Address by Minister Roche to the Irish Members of the Committee of the Regions - 1

the European Convention. The Committee of the Regions has a vital role to

play in trying to ensure that the European Union is as close to its

citizens as possible, and that role is recognized in its observer status at

the Convention.

I know that you are closely monitoring developments at the Convention, and

the paper you recently submitted to the Convention together with the

Association of Irish Regions was a substantial and thoughtful input that

raised many interesting questions.

However, while I'm sure that, through your Committee representatives at the

Convention, you are being kept in touch with developments, I feel it would

be very useful if I went through developments at the Convention and gave

you a flavour of the Government's approach.

I would like first to make clear that the Convention is a matter of the

highest priority for the Government. There is very active involvement at

all levels. The Convention is a standard item for discussion on the agenda

of the Cabinet Committee on Europe. Recently, a substantial portion of a

full day's special Cabinet meeting was given over to a discussion of the

Convention.

I myself chair a Convention Oversight Group that meets weekly and draws

together senior officials from key Government Departments while the

Government's Alternate Representative, Mr Bobby McDonagh, Director General

of the EU Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs, chairs an

Interdepartmental Group that ensures that all Government Departments are

kept fully informed of all developments at the Convention.

The Government also tries to work as closely as possible with the

Oireachtas members of the Convention. John Bruton, Proinsias de Rossa,

John Gormley and Pat Carey have all played very active roles to date.

Deputy Bruton of course plays a key role as a member of the Convention's

Praesidium.

As I said to the European Affairs Committee recently, we all have a shared

interest in putting forward Ireland's case, and to that end, it is in all

of our interests to work together as closely as possible. We seek to meet

as a Group before every Convention session, and my officials in the

Department of Foreign Affairs are available to provide written or oral

briefing if and when requested.

The opportunity to speak with you today is not just welcome; it is also

timely.

When the Convention began, its President, Giscard d'Estaing, suggested that

there would be three phases of work ? listening, analysis and drafting. As

the year comes to an end, the Convention is also coming to the end of its

second phase of work. That first listening phase comprised the period from

up to the summer recess. The analysis phase effectively concludes with

next week's session. When the Convention returns in the New Year, it will

move into the drafting phase.

The analysis phase has focussed principally on the ten Working Groups

established after the summer. Eight of these have now formally reported to

the Convention and the remaining two will do so at the final plenary

session of the year next week. I will say a little more about the outcome

of the Working Groups shortly.

I should mention of course that one more Working Group, on the issue of

Social Europe, has also been established following a request from a number

of Convention members. I have been appointed to that Working Group, as

have Deputy Bruton and Proinsias de Rossa MEP. This Group is expected to

conclude its work at the end of January.

A draft of a new Constitutional Treaty has also been produced. The

Convention will start its detailed debate of this early in the New Year.

In just the last fortnight, the Commission has produced an extensive paper

on the future shape of the European Union. Belgium, the Netherlands and

Luxembourg have also put forward a joint paper.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has issued a statement welcoming the

publication of the Commission and Benelux papers as significant and

important contributions to the work of the Convention.

We have endorsed the Commission's role as set out in the paper as "an

independent institution working for equal treatment between the Member

States and embodying the principles of coherence and concern for the

general interest" and he agreed that any proposed changes should reinforce

the institutional balances, as they exist. We have also expressed a broad

welcome for the Benelux paper and envisaged that there were a number of

areas that the Irish Government could support.

Of course there were some areas in the Commission paper, such as the

suggestion that unanimity could apply for example, only to the most

sensitive areas of defence, where we could not agree. There are issues of

great national importance to all Member States that should remain within

the realm of unanimity. For us taxation is one of those issues.

Notwithstanding this, however, there was much to commend both the Benelux

and Commission papers and we will be studying both very carefully.

The Convention in many ways is an unusual creature. With 105 members and

102 alternates, along with a substantial number of observers, including the

Committee of the Regions, it is a sizeable body. The size of the

Convention means that interventions in plenary are necessarily short. At

the same time, despite the fact that it is large, and unwieldy, it is

engaged in much important work.

The Working Groups are further prime examples of how unusual a body the

Convention is. They were established to help to progress work and to

examine specific issues in greater detail. Selected on the basis of the

personal interests of members of the Convention, they do not necessarily

represent a balance of the Convention membership as a whole. Nonetheless,

much progress was made, and I would like to take the opportunity to set out

some of the results of the Groups.

The Working Group on Subsidiarity examined how this important principle can

be more effectively monitored and applied. It recommended that national

parliaments be given the right to send an "early warning" to the Commission

that a particular proposal did not comply with subsidiarity requirements.

If more than one third of parliaments did so, the Commission would be

obliged to reconsider. The Group also proposed that parliaments have the

right to appeal to the European Court of Justice if they feel their

concerns have not been addressed during the legislative process. We have

been supportive of these proposals that have overlapped to a considerable

extent with the recommendations from another Working Group on National

Parliaments.

Enhancing the role of national parliaments in EU affairs is an area in

which the Government has taken a keen interest. The Working Group stressed

the role national parliaments have to play in effective scrutiny of EU

business. In this regard, I believe that the arrangements we in Ireland now

put in place are amongst the best in Europe. The Group on national

parliaments also brought forward the simple yet useful proposal that there

should be an EU week during which parliaments across the EU would

simultaneously debate European issues. This is a suggestion that could, in

a meaningful way, bring Europe closer to its people.

The Working Group on the sensitive question of the Charter of Fundamental

Rights, of which Bobby McDonagh was a member, did important and productive

work in proposing amendments to the Charter's so-called "horizontal"

provisions that would delimit its scope and application with greater

certainty. There are complex and delicate issues involved which merit the

closest and most careful consideration. If the Charter is to be made

legally binding, as many at the Convention propose, it is vital that we

have teased out fully all of the possible Constitutional implications

involved before any decisions are taken.

The group on Legal Personality examined one of those legally technical and

apparently dry issues the Convention is looking at. The question of whether

the European Union should have a legal personality and, if so, whether that

personality should be merged with those of the Communities is not likely to

seize the imagination of the public. However, the Working Group's

recommendations - which favoured a single personality - open the door to

developments that should help to make the Union more intelligible to its

citizens. It would allow the removal of the distinction between the "

Communities" and the "Union", paving the way for a single, comprehensive

Treaty. This is the basis on which the Praesidium sketched out its

preliminary draft at the end of October.

There are, of course, a great many other possible consequences of such a

decision - including issues such as the external representation of the

Union and, with the likely removal of the so-called "pillar" structure, the

need to maintain distinctive procedures in the different policy areas.

These need to be looked at carefully. However, broadly speaking, anything

that makes the Union more accessible should be welcome.

Another working group examined the question of complementary competences

(which, I am pleased to report, it suggested be renamed "supporting

measures"). In my view, the title 'supporting measures' more accurately

captures what is involved. Complementary competence exists in areas where

the Union does not have competence, but can only act in support of the

Member States. It covers areas including education, culture and public

health, which are properly matters for Member States. The Group proposed

greater definition of the various types of competence that exist in the

Union framework.Top