presidency’s ideas, but we will go through them again in greater detail. I would just add, in case we forget, that we and others believe that issues which are of a constitutional character and require national ratification must be subject to unanimity in the end. Certain issues are fundamental and we cannot change them. But we are willing, subject to that and to a particular position on taxation and perhaps one or two issues, to go quite far. Perhaps we could revive the package which was put to Amsterdam, but did not get through. I hope that I have answered most of the questions.

Chairman: Did you answer Deputy Seán Power’s questions? I am particularly conscious of him because he has just appointed a new Senator in his constituency. I congratulate him and wish the new Senator well. I also wanted to remind myself that he is a former colleague of mine.

Mr. Dorr: I would hate to overlook any Deputy’s question.

Senator D. Kiely: I forgot to mention that the election will not happen until tomorrow.

Mr. Dorr: I thought I had covered the point by talking of selling the message and explaining to the public-

Deputy Power: I must apologise to Mr. Dorr for that interruption.

Mr. Dorr: I emphasise, for Deputy Power’s benefit, the need to explain to the public that what we are doing in their name is important, particularly as we are probably the only country which has felt bound, in the past at least, to hold a referendum on the outcome. Other countries do it purely on a parliamentary basis. It emphasises to me the importance that people should be made to understand. We do not want to be working in closed, smoke-filled rooms on something the public does not understand.

Deputy Barrett: In the course of Mr. Dorr’s discussions during the conference was mention made of enlargement and the role of national parliaments, given that the principle of subsidiarity will always remain, and that there would be a greater role for national parliaments through an organised structure of the European Affairs Committee in each country? The role of national parliaments would not, therefore, become embroiled in an argument about enlargement because of the increased numbers involved.

Deputy G. Mitchell: Could Mr. Dorr let us have a copy of the Amsterdam list, which we did not finish discussing earlier, on the qualified majority voting.

Mr. Dorr: In response to Deputy Barrett, the role of national parliaments is important and, as I said during the course of my presentation, treaty amendments can be made only if all member states agree and if their parliaments ratify them. In our case, in the past we have had to hold a referendum. We are, therefore, very conscious of the role and prerogatives of national parliaments.

At the last Intergovernmental Conference before the Treaty of Amsterdam, France was pressing strongly the idea of introducing some kind of institutionalisation of the issue. An institution which would somehow bring together the national parliaments was, however, seen as a difficulty. What emerged in the end was a role for COSAC, about which the chairman will know, it being a grouping of the committees analogous to this in the various parliaments.

My understanding at the time was that COSAC did not want to have a fully structured institutionalised role. My memory is that a declaration was added to the Treaty of Amsterdam about the role of COSAC. There is still a feeling about the importance of national parliaments, but a reluctance, even on the part of some parliaments themselves, to try to make that into another solid structure of the Union. That could cause some problems.

It is arguable that the Ministers in the Council are responsible to their respective national parliaments, but some parliaments feel their role should be greater. It is not likely to go as far as institutionalisation in the form of another institution. There is, however, room for strengthening the role of COSAC and of the contact between parliaments.

Chairman: Thank you again, Mr. Dorr, for being with us this afternoon. It is a most interesting topic and obviously one you revel in. I thank the members for their participation also and express the wish that whatever club will eventually exist in Europe it will survive at least as well as the ‘club of 50’ in the United States, which has done reasonably well in the last number of years.

The Joint Committee adjourned at 4.05 p.m.

Appendix II

Minutes of Evidence of 28th June, 2000.

An Comhchoiste um Ghnóthaí Eorpacha

Joint Committee on European Affairs

Dé Céadaoin, 28 Meitheamh 2000.

Wednesday, 28 June 2000.

The Joint Committee met at 2.20 p.m.

Members Present:

Deputy B. Durkan in the Chair

Intergovernmental Conference.

Chairman: I welcome our guests. We will now deal with item No. 4 on our agenda, the intergovernmental conference. A presentation will now be made by Mr. Elmar Brok MEP and Mr. Dimitrius Tsatsos MEP, who are the European Parliament’s representatives to the intergovernmental conference. Mr. Brok and Mr. Tsatsos are well known to Members from their participation in COSAC and other areas in which we co-operate with the European Parliament, particularly the constitutional affairs and institutional affairs committees. They represent the European Parliament at the IGC meetings and will bring us up to date on recent developments and also provide their assessment of the outcome of the Feira Summit on 19 and 20 June. Even as we speak, the European process is evolving and unfolding.

I welcome both of our guests who are accompanied by Mr. Stefan Pfitzner, Mr. Oliver Rentler and Mr. Jim O’Brien, who is well known to the committee. Members have shown considerable interest in European affairs and the development of the European vision and concept. Ireland has benefited greatly from membership of the European Union, particularly through its access to the Single Market. Many people will state that our benefit has been gleaned entirely from price supports or direct payments. That, of course, is not the case. Our success is heavily dependent on our access to the market. Anything that interferes with that process can have a considerable impact on us such as, for example, the recent blockades of French and British ports. Because Ireland is an island nation and is heavily dependent on its exports, anything which interferes in any way with our free movement in the marketplace can have very serious consequences for our economy and our constituents.

In recent years we have discussed and marvelled at the development of the European concept as envisaged by Monnet, Adenauer and Schumann when they decided on the philosophy that would address the issue of the elimination of war and food shortages in Europe. They proceeded on a particular course which was very successful and they identified and proceeded with a very clear vision of Europe. This was satisfactory and successful in that it resolved the problems that were pertinent then and which obtained until the end of the Cold War.

Now, however, different issues have emerged and the new Europe is unfolding. There is a need for a new vision, one which will last well into this century possibly into the next. This vision, when identified and put into operation, will hopefully be as successful as that which motivated Europeans during the past 50 to 55 years.

I make these comments by way of a short introduction to a subject about which our guests are more knowledgeable than ourselves. However, Members like to play their part and, lest there be any doubt, we hold a position in respect of the subjects which have presented themselves in recent years. I refer here, for example, to the composition and size of the Commission. We particularly espouse the view adopted by the smaller countries but we recognise the view taken by the larger countries. We expect those larger countries to recognise the vulnerability of their smaller counterparts because what is difficult to sell in larger countries is also difficult to sell in smaller countries.

We are conscious of the developments taking place in respect of qualified majority voting. As our guests will be aware, we are prepared to discuss these issues and reach an agreement. However, we are conscious of the fact that the ultimate agreement should not militate against the smaller countries. Equal opportunity will have to present itself in relation to both smaller and larger countries. A similar position will arise in respect of weight-listed or balanced voting.

My final point relates to the composition of the Parliament and its evolution. Ireland is committed to the enlargement of the Union and we recognise that Europeans are Europeans, regardless of the part of the continent they occupy, and that they are entitled to become part of this association. We note that the size of the Parliament has been pre-set and predetermined to some extent. However, following a meeting in Brussels on Monday last, we have come to realise that discussions are taking place in that regard. We have a simple point to make in respect of this matter which may be seen as whinging on the part of the smaller countries. A reduction in a smaller country’s representation in the Parliament could have a greater proportional impact than would a reduction in a larger country’s representation. That matter must be borne in mind.

Mr. Brok: We are grateful for your kind invitation and the opportunity to discuss the state of affairs of and the challenges and prospects facing the IGC. This is our first visit to a European Affairs committee of a member state’s national Parliament since the European Council in Feira and we are happy that our path has led us to Dublin. As the representatives of the European Parliament at the IGC we understand ourselves, at the same time as representatives of parliamentarianism in general, and attach particular importance to the dialogue with you.

Looking at the calendar, the summit in Feira pretty much marks half-time in the work of the conference. This is the appropriate time for an intermediate appraisal of the work achieved so far and the task which lies ahead. Before looking at the details, we should like to make a few comments about the overall perspective of the conference, the objective of which is to prepare the Union for enlargement. We are all aware of the fact that enlargement is a unique opportunity offered to us by history and we must grasp it. It will be to the benefit of people in old and new member states alike and it will strengthen the Union’s role and influence in the world.

The dimension of this enlargement is without precedent. It is not just another round of enlargement, the number of member states will almost double. If enlargement is to become a success, the candidate countries and the Union must be prepared appropriately. There is no doubt that reforms would be necessary anyway, but in the light of enlargement they are indispensable.

The European Parliament has a strong responsibility for a successful enlargement and we are determined to take this responsibility very seriously. It would be irresponsible if we proceeded with the enlargement without prior substantial reforms in a number of fields. The structures and procedures that were once introduced for six member states must be adjusted to a Union of up to 27 states. At the same time, we owe it to the candidate countries to ensure that the time schedule is kept. The European Council at Nice in the summer must see the necessary results.

Let us now give an overview of the subjects at stake and the state of negotiations. It is undisputed that the first and foremost task of this conference is a satisfactory solution of the so-called Amsterdam leftovers, subjects that were discussed but not solved in the intergovernmental conference at Amsterdam - the extension of qualified majority voting in the Council, re-weighting of votes in the Council and the size and composition of the Commission. Related issues such as the extension of co-decisions, the reallocation of seats in the European Parliament and the functioning of the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance will also have to be addressed. We have also discussed questions such as the charter of fundamental rights, the strengthening of foreign security policy and enhanced co-operation among member states.

The crucial point of this conference is, certainly, the extension of qualified majority voting. It is this question which will decide the functioning of the enlarged Union. My colleague, Professor Tsatsos, will talk in more detail about this question. Closely linked to qualified majority voting is the strengthening of the role of the European Parliament in the decision-making procedure. Wherever voting takes place by qualified majority of the Council, the co-decision procedure must apply because only then has legislation democratic legitimisation.

The second big pillar is the functioning and composition of the institutions of the Union. Here, member states are roughly divided along the line of large-small member states. The European Parliament considers it to be of vital importance, to achieve equilibrium between small and large states and populations, that the double legitimacy of the union of the peoples and the union of states is reflected in the composition and functioning of the institutions of the Union.

As for the Commission, it is necessary to strike a balance between appropriate representation of member states and efficiency. The Parliament, therefore, suggests one of the following options: either a fixed number of 20 Commissioners or that every member state should have one Commissioner, provided that the role of President is strengthened and he has a chance of distributing and taking away portfolios. In my opinion, at the end of the debate the solution will be one Commissioner per member country because it is understandable that every country wants to sit at every table of decision, but it must be done in such a way that the Commission is effective. Therefore, the role of the Commission President must be strengthened to achieve this.

Secondly, when we come to the Council, the easiest way to deal with the matter is to find a solution by way of double majority. In every classical federal system in the state chamber - if I might call for one moment the Council a state chamber - the regions have more power than they should have because of population. It is the same in the American Senate, Federal Council of the Federal Republic of Germany, Switzerland and other federal systems.

I, as a member of Parliament from a bigger country, have to understand that it must be possible for smaller countries to defend their interests and identity. Therefore, double majority could offer a compromise and would not change the weighting of votes much. On the other side, it would give an assurance to bigger countries that in the future a majority of smaller countries with a minority of population could not outvote the others. For the moment in any coalition for a qualified majority in the Council one needs to have at least 58% of the population behind it. As it is now de facto it would be easier to make it legal by putting it in the Treaty. Such a balance can be found. This would give a chance to make a moderate adjustment of seats in the European Parliament.

It must be very clear that every country must have an appropriate numbers of seats. On the other side, one has to understand the democratic legitimisation problem in bigger countries. My voters ask why in Germany one needs 800,000 votes for a seat and in Luxembourg, 30,000. The question of one man-one vote should not apply only to South Africa. On the other side, it is absolutely clear that we will not have 100% proportionality, so there must be a proper compromise which shows that population plays a role and, on the other size, gives appropriate numbers of members to smaller countries.

In this way it must be possible for Council, Commission and Parliament together to achieve such an equilibrium between the interests of smaller and bigger countries on the question of democratic legitimisation and efficiency. I believe that we will reach this. For the European Parliament as a whole we ask that the number be restricted to 700 because with more than 700 seats it would come very close to the Chinese People Chamber and would not be a workable parliament any more. Therefore, this restriction should continue. With such an equilibrium it should be possible to proceed to the main point of qualified majority voting on which perhaps Professor Tsatsos can elaborate a little more.

Mr. Tsatsos: I would like to move quickly to the second part and will be very brief in mentioning two points. First, I remind you again that in the European Parliament there is the rule of qualified majority linked to co-decision in all of its legislative acts. You can read in the paper which contains the proposals of the Presidentship at Feira the part concerning the definition of “legislative act”. This definition creates problems because, if we follow this method, the European Parliament will have less power and competence in the field of co-decision. They will take back what they gave us in Amsterdam. On this point, I see a very great problem concerning the credibility of the European Union. A weaker Parliament after the next treaty will create a crisis in credibility concerning European institutions. I ask you to exert influence on your Government to help the European Parliament fight against this danger. It is a real danger which we are discussing in the IGC and is part of the paper presented by the Presidency at Feira. It is a very important point.

The second point is flexibility. Flexibility, in a logical way, will be useful if there is no progress on qualified majority voting. If there is progress on qualified majority voting we will not need flexibility as much. The European Parliament has a very clear line. We say, of course, that we have to avoid the blocking method, the rule of Amsterdam concerning unanimity. With 27 members there would never be a possibility of unanimity. The second condition which for the European Parliament is extremely important is a guarantee of institutional unity. We cannot have three European Unions in one through the institution of flexibility.

You should discuss with personalities of your country the question of in which field flexibility can be applied. It is not an easy question to answer but in discussing flexibility as an institution I would say “concerning new members”.

We are preparing the European Union so as to avoid the creation of difficulties by the membership of the candidate states. Both Elmar Brok and I believe in the parliamentary process, in the philosophy of parliament, that the European Union is a union of people but also a union of states, and that the rules must be applied at every institutional level.

The parliamentary institutions of the European Union are a union of the people, and the Council of the European Union is a union of the states. On both levels there are exceptions. However, the main aim is to correspond with this definition of double majority voting in the European Union. This is very important in terms of IGC whose main purpose is to prepare the European Union for enlargement, by which we mean making our institutions effective enough to accept new members. The problem is what we mean by efficiency. We need clear and not very complicated procedures. However, there is a limit to this logic. Democratic procedures are complicated. That is why we must find a balance between efficiency and legitimacy. Parliaments have an historical obligation to guarantee a balance between efficiency and legitimacy because we are the political institutions in this union. That is why we must be careful in relation to the main political issues.

Chairman: I am sure our colleagues will be anxious to open up the subject. Thank you for being with us. Mr. Brok and Dr. Tsatos are the European Parliament’s watchdogs at the IGC. To a certain extent, we have an affinity with them. All the members of the European Parliament from this country, North and South, have a right to attend our meetings here - we are unique in that sense. Those members do attend and it is very useful.

Deputy P. Carey: I welcome the delegation of fellow parliamentarians and their officials. If a paper containing the thoughts of the delegation were circulated later, it would give us an opportunity of digesting what has been said, because some important contributions have been made.

In addressing the issues, the Chairman set the territory quite well. Ireland is very much in favour of the enlargement of the European Union and supports it in every way but recognises that it provides challenges and opportunities and that there are implications. As the Chairman rightly said, it is not simply a matter of adding additional member states to the current number. It is expected that there will be a significant change in the total make-up of the new Europe.

In relation to the question of balance between larger and smaller member states, because of Ireland’s size, we are anxious that the balance between the larger and smaller countries should be preserved. I hope that will be taken on board by our colleagues from the European Parliament. On the issue of the number of Commissioners, it is our strongly-held view, which we articulated at Lisbon recently, that smaller countries like Ireland should have a Commissioner at the table. I would like Mr. Brok to clarify his presentation in relation to what he said about a fixed number of 20 Commissioners in the context of a strengthened Presidency. Perhaps I picked it up incorrectly, but I would like some reassurance on that. This committee would be very concerned if Ireland were not to have a Commissioner at any time in the future.

On the issue of qualified majority voting, we have discussed this here before. Our position is that we should look at this on a case by case basis.

The issue of flexibility has been mentioned. I certainly have a personal concern about what the implications of flexibility might be. I know the whole issue of EMU revolves around flexibility. The Schengen issue is another issue where there is an element of flexibility. I would like to hear from the delegation how they see that developing. The bottom line is that we do not want to see a two-tier Europe emerging. It would not be good for Europe, and it would not be good for the participants in it.

Mr. Brok referred to the potential for the Parliament to assume the proportions of the Chinese Assembly. I recognise what he is saying. However, it must also be recognised that there must be an understanding that if we are to preserve the democratic aspect of the Union and the feeling of participation by citizens in the decision-making process, it is important that as many representatives as possible from each member state should be allowed to participate. With regard to fixing the number of seats at 700, I do not know whether that should be cast in stone. I know there are mechanisms being looked at which would ultimately involve a reduction in the number of members from all countries but particularly from smaller countries. We are concerned about that.

On the issue of co-decision I do not pretend to understand the minutiae of that argument and would like some amplification of the Parliament’s position on it. Those are my observations and questions.

Senator D. Kiely: I too welcome the delegation. We have discussed this many times in different fora right across Europe. As a small country, we are concerned about having a Commissioner and feel that we could be left behind in the future if we do not have a voice at the table. We are in favour of enlargement of the European Community. We know it is inevitable. We also know that the capacity of the House of Parliament in Brussels is 700 and that is where that number came from. We are concerned about that as well, but basically we are concerned about our own representation in Europe as a small country. Ireland is a rural country and if the numbers are adjusted on the basis of population, we could wind up with only three or four members from this country. These could be elected from the Dublin region, which would mean that the rural parts of Ireland, Connacht or the other regions, could be without a representative in the European Parliament.

That is an issue we would like to look at. On Deputy Carey’s point about a two-tier system, we would not be happy with a two-tier where there would be a House of the Seanad or whatever the case may be. The one Parliament is the ideal way to go. The question is how to adjust it and balance the two. Mr. Brok said there would have to be a balance between the big and the small. It would take some dialogue to find a proper balance. As a small country we are fearful of being sidelined. We feel we have to be in there to fight for our rights. We have benefited from our membership of the European Union and we want to keep our foot in the door at all times.

Chairman: That mirrors the discussion we had earlier. It is interesting from our point of view that one of our guests is a representative of a large country and one is a representative of a smaller country. For that reason you are especially welcome. The issue of the composition and size of the Parliament has been tossed around for the past couple of years. Were you surprised it is still on the agenda? It should not take that long to solve that particular problem. The reason we are concerned and have expressed concern both at COSAC and at various other meetings is that it is separate from the political elements of it and there is the symbolism of representation at Commission and the need for member states and the Parliament of the member states to be able to inform their citizens that irrespective of what is happening in Europe and in the European institutions, whether positive or negative, that if it is shown that a representative exists at the Commission table, it is reassuring. I can understand how the larger countries, and the committee would fully understand that, are reticent and anxious to proceed with European integration. They know also that they need to sell the issue to their domestic political supporters but it is equally acute with the smaller countries, in fact even more acute.

The question of the possible two-tier Europe, raised by Deputy Carey, is an important one. In the past a certain number of countries did not meet the criteria set down for admission to EMU. By the time the event took place some of the countries which did not qualify initially were the most qualified, possibly to the exclusion of others. Writing in tablets of stone is not always the best way to proceed. A certain amount of recognition of each other’s position is required in that area. The two-tier Europe and the potential for Europe to divert its attention from its original objectives is great. We see the Commission in a particular way and I presume it views us in a particular light. It is important that the Commission recognises that those who have to relate directly to our support on the ground are the elected parliamentarians whether at national or European level.

Re-nationalisation, which has emerged in the past couple of years, affects smaller countries to a much greater extent but smaller countries can adopt positions on Re-nationalisation which are detrimental to the European concept as well. We need to be careful of that. If we can recognise that our existence is in co-existence and integration and interdependency, whether a large or small country, the vision first charted by the founding fathers of Europe will be reinvigorated and will re-emerge. If we do not recognise that both the smaller and larger countries have a huge responsibility then the Europe envisaged by the founding fathers will not emerge. It would be ironic if that were to be the case considering that the dangers that prompted the formation of the European concept in the first instance are gone. Sorry about that particular tirade.

Mr. Brok: If I can answer the questions which were put to me I would like to clarify that the European Commission has two options, one is a fixed number of 20 - a rotation system -and the other is that every country can keep a commissioner with powers for the President for reshuffling to make it effective. My prediction is that at the end of the day the second solution will be the compromise of the negotiations because the smaller countries will not accept that they cannot sit all the time at every table of decision. Therefore, I think, between the position of the European Parliament and your interest there is a good relationship which we can build on. On this double majority on the Council, I think there is a basis for our common interest and the European Parliament has members from smaller and bigger countries in it. We have also to build a compromise between us on such issues but there should be a certain understanding for the moderate adjustment for the seats in Parliament. I can understand totally what you said that it must be possible in every country where there are so many members of the European Parliament that they can lead this dialogue with their citizens. Here again is the question of representation and effectiveness. Therefore, such an adjustment must take into account that every country has such a delegation in the European Parliament that this can be achieved. Therefore, I do not believe that it will be possible to have 100% proportionality for the division of members of the European Parliament. If you see all three cases together an agreement must be found between the smaller and the bigger countries but I would like to be very firm on the number of 700. If such a figure is not put in stone it will be impossible to lower it afterwards as we know from parliamentary experience. It is the same question whether it is a local city council, a national parliament or the European Parliament. I think 700 is a proper compromise. It is the highest number of members of parliament in Europe and is higher than the House of Commons or the German Parliament. The clear understanding between Governments of the European Parliament is to keep to this figure. What we have to do is find a rule whereby the adjustment can be made in light of this rule. Every time a new member joins the European Union it has to be negotiated in a new way because all the threats to smaller countries may be part of that. If there was a general rule, from which adjustments could be made, it should be possible to live with that and find that as a proper compromise.

On the question of flexibility I wish to add one extra point to what Professor Tsatos has rightly said. In my opinion, enhanced co-operation does not make much sense in first pillar legislation especially where there is qualified majority voting because for the European Parliament it is very important, as I have said in several decisions, to keep the unity of the legal order on those community institutions. Another reason for our hesitation is that smaller countries fear it might lead to a direct threat by big countries who might abuse it.

We believe in the vision of the founding fathers of the European Parliament of the equality of member countries and also on this question there is a good understanding between us. As to whether I think such enhanced co-operation can make sense, that can be answered in terms of co-operation on actions. With regard to defence matters, five countries can co-operate on one action and eight other countries on another action. Although there is close co-operation, in internal security matters one must take account of regional problems, for example, in Britain and Ireland, all the Scandinavian countries and in Central Europe. That makes sense, but it is not simply a matter of the common standards and legislation that must be applied across the European Union. If we can have such differentiation, while it will make it difficult to introduce legislation, it will be useful in terms of co-operation on actions. In that way we can achieve certain progress on this question. With regard to the questions raised by Deputy Carey and Senator Kiely, in this way we can ensure small countries are not sidelined. The European Union should have a chance to develop. It can develop only if its member states do not consider they are being sidelined or losing their identities. If a country considers it is being sidelined, the European Union will be finished. Therefore, we must be very careful in dealing with such questions and develop the understanding to do so.

Chairman: Dr. Tsatsos, do you wish to speak?

Mr. Tsatsos: No.

Chairman: I want to thank you for being with us. You have expressed your views to us privately and at this meeting and we have also expressed our views. The period in which we live is extremely interesting. The measures put in place now will have a bearing on the future composition of the European Union. I have every confidence in the European institutions to progress this area, but I specifically rely on those elected to public office to ensure that, as not all office holders are elected. For that reason, the emphasis to ensure progress in that area must remain with those who are elected, the Members of this Parliament and our colleagues in the European Parliament. I have no doubt we will come up with a resolution to the obstacles that lie ahead of us. If we cannot, we will have failed. We have overcome greater obstacles in the past. If we cannot overcome those that lie ahead of us, it will be a sad reflection on us.

I wish to thank you, your colleagues and Jim O’Brien, who is permanently with us and keeps a watchful eye on our proceedings, for attending this meeting. I hope we will do our best to ensure we do not do anything outrageously wrong in this area in the future.

Mr. Tsatsos: I thank the Chairman and members for their welcome, hospitality and the possibility of engaging in this dialogue. It is extremely important for us to take home with us the sensitivities and ideas expressed by members. As the Chairman said, we are elected by the people of Europe, which means we are colleagues. We have a European identity. It is important we maintain solidarity between national parliaments and the European Parliament. On behalf of my colleagues, I thank the members for this opportunity to attend this meeting, which we enjoyed.

Chairman: Thank you. The next item is any other business. The next meeting will be held on 12 July.

Deputy Carey: Shall we wear our sashes?

Chairman: Indeed, the next meeting will be held on that day.

The committee adjourned at 5.04 p.m.

Appendix III

Minutes of Evidence of 4th October, 2000

An Comhchoiste um Ghnóthaí Eorpacha

Joint Committee on European Affairs

Dé Céadaoin, 4 Deireadh Fómhair 2000

Wednesday, 4 October 2000

The Joint Committee met at 2.06 p.m.

Members Present:

Senators J. Connor and R. Kiely also attended

The Joint Committee met in Private Session and went into Public Session at 2.09 p.m.

DEPUTY B. DURKAN in the chair

Chairman: I welcome Mr. Noel Dorr, the Taoiseach’s personal representative on this matter and Mr. Pat Hennessy.

Mr. Dorr: Thank you very much chairman. Members will be aware that I represent the Government at meetings of the representatives group. I am backed by a team from the Department of Foreign Affairs which is led by Mr. Pat Hennessy and I work under the political direction and authority of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Taoiseach and the Government. We meet once a week, usually on Mondays and the Ministers meet on the margins of the General Affairs Council once a month. The next meeting is due to take place on Sunday afternoon and Monday in Luxembourg.

I do not need to make any lengthy statements on the background to this issue as I came before the Committee in April. Members are very familiar with what is in question. An effort is being made to adapt the institutions of the European Union in order that they will be capable of bearing the weight they are being asked to bear in the restructuring of Europe which is now the historic imperative for the continent with the lifting of the Cold War barrier. For the first time, there is an opportunity to have a democratic Europe at peace with itself. Countries which have lived in the shadow of the “Iron Curtain” are now looking to the structure we have created in the European Union as the centre around which the continent can restructure itself. If it is to do that, it is obviously necessary to strengthen the institutions of the Union and that is the purpose of the IGC. As you know the Union is a structure built on a succession of treaties and when it becomes necessary to amend the treaties there has to be a negotiation between the 15 Member States, as States, which means that every one has to agree before there is an outcome. Then there is adoption or agreement, eventually at Head of Government level on the political outcome, and then it becomes a matter for ratification by each Member State. In some cases that is done by parliament alone. In other cases, as has been the case in the past here, it has required a referendum. That is the basic framework within which we are working.

I will also recap on the agenda that has been set for us. It was set by the Heads of Government meeting in Helsinki in December last. It is three main issues: the size and composition of the Commission; the weighting of votes in the Council; and the possible extension of qualified majority voting in the Council. They have come to be called the Amsterdam leftovers because it was felt they had not been adequately dealt with in the negotiation of the Amsterdam Treaty. The conference was also to deal with what were described as other necessary amendments to the treaties arising as regards the European institutions. Then there was a possibility for the Presidency to propose additional issues. That is the agenda to which we have been working.

We are not dealing in my group with the charter of rights which is dealt with in another framework. Neither are we dealing with defence and security issues. It is possible at the end of the conference that they might be brought back in as subjects for treaty change. That is a matter for decision, but is not an issue with which we are dealing, as those two areas are outside my remit. We have focused on the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council, the extension of qualified majority voting and a number of other possible adjustments to the other institutions, including such things as the allocation of seats in the European Parliament, the reform and improvement of the structure of the Court of Justice of the European Union - there is a heavy pressure on the Court of Justice and it is likely to increase - and such issues as the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and so on.

The main additional issue, which has been added to the agenda and that was done in June by the Heads of Government meeting in Feira in Portugal, is that of so-called close co-operation, flexibility or enhanced co-operation. It has been given different names. That is a procedure introduced in the Treaty of Amsterdam allowing a smaller group to use the institutions to go forward for closer integration between themselves. It is now proposed that the rules governing that be eased somewhat and it be made more easy.

The conference at political level is the Foreign Ministers who report to the Heads of Government. They are meeting next Sunday and Monday. Beyond that there is the informal European council in Biarritz which is on the Friday and Saturday of the following week, 13 and 14 October. That is seen by the Presidency as a kind of base camp to prepare for the summit which will be in Nice on 7, 8 and 9 December. If there is agreement there on the outcome of these negotiations it will then be called the Treaty of Nice and it will be a matter of turning it into legal form as a treaty. That will take some months. There will then be the process of ratification in the various countries which may take a year or whatever. If all this comes together we will be talking next year of the Treaty of Nice.

There is also shaping up the kind of outline of a post Nice agenda. There is some talk about what happens the charter of rights if it is adopted. There are German ideas on a list of competencies in the Community and there is talk about them and possibly of some kind of simplification of the treaties. Those are all distant issues as far as I am concerned, but there may be some discussion at Nice about carrying that forward. In addition there have been some imaginative speeches by various leaders in recent months and ideas about what further steps might be taken beyond Nice. However the focus is on Nice and the immediate task is to finish the intergovernmental conference and complete the agenda we have been assigned.

The work on this kind of agenda does not always proceed in a linear way. It does not go neatly step by step getting closer to the goal. Sometimes one goes around and around the issues and there seems to be little progress. Then in certain circumstances there can be a jump to a new situation. These are called leftovers from Amsterdam, but they are left over because they were very difficult issues and they remain difficult. There is a tendency for the issue to arise in terms of the large and the small countries. I should emphasise that I think it is always the case in international life that smaller countries tend to look to structures and institutions to protect them. The larger countries can usually fend for themselves in looser arrangements, but smaller countries tend to be more focused on the safeguards of institutions and structures and that is the case here. However it is not just large versus small. The Community and the Union is an unprecedented and unique structure in international life. There has never been anything like it before. It is more than any international organisation because it has a whole system of law which reaches down to the individual citizen. It is not just something which binds Governments. There is a whole community of law and institutions carefully balanced in tension with each other. Yet it is less than a State. It does not intend to be a Superstate. It is a new, unique and unprecedented structure in international life. The questions we are dealing with are not just questions of large and small, but of maintaining that balance and those creative tensions between the institutions, particularly the institutional triangle of the Commission, the Parliament and the Council with the Court as the body which decides what the law is. To some extent on some of the issues it is a matter of maintaining that unique mixture of the supra-national elements and intergovernmental elements and not pushing it too far in either direction; neither collapsing back to becoming another international organisation like many others nor prematurely trying to regard it as a kind of federation with straightforward regard for population and not for the fact that there are states involved. It is a union of states and of peoples. The issues are not just of large and small, but of that particular balance which has evolved over the past 40 or 50 years and of how to preserve it in the new Union of the future with 27, 28 or more Member States.

Let me comment on the state of play on the different issues. There are two schools of thought on the Commission. There is an argument that the Commission at 20 members is already rather large and that if we continue the present rule that large Member States nominate two members and small Member States nominate one, as the Union expands to 27 or 28 the Commission will have 30 or more members. The fear on the part of some people is that it would become a debating body rather than a sharp and important organ of the Union taking executive functions. The other view is that it is important that every Member State participate in and have a stake in the Commission. Because of the importance of the Commission and the role we see it playing as the guardian of the treaties and the protector of the common interest, every Member State, and particularly the people of every Member State, should feel it has a nominee who participates in the discussion, not as a national representative, but as a participant giving them a stake in this important organ or institution. President Prodi in his speech to the European Parliament yesterday put it very well. Three sentences in his speech form an important element in the argument for one commissioner per Member State. He said:

“The Commission is the melting pot into which the various national interests and tensions are poured and from which emerge proposals that seek to reconcile these often conflicting interests. In this way it provides not only a synthesis and analysis of the problems at issue, but also a starting point for negotiations in which, once national differences have been aired, the common European interest can be identified. This executive that combines independence with a sensitivity to the balance of powers and interests in all Member States both large and small is the sine qua non for the effective pooling of sovereignty in the Community.”

I would almost take that as our text in arguing that each Member State should have the degree of participation which comes from having the right to nominate a member of the Commission. The line-up in this unfortunately tends to be ten smaller Member States insisting strongly on that point and the five larger Member States tending to argue for a limit of some kind on the Commission - a ceiling of perhaps 15 members. The Commission itself has advocated two possible solutions, one being that there should be a ceiling of 15 with fair rotation within it and a second being that there should be one per Member State, but with a hierarchy of some kind of senior and junior commissioners. We, the smaller Member States, reject the latter idea and think it is important that every Member State has a full member of the Commission and that that be guaranteed. There is the outline in a protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty of a kind of settlement of this, which would mean that larger Member States would give up the right to nominate a second member of the Commission and would be “compensated” by some kind of reweighting of votes in the Council in their favour. There are some people who think that is an unfortunate tying in of national influence with membership of the Commission, but be that as it may it was agreed at Amsterdam and is now part of the treaty. It seems to us to provide the outline for a settlement, because after all if the larger Member States give up the right to nominate a second commissioner, we would immediately have a Commission of 15. Adding ten more countries would increase the number to only 25, which is not hugely greater than 20. The Commission has an effective method of decision making which is the simple majority vote.

Another issue is the weighting of votes in the Council. The Council votes are weighted. The four largest Member States have ten votes each, Ireland has three, Luxembourg has two and there are intermediary categories. The point of the protocol I have mentioned is that there would be some re-balancing in favour of the larger Member States if they gave up the right to nominate a second commissioner. This raises many further questions. There is an argument on the part of smaller Member States that that is the only way in which they would be compensated, but some of the larger Member States feel they would like to clawback some of the influence they think they have lost in terms of population as the Union has enlarged over the years. They also make the argument that in an enlarged Union there would be many small Member States and that they would out vote the large Member States. That seems quite artificial as there is never really a line up of small versus large and in an enlarged Union Ireland and France, for example, are as likely to have interests in common more so than perhaps Ireland and Latvia or Ireland and Romania. Therefore, it seems artificial, but that is the type of argument being put forward.

There are two possible ways of reweighting votes. One is a straightforward change in the weighting of votes and the issue of whether they should be clustered in groups. The four largest Member States have ten votes each, although Germany has a population of 20 million or more larger than any of the other three. The other possibility is to add a new requirement for a dual majority which means it would be necessary to check there was a majority of the population in favour of something as well as a majority of the weighted votes. The Commission has proposed a variant of that, called a double simple majority, whereby there would be no weighting of votes, but simply two requirements would have to be met; namely, that the decision would have to have a majority of the population of the Union in its favour and a majority of the Member States. That has not really found great support so far, but the argument is still taking place between dual majority and the weighting system. There is no clear pattern to the line up of Member States in this regard - to some degree it depends on where one fits into the cluster. That issue still has to be settled.

The third issue is the extension of qualified majority voting in the Council. As members are aware, perhaps 80 per cent of the votes in the Council are already taken by qualified majority, but in a number of votes unanimity prevails. Unanimity means that every Member State has a veto which is good for us from many points of view. On the other side, in an enlarged Union, we must remember that any Member State could block something we might want and if there is a veto in a particular area it will exist for Latvia, Romania or Bulgaria, etc., just as much as for Ireland. Therefore, a balance has to be struck. It is also clear that the Community and the Union cannot function very well if 27 or 28 Member States have to agree on everything. There has to be some better decision making procedure and there is a strong impulse to move on qualified majority voting as far as possible, although there will still be some residual things which nobody wishes to see dealt with by qualified majority voting. However, everybody is in favour of it in theory, but when it comes to practice there are all kinds of difficulties with particular departments, with regional governments having a role in some countries.

We have gone over the issues many times and there has been some progress, but a lot remains to be done. We have found a number of areas where we can accept qualified majority voting and we are quite insistent on a few where we want to maintain unanimity, one of which is taxation. There is a strong feeling in the Government that we have a particular tax model which we have chosen, with light taxes in certain areas and heavy taxes in others, and that it should not be subject to majority voting in the Council by countries with a different model. One cannot start tinkering at the edges of it, and we are insisting that qualified majority voting should not apply to taxation, and on that we have support from a few other countries. I do not think that qualified majority voting on this issue will be a runner, but that remains to be seen in further discussions.

I will touch on the other issues very quickly. Regarding the allocation of seats in the Parliament, there is a ceiling of 700 which was agreed in the Amsterdam Treaty and is now written into the treaty. It was the Parliament’s own wish that it should not get too large and unwieldy - I think the chairman of this Committee has other views on that. The current membership is 626, and room has to be made if new states join the Union. There are various proposals as to how this should be done while still keeping within the ceiling of 700. Broadly speaking there are two approaches, one proposed by the Parliament which is to give a minimum of four seats per Member State with the remainder being allocated proportionally. Currently there is a minimum of six seats per Member State. We and others feel there has to be full recognition of the fact that it is a Union of states and peoples and that states must be represented and that smaller states must have sufficient members in the Parliament to accommodate the different political tendencies in a country. Luxembourg will have a problem, for example, if the number is reduced too far as the different political groupings will not be reflected. The argument continues and our argument is that making it purely a matter of population is to go too far in a direction which the Community has not yet taken.

Much good work is being done in the Court of Justice by a group of experts who are working to us. Essentially, we will probably end up with a three tier structure, although we do not want to use that term, namely, the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, which is subordinate to it and which will have additional functions to relieve the Court of Justice of some of the burden it will have to carry if the Union gets larger, and below that specialised tribunals with judicial powers for, perhaps, such matters as staff problems with the institutions, trademarks, etc. Discussion is still taking place about the extent to which appeals will be allowed or the extent to which cases will be filtered in advance. The overriding idea is to keep the coherence of Community law and to keep a common Community legal system and ensure its coherence. The court, at the top level, has an important role in this regard. On the other hand one cannot have too much by way of appeals as that defeats the purpose of reducing the burden on them. Much progress has been made on these issues. They are fairly technical issues, but there is fairly general agreement on the purpose and aim, and we and others would strongly insist on one judge per Member State, which I think will be the outcome.

I will touch on the other institutions, including the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. There may be some cap set on them, of the order of 320. We would be comfortable enough within that, but there may be some adjustment. The belief is that in an enlarged Union they may become too large and unwieldy as institutions.

Another issue is flexibility and closer co-operation. This is the set of rules which allow a group of Member States to use the institutions for closer co-operation between themselves while others do not participate. These were introduced as general rules for the first time in the Amsterdam Treaty. An example in practice is economic and monetary union, but that was negotiated in detail in advance. General rules were put in the Amsterdam Treaty which might be used for some future eventuality which we do not foresee. The belief is that they were drawn too tightly. There was an ultimate veto for any Member State that objected. There was also the rule that it had to concern at least a majority of the Member States. It applied only to the first pillar, the Community, and the third pillar, the justice and home affairs area, not to the second pillar, the foreign policy area.

There is negotiation about easing the rules somewhat. The belief is that in an enlarged Union it will be necessary to have this facility available. We have a balanced attitude to it. On the one hand, we are a little worried about the possible effect on the coherence of the Union if one has different groups working in different ways using the institutions and, on the other, we accept that in an enlarged Union one may have to have a degree of differentiation beyond what one has at present. We, ourselves, might conceivably want to participate, as we do in economic and monetary union. We are looking carefully, therefore, at the rules to try to ensure they maintain the cohesion and coherence of the Union, but that is still to be negotiated and will be discussed by the Ministers at their meeting next Sunday afternoon in Luxembourg on the basis of a paper which will be circulated by the Presidency beforehand.

Our focus is on the Biarritz Summit and, ultimately, the Nice Summit. To put it mildly, there has been slow progress in many areas, but one need not expect it to go in a nice, neat linear way, it will go by jumps, so to speak. Eventually, a deal will be hammered out by the Heads of Governments in Nice. The preliminary stage will be in Biarritz in a couple of weeks.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe: I am delighted that Mr. Noel Dorr and Mr. Pat Hennessy are present to update us on these important issues. I agree with the comment that more information is necessary. It is necessary that parliamentarians are kept fully informed.

On the question of whether there will be an agreement, from experience, as per usual - possibly with the clock stopped - there will probably be an agreement at 12.05 a.m. in Nice. I am interested in the question of the ratification of any such agreement in Ireland. What is the connection between the EU charter and the IGC negotiations? Will it be a complete package? Can one have one without the other? Where will we stand on a referendum? The latest advice emerging from the EU charter side is that what is being included may go beyond the political declarations stage, that some of the issues included may be legally justiciable and that in that situation a referendum may be necessary. On the likely shape of what is developing in the IGC, is it thought that a referendum will be needed or are we covered by the existing constitutional provision since there is a carryover from the Amsterdam Treaty? If the EU charter is added, where will we stand?

On the issue of numbers, I am glad that we are digging in on the question of one commissioner. That we lose our commissioner would not be acceptable here under any circumstances. Recent reports on the discussion of the situation pertaining to the European Parliament are disturbing. The latest report from the Parliament suggests that we will suffer a drop in membership of 40 per cent, the largest cut proposed. I seek an indication that we will stand up to this. While I accept that a few seats may be lost, I am concerned at the prospect of a substantial reduction. We need to hold our ground firmly.

On the question of flexibility, generally we will not be looking for a two speed Europe. May I take it, therefore, that we will not be over-enthusiastic about too much relaxation?

Deputy Kirk: I welcome Mr. Dorr who has made an excellent statement. On our policy position on taxation, will he elaborate on how he sees the position evolving at Union level? Taxation policy is of importance to our economic development. It is important, therefore, that we maintain effective control over that policy. We will have to look at how it will evolve in the medium to long term.

Mr. Dorr mentioned the establishment of the Court of First Instance. Will he elaborate further?

On EU enlargement, will Mr. Dorr speculate on the boundaries of the eventual ideal model? On the threat of a reduction in our membership of the European Parliament - Deputy O’Keeffe mentioned a figure of 40 per cent - will he speculate on the benefits or otherwise of a two tier parliamentary arrangement?

Senator Ryan: Since this process is about amending or adding to the treaties I am interested in the reason the upper limit of 700 seats in the European Parliament is not open to discussion. The United Kingdom, which has a population of 60 million, has a parliament with 650 seats and it seems to function reasonably well. The setting of an artificial level of 700 seats, therefore, is a peculiar decision in what is, as Mr. Dorr said, a unique arrangement, the European Union. I would be very concerned about any reduction in the number of Irish seats. If Russia was to join, it would presumably result in most Member States losing a huge number of their seats.

Mr. Dorr mentioned the assumption that the workload of the European Court of Justice will increase. Has the working party come to a view on whether the European charter of fundamental rights and freedoms will be a matter for referral by individuals to the European Court of Justice? There are conflicting signals on whether the charter will be justiciable. This must be part of any consideration of the work of the European Court of Justice.

Is there any proposal to change from the current monopoly which the European Commission has of the power of initiative? From his remarks yesterday, President Prodi seems to believe that it is a fundamental part of the balance of forces within the European arrangement that only the European Commission should have the power of initiative. Much of the incompetence and, perhaps, corruption in which the European Commission was involved would not have continued for as long, if somebody else had the power of initiative to make the European Commission transparent. I believe there is a case to be made for giving the Parliament a power of initiative in some areas, for example in making the Commission at least more accountable. In part, this arises because of the institutional changes.

The attempts by the European Union, especially at Commission and Council of Ministers level, to develop a policy of openness and transparency usually end up in farce in the sense that they make a decision, somebody finds out something that they did not want people to find out and they say it was a mistake. Consequently, complicated legal actions can arise, as has happened in the case of The Guardian in Britain. Is there any fundamental attempt to put together a statement about genuine openness and transparency that is legally enforceable and that is a fundamental part of democratic acceptability?

Mr. Dorr mentioned that there were quite a few areas where qualified majority voting is acceptable to us. I am not sure if he meant Ireland or the working group. Whichever it is, could he be specific about the areas where qualified majority voting is acceptable?

Deputy Barrett: I wish to be associated with the previous remarks in thanking Noel Dorr for his comprehensive update on the work he is doing. We all respect the fact he is doing a job and is not at the coal face when it comes to making the ultimate decision.

This is an important period in the development of Europe. With regard to public opinion and what can and cannot be done in the future, if we make the wrong move this time it will have long term consequences for the overall development of Europe. There are, therefore, key issues here that are immediately obvious to the public. The first is that the public knows that there are Members of the European Parliament who are supposed to vote on their behalf. Any attempt to considerably reduce our representation at that level of the overall structures would have a considerable impact on public opinion in that it may take the view that the smaller Member States are getting kicked around.

I was not clear about what Mr. Dorr said about the re-weighting of votes at Council of Ministers level. In my experience this would have severe consequences for small countries. As it is, that is where the hard decisions are being taken. We have all been around the table when these matters are discussed. Deals must be made and if it gets to the stage where the smaller Member States are completely dominated by the larger ones it will seriously impact on the overall well being of the smaller Member States.

I do not advocate that we give up our fight to retain a commissioner, but in terms of the overall structure of the European Union, the Council Ministers is the place where decisions are taken. It is ridiculous to argue that somebody needs two commissioners at a table instead of one. If one is allocated a portfolio one is not really representing one’s country because one is supposed to represent the Commission whose proposals are brought before the Council of Ministers. If we forfeit our ground too much on the re-weighting of votes at Council of Ministers level it could have serious effects for a country like Ireland in terms of decision making. I would be alarmed if Ireland was going to make a deal involving keeping somebody happy by agreeing to the re-weighting of votes at Council of Ministers level. That could have a profound impact on what we are concerned about for the future.

Will Mr. Dorr give a practical example of what is involved here? Take fisheries as an example. When I chaired the fisheries council, Austria and Luxembourg were not interested in the fisheries industry because they do not have any seas to control. When we looked for Ireland’s interest to be protected we had to ensure that we had the likes of Germany, France and Italy on our side. Britain opted out during my tenure. If we get into a weaker position it could have serious consequences for areas such as the fishing industry. I have serious concerns about the re-weighting of votes to compensate for changes to the Commission.

Deputy Gregory: Any questions I had intended to ask have been asked several times.

Mr. Dorr: Chairman, I hope I get the questions right. Please correct me if I do not. Deputy O’Keeffe referred to developments late at night - five minutes past midnight. In the case of Amsterdam it was five minutes past three o’clock in the morning. He asked about the charter, ratification and referenda. Senator Ryan also asked about the workload on the court, the charter and so on.

I explained at the start that the charter is outside our remit. It is being dealt with by a different group and I understand you, chairman, are involved in that group. It was theoretically possible that at the very end of our conference it would be brought in because we are the conference which is negotiating possible change in the treaties and if there were to be changes to the treaties they would be formally introduced at the end of the conference. It is not our business to deal with it up to that point. I do not believe that is the immediate prospect. I believe it is generally thought to be a political declaration and it remains to be discussed at Biarritz and, ultimately, at Nice. It is not something we are dealing with.

I do not believe there has been discussion in our working group in relation to the European Court of Justice. I do not think the charter has featured in that. I am not a lawyer, but there are some who say that if the charter was once adopted as a declaration the court would somehow refer to it. It may not be binding, but it might refer to it as it refers to other documents. That is something I am not expert on, but it is not within our remit. Chairman, you know a good deal more about it than I.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe: What about the issue of the referendum?

Mr. Dorr: The issue of a referendum will have to be decided by the Government at the end of the day when it sees the outcome on legal advice, which I presume comes from the Attorney General. It is not something on which I can pronounce. Looking to the past, we have had referenda since the Single European Act. We had one on that, one on Maastricht and on one Amsterdam. It is a matter for judgment each time on legal advice as to whether a referendum is needed or not. I cannot pronounce on that, and I cannot even say if the Government can say definitively whether there will or will not be a referendum until it sees what the total outcome is and assesses it in the light of previous Supreme Court judgments and so on and on the basis of legal advice. It will then make a decision. I cannot, therefore, give an expert answer on that question.

On the question of numbers in the Parliament, to which Deputy O’Keeffe and Senator Ryan referred - perhaps others touched on it also - the latest Presidency paper has taken the line of circulating a table which has what it calls a forchette, a kind of a range. It shows that at the lowest, the countries would have this much while at the top they would have that much. There is a range for each country. I can tell you what that shows. One can take the Parliament’s restrictive approach of only four seats for being a State with the rest purely proportional, or one can take the other approach, which would be much more proportional and take account of the existence of a State. Every Member State - except in the particular case of Germany - also loses. It is not a case where just Ireland would lose seats. If one keeps to the limit of 700 - I will deal with that in a moment - everybody must be squeezed to make room. If one brings more people into a committee the chairs may have to be moved a bit. It is that kind of situation.

The reason for the 700 limit is that the Parliament itself recommended to the Amsterdam negotiation that there should be an upper limit. It recommended the figure of 700 and that was written into the treaty. The argument for it was that a debating body gets too large and unwieldy if numbers are increased to 1,000 or more.

A member of the Committee - I think it was Senator Ryan - mentioned the British system, where the figure is 650, but that is still under 700. One could make the other point, which I think is a telling one, that there is, or has been, an open ended House in the British system in the House of the Lords where one does not even know what the membership will be.

Senator Ryan: I do not want to talk about that.

Mr. Dorr: The argument in any case is that one needs, in the interest of having the coherence of a debating body, to have some kind of limit, and that was accepted. We have said it is not sacrosanct and there is an issue of when these limits would be introduced. One proposal is that it is all done in one big go in 2004, which will be the next election to the Parliament, and that it is done in anticipation of X number of countries joining. The other view is that it is done in two bites: 2004 and 2009. We feel it is necessary to be realistic. Account must be taken of the countries which will accede and, furthermore, that there is not an absolute sacrosanct character to the 700 and, if it is exceeded, that it can be reduced in the next Parliament. No one has proposed changing the 700 to make it larger, and it was the Parliament’s own proposal to us at Amsterdam which was adopted and included in the Treaty which was ratified by everyone. However, we say it should not be sacrosanct and that there could 800 or 850 for one term while it is settling down. For better or worse, that is the way it has been.

Senator Ryan: In the fourchette, what was the range for Ireland?

Mr. Dorr: The German population is more than 82 million. Turkey is next, if one is counting a Union of 28 Member States. Turkey has 63 million, the UK has 59 million and we are at 3.7 million on this table. If one has a Union of 27 Member States, the fourchette - I do not like using a technical word, Germany would have somewhere between 77 and 104. At present it has 99. The figure of 104 is the only place on that table as far as I can see where any country gets more than it has at present. At the maximum, Germany could receive 104 in a Union of 27. Ireland would be between nine and 12 where we have 15 at present. If one looks at a Union of 28, that is to say if Turkey is admitted, Germany is somewhere between 71 and 92, where it is 99 at present, and Ireland is somewhere between eight and 11. I can give all the other figures if the Senator wishes.

Senator Ryan: No.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe: I have been told that the proposal for Ireland is a more severe reduction than for any other Member State.

Mr. Dorr: I do not think so. There were some stories in the papers based on some document circulating in the Parliament. I have not done an absolute calculation. I suppose if Ireland is reduced even by one, the effect is proportionately greater since Ireland is smaller than Germany, but I have not calculated that.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe: Is there also a European Parliament report on this issue?

Mr. Dorr: Yes, there is a report on the allocation of seats, but the Parliament’s proposal is a much more restrictive one from our point of view. It would merely give each Member State four seats at the start and add to that and that would mean us ending up with nine seats in a Union of 27 and eight seats in a Union of 28. Our proposal and the better approach for us would give us 12 seats in a Union of 27 and 11 in a Union of 28. I emphasise that everyone is “squeezing over” to a degree except in one case, Germany, and in a Union of 28, Germany loses two. It goes from 99 to a maximum of 92 or a minimum of 71.

Chairman: The impact of a reduction of two on this country would be markedly greater than it would be in the German situation with its relatively large representation.

Mr. Dorr: That is true, chairman, and I think that is one of the arguments we will be making. I note that, in the Amsterdam negotiations, Luxembourg made the proposal which we supported of a rather cryptic reference which is now in Article 190 of the Treaty:

“In the event of amendments to this paragraph, [That is the paragraph which sets out the membership of the Parliament] the number of representatives elected in each Member State must ensure appropriate representation of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community.”

If that is read carefully, what they are trying to say is that, for small states, care must be taken that the minimum representation is adequate. They would be particularly concerned because, if they go down very far, as they may-----

Deputy J. O’Keeffe: They would fall over the edge.

Mr. Dorr: They would not have enough for their various parties, to put it bluntly.

Deputy Barrett: Surely the obvious thing to do is for us to argue that the minimum representation should be increased.

Mr. Dorr: We may argue it, but we have to have unanimous agreement.

Deputy Barrett: Surely that is what they have done in United States in terms of Senate representation where they guaranteed each state representation at Senate level.

Mr. Dorr: That is the point, and one of the members of the Committee raised that question about a second Chamber. In the American system, there is the House of Representatives elected on the basis of population and a Senate elected on the basis of two per state. At some stage we may move to that in the Union, but it is not an immediate prospect. Would the chairman wish me to go on or am I going too far?

Chairman: No, you may continue.

Mr. Dorr: On the question of flexibility or closer co-operation, Deputy O’Keeffe said we should not and did not seem to favour a two speed Europe. That is correct. The argument would be that this would not be a two speed Europe in the sense of one specific group and another, rather that it would be different groups doing different things with different membership. It would be more flexible, but it is something we would worry about.

Chairman: I agree. It could lead to a dispersal of power in a way which would be very debilitating, especially for smaller countries. The European Union could go in different directions, and those in one camp or group wishing to lead in a certain direction would have a clear advantage over others in a less influential position.

Mr. Dorr: That is true, chairman. That is one of the worries we would have and which we are mentioning. We are within such a group at the moment, that is, economic and monetary union, and we may want to develop that further. However, there is the worry the chairman mentioned and that is one of the issues we are discussing.

Deputy Kirk asked about taxation. The Government has taken a very strong position on that. We have a particular model of tax which we see as something which cannot be tinkered with at the edges without affecting the whole system in a knock-on way. For example, we have no VAT on food. We have, perhaps, a high vehicle registration tax, a low tax on corporations and so on. That particular model has been chosen by the Government and approved by the Dáil. It is our model and other countries have different models. They have a heavier tax in one area and a lighter tax in another. We have taken the line quite strongly that one cannot start having a majority vote where one group of countries will push its particular tax model on another. After all, the European Community does not deal with large areas of public expenditure. It is fairly limited as an institution in its capacity and role in relation to general public expenditure. We are certainly holding quite strongly on that issue. The Government is quite strong about that. I am sure the Taoiseach has spoken about it. He mentioned it in the Dáil yesterday, as far as I know. He has certainly spoken about it in the past and so has the Minister for Finance and others.

The Court of First instance was an institution which was introduced to help out the Court of Justice. It was introduced in the Maastricht Treaty and approved as part of that Treaty. It had a limited role and the proposal now is to give it a larger role, such as giving it a role in what are called “preliminary rulings”, where a court in Ireland, for instance, may seek the guidance or direction of the European Court on an issue which comes before it relating to European or Community law. The question is how the Court of First Instance is given a role that relieves the Court of Justice of some of the pressures it will have in an enlarged Union when all the new countries are also looking for rulings on this, that and the other, and, at the same time, ensure coherence so that there is a common, coherent system of Community law.

As to where the boundaries of Europe are in enlargement, that is a debated question. It is one for seminars and so on. The general feeling is that we have, at the moment, 28 applicants, which includes Turkey, and it extends over to, but does not include, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. I do not think anyone has suggested that one could possibly envisage Russia as a Member State, but there should be a good relationship with Russia. It is fair to say that it is a restructuring of the whole Continent as far as those borders rather than beyond them, but that remains to be seen. It is a speculative matter.

Deputy Kirk asked me about the European Parliament and to speculate on the two tier question. I have touched on that already. A lot of people have favoured the idea that one should move towards a two chamber European Parliament. I am not sure if there have been some stories in the Financial Times that the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, is to make a speech on Friday next in Warsaw. I do not know whether he will make the speech or not, but according to the newspaper reports, that might be one of the ideas he might touch on for the future. There have been a lot of speculative speeches recently by President Chirac, the German Foreign Minister, Mr. Fischer, and the Belgian Prime Minister. These ideas are floating, but it is a bit soon for me to speculate on them.

Senator Ryan asked about the limit of 700. I have already answered that. I have also answered about the court workload and the charter. As regards any proposal to change the right of initiative of the Commission, there is not a proposal as such, but the question is whether the right of initiative of the Commission is being watered down in certain areas. The Senator suggested that if someone else had the power, it might keep the Commission from being corrupt. The Commission is subject to the possibility that the Parliament may fire the whole Commission, which it has done, in effect, in the past year or two.

Senator Ryan: It is a very blunt instrument.

Mr. Dorr: It is a very blunt instrument, which has been described as a nuclear weapon and so on. There has been some talk about the possibility of making individual commissioners accountable to the Parliament. However, that is felt to destroy the collegial role of the Commission.

Something new has evolved. President Prodi has received from each member of the Commission a promise that they will resign if he asks them to, which is described colloquially as the lex Prodi. The question is whether it should be formalised in the treaties, which is one of the matters we are debating.

In a way, it ties in with our general feeling that, in regard to the problems with the size of the Commission and the fact that an increase in its size will need some reorganisation, the President should be given a little more of the powers of a prime minister rather than being, as he has in the past, primus inter pares - first among equals. In the Amsterdam Treaty the President of the Commission was given some extra powers, such as the political guidance role and so on. However, they should be strengthened. The question possibly turns on whether he would have power to shuffle his cabinet and Commission.

The possibility of corruption in the Commission is true of any bureaucracy. I heard someone recently say-----

Senator Ryan: But not the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Dorr: I am sure it applies to any bureaucracy. I heard someone say in a debate recently - I do not know if it was true - that the size of the Commission is less than the city administration of Madrid or Amsterdam. It is not, in fact, a huge monster.

We think it is quite important that the Commission have the right of initiative. We have seen the Commission as our protection. We have attached great importance to this institutional balance, which is called the institutional triangle. The Commission is literally sworn to look to the common interest and not to take instructions from the Member States. One may disagree with individual commissioners, but generally speaking, as a small country we have seen that as protection for us.

The looser and more intergovernmental the arrangement is made, the more the big countries will thrive and the small ones will just have to fit in. That is an important point to make. It is notable that some of the imaginative and praiseworthy speeches made by the leaders of some big countries recently on the future development of the Union - and these are countries which profess to be attached to having an efficient Commission - gave very little role to the Commission in their future proposals. They think of it much more as an intergovernmental structure, which is fine, but less suitable for smaller countries. That is the view we have always taken in the past.

In regard to openness, some additions were made to the Amsterdam Treaty. For example, Article 255 says:

“Any citizen of the Union or any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State shall have a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, subject to principles and conditions to be defined.”

Of course, that all depends on the detail of what is defined. However, there are provisions in the Treaty which are supposed to guarantee that, which could perhaps be developed further. There will, of course, be argument on the detail.

I am not involved and I know very little about the current controversy about High Representative Solana’s decision. It has something to do with involvement in military security matters, which I am not privy to. However, I know provisions in regard to openness were added to the Treaty at Amsterdam and I am sure that could be relied upon.

Chairman: I must interrupt as we have another delegation to receive. I know the delegation is under pressure as it is supposed to be in two places at once. Bi-location is one of the many things we strive towards. We have almost come to the end.

I thank Mr. Dorr and Mr. Hennessy for being so courteous and available, as always, in coming before our Committee and giving us their time. We wish Mr. Dorr every good fortune in his continued discussions in the maze of the European institutions, which we all love and admire and criticise from time to time. The Committee’s discussions and deliberations have been along the lines he identified, as are our current fears. We may need to talk to him at some later stage, when we hope he will have come to some satisfactory conclusions.

Senator Ryan: I forgot to thank Mr. Dorr for his initial elaboration. I am even more grateful for the detail he went into in replying. It was very helpful and forthcoming and a model of openness and transparency. I wish him the best of luck.

Mr. Dorr: Thank you. I emphasise the importance of debating these issues and being open about them, particularly if there were to be a referendum. I am always available, although I work under political direction - as I said, I am subject to the direction of the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Government - but if there is any way I can co-operate with the Committee I would be happy to do so.

Chairman: Thank you very much.

The Joint Committee adjourned at 4.00 p.m.

Appendix IV

Address by Mr. Brian Cowen T.D., Minister for Foreign Affairs 29th November, 2000

Address by Minister Brian Cowen T.D. to Oireachtas Committee on EU Affairs 29 November 2000

I welcome the opportunity to brief the Committee on key developments in the run-up to the Nice European Council next week. We are all conscious of the significance, not only for Ireland but for the entire Union, of the outcome of Nice. I addressed a number of aspects in my replies to questions in the House yesterday, and I propose now to give you an overview of how I see the main issues and to reply to any questions that you may have.

European Security and Defence Policy

With the Nice European Council only ten days away, the French Presidency of the EU are finalising an overall report on European Security and Defence Policy - referred to as ESDP - to be submitted to the General Affairs Council on 4 December. This report will cover the scope of issues being considered, especially military capabilities and the important area of civil crisis management.

Throughout the French Presidency we have played a full and active part in the shaping of these issues in accordance with the principles set out in the Conclusions reached at recent European Councils at Cologne, Helsinki and Feira.

The elaboration of European Security and Defence Policy is proceeding on the basis of existing Treaty provisions, as approved by the Irish electorate in the Referendum held on the Amsterdam Treaty. The overall intention is make the EU more effective, more coherent and more visible so that Europe can carry out the range of humanitarian, peace-keeping and crisis management tasks – the Petersberg tasks. To this end, a full range of instruments, both civilian and military, is being developed.

A minority of EU member States have argued that amendments to the Treaty are required to give effect to the changes in ESDP. However, we consider that Treaty change is neither necessary nor desirable and that the EU can undertake Petersberg tasks on the basis of the existing Treaty provisions.

The development of the EU’s capabilities has to be seen against changes in Europe since the end of the Cold War. The EU is in the process of a historic enlargement and is seeking to play a greater role for peace, stability and security in Europe. I believe it is essential for Ireland to be centrally involved in helping to shape future changes in the direction we would like to see them take.

At the Capabilities Commitment Conference last week, Ireland, along with other EU countries, indicated formally the resources which they can make available for potential Petersberg tasks. Ireland’s contribution is of up to 850 members of the Defence Forces, primarily comprising a light infantry battalion. Participation by members of the Defence Forces in Petersberg tasks will only arise when UN authorisation is in place and when the relevant terms of Irish legislation have been met.

These developments do not herald the creation of a European Army. Nor do they constitute any kind of mutual defence arrangement. This fact has been repeatedly recognised in the conclusions of successive European Councils, in the Declaration issued at the capabilities Commitment Conference and also on numerous occasions by Secretary-General/High Representative Solana.

The Government remains firmly committed to Irish military neutrality. Our ongoing involvement in European Security and Defence Policy, and in the recent Capabilities Commitment Conference, is entirely consistent with that approach. That said, throughout over forty years of peace-keeping, Ireland has never been ideologically neutral.

What the EU is doing in identifying capabilities is in many respects similar to what has been happening at another level at the UN with the UN Standby Arrangements System - UNSAS - in which Ireland participates. This is a mechanism for coordinating the peace-keeping contributions of some 88 countries. It is no accident that our commitment to the Headline Goal of up to 850 members of the Defence Forces comes from within the current UNSAS commitment.

The UN has a central role to play in the overall equation. The development of EU capabilities should be considered against the background of UN Security Council Resolution No 1327. This addresses proposals to overhaul UN peace-keeping operations, as recommended by the Brahimi Panel. The UN itself is becoming increasingly reliant on regional security organisations to support and carry out missions on its behalf and there are clear links between what the EU and the UN is doing.

The elaboration of arrangements between the EU and NATO is another dimension to ESDP. As it develops capabilities for the conduct of Petersberg tasks, the EU, which is not of course a military organisation, is likely to remain dependent on NATO resources, for example, transport capacity, for any missions that it cannot carry out on its own accord. A set of principles to underpin the development of EU-NATO relations were agreed at Feira which clearly indicate the different nature of the two organisations and the separate decision-making autonomy of the EU. We have sought to ensure that these principles are fully upheld.

In conclusion, I would underline again that it is in my view essential for Ireland to be centrally involved in helping to shape future changes in the direction we would wish to see them take. Through our participation in ESDP in the lead up to Nice, we are constructively participating in greatly improving Europe’s ability to respond to future humanitarian challenges.

Intergovernmental Conference

The Intergovernmental Conference will, of course, figure very prominently at Nice. We are now entering the final stages of the Conference which began, last February, with the objective of agreeing changes to the European Union’s institutions and working methods, to enable the Union to continue to function effectively in the context of enlargement.

It was agreed at Helsinki that the work of the IGC would take place under the direction of members of the General Affairs Council. The progress of the negotiations has been monitored closely by Foreign Ministers meeting both in informal Conclaves, and at regular Ministerial meetings. These discussions provide an opportunity to review the work of the Preparatory Group of Personal Representatives, and to give direction to the conduct of the negotiations.

The final meetings at Ministerial level pre-Nice will take place next week-end, with a Ministerial Conclave on 3 December, and the General Affairs Council on 4 December. This will provide an opportunity to address areas where particular difficulties remain and to consider possible options for their resolution, bearing in mind that final decisions will be taken by the European Council.

The work of the Conference concerns four main areas: the extension of qualified majority voting; the size of the Commission; the weighting of votes in the Council; and the rules governing closer cooperation, as well as other institutional changes. Completing this programme of reform at Nice is essential to allow the enlargement process to proceed on schedule.

Qualified Majority Voting

Decision making and even routine business will, of course, be more complex with more members. This is why we are ready to increase the already substantial number of areas where Council business is conducted by qualified majority. We are prepared to support QMV for decisions on, for example, Industry measures, Transport, Culture, Structural and Cohesion Funds, Freedom of Movement, and various Appointments moving to QMV.

Nevertheless there are areas where the right of veto is of vital national importance. Taxation is such an area, touching as it does on one of the key elements of national policy making, and we are fundamentally opposed to QMV in this area.

In other areas, such as the Common Commercial Policy, migrant workers, non-fiscal aspects of the environment, and justice and home affairs, where a number of other delegations have difficulties, we have indicated a readiness in principle, subject to satisfactory texts, to accept a transfer to QMV. I point this out so as to make clear that, consistent with protecting our vital interests, we are prepared to take the steps necessary to facilitate decision-making in an enlarged Union.

Commission

The size of the Commission is likely to be a major focus of debate at Nice. From the beginning of the Conference we have stressed the importance of allowing each Member State to nominate a Member of the Commission, while also supporting proposals to enhance the role of the Commission President. We have argued that the democratic legitimacy of the Union is greatly strengthened by one Commissioner per Member State, and that it is vital that each of the acceding States has the right to nominate a Commissioner, if public identification with the institutions of the European Union is to be consolidated in these countries. Those states who favour a cap on the size of the Commission, have recently suggested that implementation of such a decision might be deferred to a particular date, or when the Union reaches a certain size. While delegations are free to put forward proposals, I emphasise that there is no agreement either on the principle of a ceiling, or when it might take effect. A decision on these issues can only be taken at the European Council itself. However, we think it preferable that consideration of future changes, post-enlargement, should take place in the light of practical experience, and with the benefit of participation by new Member States. Of course, if it is suggested that it would be useful to review the functioning of the Commission after enlargement on the basis of practical experience, we would, as in any other area, naturally be prepared to consider any such proposal, provided it did not pre-judge the outcome.

Re-weighting

Closely linked to the Commission is the question of the weighting of Council votes, bearing in mind that the Amsterdam Protocol envisaged additional voting weight for those states giving up their second Commissioner. We are willing to consider some modest re-weighting on these lines, but are, of course, opposed to any radical restructuring of the balance of power within the Union. Our preference is for the dual majority method, where Council decisions would require both a qualified majority of votes, and the support of a specified percentage of the Union’s population. However, we have also stated our willingness to be flexible, and to consider a range of options, provided they are generally consistent with maintaining the existing balances within the Union.

Closer Cooperation

Another major subject for discussion are the rules governing closer cooperation. We have been prepared to give positive consideration to changes in this area, provided they were accompanied by appropriate safeguards to maintain the coherence of the Union. We have first-hand experience of how this works in practice through our participation in EMU, and it seems sensible, in an enlarged Union, to make provision for groups of countries to move ahead, provided it is clear that certain core areas, such as the Single Market, remain outside its scope. We believe that the negotiations in this regard are moving in the right direction. The main changes likely to be agreed, with regard to the First and Third Pillars, will be a reduction in the minimum size of group which can be formed, and an ending of the ‘emergency brake’, or veto provision. With regard to the proposal to extend closer cooperation to the Second Pillar, we are continuing to study the proposals, but will wish to ensure that the coherence of the Common Foreign and Security Policy is not undermined.

Other institutions

In addition to these principal areas of work, the Conference has also discussed changes to a number of other Union bodies, including the Court of Justice and Court of First Instance, the Court of Auditors, the Committee of the Regions, and the Economic and Social Committee. There is an emerging consensus on many of the changes proposed in these areas, changes which will ensure, in particular, that the Courts can deal effectively with their increasingly heavy case-load.

European Parliament

Also under consideration is the question of seat allocations for the European Parliament. In order to accommodate new Member States, while respecting the existing Treaty limit of 700 MEPs, there will have to be a revision of seat allocations for all present Member States. We have argued strongly for a proportional reduction, which would impact equally on all countries. However some States support an alternative model proposed by the Parliament itself, which would favour more populous countries. We believe such an approach is unjustified, and would undermine the essence of the Union as a union of peoples, and of States. Along with changes to seat allocations, the Parliament’s power of co-decision is also likely to be extended to many of the areas where QMV is being introduced, further strengthening its institutional role.

Assessment

Although there has been considerable progress in some areas at the Conference, significant differences remain on key questions. Nevertheless I believe that with the necessary commitment on all sides it will be possible to secure an agreement which meets the needs of an enlarged Union, and maintains existing balances, including between large and small Member States, which have been the hallmark of the Union since its establishment.

Ireland has benefited enormously from membership of the European Union. We have at the same time contributed constructively to the Union’s development, politically and institutionally. The European Union is a dynamic entity in a changing continent. The continent of Europe saw unprecedented developments in the last decade following the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Iron Curtain. The decade ahead will bring its own momentous happenings. As I have said on several occasions, I believe that the most exciting development for the European Union in the years immediately ahead is the enlargement process. What we are undertaking is truly historic in terms of the achievement of the European ideal.

The recently published Commission annual reports on the candidate countries and its Enlargement Strategy Paper clearly show that we are about to make a substantive leap forward in the accession process. Following on these important publications, the European Council at Nice will be in a position to chart a course for the enlargement process in the months ahead which should see the conclusion of negotiations with the most prepared candidates by mid 2002. There is a lot of work to do in the months and years immediately ahead, but I believe that, in line with its commitment at Helsinki last year, the EU can be in a position to welcome new Member States from the end of 2002, once those States have demonstrated their abilities to assume the obligations of membership. However, it would be both foolish and counterproductive at this stage to speculate about exact dates and which countries will be first to join. It is only when we have come towards completion of the plan of work ahead that we can address such questions. But I can assure the Committee that as far as Ireland is concerned enlargement should happen at the earliest possible opportunity and should include those states which are prepared.

There are difficult and often very technical negotiations ahead. But we are at that substantive phase, when compromises will have to be made. Ireland takes a very constructive approach to these negotiations, while at the same time ensuring that our vital national interests are fully protected. I have no doubt that we will be successful. I reject the Cassandra-like commentators, who claim that the enlargement we are now undertaking is a project so bogged down in difficulties that it will have long term negative effects. On the contrary - the countries of Central and Eastern Europe along with the candidate countries of Southern Europe have a perfect right to join the European Union - as much a right as Ireland a generation ago, when we became members. Far from bringing burdens to the EU, the new Member States will bring a new enthusiasm with them which will reinvigorate the Union. We have much to learn from them. They have an essential role to play in the achievement of the European ideal and will, with their unique historical perspectives, help us better shape the future of the continent, and re-enforce the EU’s positive role in world affairs.

As with past enlargements, the next enlargement over the coming decade, with the addition of over 160 million new European citizens, will bring its own dynamic for economic growth and development in new and old Member States alike. Irish exports to the applicant countries have grown by over 400 % between 1993 and 1999. Irish business knows that enlargement and the prospect for enlargement means new and more assured markets. But more than that, many Irish industries are at a stage in their development when they must invest and expand abroad if they are to continue to provide employment at home, - this goes for traditional industries such as cement and banking as well as for newer areas such as software and telecommunications. In one applicant country, Poland, Irish business has made around 1 billion pounds worth of investment.

Enlargement will also raise the prospect of new alliances and friendships for Ireland within a Union perhaps more balanced between large, medium and small Member States. And in my view, the broader geographical spread of the Union will counter-balance centralising forces and lead to a new dynamic at the periphery. Such a dynamic can in turn result in a growing importance for regional policy and influence - a similar point was made recently by the Commissioner for Regional Affairs.

On a broader level enlargement will give us the opportunity to address outstanding problems on our continent, including such vital issues as organised crime and a better functioning relationship with Russia and the states of the former Soviet Union. A revitalised and larger Europe should also be able to play a more positive and credible role in world affairs, be it trade, development or assisting in the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Our experience in Europe has made us particularly sensitive to the special needs of the applicant countries. This we shall bear in mind in the detailed negotiation process that lies ahead. Our own adjustment to membership was not always smooth. However, that difficult adjustment was a necessary part of the transition, which enabled us to take full advantage of our new opportunities. That we proved ourselves equal to the challenges and opportunities is manifest in our present success, which is seen as bearing out to the full the promise of EU membership.

I have no doubt it will be the same for the present applicant countries, who, like Ireland a generation ago, are now seeking to fulfill their destinies in Europe. We must ensure that we play our full part in assisting them in that journey.

Appendix V

Members of the Joint Committee

Joint Committee on European Affairs

List of Members

Appendix VI

Orders of Reference of the Joint Committee

Orders of Reference

Dáil Éireann

13th November, 1997

(1) (a)That a Select Committee, which shall be called the Select Committee on European Affairs, consisting of 14 members of Dáil Éireann (of whom 4 shall constitute a quorum), be appointed to consider such Bills, the statute law in respect of which is dealt with by the Department of Foreign Affairs, as shall be referred to it by Dáil Éireann from time to time.

(b)For the purpose of its consideration of Bills under paragraph (1)(a), the Select Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 78A(1), (2) and (3).

(c)For the avoidance of doubt, by virtue of his or her ex officio membership of the Select Committee in accordance with Standing Order 84(1), the Minister for Foreign Affairs (or a Minister or Minister of State nominated in his or her stead) shall be entitled to vote.

(2) (a)The Select Committee shall be joined with a Select Committee to be appointed by Seanad Éireann to form the Joint Committee on European Affairs to—

(i)consider such matters arising from Ireland’s membership of the European Communities and its adherence to the Treaty on European Union, as it may select,

(ii)consider such—

(I)programmes and guidelines prepared by the Commission of the European Communities as a basis for possible legislative action and such drafts of regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions of the Council of Ministers proposed by the Commission,

(II)acts of the institutions of those Communities,

(III)regulations under the European Communities Acts, 1972 to 1998,

(IV)other instruments made under statute and necessitated by the obligations of membership of those Communities,

as it may select,

(iii)consider such other matters as may be jointly referred to it from time to time by both Houses of the Oireachtas, and

(iv)represent the Houses of the Oireachtas at the Conference of European Affairs Committees (COSAC),

and shall report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(b)The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be 5, of whom at least 1 shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and 1 a member of Seanad Éireann.

(c)The Joint Committee shall have the following powers:

(i)the powers defined in Standing Order 78A(1) to (9) inclusive, and

(ii)the power to refer a proposal for EU legislation which has been considered by it (and which has been concluded to be of sufficient national importance to require further scrutiny) to a Select Committee on which has been conferred the power defined in Standing Order 78A(4) to consider such proposals.

(d)The following persons may attend meetings of the Joint Committee and of its sub-Committees and may take part in proceedings without having a right to vote or to move motions and amendments:

(i)members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies in Ireland (including Northern Ireland),

(ii)members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and

(iii)at the invitation of the Joint Committee or of a sub-Committee, as appropriate, other Members of the European Parliament.

(3)The Chairman of the Joint Committee, who shall be a member of Dáil Éireann, shall also be Chairman of the Select Committee.

Orders of Reference

Seanad Éireann

19th November, 1997

(1) (a)The Select Committee shall be joined with a Select Committee to be appointed by Seanad Éireann to form the Joint Committee on European Affairs to—

(i)consider such matters arising from Ireland’s membership of the European Communities and its adherence to the Treaty on European Union, as it may select,

(ii)consider such—

(I)programmes and guidelines prepared by the Commission of the European Communities as a basis for possible legislative action and such drafts of regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions of the Council of Ministers proposed by the Commission,

(II)acts of the institutions of those Communities,

(III)regulations under the European Communities Acts, 1972 to 1998,

(IV)other instruments made under statute and necessitated by the obligations of membership of those Communities,

as it may select,

(iii)consider such other matters as may be jointly referred to it from time to time by both Houses of the Oireachtas, and

(iv)represent the Houses of the Oireachtas at the Conference of European Affairs Committees (COSAC),

and shall report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(b)The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be 5, of whom at least 1 shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and 1 a member of Seanad Éireann.

(c)The Joint Committee shall have the following powers:

(i)the powers defined in Standing Order 65(1) to (9) inclusive, and

(ii)the power to refer a proposal for EU legislation which has been considered by it (and which has been concluded to be of sufficient national importance to require further scrutiny) to a Select Committee which has been conferred the power defined in Standing Order 65(4) to consider such proposals.

(d)The following persons may attend meetings of the Joint Committee and of its sub-Committees and may take part in proceedings without having a right to vote or to move motions and amendments:

(i)members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies in Ireland (including Northern Ireland),

(ii)members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and

(iii)at the invitation of the Joint Committee or of a sub-Committee, as appropriate, other Members of the European Parliament.

(2)The Chairman of the Joint Committee, who shall be a member of Dáil Éireann, shall also be Chairman of the Select Committee.

* In substitution for Deputy U. Burke for part of the meeting.

** In substitution for Senator M. Manning.