In my introductory comments I will deal with the three issues you mentioned, Chairman, after which I will respond to members' questions. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the committee on the outcome of the working groups on national parliaments, subsidiarity and complementary competences and to give an indication, however brief, of where we stand on social Europe. We will probably discuss the latter again in some detail.
The working groups on national parliaments, subsidiarity and complementary competences are part of the first wave of six groups that were appointed by the convention in June last year and which reported in the autumn. It should be pointed out that prior to my appointment and taking up my current responsibilities in the convention, several of these committees had finalised their work. Neither myself nor my predecessor, Mr. Ray MacSharry, was a member of the three working groups. Given the small number of us who go to the convention, it is not possible to cover every working group. That is not a defensive point but simply a point of fact. Notwithstanding that, I hope my comments will be helpful to the committee.
As Deputy Bruton said, it is wise to consider the work on national parliaments and subsidiarity as parts of the same continuum because the two issues are related. He is also right to point out that the institutional issues of the European Parliament and how it will be involved in other institutional matters also effectively arises, although it is not mentioned, in the working group on the national parliaments. I will deal first with the recommendations on national parliaments and subsidiarity. The issue of subsidiarity is of great significance to the Irish people and has been subject to extensive public debate. The fundamental concerns of our citizens have been that there be greater clarity and more certainty as to who does what within the European Union and where the boundaries lie.
I believe all institutions of the Community are mindful of the continuing work that needs to be done in respect of subsidiarity. That comes across during the debates even on other working groups within the convention. The current situation is not perceived as satisfactory; indeed, it is unsatisfactory. The institutions, with the best will in the world, sometimes have a momentum of their own so there is a propensity to stray. At the same time it is important to ensure that any changes being contemplated should not complicate the decision making process further. The working groups' reports in both these areas strike a pragmatic and a workable balance that we can generally welcome. The mechanism that is proposed, particularly in the area of subsidiarity, is suitable and flexible.
National parliaments have a particularly important role, in connection with the people who elect them, to widen political debate within the Union. That is a fundamental objective within the convention. I therefore welcome the recognition in the working group's report of the importance and the role to be played by the national parliaments. The proposal to grant national parliaments the right to make known their views on compliance with the subsidiarity principle at the beginning of the legislative process is an important recommendation which has come at an important time. The suggestion that national parliaments should have the right to appeal to the Court of Justice if it is felt that their concerns have not been addressed also seems sensible. I do not imagine that such a power would be used frequently by national parliaments. The cause to use it should seldom arise. The existence of such a power would be an important reassurance to the public and an important recognition of the role and responsibilities of national parliaments.
The recommendations on subsidiarity were strongly endorsed by the working group on national parliaments. The subsidiarity and national parliaments working groups were effectively operating together. The national parliaments working group made further recommendations, in its own right, as to how best to enhance the role of national parliaments in EU affairs. Its suggestion that the Commission present an annual legislative programme to national parliaments seems sensible. Again, it would help to strengthen the relationship between national parliaments. The suggestion of a European week linked with the presentation, whereby national parliaments across the member states can engage in discussion in their legislatures on European issues, is interesting and worthy of study. It would be interesting to hear the committee's views on it. Proinsias De Rossa MEP had a significant role to play in the origination and development of this idea.
I also strongly support the recommendation that the importance of national parliaments be reflected through a specific reference in the treaty. One of the issues on which the treaties have been silent is the role of national parliaments and its significance. That is a deficiency in the existing treaty structure and it is a good proposition that it be addressed. The formal recognition suggested by the report on parliaments will help to anchor the Union further in the member states and to increase the sense of democratic legitimacy. It also addresses the concern that the Community somehow operates in isolation from the concerns of the national parliaments and the citizens of the Union.
I welcome the fact that the report of the working group on national parliaments has clearly identified the importance of enhancing national scrutiny systems. The existence of this committee is a recognition that the Oireachtas realised there was a deficiency in this regard in the past. It was addressed by the re-establishment of this committee and by putting it on a legislative basis. This issue is important to myself and the Government and it is one of the positive developments that emerged from the first referendum on Nice.
I wish to deal with an issue which is topical at present, the relationship of national parliaments in the context of the discussions which are about to be held in the convention on the institutional arrangements. Deputy Bruton and I have a particular personal interest here so if I appear to be riding a hobbyhorse, Deputy Bruton will do likewise. The Government is seeking to find other ways to give national parliaments an enhanced role in the forthcoming treaty. I have submitted a paper on the election of the Commission President to the convention and it will be considered shortly. Deputy Bruton has already submitted his paper on the issue.
The basic objective is to enhance the legitimacy and authority of the Commission President and, at the same time, to give specific recognition to the interests that exist in the national parliaments in the matter of the selection of the Commission President. Deputy Bruton has submitted a paper to the convention on the direct election of the president by the people of Europe through the national parliaments. It is no exaggeration to suggest that the paper is creative and innovative. It has attracted a remarkable degree of interest and attention, not just in this country but also, deservedly, outside it. It remains to be seen, however, whether it will attract sufficient support within the convention. The paper is good. In a few years' time we will probably say it was in advance of its time. I compliment Deputy John Bruton on what he has done in this and in other regards.
There are differing views within the convention as to how the President of the Commission should be elected. There are those who favour the current system where the member states, through the European Council, play a dominant role, but there is strong support for an election by the European Parliament. In the Franco-German paper, which was published subsequent to the preparation of these notes, there is support for an election by the European Parliament. There is support in the Benelux paper for an election by the European Parliament on a super majority. There is a reference in the recently published paper by the Commission on the same issue.
From the start of the convention, both myself and the Government argued strongly for a major role by national parliaments in this area. By playing a role in the election of the President of the Commission, national parliaments would help to bridge the gap between the Community and the citizens. Logically it could be argued that both the European Parliament and the member states, two sides of the institutional triangle, should have equal roles in the appointment. My paper to the convention explores the concept of an electoral college which would involve both the European Parliament and the national parliaments. This would represent a middle way between the current system and election by the European Parliament. It would ensure that the President of the Commission derived democratic legitimacy both at European level and at a national or member state level. That would reflect the dual nature of the Union. It would also allow for full reflection of the diversity of political opinions and preferences across the Union and within the member states. With respect to all the suggestions made about election through the European Parliament, I do not believe it can achieve that reflection of diversity.
If the basic concept is worthy of consideration, then a range of detailed issues arise for reflection. These are elaborated in my paper, although I do not wish to go into them in too much detail. I suggest that national parliaments and the European Parliament should be equal. They should each have 50% of the votes. It is interesting that yesterday I received a paper from the Danish Embassy which shows that the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, supports the proposition of an electoral college. He supports the details I have put forward, such as those relating to nominations, although he does not deal in detail with the election system. Each parliament should be involved and should be allowed to split its vote to reflect its own internal diversity. Voting would take place simultaneously across Europe through delegates or electronically which would give a pan-European dimension to the process. As regards the electoral system, the STV system we use in our presidential elections could be adopted to the electoral system. Members of Dáil and Seanad Éireann are the world-wide experts in the STV system.
I also deal in my paper with the issue of nominations. There has always been a criticism and a view that major roles, such as that of President of the Commission, should not be decided in smoke-filled rooms late at night beyond the view of the public. I have argued that nomination should be by a number of member states, perhaps five, by a group of MEPs, by a fixed number of MEPs or by a system which would allow all three ways to be applied. I envisage a period of campaigning after the nomination and before the election to allow the people who are nominated to come forward. I suggest that the most appropriate way for that to happen would be for the putative candidates to come before parliamentary committees, such as this one.
In putting forward these ideas, my aim is to stimulate debate. Our views on the issue are not dogmatic or fixed. The proposition in the Government's paper is to help to stimulate debate. It is intriguing that within the same week two Irish papers have been put forward on the same issue, although they adopt different views. Both are intended to stimulate debate and both have been well received. The response will be interesting in the coming weeks.
As regards complementary competences and the complementary competences working group, one of the things we are trying to do in the convention is to simplify what we mean in Europe. In this context, the term complementary competences requires a degree of simplification. We are talking about the relevant competences which exist between the member states and the Union and processes whereby one can complement the other. Having taken so much time on the issue of national parliaments, I will be brief in my comments on the conclusion of the complementary competences working group.